Current posts

Continued on - please let me know about errors ! Some of these pages date back up to 10 years ( 1992 ) and have been through many editors and transfers. News about what's happening and for updates use GlobalVillage Excite NewsSearch -

ppppflaump@cfl.rr.com - http://www.wiredbrain.net/ post.htm VAT initiative.htm

States are suffering from a real "double whammy" in the current economic slowdown, which has reduced revenues sharply (especially in the many states that depend mainly on retail-sensitive sales tax collections), while boosting demands on state programs aimed at helping people who are unemployed or living in or near poverty -- particularly the Medicaid program, the top expenditure category in nearly every state.  A majority of states, moreover, have constitutional or statutory prohibitions on deficit spending, so shortfalls much be closed quickly.  The new responsibilities states are already beginning to face for homeland security and increased law enforcement generally will not help the fiscal picture at all.

http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/strategies.html

Since recessions follow booms as winter follows summer maybe we should expect down turns and make plans. This is called counter cycle activity - the most natural approach is to have reserves, saving which can be called into play when needed - such as some states, countries, firms and individual have a rainy day funds because it will rain. Now it is harder to fix the roof when it is raining but it still needs to be fixed.  

http://www.wiredbrain.net/reserves.htm

Since states and local government (utilities, communications and other firms)  make the problem worse by cutting back during recessions - the federal reserves should help hold up their expenditures up - http://www.wiredbrain.net/salestax.htm thereby demand, income and reelection.

Since increasing federal debt raises interests rates and creates long term problems for social security - a off budget debt and payback scheme will help better than traditional deficits - the states and local governments pay back the loans with a federal sales tax on the internet - states and local governments give up their claims and a flat national rate is added to interstate sales - In good times the money is used to build up reserves (actual investments in CD's, state and local bonds, foreign bonds, index funds, as well as treasuries)  in down turns it is used to prime the old pump. The same could be done with SS trust funds, highway TRUST funds, water and waste management, airports, utilities, communications, pipelines, grids, et al) The NRA (National Reserves Administration) could have trillions ready to pump into a sagging economy without increasing long term debt and actually could be making money on investments.

If you want more of something you support it, if you want less you tax it. We tax work, income and investments - we support debt with equity loan credits. We should support work, savings and investments and tax consumption and be neutral on debt. Sales taxes are regressive so they have to include redistribution programs. If everyone over the middle (median) income paid taxes at .5 of each percentage over the middle 50 % - from 1% to a high of 25 % - the 75th percentile would pay 12.5 % then each income could be adjusted for sales taxes with credits. To encourage savings and retirement those below 50% would get supports those over 50 % get credits - the same for health insurance, and other payroll protections, unemployment, disability, and old age insurance.

If the person in the middle (50 percentile) pays 15 % in payroll taxes - then those over would pay more and those under would pay less. The benefits for the poor would be supported from sales taxes - the richer would get credits on their income tax for having more saving, better retirement, and health care - as they do now with IRA and other tax free saving and health insurance, the poor would have matching funds - save two dollar we match it with one - scaled by percentile income group - those at the bottom get 100% benefit - those in the middle none. (benefits reduce 2 X each percentile) - at 25th percentile benefits are down 50 % - get it?

This IRA would help the retirement and health care crisis with private accounts, insurance and savings - Real reserve funds will keep us out of recessions, promote growth, government revenues and save the nation. Any questions?

issues.htm

symbian.htm salestax.htm

educational reform.htm It would be hard to deny that the rising cost of senior benefits is one of the biggest challenges facing national policymakers in the twenty-first century. How to control that cost ought to be a central issue in the presidential campaign. But the candidates are apparently more comfortable talking about intangibles like values and leadership than about fundamental resource trade-offs. And when they do raise concrete policy issues, from school standards to law enforcement, the issues are often ones over which, unlike senior benefits, the federal government can exercise little direct control."[ 25 % children and youth, 55 % labor pool ( 120 million working of 154 or 80 % working others in school, mothers at home and unemployed ) , 16 % elderly and the rest 5 % disabled or in jail etc. to 22 % children, 47 % labor pool, 27 % over 65 - ] Today’s school children could face a very good labor market if they get basic skill and are ready for the knowledge age.

The higher cost of labor should push technology as we become more capital intensive. Fewer workers creating a larger economy should mean higher wages if the system is not dragged down by benefits. Private saving increase investment and growth - government benefits decrease saving, work, and investment and therefore drag the economy down. Retirement could be shifted to private savings and investment by subsidies of 401 ( k ) and IRA for more and more people. For the poor 100 % support, declining twice as fast for each higher decile of median income - .i.e.. if you are at the 20 % level of all incomes you get a 60 % subsidy , 30% from the bottom gives is 40 % support level - of $100 in retirement ( or health benefits ) and the government gives you $ 40 toward your retirement.

The support ends at 50 % or the median income, half higher, half lower.

Then additional public benefits could be means tested and budgeted rather than an open check book system.

The Social Security and Medicare Trust fund could be transferred to the Federal Reserve - who would appoint trustees who would invest the funds like any other retirement fund such as the California States Employees fund. Current beneficiaries would be held harmless ( grandfather clause ) - and health benefits would be a fixed amount with choices such as the Federal Employees Health Plan with again a more support for the poor. Pay more get more is not a new idea, competition and benefit / cost analysis as in every other aspect of life. No free lunch. If health care is not paid for by the client ( but a third party ) and the doctor benefits from services - it will be too expensive.

The trade imbalance is related to investment in that we are importing foreign cash to balance our export of US dollars to buy foreign goods. Increased local savings will lower interest rates - by increasing the supply of money - and reduce the attraction of foreign investment. This will force an orderly decline in the overpriced dollar - make imports more expensive and exports cheaper. I think Ross Parot could explain it with charts but Protection is not the answer.

 The gender gap is because unmarried women ( I will fight for you ) need more outside support including government help and feel ( without fathers or husbands ) more insecure than married women and many men.

They have to feel that paying down the debt, setting social security on a really sound footing, providing medical care, education and other critical public services is safe for them. ( No risky schemes ) and have less concern with tax cuts and ideological motivations.

They have to take care of children, often the elderly or are elderly themselves - they know where the tire hits the road and don't want any fancy machine going too fast on unsafe tires. After the Democratic convention, Al Gore reasserted his lead over Republican George W. Bush among women, with a margin of 15 points or more in some polls, while making the race close among men. In the latest poll from the Pew Research Center, Gore leads among women on all of the issues that they consider the most important: keeping Social Security and Medicare financially sound (Gore is up 52-33); health care (Gore is up 50-30) and education (Gore, 44-38). Gore also has an advantage on protecting and strengthening American families, 44-37 among women. Appealing to women voters is important because they turn out on Election Day. Since 1980, women have been exceeding men in their rate of voting by up to 3 percentage points, and they also make up a bigger share of the electorate, said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. In 1996, he said, women made up 52 percent of the voting population. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000918/aponline162845_000.htmCan Bush win? That question, which had been the subtext to the last couple of weeks of presidential campaign coverage, is increasingly becoming the main text — no longer "subliminable," as one candidate might say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28193-2000Sep18.html"Most countries continue to face heavy tax burdens and high debt stocks and are ill-prepared to deal with the coming demographic shock from aging populations," the report said.

Finance Physics:

There are a couple of big issues that could be debated and move the country forward in preparation for the coming crisis .

  The overhang of benefits for the aged - In 1935 less 2.3 million were born and have reached 65 in 2000- in 1950 over four million were born and will reach 65 in 2015 - the current benefit is over $10,000 for Medicare and more for Social Security and going up with inflation and with more medical services the total will climb from the current about $ 400 billion ( $ 215 Medicare) to $ 1.2 trillion - 4.2 % of GNP up from 2 % for Medicare. ( Health care is 14 % of GNP )

http://www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/Documents.center/stats.html

The numbers go from 33 million beneficiaries to 60 million or 13 % to 27 %, ( children are 25 % of the population or 75 million ) , workers paying in decline from 130 million ( 45 % ) 5 workers to 1 retired to 120 or 2 to 1 worker to retired.

The cost will be 85 % of the current taxes / budget base and 20 % to 40 % of all earned income at 1.2 Trillion ( $ 1,200,000,000.00 ) or 10 % of the projected 12 trillion GDP rather quickly.

http://concordcoalition.org/

THE MISSING ISSUE IN THE CAMPAIGN"

Last month, the CBO released a study that tallies up federal spending on the elderly and children. It shows that, per capita, spending on the elderly towers seven-to-one over spending on kids, and that, overall, it consumes 35 percent of the budget. This is before the age wave even begins to roll in. By 2050, according to the White House, the major senior benefit programs will consume an incredible 84 percent of budget outlays.

It would be hard to deny that the rising cost of senior benefits is one of the biggest challenges facing national policymakers in the twenty-first century. How to control that cost ought to be a central issue in the presidential campaign. But the candidates are apparently more comfortable talking about intangibles like values and leadership than about fundamental resource trade-offs. And when they do raise concrete policy issues, from school standards to law enforcement, the issues are often ones over which, unlike senior benefits, the federal government can exercise little direct control."[ 25 % children and youth, 55 % labor pool ( 120 million working of 154 or 80 % working others in school, mothers at home and unemployed ) , 16 % elderly and the rest 5 % disabled or in jail etc. to 22 % children, 47 % labor pool, 27 % over 65 - ] Today’s school children could face a very good labor market if they get basic skill and are ready for the knowledge age.

The higher cost of labor should push technology as we become more capital intensive.

Fewer workers creating a larger economy should mean higher wages if the system is not dragged down by benefits. Private saving increase investment and growth - government benefits decrease saving, work, and investment and therefore drag the economy down. Retirement could be shifted to private savings and investment by subsidies of 401 ( k ) and IRA for more and more people. For the poor 100 % support, declining twice as fast for each higher decile of median income - .i.e.. if you are at the 20 % level of all incomes you get a 60 % subsidy , 30% from the bottom gives is 40 % support level - of $100 in retirement ( or health benefits ) and the government gives you $ 40 toward your retirement.

The support ends at 50 % or the median income, half higher, half lower.

Then additional public benefits could be means tested and budgeted rather than an open check book system.

The Social Security and Medicare Trust fund could be transferred to the Federal Reserve - who would appoint trustees who would invest the funds like any other retirement fund such as the California States Employees fund. Current beneficiaries would be held harmless ( grandfather clause ) - and health benefits would be a fixed amount with choices such as the Federal Employees Health Plan with again a more support for the poor. Pay more get more is not a new idea, competition and benefit / cost analysis as in every other aspect of life. No free lunch. If health care is not paid for by the client ( but a third party ) and the doctor benefits from services - it will be too expensive.

The trade imbalance is related to investment in that we are importing foreign cash to balance our export of US dollars to buy foreign goods.

Increased local savings will lower interest rates - by increasing the supply of money - and reduce the attraction of foreign investment. This will force an orderly decline in the overpriced dollar - make imports more expensive and exports cheaper. I think Ross Parot could explain it with charts but Protection is not the answer. The gender gap is because unmarried women ( I will fight for you ) need more outside support including government help and feel ( without fathers or husbands ) more insecure than married women and many men.

They have to feel that paying down the debt, setting social security on a really sound footing, providing medical care, education and other critical public services is safe for them. ( No risky schemes ) and have less concern with tax cuts and ideological motivations.

They have to take care of children, often the elderly or are elderly themselves - they know where the tire hits the road and don't want any fancy machine going too fast on unsafe tires. After the Democratic convention, Al Gore reasserted his lead over Republican George W. Bush among women, with a margin of 15 points or more in some polls, while making the race close among men. In the latest poll from the Pew Research Center, Gore leads among women on all of the issues that they consider the most important: keeping Social Security and Medicare financially sound (Gore is up 52-33); health care (Gore is up 50-30) and education (Gore, 44-38). Gore also has an advantage on protecting and strengthening American families, 44-37 among women. Appealing to women voters is important because they turn out on Election Day. Since 1980, women have been exceeding men in their rate of voting by up to 3 percentage points, and they also make up a bigger share of the electorate, said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. In 1996, he said, women made up 52 percent of the voting population.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000918/aponline162845_000.htm

Can Bush win? That question, which had been the subtext to the last couple of weeks of presidential campaign coverage, is increasingly becoming the main text — no longer "subliminable," as one candidate might say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28193-2000Sep18.html

"Most countries continue to face heavy tax burdens and high debt stocks and are ill-prepared to deal with the coming demographic shock from aging populations," the report said.