Another Failed Social Experiment!

55 posts / 0 new

http://www.thedailyjournal.com/article/20120806/NEWS01/308060021?odyssey=mod|mostcom

"People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It’s a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press."

"A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank."

Social Security sucks, and you want me to put more money into a plan with NEGATIVE return. Give me freedom from this plan. If I put the money in a can and burried it in my back yard I would get a better return!

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

Comments

This is exactly how Mitt and his ilk felt when they moved what used to be America's surplus offshore.

The poison pills they left in America weren't gonna touch their money, no siree Bob!

The Manchurian Americans they trained over the last 50 years are going to feel very stoopid soon, realizing what, in Gods name, they have done.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

A Washington Think Tank?

Good god, man, have you no sense of decency?

No tanks to the Thinkerbelles.

X my free-thinking l*l !!!!

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Social Security is BROKE and its the WORST return you can get. It has a NEGATIVE rate of return.

Social Security has a $16 TRILLION unfunded liability to cover the promised benefits.

www.usdebtclock.org

In the 1970's Galveston opted out and they are doing MUCH better then the rest of the sheeple sucking on the social security teat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/galveston-alternative-to-social-s...

Their decision was born out of a fear that the federal entitlement program, designed to keep elderly and disabled Americans out of poverty, might not be around in the future. After careful study, the county employees chose an alternative that allowed them to open personal savings accounts.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-reform-galvesto...

Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a more conservative 5% rate of return, all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:

• Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50% more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security — $1,036 instead of $683.

• Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security, $1,500 instead of $853.

• Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.

• Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security, $4,540 instead of $1,645.

• Our survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary — a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 — rather than Social Security's customary onetime $255 survivorship to a spouse (with no minor children). If the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too.

• Our disability benefit pays 60% of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

In 1980, labor unions and some traditionally liberal Democrats provided mighty opposition. They considered taxpayer-fed Big Government programs the only secure ones, to the exclusion of other options. However, we held meetings that included debates with Social Security officials and put it to a vote: Our workers passed it by a 3-to-1 margin in 1981 — just in time.

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

I personally don't know anyone who paid in over 1/2 million bucks in Soc. Sec. taxes. That would entail an average income of slightly over $250,000 per year for the household for 40 years ....paying the usual 6% Soc. Sec. tax..

Not bad since the national income of the U.S. is only $160,000 per year for each family of four.

I had no idea the "average" family took in 1/4 million a year..That's .higher than the total amount of money the U.S. generates annually. Maybe they borrowed from the Chinese..

Will they give me a sandwhich?

Why do I even bother debunking this stuff ?

.Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

How did you figure your numbers??? If you paid in $16,500/year, working 30 years, you paid into Social Security $495,000. So a married couple working could easily pay in over $500K???

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Is-Social-Security-still-a-good-de...

If you retired in 1960, you could expect to get back seven times more in benefits than you paid in Social Security taxes, and more if you were a low-income worker, as long you made it to age 78 for men and 81 for women.

As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.

Not anymore.

A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.


sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

Do the math. if a couple paid even $500,000 into Soc. Security, Their income would have to be $10,000,000 over forty years... 6% Soc. Sec. tax on $10,000,000 is $600,000 (close to your $586,000)

$10,000,000 divided by 40 years is $250,000 per year over a 40 year period.

Not likely when at times during that time span min. wage was in the $3 an hour range. Other wages were proportionately higher than that depending on skill. A Dr.'s visit was $5 and included the meds. Even they didn't make close to $250,000 a year.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Double that.

6.5% you pay

6.5% your employer pays (but is considered part of your income by employer)

13%

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

And the article mentions only what the individual paid, didn't it?

Part of Soc. Security pays for disability benefits. It's part of the insurance plan. Some collect years earlier than others because of that. The lucky ones don't. They probably shouldn't gripe about it. Health surpasses the insurance payment.

Part of Soc. Sec. insurance pays survivors benefits. It's part of the ins. plan.

Like any insurance system, some collect more, some collect less.

Probably, if you lost your legs, you're neighbor wouldn't complain because your income came out of his insurance premium. You paid premiums too.

He would, of course, have the option of chopping off his own legs so he could collect as well.

Part of Soc. Sec. insurance pays for risks we are all subject to. Risk management plus retirement benefits...pretty cheap. because the risk is spread over the entire population.

It doesn't suck 30% out of every dollar for shareholders and CEO's. What's paid in...is paid out to someone. The disabled, the survivor, or the retiree .Depending on where you stand in that group is when you start receiving benefits.

If you plan on dying by 80, it may be a personal bum deal. The women in my family live into their 90's. A good deal. It's an inflation--tied income that supplemented their non-inflation tied income from other sources. Income that was way more than adequate when it was set up...not so adequate with the inflation rate...like in the late 70's/early 80's... Risk Management.They lived well rather than impoverished. None complained about having paid into Soc. Security.

if you were a fortuneteller, you could tell which group you'd be in and when you'd start collecting.. You probably aren't. For all you know, you could begin receiving disability benefits tomorrow. Pray you don't.

If you're a multi-millionaire, raise hell about it contributing to it. What you'll receive is a pittance compared to your current lifestyle. It will just pay your monthly tips for lunch.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease". .

.

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If its insurance as you say, then we should consider actuaries and risk tables to determine who pays what?

If its insurance I can find a better deal than social security!http://www.metlife.com/individual/insurance/disability-insurance/index.html#basics

If its a retirement plan its the WORST plan I have ever seen! By ANY measure even with economic ups & downs the S&P, NASDAQ, DOW have all outperformed the rate of return over ANY 30 year period in our history!

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

Actually, they do use actuaries. That's how they figure how much the premiums should be to break even over the long haul.

Currently it takes in more than it pays out....to provide for the baby boomers who are now starting to collect. In a few years, It will begin paying out more than it collects ...out of a surplus purposely built up for that.. That's what the fuss is about. The rest of the story is, when the surplus is gone, so are the baby boomers. Once again income/outgo will equalize. It isn't insolvent.

If you can find a guranteed income supplement, tied to inflation, that has a 100% certainty of never going bust, go for it. Governments with their own currency can't go bust. They have this thing called a printing press.They can even loan themselves money through their own central bank if they so choose, or call it all in , replace it with new and start with a new currency...

Personally, i wouldn't give an investment banker or their cohorts, ins. firms, a penney as long as they remain unregulated. . Both invest in derivative and commodity bubbles.

Here one day, getting bailed or gone the next.

Keep in mind that Financial Planners who bought the triple A securites for their retirement accounts lost it all when those triple A securities went bust. Goldman Sachs and their ilk dumped them on their clients....then placed derivative bets they were worthless. They were right. The triple A securities were worthless.

Soc. Security is a safe hedge. That's why they call it "security". You won't wake up one morning at age 75 and find yourself without even a penney because a market crashed or a crooked financier like Bernie Maddoff ran off with it all.

Gamble away if you like, but i'd keep the hedge just in case.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Governments can & do go bust. And when it happens its going to hurt all the people that depend on the social programs the MOST. Stick your head in the sand, pretend we can just print more money and that social security is god given right. When it tanks, dont cry.

Personally, I have so little faith in Dem or Rep forms of government I would feel much safer with my money in my own accounts managed by professionals not political hacks. I dont want my retirement to be contigent on which party is in office but you seem happy to give them that power? Are you so financial disadvantaged that you need them to plan your retirement?

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

Hey guys, currently ordinary incomes over $106,000 are exempt from FICA withholding. It has risen annually for decades. In 1984 it was $36,000. Average 106 & 36 = est $150,000/2=$75,000x13%FICAx30years=approx$300,000/person/avg income. Point the federal government has stolen,er, borrowed and spent all of the funds and replaced them with government ious. What they will be worth next week or five years from now is an average person's guess. Now if you are one of the elite , and insider, or a 1%ter, you might have an inside influence, or insight, on that. Fairness would dictate that a husband and wife working for 30 years should be able to retire on an amount based on what was paid into the system by them and on their behalf by an employer(s). And that is not the case today and will get worse in the not too distant future, if some tuff decisions aren't made pretty soon.

Brookesmith
Joined:
Aug. 3, 2012 7:00 pm

You're right again, Linda, we need to get tuff.

Tax the rich, so heavily they finally really get it, and so will we.

Until then, they can kiss my ass, and so can the harlots that shill for them.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote sheep4thom:

Governments can & do go bust. And when it happens its going to hurt all the people that depend on the social programs the MOST. Stick your head in the sand, pretend we can just print more money and that social security is god given right. When it tanks, dont cry.

Personally, I have so little faith in Dem or Rep forms of government I would feel much safer with my money in my own accounts managed by professionals not political hacks. I dont want my retirement to be contigent on which party is in office but you seem happy to give them that power? Are you so financial disadvantaged that you need them to plan your retirement?

I thought that the whole point conservatives try to make is that we don't need no stinking government to force us to plan for a retirement? If you are so adept at planning for your own retirement then by all means do so. What you get back from the government can be nothing more than gravy. If you are planning on SS to retire on then you are in for a shock. It's meant as a supplement for most people and a last resort for others.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Does that mean you will support a law that lets me opt out of Social Security? I would love to be able to plan my own savings for retirement and purchas my own disability insurance! Thanks. Let all write our Senators and Congressmen to support a bill to allow any that wishes to OPT OUT.

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Do the math. if a couple paid even $500,000 into Soc. Security, Their income would have to be $10,000,000 over forty years... 6% Soc. Sec. tax on $10,000,000 is $600,000 (close to your $586,000)

$10,000,000 divided by 40 years is $250,000 per year over a 40 year period.

Not likely when at times during that time span min. wage was in the $3 an hour range. Other wages were proportionately higher than that depending on skill. A Dr.'s visit was $5 and included the meds. Even they didn't make close to $250,000 a year.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Actually that wouldn't even be correct. Since there's a cap on Social Security Taxes it would have to take a lot more years of work to contribute that much to the pot.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote sheep4thom:

Does that mean you will support a law that lets me opt out of Social Security? I would love to be able to plan my own savings for retirement and purchas my own disability insurance! Thanks. Let all write our Senators and Congressmen to support a bill to allow any that wishes to OPT OUT.

Actually I would. That wouldn't include the part of SS that you pay for the other services though. That's meant to be a shared expense.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

What other services. I pay in LOTS, and I am likely to get nothing back. Best case I get a negative rate of return.

I can buy my OWN disability insurance and not rely in social security.

Besides if I opt out and invest my own money, I am one less burden on the system. I might even have more money to buy things, stimulate jobs, and donate to charity! You would rather take it at the point of the IRS's gun to fund your bankrupt Ponzi scheme?

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

SS is not bankrupt and it is not a Ponzi scheme.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

So when the Social Security Trustees come out and show in their annual report a PERMANENT SHORTFALL, they are lying?

"Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative modifications if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided."

—2011 Social Security trustees report

Net present value is the amount of money that would have to be invested today in order to have enough money on hand to pay deficits in the future. In other words, Congress would have to invest $9.1 trillion today in order to have enough money to pay all of Social Security’s promised benefits through 2085. This money would be in addition to what Social Security receives during those years from its payroll taxes.

The trustees report’s perpetual projection extends beyond the usual 75-year planning horizon. In net-present-value terms, the perpetual projection is $17.9 trillion, including money necessary to repay bonds in the trust fund. Last year’s number was $16.1 trillion. If the assumptions and other details were the same as last year, this year’s number would still have grown to $16.9 trillion.

This means that Social Security’s net-present-value deficit after 2085 is $8.8 trillion. These projections show that the program’s total deficit continues to grow well beyond the 75-year projection period. For that reason, a successful reform will both eliminate the deficits over the 75-year window and address those that come after that period.

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

Gee whiz, Linda, don't get so upset, italics AND bold type?

If you can't see that the progressive (no pun intended) reduction of inheritance taxes over the last 50 years sucked the life out of our future, you can X my l*l.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Anonymous,

You make it sound like business has ALL the rules slanted in their favor? Like any moron can run a business because the goverment just gives you free stuff? If its so easy why dont you start a business?

Maybe you could sell greeting cards? With your wit I am sure they would be big sellers!

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm
Quote sheep4thom:

So when the Social Security Trustees come out and show in their annual report a PERMANENT SHORTFALL, they are lying?

"Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative modifications if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided."

—2011 Social Security trustees report

This is taken out of context. Have you read the full report or just the blog posts by your favorite conservative moron? I have read it. In this very paragraph, the trustees report says something to the effect that we could pay out 100% for the next 35 years and the majority of the benefit for 75 years and all that is needed to correct this issue is something like a 2.5% adjustment in our investments into the fund. If you raised the payroll tax cap by even $100,000, SS would be completely funded for eternity.

This is a complete NONPROBLEM if you set aside bullshit political biases and focus on the reality of the math. This would be easy to fix. All you would have to do is elminate the regressive nature of the payroll tax. Done. Next issues please.

By the way, maybe you missed this recent OpEd in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/opinion/sunday/our-ridiculous-approach-to-retirement.html?_r=1

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/america-retirement-system-failing-us-economist-153445894.html

Good luck with that individual savings plan.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

Live long enough, and you'll collect more than you put in.

Die soon enough with your life ins. plan, and you'll do even better....well, your heirs will.

Its all risk vs. cost, isn't?

Currently, when markets go bad, money seeking safety runs to the Federal Treasury Bonds.Those IOU's are still the safetest place to park it on a very shaky planet.

Sovereign governments in charge of the value of their own currency don't go broke.Never have. Never will. Internationally, they may pay off their debts in devalued currency, but they don't go broke.

If you're concerned about inflation (I am down the line...perhaps hyper) then ask if you can double your Soc. Sec. premiums. If inflation hits 5,000%, your Soc. Security check will go up 5,000%. All things will remain equal.

However, if you plan on keeping all your money in private markets...I'd start fretting a little.The Euro is about to go in the toilet.

Down at the core, the value of money is backed by the value of goods produced. Produce nothing and , your money is worth nothing. Zimbabwe produces nothing, and everyone is a billionaire. A billion $ note buys nothing. They'll print a trillion $ note. It won't buy anything either. Neither did the million $ note. That's why they printed the Billion $ note.

We produce less every year. China does it for us. And Haiti, and Costa Rica, and Taiwan, etc. The goods back their currencies, not ours..

Gold means squat. When Spain had nothing but gold coins, it had more coins than goods...and rampant inflation...with gold!

The U.S... has lots of dollars floating around the world, and produces nothing to equal their value. They can be spent on oil (denominated in dollars) or U.S. debt. More and more, countries are refusing them. The new S.E. Asia Trade Agreement (Japan, China and all other nations in that sphere) excludes dollars as a means exchange. They don't want anymore of them. Trade between Russia, Brazil and China exclude dollars as being acceptable. Brazil even imposes a tax on them to keep them out of the country.

When the time comes when goods are demanded for the dollar, and it will, inflation will take off like a rocket. Lots of dollars...no goods to buy with them. Exports to the U.S. will cease, and we'll have nothing but our money...and nothing to buy with it. Stop worrying about the printing presses. The damage is done.

If you want your private iinvestment as an inflation hedge go for it. I'll take Soc. Sec. The payments are tied to inflation. Your private investments aren't. Building a nice trust fund that pays you $5,000 a month? It might one day buy you a loaf of bread. it isn't tied to inflation.

Gamble if you wish. However, doesn't the wise investor diversify?

Sheep4Thom try to understand values of currencies. If a nation is capable of producing $100 bucks of stuff, and only $50 bucks are being produced, it can simply print and buy $50 bucks of stuff with no inflation. The product backs the currency. Rome learned that over 2,000 years ago. Other nations followed suit up until fairly recent history. When nations forget that money needs product backing they get into trouble. Each banknote, each gold or silver coin, needs real stuff to buy with it.

It's the only thing Hitler grasped that made any sense. When Germany was broke and out of gold, he backed the German Mark with the productive value of labor. It became the most stable, sought after currency in the world. DeutchesMarks = products produced.. If you want something, print a Mark of equal value to use the idle productive capacity.. What is produced backs the Mark. That's all it takes. If there isn't idle capacity, you can't do that. Fortunately for him, and very unfortunately for us, his Finance Minister was a genius.

Stupidly, the allies kept looking for ways to undermine German currency. (counterfeiting being the preference)..not realizing everytime they bombed productive capacity, they were doing just that. Without the productive capacity, there were soon more Marks than products.The currency inflated with every bombing...becoming more and more worthless with every bombing run!.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

NO its not risk versus cost. If I die, my wife and kids get 100% of my 401k and life insurance. BTW, poor and minorites get the worst deal because they tend to die younger? Guess you encourage working class paying into a program where they will never get the full return, never be able to leave their savings to their heirs?

As for your money analogy... We just disagree. If you lived on an island or possibly in the 1930's your concept of finance might work. Today everything is global and digital. Money can move around the world and change currencies 10 times before you blink your eyes. That is why when you look at currency trades its always a comparitive between two currencies. The value is relative. http://finance.yahoo.com/currency-investing

That means if one country devalues currency by printing more the relative value to other currencies that didnt would swing away from your currency. As the value ratio drops, wealthy and global investors move. This further complicates things and adds to the drop. George Sorros got RICH wrecking currencies and he is the expert. IF what you said is true he would not have been able to swing currencies the way he did. BTW, was convicted of insider trading for crashing French banks. But because he funds Tides & Media Matters here in US, I am sure you think he is a good guy.

Anyways your plan to print more doesnt work in todays global economy, besides the commodities that would be purchased with your dollars would also get more expensive due to competition. Exports would swing in favor of the weaker dollar but probably not enough to offset the inflation caused by cheap currency and the lack of investor confidence that would result.

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

Youre hooked on money...foregetting that its just a representation of what you can buy with it. That's the whole problem with Chicago School of Economics theory. they think we can all earn our money by multiplying money...and producing nothing to buy with it..... thus outsourcing, etc.

The world has always had global trade....to whatever extent the world was known at any era. What we didn't have was this engineered nonsense.

The whole global system is collapsing like a house of cards, or haven't you noticed.?

Money is a symbol for stuff. It can be exchanged for a car...if a car exists. It isn't the car!

It's a symbol for a loaf of bread. It can be exchanged for bread if the bread exists. It isn't the loaf of bread.

If something isn't produced to buy with it, it's useless ...I don't care how many times it runs around the world with a keyboard stroke.

We're turning economies into money and destroying the ability to produce the very things money represents.

Greece, Ireland, Spain, England, etc......their economic production is falling at the same rate that money is being sucked from them. to feed finance. When the lack of "stuff" hits the cupboard, the fools are setting themselves up for a revolution...globally.

I don't like revolutions. I'm too old to dodge bullets, loud noises scare my dog, and I have this weird opinion that babies should be allowed to die of old age.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So you are suggesting that leftists and anarchists listening to Thom and other anti-american hacks are being pushed into armed revolt?

I have another suggestion, before resorting to arms. Why dont we support a one time vote for each of the states. They can either vote to stay in the union, or vote for freedom and their own course. Some states may want to be liberal paradise, others more conservative, some in the middle. Some can make minimum wage $20, other it may only be $4. Some can put in drive through abortion clinics, other ban it. Some promote gun ownership, other ban it. Some would be pro-business flat tax, other progressive tax system.

People and business would have the choice to move to whatever state they felt best fit their desires. Why is that a bad model? Why does the left seem to fear states rights, and choice? They seem to want a one size fits all federal solution to everything.

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm
Quote sheep4thom:

So you are suggesting that leftists and anarchists listening to Thom and other anti-american hacks are being pushed into armed revolt?

I have another suggestion, before resorting to arms. Why dont we support a one time vote for each of the states. They can either vote to stay in the union, or vote for freedom and their own course. Some states may want to be liberal paradise, others more conservative, some in the middle. Some can make minimum wage $20, other it may only be $4. Some can put in drive through abortion clinics, other ban it. Some promote gun ownership, other ban it. Some would be pro-business flat tax, other progressive tax system.

People and business would have the choice to move to whatever state they felt best fit their desires. Why is that a bad model? Why does the left seem to fear states rights, and choice? They seem to want a one size fits all federal solution to everything.

Then we wouldn't be the UNITED States now would we.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote sheep4thom:

So you are suggesting that leftists and anarchists listening to Thom and other anti-american hacks are being pushed into armed revolt?

I have another suggestion, before resorting to arms. Why dont we support a one time vote for each of the states. They can either vote to stay in the union, or vote for freedom and their own course. Some states may want to be liberal paradise, others more conservative, some in the middle. Some can make minimum wage $20, other it may only be $4. Some can put in drive through abortion clinics, other ban it. Some promote gun ownership, other ban it. Some would be pro-business flat tax, other progressive tax system.

People and business would have the choice to move to whatever state they felt best fit their desires. Why is that a bad model? Why does the left seem to fear states rights, and choice? They seem to want a one size fits all federal solution to everything.

It's an interesting idea, one that I've debated with my conservative friends. The real kicker is could the states enact and enforce their own tariffs. Keep in mind it's well known that disparaged blue states subsidize most red states regarding Federal tax revenues. Cut that off, and many red states may fall off the map (which may not be a bad idea after all.)

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Sure, we can still be united from a commerce perspective. Very similar to EU, some central financial apparatus, mimimal authority over autonomous states. Each state wtih unique and different cultures.

Do you think that the same form of government is needed to run Vermont could run California?

Do you think rural and urban areas have the same demands on government?

50 states able to exercise a greater deal of autonmy seems like a good thing? They could each tailor their form of government to better meet their constituents needs.

I think its the one size fits all the BREAKS the system. When dems are in control, 50% of population is upset because they dont want to pay for programs that Dems value but they find morally repugnant. When Republicans are in, the other 50% is upset because they want to cut programs the Dems value. Take that power from the feds and let each of the states make the decision. Abortion, Guns, Public/Private Education, pro-union or right to work, tax policy flat or progressive, and other laws could all be decided by state government that are far more accessible to the people in their state.

Harry Reid lives most of his life in DC, not Nevada. My senators vote with the party and against the state they represent. Scott Brown raised more money from out of state then in Mass. How do any of them represent the voters of their states? If the power is taken back to the states, then much of the left-right debate would go away. The competition amongst the states would limit failed policies to only a few states, and as other states would see what policies are effective they would adopt them.

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm
Quote sheep4thom:

BTW, poor and minorites get the worst deal because they tend to die younger? Guess you encourage working class paying into a program where they will never get the full return, never be able to leave their savings to their heirs?

Not true. The poor and minorities actually get a lot more out from SS than they pay in, according to actuaries. While many die before retirement, the ones who do live long enough benefit from the higher amounts they receive than they would have from their smaller contributions. The poor and minorities also benefit far more through the widow and orphan portion.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

WAIT, STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

I thought it was insurance? A safety net? This sounds like wealth redistribution? You mean they get more back from the government then they pay in? Where does that money come from?

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm
Quote sheep4thom:

WAIT, STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

I thought it was insurance? A safety net? This sounds like wealth redistribution? You mean they get more back from the government then they pay in? Where does that money come from?

Now that the presses are stopped, take a minute to reflect.

The money should come from 90% inheritance taxes, retrograde to the burning of the American Reichstag and the establishment of Homerland.

Any more questions from the question whores should be answered by the following, since it's National Kiss My Ass Month.

XXX my unfathomable l*l.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

An orphan paid nothing. A widow paid nothing. That is social security insurance survivor benefits. Just like any insurance program, some pay in for a long time, and never have any claims. Others pay in but also receive far more in payouts than they will ever contribute.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Money equaling goods is still the key to inflation/deflation. i don't care what century it is in.

Assuring demand to keep pace with the production of goods helps to maintain that sound relationship. Probably, Sheep4Thom, if you want to preserve the value of your money, you ought to put it into the Chinese currency. It's undervalued....worth more than the current exchange rate.

The Chinese get it, even if we don't. They even understand Social Security as a means of maintaining production to back their currency.:

QUOTE:

China has been successfully rebalancing its economy to rely more on domestic demand.

Since 2008 the Chinese government has implemented a slew of policies on a trial basis to stimulate domestic demand. They include providing subsidies for home appliance purchases in rural areas, cutting consumption taxes on cars with smaller engines, extending subsidies to cover more energy-efficient and environment-friendly products, raising thresholds for individual income tax brackets and improving the medical care system.

Statistics from China's National Development and Reform Commission (CNDRC) show that about 220 million home appliances were sold to rural residents in 2011, with sales volumes exceeding RMB 500 billion. Consumption accounted for 51.6 percent of China's economic growth in 2011, indicating that China has been successfully rebalancing its economy to rely more on domestic demand.

Zhang Ping, director of the CNDRC, pointed out that to expand domestic demand, the government must raise people's incomes as well as encourage them to spend more. To this end, the government should expand employment opportunities, raise procurement prices for farm products, increase the minimum wage and set up a mechanism to ensure increases in average wages. A sound social security system should also be established, Zhang says. The government should further improve infrastructure to foster the convenient flow of goods from factories to consumers, as well as develop new forms of consumption such as online shopping. It should also continue to enhance supervision over the market to prevent fraudulent practices and eliminate counterfeiting and shoddy products.

Nowadays, many countries hope to boost their lackluster economies by expanding domestic demand. How to boost domestic demand has become a burning question in the minds of policymakers around the world.

Many Chinese scholars have discussed the solutions: promoting structural tax cuts and increasing the disposable incomes of people in the low- and middle-income brackets, improving the social security system that covers both urban and rural residents, ensuring the even distribution of educational resources, and lowering import duties on luxury goods

http://www.chinatoday.com.cn/ctenglish/se/txt/2012-06/04/content_457178.htm

Dump your dollars, dump your Euros and invest in a Communist Country that somehow has learned how capitalist economies function...while capitalist economies have forgotten.

I find that very odd. In China wages are rising. In the U.S. they are declining. Our currency is going down the toilet. Theirs is worth more than its face value.

Begin reading the Chinese press. You might learn how a successful economy functions when basic principles of capitalsim are applied to it.. They've even instituted Universal Health care...because it helps to maintain sound economic functioning.

Put your money in a sound currency. One with productive backing.The Remnbini.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote sheep4thom:

Sure, we can still be united from a commerce perspective. Very similar to EU, some central financial apparatus, mimimal authority over autonomous states. Each state wtih unique and different cultures.

Do you think that the same form of government is needed to run Vermont could run California?

Do you think rural and urban areas have the same demands on government?

50 states able to exercise a greater deal of autonmy seems like a good thing? They could each tailor their form of government to better meet their constituents needs.

I think its the one size fits all the BREAKS the system. When dems are in control, 50% of population is upset because they dont want to pay for programs that Dems value but they find morally repugnant. When Republicans are in, the other 50% is upset because they want to cut programs the Dems value. Take that power from the feds and let each of the states make the decision. Abortion, Guns, Public/Private Education, pro-union or right to work, tax policy flat or progressive, and other laws could all be decided by state government that are far more accessible to the people in their state.

Harry Reid lives most of his life in DC, not Nevada. My senators vote with the party and against the state they represent. Scott Brown raised more money from out of state then in Mass. How do any of them represent the voters of their states? If the power is taken back to the states, then much of the left-right debate would go away. The competition amongst the states would limit failed policies to only a few states, and as other states would see what policies are effective they would adopt them.

Why stop there then? By this rationale we should simply let each town do its own thing. Or maybe each neighborhood. Wouldn't that meet the constituent needs better? Come on. I know you are not that obtuse.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

For the most extent each town and municipality can do their own thing. Politics works best at the local level anyways. Sewer, water, parks, libraries, schools, county roads, police, fire are all funded by the county/city/municipal level. Each locality should have the freedom to allocate their tax dollars to whatever their priorities are. If I dont like the policies in one area I can move to someplace that better suits my needs.

In Chicago one of the MOST powerful people is the Precinct Captains. They hold much of the political power and control to large extent where tax money is invested. That is at the neighborhood level and seems to be VERY democratic

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

On my most recent investment statement, I lost money.

Certain banks and financial companies on Wall St. are prospering with help they received from TARP. One of them, Lehman Brothers, did not prosper.

The CEO of Peragrine Financial/PFG Best tried to committ suicide outside of his Cedar Falls office after leaving a suicide note in which he stated that he had forged many signatures on documents and had embezelled millions of dollars from customers over 2 decades. It took a while, but the federal regulators finally caught up with him. $200,00 million is missing from customer accounts at this company which I believe is priavately held.

Social Security was not supposed to be the only source of retirement income. Some people don't have much money saved or invested, particularly if they are low-income. Others have so much that one idea, which was put forth by a public policy author who identifies himself as a Christian and who quotes some passages from the Bible in part of his book, which I quickly skimmed through one day at the library, is to gradually lower the benefits who are wealthy and slowly raise the benefits for those who did not pay very much into Social Security due to being low-income. He has other recommendations as well designed to strength Social Security.

A news magazine show several years ago on one of the networks, NBC News if I remember, did an expose on a private, for-profit insurance company which was one of the larger providers of disability insurance. NBC found that the company denied legitimate claims. The reporter on the story gave the medical background and situation of certain people who had the insurance who had filed claims but were denied. Eventually, I think the outfit was sued by someone. I don't remember who, but it might have been several states attorney generals. I had never heard of this company before I saw this report.

Robindell's picture
Robindell
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have not lost money, so while I am sorry for you, I dont think I need your financial advice. While you lose money in the market why would I want you advising anyone on macro-investing. Just becaue you or your hack broker picked bad investments for you, you do not need to bring everyone down to your level.

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

How interesting. It turns out that Chicago Style Politics is all about the power of the Precinct Captain, and example of dispersed power and democracy. We thought it was supposed to show that Obama was a thug and machine politics creature. What a toddlin' town!

Muttonhead, among the problems for your side is the fact that "wealth redistribution" is necessary to the healthy functiion of a system which allows commercial liberty and risk-taking. The Chinese model is the central command and control working in a new consciousness of locality and inclusion. It fits with the corporate executive model like a glove, but not with the bottom-up ferment of political democracy. What is interesting is that the Chinese Capitalists are paying more attention to workers and citizens than we are.

If you think electricity, the grid is only useful when everyone is up and nobody is shorting it out. If you want a world of individual home generators and fights for fuel, go libertarian self-sufficiency. If you want a world that works, go grid--or better, go community where smart local green diversity can cut costs. Everybody gets energy when the system works well for the best price.

Or, think about blood and the body. It has to flow rather than get clogged up anywhere. It does not matter whether the brain or the butt clogs the system, the flow has to happen.

If you are lucky or smart and virtuous enough to have struck it rich, good on you, but pay your taxes and tithes. If you are doing better than average but not all that great, please do not allow your eyes to ignore what is below you in the vain hope that you can fly higher than you can. When things go bad, those BELOW you will be those who will rescue you. You might want to look upon them as your social insurance when your money can't buy you love, or food.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

You don't have any idea of the situation and don't know what you are talking about and are simply hateful in what you say. Another thread asks why Republicans lie.

Robindell's picture
Robindell
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So you want a Chinese form of Communism with a centrally planned economy? That is your solution for America? I feel sorry for you a little bit? What did you do in life that you ended up so pathetic and helpless that you must take from others for your own purposes? Sounds like best profession for you is leach or prostitute because both are pretty good at sucking off others.

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

I am describing the mechanics of an economy and of a society that seeks to last beyond the next few generations. I am no fan of the Chinese approach, and I find it much akin to the way Roman Catholicism administers its institutions for better and worse.

My culture and political soul embraces the "Protestant" vision of bottom-up authority where conscience is our own and not about obeying dogma. I see our challenge of "self-government" as the alternative to being ruled over by others far less qualified than "we" are. I find the model of teamwork and cooperation more practical than autonomous individual striving, but I revere and nurture the individuality of those who can bring those gifts to the team. I play jazz and love basketball for those reasons.

Your characterization of what I "must be" is an interesting projection of your limited vision of your own possibilities. I recommend looking into love and what it is all about when you want to get real about what matters in human life.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Why do you feel that your morals can spend my money? I loved the Chik Fill-a thing over the last couple weeks.

Owner of private company talks religion and he is the DEVIL to democrat mayors and leftist hacks. If you dont want a chicken sandwich because of his religious belief, DONT eat there! But the beauty of our system, is that you have the choice. You can choose to eat there or not, to show support or protest and kiss whoever you like.

On the other hand when you mandate your morals through government many of us are FORCED to pay for programs and things that we find morally repugnant. And while in the free market you have a choice, with federal "one size fits all" we have NO choice. You talk about freedoms but wish to take them from those that disagree with you. You demand they pay more in taxes for a government that has broken promises, abused power, and overstepped the limits originally intended. We dont get a choice and even better if we complain we are characterized as racist, uneducated, spooky religious, or rednecks. I am none of those things, I really just want to leave you alone to live your life, and in return expect the same favor. Let me raise my family, save my money, invest it and spend it as I choose. I pay A LOT in taxes, you demand more. My private assets grow, my government benefits dwindle.

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

You sound like Der Furhrer Adolph Hitler talking about how terrible the Jews are, how the Jews are the scum who were the cause of all of Germany's economic woes. But in additon to killing over six million Jews, the Nazis found that disabled people were "leaches or prostitutes" and killed thousands of them.

When someone is uneducated and acts like they could do a complicated surgery or medical procedure, I would say that person is a fraud. Conservatives hate anyone who they think are inferior to them, and that is why the above ignorantly stated language is relied upon. Conservatives are often lazy because they don't know what they are talking about but would prefer to spout off without having the background to discuss something. I object to the Thom Hartmann Web site allowing someone to use the above kind of derogatory comments. Attacking the members here on the basis of gnorance-bsed cmments is not a logical or reasonable reason to be on this site.

Today, there have been news reports giving further information indicating that the man who shot 6 people in the Sihk Temple in WIsconsin had right-wing, white supremacist, skin head affilations. Those are the terms that were used by the news anchor. This thread was not so much about the government as it was as a way to verbally attack people who are not completely anti-government by saying that such people are inferior and are no good.

If right-wing people hate America and most Americans so much, let me ask, instead of shooting people in a religious institution, why don't they buy a one-plane ticket and get out of here.

Robindell's picture
Robindell
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If you steal from someone else to fund your precious programs you are a thief. If you envy the fruits of someone elses labor and take it because you somehow feel entitled, you are a leech. If you hide behind the law and leftist talking point to justify your envy of others you are a coward.

Just come out and say you got a bad deal and you want someone elses stuff. You want to loot from the wealthy and you are jealous of their success. Its OK to admit you feel pathetic and helpless. Just dont give me leftist communist rhetoric to justify how sorry you are.

And you played right to my point and called me a racist. Pathetic.

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

Please, stop with the "free market mythology." If your alternative to real life is utopia, you will never be able to focus on the practical and moral questions of the real world. There will always be those problamatic questions of the parables instead of the binary lessons of the fables. You may want to retreat into your private life of family and personal choice, but you live in America. Your Credo says that it is "liberty and justice FOR ALL," not just for those with enough moolah to find a perch above the floods. Don't get moralistic when you make the crass decision to "eff the others and leave me alone."

OK, lets examine the ways that choice can be made. It can come from the sociopath who feels no empathy to others; or it can come from the over-active conscience that cannot square the needs of the least of these with any personal capacity to help. When you cannot help another, you want them to go away and be responsible for their own condition. You want to absolve yourself. Either way, blaming the victims of this empire and bankster scams for their own fate is easier than trying to deal with the power in demonic possession that is empire.

Apart from a society, and a government, your "ownership" is subject to something you do not want to consider. How are your warlord skills? Do you have a circle of loyal friends and vassals who can make others fear to tread on you all? Or, would you rather have an intact culture and institutional infrastructure to reform? I find the latter the better alternative to your personalism and localism in its tribal isolationism. The Greta Garbo option has its limits.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote sheep4thom:

If you steal from someone else to fund your precious programs you are a thief. If you envy the fruits of someone elses labor and take it because you somehow feel entitled, you are a leech. If you hide behind the law and leftist talking point to justify your envy of others you are a coward.

Just come out and say you got a bad deal and you want someone elses stuff. You want to loot from the wealthy and you are jealous of their success. Its OK to admit you feel pathetic and helpless. Just dont give me leftist communist rhetoric to justify how sorry you are.

And you played right to my point and called me a racist. Pathetic.

I hate to tell you this but all of these programs are brought into existence through our democracy. It's not stealing just because you don't want to partake in the greater good of the country. You are the one who believes that freedom is free. You are the one who wants his cake and eat it too. You want to drive on good roads that the government helps pay for. You want to use your cell phone that the government helps pay for. You are the one who wants the comforts of electricity that the government built the infrastructure for. You are the one who wants access to running water and a toilet that the government built the infrastructure for. You just don't think you should have to pay for it. Just come out and say that you hate a democratic republic and you want all of the comforts and amenities available but don't want to pay for it. You want to take advantage of the system. It's OK to feel pathetic and priviledged. Just don't give me the conservative capitalistic rhetoric of how you don't need the government for anything to justify how pathetic you are. You are worse than a racist, you discriminate against anyone and anything that you feel is beneath your superiority.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote polycarp2:

Do the math. if a couple paid even $500,000 into Soc. Security, Their income would have to be $10,000,000 over forty years... 6% Soc. Sec. tax on $10,000,000 is $600,000 (close to your $586,000)

$10,000,000 divided by 40 years is $250,000 per year over a 40 year period.

Not likely when at times during that time span min. wage was in the $3 an hour range. Other wages were proportionately higher than that depending on skill. A Dr.'s visit was $5 and included the meds. Even they didn't make close to $250,000 a year.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Actually that wouldn't even be correct. Since there's a cap on Social Security Taxes it would have to take a lot more years of work to contribute that much to the pot.

There's a thread where Mauiman58 ran the numbers where he worked 30 years beginning in 1982, had wages every year in excess of the cap, and invested his and his employer's SS taxes into 30-year Treasuries. What he would have in 2012 is a series of annuities totalling $1.6 million, the first and largest piece being 170k 1982's investment (which presumably would be likewise rolled over into another 30-year treasury payable in 2042, paying 1.5% interest...)

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The bulk of our ederly living in one-room destitution (as once was the case) is no longer common. The social "experiment" serves its purpose. It ends that..

The millions of disabled aren't in the streets begging someone to buy an apple or pencil from them....so they can buy a blanket to cover themselves with under a bridge at night. (as once was the case). It's no longer common. The "social experimenet" serves its purpose. It ends that.

When large sums of money are withdraw from the economy and thrown into financial paper...the circular flow of goods and services diminishes. Soc. Sec. helps to cushion that. The "social experiment" serves its purpose.

The so-called experiment has shown the verifiable results that were intended.

What often occurs in these threads, if you examine them, is this:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."- Gailbraith

Retired Monk - "ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Has Kansas Found the Cure for the Reaganomics Disease?

Reaganomics is like a bad disease; It just keeps on spreading. Thanks to 34 years of failed Reaganomics, the gap between the wealthy elite in America and everyone else is at an all-time high.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system