Thread: Social Security

Sorry but I do think stroller is spot on. While it's easy to mistrust politicians and other guardians of the nation's wealth, it is no science to figure that if you were to give each person in the country £1m, a month will be enough to have many scratching their heads wondering how they could have gone through it. Fast forward a year, and we can only guess how much will have gravitated to the few from the many, but one thing for sure, many will be worth less than their windfall.

With this in mind, while most people with only average intelligence could invest for their own future and those of their children, it is easy to conceive that a few years down the road will see the beginnings of yet another need to support the idle, unproductive and incapable.

Originally Posted by surasak

...If I read stroller correctly he's saying that individuals can't be trusted to save for their own retirement...

Originally Posted by surasak

... Spend now, worry about the consequences later.

I think you've answered your own question. Most people CANNOT be trusted to save for their retirement. I was staggered to discover how many relatively educated and intelligent people in my old company were NOT part of the very generous pension scheme.

They'd rather spend now and worry about....... blah blah...

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by lom

You don't feel any debt to previous generations for what they invested for you, and you are not willing to invest for the coming ones.
to borrow it elsewhere.

That's what the general funds are for: things that are tangible and pass on from generation to generation. Cities. Bridges. Transportation networks. Defense. Day-to-day things that we all share and pass on.

But forcing someone to work to support another person using the tax structure is not fair play.

God Damn Sukasak, You keep asking the same questions and can not understand the answers.

The general funds are now and have been for years BROKE and in debt trillions of dollars, they are the ones that borrowed from the SSA fund, Everyone raised hell when it was found out and didn't want the General Fund fucking with SSA money.
But it is figured that it is chaeper to use that than borrow more from Japan and China.
You seem to think that owning T bonds is fine, but still you do not think that the SSA should hold such bonds.? Where do you think that the General Fund should get the money??
Do you not believe that it is OK to own and buy US SAVINGS BONDS??

And it was the Govt that made the rule that SSA loan excess money to the treasury than loan it on the open market, cheaper and safer to loan it to the gen. fund. So thats where they are making the profit of the interest.
Even some private pension funds money is coming from investment in T Bonds, is it also wrong for them to make a profit from the T Bonds???

Originally Posted by RDN

Originally Posted by surasak

...If I read stroller correctly he's saying that individuals can't be trusted to save for their own retirement...

Originally Posted by surasak

... Spend now, worry about the consequences later.

I think you've answered your own question. Most people CANNOT be trusted to save for their retirement. I was staggered to discover how many relatively educated and intelligent people in my old company were NOT part of the very generous pension scheme.

They'd rather spend now and worry about....... blah blah...

And politicians are better with money? Witness the pissing away of $1 trillion so far in Iraq. It's not uncommon for the Pentagon, for example, to spend $500 for a hammer or a toilet seat.

The more money politiicans have the more corrupt they become. Certainly we should not allow them access nor control over the most important aspect of one's life: retirement.

If people KNOW that something like SS will 'take care of them' it lessens personal responsibility in the long run. Consume now, don't worry about the future. Feeding off the public trough encourages nothing.

Originally Posted by keda

With this in mind, while most people with only average intelligence could invest for their own future and those of their children, it is easy to conceive that a few years down the road will see the beginnings of yet another need to support the idle, unproductive and incapable.

In other words: it's unfair to expect people to be responsible for their own lives but fair to make others work extra hours to support those unwilling to do so?

Lazy people don't have a right to someone else's money simply because someone else happens to be productive and unwilling to be a burden on others.

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by keda

With this in mind, while most people with only average intelligence could invest for their own future and those of their children, it is easy to conceive that a few years down the road will see the beginnings of yet another need to support the idle, unproductive and incapable.

In other words: it's unfair to expect people to be responsible for their own lives but fair to make others work extra hours to support those unwilling to do so?

Lazy people don't have a right to someone else's money simply because someone else happens to be productive and unwilling to be a burden on others.

Fair sentiment and I wholeheartedly agree, but we're talking new age democracy with each individual enjoying the right to be cared for, and whether or not they can tie their own shoelaces, because if they can't it's invariably someone else's fault.

The Welfare/Nanny State could not possibly have been created with a concept of today's pathetic expectations, but while we may wonder what's holding it all together it's the best we have and somehow plods along regardless; until of course it implodes.

Originally Posted by surasak

In other words: it's unfair to expect people to be responsible for their own lives but fair to make others work extra hours to support those unwilling to do so?

No, everybody who pays in will be paid for retirement, and most people are obligated to pay in, so they won't be a burden later after not contributing.
What's so difficult to understand about it?

I know a dude that is living in mexico where it is cheap, he is a worthless bastard and has been on SSI.[that pays max SS benefits] now for years, but soon he will be 65 and then it is back to reg. SSA pension and it will cut him from $1400.00 a month to about $400.00 because he has never worked over a year or so in his miserable fucking life.

Maybe we could get him next door to Sursak and it would be very convinent for him to support that dude living real close,,he says he got to support some one..

Originally Posted by blackgang

I know that you are not that patriotic or for love of country,, so must be from fear of going to jail cause you ain't smart enough to skip out on taxes for a few years..

I've never heard Surasak say nor imply that he is unpatriotic.


He just doesn't like flushing his hard earned money down the toilet bowl.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by surasak

In other words: it's unfair to expect people to be responsible for their own lives but fair to make others work extra hours to support those unwilling to do so?

No, everybody who pays in will be paid for retirement, and most people are obligated to pay in, so they won't be a burden later after not contributing.
What's so difficult to understand about it?

That's not how it works here.

^^Who likes flushing their hard earned money away? I certainly don't, and made sure the tax pirates prised not a penny more than I absolutely needed to donate in order to have them look elsewhere for a soft touch.

No but he has never said a Good word about the place either, can't be to patriotic either,, bitches about everything and will not do anything about it.
And a real patriot will not go on international forum and mean mouth his beloved country, but will do it to make the country look bad if he don't like it..
And some famous guy said, If you do not like what the politico are doing with your money, Don't give it to em..
I believed that, so I got in the tax revolt back in the 70s as I was tired of paying at that time $25k or 30k a year and them investigating me and wanting more, shutting down my checking and investigating some more.
So I did like I said back aways, I paid what I thought would be 10% of my gross and then went exempt, and did that for a few years,
After I had done that for awhile I came out and filed 10 years back tax forms, then I was legal and done the legal thing and filed Bankruptcy for the money. easiest 1/4 mil I ever made.
You couldn't do that unless you were making good money and were mobile and really believed in what you were doing cause after awhile they get smart to what you are doing.
7-11 do not pay well enough to make it worth while.

Originally Posted by keda

^^Who likes flushing their hard earned money away? I certainly don't, and made sure the tax pirates prised not a penny more than I absolutely needed to donate in order to have them look elsewhere for a soft touch.

I certainly don't either and have my deductions setup so that legally I don't pay a cent in Federal income taxes.

As it is I cannot legally avoid paying into SS right now because I must show ample income in order to sponsor my stepdaughter to live in the U.S.

And someone said that he is a patriotic country loving bumpkin..
Even I believe that you should pay something, and he even bitch about 15%.
Well at min wage you don't actually own income tax.

I cant really understand why you think Surasak, that your deductions are supporting people who have worked for decades and paid their SS money.

Why do you think it is your money?

Why isn't it their deductions that are being used to support them?

If not, where did their deductions go?

And if you pay no income tax, why should people who do pay it, subsidise you now?

It's a 'pay as you go' system....meaning that those who are collecting today are collecting from those paying into the system today. If Social Security takes $1000 from either me or Milkman then somehow a portion of that $1000 finds its way directly to blackgang. That's how the system in the U.S. works. The net balance of the Social Security trust fund is $0 at all times (meaning what goes out balances with what comes in). Any surplus is loaned by law to the Federal government as a way to keep general income taxes down. When interest is paid on that loan it's another way money is indirectly stolen from one person and given to another.

If the system actually took one's money, put it in a separate account, and then paid the person when one retires then nobody would be raising a fuss about the insolvency crisis approaching in a few decades. SS couldn't go bankrupt if people paying into the system actually collected their own money back.

The failure of the system is that it requires a substantial number of workers in order to support a retiree. When the system was established roughly 16 people paid in to support one who collected. Now it's near 3:1 and approaching 2:1. It's simply impossible to keep the system as it is without either raising taxes (taking more and more from those working now) or lowering payments (again, screwing those who have paid their taxes up to this point).

The system should be eliminated and every penny refunded to anyone who paid the tax.

With regards to Federal income tax: if you want to talk about subsidies then let's consider how the average taxpayer subsidizes home ownership in the United States (which is responsible for the high percentage of home ownership). The home mortgage interest deduction is the biggest systematic form of welfare in the U.S. aside from Social Security.

Frankly I'd like to see all income taxes eliminated and the tax system replaced with a consumption tax.

Originally Posted by surasak

The system should be eliminated and every penny refunded to anyone who paid the tax.

But the money has been spend already!

Originally Posted by surasak

The failure of the system is that it requires a substantial number of workers in order to support a retiree. When the system was established roughly 16 people paid in to support one who collected. Now it's near 3:1 and approaching 2:1.

The less people needed to support a retiree, the better.
The system you advocate with personal accounts is a 1:1 system.

Originally Posted by surasak

Frankly I'd like to see all income taxes eliminated and the tax system replaced with a consumption tax.

An interesting thought but one you would loose from, you wouldn't be able to deduct your tax down to 0% as you do today.

Originally Posted by lom

The less people needed to support a retiree, the better.
The system you advocate with personal accounts is a 1:1 system.

As I have always advocated personal responsibility a person should be responsible for him or herself. No one has the right to expect another person(s) to provide support in retirement.

Putting one's money in an account and retiring off said money is acceptable. Taking taxes from one person and directly handing them to another is not.

Originally Posted by surasak

Frankly I'd like to see all income taxes eliminated and the tax system replaced with a consumption tax.

An interesting thought but one you would loose from, you wouldn't be able to deduct your tax down to 0% as you do today.

Actually I'd prefer a tax system with no loopholes, no deductions, no easy way to circumvent. I have never stated that I should not pay my fair share...but if the law allows for legal deductions then why not take advantage of that? Deductions are simply a way to make an unbalanced tax scheme appear to be fair. Due to having two children my taxes essentially become $0. It's not like I'm cheating by failing to report income.

A system that relies on reporting income for tax purposes is inhererently unfair and immoral.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by surasak

The system should be eliminated and every penny refunded to anyone who paid the tax.

But the money has been spend already!

At this time it would be less burden on everyone to simply repay what has been taken.

To do nothing is like leaving U.S. forces in Iraq: making the situation worse than it has to.

[quote=lom;277829]

Originally Posted by surasak

The failure of the system is that it requires a substantial number of workers in order to support a retiree. When the system was established roughly 16 people paid in to support one who collected. Now it's near 3:1 and approaching 2:1.

The system you advocate with personal accounts is a 1:1 system.

Equivocation.


Out of context.


Cute, though.

If you are supporting anyone shitsak why is there a couple of trillion dollars worth of T bonds that we have paid for just waiting for your retirement so you can collect, and getting more everyday,
Sounds to me that you are a tad stupid.