^^ But hopefully after reducing out-payments then the SS tax rate can be reduced or even eliminated, funded from general taxes. The goal is to minimize the damage done by government programs, not make them "Fair".

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 11:17 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/2/2006 11:16:18 AM

PRA's suck ass and they will go NOWHERE as long as DEMS are in control of Congress, hell, even PUBS couldnt get it through.....again, PRA's suck ass.

12/2/2006 11:21:30 AM

Loneshark, that's a good point. When presented that way, I think I can understand better. I thought you had flipped a fucking gasket, lol

Roddy, why do they suck?

Do 401(k)s suck?

12/2/2006 11:31:13 AM

Quote :

"the rich need help less, so we help them more? "

Because they paid more money into social security.

12/2/2006 12:06:01 PM

Yeah I know. That's why I flipped a bitch about using the word "help"

Insanity.

12/2/2006 12:10:00 PM

Ha ha. So I see.

Nice usage of the word rape.

12/2/2006 12:13:45 PM

Yeah, that fucking self-employment tax sucks ass. That's why most of us switch to S corps and dividend ourselves instead.

Fuck social security.

12/2/2006 12:15:34 PM

LoneSnark, the rich are already taxed more, not just more, but at a higher tax %, now you want to give them less social security just because they can "afford it"

You wouldn't happen to be Robin Hood in disguise, would you?

12/2/2006 12:18:42 PM

David, I don't think you want to go down that route. Loneshark is no Robin Hood.

12/2/2006 12:22:41 PM

Oh? Did a miss something? Take from the rich, give to the poor....

12/2/2006 12:23:18 PM

Well, what you missed is the totalitarity of Loneshark's ideas. You caught him on one issue where he likes a safety-net (which is, of course, an ok position) and he thinks his route goes about accomplishing it.

I guess I should let him speak for himself though.

12/2/2006 12:25:26 PM

Can you point out the references to totalitarianism for me?

12/2/2006 12:29:21 PM

Any sort of system where the rich don't pay a higher % of their income is socially impossible. It's the price to pay so that the masses don't revolt and chop your head off.

All this pie in the sky garbage about how everyone should pay the same percentage ignores the reality of thousands of years of history. If the masses feel they are too far behind, the country will become unstable. America is not immune.

12/2/2006 12:29:23 PM

Quote :

"Any sort of system where the rich don't pay a higher % of their income is socially impossible. "

Didn't they do this in Eastern Europe?

12/2/2006 12:32:30 PM

It is not socially impossible, but it is somewhat improbable. The problem is that the middle and lower classes find it too easy to take from the rich. Its become a socially acceptable place to steal from.

12/2/2006 12:33:51 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark, the rich are already taxed more, not just more, but at a higher tax %, now you want to give them less social security just because they can "afford it""

I think you misunderstood the purpose of my statements. We cannot bring an end to Social Security as lots of people grew old planning to get it and government should not be in the business of confounding expectations, and privatisation would be a nightmare (yep, the government playing the stock market). So, my idea was to make it as insignificant as we can, thus minimizing the damage done to the rest of the economy.

So, like I said, lets make it what it was supposed to be: a last ditch safety net, a guaranteed income for everyone regardless of how much they earned previously. It also pays regardless of whether you are still working or not, rich or poor, etc. This point should be set at a modest income and pegged to inflation, not wages as the current system is. If it works as I suspect, this would reduce the current outlays quite a bit and substantially reduce future burdens of the system which means the tax can be lowered and (hopefully) eliminated all together and funded from the general tax fund.

As for the "they paid more in" argument: so what? They are not getting the money they put in back, the money they put in was spend the instant they paid it in taxes, either on SS recipients or to build a bridge to no-where. So you have no ownership rights over your SS payments. Don't believe me? Check what the supreme court said to a guy that was being deported: he could not get a refund.

12/2/2006 3:49:02 PM

so i'm curious...how did the government not see what is currently happening with social security when they created it

12/2/2006 3:52:25 PM

^ They did not realize population growth would slack off back when the program was put on steroids in the 50s and 60s. By the time the 80s rolled around and the demographic disaster was evident it was not politically feasible to cut benefits sufficiently.

12/2/2006 4:16:42 PM

Quote :

"Oh noes, someone disagrees with your political views!"

no, it has nothing to do with my political views...i can at least see most sides of almost all political issues, so i don't get pissed at people for taking an opposite stance from me (at least the overwhelming majority of the time).

i have a hard time seeing both sides of money being extorted from me and given to other people for no reason. raiding my wallet is fucking personal--not simply some ideological dissent.

Quote :

"oh look the privileged are getting angry!"

you've lost your mind. i am far from priveleged.

12/2/2006 4:36:17 PM

Quote :

"So, like I said, lets make it what it was supposed to be: a last ditch safety net, a guaranteed income for everyone regardless of how much they earned previously"

This was the original purpose of social security???

12/2/2006 6:12:56 PM

Well, that is not what they sold it as to the public, but the philosophical foundation was, as I understand it.

12/2/2006 7:29:16 PM

Quote :

"The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260] PREAMBLE An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes. "

Quote :

"The colonists and frontiersmen wanted independence. They wanted a chance for themselves and their children. They wanted a place of their own and an active share in the life of their times. There is no reason to think that our wants have changed. These are the things that most Americans ask today. What has changed is the way we take to get them. Families no longer can carve out security for themselves. Our security is the security of a people. - from a 1937 gov't pamphlet "

12/3/2006 12:11:12 AM

Quote :

"i have a hard time seeing both sides of money being extorted from me and given to other people for no reason."

Given your fair and balanced description of income redistribution, I'm not surprised you're opposed to it.

Quote :

"raiding my wallet is fucking personal--not simply some ideological dissent."

Almost everything the government does involves raiding your wallet.

12/3/2006 12:15:32 AM

There are many different thoughts on fixing Social Security, but I think the biggest problem SS reform faces is that it is not an immediate problem. This means that politicians do not tackle it since they are not likely to gain votes in the next election by doing something, and may in fact piss people off in the short-term. If we had a better educated and more long-term focused electorate things might be different. So until the problem becomes immediate, I don't see any actual solutions taking place.

[Edited on December 3, 2006 at 12:32 AM. Reason : a]

12/3/2006 12:30:55 AM

Here's the reason the electorate won't demand any changes.

The rich don't want to deal with it because it seems like privatization is out and cuts are politically insatiable. They know they're going to get fucked in this.

The poor don't want to deal with it because they think it might mean a cut in their check. Plus, why bother, when the government can get the money from the rich anyhow.

Social Security, if not dealt with in the next 15 years, is going to drive this country into a taxclusterfuck and I plan to be hiding in an S-corp when it happens. Fuck that, I wish I was a railworker so I could opt out. (or maybe a Congressmen, since they don't pay into social security either)

12/3/2006 12:42:35 AM

^yeah, i plan on incorporating myself AND becoming a Congressman!

Quote :

"Almost everything the government does involves raiding your wallet."

yeah, and SS/income redistribution is hardly the only thing that I disagree with, but stealing my money to give to someone else simply because he has less money than I do is fucking bullshit. I have and continue to pay the piper so that I will one day have a ton of money--if you don't want to, that's perfectly acceptable, but you should bear the financial consequences of not taking the more difficult and less desirable (along the way) path towards wealth (just like I pay a cost in time, stress, and other less than concrete hardships in order to make more money and spend less of it).

12/3/2006 11:32:50 AM

Quote :

"yeah, and SS/income redistribution is hardly the only thing that I disagree with, but stealing my money to give to someone else simply because he has less money than I do is fucking bullshit."

Yes, well, that's close to how I feel about military spending. That doesn't make it an issue beyond my political views.

12/3/2006 2:06:11 PM

^ ha while we're at it we might as well get rid of corporate subsidies.

i hate it when my money goes to companies that suck at what they do.

12/3/2006 6:42:54 PM

Dental, is someone supposed to disagree with you? Best I can figure Kris is the one you should be arguing with, he believes government must save us from the vagaries of an unstable market through quotas, price floors, minimum wages, and subsidies.

12/3/2006 7:34:04 PM

im just startin fights

so yes

oh and honestly i wanna hang out

[Edited on December 3, 2006 at 7:50 PM. Reason : party]

12/3/2006 7:50:16 PM

Do you still think

Quote :

"If you make alittle over 100,000 a year with proper investing it can be done but by no means makes you rich. Any salary lower than that would be next to impossible"

12/3/2006 7:55:45 PM

im gonna be a millionaire and I make 60 gs

YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAH AMERICAN DREAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMM

12/3/2006 8:07:15 PM

AMERICAN DREAAAAAAM REALITY

12/3/2006 8:12:36 PM

seriously

if you make 60k/year for most of your working life and you don't retire with at least one paltry, single million dollars, you are either retarded or totally irresponsible, or both.

Quote :

" ha while we're at it we might as well get rid of corporate subsidies. i hate it when my money goes to companies that suck at what they do."

in general, i concur.

12/3/2006 8:54:04 PM

I'm confused Dentaldamn. How much do you think you could save making 60K a year? You are highly underestimating either the amount of money you can save or the return on this money you will receive.

12/3/2006 9:00:28 PM

or maybe he hasn't actually done the math, and just pulled those numbers quite inaccurately out of his ass.

12/4/2006 3:47:02 AM

Ok, when you guys are talking about being millionaires when you retire and other people are like "impossible unless you're rich!" I'd just like to point something out. While not adjusted for inflation (which I think it part of the point some of you are making) you can have 1,000,000 dollars saved after 40 years even if you only get a 5% return on your investment by saving $8,278.16 a year.

If you get 8% over those 40 years you'll only need to invest $3,860.16

It is not outside the realm of possibility to retire with a net worth of $1M even if you make only a mediocre wage. It just requires foresight and saving. Hell, many people get boosted there simply because of buying a house in their mid 30s and living in it for a while.

12/4/2006 7:46:01 AM

I havent even worked a job in three years.

If i made enough just to break even over the next 40 years and left my ~12k in the stock market it would be worth $1 million when i retired.

This doesnt even account for the fact my house would be paid off so thats a fairly valuable asset.

So in other words. I could bus tables and make a million fairly easily.


Personal Savings in America = 0%

People consume everything they earn, thats why you don't realize how easy it is to be a millionaire.


Maybe if you fucking rednecks stopped financing Ford Mustangs and running up triple digit cell phone bills because you cant stop downloading new ringtones you could be millionaires too.

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 10:15 AM. Reason : a]

12/4/2006 10:06:48 AM

Quote :

"fact of the matter remains is that social security is not broken. It's a classic ploy being used by both parties."

Um yeah... let's see about that

Quote :

" -Pay-as-you-go systems finance pensions for current retirees entirely by contributions or taxes paid by currently employed workers. -Social Security has been mainly a tax-financed pay-as-you go system. -The implicit yield on social security is the rate of interest that would produce the stream of retirement benefits for the sum paid in as social security taxes. -Given t, the payroll tax rate, the average implicit yield is the annual percentage increase in W where W is aggregate labor earnings subject to tax. -If t is fixed then the yield can increase only with increases in W -- the rate of growth of wages per worker has averaged 2% per year in the U.S. -Because of population and labor force growth W grew rapidly from 1950-1975 -Social Security coverage and tax rates increased during this period -From 1950 to 1975 implicit yield on Social Security contributions averaged 10.4 percent compared with 12 percent on corporate investments -Future yields are likely to be less than 2% -The social security tax rate, t, must be sufficient to pay benefits to retirees at promised replacement rates for a pay as you go system t = (BR)/(WL) where B is average benefits per recipient, R is number of retirees, W average taxable wages, L is number of workers in labor force t= (B/W)(R/L)= (Average Replacement Rate) x (Dependency Ratio) In 1997 the Dependency ratio in the United States was 0.29. This means there were about 3 workers to support each retiree. In 1957 there were 4.7 workers per retiree. By 2030 the dependency ratio will approach 0.4 meaning that there will be between 2 and 3 workers to support each retiree Reforming Social Security -Given the aging of the population the only meaningful cure is reducing replacement ratios directly or indirectly (e.g. increasing retirement age, taxing benefits, reducing COLAs) -Privatization: Diverting taxes to contributions for a defined-contribution plan involves reduction in the tax base to support promised pensions for current retirees -- supplementary tax will be needed to support workers over the age of 55 and current retirees -Increase payroll taxes and invest some in an enormous index stock fund to up yield over 2% "

Social security is a disaster. Hooray for the government stealing my money and giving it to old people so they can go on cruises and play slot machines in vegas. Even if im lucky enough to ever receive ANY of this money back it will be substantially less than I paid in (when adjusted for inflation) unless I live to be old as sac. I'm not going to even get into the discounted value of the money.

I'm pretty sure I could do better than 2% return if I felt like saving my money. In the meantime I'm gonna be stuck driving an Acura and working 50 fucking weeks a year instead of taking lavish vacations and having threesomes with girls in third world countries.

Old people suck and so do government programs. Kill both of them.









[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 10:37 AM. Reason : a]

12/4/2006 10:27:47 AM