As spending by wealthy weakens, so does economy

[Phantasmal]

I am sure it is the Jaguar and the designer clothes made in Italy!

 

[Phantasmal]

let the wealthy buy what they want....clearly the article says that

we already tax them and feed the poor, that alone will not work, never has

unless you have some other authority....

The Golden Rule? The higher power?

 

[Phantasmal]

Where would they go to? We have the lowest marginal tax rates for the wealthy in the industrialized world. You think they are going to some third world nation that doesn't have the infrastructure in which they can invest their capital? That doesn't have the security to protect their property? Not going to happen dude. That's an empty threat.

We must remember, if we don't help the poor, they will eventually come and take what they want...let them eat cake doesn't work, either, as poor Marie found out!

 

[Bonestorm]

Nothing happens with SS. The return is ridiculously low, and diminishing as time goes on. Most in this generation don't even think it will be available for them when they retire.

Again, SS isn't an investment program. It is an insurance program. Do you complain about the lack of return you obtain from your auto insurance? And what people think isn't really important. People think all sorts of stupid shit is true.

There are protections that can be built into a SS system to alleviate the scenario you describe above, and I'm sorry, but if someone was investing in a private program over the course of 30-40 years, the hit they would have taken for 10 years would hardly matter. They'd still end up with a BUNDLE more than they are now going to get with SS.

Again, SS isn't an investment program. It is an insurance program. Returns are not the big goal. The big goal is to have a guaranteed amount of money. That's what you get with SS. That's not what you get with private investment. There's the rub. And if you think losing a decade of 401k savings is nothing you obviously haven't talked to many people planning to retire in 2008 or 09 who have seen the value of their 401ks take serious hits.

Even beyond that, there is almost no way to calculate what privatizing those dollars would do for the market, and for the economy in general. I have read that it might even protect against the kind of crash that we saw in '08.

That's total bullshit. You know what the masters of the universe would do with their hands on all that cash? The same thing they did with other people's money that led to the financial crash. Privatizing SS does two things, it increases the risks to individuals and increases the amount of money the financial wizards can gamble with to rake in garish salaries and bonuses.

A lot of solutions are in the details, but I don't understand how anyone can support the continued public funding of SS, when pretty much everyone will be better off w/ privatization.

Because there is nothing wrong with SS as it is now.

 

[Onceler]

"Because there is nothing wrong with SS as it is now. "

You completely lose me there. There is loads wrong with SS right now. First, it's unsustainable, and will only get to be moreso as life expectancies grow. SS will run out of money in its current form, and it will take more than a few "tweaks" to fix it as a public program.

Second, it takes up a huge portion of the federal budget. We need to radically change the federal budget (as, once again, its growth is unsustainable in its current form). Privatizing SS is one of the best ways to do that, along with slashing defense.

If privatizing was going to be some harmful venture, I wouldn't support it. You talk about 401K's over the past decade. With a privatized SS program, we'd be talking about decades for the vast majority of workers. There simply isn't a period of time like that where the market wouldn't have given workers exponential returns.

As for it being an "insurance" program as opposed to "investment", I'm a practical person. It will work better as an investment program - for the worker, investor & the gov't. I'm not inclined to keep it as an "insurance" program if it ends up worse for all 3 under that rather superficial moniker.

 

[Bonestorm]

"Because there is nothing wrong with SS as it is now. "

You completely lose me there. There is loads wrong with SS right now. First, it's unsustainable, and will only get to be moreso as life expectancies grow. SS will run out of money in its current form, and it will take more than a few "tweaks" to fix it as a public program.

There isn't loads wrong with SS now. If there were, I might support doing something drastic. As things stand right now, with no tweaks at all, SS can pay full benefits through 2041 and can pay 80+% of scheduled benefits thereafter. That isn't really all that bad and can indeed be fixed with some modest changes on the tax side.

Second, it takes up a huge portion of the federal budget. We need to radically change the federal budget (as, once again, its growth is unsustainable in its current form). Privatizing SS is one of the best ways to do that, along with slashing defense.

You aren't going to fix budget problems by privatizing SS. All you are doing is moving the tax revenues to private hands and moving the payouts (which come from those tax revenues) to private hands. There is no net benefit to the budget or deficit.

If privatizing was going to be some harmful venture, I wouldn't support it. You talk about 401K's over the past decade. With a privatized SS program, we'd be talking about decades for the vast majority of workers. There simply isn't a period of time like that where the market wouldn't have given workers exponential returns.

The harm is the increased risk to individuals that SS is designed to protect against and that it has been extremely successful at protecting against. It takes the "security" out of social security and undermines its essential purpose.

As for it being an "insurance" program as opposed to "investment", I'm a practical person. It will work better as an investment program - for the worker, investor & the gov't. I'm not inclined to keep it as an "insurance" program if it ends up worse for all 3 under that rather superficial moniker.

It's not a superficial moniker, it's pretty much the essence of program. Talking about "returns" for insurance is stupid.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's not because they've been successful. It's because they are successful. In the same way insurance/compensation may be given to someone who suffered an injury. We are not rewarding the person because they injured themselves. We are compensating them for their inability to provide for themselves, pay bills, etc.

That is the faulty premise to the argument that taxes punish people who are successful. It has nothing to do with punishment just as compensation for an accident is not a reward.

The same applies to your last comment. Income tax has nothing to do with rewards and punishment. The focus is the economy or society, in general.

Nice sentence structure and it started off really good; but then you went off on one of your tangents and didn't really address what I asked.
Would you care to try again??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Another bogus argument. Dragged down to where?

Let's throw out a few figures. If the tax rate goes from 36% to 39% and a person's taxable income is $250,000; that's an additional $7,500. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell us the indignities one suffers when their income drops from $250,000 to $242,500. What hardships and strife can one expect when "dragged down" to that level?

If you have more then one TV, then the Government should come in and force you to give one to someone who doesn't.
The same should go with cars, beds, clothes, furniture, food, appliances, etc.

 

[Onceler]

That's the solution...raise taxes?

I'll say it again: Social Security, in its current form and as a public program, is 100% unsustainable. If your perpetual solution to shortfalls as we move forward is to simply raise taxes when necessary, you're talking about yet another mandated program that will take up more & more of the federal budget as years go on, and more & more of the tax burden, leaving much less room for any kind of discretionary spending & programs.

I fail to see how that puts the "security" in "Social Security."

It's not stupid to talk about returns for SS, if talking about it means a better, more secure & more prosperous future for the vast majority of working Americans. I really fail to see how that is stupid at all. It's practical; it makes sense. If you can't see the forest for the trees because you are fixated on the word "insurance," you need to take a step back.

Privatizing can mean a much, much better future for retirees. And isn't that the point?

 

[zappasguitar]

lol....its been so debunked that nigel cited the left leaning fact check as saying tax cuts do spur economic growth

once again, mott with "its true because i said so"

how about, leaving the tax cuts in place. i am not advocating further tax cuts right now. you wrongly believe its an all or nothing, its not, we can leave in place bush's tax cuts....and when we wind down the two wars, then we can decrease military spending...

do i think its doom and gloom if bush tax cuts expire....no, but i don't think it will help the ecnonomy

ROTFLMAO!

So now "FactCheck.org" is left leaning?

Yo Brainiac, got a newsflash...facts don't lean left or right.

 

[Bonestorm]

That's the solution...raise taxes?

Yes, raise taxes is a solution. As it stands now, SS is terribly regressive. If, say, income from $107,000 through $300,000 were exempt and taxes kicked in again at $301,000 much of the problems, to the extent there are any, would be fixed.

I'll say it again: Social Security, in its current form and as a public program, is 100% unsustainable. If your perpetual solution to shortfalls as we move forward is to simply raise taxes when necessary, you're talking about yet another mandated program that will take up more & more of the federal budget as years go on, and more & more of the tax burden, leaving much less room for any kind of discretionary spending & programs.

But it isn't unsustainable. As I've said, full benefits through 2042 and 80% of scheduled benefits thereafter. That's not unsustainable.

And again, SS doesn't effect discretionary spending and other programs such that privitizing would fix anything. All privitizing will do is shift both the revenues and expenditures to private hands. That's a wash for the government and you gain nothing from a budgetary perspective.

I fail to see how that puts the "security" in "Social Security."

It's not stupid to talk about returns for SS, if talking about it means a better, more secure & more prosperous future for the vast majority of working Americans. I really fail to see how that is stupid at all. It's practical; it makes sense. If you can't see the forest for the trees because you are fixated on the word "insurance," you need to take a step back.

Privatizing can mean a much, much better future for retirees. And isn't that the point?

Privatizing means individual risk, something that is non-existent in the current system and completely undermines the entire purpose of SS. That's not better. And that's why the insurance/investment distinction in important. You get insurance to protect against risk whereas risk in inherent in any investment.

Personally, I think the government should be authorized to invest the money in the market instead of only in government bonds but that's just me.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

ROTFLMAO!

So now "FactCheck.org" is left leaning?

Yo Brainiac, got a newsflash...facts don't lean left or right.

Perception of facts do indeed lean left and right. For example, there are all kinds of facts, some are relevant and some are irrelevant, but they remain facts. We individually make the determination on which facts we want to believe are relevant, and which facts we may wish to completely ignore.

People who dismiss no fact as 'invalid' are thought to be "open-minded" while those who routinely dismiss a set of facts they simply do not wish to acknowledge, are said to be "closed-minded." You would fit into the later category, based on your postings.

 

[Onceler]

Yes, raise taxes is a solution. As it stands now, SS is terribly regressive. If, say, income from $107,000 through $300,000 were exempt and taxes kicked in again at $301,000 much of the problems, to the extent there are any, would be fixed.




But it isn't unsustainable. As I've said, full benefits through 2042 and 80% of scheduled benefits thereafter. That's not unsustainable.

And again, SS doesn't effect discretionary spending and other programs such that privitizing would fix anything. All privitizing will do is shift both the revenues and expenditures to private hands. That's a wash for the government and you gain nothing from a budgetary perspective.





Privatizing means individual risk, something that is non-existent in the current system and completely undermines the entire purpose of SS. That's not better. And that's why the insurance/investment distinction in important. You get insurance to protect against risk whereas risk in inherent in any investment.

Personally, I think the government should be authorized to invest the money in the market instead of only in government bonds but that's just me.

Well, I agree with that last part, if we keep it public. On the rest, we've just got to agree to disagree. To me, raising taxes every so often isn't a fix, and it isn't sustainable. It's irresponsible to future generations. Ultimately, it will only lead to SS taking up more & more of the federal budget.

As for the money not impacting the budget if it goes private, and basically being a wash, you're discounting a couple of large aspects on the issue: the admin of SS in its current form, as well as how the exponentially larger payoff if it is privatized will affect the economy.

I only know this: if I had been investing everything that I've put into SS up to this point privately, I would have a much more comfortable retirement, at least if I was relying on those funds. Even if I retired this past year, after the crash.

I wish I could do that. As it stands, I probably won't even get back what I put into it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

ROTFLMAO!

So now "FactCheck.org" is left leaning?

Yo Brainiac, got a newsflash...facts don't lean left or right.

hey "genius"....they often INJECT their opinion into their so called analysis...

but i wouldn't expect a hack like to recognize that...for example, nigel's article was heavy on the opinion and very little fact, the entire article leaned left, there are many more examples where i've read when they cherry pick facts or so called facts in order to present a left leaning view

i knew you were mentally challenged...but the reality is...facts can indeed be distorted vis a vis the presentation, hence, why so many news stations are no longer about presenting news as fact, rather, they slant the facts to fit their world view....if a, b, c, happened, but i only mention a and b...that would still be fact, however, by not mentioning c, i could have screwed the facts to lean a certain way

i'll send you my bill for this tutor session

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Fine. We'll still have unsustainable spending. If your unwilling to raise taxes how much are you willing to cut military and entitlement spending in order to bring spending to sustainable levels?

how about no more trillion dollar bailouts and stimulus...

i've already freakin answered you on the military...good lord

entitlements could be cut down....people stay on welfare way too long...clinton actually did a good job fixing the rampant disease called welfare in the 90's....guess what, your boy obama reversed that and did away with much of what clinton put in place to fix the problem

why don't you come up some ideas mott

 

[apple0154]

Nice sentence structure and it started off really good; but then you went off on one of your tangents and didn't really address what I asked.
Would you care to try again??

You didn't "ask" anything. You stated a number of things to which I responded.

Would you care to try again?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Which has nothing to do with those who have succeeded being FORCED to pay more, just because they've been successful.
Maybe the poor should be forced to work more, for the same paycheck; because they haven't been successful.

It's not because they've been successful. It's because they are successful. In the same way insurance/compensation may be given to someone who suffered an injury. We are not rewarding the person because they injured themselves. We are compensating them for their inability to provide for themselves, pay bills, etc.

That is the faulty premise to the argument that taxes punish people who are successful. It has nothing to do with punishment just as compensation for an accident is not a reward.

The same applies to your last comment. Income tax has nothing to do with rewards and punishment. The focus is the economy or society, in general.

Nice sentence structure and it started off really good; but then you went off on one of your tangents and didn't really address what I asked.
Would you care to try again??

You didn't "ask" anything. You stated a number of things to which I responded.

Would you care to try again?

Have you always been this obtuse, or was it just a life long goal that you've finaly reached?

 

[apple0154]

If you have more then one TV, then the Government should come in and force you to give one to someone who doesn't.
The same should go with cars, beds, clothes, furniture, food, appliances, etc.

Wrong on two points. First, no one is talking about TVs or cars.

Second, no one is suggesting anyone give their clothes or furniture or any other material thing they may have.

The point is some people have plenty of clothes and lots of furniture and neither need nor want additional items but they have resources to purchase more. By sharing a small portion, a very small portion, of those resources other people can benefit.

Perhaps you can now address my question, "Dragged down to where?"

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Wrong on two points. First, no one is talking about TVs or cars.

Second, no one is suggesting anyone give their clothes or furniture or any other material thing they may have.

The point is some people have plenty of clothes and lots of furniture and neither need nor want additional items but they have resources to purchase more. By sharing a small portion, a very small portion, of those resources other people can benefit.

Perhaps you can now address my question, "Dragged down to where?"

But it would benefit them; plus you should publish locally what you own, so that someone who is lacking would know exatcly where to go to better themselves.

 

[apple0154]

Have you always been this obtuse, or was it just a life long goal that you've finaly reached?

If you'd ask a direct question I'll give you a direct answer. If you simply state an opinion I'll address it as such. Of course, after informing you of that you reply with an insult and still omit posing a question.

So, do you care to try again?