i like zesty. His/her habit of arguing vociferously about inconsequential details of larger issues is entertaining for some reason.
They’re probably going to have to come up with some sort of income test or asset test to see how much of a payment you will get. Those that are well prepared and have saved probably won’t get anything. It’s not fair but sacrifices will need to be made.
@jbald, I know; I should have went to law school. I think that pretty much sums up the legal profession. @Stocks, yeah I think it’s crazy how you can be a Millionaire and still receive social security checks!
Stocks & Blondes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They’re probably going to have to come up with > some sort of income test or asset test to see how > much of a payment you will get. Those that are > well prepared and have saved probably won’t get > anything. It’s not fair but sacrifices will need > to be made. I have assumed pretty much from the day I started my career that SS would not exist when it came time for me to retire, so feel free to divvy up my contributions. SS is a decent part of my parents’ current income, so I’m okay without collecting myself.
They asked a similar question last night during the debate. If you could have $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax hikes, would you do it? Everyone, even Ron Paul, raised their hand. I think so long as we’re not just throwing money at the problems, but actually introducing massive, long-term structural change, most people would be fine with generating some more revenue in the short term.
Stocks & Blondes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Those that are > well prepared and have saved probably won’t get > anything. It’s not fair but sacrifices will need > to be made. I agree that is the direction we are headed, but it is wrong and totally unfair to those who are successful. If the government forces me to pay 6.5% of my gross earnings (subject to the $106,### annual cap) then I deserve to get that money back in Social Security. No question as to whether I have 100k in the bank or 10 million. If I had the option today, I wish there was a way to opt out of social security. Give me what would be deducted and I’ll invest it myself. But the government will likely never allow such a thing.
They couldnt do this because what if you invested it all with the Bernie Madoffs of the world and you ended up with nothing. Social Security is there so that you aren’t living on the street when you’re unable to work. Too many people would opt out and just blow the money
rothwise Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They couldnt do this because what if you invested > it all with the Bernie Madoffs of the world and > you ended up with nothing. Social Security is > there so that you aren’t living on the street when > you’re unable to work. Too many people would opt > out and just blow the money It’s not the government’s job to ensure people invest their money wisely. If you, as an individual, decide to take a chance on a risky investment and lose, then you’ll have to live with it, even if that means on the streets. Or you can beg your kids to take you in later on in life if you’re in such bad shape. This crap about having to protect everyone from everything is getting old.
You would end up with more people on welfare at retirement. What was the savings rate 5 years ago? Negative. True that it isnt the governement’s job to protect everyone, but social security was developed as a safety net. Like it or not
ManMythLegend Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It’s not the government’s job to ensure people > invest their money wisely. If you, as an > individual, decide to take a chance on a risky > investment and lose, then you’ll have to live with > it, even if that means on the streets. Or you can > beg your kids to take you in later on in life if > you’re in such bad shape. This crap about having > to protect everyone from everything is getting > old. PREACH!
rothwise Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They couldnt do this because what if you invested > it all with the Bernie Madoffs of the world and > you ended up with nothing. Social Security is > there so that you aren’t living on the street when > you’re unable to work. Too many people would opt > out and just blow the money What’s the chance you’ll receive nothing from SS now? People would be better off throwing darts.
For much of history, those with wealth have found it often worth a little bit of money (say $7.5c per dollar on your first $100k of earnings) to keep from being taken periodically to the guillotine by the unwashed masses who were too “dumb” not to save 15% of their subsistence income each year. Better yet, we’ve managed to get the many millions of unwashed masses to contribute $7.5c per dollar too! The fact that the unwashed masses may suffer slower aggregate economic growth rates after redistributing their wealth doesn’t really help the aristocracy all that much after their heads have been forcibly removed from their bodies.
rothwise Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You would end up with more people on welfare at > retirement. What was the savings rate 5 years > ago? Negative. True that it isnt the > governement’s job to protect everyone, but social > security was developed as a safety net. Like it > or not So cut welfare and increase the budget for the national guard. What’s the problem?
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For much of history, those with wealth have found > it often worth a little bit of money (say $7.5c > per dollar on your first $100k of earnings) to > keep from being taken periodically to the > guillotine by the unwashed masses who were too > “dumb” not to save 15% of their subsistence income > each year. Better yet, we’ve managed to get the > many millions of unwashed masses to contribute > $7.5c per dollar too! > > The fact that the unwashed masses may suffer > slower aggregate economic growth rates after > redistributing their wealth doesn’t really help > the aristocracy all that much after their heads > have been forcibly removed from their bodies. +1
ManMythLegend Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rothwise Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You would end up with more people on welfare at > > retirement. What was the savings rate 5 years > > ago? Negative. True that it isnt the > > governement’s job to protect everyone, but > social > > security was developed as a safety net. Like > it > > or not > > So cut welfare and increase the budget for the > national guard. What’s the problem? Or only allow those holding the CFA Charter to manage their portion of Social Security contributions.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For much of history, those with wealth have found > it often worth a little bit of money (say $7.5c > per dollar on your first $100k of earnings) to > keep from being taken periodically to the > guillotine by the unwashed masses who were too > “dumb” not to save 15% of their subsistence income > each year. Better yet, we’ve managed to get the > many millions of unwashed masses to contribute > $7.5c per dollar too! > > The fact that the unwashed masses may suffer > slower aggregate economic growth rates after > redistributing their wealth doesn’t really help > the aristocracy all that much after their heads > have been forcibly removed from their bodies. Yea with both hand thou shalt give it. With one hand only thou givest, with the left only. Open thy right hand. /obscure?
rothwise Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ManMythLegend Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rothwise Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > You would end up with more people on welfare > at > > > retirement. What was the savings rate 5 > years > > > ago? Negative. True that it isnt the > > > governement’s job to protect everyone, but > > social > > > security was developed as a safety net. Like > > it > > > or not > > > > So cut welfare and increase the budget for the > > national guard. What’s the problem? > > Or only allow those holding the CFA Charter to > manage their portion of Social Security > contributions. Seems legit.
I knew you’d see the light
Sweep the Leg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They asked a similar question last night during > the debate. If you could have $10 of spending > cuts for every $1 of tax hikes, would you do it? > Everyone, even Ron Paul, raised their hand. > > I think so long as we’re not just throwing money > at the problems, but actually introducing massive, > long-term structural change, most people would be > fine with generating some more revenue in the > short term. Agreed. I’d def. be for mild tax increases if I saw some real near and long-term responsibility on spending.
Friedman said it best. “What you should do, in my opinion, is to give every person who now has a claim on Social Security bonds equal to the value of his claim, and set him free. Let him save. Let him do what he wants with it. That would not add a dollar to the debt we now have; it would just convert an unfunded debt into a funded debt,” Friedman said. Van Fossan asked, “If you did that, how would you protect people from making really stupid decisions?” “I don’t!” Friedman replied. “Why should I?” a response that drew laughter from the group. “You mean freedom does not include the freedom to make a stupid decision?”