What socialist programs are you willing to give up? (wages, ethics, weapon)

[dorock99]

Originally Posted by Greatday

Yes, you are BEING DISHONEST IN YOUR REPRESENTATIONS

Your posting the SSA site is actually meaningless - because while it gives the taxable amounts / percentages - you are portraying the benefits as STEALING - when, IN FACT, is not stealing (except to you).

And, once again, the FACT is, the Government of the United States has PROMISED that if you contribute to the Social Security system, you will get certain benefits from that same Government when you retire. And, that is what is happening.

The benefits being paid WERE PROMISED -

So, I think we are at the end of our discussion as it is clear you do not want to accept the FACTS -

So please, continue with your childish posts. Believe as you wish to - that is your right - but, realize that you are in fact wrong.

If you actually feel otherwise though - I encourage you to contact your Congressional Representatives about the issue.

You do have to be a citizen though - are you?

And, if you are not happy here, you can always return home (wherever home is).


BTW - just an FYI: I don't use government water, or sewer. I don't have utitilty lines of any kind (electric or telephone). And the road to my home is private.

Greatday, it is a tough subject and arouses a lot of passion, so i appreciate your willingness to debate me on the merits of the program. I think we both agree we will not see the program in the same light as far as the "stealing" is concerned, but i take comfort in the fact, that we do disagree with the overall scope of the program. Anyway, have a good rest of the day mate!

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by dorock99

Welll Old Cold, it is more like 4% if we consider the 3% inflation every year etc, but i was just using those numbers for simplicities sake etc

I am not arguing whatever numbers you want to use as long as your basic premise is correct and it hasn't been.

I actually agree that these programs shouldn't exist as they do.

But since most of the population was not aware of or prepared to do what greatday and some others have done, what the government promised us and took money for cannot in any way be contrued as stealing nor can we that are now on those programs be thought of as greedy thieves.

Now, being accused of THAT I am inclined to get 'touchy' about

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by dorock99

What government run socialist programs are you willing to give up?

1. Medicare
2. Social Security
3. Tax Subsidies to Corps
4. Tax Subsidies to Individuals
5. Tax Subsidies to Farmers
6. Any and all Tax Subsidies
7. Welfare (TANF)
8. Public Schools
9. Public Universities/Community Colleges
10. Tariffs/Sales Tax/Property Tax/ etc

PS- 11. Bonus point for "inflation tax" - A la Federal Reserve

The top two choices (1) and (2) would save me more than 8,000-9,000 a year if i stopped paying into them. The others like sales tax, corp tax, farming subsidies, tariffs, and etc are a little harder to quantity, because they are often "hidden taxes."

Anyway, which government programs are you willing to give up for lower taxes?

All of them.

[cobolt]

I say get rid of them all. The Fed Govt has no business in it anyway. Keep the power close to the states instead of simply making them an adminstrative agency of Uncle Sam.

[dorock99]

Originally Posted by cobolt

I say get rid of them all. The Fed Govt has no business in it anyway. Keep the power close to the states instead of simply making them an adminstrative agency of Uncle Sam.

I would not mind that idea!!

[dorock99]

Originally Posted by old_cold

I am not arguing whatever numbers you want to use as long as your basic premise is correct and it hasn't been.

I actually agree that these programs shouldn't exist as they do.

But since most of the population was not aware of or prepared to do what greatday and some others have done, what the government promised us and took money for cannot in any way be contrued as stealing nor can we that are now on those programs be thought of as greedy thieves.

Now, being accused of THAT I am inclined to get 'touchy' about

My only gripe at what you're saying here is that my math is correct and all my assumptions are extremely high. For a person to make an average over 80k in 40 years of working they had to have an extremely high salary at some point and i assume most respondents did not have a salary at any point above 200k etc.

My point in using the highest possible salary average is to show that even if you had been a high income earner you would not have paid your fair share into the system.

None of us are taxed at a high enough rate on this program to ever have paid our fair share into it. Unless, you died before you could receive your benefits etc.

Plus Medicare has no salary cap, so everyone pays into medicare no matter what their salary is and how much they earn.

On the other hand Social Security is capped at certain rates etc i think it is now up to 106,000, you stop paying the tax on it.

Let's say you made an average of 106,000

Let's say for 40 years you paid 6,572 into he system each year for 40 years

(6,572*40) = 262,880

Let's say you retired at 65 and you're now 80

Let's also assume you've received 2,150 a month or (25,800 a year)

In 10 years you would have spent through what you contributed (and guess what people are living a lot longer than they previously did when the program started. ) Math is 262,880/25800 = 10 years

Basically from 75 to 80 you have received 129,000 you did not put into the system. I just do not see how that is fair???

In other words you invested

262,880 and your return increases the longer you live, so add another 129,000 to that total and your total take in from the program is 391,880

The problem is that you didn't get this return, because the government invested your money in assets that could give you this rate of return, they used other peoples money to fund this return on your initial investment, which is ethically wrong!!!

391,880/262,880 = 49% return (or about 4% a year add inflation 1% a year)

In essence the government didn't make any sort of return for you they funded it again through taxing other people to pay you extra.

I'm just confused with how you can disagree with this. I'm not making up numbers I'm using the one's given by the Social Security and Medicare web-site. I'm using basic math. I mean if you could refute the math based on something else, then we might have an argument, but if you're just refuting the data, because you do not like it, that is not a valid enough reason to disprove what I'm saying.

Anyway, I'm just beating a dead horse we've all agreed to disagree on the subject. The only reason i bring these programs up is 1. they are the costliest and 2. The individuals on them have been the most vocal about not wanting socialism in America etc. To be honest two is what really pisses me off the most, because it is so hypocritical.

[Fred Derf]

Originally Posted by Greatday

Let me ask you: What would YOU consider to be a "fair share"? You keep saying that these "people don't pay their FAIR SHARE - what exactly do you mean?

It would seem that with today's deficits and the compounded national debt that no American is currently paying his or her fair share unless they voluntarily pay more tax than what is asked. I'm thinking that not too many people do this. With taxes the way that they are, everyone is paying less than their fare share with the expectation that their grandchildren will get it all figured out eventually. That doesn't strike me as being terribly responsible but there you go.

[GOPATTA2D]

Originally Posted by dorock99

My only gripe at what you're saying here is that my math is correct and all my assumptions are extremely high. For a person to make an average over 80k in 40 years of working they had to have an extremely high salary at some point and i assume most respondents did not have a salary at any point above 200k etc.

[snip]

Again - you are on the right track but you keep ignoring the Time Value of Money, as well as the EMPLOYER portion of Social Security.

[dorock99]

Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D

Again - you are on the right track but you keep ignoring the Time Value of Money, as well as the EMPLOYER portion of Social Security.

Gopattad2d, i guess i haven't addressed your concern and i know where you're attempting to take your argument. Yes, i agree, the dollars i put into social security in 1990 were worth more than the dollars i put in, in 2009.

However, even if we split this out by decade

1960 you paid x amount of dollars worth x amount of dollars in today's value
1970 you paid x amount of dollars worth x amount of dollars in today's value
1980 you paid x amount of dollars worth x amount of dollars in today's value

etc.....

You would still have the same effect, because each decade your overall dollars are worth considerably less than they were during the previous decade. We could use the CPI from the start of the decade to the end of the decade to figure out the inflation and lost value of the dollars etc, but i think even with that in place someone who receives 4x what they put in, will find that they are still inflation adjusted receiving a significant benefit. Perhaps inflation adjusted drops what looks like 4x to 3.2x's either way it is more than they paid into the system.

It still does not change the fact, that you are receiving more than you put in and the longer you live the more you receive that you never put into the system.

Also to avoid the inflation tax i believe government has added in COLA to the Social Security Plan and Medicare plan, so technically the payments are adjusted each year to beat inflation.

However, if your overall argument for the time value of money centers around dollars in 1966 being worth more than dollars in 2009, i would agree with you, but all things being constant, it does not change my argument one bit.

Also as far as the employer part i'm not sure where you're going with that could you fill me in?

[MovingForward]

As a member of my community and my nation, I have no problem paying taxes. If there is no tax money, the nation falls apart. Are you arguing for turning everything over to private corporations to run. You know, like we did with our health care system? In which case: Welcome to Orwell Land!