I’ll just throw this out there, the S&P at one point this morning was down nearly %5 from Obama’s election wiping out just over half a trillion dollars in 3 days.
There seems to be a disconnect between the way people vote at the polling place and the way they vote with their pocketbook.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
LOL You do realize we are talking about Medicare and Social Security here with the word “entitlement” right? Those are systems that are paid into by the recipients, so they are not receiving someone else’s property. If I am not mistaken, your benefits that are paid out are directly proprotional to the amount you paid in.
[/quote]
You know this isn’t true man :-/
Most people get way more money out of social security than they pay in. In fact even the first lady to ever benefit from social security paid in virtually nothing and got benefits for decades. Not to mention the government has been mismanaging that money on top of things. Where do you think old people’s social security checks come from? Me and you. The money I’m “paying in” is being payed out to some old dude, because his money was blown a long time ago.
It’s just a government Ponzi scheme. I’m not trying to be sensationalist or some shit by calling it that, it’s just by definition what a Ponzi scheme is. Except I didn’t even choose to be part of this. If I could sign a waiver saying that I would never get any social security benefits, but that I could stop paying into the program I would sign it in a heartbeat.
I work in the retirement business, and programs like social security are simply impossible. That’s why defined benefit plans are literally going extinct. They were bankrupting companies. The government has been able to keep it going so long, because they aren’t burdened by following the same rules businesses have to. The sooner they cut it off the better. Just try and find the age at which people would reasonably be expected to be counting on receiving social security to sustain themselves in retirement, and say “everyone younger than this, fuck you, we’re out of money.”
I can’t think of any other solution.
[quote]csulli wrote:
It’s just a government Ponzi scheme.
I work in the retirement business, and programs like social security are simply impossible. That’s why defined benefit plans are literally going extinct. They were bankrupting companies. [/quote]
Yup. If anyone was to set up an annuity in private industry that functioned like Social Security they would be in a jail cell.
Another observation, as corporate taxes are a sound byte political issue.
The left paints companies with comparatively low tax rates as if they are similar to individual income taxes. This doesn’t take into account deferred taxes, inventory costing methods, and depreciation expenses. Corporations have more means available to alter their tax payment than the everyday individual so that they can better manage cash and capital in future periods. This point is lost on people, just as capital gains is.
I am surprised to see people tossing around the word fair, as if it isn’t an arbitrary term. It works for the un-educated (or idealistic college grads), but my and your definition of “fair” are going to be different. If someone wants to make a relevant point to an economic discussion, do not use the word FAIR.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
LOL You do realize we are talking about Medicare and Social Security here with the word “entitlement” right? Those are systems that are paid into by the recipients, so they are not receiving someone else’s property. If I am not mistaken, your benefits that are paid out are directly proprotional to the amount you paid in.
[/quote]
You know this isn’t true man :-/
Most people get way more money out of social security than they pay in. In fact even the first lady to ever benefit from social security paid in virtually nothing and got benefits for decades. Not to mention the government has been mismanaging that money on top of things. Where do you think old people’s social security checks come from? Me and you. The money I’m “paying in” is being payed out to some old dude, because his money was blown a long time ago.
It’s just a government Ponzi scheme. I’m not trying to be sensationalist or some shit by calling it that, it’s just by definition what a Ponzi scheme is. Except I didn’t even choose to be part of this. If I could sign a waiver saying that I would never get any social security benefits, but that I could stop paying into the program I would sign it in a heartbeat.
I work in the retirement business, and programs like social security are simply impossible. That’s why defined benefit plans are literally going extinct. They were bankrupting companies. The government has been able to keep it going so long, because they aren’t burdened by following the same rules businesses have to. The sooner they cut it off the better. Just try and find the age at which people would reasonably be expected to be counting on receiving social security to sustain themselves in retirement, and say “everyone younger than this, fuck you, we’re out of money.”
I can’t think of any other solution.[/quote]
Do not use the word fair but you can do the normative versus positive argument of economic efficiency versus equity.
Let’s face it :
Neither the political Left nor the political Right fundamentally care about sustainability.
Those on the right wo do care generally care only about economical/fiscal sustainability.
Those on the left wo do care generally care only about ecological sustainability.
This is both absurd and dangerous.
You can not really care about one kind of sustainabiliy if you don’t care about the other. Let alone if you oppose both kind of sustainability.
True environmentalists should understand that :
-social liberalism has an ecological cost that can’t be afforded.
-the State is currently driven by electoralism and has no real incentive to envision long-term and very long term consequences
And for these reasons, they should distance themselves from the Left. ASAP.
(For the record, I’m, first and foremost, a green radical, but i claim for years that the association of the “green movement” with the historical “social democratic” left is a tragic mistake)
But in the same way true conservatives should understand that :
-capitalism laissez-faire is socially and morally disruptive.
-the Market is currently driven by short-term individual profits and has no real incentive to envision long-term and very long term consequences, and they should distance themselves from the Right.
Both should reconsider their current associations, and their current priorities.
Then and only then those who really care about sustainability will be able to converge, redefine ideological lines and find new way to take the interests of the future generations into republican account.
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[/quote]
Yeah I’ve looked at that. I dunno, I feel weird about making up that I’m Amish or whatever though lol.
I have always been an advocate of financial education beginning with a todler. Mandatory accounting and economics classes that socialize a child to take individual responsibility for his or her own fiscal health. An ability to balance one’s checkbook and set up a retirement savings plan since the person’s first job. I am sure Counting Beans as an accountant will expose his children to the world of finance and long term planning long before the classes become open to them.
Parents need to ingrain in their children the difference between needs versus wants and the fact that there will always be a new iphone so enjoy your current model. Financial literacy is a must in this overexposed society where marketing companies use MRI’s to study the serotonin levels in a person’s brain when watching a commericial. Financial literacy is a must when Wall Street mathmaticians engineer financial products that their MBA carrying bosses have no idea what is being sold.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So $175K a year and a pension for life, doesn’t equal rich? For part time work not less, interesting.
[/quote]
Maybe in your book, not in mine. Middle class according to both sides’ tax plans. Upper middle class, sure.
[/quote]
That’s 3x median Household income according to the last census. I think upper middle class people are by definition, rich. They just aren’t the most rich. [/quote]
Ok that’s cool man, if your end game is $175k/year to make yourself feel rich that’s fine, but you don’t get to pick and choose your own definition of rich based on your own current salary and ambitions.
[/quote]
Why don’t you write a check to the Treasury if you are so hell bent on raising taxes on the rich? No one is stopping you.
You are rich because your income defines you as rich by the IRS. [/quote]
LOL ohh yes, the Buffet argument. The thought process that one little drop makes a difference and will set the world free.
Quality posts Maximus, you are a true scholar. 15,000+ posts, mostly in the off topic forums, mostly along this same vane. hahah…too funny
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
LOL You do realize we are talking about Medicare and Social Security here with the word “entitlement” right? Those are systems that are paid into by the recipients, so they are not receiving someone else’s property. If I am not mistaken, your benefits that are paid out are directly proprotional to the amount you paid in.
[/quote]
You know this isn’t true man :-/
Most people get way more money out of social security than they pay in. In fact even the first lady to ever benefit from social security paid in virtually nothing and got benefits for decades. Not to mention the government has been mismanaging that money on top of things. Where do you think old people’s social security checks come from? Me and you. The money I’m “paying in” is being payed out to some old dude, because his money was blown a long time ago.
It’s just a government Ponzi scheme. I’m not trying to be sensationalist or some shit by calling it that, it’s just by definition what a Ponzi scheme is. Except I didn’t even choose to be part of this. If I could sign a waiver saying that I would never get any social security benefits, but that I could stop paying into the program I would sign it in a heartbeat.
I work in the retirement business, and programs like social security are simply impossible. That’s why defined benefit plans are literally going extinct. They were bankrupting companies. The government has been able to keep it going so long, because they aren’t burdened by following the same rules businesses have to. The sooner they cut it off the better. Just try and find the age at which people would reasonably be expected to be counting on receiving social security to sustain themselves in retirement, and say “everyone younger than this, fuck you, we’re out of money.”
I can’t think of any other solution.[/quote]
OK, and what I was trying to convey, and did not adequately do so, was that the more you put into it, the more you get out of it. It is not proportional, you are right, I used the wrong word.
My OP was a response to those eager to lump it in with a welfare program, where the received benefits far far far outweigh the amount you pay into it through taxes (if any at all).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
beans,
-I have stated already that you do not get an increased benefit, you just pay on everything over 110,000.
-I believe the economic system could benefit from a little more top end accountability, people like to see that the richest Americans are required to pay a more equitable amount [/quote]
But why? Just how far is that going to stretch? Honestly? It’s peanuts considering the debt and future entitlement/welfare growth. I mean, if we’re serious about yanking some actual money down Washington DC’s way so big cuts to entitlement/bureaucratic spending–which will need to happen–need not be even bigger cuts, then expand the tax base. Raise taxes on them AND the middle class. There’s not nearly enough rich, with nearly enough wealth, to make going after them anything more than a symbolic gesture.
[/quote]
Sloth,
At no point do I disagree with a tax increase on the middle class, I think it can be done in a relatively painless way, maybe an added 1/2% on your payroll tax earmarked for the debt, possibly a limit on deductions at the end of the year, yes we need to cut spending as well (there is a hell of a lot of duplication of services on the fed/state/local level) we need to turn welfare into a training program with a time limit and we need to streamline defense spending. People don’t want to hear about tax increases, but in conjunction with cuts is there really any other acceptable way?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
LOL You do realize we are talking about Medicare and Social Security here with the word “entitlement” right? Those are systems that are paid into by the recipients, so they are not receiving someone else’s property. If I am not mistaken, your benefits that are paid out are directly proprotional to the amount you paid in.
[/quote]
You know this isn’t true man :-/
Most people get way more money out of social security than they pay in…
[/quote]
The fact that he didn’t know this speaks volumes.
Analogically, we were talking about next year’s NFL draft and about 1/3 of the way through the conversation we realize that he, VT, didn’t even realize that a touchdown in American football is worth six points. At that point it kinda makes you wonder what you’re doing here…or rather what he is. [/quote]
LOL seriously bro, that couldn’t be more incorrect as I mentioned above, it was to draw distinction between these programs and actual welfare (handouts without an expecation of contribution, or very little of it)
You guys are great at spinning words though.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
beans,
-I have stated already that you do not get an increased benefit, you just pay on everything over 110,000.
-I believe the economic system could benefit from a little more top end accountability, people like to see that the richest Americans are required to pay a more equitable amount [/quote]
But why? Just how far is that going to stretch? Honestly? It’s peanuts considering the debt and future entitlement/welfare growth. I mean, if we’re serious about yanking some actual money down Washington DC’s way so big cuts to entitlement/bureaucratic spending–which will need to happen–need not be even bigger cuts, then expand the tax base. Raise taxes on them AND the middle class. There’s not nearly enough rich, with nearly enough wealth, to make going after them anything more than a symbolic gesture.
[/quote]
Sloth,
At no point do I disagree with a tax increase on the middle class, I think it can be done in a relatively painless way, maybe an added 1/2% on your payroll tax earmarked for the debt, possibly a limit on deductions at the end of the year, yes we need to cut spending as well (there is a hell of a lot of duplication of services on the fed/state/local level) we need to turn welfare into a training program with a time limit and we need to streamline defense spending. People don’t want to hear about tax increases, but in conjunction with cuts is there really any other acceptable way?[/quote]
Here’s my problem. Theoretically, I am ok with giving up some tax increases for even more in spending cuts. More in spending cut, because it is spending that is the problem. However, I’m absolutely afraid that in short order such an agreement would begin to unravel as the Democrats begin to trot out the horror stories. Old people eating cat food, etc. And bit by bit the spending cuts are reversed, yet the tax hikes remain. This thing would need an airtight clause, completely unraveling the entire thing (tax changes reverse) if one dollar of spending reduction is reversed.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So $175K a year and a pension for life, doesn’t equal rich? For part time work not less, interesting.
[/quote]
Maybe in your book, not in mine. Middle class according to both sides’ tax plans. Upper middle class, sure.
[/quote]
That’s 3x median Household income according to the last census. I think upper middle class people are by definition, rich. They just aren’t the most rich. [/quote]
Ok that’s cool man, if your end game is $175k/year to make yourself feel rich that’s fine, but you don’t get to pick and choose your own definition of rich based on your own current salary and ambitions.
[/quote]
Why don’t you write a check to the Treasury if you are so hell bent on raising taxes on the rich? No one is stopping you.
You are rich because your income defines you as rich by the IRS. [/quote]
LOL ohh yes, the Buffet argument. The thought process that one little drop makes a difference and will set the world free.
Quality posts Maximus, you are a true scholar. 15,000+ posts, mostly in the off topic forums, mostly along this same vane. hahah…too funny
[/quote]
Buffet makes most of his money from capital gains, not from his salary. But Obama decided to shine his knob rather than measure him up in the same regard that Romney was.
Also, Buffet also has over $1 Billion in unpaid taxes going back to 2002, but he got a pass because President Ghandi needed him as an example.
Peter Bacanovic took me to school on this years ago, business people don’t bother so much with whom is elected, or whom is in office. They just called up whomever is in office, and bribe them when they need something. Dem, Republican, or Martian, it doesn’t matter. They also hooker around to find the best way to hide money, or evade taxes.
There was a saying I heard back in college, from the pitcher on our baseball team. He said, “I never got outplayed, I just got out milligrammed.”
LULZ at thinking the entire mess is all on Republicans, as if Dems weren’t paid off to look the other way.
Are you telling me that you have no tax deductions or write-offs ?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
LULZ at thinking the entire mess is all on Republicans, as if Dems weren’t paid off to look the other way.
Are you telling me that you have no tax deductions or write-offs ? [/quote]\
LOL when in the fuck did I ever blame the entire mess on the Republicans? SEriously dude, the strawmen arguments you guys create in this forum is absolutely astounding.
I will refrain from continuing to comment to you on my personal finances, since you seem to have trouble grasping every other aspect of them that I have brought up, including my salary increase and investment performance. Why would my write-offs be any different? LOL
[quote]pushharder wrote:
No spin necessary on “us guys’” part. You expressed some ignorance on the subject and were called out on it and didn’t correct yourself until then. [/quote]
LOL sweetheart it wasn’t because I was ignoring it up to that point, its because unlike some of you guys I don’t have the free time on my hand to monitor the multiple thousands of posts in this forum, track them, and then find time to comment on them.
The fact that you and some of the other contributors who post here have their posts on mod-alert doesn’t help the matter any since they show up at the time tey were submitted, and I scan the last post I read and not for changes in front of it.
[quote]
I’m not even sure you really knew SS was just a house of cards. I’m betting you had no idea that the dollars you (and your employers in your name) paid the federal treasury 20 years ago and even last week are long, long gone. [/quote]
haha if those are the bets you take, you better stay out of Vegas my friend!!! But if smug condescension is what you need, and I am your target for it, hey, who am I to judge how you project that?