U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [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)
 
Old 09-19-2008, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,112,847 times
Reputation: 908

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
One cannot opt out of SS. Moderator cut: has been cut out of previous post The only way to opt out is to file a form 4029 and claim that you object on religious grounds. The IRS will then examine your life with a microscope to see if you really practice a religion that is "conscientiously opposed to accepting benefits of any private or public insurance that makes payments in the event of death."

Trust me, if there was an opt-out, I would, and many people would get nothing at retirement. Hard fact.

Since SS is mandatory;

since;

I will have less at retirement contributing to it than I would saving for myself;

since;

many people will have more at retirement by my contributions than they would have if they had saved for themselves;

then it is, in fact, undisputable wealth redistribution through taxation.

Moderator cut: was cut out of original post

You might want to DM GreatDay... he is the one who talks constantly about how he opted out of SS and that you can do so ..even though I argued you couldn't...

I thought it was mandatory too

As for wealth redistribution..

again.. you get based on what you pay into.. you put in more than I do and you'll get more than I do..

You will still be wealthy... I will not be wealthy.. your "wealth" was not passed no to me.. we are not equalized by SS...nor is anyone else equalized by any social program.

What those in the higher brackets do not realize is that those in the lower brackets can not save for retirment.. or atleast enough for retirment.. becasue we do not have discretionary income.

So then.. would yuo rather have a society where the sick and the elderly live in squalor on the street becauser they can no longer work and have no income to support themselves? There are a few third world countries you could move to if that's the way you feel socieity should function.



Again.. wealth redistribution implies that your wealth is taken from you and passed on to others to equalize the equation, and this is just NOT the case...nothing gets equalized.

And you might want to read the high standards in this forum. .you have become flippint in your posts.


As in another post in which someone brought out socialism etc. you have to understand something.. society needs a balance. Human beings need balance. Everyone matters fromthe guy who scrubs toilets to the wealthy billionaires. And in order to have a civilized functioning society humans need to take care of each other.. We all can't be billionares or CEO's or lawyers and Dr's.. if we were society wouldn't function.

Fortunately government undrestands this, even if the rest of us doesn't. it's not about taking your money and giving it to someone else.. it's about society striking a balance and human beings looking out for each other to have a society that functions. I'd shutter to think of what the U.S would look like if those less fortunate (or without as big a paycheck) were left to squallor on the streets.

Last edited by Jammie; 09-19-2008 at 10:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2008, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,112,847 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
You are not worthy because you argue on emotion rather than fact and logic. Just because you keep saying "its not wealth redistribution, its not wealth redistribution" does not alter the facts. If you want to post some hard facts, or make a logical stance, then there is room for disagreement. I can accept, and respect, that. I cannot respect one who argues a point in the face of the obvious facts, and refuses to concede when they are so blatantly wrong. I would rather you just say "thanks rich guy for making my life better", than to sit there and say "you are not any worse off because you still have lots of money", which I believe is the premise of your argument.

And just because you say it is doesn't make it so.

Are you less wealthy.

Am I more wealthy..

ARe we all "equal" in financial standing based on the tax..

The answer to that is NO. That is not emotion.. that is fact!

My argument is marginal utility.... I've illustrated it again and again... but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit with what you want to hear!

the fact is you want to squeeze blood from a stone.. you want to take something from a section of the society that does not have it.

Doesn't change the fact that the gov't needs x amount of dollars to function and you can't get that money from someone that doesn't have it. Period.. that is not emotion.. that's common sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 08:49 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,741,368 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
RE: the federal budget. I happen to have the entire history in Excel. I have created a graph for you to make it simple. Last year, national defense was 20% of the total budget. Human Resources, which is primarily SS, medicare, medicaid, and welfare programs, was 63%.
Interesting chart. Did you put military pensions in with Military or are they part of HR? How about the costs Veterans Hospitals, other veterans benefits, admin costs of running the Department of Veterans Affairs, and interest on public debt that was created to fund wars and other military operations...where did those go?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
While the heavily taxed benefit from these programs (primarily SS), they benefit at a lower rate than those who were never taxed or taxed at a much lower rate! To put things in perspective, if I could opt out of SS, and save the add'l 6.2% of my salary myself, at retirement I would have a far larger income stream from that annuity than I will collecting the maximum SS benefit.
Easy to think that, and for a few individuals, it would work out that way. However, when actual dynamic analyses are run using real-world numbers of and values for variables and people, the vast majority of people end up depending on luck alone to earn a better deal on their own than they would under Social Security. Luck would favor a few. The rest would be...well, out of luck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
SS is not a personal savings account. It is a pool-based, wealth redistribution system.
So is every other insurance scheme. Risk reduction through wealth redistribution is the reason why insurance exists at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
If you do not understand this basic concept, you are not worthy of this Great Debates forum.
Judge not, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 09:08 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,741,368 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
1. SS has only been in existence for 50 years.
More like 70-some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
For the 300 years prior to that, how did the poor Americans survive without it?
Many didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
The maximum is capped. It is not a true annuity calculation. In fact, many of the baby boomers will find that SS is the best investment of their lives, returning an imputed return on investment of over 25%, depending on which study you read. Many of today's recipients paid less than 10 cents for every dollar they are receiving; that is why the system is going broke.
If you believe that SS is "going broke", it is you whose understandings need to be upgraded. The system is perfectly sound. As it has throughout its history, it will from time to time require adjustment. There have been many in the past, there will be many in the future. Crash-and-burn scenarios are fables manufactured by Uncle Bushie and his pals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 09:18 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,741,368 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Doesn't change the fact that the gov't needs x amount of dollars to function and you can't get that money from someone that doesn't have it. Period.. that is not emotion.. that's common sense.
It's also a part of the fundamental assumptions underlying actual tax policy research and debate. Some believe they know fundamental conceptual truths that belie the notion. Luckily for those who live with the practical consequences of tax policy as implemented, the influences of this group on actual research and debate is about nil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 09:19 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,424,573 times
Reputation: 4016
As we reported last year, Medicare's financial difficulties come sooner—and are much more severe—than those confronting Social Security. While both programs face demographic challenges, rapidly growing health care costs also affect Medicare. Underlying health care costs per enrollee are projected to rise faster than the wages per worker on which payroll taxes and Social Security benefits are based. As a result, while Medicare's annual costs were 3.2 percent of GDP in 2007, or nearly three quarters of Social Security's, they are projected to surpass Social Security expenditures in 2028 and reach 10.8 percent of GDP in 2082.

Moreover, this is the second consecutive year that the Medicare Report triggers a Medicare funding warning. Under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 the Medicare Report must include a determination of whether the difference between total Medicare outlays and dedicated financing (such as premiums and payroll taxes) exceeds 45 percent of total outlays within the first 7 years of the projection period (2008-2014 for the 2008 Report). The Act provides that an affirmative determination in two consecutive reports be treated as a "funding warning" for Medicare that would, in turn, prompt a Presidential proposal to respond to the warning and expedited Congressional consideration of such proposal. The 2008 Report projects that the difference will surpass 45 percent in 2014 and therefore again makes a determination of excess general revenue funding (as prior Reports did in 2006 and 2007). This determination triggers the second consecutive Medicare funding warning. Under the provisions of the 2003 Act, this calls for a Presidential proposal to respond to the warning within 15 days of the submission of the Fiscal Year 2010 budget and for Congress to consider the proposal on an expedited basis. This provision is expected to bring additional attention to Medicare's impact on the Federal budget.

The fund also continues to fail our long-range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2019, the same as in last year's report, when dedicated revenues would be sufficient to pay only 78 percent of HI costs. Projected HI dedicated revenues fall short of outlays in this and all future years. The Medicare Report shows that the program could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years by an immediate 122 percent increase in the payroll tax (from 2.9 percent to 6.44 percent), or an immediate 51 percent reduction in program outlays or some combination of the two. As with Social Security, adjustments of greater magnitude would be necessary if changes are delayed or phased in gradually. Larger changes would also be required to make the program solvent on a sustainable basis beyond the 75-year horizon.

Trustees Report Summary
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 09:48 AM
 
7,367 posts, read 6,527,849 times
Reputation: 1248
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
And just because you say it is doesn't make it so.

Are you less wealthy.

Am I more wealthy..

ARe we all "equal" in financial standing based on the tax..

The answer to that is NO. That is not emotion.. that is fact!

My argument is marginal utility.... I've illustrated it again and again... but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit with what you want to hear!

the fact is you want to squeeze blood from a stone.. you want to take something from a section of the society that does not have it.

Doesn't change the fact that the gov't needs x amount of dollars to function and you can't get that money from someone that doesn't have it. Period.. that is not emotion.. that's common sense.
Wealth Redistribution might be an inappropriate term in your eyes, but either way the retirement wealth of those contributing to the system is reduced to increase the retirement wealth of those who contributed little or nothing. Who is to say that people in need wouldn't be taken care of without government? For 150 years SS and Medicare didn't exist and masses of old people weren't dying in the streets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 09:49 AM
 
862 posts, read 772,497 times
Reputation: 149
Of course it is,to whom much is given,much is required.
Did Bill Gates(for example) build the roads his employess use to go to work,the Universities in which they were educated?Did he pay for the police,fireman and soldiers that keep him safe? Did he construct the society in which his activity
flourishes?Find all his customers jobs? Pay God for his own God-given abilities?
etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc, etc ad infinitum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 09:51 AM
 
862 posts, read 772,497 times
Reputation: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
Wealth Redistribution might be an inappropriate term in your eyes, but either way the retirement wealth of those contributing to the system is reduced to increase the retirement wealth of those who contributed little or nothing. Who is to say that people in need wouldn't be taken care of without government? For 150 years SS and Medicare didn't exist and masses of old people weren't dying in the streets.

Really? In my history book they were.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 10:34 AM
 
Location: So. Dak.
13,495 posts, read 33,431,409 times
Reputation: 15044
http://www.city-data.com/forum/great...-forum-all.htm

Moderator cut: I suggest that this thread by Administrator be reread by a few members. There have been insults hurled that aren't allowed on any part of the forum. If this continues, infractions WILL be given.
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 > Great Debates
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