there. fixed it up for ya for accuracy's sake - no thanks necessary....Originally Posted by dnf777
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
there. fixed it up for ya for accuracy's sake - no thanks necessary....
You're such a simpleton.Another little difference between war funding and SS, is that SS saves lives and gives people a means to stay off the street, and doesn't result in the devastation and destruction of lives and infrastructure. Not germane to this discussion, I realize, but thought it was worth tossing into the mix.
Why don't you hold a seminar and invite the 30-something and 40-something generations and explain to them how social security will save their lives and give them a means to stay off the street and won't result in the devastation and destruction of their lives when its time to collect. You could invite Bernard Madoff as a guest speaker...he's an expert on how social security works.
Social security is nothing more than generational sodomy. It's as bankrupt as Harrisburg, PA.
We live in Cuba now.
Simpleton? Is that any way to have a civil discussion?
FYI, I AM in the 40 something generation, and have paid SS since I started working at 18, and I know full well the money goes to current SS recipients, not into a mason jar until I retire. And you call ME a simpleton?
Probably none of us were around in the days when SS was conceived, to see the reasons WHY it was conceived. If you had been, or read history, you may have a different attitude, but I doubt it.
Please, for the sake of the forum, lets try to keep the discussion civil, can we?
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
Minor dissimilarities? The entire point of my statement is what makes the two so dissimilar. Go back and read my original statement where I cited what I saw as the hypocrisy of the situation, “How can you be against something, yet see nothing wrong with benefiting from it?” That was my statement, and that was my logic. No where in that statement is there mention of the Gov. compelling us to pay taxes for something we didn’t support. In fact, it wasn’t until the following paragraph, when I addressed his statement about the “popularity of SS” that paying taxes was even mentioned, and it was not in connection with my statement on hypocrisy. The fact that we were both compelled to pay for something we didn’t support has nothing to do with my original statement. However, you continue to attempt to link the 2 together in an effort to prove your point. However, by doing so, you have completely change the premise and intent of my original statement, thereby rendering the entire attempt at an analogy meaningless. Perhaps you have been listening to those political spin doctors too long that are so good at skewing someone else’s statement. However, if that’s how your logic works, flawed though it may be, it’s okay with me.And you can't pick out the minor dissimilarities that aren't particularly germane to the point as your proof that something isn't analogous. There are a million things that separate an African Elephant from an Asian Elephant, but in the end, they're both elephants. There are a million things that separate SS and war funding, but in the end, they're both examples of the government compelling people to pay for something they don't agree with.
PS....since you wouldn't choose between hypocrite and scofflaw, I picked for you.
You can draw whatever conclusion you like about me, and assign what ever label you like. That will be fine. I am not going to continue to debate this. When I was a kid, my father warned me about the folly of arguing with a sign board. I guess this is one of those occasions, so I am going to take his advice.
And you really think that social security is going to save your life? It's hardly even a "living wage". I would much rather cut my losses and opt out and be able to invest the money that was previously taken out of my paycheck into something that will gain money and very little probability of going bankrupt when the generation before me takes all the money. In the 30's you may have had an argument but in todays world it is just another entitlement program that leaves the ignorant of today thinking that it will "save their lives" and they don't have to save for retirement.
I don't think SS will save my life. I'm saving for myself. One would have to be a fool to buy toys with all their disposable income, and depend on SS or pension funds for their retirement living! But then again, there's lots of fools out there. We're surrounded by them. We're paying off their toxic mortgages and credit debts as we type.
Where would you invest your money? Lehman Brothers? Enron? What happens when the market falls by half?
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
Why would I give any of them my hard earned money so they can gamble with it?
Make real money and not paper and buy undervalued real estate.
Last edited by Franco; 10-14-2010 at 08:17 PM.
Where do we go without great leaders for the defense of our liberties? Who will defend our right to live our lives _as we chose_ without others taking that from us? The answer is, as it should be, no one. We are the defense of our rights and should always remember that. Libertarian blogger
What happens when the govt has no money to give me after paying in for 45-50 years of my life with MY money? I'd be lessed ticked off if I lost half my money than if the govt lost all of my money...
While it is true that when SS was created that current contributions were used to fund current benefits, over time that changed. With the reforms implemented i 1986, SS taxes went up dramatically (more than doubled) and SS was brought into a better financial balance than almost any private pension plans.
From a practical perspective, that meant that SS began throwing off huge cash surpluses. These were invested in US Government securities. However, a side effect of the huge SS surplus was that this offset deficits being incurred in the operating budget. I think that politically this was one of the reasons that Reagan was able to push through major tax cuts, and claim credits for cutting taxes, when total tax payments for the lower half of the income scale actually doubled. Another effect of this was that conservative groups (and others to a lesser extent) stopped counting social security contributions as "taxes". The justification given was that this was a savings program and contributors would get their money back. I suspect the real reason was because when you begin counting social security taxes, it becomes apparent that our "progressive" tax system is a lot less progressive than it seems.
For now, the actuarial integrity of social security is a little out of whack. It can be brought back into balance with relatively small changes in the combination of benefits and contribution rates. Obviously, if nothing is done, we will grow closer and closer to crisis. If something is done now, the changes made need not be dramatic. The magnitude of change needed is about 10% of annual costs. This can be addressed through any combination of benefit reductions (most likely a small upward adjustment in retirement age) or tax rate increases (most likely a small increase in the maximum income level taxed).
However, "fixing" social security is not the real problem. Fixing Medicare and fixing our general budget deficit are the real problems. Medicare, like social security, was a relatively minor problem in 2000. Actuarial assumptions needed to be adjusted to reflect longer life expectancies and disproportionately higher inflation in health care costs. However, this manageable problem became unmanageable the day the Medicare prescription program was adopted with no linked increase in rates.
In 2000, our operating deficit was also a manageable problem. Debt and operating deficits had declined dramatically following the combination of tax increases adopted in Clinton's first term and a significant reduction in the growth of government spending relative to what had happened during the 80's.
Unfortunately, that hard fought balance was destroyed in 2001 and 2003 with the adoption of tax cuts that have reduced Federal revenues by about 20% while, during the same period, government spending began to increase at more than twice the rate of growth seen during the 90's. It does not take a lot of smarts to understand that this is a recipe for disaster, and disaster is exactly what happened.
The threat to SS is not the structure of social security. The threat is that America has become a bad credit risk. The deficit gap today is almost 40% of all Federal government spending, and that assumes that the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for those with incomes over $250k. If those cuts are extended, the deficit gap increases to more than half of all Federal government spending.
Our options are simple. Either we begin reducing that deficit with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases larger than anyone from either party is prepared to consider, or we accept that we will be facing some mix of bankruptcy (for which there is no legal framework) and wealth busting inflation.
Some of the attacks on social security benefits are actually a way of trying to implement a "negotiated" debt reduction. If benefits are reduced sharply, while contribution rates are not, the system will once again be throwing off hundreds of billions per year in surplus. This delays the time when social security will need to begin cashing in its Federal notes to cover beneficiary payments.
I can't remember the math details but there are many points in SS where those that pay more get less vs those who pay less get more based on ROI. At some point there are people who get a much higher ROI (lower income) than those who pay more (lower ROI)
Those numbers change based on SS caps and SS benefits. They are also directly effected by other income.
Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote