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, 01:20 PM
 
4,089 posts, read 4,597,255 times
Reputation: 1251

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
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?

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.

So is every other insurance scheme. Risk reduction through wealth redistribution is the reason why insurance exists at all.

Judge not, etc.
The pensions are in the Defense section. Only veterans benefits are in HR.

So be it. I have returned 7.8% over my portfolio lifetime. Not bad, but good enough. Luck? Some luck, some research, and a little skill.

At least we agree it is wealth redistribution. Many do not see SS as that at all.

Point noted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2008, 01:25 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,402,860 times
Reputation: 47449
the rich pay little or no taxes. corporate america runs DC. that is why we got 23 million illegals. that is why DOD is suckin on our neck like a vampire.
obama 08
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 01:31 PM
 
4,089 posts, read 4,597,255 times
Reputation: 1251
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post

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.
We will have to disagree, but this is not the forum for it. I have extensive research data that proves SS is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. I am a CPA/actuary turned business owner. I have an undergrad degree in math. I have run the numbers myself.

We can disagree, but if SS was subject to the same actuarial guidelines that a traditional defined benefit pension was subjected to, it would not pass audit. It would have to float a few more bonds to cover the shortfall. It is underfunded, at least mathematically, to pay for more than about another 30 years. The govt. can borrow from itself, raise FICA taxes, or raise the FICA limit. If we continue at today's pace, it will not last past 2040.

Peace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,845 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
The debate at hand is "fairness."

Please clarify your stance. If I understand correctly, you believe that a progressive taxation system is "fair" because the middle income and the poor do not have the resources to save, so it is fair for the government to tax the rich more of their income to help offset the needs of the middle and lower income. Is that a fair assessment of your stance? You do not believe that SS is a wealth redistribution scheme, nor do you believe that I am worse off because I pay into it? You think because the rich still have plenty leftover, it is "fair" to augment the bank accounts of the poor. Do you agree that the rich, at least mathematically, are worse off due to the extreme cost of social programs?

We all need to differentiate between "fair" and "moral", as well as what is just plain old right. I am not advocating anything other than personal responsibility, which is the cornerstone of American freedom. Freedom is about one's ability to fail or succeed based on his own merits in a free market. When the govt. controls all aspects of our lives, we will no longer be a free society. Think about it. The entire liberal agenda is about taking away your freedom. When they control your paycheck, healthcare, and retirement, are you going to argue with them? Nobody bites the hand that feeds them.

I think it is unfair because I see the affects of the entitlement mentality destroying this country. I think it is unfair because food, housing, and cell phones are not guaranteed in the Constitution. The purpose of the government is to provide the framework under which we can individually succeed or fail in a safe environment. I think it is unfair because it was not the intent of SS to be the primary retirement vehicle for Americans.

I am not without compassion, and donate more than many. I am, however, a strong advocate of personal responsibility, which many it seems are not.

Perhaps this graph will put it into perspective for you...all we here from the left is the high cost of the war, and how the GOP is cutting social programs, etc, etc, etc. The data does not support it.

PS, the chart data is in billions.

Peace to all...this is not personal, and not attacking anybody.
I believe that progressive tax is fair because it is the best way to acquire what government needs to function without inflicting too much damage or hardship on one particular class of people.

No one is asking the gov't to buy them cell phones, or homes etc. The poor (I'm not nieve to think that some do) don't have what the middle has, the middle doesn't have what the upper middle has and the upper middle doesn't have what the highest brackets have..simply because we all have what we can afford.

The more skilled your job is the more money you make the more , in the end you have..

We have to remember something.. and it's key.. how hard you work does not always equal how much wealth you have. No matter how many toilets that janitor cleans.. he'll never acquire enough wealth to reach the upper income status. We all can't go to school to become Dr's and lawyers..

Ironically the upper middle and the rich population .. those that run the corporations and wall street are always talking about 'entitlement'.... but then look at what is going on today..

Those same class of people that are crying 'fair tax" and 'entitlement' are now going to the feds with their hands out looking to be bailed out of their poor financial decisions.

Funny.. people havetalked about "trickle down economy" .. and someone said that when the wealthiest are getting even more wealthy it doesn't appear that much is being "trickled down" as is evident by the fact that pay has been pretty stagnant despite the good times that wall street and the life have enjoyed in the recent years..

The only thing that seems to "trickle down" is when Wall Street and the wealthiest in America make huge mistakes with the economy and then run to the government for bail outs.. using.. TAX DOLLARS!!!

My stance is simply this..

It's fair.. because it gives what the government needs without severely impacting the lifestyles of those it takes from.. any other system would further push the middle to poor, the poor off the stratosphere and elevate those of wealth to even more wealth. It's fair because while one pay grade may pay mroe than another pay grade in taxes it does not put an extra hard burden on one level over another..

Flat tax would anilate that .. the so called "fair tax" would shift a heavy burden to the middle...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 01:34 PM
 
4,089 posts, read 4,597,255 times
Reputation: 1251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
the rich pay little or no taxes. corporate america runs DC. that is why we got 23 million illegals. that is why DOD is suckin on our neck like a vampire.
obama 08
Since this is a Debate forum with higher standards, please post data to support your assertion that the rich pay no taxes. I am interested in saving thousands every year. Please help me.

Gosh, where is a moderater when you need one!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 01:37 PM
 
4,089 posts, read 4,597,255 times
Reputation: 1251
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post

Ironically the upper middle and the rich population .. those that run the corporations and wall street are always talking about 'entitlement'.... but then look at what is going on today..

Those same class of people that are crying 'fair tax" and 'entitlement' are now going to the feds with their hands out looking to be bailed out of their poor financial decisions.
Touche! We agree. Please note that I have posted in other forums that I am opposed to using taxpayer dollars to bail out banks and Fannie and Freddie. If nothing, I am at least consistent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,845 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
Touche! We agree. Please note that I have posted in other forums that I am opposed to using taxpayer dollars to bail out banks and Fannie and Freddie. If nothing, I am at least consistent.

I am aware that some within that group may be opposed as you are.. I was more referring to the general group as a whole entity.. not as individuals.

And as someone that was swept up in the mortgage mess ( Iam short sellign my home) I never expected the gov't to help me with my situation. What I did HOPE for was that given the scale of the events at hand that the banks would actually stop.. take pause and say.. okay.. how can we prevent this from deteriorating even further... IMO I felt that it would have better served teh banks/investors to re-evaluate all those with mortgages in trouble and modify the ones they could.. for example.. mine was an Alt-A ARM with a starting interest of 6.95% that jumped to 9.95% at the first adjustment. I could afford the 6.95% (which was 3300 /month with escrow payments for tax/insurance) but couldn't afford the $800 jump. Since the interest wasn't ridiculously low and was more than a point above the best rates offered at the time.. you would think they would have rather kept me in the home and paying them back ..or even fixed it maybe a percentage point higher.. but they didn't ... That's not to say I feel entitled to have them do that.. but logically it makes sense. .. to have the least amount of pain inflicted on both sides of the "gamble" (gamble being the ARM..etc.)

Now I'm short selling..
but my point is that rather than clean up their own messes, they didn't take any action and instead allowed it to deteriorate and are now looking for gov't to clean it up..

Why I find that ironic is usually it is those that have wealth that want less government interference in things (and lets face it.. those at the wheel that fell asleep are the wealthy financial people that run wall street and the economy.. not that there aren't others to blame.. but you know what I mean) and yet there they are asking the government for help becuase they WEREN'T interferred with and allowed to run amock..

And watch..once everythings settled they'll be crying for gov't to back off again..

Which brings me to a very important point. On top of everything else, we now have a HUGE tax bill that will be used to bail out the financial institutions of this country.. run by the wealthiest of the country. (and this is no way has done much to help the homeowner.. believe me!.. it's all about the banks, investors and wall street) Little Joe Smith .. the working middle class man or Jane smith the working class woman.. had no control over those financial markets.. the wealthies of Americans did that were at the helm (and that includes the corporations as a "person" too). They who control the economy took huge gambles with it that we are all paying for. If you shift to a "fair tax" system you will be burdening the middle class more heavily with it than ever before. Would that really be fair.

So . while it can be argued that tax dollars are going to pay for the poor and elderly..it can also be fair then to say that MY tax dolllars will now also be going to bail out the wealthiest of Americans and the "heavily taxed" corporations..

Sorry.. took a little side road.. but I just wanted to further illustrate from this laymen's view. (or i should say laywoman's view)

Last edited by TristansMommy; 09-19-2008 at 01:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,845 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
Touche! We agree. Please note that I have posted in other forums that I am opposed to using taxpayer dollars to bail out banks and Fannie and Freddie. If nothing, I am at least consistent.

BTW.. it's nice to see that we do agree on something.. LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 02:32 PM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,737,865 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
We will have to disagree, but this is not the forum for it. I have extensive research data that proves SS is nothing more than a ponzi scheme.
Ponzi schemes do not last for seven decades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
I am a CPA/actuary turned business owner. I have an undergrad degree in math. I have run the numbers myself.
Your model is not a very robust one then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
We can disagree, but if SS was subject to the same actuarial guidelines that a traditional defined benefit pension was subjected to, it would not pass audit.
SS is an insurance program, not a defined benefit pension program.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
It is underfunded, at least mathematically, to pay for more than about another 30 years.
Even under the pessimistic assumptions that the SS Trustees use in their projections, and even if we do nothing to it at all, the retirement and survivors trust fund will be able to pay 100% of scheduled benefits through 2042. Interestingly, in its 1997 Report, the Trustees calculated that date as being 2029. With the passage of 11 years then, not only did that date not get 11 years closer, it got 2 years further away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
The govt. can borrow from itself, raise FICA taxes, or raise the FICA limit. If we continue at today's pace, it will not last past 2040.
Even if the so-called point of insolvency were reached, SS could afford to pay some 70-75% of all scheduled benefits all but indefinitely. Because of the way scheduled benefits are calculated, those 70-75% of benefits scheduled after insolvenecy would be worth more than what 100% of scheduled benefits would be worth today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 03:23 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,402,860 times
Reputation: 47449
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
Since this is a Debate forum with higher standards, please post data to support your assertion that the rich pay no taxes. I am interested in saving thousands every year. Please help me.

Gosh, where is a moderater when you need one!
of course here you are but its like the famous line in sixth sense
people hear and see just what they want to. for the marie antonette folks its not about listening to the little guy is it?
see you at the polls



Wonk Room Two-Thirds of Corporations Pay No Taxes, But McCain Still Wants To Lower the Corporate Tax Rate
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