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.
Ok, we are never going to agree on any of these points, so we'll just have to leave it at that.
I wouldn't advise it if you wish to have any sort of connection to or understanding of the world as it actually is. There are certainly many areas where different takes on the actual facts might apply, but there is no sensible zone of "agree to disagree" when the question is whether pigs can fly.
Holy theft batman. No wonder your views on higher education are so skewed and incorrect.
LOL. You're struggling to hold up your end over there as well. Meanwhile every society that has ever existed has engaged in wealth and income distribution. All of them take from some and give to others. This is part of the job of being a society. A decent education should have exposed you to this quite basic and central fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams
A knee-jerk leap to the strawman of utopian leveling schemes imagined but neither proposed nor endorsed? That was fast. Also weak.
LOL. You're struggling to hold up your end over there as well. Meanwhile every society that has ever existed has engaged in wealth and income distribution. All of them take from some and give to others. This is part of the job of being a society. A decent education should have exposed you to this quite basic and central fact.
Yes Wealth distribution has occurred in every society, But there are times when it goes to far, thus leading to the decline of said society.
That is what some here are concerned with. and with good reason IMHO.
The purpose of shifting from defined benefit to defined contribution is to have the employee contribute his own dollars towards his retirement rather than have the employer (usually the citizens of a state or municipality ) pay for everything. It is much better and should have been done long ago.
Perhaps you are too young to remember the recent past. The once bountiful landscape of private sector pensions has lately been subjected to a corporate scorched-earth policy as the Big Wheels sought to lop liabilities off the balance sheet while boosting the share price of all those lovely stock options. Just another rape-the-worker scenario. Risk that the big employer once routinely undertook as part of his total compensation package is now dumped off onto tiny little individuals instead. That would be YOU. You have been made worse off and want to cheer for it. More economic instability has been created in the economy as a whole, and you want to cheer for that as well. Maybe you don't really get the picture here.
I fail to see the difference between what you are proposing and SS, We already contribute our own dollars to SS and employers match it.
Actually, this is a misconception as well. Payroll taxes exist as part of your gross pay only so that you can afford to pay the taxes. By showing up at work each morning, you prove to your employer that you are willing to work for your current net pay. If SS and Medicare were to go out of existence tomorrow, your gross pay would go down, your payroll tax deductions would disappear, and you would be left with the very same net pay as you have today. Did you really think that the company was going to let you keep all that extra money for yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrat
Do you really want the FED GOV to implement another huge new bureaucracy to oversee these accounts?
Since this FED GOV that so frightens some folks already has large bureaucracies in place to do this very sort of thing, it seems likely that the work involved would be more easily assimilated than you seem to expect.
Actually, this is a misconception as well. Payroll taxes exist as part of your gross pay only so that you can afford to pay the taxes. By showing up at work each morning, you prove to your employer that you are willing to work for your current net pay. If SS and Medicare were to go out of existence tomorrow, your gross pay would go down, your payroll tax deductions would disappear, and you would be left with the very same net pay as you have today. Did you really think that the company was going to let you keep all that extra money for yourself?
I don't work for a company I work for the Government, State of Maine. I spend 24 years in the private sector and have only recently taken a job with the state. Your above statement has nothing to do with misconceptions because SS and Medicare are not going away, it is nothing more than a "what if" scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oaktonite
Since this FED GOV that so frightens some folks already has large bureaucracies in place to do this very sort of thing, it seems likely that the work involved would be more easily assimilated than you seem to expect.
I personally believe that our GOV is large enough( too large actually) , There comes a time when governments become so large that they are woefully inefficient at what should be even the simplest task . I have seen it first hand.
I don't work for a company I work for the Government, State of Maine. I spend 24 years in the private sector and have only recently taken a job with the state. Your above statement has nothing to do with misconceptions because SS and Medicare are not going away, it is nothing more than a "what if" scenario.
I agree. SS and Medicare at this point are fixtures of the landscape. They've been modified before and will be again, but they aren't going anywhere. I was meanwhile addressing the often-encountered fiction that payroll taxes somehow constitute "theft" of a person's "hard-earned money". This of course is not the case for any tax, but especially not for payroll taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrat
I personally believe that our GOV is large enough( too large actually) , There comes a time when governments become so large that they are woefully inefficient at what should be even the simplest task . I have seen it first hand.
Even if personal anecdotes were on the table, I would imagine that you would have seen "woeful inefficiency" first hand over those 24 years in the private sector as well. And after all, neither the government nor Microsoft actually does anything. Everything is done by much smaller groups working on highly particularized problems and assignments in which the rest of the organization plays no actual role at all. It's a little hard to imagine where you think all these diseconomies of scale can seep into the equation in either case.
Roadrat
I wasn't proposing a thing. I was emphasizing the fact that the existing defined benifit plans are being changed to save tax payers and other employers money. Oaktonite stated ' the shift from defined benefit retirement plans to defined contribution plans was merely an exercise in shifting risk off of employers and consumers generally and onto employees individually.' It is not just shifting risk but more important it is saving money. Hundreds of thousands have retired at age 55-65 and will collect 60-80% of their pay for the rest of their lives without ever having contributed a dime to their pensions. This is simply not sustainable or smart.
I agree. SS and Medicare at this point are fixtures of the landscape. They've been modified before and will be again, but they aren't going anywhere. I was meanwhile addressing the often-encountered fiction that payroll taxes somehow constitute "theft" of a person's "hard-earned money". This of course is not the case for any tax, but especially not for payroll taxes..
The payroll tax is paid by your employer, I'm not sure how anyone could confuse this as coming out of your own pocket unless you believe your employer would pay you more if they did not have to pay it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oaktonite
Even if personal anecdotes were on the table, I would imagine that you would have seen "woeful inefficiency" first hand over those 24 years in the private sector as well. And after all, neither the government nor Microsoft actually does anything. Everything is done by much smaller groups working on highly particularized problems and assignments in which the rest of the organization plays no actual role at all. It's a little hard to imagine where you think all these diseconomies of scale can seep into the equation in either case.
The inefficiency's I've seem in overlarge GOV. is from overlapping agencies who's rules and regulations are so huge and complicated that the employees themselves do not understand them, this causes long delays( and cost overruns ) in projects overseen by GOV. Yes I have seen inefficiencies in the private sector but the difference is that some one is in charge and will make a decision right or wrong and the project moves forward, this is not the case with multiple GOV. agencies they all think there rules or regs supersede all others, this kind of bickering can go on for weeks or months even years.
Oaktonite, The stability of the country my children inherits, far exceed my concerns for how well I can benefit from the policies of those still carrying the water for Big Government and Big Labor. Thankfully I am not alone.
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.
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.
