Ross Perot Charts

[Warrior-Mentor]

A citzens responsibility to digest this information.

Should be required viewing before voting...

http://perotcharts.com/home/

[nmap]

Interesting charts, Sir. As you say, they should be required of voters.

Yet I note that the charts do not list a 5th option - one which, in my opinion, we are pursuing and will pursue. It will address the problem; not pleasantly, but cunningly.

Take a look at inflation. The official numbers are quite low, and with Federal Reserve methods, will remain low; this keeps automatic increases in social security at a modest level. But actual inflation is considerably higher; some say about 7% versus under 3%. ( LINK )

Here's where it gets interesting. Per the rule of 72, we can divide 72 by the inflation rate and get the number of years for an amount to double. Let's use an inflation rate of 7.2% - that means prices double in 10 years. They double again in another 10. Wages go up too - which automatically puts people in a higher tax bracket.

But let's suppose we have real inflation of 7.2% and official rates of 3%. That means we slice away 4.2% of the social security benefit every year. That would cut the cost of the payment over 20 years to just 42% of what it started out at...

In other words, if Social Security paid someone $1,000 this year, it would pay the equivalent of $420 in 20 years time.

And that is why I believe we'll have inflation and invest accordingly...

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

A citzens responsibility to digest this information.

Should be required viewing before voting...

http://perotcharts.com/home/

Heck Sir, I have a hard enough time educating the locals on the changes in the school board policy.....in the line at the polling station no less...

Good stuff,

Thanks


R10

[GratefulCitizen]

The problem is the relative size of the federal budget compared to the size of GDP.

This is a bit over-simplified...

If the budget is 10% of GDP, in order to fully fund the budget (absent borrowing), the remaining 90% of GDP will have to be taxed at 11% (10/90).

Same scenario, with the budget being 20% of GDP, the remaining 80% is taxed at 25% (20/80).
For a budget of 30% GDP...a tax rate of 43% (30/70).
For a budget of 45% GDP...a tax rate of 82% (45/55).

This is over-simplified, but you should get the picture that the growth of government spending is unstable when it gets beyond 30% of GDP.
Some of this problem can be mitigated with some borrowing, but this relies on being able to predict future income growth (growth of private-sector GDP) compared with expenditure growth (federal budget).

Some perspective: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/outlays-per-gdp.php

The problem with social security is one of fertility.
When the number of people drawing out of the system is increasing faster than the number putting into it, the system is unsustainable without subsidies (enter: the immigration debate).


The issue is probably addressed somewhere in here:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ead.php?t=1402
(I haven't read through the whole thread yet.)

[cornelyj]

Mark my words Health Care will be the end of all... check the demographics and needs of our so called welfare and social security systems.::Hint:: it isn't just the single parent African American woman anymore.... Check the demographics/companies of who holds end of year fiscal term debt besides our country. You can give hell to these plans till you are blue in the face, who did you help again?

...some of those "necessary" spending taxes compared with percentage of GDP are getting pretty bad. Just my .02 but isn't everything biased to some extent? even my boy Ross Perot...