JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IronMan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > artvandalay Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > "I guess my 90-year old mother-in-law > > (completely > > > invested in money markets/treasuries/GNMA’s) > > ought > > > to pay for your 401-K. Is that fair? " > > > > > > > > > Is it fair that I have to pay in 15% of my > > gross > > > income to support Medicare and Social > Security > > > benefits that I will never receive? > > > > good point art. > > > No it is not fair that you have to pay so much for > social security and medicare. I think that both > need to be reformed in the worst kind of way. But > what is the relevance of that to the current > problem? Does the inequity of FICA taxes somehow > justify an inequity on a completely different > group? Does one inequity in society mean that we > should abandon the idea of equity altogether? Are > you just singling out my mother-in-law who > collects $432/month from social security and > receives Medicare benefits as a villain who is > deserving of inequity because she lived to be 90? > > I have all kinds of idea for Medicare and social > security reform that I would be happy to discuss, > but there is just not a rational argument that > says that anything happening with those programs > justifies the bailout. Joey, its not about whether that argument is relevant. What art is saying is that life is full of inequality and you can’t discuss “fairness” as a reason for change, because inequality is abundant (you would need to change everything, not just 1 area where you or your “group” reap the benefits. Everyone gets the short end of the stick at points in life, but you just need to grab your balls and man up.
Nonsense…courts and legislators consider equity all the time as is appropriate.
IronMan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- What art is saying is that life is full > of inequality and you can’t discuss “fairness” as > a reason for change, because inequality is > abundant (you would need to change everything, not > just 1 area where you or your “group” reap the > benefits. Everyone gets the short end of the > stick at points in life, but you just need to grab > your balls and man up. misstep in logic. You cannot condone an *unfair* reform by arguing that there are many instances of *unfairness*. Think it through. By putting these pick-and-choose bailouts in place the gov’t is setting a frightening precedent ; I’m not a mind reader, but I’d bet that setting this sort of precedent is one of JDV’s main concerns.
TJR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ouch…I struck a nerve. I shouldn’t have > signaled out Palin. There are probably less than > 10 people in the house and senate combined that > have as deep of an understanding of the “bailout” > as someone like JDV. No tender nerves here. As I said I don’t hold palin or biden in any high regard. I just felt a sarcastic criticism should fairly be directed at both tickets. I certainly am not willing to vote for either pair based on the notion that they have developed a plan or accumulated the experience needed to navigate a secular financial crisis. I would agree with the second statement.
“What art is saying is that life is full of inequality and you can’t discuss “fairness” as a reason for change, because inequality is abundant” Yeah I was just pointing out that in a lot of situations that require government intervention, someone will get the short end. In this instance, regardless of opinion (in all honesty no one knows how this will play out) it will certainly benefit some at the expense of others.
just to clear up the facts about SS & Medicare before returning to the conversation at hand. In a worst case scenario, without adjustments to the plan, SS will pay-out 70% of promised benefits, so it is factually incorrect to say that anyone will get zero payback. Further, almost all recipients receive at least a modest return on the contributions, so the haircut to contributions is actually less than the 30% implied above. For lower income workers, benefits will exceed contributions on a real dollar basis (despite the haircut), since there is some progressivity in the benefit formula. Medicare is clearly a bigger problem, so let’s say for the sake of argument, that the average person gets a 60% of haircut of promised benefits (i.e. 40% payback). I’m not as familiar with this program, and would welcome a more definitive projection. So, the average recepient will receive at least 65% of the *promised* benefits of the two programs, and an even better payback of their contributions. So, it is false to say that any individual will “never” recieve any benefits. An individual would have to die before 65 for that to be the case. Further, this all assumes zero adjustments to the programs. The programs have been adjusted before, and will be adjusted again, so that is a weak assumption. Certainly, people can argue about fairness and value in this program, but it helps to have a clue first. 1) Many people think Social Security is a retirement plan, but that is incorrect. The mission of SS is poverty insurance, in the event of old-age or disability. To argue that there are better returns in the private 401k plans, is to make an apples & oranges comparison. 2) The underlying problem is pay-go funding, not public funding. The adminstration of social security is less than any private adminstration of any signifcant pension and insurance plans. Once again, people can argue both sides of this issue, and I hope that I have been fair.