Moderator: Community Team
got tonkaed wrote:Lets take your example the person whose making around 12 grand a year. Would you consider that person in general to be in a position to invest money? I personally would not, as it can be fairly difficult to stay ahead of the game on 12 grand a year.
got tonkaed wrote:your taking what i said out of context. The original idea and many of the amendments were done in a fashion that was different than what our system has evolved into now. Part of it was perhaps poorly concieved, part of it was an odd demographic shift.
What you seem to be missing is how large and popular of a program social security is. Since you havent really provided any rationale for how to change the system other than pointing out the rather obvious tax issue, i can only either assume you dont really have that much of an understanding of the program (despite apparently only needing third grade math) or your willing to put yourself on the outside again of what has been by many accounts one of the most popular programs we have had as a country.
Until you provide for how you would deal with the problems that social security pays for all your doing is pointing out an issue that is understood best as pessimisitic in terms of long term projection...something done fairly consistently by actuaries for a while now. Not that theres anything wrong with that.
bedub1 wrote:got tonkaed wrote:your taking what i said out of context. The original idea and many of the amendments were done in a fashion that was different than what our system has evolved into now. Part of it was perhaps poorly concieved, part of it was an odd demographic shift.
What you seem to be missing is how large and popular of a program social security is. Since you havent really provided any rationale for how to change the system other than pointing out the rather obvious tax issue, i can only either assume you dont really have that much of an understanding of the program (despite apparently only needing third grade math) or your willing to put yourself on the outside again of what has been by many accounts one of the most popular programs we have had as a country.
Until you provide for how you would deal with the problems that social security pays for all your doing is pointing out an issue that is understood best as pessimisitic in terms of long term projection...something done fairly consistently by actuaries for a while now. Not that theres anything wrong with that.
The solution is simple...a 3 year old could figure it out. Stop taking your money and "investing" it in "social security" and instead invest it in something that provides a positive rate of return, like the "stock market". The government doesn't take your money and invest it to create more wealth...it just spends it at the store on donuts and hammers.
got tonkaed wrote:So are you saying that the gov doesnt want to have more high income earners who they would be able to gain increased revenues from?
got tonkaed wrote:That doesnt sound like the type of thing most people would be thinking in the midst of trillions of dollars of debt, a little extra revenue does sound nice.
got tonkaed wrote:Its not hard to understand why people have a hard time swallowing social security as it is today. As you suggest it doesnt take a math wiz to see where problems can lie. However...your alternative solution seems to fall short under pretty simple analysis. Lets take your example the person whose making around 12 grand a year. Would you consider that person in general to be in a position to invest money? I personally would not, as it can be fairly difficult to stay ahead of the game on 12 grand a year.
got tonkaed wrote:You also seem to be forgetting a fair amount of your history. Social security arose a specific social context, when people thought it made a fair amount of sense to help provide for the long term prosperity of the country. Yeah when your in the middle of a huge budget crunch with rising entitlements it looks like a disaster, but it really didnt appear to be much of one for quite some time.
got tonkaed wrote:What you seem to be missing is how large and popular of a program social security is.
got tonkaed wrote:Since you havent really provided any rationale for how to change the system other than pointing out the rather obvious tax issue, i can only either assume you dont really have that much of an understanding of the program (despite apparently only needing third grade math) or your willing to put yourself on the outside again of what has been by many accounts one of the most popular programs we have had as a country.
got tonkaed wrote:Until you provide for how you would deal with the problems that social security pays for all your doing is pointing out an issue that is understood best as pessimisitic in terms of long term projection...something done fairly consistently by actuaries for a while now. Not that theres anything wrong with that.
b.k. barunt wrote:Then you must be a pseudoatheist. If you were a real atheist Dan Brown would make your nipples hard.
bedub1 wrote:The guy making minimum wage all his life is already investing. In social security. I don't think he should stop investing...just move his money from social security to the private sector.
Yet more than willing to contribute to it. Thanks for the insight though....2 parents having 7 kids does make the pyramid scheme work....unfortunately when it gets turned upside down with 2 parents having 1 child......black elk speaks wrote:you guys are writing volumes. i don't feel much like reading it all.
silvanricky wrote:got tonkaed wrote:So are you saying that the gov doesnt want to have more high income earners who they would be able to gain increased revenues from?
I'm not speaking for bedub but only from my own observations. Part of the problem is that some in government do not believe that the private sector creates, or has the ability to create wealth. They believe in something called "static scoring" of the economy.got tonkaed wrote:That doesnt sound like the type of thing most people would be thinking in the midst of trillions of dollars of debt, a little extra revenue does sound nice.
I agree it sounds nice. The real situation is that if people would invest their money as bedub has suggested, they would no longer be in need of the social security assistance when they are older. That would relieve the federal government of some of its burden as private citizens are caring for their own retirement and the funds could be shifted into other areas of assistance.
That's where the real benefit to society comes from. Increased revenues are nice and I do think tax cuts lead to that. But in the case of social security it is the relief provided by private citizens handling their own business and not taking $$ from the government that is advantageous.got tonkaed wrote:Its not hard to understand why people have a hard time swallowing social security as it is today. As you suggest it doesnt take a math wiz to see where problems can lie. However...your alternative solution seems to fall short under pretty simple analysis. Lets take your example the person whose making around 12 grand a year. Would you consider that person in general to be in a position to invest money? I personally would not, as it can be fairly difficult to stay ahead of the game on 12 grand a year.
The error that I think you're both making is that you've both accepted this proposal that a person makes roughly 12 grand a year and continues to make that for the rest of his life. The reality is that people over their lives get wage increases & the govt. does increase the minimum wage. That does change the spending and investment habits of workers throughout their lifetimes.
Here's where I think you make a critical error in judgment, tonka. You view the person who is making 12 grand a year as a person unable to invest money. I believe the truth is that they need to be educated and encouraged to realize that they can and are able to do it. They are not victims. I would also add it's a matter of being able to discipline yourself to do it, not a matter of inability. Oprah Winfrey even had a show on once that I saw where people who only made minimum wage their entire lives but invested during their working years and are now millionaires. Some of them were immigrants who didn't even speak good English when they arrived here.
To reiterate, it's a matter of education, belief in oneself that it's possible, and discipline. It's not a matter of inability of victimhood. Whether or not you believe you can or can't do something - you're right.got tonkaed wrote:You also seem to be forgetting a fair amount of your history. Social security arose a specific social context, when people thought it made a fair amount of sense to help provide for the long term prosperity of the country. Yeah when your in the middle of a huge budget crunch with rising entitlements it looks like a disaster, but it really didnt appear to be much of one for quite some time.
OK, now don't think I'm about to make an anti-abortion statement here. Abortion is real and this country engages in it. That decreases the population regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong. You add to that a decrease in births to deaths, with older people living longer due to medical advances and you've got a recipe for disaster when it comes to providing a tax base to support social security or other programs.
I'm going to say this again because I know there will be Democrats who come on here and misinterpret what I say about abortion. I'm not condemning the abortion industry in this post. I'm just stating the obvious - less births, more abortion leads to less people in society who grow up to work and pay taxes which support social security. People living longer means they are utilizing social security for longer and it drains the fund for a longer period of time.
There was a baby boom in the past which supported this tax base, but it is dwindling.got tonkaed wrote:What you seem to be missing is how large and popular of a program social security is.
This is a matter of opinion. There are many people who don't like it now which would make it unpopular. Even if what you're saying is true, popularity means nothing (other than continuing it because of public opinion). The ability to sustain it without it going bankrupt is what really matters.
Me personally, I don't give a rat's ass how popular something is. It either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't it needs to be altered so it does or scrapped.got tonkaed wrote:Since you havent really provided any rationale for how to change the system other than pointing out the rather obvious tax issue, i can only either assume you dont really have that much of an understanding of the program (despite apparently only needing third grade math) or your willing to put yourself on the outside again of what has been by many accounts one of the most popular programs we have had as a country.
That's the whole point though. It is a tax issue. It drains taxpayers of money that they could have gotten a better rate by investing and giving it to a system which is not adequately supporting itself.
Once again, calling it a popular program has no bearing on whether it is able to sustain itself and function properly.got tonkaed wrote:Until you provide for how you would deal with the problems that social security pays for all your doing is pointing out an issue that is understood best as pessimisitic in terms of long term projection...something done fairly consistently by actuaries for a while now. Not that theres anything wrong with that.
I personally believe that by addressing these problems as soley monetary it's a major error in judgment. It excuses us from getting involved in people's lives directly and just throwing them over into some social program where they meet someone who looks at them like a case file and a #. Obviously people are helped to a certain extent by money. Creating, educating, and instilling in them a sense that they can accomplish meeting their own needs better than a government program could also be beneficial. In some cases, people on these programs grow to become dependent, and that's a real danger. It's nearly impossible for the govt. to keep everyone on the system accountable and there's a lot of fraud.
I'm not really disagreeing with you on this point. I'm just making the case that sometimes we don't really engage people personally to help them out and just throw them into "the system" and let them deal with it.
bedub1 wrote:The solution is simple...a 3 year old could figure it out. Stop taking your money and "investing" it in "social security" and instead invest it in something that provides a positive rate of return, like the "stock market".
Backglass wrote:bedub1 wrote:The solution is simple...a 3 year old could figure it out. Stop taking your money and "investing" it in "social security" and instead invest it in something that provides a positive rate of return, like the "stock market".
Yes! The stock market always goes up!
Just like it has done for the past year!
b.k. barunt wrote:Then you must be a pseudoatheist. If you were a real atheist Dan Brown would make your nipples hard.
silvanricky wrote:Backglass wrote:bedub1 wrote:The solution is simple...a 3 year old could figure it out. Stop taking your money and "investing" it in "social security" and instead invest it in something that provides a positive rate of return, like the "stock market".
Yes! The stock market always goes up!
Just like it has done for the past year!
but since we're talking about people investing over a long period of time and not just for one year.........
I'm not speaking for bedub but only from my own observations. Part of the problem is that some in government do not believe that the private sector creates, or has the ability to create wealth. They believe in something called "static scoring" of the economy.
I agree it sounds nice. The real situation is that if people would invest their money as bedub has suggested, they would no longer be in need of the social security assistance when they are older. That would relieve the federal government of some of its burden as private citizens are caring for their own retirement and the funds could be shifted into other areas of assistance.
That's where the real benefit to society comes from. Increased revenues are nice and I do think tax cuts lead to that. But in the case of social security it is the relief provided by private citizens handling their own business and not taking $$ from the government that is advantageous.
The error that I think you're both making is that you've both accepted this proposal that a person makes roughly 12 grand a year and continues to make that for the rest of his life. The reality is that people over their lives get wage increases & the govt. does increase the minimum wage. That does change the spending and investment habits of workers throughout their lifetimes.
Here's where I think you make a critical error in judgment, tonka. You view the person who is making 12 grand a year as a person unable to invest money. I believe the truth is that they need to be educated and encouraged to realize that they can and are able to do it. They are not victims. I would also add it's a matter of being able to discipline yourself to do it, not a matter of inability. Oprah Winfrey even had a show on once that I saw where people who only made minimum wage their entire lives but invested during their working years and are now millionaires. Some of them were immigrants who didn't even speak good English when they arrived here.
To reiterate, it's a matter of education, belief in oneself that it's possible, and discipline. It's not a matter of inability of victimhood. Whether or not you believe you can or can't do something - you're right.
OK, now don't think I'm about to make an anti-abortion statement here. Abortion is real and this country engages in it. That decreases the population regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong. You add to that a decrease in births to deaths, with older people living longer due to medical advances and you've got a recipe for disaster when it comes to providing a tax base to support social security or other programs.
I'm going to say this again because I know there will be Democrats who come on here and misinterpret what I say about abortion. I'm not condemning the abortion industry in this post. I'm just stating the obvious - less births, more abortion leads to less people in society who grow up to work and pay taxes which support social security. People living longer means they are utilizing social security for longer and it drains the fund for a longer period of time.
There was a baby boom in the past which supported this tax base, but it is dwindling.
This is a matter of opinion. There are many people who don't like it now which would make it unpopular. Even if what you're saying is true, popularity means nothing (other than continuing it because of public opinion). The ability to sustain it without it going bankrupt is what really matters.
Me personally, I don't give a rat's ass how popular something is. It either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't it needs to be altered so it does or scrapped.
That's the whole point though. It is a tax issue. It drains taxpayers of money that they could have gotten a better rate by investing and giving it to a system which is not adequately supporting itself.
Once again, calling it a popular program has no bearing on whether it is able to sustain itself and function properly.
I personally believe that by addressing these problems as soley monetary it's a major error in judgment. It excuses us from getting involved in people's lives directly and just throwing them over into some social program where they meet someone who looks at them like a case file and a #. Obviously people are helped to a certain extent by money. Creating, educating, and instilling in them a sense that they can accomplish meeting their own needs better than a government program could also be beneficial. In some cases, people on these programs grow to become dependent, and that's a real danger. It's nearly impossible for the govt. to keep everyone on the system accountable and there's a lot of fraud.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: bigtoughralf, mookiemcgee