MichaelZZ

MichaelZZ
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage  [View news story]
    SOCIAL SECURITY What’s it all about? (continued)


    HOW SHOULD THE SS PROGRAM BE MODIFIED?
    The program includes revenue and obligations.
    Presently, the revenue is generated by charging workers 6.2% of his or her wages, up to a maximum of $106,800 per year plus a matched amount by the employer. http://1.usa.gov/JaUu9H

    Had the maximum limits, per the hyperlink, been $106,800 since inception, there would be hundreds of billions of additional funds within the SS trust fund. Further, if there had been no maximum, the fund would have benefited by additional hundreds of billions. Lastly, had all income, including passive income, been subjected to this “tax on income”, there would be even more funds.

    There must be a substantial reason why only earned income has been subjected to this “tax upon income” and why there has been and remains a limit upon the amount subject to this “tax upon income”.

    Another “interesting” factor is that not all wage earners are subject to this “income tax”.

    If the above had been done, every retiree would have an account that was fully funded to the extent his or her choices could be: rollover into a self-directed IRA, an annuity, etc.. This "asset" would not disappear upon death, i.e., it would be included in one's estate.

    The bulk of the obligations are paid to retirees who have reached the applicable ages.

    In December 2009, 64% were retired workers, while 15% were disabled workers, 8% were children, 8% were widows, widowers, and parents, and 5% were spouses.

    There could be an excellent argument that only payments to retired workers should be paid from the fund, while these other payments should come from the general fund.

    NOTE: If it were appropriate for a company to fund retirement obligations for its employees, why would a nation not fund the retirement of its workers?

    The obligations would be no less valid than those for defense, education, et cetera.

    As a competitive benefit, if the funds were an obligation of the federal government, the cost of producing goods and services would be reduced, which would enable companies to be more competitive regarding Japan, Inc., China, Inc., Brazil, Inc., et cetera. This would, also, be valid regarding the delivery of health care, i.e., any costs, which can be shifted from above the line to below the line would enable companies to be more competitive.

    CONCLUSION: By far, the best modification would be for a change from charging workers and employers to single-payer government funding.
    Until the change can be effected, legislation should be passed, which would assess this taxation on all income, earned and unearned, without limitation.

    The answer to the above question regarding the reason why only earned income has been subjected to this “income tax” and why there has been and remains a limit upon the amount subject to this “income tax” should be apparent and intuitive, i.e., the upper income earners would pay more.

    This, in essence, is why politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, and “talking heads” have been “tenderizing” the People.

    I ask everyone to contact his or her Representative and both Senators to inquire as to how much of our massive current federal deficit of approximately $1.6 trillion is attributable to Social Security. The answers will astound most.

    HINT: The answer is ZERO!

    mz
    April 12, 2011
    Modified June 15, 2011

    Mar 9, 2014. 01:28 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage  [View news story]

    SOCIAL SECURITY What’s it all about?

    PREFACE: Before one is able to solve a problem, one must recognize, understand, and analyze the problem until one has the requisite information and facts to make the best conclusion to mitigate or resolve the problem.

    PROBLEM: Regarding Social Security (SS), it appears that, given the current structure of the program, funds necessary to support the program will be insufficient within a given number of years.

    WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM? The SS program was never actuarially sound due to its original structure (1% of first $3,000 wages) as a Ponzi scheme (FDR may have thought that over time, adjustments would be made to fix the program). Over the years, changes have been made, but only to enable a delay in the inevitable. The problem has been exacerbated by such phenomena as being entitled to receive SS after only being in the workforce for 40 quarters, not all workers paying into the program, et cetera.

    SHOULD THIS PROBLEM BE RESOLVED BY ENDING IT? The question is whether or not this program is appropriate. Does it seem rational that the workers who have participated in the workforce for 40-45 years should be entitled to retirement benefits?

    Congress, over many years, has issued its many stamps of approval of stimulating retirement funding, e.g., defined benefit and contribution programs, Individual Retirement Act, 401k program, et cetera.

    Obviously, Congress is not perfect (as evidenced by its shortsightedness regarding its “retirement” legislation and the unintended consequences) and may have been wrong in issuing these “stamps of approval”, but the probability is about 99.9% that our legislators were correct, thus a logical conclusion should be that the SS program should not be eliminated.

    SHOULD THE SS PROGRAM BE MODIFIED? Although less so now than 65 years ago, the SS program remains a quasi-Ponzi-like situation, thus it must be modified.

    (continued)
    Mar 9, 2014. 01:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage  [View news story]
    SOCIAL SECURITY What’s it all about?
    Mar 9, 2014. 01:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage  [View news story]
    TRADE AND SERVICE UNIONS

    DEFINITION: A number of persons joining together for some common purpose.

    TYPES OF UNIONS: Private and public

    FACTS: Private and public unions negotiate with employers to obtain specific goals for those persons being represented.

    Subjects for negotiations include wages, benefits, and working conditions.
    If negotiations result in additional costs to an employer:
    a. A private employer will absorbed those costs or will pass some or all to the customers.

    b. A public employer will have its “rainy-day” funds reduced or will raise additional revenue from its taxpayers.

    ANALYSIS:
    a. If a private employer absorbs additional negotiated costs, margins will be affected, which will reduce taxable income, which will cause a reduction in the value of the employer’s business. If the employer passes on the additional costs to its customers, it would be inflationary and the customers would have less spendable funds for other expenditures, which may adversely affect the economics. In most instances of higher costs, those costs will be passed on to the customers.

    b. If a public employer raises additional revenue from its taxpayers, the taxpayers will have less spendable funds and that may adversely affect the economics.

    When a politician, economist, or anyone else calls for high-paying union jobs, they are implying that there be a shift of wealth from customers to the high-paying union jobs.

    mz
    mikiesmoky@aol.com
    February 26, 2011
    Mar 8, 2014. 12:44 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Best Buy: Target Price $35 For 2014  [View article]
    Achilles Author:

    REGARDING: The information is in the article. Do you understand what adjusted EPS is?

    REGARDING: Yes, I understand adjusted and diluted numbers quite well.
    Your information was not "adjusted EPS", thus it was untrue/invalid/misinfo...

    mz
    Mar 5, 2014. 11:14 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage  [View news story]
    There should be NO minimum wage.

    There should be an expansion of the EITC for citizens and green-card holders who are over 17 (to keep students in high school).

    Minimum wage laws falls in Einstein's definition of "insanity".

    mz
    Mar 5, 2014. 10:08 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Best Buy: Target Price $35 For 2014  [View article]
    He won't answer.

    When I made my first comment, the response was quite immediate.

    When I was asked to explain my comment, there was no admission of error or explanation as to why presentation may have been misguided.

    Making excuses for the author is not productive.

    mz
    Mar 1, 2014. 03:07 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Best Buy: Target Price $35 For 2014  [View article]
    Bill,

    As a follow-up...., I made a statement, someone @ Achilles asked me to explain, I did, and no one responded to my explanation.

    We all want and need good information and my effort has been to have them clarify the "earnings" comment.

    Someone is wrong.

    Perhaps it is I, but that has not been shown.

    Does Achilles have an axe to grind??

    mz
    Feb 28, 2014. 04:51 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Best Buy: Target Price $35 For 2014  [View article]
    Bill,

    I certainly hope so..., but Achilles Research is a company of more than one person.

    I will just appreciate clarification............

    best,

    mz
    Feb 28, 2014. 01:12 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Best Buy: Target Price $35 For 2014  [View article]
    Achilles Research:


    2 hours and 9 minutes...., and no response?

    mz
    Feb 28, 2014. 12:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Best Buy: Target Price $35 For 2014  [View article]
    REGARDING: "Best Buy's diluted EPS of continuing operations came in at $0.88 vs. a loss of $1.36 per share in the fourth quarter last year."

    The pre-tax income for the current quarter was $457MM
    The pre-tax income for the year-earlier quarter was $595MM (excluding asset impairment and restructuring charges)

    Was it ignorance or something else?
    I don't know.
    You tell us.

    Please correct me, if I am wrong.

    Many thanks,

    mz
    Feb 28, 2014. 10:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Best Buy: Target Price $35 For 2014  [View article]
    His comparison of Q4 results were ignorant or disingenuous, since the prior year included an impairment of $809MM of "Goodwill".
    ]
    That was an egregious "oversight".

    mz
    Feb 28, 2014. 09:24 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The winning streak goes on at Tesla Motors  [View news story]
    The question is with 33% short, how does this end?

    Are there "super trees"?

    lol

    mz
    Feb 26, 2014. 09:06 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Retailers Without Excuses Vs. The Whiners  [View article]
    Hiro Hara:

    QE will not end this year or next or the year thereafter.

    Please contemplate the combination of a weak economy with less liquidity.
    The ambivalent weakness will no longer be confusing.
    If the FOMC were to end QE this year, we would be confronted with conflicting
    economic vectors.
    Feb 7, 2014. 11:27 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Obama's 'MyRA' Plan Will Impact The U.S. Economy  [View article]
    SOCIAL SECURITY
    What’s it all about?

    PREFACE: Before one is able to solve a problem, one must recognize, understand, and analyze the problem until one has the requisite information and facts to make the best conclusion to mitigate or resolve the problem.

    PROBLEM: Regarding Social Security (SS), it appears that, given the current structure of the program, funds necessary to support the program will be insufficient within a given number of years.

    WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM? The SS program was never actuarially sound due to its original structure (1% of first $3,000 wages) as a Ponzi scheme (FDR may have thought that over time, adjustments would be made to fix the program). Over the years, changes have been made, but only to enable a delay in the inevitable. The problem has been exacerbated by such phenomena as being entitled to receive SS after only being in the workforce for 40 quarters, not all workers paying into the program, et cetera.

    SHOULD THIS PROBLEM BE RESOLVED BY ENDING IT? The question is whether or not this program is appropriate. Does it seem rational that the workers who have participated in the workforce for 40-45 years should be entitled to retirement benefits?

    Congress, over many years, has issued its many stamps of approval of stimulating retirement funding, e.g., defined benefit and contribution programs, Individual Retirement Act, 401k program, et cetera.
    Obviously, Congress is not perfect (as evidenced by its shortsightedness regarding its “retirement” legislation and the unintended consequences) and may have been wrong in issuing these “stamps of approval”, but the probability is about 99.9% that our legislators were correct, thus a logical conclusion should be that the SS program should not be eliminated.

    SHOULD THE SS PROGRAM BE MODIFIED? Although less so now than 65 years ago, the SS program remains a quasi-Ponzi-like situation, thus it must be modified.

    HOW SHOULD THE SS PROGRAM BE MODIFIED?
    The program includes revenue and obligations.
    Presently, the revenue is generated by charging workers 6.2% of his or her wages, up to a maximum of $106,800 per year plus a matched amount by the employer. http://1.usa.gov/JaUu9H

    Had the maximum limits, per the hyperlink, been $106,800 since inception, there would be hundreds of billions of additional funds within the SS trust fund. Further, if there had been no maximum, the fund would have benefited by additional hundreds of billions. Lastly, had all income, including passive income, been subjected to this “tax on income”, there would be even more funds.

    There must be a substantial reason why only earned income has been subjected to this “tax upon income” and why there has been and remains a limit upon the amount subject to this “tax upon income”.

    Another “interesting” factor is that not all wage earners are subject to this “income tax”.

    If the above had been done, every retiree would have an account that was fully funded to the extent his or her choices could be: rollover into a self-directed IRA, an annuity, etc.. This "asset" would not disappear upon death, i.e., it would be included in one's estate.

    The bulk of the obligations are paid to retirees who have reached the applicable ages.

    In December 2009, 64% were retired workers, while 15% were disabled workers, 8% were children, 8% were widows, widowers, and parents, and 5% were spouses.

    There could be an excellent argument that only payments to retired workers should be paid from the fund, while these other payments should come from the general fund.

    NOTE: If it were appropriate for a company to fund retirement obligations for its employees, why would a nation not fund the retirement of its workers?
    The obligations would be no less valid than those for defense, education, et cetera.

    As a competitive benefit, if the funds were an obligation of the federal government, the cost of producing goods and services would be reduced, which would enable companies to be more competitive regarding Japan, Inc., China, Inc., Brazil, Inc., et cetera. This would, also, be valid regarding the delivery of health care, i.e., any costs, which can be shifted from above the line to below the line would enable companies to be more competitive.

    CONCLUSION: By far, the best modification would be for a change from charging workers and employers to single-payer government funding.
    Until the change can be effected, legislation should be passed, which would assess this taxation on all income, earned and unearned, without limitation.

    The answer to the above question regarding the reason why only earned income has been subjected to this “income tax” and why there has been and remains a limit upon the amount subject to this “income tax” should be apparent and intuitive, i.e., the upper income earners would pay more. This, in essence, is why politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, and “talking heads” have been “tenderizing” the People.

    I ask everyone to contact his or her Representative and both Senators to inquire as to how much of our massive current federal deficit of approximately $1.6 trillion is attributable to Social Security. The answers will astound most.

    HINT: The answer is ZERO!

    mz
    April 12, 2011
    Modified June 15, 2011
    Feb 5, 2014. 02:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
228 Comments
134 Likes