# Climate change redux



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 9, 2016)

Thread segment moved from wood shed



begreen said:


> Yes, climate change is definitely taking it's toll. There were 266 in 1982. In 2009 there were 184.
> https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/glaciers.htm
> The difference between 1936 and now for the Anderson glacier is sobering.



Localized weather patterns are not global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it.  Snow builds glaciers.  There has even been plenty of proof that warmer weather increases snowpack in high peaks. 
You don't always get the most snow in the coldest weather and the least snow in the warmer weather.  This is why the glaciers in Asia are growing and not shrinking. 

I can't tell you how many times I have been hiking on a glacier in a high peak in June and it starts to snow.  80F in town.  Freezing on a peak.  Mountains create their own localized weather. 

For all we know, these glaciers have been receding forever in NA.  After all, glaciers used to cover the entire Appalachian mountains.


----------



## begreen (Aug 9, 2016)

Not a local phenomenon. Global glacier mass balance is in serious decline. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
Glaciers in Asia - Himalayas are in serious decline. When they are gone so are the rivers that nourish millions of people.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 10, 2016)

This is a very interesting (long)read on the how the climate has changed in the past 11,000 years, which included ice ages and periods of warming and cooling.  Even in the last 2000 years there have been large climate shifts across the globe.

If nothing else is read, look at the graphs of temperature and how there have been 4 major climate periods.  Very interesting stuff and rarely discussed in this day of "the sky is falling because of man made climate change".

http://dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm


----------



## begreen (Aug 10, 2016)

True dat, and Greenland was once ice free, 1.25 million years ago and there have been multiple ice age cycles. Climate change is normal. A dramatic 200 yr. rise in CO2 to levels well above previous peaks, not so normal. The earth's systems move slowly. It will recover, eventually, with or without us.


----------



## bfitz3 (Aug 10, 2016)

Vegas has "without" taking it at 4000 to 1.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 11, 2016)

begreen said:


> True dat, and Greenland was once ice free, 1.25 million years ago and there have been multiple ice age cycles. Climate change is normal. A dramatic 200 yr. rise in CO2 to levels well above previous peaks, not so normal. The earth's systems move slowly. It will recover, eventually, with or without us.
> 
> View attachment 182865



I know we are off track..but I love these conversations.  I like being challenged and I think in todays (you hurt my feelings) culture..we don't get enough real discussion.   

Yes.  Interesting to note how much the CO2 increased before man drove cars or had power plants.  

Temperatures vary greatly for many reasons...including solar activity.  It is very easy to punch holes in the argument that more CO2 = increased temperatures because the data just doesn't add up to when we were or were not creating the most CO2.



Anyone remember the cold winters of the 80's?  I sure do as a child.  That was after a prolonged period (35 yrs) of huge CO2 output.  

Even if it can be assumed that the chart you posted is 100% accurate in terms of testing CO2 in the atmosphere thousands of years ago, it indicates an increase from about ~.0275% to ~ .0385%.  That is saying that our increases in temperature are due to a change in CO2 in the atmosphere of .011%.


----------



## bfitz3 (Aug 11, 2016)

The science has become irrefutable and runs across many fields. Saying something to the effect of "things change so we don't need to worry about change" is as ignorant as saying "I'm going to die someday, so I'll let the train run over me now."

There is NO credible debate that anthropogenic global warming is real. The debate is only about the extent to which it is occurring.

Seriously... If you can refute the science that has been produced, please do. I'll buy your tickets for you and your family to attend the ceremony for your Nobel prizes.


----------



## bfitz3 (Aug 11, 2016)

Since we all like trees... https://www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 11, 2016)

bfitz3 said:


> The science has become irrefutable and runs across many fields. Saying something to the effect of "things change so we don't need to worry about change" is as ignorant as saying "I'm going to die someday, so I'll let the train run over me now."
> 
> There is NO credible debate that anthropogenic global warming is real. The debate is only about the extent to which it is occurring.
> 
> Seriously... If you can refute the science that has been produced, please do. I'll buy your tickets for you and your family to attend the ceremony for your Nobel prizes.


I'm confused by your post.  You say AGW is not real, but seem to defend it.  

I don't think many can say the earth is not warming, even though even NASA has manipulated data, the question is why...and how much is in our control.

I could care less what people believe.  The question is how does this translate into policy.  If we don't know how much contribution we are making to the warming of the earth (or if we are at all), how do we know what policies to make..and if that will have an effect on the climate?


----------



## bfitz3 (Aug 11, 2016)

Change "that" to "whether"  ...credible debate whether AGW is real. We all typo...

CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas (verifiable with HS level experiment) that we have been dumping into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates on top of natural sources. An increase of 0.011% is disingenuous. An increase from ~280ppm to over 400ppm is a 43% increase and is clearly attributable to the industrial revolution. Aside fromAGW, such an increase also is acidifying the oceans (which should scare the bejezzus out of you) and has been shown to decrease the protein levels of pollen (messing with plant reproductive systems is also very scary!) how much evidence do we need to collect to know we are doing harm to the biology that allows us to live? Once we know we are doing harm, should we call for study after study or just stop contributing to the problem?

The impact of CO2 is very real and measurable. Yes, 100's of ppm are significant, considering the chemistry that comes with CO2. The long term implications can be guessed at through models and debated, often at the level of the People's Front of Judaea v. Judean People's Front level. I like to think humanity is smarter than that. Rather than debating how long we have to get off the tracks, why don't we just get off them? Frankly, pursuing a solution with existing technologies will be good for our economy, regardless.


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 12, 2016)

Hey sportbiker.  These guys, and their elected globalists, UN commissions, and the like are all marching to the same socialist beat.  There's no changing them with facts.  It doesn't pay to argue with them.  A bogus hockey stick was the lame excuse used for decarbonization  and the trillions of dollars to be needlessly spent and redistributed.  Now it has a political/economic inertia with money its driving force with no real regard for science.  Carbon Dioxide is our friend.  Disgusting.
(My last post on this)


----------



## 7acres (Aug 14, 2016)

The thing I'm always conflicted about is the fact that trees consume carbon dioxide. Wouldn't the trees happily offset a CO2 increase?


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 17, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> Carbon Dioxide is our friend.


More CO2 is indeed good for (most) land plants.  But the pH of seawater is tied to the concentration of CO2....more CO2 means more acidic oceans.....is it alright if land forests and crops were 'ok', but all the coral reefs die?



7acres said:


> The thing I'm always conflicted about is the fact that trees consume carbon dioxide. Wouldn't the trees happily offset a CO2 increase?



They do.  In the ice cores they can see a global CO2 dip after each of the great plagues of the middle ages....when land cleared for farms returned to forest.  If there were a few extra continents of grassland lying around that we could convert to forest....problem solved.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 18, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> Hey sportbiker.  These guys, and their elected globalists, UN commissions, and the like are all marching to the same socialist beat.  There's no changing them with facts.  It doesn't pay to argue with them.  A bogus hockey stick was the lame excuse used for decarbonization  and the trillions of dollars to be needlessly spent and redistributed.  Now it has a political/economic inertia with money its driving force with no real regard for science.  Carbon Dioxide is our friend.  Disgusting.
> (My last post on this)




Ahh yes of course - because those all those scientists are a bunch of greedy money grubbing conspirators and   big oil is a bunch of philanthropic saints with only the best interest's of humanity as  motivation.


Zzzzz.... Zzzzzzz... . Are we really going to have this childish argument again?    please.....


----------



## blades (Aug 18, 2016)

When the warming alarmests factor in all the seismic activity then I will listen to them.  so many have conveniently forgot to include, one big volcanic boom puts out more co2 and the like than all of mankinds entire history .
currently there has been a pretty good up tic in seismic activity- some of which have caused major changes to the ocean currents which have a tremendous effect on  given area ( yep those bubbling cauldrons under the sea surface likely have more to do with the ph of the oceans than man does)

But hey can't bilk any money out that, now can we?


----------



## Ashful (Aug 18, 2016)

jharkin said:


> Ahh yes of course - because those all those scientists are a bunch of greedy money grubbing conspirators and   big oil is a bunch of philanthropic saints with only the best interest's of humanity as  motivation.


Maybe we can blame our political system, as much as anything else.  As long as the noble effort of reducing our impact on climate change is tied to the same party as wealth re-distribution, you're going to continue to see resistance from those with the most ability to affect change.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 18, 2016)

blades said:


> When the warming alarmests factor in all the seismic activity then I will listen to them.  so many have conveniently forgot to include, one big volcanic boom puts out more co2 and the like than all of mankinds entire history .
> currently there has been a pretty good up tic in seismic activity- some of which have caused major changes to the ocean currents which have a tremendous effect on  given area ( yep those bubbling cauldrons under the sea surface likely have more to do with the ph of the oceans than man does)
> 
> But hey can't bilk any money out that, now can we?



Another tired anti-science argument that has been debunked over and over

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/volcanoes-still-not-source-increasing-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere/
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

All i have to do is read one of the "how to argue with climate science" articles on one of the skeptic blogs like junkscience  to know what tired argument you guys are going to roll out next.



Oh and remind me... where is all this secret money that the greedy evil scientists are getting out of this coming from?  I didnt get my check this month...


----------



## jharkin (Aug 18, 2016)

Ashful said:


> Maybe we can blame our political system, as much as anything else.  As long as the noble effort of reducing our impact on climate change is tied to the same party as wealth re-distribution, you're not going to continue to see resistance from those with the most ability to affect change.



I assume you mean American political parties because pretty much no major party of any ideology outside the US doubts the science.

So which party is that exactly?  You mean one of the parties  trying to reduce our current situation of income inequality worse than the age of robber barons?  Sadly neither of the two major parties in the US actually cares about saving the middle class unless saying so will win votes.  The just pay varying amount of lip service to the problems and then go back to giving handouts to their big corporate donors.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 18, 2016)

jharkin said:


> Ahh yes of course - because those all those scientists are a bunch of greedy money grubbing conspirators and   big oil is a bunch of philanthropic saints with only the best interest's of humanity as  motivation.
> 
> 
> Zzzzz.... Zzzzzzz... . Are we really going to have this childish argument again?    please.....



No, however, grant money comes from where?  And you do not think grant money impacts the research that gets approval and does not get approval?  

Why has there been so much fraud and manipulation of data..even from NASA?  Which hid earlier studies that showed global cooling.  Last I checked, they were a pretty stand up group of scientists and engineers.

I'm waiting for my check too.  But I'm just a taxpayer and want to keep my own money so I don't have to work till I'm 105.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 18, 2016)

And who do you think has more money to throw at this?   And more to loose?

non-profit scientific research institutions..... or Exxon Mobil's mutli-billion dollar balance sheet.

C'mon man....


----------



## Ashful (Aug 18, 2016)

jharkin said:


> I assume you mean American political parties because pretty much no major party of any ideology outside the US doubts the science.
> 
> So which party is that exactly?  You mean one of the parties  trying to reduce our current situation of income inequality worse than the age of robber barons?


You and I will always disagree on this one.  On a related note, I heard today that Phelps now has 22 olympic medals.  How is that fair, when I have none?  How long until the Sanders supporters ask him to hand some of those out to those without one?


----------



## jharkin (Aug 18, 2016)

Ashful said:


> You and I will always disagree on this one.  On a related note, I heard today that Phelps now has 22 olympic medals.  How is that fair, when I have none?  How long until the Sanders supporters ask him to hand some of those out to those without one?



We probably will always disagree - and you know its not personal.


I think you also know very well  that the economy and wealth inequality is not that simple.  You know Im not calling for socialist handouts.  And you know that all those blue collar families stuggling in low wage jobs are not lazy.  All people  want is a level playing field.

  Ive seen the worst of corporate America shipping jobs overseas while the executives rake in 8 figure bonuses.    And we all know that college educations are getting farther and farther out of reach for average families. Not to mention companies like Walmart who rely on my tax dollars via welfare to make up for the fact they wont pay their employees a living wage.

Dont get me started....


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 18, 2016)

For those issues of income inequality you have to go to the root cause.  Why is a dollar worth less and less every year?  Why is it getting harder and harder?  Everything is costing more and our dollar is worth much less! 
Taxes are going up. They are oppressive in NY.  Health care is more expensive than ever.  College is more expensive than ever because of cheap money and super low interest rates that are manipulated by the federal reserve.  Get the government out of higher education financing and you'll see the price plummet.  It is the same with home values.  They are super high because money is cheap. 

None of the reasons for any of those major issues are because a CEO makes a 7 figure salary.  In a company that has 5,000 employees, giving each of of them $500 from the CEO's pay isn't going to level any part of the playing field.

Why are they sending jobs overseas?  To make more money right?  Well how are they getting financing to invest hundreds of millions in unstable 3rd world countries and selling that idea to their shareholders?  That would be very risky!  The good old import/export bank removes that risk with US taxpayer backed loans to these huge companies so they don't have to shoulder the risk of exporting jobs!  It's insanity defined.

Also, regulations and taxes make it super advantageous to move manufacturing overseas.  Do we need to tax every bolt, nut, fastener, piston, connector, wheel....10 times before it goes into a car?   Then tax the guy earning the money to buy the car.  Then tax him again with sales tax when he actually spends his money?  Then we complain about a CEO making all this money on a car, when we personally got ***** buying the car because of taxes...not private profit.  

The idea of Liberty is not democratic or republican.  This is a smoke screen to keep us squabbling about issues that don't matter instead of focusing on the ones that are ruining our lives. 
People have to be able to work hard.  Keep their income.  Send their kids to good schools (private or public). Keep the value of their money. And be left the hell alone.


----------



## jebatty (Aug 18, 2016)

Here's a pretty good explanation of US federal spending. Federal Spending

Just 30.5% of total federal spending (discretionary + mandatory) goes to things other than health, social security and military/homeland security. So, from what program funded by the federal government and from which you get a substantial benefit are you willing to give up to get lower taxes? If you are not willing to give up anything substantial to get lower taxes, then I suggest you have no right to say someone else should give something up to get lower taxes. And, to get a 30% federal tax cut, which is about which some running for federal office say they will do, everything has to be give up, if health, social security and military/homeland security are to remain intact.

I haven't found anyone yet willing to give up anything substantial to get lower taxes, and I submit the rant for lower taxes is purely political crap, bogus, hype, unrealistic, and never will happen, which really isn't all that bad, because everything considered, we all live in an already truly great country and we need to pay taxes to keep this country great. There is no other country in the world to which I would want to move with the hope of lower taxes, and I doubt I would ever see lower taxes in any other country and get the same quality of life as I get in the good old USA.


----------



## Ashful (Aug 18, 2016)

I'd give up government-funded healthcare and social security in about a second flat, jebatty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jharkin (Aug 18, 2016)

I think jebatty made some very good points about taxes so I wont rehash that.  ^^^^^

If you really think the price of your car you just bought is due to taxes I suggest you go look up the financials of GM.   *cough* bailout *cough*  


Moving jobs overseas makes sense not due to taxes and regulatios but due to free trade deals like NAFTA etc.   A lot of folks also think that NAFTA had a big part in crushing the Mexican economy leading to the flood of immigration that Republicans love to complain about.  you can blame both the Dems and The Reps for NAFTA.


Oh and BTW the golden age of a prosperous middle class in this country - the 60s - also had some of the highest tax rates in history.  Sorry to burst your bubble, taxes dont kill the little guy.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 18, 2016)

Ashful said:


> I'd give up government-funded healthcare and social security in about a second flat, jebatty.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Its easy to say when you dont need either.  ANd in disclosure I probably wont actually need SS in my retirement either.

However a large majority of retirees in this country - my parents included  - would be destitute without it.  So whether we like it or not eliminating it is a non starter for both parties.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 18, 2016)

I would opt out of social security right now at 38 yrs old..as I know I will never see a penny of my hundreds of thousands over a lifetime.
I would give up paying for obamacare.
I would give up public schools or take a tax different to spend my money on private schools.
I would keep the troops home, since our excessive military spend is overseas in wars that make us less safe not more safe.  I'd the take the military surplus and secure our border.
I would elimate the TSA as they do not make us safer.

There is no limit to how much the government can spend and tax.  Evidence enough is our $18T debt that we can only afford the interest payments on..and has been doubling every 4-5 yrs.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 18, 2016)

jharkin said:


> I think jebatty made some very good points about taxes so I wont rehash that.  ^^^^^
> 
> If you really think the price of your car you just bought is due to taxes I suggest you go look up the financials of GM.   *cough* bailout *cough*
> 
> ...



Agree completely on NAFTA and bailouts.

Actually taxes hurt the little guy disproportionately more than the wealthy.  Gas taxes, sales taxes, home taxes and the like are a straight percentage of total purchase price..and a greater percentage of a little guys total wage.

Tax rates a re very different than taxes collected.  If you look from a very high level, tax collected as % of GDP has been about the same since the 50's.  What has changed is all of the fines that are new since the 50's and always keep increasing..and state taxes not in federal income tax rates.


----------



## jebatty (Aug 19, 2016)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Gas taxes, sales taxes, home taxes and the like are a straight percentage of total purchase price..and a greater percentage of a little guys total wage.


 The federal gas tax of $0.184/gal hasn't changed since 2005 when it was raised to that level under republican President George W. Bush. Many states have gas taxes as high or higher, plus ever-rising local property taxes. So the point you really are making about taxes, fines and fees is that this is a state issue primarily, not a federal issue. Towns, cities and state government are at the heart of the tax problem, with which I agree.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 19, 2016)

sportbikerider78 said:


> I would opt out of social security right now at 38 yrs old..as I know I will never see a penny of my hundreds of thousands over a lifetime.



A common argument I have with republican friends is that they believe SS is a savings account held in their name that the feds are stealing.  That's not how it works. SS is a tax funded old age insurance policy that pays out like an inflation adjusted fixed annuity. It is not a savings vehicle.

Im 40.  And have been paying into SS at the cap rate for years.  If you pay in at the cap from the day you turn 20 till the day you hit 65 you would pay an inflation adjusted 300k give or take over 45 years give or take.   But most people pay far less, and the formula allows you to draw the full benefit after only 35 years of paying in.  Anyone who lives past their mid-80s draws out more than they paid in.

  Unless the world ends or you die before your FRA you WILL get something.  The current estimate is that the program will stop running surpluses in about 4 years, and then will draw down the trust funds till they are  exhausted in 2034, after which SS will only be able to pay out from FICA tax receipts which is projected to cover 70ish % of expected obligations. 

Medicare funding is a bigger problem, but so many Americans rely on both programs that at some point the parties will be force to compromise on a fix (increased taxes and/or benefit cuts). They have done it before, as seen when congress approved making benefits taxable during the Reagan years.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/social...understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds



sportbikerider78 said:


> I would give up paying for obamacare.



Liberals dont like Obamacare either.  We wanted universal single payer, but what we got was ACA, otherwise known as  Romneycare which was modeled after an idea (albeit not popular) that some conservative think tank came up with in the 90s

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...5/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/

The reality is there is no easy fix.

Moving to universal single payer is probably a non starter because the private insurance industry would implode and destroy the economy.  (To bad since single payer is proven to be a workable system that provides care at a fraction of the price we pay  all over the first world)

Going back to the old purely private system will leave lots of people without insurance.  That doesn't actually save us any money - because all those uninsured go to the ER when they get sick and get care but cant pay the bill. The cost of that care is baked into the rates that those of us with insurance pay. So we will pay either way.  This way is more expensive.



sportbikerider78 said:


> I would give up public schools or take a tax different to spend my money on private schools.



Abolish public schools?  Are you serious?  Send us right back to the middle ages where only the lords can afford to give their kids an education while the rest of us peasants labor in the fields.  No thanks.



sportbikerider78 said:


> I would keep the troops home, since our excessive military spend is overseas in wars that make us less safe not more safe.  I'd the take the military surplus and secure our border.



On this we agree.  We are all tired of all the wars. 



sportbikerider78 said:


> I would elimate the TSA as they do not make us safer.



I haven't researched enough to comment intelligently on this one... but there does appear to be problems....




sportbikerider78 said:


> There is no limit to how much the government can spend and tax.  Evidence enough is our $18T debt that we can only afford the interest payments on..and has been doubling every 4-5 yrs.



Ok this one is complicated and I dont understand it all./ There used to be a fellow on this board (Ashful remembers  )  who would come on here
and give us a 5 page economics treatise about how the debt is meaningless since we print the money and can just inflate it away.

What I do know is that looking at it in absolute dollars is a less informative picture that looking at it in inflation adjusted terms or better yet as a % of GDP. As a % of GDP it looks like this:





Now you can see clearly that it spikes whenever we have to spend our way out of a crisis -WWI, WWII, the depression, the great recession.  You can also clearly see how it went up during the free spending Reagan years, down during the clinton surpluses and spiked hwen GWB signed the great recession bailout package.


Meanwhile tax rates have been on a continual trend down since the 60s, with the highest earners getting the most relief







And corporations too:






sportbikerider78 said:


> Agree completely on NAFTA and bailouts.
> 
> Actually taxes hurt the little guy disproportionately more than the wealthy.  Gas taxes, sales taxes, home taxes and the like are a straight percentage of total purchase price..and a greater percentage of a little guys total wage.
> 
> Tax rates a re very different than taxes collected.  If you look from a very high level, tax collected as % of GDP has been about the same since the 50's.  What has changed is all of the fines that are new since the 50's and always keep increasing..and state taxes not in federal income tax rates.



We agree that taxes hit the little guy worse - which is why liberals rail against tax cut plans that provide more relief to the highest incomes than to the middle and working classes.

jebatty already pointed out that gas taxes have been flat for years.  I live in a state (Mass) that's usually considered high tax but the reality is that we have been cutting taxes here for decades and actually our income and sales taxes are only average nationally .  However expenses keep growing with inflation so the result of all that tax cutting is crumbling infrastructure, failing transit and spiraling debt that is starting to bite us in the @$$.   Towns are forced to make up the difference in lost state revenue by hiking property taxes, but Prop 2.5 limits what they can do so instead they have to cut school programs and institute fees.  

I always find it funny how people can expect to get annual 4% raises in the private sector then turn around and claim teachers, cops and firemen should accept a salary frozen for life because it comes out of taxes


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 19, 2016)

blades said:


> When the warming alarmests factor in all the seismic activity then I will listen to them.  so many have conveniently forgot to include, one big volcanic boom puts out more co2 and the like than all of mankinds entire history .



Jeremy got here first, but when you crunch the numbers even a large eruption like the Mt St Helens one years ago only release about the same CO2 as human activity does in a _few weeks_ of time.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 19, 2016)

jharkin said:


> jebatty already pointed out that gas taxes have been flat for years.  I live in a state (Mass) that's usually considered high tax but the reality is that we have been cutting taxes here for decades and actually our income and sales taxes are only average nationally .  However expenses keep growing with inflation so the result of all that tax cutting is crumbling infrastructure, failing transit and spiraling debt that is starting to bite us in the @$$.   Towns are forced to make up the difference in lost state revenue by hiking property taxes, but Prop 2.5 limits what they can do so instead they have to cut school programs and institute fees.
> 
> I always find it funny how people can expect to get annual 4% raises in the private sector then turn around and claim teachers, cops and firemen should accept a salary frozen for life because it comes out of taxes



You're interjecting many things we are not talking about, like firemens salaries. 

I addressed the tax issue very clearly.  Tax collected and tax rates are very different things.  Tax code changes constantly and does not resemble any similarity to the 50's. Our federal rate may be changing and getting better, but codes are changing and other fines are always being added....which lets us keep less of our income.  

The question I was addressing is what would "I" give up to have taxes reduced.  You may not like my answers, but that's ok.  We don't have to agree.  I have researched these issues extensively and not formed my opinions lightly.  I greatly enjoy economics and find it fascinating.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 19, 2016)

sportbikerider78 said:


> YOur federal rate may be changing and getting better, but codes are changing and other fines are always being added....which lets us keep less of our income.



But yet the data shows, that when calculated as a % of GDP federal tax receipts are basically flat since the end of WWII.   Please give some examples of these "new fines" I am paying.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 19, 2016)

Right...federal is flat.  Some states don't have state income taxes and may more didn't back then.  Capital gains has gone up considerably and some play the market some do not. 
Things I pay fines and taxes on that have gone up considerably in my lifetime...car registration, car inspection, car taxes every year (in some states), school taxes, any type of licencing and permitting ($300 for a pistol permit?), buying a home has a huge amount of taxes, cable bill, water bill, sewer bill...everything has extra taxes piled on it.
Some aren't new,,but they're all going up.


----------



## NateB (Aug 19, 2016)

jharkin said:


> Its easy to say when you dont need either.  ANd in disclosure I probably wont actually need SS in my retirement either.
> 
> However a large majority of retirees in this country - my parents included  - would be destitute without it.  So whether we like it or not eliminating it is a non starter for both parties.


I'm with Ashful.  I am not saying get rid of it.  I am saying let me opt out.  Keep the money I already put in, just let me opt out.  Also if your parents had all the money that was taken from them and put into social security, and instead invested in some long term CD they would be way ahead for retirement.  By the way if your parents are in need let me know I will make sure they don't go hungry or have to sleep in the cold.

The answer to these problems is not Democrats or Republicans or big business.  They are all a bunch of deceitful crooks. Freedom is the solution, and freedom takes hard work and sacrifice.  Community and helping your neighbor is the only thing that will get us through the coming collapse.  Brace your self it is going to get bumpy.


----------



## Ashful (Aug 19, 2016)

jharkin said:


> Its easy to say when you dont need either.  ANd in disclosure I probably wont actually need SS in my retirement either.
> 
> However a large majority of retirees in this country - my parents included  - would be destitute without it.  So whether we like it or not eliminating it is a non starter for both parties.


Your parents won't be destitute... they have you.  The gripe is not with helping the destitute, but that government does such a horrendously poor job at at it.  I give more through church and charity than many folks make in a year, and I believe most with the means do much of the same.  My issue with the socialist democratic party leadership is not what they're selling, it's their failure to hold themselves to the standards they preach, and not realizing the government can't do this job without gross inefficiency.

But, that's a major tangent from the aim of this thread.  I was simply pointing out that as long as there is a party line drawn down the middle of the climate change debate, with the overwhelmingly more successful and influential individuals (business, not celebrity) on the "nay" side of that line, we're not likely to see much progress on that front.  I have no solution to suggest, it's just an observation.

As far as cars and taxes, I see no issue with "pay to play" mentality, even when it comes to the gas guzzler tax I've been paying on my last few vehicles.  Steering the majority toward the most ethical choice, while permitting those who want to pay for the privilege of doing their own thing, isn't hampering anyone's liberty.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 20, 2016)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Right...federal is flat.  Some states don't have state income taxes and may more didn't back then.  Capital gains has gone up considerably and some play the market some do not.
> Things I pay fines and taxes on that have gone up considerably in my lifetime...car registration, car inspection, car taxes every year (in some states), school taxes, any type of licencing and permitting ($300 for a pistol permit?), buying a home has a huge amount of taxes, cable bill, water bill, sewer bill...everything has extra taxes piled on it.
> Some aren't new,,but they're all going up.


 for those of us that are  older, we could deduct sales taxes and interest from any legit transaction. not so today. talk every year on tax reform includes removing  interest deduction for home mortgages. in fact some of that deduction has been removed for those on the upper end. a couple lost major deductions for a lot of folks.

on the climate thing. this year is all about the spike in warm temp. this was well predicted and expected with a strong el nino. for me all it about agw vs nature. this one is one I give to nature. how much agw, how much natural? jury still out .




for reference it wasn't that warm everywhere this summer! arctic at and mostly below norm all summer


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 20, 2016)

begreen said:


> Not a local phenomenon. Global glacier mass balance is in serious decline.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
> Glaciers in Asia - Himalayas are in serious decline. When they are gone so are the rivers that nourish millions of people.


some folks can argue that ice age has yet to end. still remnant glaciers and frozen poles. if agreed we are in a interglacial era, then maybe what is happening now is what it is supposed to be.


----------



## bfitz3 (Aug 20, 2016)

Ashful said:


> You and I will always disagree on this one.  On a related note, I heard today that Phelps now has 22 olympic medals.  How is that fair, when I have none?  How long until the Sanders supporters ask him to hand some of those out to those without one?


This may be the most asinine thing I've read this year.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 20, 2016)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Right...federal is flat.  Some states don't have state income taxes and may more didn't back then.  Capital gains has gone up considerably and some play the market some do not.
> Things I pay fines and taxes on that have gone up considerably in my lifetime...car registration, car inspection, car taxes every year (in some states), school taxes, any type of licencing and permitting ($300 for a pistol permit?), buying a home has a huge amount of taxes, cable bill, water bill, sewer bill...everything has extra taxes piled on it.
> Some aren't new,,but they're all going up.



Capital gains has NOT gone up.  The gains rates have gone down with everything else. Why do you guys lie about things that are so easily fact checked?

http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-capital-gains-tax-rates-1988-2013






NateB said:


> I'm with Ashful.  I am not saying get rid of it.  I am saying let me opt out.  Keep the money I already put in, just let me opt out.  Also if your parents had all the money that was taken from them and put into social security, and instead invested in some long term CD they would be way ahead for retirement.  By the way if your parents are in need let me know I will make sure they don't go hungry or have to sleep in the cold.



So many holes in this... where to begin.

First off, the best I can get on a "CD" today is about 1%.  They are basically a joke now.... I'm actually loosing money after inflation. 

Also if you think that we can just let people opt out without the system collapsing you have some fundamental misunderstandings of how it works.  SS benefit checks going out this year to people in retirement are not paid from earnings on the money they put in during their working years. They are paid from the taxes working people like me are contributing this year.  Its a shared risk insurance pool.  If we let people opt out, the people who leave will be folks working today and primarily the wealthiest who need it least. Which will mean even less funding to pay out current benefits, and the need to raise the tax rate on those who stay in ( the people who need it most and can least afford to pay the tax).


The bottom line is that social security is NOT AN INVESTMENT. Its an insurance policy.

Its to protect the elderly against becoming destitute if their regular retirement savings run out.  Or some unexpected black swan event happens and wipes out the market.

I probably wont NEED my SS either... but if have really bad like and an event like 1929 happens the year I retire and destroys my careful planning SS will always be there to ensure I dont eat dogfood.

Or if I am the exception to the actuarial tables and freakishly live to 120 years old and outlive my savings  even using a conservative 3% SWR, SS will always be there, no matter how long I live, to ensure I dont eat dogfood.


That's the purpose of SS.  Its not to be a savings account. Its not to be anyone primary retirement income (although sadly it ends up that way for far too many). Its to insure against millions of elderly becoming homeless in the event of unexpected contingencies.

This need is actually growing more and more important every year - the move of industry away from defined benefit pension programs that where involuntary to near universal 401/403/IRA/TSP (that most people under utilize and dont understand), combined with the pitiful state of financial literacy in this country is a ticking time bomb of unprepared retirees.

Why is that so hard for conservatives to understand?


And before you say it, yes I am well aware that when I turn 65 I could cash out my IRA and buy a SPIA for the same type of insurance protection, but as much as you may hate it, historically the fed is a safer bet than any private  insurance company.




Ashful said:


> Your parents won't be destitute... they have you.  The gripe is not with helping the destitute, but that government does such a horrendously poor job at at it.  I give more through church and charity than many folks make in a year, and I believe most with the means do much of the same.  My issue with the socialist democratic party leadership is not what they're selling, it's their failure to hold themselves to the standards they preach, and not realizing the government can't do this job without gross inefficiency.



I was using my parents as an example to show that I have skin in the game from both sides (I am well enough off to not need it, my parents depend on it).   Not every retired couple is so lucky.


----------



## NateB (Aug 20, 2016)

jharkin said:


> Capital gains has NOT gone up.  The gains rates have gone down with everything else. Why do you guys lie about things that are so easily fact checked?
> 
> http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-capital-gains-tax-rates-1988-2013
> 
> ...


Right and exactly what interest rate are you getting on social security right now?

Sorry you said it is an insurance. Name one insurance where people who don't qualify"need" for assistance are required to take a pay out?

I am not saying there should be no safety net. I am saying social security is a scam to buy votes not help people.

Why don't liberals understand that people who think differently from them are not conservatives. Just people who see a screwed up system, and see a need to replace it not throw more money at it.


----------



## begreen (Aug 20, 2016)

Closing thread. It has gone way off the rails and the ash can is no longer around.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 20, 2016)

NateB said:


> Right and exactly what interest rate are you getting on social security right now?
> 
> Sorry you said it is an insurance. Name one insurance where people who don't qualify"need" for assistance are required to take a pay out?
> 
> ...




THERE IS NO INTEREST RATE ON SOCIAL SECURITY!   For the last time IT IS NOT A SAVINGS VEHICLE.



Read this entire article, then lets talk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)


And dont even start with the liberals vs. conservative rant. I DID NOT start it.  Other posters who started yelling socialists and callling the democrats the party of hand outs did.  I am just responding with facts and links to actual data.  Its not a black and white, yes or no issue.  Its a complex problem  affecting millions of people that does not have an easy soundbite, talking points, facebook meme answer.


----------

