It’s time to repeal the 16th-Amendment, which will stop all of this arguing about what constitutes income.

No, it won’t, because Congress has always had the power to tax wages. The 16th amendment is only about taxing income derived from property, which the Supreme Court decided amounted to taxing property itself; I think today’s court would reject that theory 9-0, but even if it didn’t the vast majority of people get their income from working, and there’s never been any question that Congress can tax that, 16th or no 16th.

He’s arguing like a lawyer who’s decided to take on a case, for whatever reason, without any consideration as to the actual merits of what’s he is arguing for. He’s not reasoning or arguing like an honest person.

Everything he does on the budget is like that.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/6/2013 @ 11:12 am

I agree wholeheartedly.

The death rate reaches 100% in 2028, but only for that age group.

They rise slightly for those aged 60-64, reaching abut 18% by 2030, at which point the death rate for those aged 75-79 are lower.

I guess the “death panels” will only affect people not receiving Medicare.

For instance.

1. In the year 2028, every person then between the ages of 55 and 59 will die. (that is, before they can collect Social Security benefits)

These would be people born between 1969 and 1973.

What are they predicting: A biologically re-engineered smallpox epidemic?

2. People aged 60-64 will also have a somewhat higher then now, and it will exceed deaths in the 65-69, 70-74 and 75-79 age brackets.

3. For all those except those between 55 and 65 death rates will continue to decline. While over 80% of those aged 99-99 now die every year, in the year 2028, it will be barely over 50%. (they all got vaccinated for smallpox)

4. Mortality from strokes and other vascular diseases will drop faster for those aged 65-69 than those aged 60-64 to the point where the lines will cross around the year 2060. Now this contradicts human nature. In general the risk of death doubles for every 8 years gained in age.

Sometimes of course special causes causes fewer deaths proportionally among older people than younger – usually this could happen with some infectious diseases.

5. The actuary does not notice that fewer people are smoking (this costs Social Security money as more people live) and more people are obese (if this leads to deaths, this saves Social Security money)

6. Retirement itself may cause an increase in mortality.

Their calculations are explained at:

http://gking.harvard.edu/gking/publications/statistical-security-social-security

What I say, is that we should assume that the current (dismal) economic projections are any better.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler has said for years Social Security is overfunded (or he used to say it) because it projects low rates of economic growth over time, but this article discusses other peculiarities.

It;s kind of ridiculous to assume that the on;y errors are in regard to health and that they all make the Social Security system look more solvent.

Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:47 am
And here the President is saying everything will be sunni.

Did these sail right over Sammy’s head?