Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (4091)	8/22/1999 7:06:00 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Les, I like your posts. :o) I agree completely with the your assessment on Capital gains wrt SS. After looking at the chart you referenced I have things to say...Do you work for Microsoft and are you trying to get me to download the Win 98 add on for the visually impaired? Seriously, I can't read the x-axis labels and the subtitle under Net Savings looks like "Saving lkelklajgaj lkk lkfs % of GDP." So I have to make a few guesses here, but I think I'm safe. It certainly looks like there is an inverse statistical correlation between national savings and private savings. A few exceptions to this to appear in the graph. The graph also shows foreign savings. It might have been nice to see the corresponding pair of foreign public savings and foreign private savings as well. I bring this up, because I have seen other data that suggests that there is no correlation between savings rate and tax rates and suggests that the savings rate is more culturally related then fiscally correlated. So looking at the Foreign comparisons of public savings and private savings would clarify that. One should run not walk away from any plan that seeks to increase the size of the government benefits plans, such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. before any attempts are made to rationalize these systems. I can generally agree with that, the only exception might be to apply means testing to medicare benefits and have an equivalent increase in some benefits at the lower end of the income scale. As of yet, there has never been any real attempt to control costs in these systems, and any new money injected into these systems are malappropriated for other programs. I think I need to clarification on the last clause...Typically there is the accepted notion that when social security went off-budget, the surplus social security receipts were added to the general fund and hence misappropriated. It is certainly true that the surplus funds were moved into the general fund; I suspect to "conceal" the size of the deficit. However, these surplus funds purchased Treasury Bills and the SS trust fund holds them...they would be redeemed out of general funds, but I wouldn't say that they were misappropriated. Is this your point or did you have something else in mind? As the above chart from NTRS indicates, putting money into Social Security doesn't increase national savings. Private savings went into the tank after the tax increases for so-called deficit reduction and for 'saving' SS. It also shows how much private savings was diverted to the government by Bush and Clinton. I can understand how you came to this conclusion (though remember I can't read the x-axis labels.) Though this would also lead one to the conclusion that there is a commensurate reduction in real income with an increase in taxes. I don't think this has been true. What I can read of the subtitle the graph shows savings as some % of GDP. I would question whether that would be an appropriate comparison in which to draw your conclusion. I recall looking at some other graphs that showed that real income after taxes and savings rates over time. That data led one to the conclusion that savings rates fluctuated without regard to real income. Let me pose another theory on savings rates and it's fluctuation. I haven't tested the thought, but I'll throw the bits on the table. Personal savings rates are related to the "perception" of the economy. As we perceive the economy to be well, we frantically spend; if we are concerned in our economic future, we become more inclined to save. If you can read the years (???) on the referenced URL, you might be able to either support or discount this theory at a quick glance. Best Regards, Jim