U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What are your thoughts on Social Security COLA regarding true inflation and current payout not keepi
Social security payments should INCREASE substantially and regularly - to reflect true inflation and COLA amounts for Vets and seniors 47 74.60%
Social security payments should STAY THE SAME – regardless of the fact cost of living has increased substantially and these people served and paid in 6 9.52%
Social security payments should BE DECREASED – regardless of the fact cost of living has increased substantially and these people served and paid in 10 15.87%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-15-2018, 05:45 PM
 
8,293 posts, read 3,456,454 times
Reputation: 1586

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
Well, you see China owns their banking system....because they're communist...and they want to control what gets funded and what doesn't, but they want the air of authenticity so they have large banks on the side. When I did a start-up there, foreigners could pick from 4 banks and your Chart of Accounts was already selected for you. (It makes consolidation much easier after all).

We've pretended for quite awhile, but China is not a slur a Democrat socialist, they are straight up Communists who've decided they'll open markets so long as they can still tilt the game.

One of the first areas of concern when China initiated its one child policy was....who will care for the parents? At first the Communist Party assured everyone they would be taken care of. Party mantra quietly changed a few years ago to people will need to be responsible for themselves.

In the end, here's some solutions in China, and the one child policy hasn't even firmly taken hold yet:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35155548

China to standardize elderly care services industry - Business - Chinadaily.com.cn
What I love about China Daily is that it IS a good newspaper within the confines of what it can realistically say in censored China. Just the facts maam, and we'll put it together:
Last Line: There are 31.6 beds per 1,000 senior citizens
New guidelines require complaints to be responded to in 10 days.....nurse, my oxygen is running low.

Yeah, we can really do better than the China solution.
China is an ongoing moving target as far as how they direct their economy centrally, while moving forward toward a more western free market. And why directing tariffs toward them have, and will be, so difficult.

http://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content...LI210_crop.pdf

IMO we will have to move toward more central blending in order to meet all these 'unfunded liabilities'. China has known this for some time now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2018, 05:48 PM
 
8,293 posts, read 3,456,454 times
Reputation: 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
China is funding infrastructure spending with anticipated future tax "dollars" (yuan) from incomes growing at 6% to 8% as far out as the eye can see. It may not happen, but that's what they're planning on.

Our incomes are growing at 1.5%.
China is creating money and directing it toward their national interests. Much of that is debt that will either be forgiven or never even publicly exposed as debt. Much like mega-QE kept off the books.

Of course our National Debt will never be paid off either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2018, 05:59 PM
 
8,563 posts, read 2,392,842 times
Reputation: 8146
I voted decrease even tho I paid in BIG during my entire working life and am now collecting.

I voted this way simply because the program is not paying for itself.....yes, most of the way, but not all the way. When something is not paying for itself, you don't just "give away free money" because people want...or even need it.

Consider this also. Most who collect SS are also on medicare - a program that, even if you paid in max (I did - and I'm not on it yet...only 64) is only collecting about 50% of the money it pays out.

Now, if we can apply that same type of logic to "tax cuts for billionaires and corporations out of debt and deficit" we'll be getting somewhere.

Note - my politics are liberal. I don't mind paying a lot of taxes on my SS...which I certainly will be doing. I don't mind putting some skin in the game on medicare. I have been blessed and I'd rather see them cut my SS and Medicare (means testing, taxation) then see taxes go up on everyone to pay for more and more.

That's my take. It's completely crazy that we give "very high net worth and income" folks social security and medicare...and then ask workers to pay for it....or our children (through debt and deficit). Then we lower inheritance taxes do said millionaires and billionaires can pay little or nothing when they die.

I think people with a lot of money should be forced to spend some of that on themselves before they die....and not just for luxe items.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2018, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,018 posts, read 13,247,591 times
Reputation: 13822
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW View Post
Lol, you mean like the trillions spent by companies in stock buybacks.
Spoken like someone with no understanding.

The former Zenith union employees now working at Wal-Mart and McDonalds can only wish Zenith had bought back its own stock.

Had Zenith been in a financial position to buy back its own stock, then South Korean LG Corporation would not have been able to buy enough Zenith stock to acquire a 58% controlling interest in Zenith, which led to closing its doors.

Foreign corporations gaining controlling interest in US corporations and then reducing operations or shutting down the facilities altogether is not in your best interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
China is funding infrastructure spending with anticipated future tax "dollars" (yuan) from incomes growing at 6% to 8% as far out as the eye can see. It may not happen, but that's what they're planning on.

Our incomes are growing at 1.5%.
Ellen Brown and Mike Norman are incredibly stupid imbeciles who apparently can't tell the difference between an advanced mature 4th Level Economy like the US, and a new 2nd Level Economy like China.

Comparisons between China and the US are invalid.

1st and 2nd Level Economies like China, Vietnam and others normally grow at rates of 8%-12% GDP per year. Not only is it normal, it's expected, and wages for 1st and 2nd Level Economies double about ever 10 years.

Wage growth is incidental to GDP growth, which is not the driver of wages, rather it is the demand for labor that drives wages.

These countries are experiencing massive industrial and business growth at an incredibly rapid rate, and nearly all of those businesses and industries did not previously exist in the economy. Vietnam did not manufacture washing machines, it imported them for the 5% of the population that actually had electricity (and they were expensive). Now that the country is becoming electrified, there is a demand for washing machines and other appliances, like dryers, dishwashers and hot water heaters, and these industries are popping up in Vietnam. There is a demand for labor in an economy where, like all 1st and 2nd Level Economies, 90% of the population is engaged in agriculture, so there is a clear shortage of workers.

That's what drives wages.

The demand for labor doesn't end, because at first, any warm body will do, then it requires an educated work-force, then an educated and trained work-force, and then a work-force with an ever increasing complexity of skills.

It takes about 40-60 years to get to that point, and that's why wages double.

As an advanced 4th Level Economy, you're not rapidly creating anything, which is why your GDP isn't 8% to 12% annually. Nearly all of your growth comes from the expansion of existing business and industry, or the modification/transition of existing business and industry into something else.

Your work-force is abundant with educated and trained people, so there's no labor shortages, and what shortages exist are geographical in nature, meaning you have the labor, it just isn't in the right geographical area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2018, 06:25 PM
 
8,293 posts, read 3,456,454 times
Reputation: 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
I voted decrease even tho I paid in BIG during my entire working life and am now collecting.

I voted this way simply because the program is not paying for itself.....yes, most of the way, but not all the way. When something is not paying for itself, you don't just "give away free money" because people want...or even need it.

Consider this also. Most who collect SS are also on medicare - a program that, even if you paid in max (I did - and I'm not on it yet...only 64) is only collecting about 50% of the money it pays out.

Now, if we can apply that same type of logic to "tax cuts for billionaires and corporations out of debt and deficit" we'll be getting somewhere.

Note - my politics are liberal. I don't mind paying a lot of taxes on my SS...which I certainly will be doing. I don't mind putting some skin in the game on medicare. I have been blessed and I'd rather see them cut my SS and Medicare (means testing, taxation) then see taxes go up on everyone to pay for more and more.

That's my take. It's completely crazy that we give "very high net worth and income" folks social security and medicare...and then ask workers to pay for it....or our children (through debt and deficit). Then we lower inheritance taxes do said millionaires and billionaires can pay little or nothing when they die.

I think people with a lot of money should be forced to spend some of that on themselves before they die....and not just for luxe items.
Liberal for sure, as am I. Fairness is a key conservative dogma.

But going after those with very high net worth is not going to solve anything. There are simply not enough very high net worth people. And most of those have not only paid in, but paid in quite dearly with employer shares and other higher taxes all along the way.

SS and Medicare is somewhat means tested already. Not severely so.

Say a family was worth a few million, and had medical bills of a few million.

How would you handle that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2018, 06:35 PM
 
8,293 posts, read 3,456,454 times
Reputation: 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Ellen Brown and Mike Norman are incredibly stupid imbeciles who apparently can't tell the difference between an advanced mature 4th Level Economy like the US, and a new 2nd Level Economy like China.

Comparisons between China and the US are invalid.
Whoa! Of course they know the difference. But they are of the few that know we can do better with massive public spending, and show where China has been doing it all along.

China would not be growing at such a rate without massive amounts of new Yuan.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc.../#379065c44131

You don't get this kind of growth without untapped labor, resources and money.

In our more developed case it is more about societal supports/improvements than pushing up GDP.
Infrastructure, HC. And IMO an eventual job/income guarantee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2018, 05:33 AM
 
Location: Central IL
13,372 posts, read 7,135,232 times
Reputation: 31089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Because of Medicare seniors do better than most with HC. Most beneficiaries get 2-3 X in benefits compared to what they pay in.
I should hope - that money has had 10 - 30 years to accrue!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2018, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
8,989 posts, read 3,127,688 times
Reputation: 7079
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
I voted decrease even tho I paid in BIG during my entire working life and am now collecting.

I voted this way simply because the program is not paying for itself.....yes, most of the way, but not all the way. When something is not paying for itself, you don't just "give away free money" because people want...or even need it.

Consider this also. Most who collect SS are also on medicare - a program that, even if you paid in max (I did - and I'm not on it yet...only 64) is only collecting about 50% of the money it pays out.

Now, if we can apply that same type of logic to "tax cuts for billionaires and corporations out of debt and deficit" we'll be getting somewhere.

Note - my politics are liberal. I don't mind paying a lot of taxes on my SS...which I certainly will be doing. I don't mind putting some skin in the game on medicare. I have been blessed and I'd rather see them cut my SS and Medicare (means testing, taxation) then see taxes go up on everyone to pay for more and more.

That's my take. It's completely crazy that we give "very high net worth and income" folks social security and medicare...and then ask workers to pay for it....or our children (through debt and deficit). Then we lower inheritance taxes do said millionaires and billionaires can pay little or nothing when they die.

I think people with a lot of money should be forced to spend some of that on themselves before they die....and not just for luxe items.
From a conservative to a liberal ---- good posting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2018, 11:18 AM
 
4,543 posts, read 11,549,619 times
Reputation: 3063
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan View Post
Please read this thread in full before voting

I am considering starting a petition to get a significant Cost of living increase adjustment to Social Security for our seniors and veterans and change the way COLA is calculated on Social Security to more accurately reflect true costs and inflation for these people.

Here is why:

Some excerpts from Reuters article: "The COLA crunch: Why Social Security is not keeping up with seniors costs"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...0IC1DP20141023

"By law, the COLA is determined by a formula that ties it to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), which is compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)."

"Many economists and policymakers say the CPI-W doesn’t measure retiree inflation accurately."

"Other research by the group, based on BLS data, shows that Social Security beneficiaries have lost 31 percent of their buying power since 2000. Among big-ticket items, the largest price hikes were for property taxes (104 percent), gasoline (160 percent), some types of food and healthcare expenses."

"A more generous COLA would come via the CPI-E (for “elderly”), an alternative, experimental index maintained by the BLS that is more sensitive to retirees’ spending. That index generally rises two-tenths of a percent faster than the CPI-W."

"Congress has been gridlocked on Social Security, but public opinion is clear. The National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) released a national poll Thursday that shows 72 percent support raising benefits."

- End article excerpts

Cost of living has increased substantially. Unfortunately, COLA adjustments to our vulnerable have not.

Our veterans and elderly paid into the system with their hard work, time and money. Is it not time we get them get them to where they should be based on inflation over the years and from this point on, start ensuring that their compensation is adjusted regularly to truly reflect true cost of living/inflation increases?

Remember, while it may not affect you now, most of us will eventually be in this group eventually. So will our children. Time and age do not regress. Buying power from under adjusted programs does. Do we want our children to deal with our problems if we kick the can down the road?

Is it societies responsibility to ensure our elderly and veterans are not rich nor poor but adequately funded to meet reasonable needs for the hard work, time, money (and in some cases blood) put into the system? Will we and our children eventually become elderly?

If you agree or disagree, please vote and reply to explain your answer why.
Lame poll. Needs to be an option for what we have now, which is small COLA that follow inflation. You didn't offer that one because you don't want to hear it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2018, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,018 posts, read 13,247,591 times
Reputation: 13822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Whoa! Of course they know the difference. But they are of the few that know we can do better with massive public spending, and show where China has been doing it all along.

China would not be growing at such a rate without massive amounts of new Yuan.

Yes, it would.



Vietnam is growing at the same rate without massive amounts of Dong.


It does not require massive amounts of any currency to grow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top