Where will inflation stop?

SV reX said:

frenchyd said:

SV reX said:

In reply to frenchyd :

How the heck did you get to insurance??  He didn't say a single word about insurance. 
 

Sometimes you say really bizarre E36 M3. 

It's social security insurance.   Really you need to read a little history.   

Thanks for the condescending insult. 

But "sometimes you say really bizarre E36 M3" is neither condescending nor insulting?

I am not a fan of inflation. I just have found a mechanism to deal with it.  
      Social security itself has a mechanism to deal with inflation.   
  So the 7 trillion addition to our national debt between 2016 & 2020 doesn't drive me up a wall. 
           You and I may differ in what we call wild spending.  But I'm sure the way spending gets selected has to drive you up a wall!    A few hold outs on a spending bill get the pork they need to build bridges to nowhere or indoor tropical gardens in Northern states.  Etc. 
      No that is not directed at either party because they both do it.   
  What really drives me crazy is the defense budget.   Ships,  planes,  and weaponry  are funded not based on Need or a given program but rather how many states can get a piece of the money and how important it is that Wyoming  or Alaska  for example get a piece of constructing the ship, plane, or weaponry system. 
 When you read about cost over-runs those typically ate the reasons.  Shipping a piece of that boat/plane/weapon system from Alaska is expensive.  And if it doesn't fit or work right well that had to be dealt with on the taxpayers dime too.  

Frenchy if you dont consider consistently running a deficit for 21 years "wild spending" then I dont know what you would.

Ill say it again. The ENTIRE defense budget is smaller than our yearly deficit. Your falling for what the politicians want you to think. You bicker and get upset about a single thing on the fringe and think it matters, then someone will come in and cut a small amount from defense and champion it as a huge triumph, and people like you think we are doing something, but the amount was so small relatively that we still have a huge deficit every year. You should be upset about pretty much everything the government spends money on until we stop deficit spending.

At least you get something for the defense budget (you can debate the value of that something), you get nothing for the interest on the debt, which is VERY QUICKLY approaching the same amount as the ENTIRE DEFENSE BUDGET.

Social security doesnt have a mechanism to deal with inflation. It has a mechanism to deal with inflation for social security receivers, the payments increase, all they are doing to fund those payments is deficit spend. They are using the trust to cover the difference and its depleting. If you think thats "dealing" with inflation, thats like thinking runing a deficit for two decades isnt wild spending.

On topic, the inflation numbers came out this morning. Its terrible but people are calling it good because our view has been so skewed by how abysmal it was.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/inflation-report-february-cpi-data-march-14-105141134.html

Opti said:

Toyman! said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

No, they didn't intend for you to pay any federal income tax. That didn't happen until 1913, or about 100 years after the founding father were dead. 

Quoted for Truth. I'm sick of how people have retconned the political titans in our history, to the point that people actually think the founding fathers would have been at all okay with a 33% tax on your lifetime earnings or pretty much anything else going on in our government today.

The founding fathers' still taxed the daylights out of everything else and tried printing money backed by nothing, so let's not pretend they were all knowing gods. Their brilliance came from forming a government with a process to be changed by herding cats rather a than a royal decree.

j_tso said:

Opti said:

Toyman! said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

No, they didn't intend for you to pay any federal income tax. That didn't happen until 1913, or about 100 years after the founding father were dead. 

Quoted for Truth. I'm sick of how people have retconned the political titans in our history, to the point that people actually think the founding fathers would have been at all okay with a 33% tax on your lifetime earnings or pretty much anything else going on in our government today.

The founding fathers' still taxed the daylights out of everything else and tried printing money backed by nothing, so let's not pretend they were all knowing gods. Their brilliance came from forming a government with a process to be changed by herding cats rather a than a royal decree.

I didn't say they where all knowing God's, but I'd like to see your work.

My underatnding of taxes in the early US were largely excise taxes and tariffs. Show me something showing a similar tax burden in the early US as today.

About the money, the founding fathers were a diverse group, but many were rather vocal about their opposition to paper money including Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington and Madison.

The founding fathers didn't write their opposition to paper money into the constitution.  Or taxes.

They created a democracy which allows the people to vote for or against increases in taxes and services.

Of course you wont find a similar tax burden then to now.  You also wont find even remotely similar services then vs now.

Back on topic...

Inflation will be reigned in once the government and the Federal Reserve adopt more restrictive monetary policies. Printing and throwing money at every problem is the root. Of course, reigning that in will be guaranteed to piss off over half the population. 

For example, they should probably lock interest rates between 5-10%. If that's the norm, and it's locked in then the economy will adapt to that situation and be more stable. 

Social security needs to be overhauled. As much as it pains me to say it, means testing is probably part of that answer. Higher ages to qualify, lower payout for people with significant assets,... these are  all things that I don't like, but will be necessary. 

There is a whole host things should be done to reduce medical costs, most of which will piss off the general public cause excessive medical care at end of life is the norm. 
 

Most of the answers are painful and will not be popular with the average voter so it won't happen. The average voter is just not interested in living through some short term pain to fix these issues. 
 

The only fix that isn't painful, is reducing the cost of energy. Energy impacts every facet of the economy. That is definitely something that the politicians can do. Of course, that is not likely in the current political climate. 

Your mileage may very. 
 

In reply to frenchyd :

Here you go Frenchyd...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

There is not a lot to it. The taxes mentioned in the first paragraph were meant to cover the expenses in the following paragraphs. Most everything else was to be left to the states. We are way, way, outside of the original operating parameters. I don't see social security in there. I do see defense spending. I find this part interesting-

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

No mention of an income tax, and it appears that taxes were to be uniform. Now, that could mean that federal taxes were to be uniform from state to state, but that would have been redundant. It appears that the intent was that taxes were to be uniform- everyone pays the same taxes on the same goods. So not only would income tax be a departure, but progressive taxes do not appear to be intended. 

Opti said:

I didn't say they where all knowing God's, but I'd like to see your work.

Bro if I'm successful and impactful enough in America to be compared to them, I'll have won at life. This is NOT the own you were looking for lmao

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I would assume "uniform throughout the United States" to mean that the citizens of one state can't be treated differently than those of another state. 

So, if we have progressive tax rates of 20%, 25%, and 30% in one state, we can't change those rates in another state to treat the citizenry differently. 
 

Essentially, that is saying "Everyone in the United States is equal. You can't treat one state differently than another", not "Income taxes are not OK". 
 

It clearly says that Congress has the power to collect taxes, and doesn't define that one form of taxation is wrong while another is right. Property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, import taxes, fuel taxes, etc are all ways that Congress can "levy and collect taxes", and none of them are prohibited (as far as I can see), as long as US residents are treated equally. 

In reply to SV reX :

From what I have read, early taxes were limited to specific types of taxes. They could tax goods (tariffs and excise taxes) and people (poll taxes) but not income or estate taxes. Income taxes were put into place briefly during and after the civil war, but they were challenged in court. The 16th amendment was in response to the court challenges, well over 100 years after the Constitution was written. If income tax had been allowed by the Constitution, we would not have needed the amendment. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Yup. 
 

And the 16th amendment exists, therefore the Constitution has been amended. Income taxes are legal. 
 

And it all happened with support of both Congress and the voters, in accordance with the Constitution. 
 

What the founding fathers intended was that we are engaged and involved when WE make difficult changes to the parameters. They were opposed to taxation without representation, but they were not opposed to taxation. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Also...

I disagree a little about the 16th Amendment.   
 

The 16th amendment didn't give Congress the right to levy an income tax. That had already been done. The 16th amendment gave the right to levy an income tax without apportioning it to all of the states based on population. 
 

But I am not a legal scholar. That's just my understanding. 

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

I hope you are successful enough to be compared to them, but you missed the point. Im sorry if I was unclear, it was meant in the same way your math teacher tells you to "show your work."

As in where are your sources. Im aware that the Constitution was rather vague in its power to coin and tax and used terms like "general welfare," but what they actually did and wrote was limited taxes (tariffs and excise) on the American people, and most seemed to be vehemently opposed to paper money.

In reply to SV reX :

Yes, what you said is true. A constitutional amendment is the constitution, so by definition, it's constitutional. But that doesn't mean that the amendment itself is something that was intended by the founding fathers. It does not appear that an income tax was intended as one of the forms of taxes. At the very least, the constitution was written in such a way to make an income tax prohibitively difficult to enact at the federal level. I don't know if that was intentional or an oversight. Since there was not an income tax until 1861, and then only the result of a civil war, it's probably a safe bet that an income tax wasn't part of the original plan. 
 

The 16th amendment didn't give Congress the right to levy an income tax. That had already been done. The 16th amendment gave the right to levy an income tax without apportioning it to all of the states based on population. 

Just because it had been done doesn't mean that it was constitutional. We pass all kinds of unconstitutional laws, which get enacted and enforced until overturned by a court, just like the early income tax. 
 

We have far outstepped the bounds of Article 1 Section 8, both on the taxes we collect and what we spend them on. Not saying that is all good or all bad, just noting how far we have strayed from the original intent. Some through the proper legislative and judicial processes, some not. 
 

I bought this up because I found it ironic that Frenchyd advocated for raising income taxes and cutting defense depending to fund Social Security, and referenced Article 1 Section 8. 

Yes and the whole point about the founding fathers was because Girthquake said they taxed everything else into oblivion and wanted paper money with no backing.

It had nothing to do with what is now constitutional or had been changed, it was about what the founding fathers did and intended, which you can find in their writings and history. They didnt have an income tax, or much taxes, and most of them opposed paper money. Some of their writing about paper money seem rather prophetic

Opti said:

My underatnding of taxes in the early US were largely excise taxes and tariffs. Show me something showing a similar tax burden in the early US as today.

I had the whiskey tax in particular in mind. Not an income tax, but some people thought it was enough of a burden to take up arms.

About the money, the founding fathers were a diverse group, but many were rather vocal about their opposition to paper money including Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington and Madison.

Pre-ratification the continental congress and the newly formed states all had their own currency backed by well wishes. Whoever was against it didn't get their way.

And that's just it, the founding fathers were a diverse group. So whose intentions are we trying to invoke when interpreting the Constitution? Hamilton and Jefferson had different ideas about government and banking. Their writings have been studied and reinterpreted over the years but to cling to them like scripture is ridiculous.

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

SV reX said:

frenchyd said:

SV reX said:

In reply to frenchyd :

How the heck did you get to insurance??  He didn't say a single word about insurance. 
 

Sometimes you say really bizarre E36 M3. 

It's social security insurance.   Really you need to read a little history.   

Thanks for the condescending insult. 

But "sometimes you say really bizarre E36 M3" is neither condescending nor insulting?

SV. reX.  I do owe you an apology.  
  You had no way of knowing  I had just unloaded a batch of middle school kids.   ( I wouldn't wish those kids on anyone)  and just before it dealt with a very upset manager who wanted me in two places at once and hadn't previously informed me of the new student.  
  Yes I was abrupt.  I apologize for that.  

In reply to frenchyd :

Cool. All good. Thanks for following up. 
 

Sorry to hear about the frustrations. 

tester (Forum Supporter) said:

Back on topic...

 

Inflation will be reigned in once the government and the Federal Reserve adopt more restrictive monetary policies. Printing and throwing money at every problem is the root. Of course, reigning that in will be guaranteed to piss off over half the population. 

For example, they should probably lock interest rates between 5-10%. If that's the norm, and it's locked in then the economy will adapt to that situation and be more stable. 

Social security needs to be overhauled. As much as it pains me to say it, means testing is probably part of that answer. Higher ages to qualify, lower payout for people with significant assets,... these are  all things that I don't like, but will be necessary. 

There is a whole host things should be done to reduce medical costs, most of which will piss off the general public cause excessive medical care at end of life is the norm. 
 

Most of the answers are painful and will not be popular with the average voter so it won't happen. The average voter is just not interested in living through some short term pain to fix these issues. 
 

The only fix that isn't painful, is reducing the cost of energy. Energy impacts every facet of the economy. That is definitely something that the politicians can do. Of course, that is not likely in the current political climate. 

Your mileage may very. 
 

 I'm sorry, rigidity may be easy to understand but flexibility is required with regard dealing with the finances of a nation.   
  George Washington ran up a 75 million dollar debt fighting the British.  A debt that was the cause of French nobility getting their heads cut off ( and their children etc. ). 
  It took America until 1840 to pay off that debt.   ( some of that was the Louisiana purchase ) 

   America was 100% of the GDP I. Debt post WW2  it took to 1980 to pay that down to 22%. 
   I'm sure you will agree that was money well spent. Even if some of it was wasted. 
     

j_tso said:

Opti said:

My underatnding of taxes in the early US were largely excise taxes and tariffs. Show me something showing a similar tax burden in the early US as today.

I had the whiskey tax in particular in mind. Not an income tax, but some people thought it was enough of a burden to take up arms.

About the money, the founding fathers were a diverse group, but many were rather vocal about their opposition to paper money including Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington and Madison.

Pre-ratification the continental congress and the newly formed states all had their own currency backed by well wishes. Whoever was against it didn't get their way.

And that's just it, the founding fathers were a diverse group. So whose intentions are we trying to invoke when interpreting the Constitution? Hamilton and Jefferson had different ideas about government and banking. Their writings have been studied and reinterpreted over the years but to cling to them like scripture is ridiculous.

You know what both of those guys had in common? Opposition to paper money

Your talking about a whiskey tax which was 3-15% on whiskey at a dollar a gallon, vs 33% of your lifetime earnings.

Opti said:

You know what both of those guys had in common? Opposition to paper money

And it still got printed. Are those 2 the only founding fathers?

Your talking about a whiskey tax which was 3-15% on whiskey at a dollar a gallon, vs 33% of your lifetime earnings.

Doesn't that depend on how much whiskey is distilled? And doesn't that say more about people back then than now?

Again, why should we care what the founding fathers thought when dealing with today's issues?

Where does the 33% of your lifetime earnings figure come from?

Again, why should we care what the founding fathers thought when dealing with today's issues?

Because the founding fathers would have thrown another revolution decades ago instead of letting those in power insulate themselves so deeply that they can't be removed.