Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 09-25-2007, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,535,221 times
Reputation: 24856

Advertisements

Yeldaf - I am NOT "penalizing success"! These personalities would continue to strive to be paid more even if the tax was over 100% because their social status is determined by how much they are paid and how much “power” they can wield.

I am only trying to fairly assess the responsibility for paying for social security in proportion to the benefit a person is receiving from the economy. I believe forcing everyone to put their pension money at risk in the financial markets is economically suicide. There is just too much risk involved. One point of social security is to provide a fairly large part of the population with spendable income regardless of how well the rest of the economy is doing. I, for one, do not want to risk my basic survival on a stock market and banking system that is inherently unstable. The Great Depression was caused, in part, by the collapse of many banks making loans to people playing in marginal stock speculation just as many banks hace financed teh current speculation in marginal housing speculation. I want my pension to be there, regardless of the condition of the market, when I am unable to earn any other income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-25-2007, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,233,017 times
Reputation: 15284
Quote:
Originally Posted by amichel View Post
We are saving for our retirement because we don't think it will be around much longer. My parents have saved, too. If they ran out of money, I would not consider helping them having them "dumped" on me.

My grandmother did not save. She spent every penny she ever earned. She always had plenty of cash to go on vacations out of the country, get her nails done, and buy beautiful things.

She is now completely dependent on social security and can't afford any luxuries. Other family members "chip in" for her extras if they can. I know she wishes she had put aside some cash for her retirement years.

I sure do resent paying and paying and paying for people who didn't save and now expect the government to "pay their way." I doubt I'll ever see a penny of all of the money my husband and I have basically given away so grandma and grandpa can live in the moment and rely on the government when the time comes.

In many countries it is very common to have several generations under one roof. Many children take care of their aged parents, aunts, and uncles when necessary.

I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes more and more common here in the United States. Social security simply cannot continue as is.
Isn't the real lesson "save (and, it goes without saying, invest) for retirement"?

In all candor -- why is that such a hardship, and what is so difficut to understand about that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2007, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,109,333 times
Reputation: 7373
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Yeldaf - I am NOT "penalizing success"! These personalities would continue to strive to be paid more even if the tax was over 100% because their social status is determined by how much they are paid and how much “power” they can wield.

I am only trying to fairly assess the responsibility for paying for social security in proportion to the benefit a person is receiving from the economy. I just think that many executives are paid way too much for their work and are stealing from their stockholders by exploiting captive boards of directors.

I believe forcing everyone to put their pension money at risk in the financial markets is economically suicide. There is just too much risk involved. One point of social security is to provide a fairly large part of the population with spendable income regardless of how well the rest of the economy is doing. I, for one, do not want to risk my basic survival on a stock market and banking system that is inherently unstable. I want my pension to be there when I am unable to earn any other income.
Although I have some sympathizes for your sentiments, I don't think we can be further apart on this issue. If you are taxing incremental income at continuously higher rates you reduce the incentive for growth and wealth creation. This would help result in the dicey markets you so fear, and would in fact be a self generating prophecy (IMHO).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2007, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,535,221 times
Reputation: 24856
Newtoca - I really disagree. I think that a progressive taxation system and high interest rates would encourage productive growth by investing in productive assets (agriculture, mining and manufacturing) while discouraging speculation (hedge funds, Enron, marginal real estate mortgage schemes). The high interest rates alone would encourage savings because the accounts would not be bled dry with the inflation created by low interest rates and deficit spending. Also by forgiving at least twice the median income from any taxation (Social security and Income tax) there would be a huge amount of money available for savings accounts and/or productive investment. The stock market is supposed to be a way to allocate investment (savings) and not supposed to be a casino. If you want to gamble try Las Vegas or the Chicago Board of Trade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2007, 01:29 PM
 
17,290 posts, read 29,287,590 times
Reputation: 8690
I read an article recently, entitled something like, "What is the most Dangerous Threat to the US Economy"?

Surprise surprise, it was US consumers SAVING MONEY that would make devastating blows to economy, above terror and all else.


Telling people to "save more on their own," (for retirement, for healthcare, for schooling, for everything) though of course the right thing to do regardless, WILL have impacts on the economy. I just wish someone would be honest and call out our current economic model as "unsustainable!" Sales tax dependent states such as my own are already seeing the effects of consumers restraining spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2007, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,109,333 times
Reputation: 7373
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Newtoca - I really disagree. I think that a progressive taxation system and high interest rates would encourage productive growth by investing in productive assets (agriculture, mining and manufacturing) while discouraging speculation (hedge funds, Enron, marginal real estate mortgage schemes). The high interest rates alone would encourage savings because the accounts would not be bled dry with the inflation created by low interest rates and deficit spending. Also by forgiving at least twice the median income from any taxation (Social security and Income tax) there would be a huge amount of money available for savings accounts and/or productive investment. The stock market is supposed to be a way to allocate investment (savings) and not supposed to be a casino. If you want to gamble try Las Vegas or the Chicago Board of Trade.
I don't view the stock market as a casino at all, and I say this as a 30 plus year investor. Your sentiments about high interest rates encouraging savings was espoused by Jimmy Carter in support of Paul Volker when he was at the Fed, before Greenspan. It actually was the decision which broke inflation's back, though the lag time created the "misery index" of high interest and high unemployment.

You have to find the interest rate which balances saving vs investment, and this is a continuously changing relationship. It is one of the things that the Fed takes into account in setting interest rates. I think rates are fine where they are, but have NEVER supported the flaky financing schemes that were allowed to be used to finance homes the past few years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2007, 01:50 PM
 
708 posts, read 928,680 times
Reputation: 364
Smile Bush-S.S.

Some very interesting posts! I for one do not share the idea that S.S. cannot continue. If S.S. were not in the general fund and subject to poor judgement by our Adm. there is not a good reason why S.S. cannot continue--as well it must. S.S. is probably the most effective program of that type on the planet and the huge benefits that spread through many age groups have residual values and effects rarely discussed. S.S. is not just some benefit for lazy or unintelligent seniors.

That being said we seem to have a penchant to ruin anything good that is not part of instant gratification or is not an inspiration for the me generation. Boo Hoo--there won't be any left for me. Boo Hoo they tax my income for a lost cause. Boo Hoo I want to do it MY way--no tax, I'll invest for my own retirement.

I say vote for and support objective and humanitarian candidates--there will be something left for you--unless someone gets to know you well!

S.S. is far from a lost cause--it is and should continue to be viable if properly administered.

Sure, go ahead--do it YOUR way invest for your own retirement--there is nothing stopping you from doing that while paying taxes for S.S. You and our country will be much better off. You better begin serious saving and investing soon --both show a dismal record among the young and middle age group. Debt is also very high for this group.

Please don't say you want a refund-LOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2007, 01:56 PM
 
3,301 posts, read 6,305,461 times
Reputation: 810
Default Democrats voted across their party line to give Illegal Aliens Social Security Benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elizamary View Post
Well I'll be..............

That son of bxxxxh doesn't care one iota about the people. Veto childrens health care and take away from seniors.

Is this guy for real. He boost spending for a war that very few americans wanted.
he should have been impeached right then and there.

Anyone that voted for his and is sorry, GOOD. Some did it twice??????
Suffer

Too bad the rest of us have to suffer too. 208 is still a long way off.

And if you elect a republican, you can be sure it will not be much better.
They may just want social security cut as well.

So think about it and use your own brain and not someone elses.
I guess Bush sees the damage that the Democrats did to the Social Security fund last year. //www.city-data.com/forum/immig...ml#post1577116 Checkout the link and read how the Democrats voted across their party line to give Illegal Aliens Social Security Benefits.

The link lists the vote, so you can learn who voted to dry up Social Security that much faster.

Go by the vote, not empty words... Bush did not vote to give Illegal Aliens Social Security, but if you want, you can still blame it on him. It is the Defeatcrat way to blame everything on Bush!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2007, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,233,017 times
Reputation: 15284
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Yeldaf - I am NOT "penalizing success"! These personalities would continue to strive to be paid more even if the tax was over 100% because their social status is determined by how much they are paid and how much “power” they can wield.

I am only trying to fairly assess the responsibility for paying for social security in proportion to the benefit a person is receiving from the economy. I believe forcing everyone to put their pension money at risk in the financial markets is economically suicide. There is just too much risk involved. One point of social security is to provide a fairly large part of the population with spendable income regardless of how well the rest of the economy is doing. I, for one, do not want to risk my basic survival on a stock market and banking system that is inherently unstable. The Great Depression was caused, in part, by the collapse of many banks making loans to people playing in marginal stock speculation just as many banks hace financed teh current speculation in marginal housing speculation. I want my pension to be there, regardless of the condition of the market, when I am unable to earn any other income.
I have to disagree, Greg. Social status is a fine concept in the abstract, but people want more than that. They want A MAXIMUM RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENTS. If they aren't able to realize that return in the US, they'll take their money elsewhere. I know. I have, at least partially. Haven't you? That Chinese stock market is the closest thing on earth to a money-printing machine!

Putting pension money "at risk" is precisely what we are doing with Social Security. The only difference is that a) SS is paying about 2% with a diminishing number of contributors per retiree, and a Congress unable to get the monkey off its back that makes it dip into the "trust fund" (ha ha) again and again, and b) the stock market is paying about 8% over the past 100 years, with an unlimiited number of investors (think China, India, etc.) and darned near infinite capitalization.

Forget the banks. Forget margin. That's Charlie Chaplin and Leon Trotsky with an icepick in his brain. Utilizing the stock market through mutual funds is the way to go. You know it. I know it. The rich folks know it. Congress darn sure knows it.

Isn't it about time ALL the people knew it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2007, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,985,911 times
Reputation: 604
8% average interest doesn't mean that's what the average investor with little to invest'll get. Whatever happened to the "security" aspect of Social Security? There isn't that much security in the stock market. It booms & crashes. People who choose to reduce their SS benefits to put money in some pre-selected stocks'll get screwed over if their retirement age comes during a recession.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top