Was this an anti-woman anti-foreigner vote? - Page 47 - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 922Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #691 of 701 (permalink) Old 11-22-2016, 11:30 AM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,681
Re: Was this an anti-woman anti-foreigner vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdingontoit View Post
But I understand math and reality. We aren't going to cut 90% of discretionary spending. And we aren't going to increase taxes by 20% to cover the revenue gap. So either we cut payments to the elderly or we live with permanent deficits. And I believe any system that can't continue indefinitely won't. I just don't know when and how the crash will come.
I remember back in the 80's when Ross Perot was running for President. There was a lot of discussion about fixing SS and Medicare, but of course nothing was done. The politicians not only raided the funds they increased the payouts.

The math seems unrecoverable at this point.

There are 2 wild cards, though. One is human psychology. A positive outlook may trump math. Markets may remain solvent due to people simply expecting success, whereas a more pessimistic outlook would lead people to take different actions which would lead to some form of crash. A second wild card is growth. Economic growth combined with fiscal austerity could lead to a balanced budget and a net reduction in national debt. It will take a long time, but we could work our way out of the hole with increased tax revenues due to economic growth, but only as long as there is a serious reduction in spending.

Social Security and Medicare can be tailed off. It took decades to get into this mess, it will take decades to get out. It would require reducing and eliminating future benefits for the middle aged and younger, but payroll taxes would have to continue. Those under about 50 yrs old would get reduced benefits when they retire, tailing off to those under say 40 would get no benefits. These people have time to save for their retirements and plan ahead. Those older and already retired obviously can't be kicked into the streets, so they keep their benefits. Keep the payroll taxes in place and schedule a tail off of those over the years as those who are on the benefits die off. It won't be pretty but it can and must be done.

Thor is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #692 of 701 (permalink) Old 11-22-2016, 11:39 AM
Member
 
john117's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 11,139
Re: Was this an anti-woman anti-foreigner vote?

Social Security is not an entitlement... I've paid it for 3+ decades.
john117 is online now  
post #693 of 701 (permalink) Old 11-22-2016, 12:32 PM
Member
 
Holdingontoit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: In the woods
Posts: 1,197
Re: Was this an anti-woman anti-foreigner vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by john117 View Post
Social Security is not an entitlement... I've paid it for 3+ decades.
No no no. For 3 decades you paid for the people on the program to collect their benefits. After you retire, you will want people working to continue to pay SS taxes to fund your benefits.

I wish it was a true savings plan where they taxed you, piled up those revenues into an account, and then paid you back out of what you paid in. It has never worked that way, and it is too late to switch over (because we have already promised huge payments to people like you whose tax payments over the years have already been spent - so if we use future taxes to create true savings for subsequent retirees, then there is nothing to use to pay your benefits).

The "problem" is that we only taxed people $310 PER YEAR in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s, and then when those people retired and collected benefits we paid them $1000 per month (because we were collecting $250 a month from 4 workers and could afford to pay that level of benefits out of current tax revenue). When we upped the SS taxes in 1983, we upped the benefits and spent that money currently on income tax cuts for current workers instead of saving it to pay benefits in the 1990s and 2000s. So in the 1990s and 2000s, we paid big benefits to Grandma to let her live in her own apartment in Arizona, and saved nothing to use to pay the Baby Boomers in their retirement. So now, instead of having 4 workers pay $250 per month to pay a retiree $1000, we have 2 workers paying in $250 per month (because there are fewer workers per retiree than before, and because real wages haven't moved in 40 years), but we are paying the retirees $1500 or $2000 per month.

We ran a tiny federal budget surplus in the late 1990s in large part because the large cohort of Baby Boomers were in their working years (ages 30s and 40s) and only the relatively small cohort of Depression era babies were retiring. Once the Baby Boomers started retiring in 2011 and the smaller Gen X and Gen Y were the prime working cohorts, the math swung hard against the system. There will be another "window" to fix things when the Baby Boomers finally die off, the smaller Gen X is retired, and the large Millenial cohort is working.

And now you understand why the federal budget is in perpetual deficit and why only by tweaking SS can you go from deficit back to surplus without raising taxes to levels that seem politically unsupportable. Albeit rates likely far below where they were in the 1950s - 1980s before the Reagan tax cuts. If we are going to "Make America Great Again", are we willing to go back to the marginal tax rates that were in effect when America "Was Great"? Top tax rate on investment income back then ranged between 70% and 91%. Back then we built the Interstate Highways and sent men to the moon. Now with rates in the 30% range we can't afford to fix roads, rails, bridges, etc. But we want to be "great" on the cheap I guess.

When you can see it coming, duck!
Holdingontoit is offline  
 
post #694 of 701 (permalink) Old 11-22-2016, 12:50 PM
Forum Supporter
 
blueinbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,956
Re: Was this an anti-woman anti-foreigner vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdingontoit View Post
People want taxes to be low. People get comfortable that it is OK for taxes to be low by telling themselves that most government spending goes to "Takers" who are able bodied but don't work and who live in inner cities.



In fact, half of federal spending is for Social Security and Medicare and most of the rest is for defense and interest on the federal debt.



If you want lower taxes in the US, then we need to get rid of Social Security and grandma needs to live with her kids (as it was for all of human history before the last 40 years) as opposed to having her own apartment in Arizona or Florida. If you don't want your 80 year old mother living with you, then you need to support taxes high enough to pay her monthly cost of living in her own place.



Look at the federal budget. A tiny slice is for "welfare" unless you view Social Security as welfare for old people. I am not saying I want to get rid of Social Security. I am saying that it costs $2 trillion per year for cash payments and health care for senior citizens. It costs $1 trillion per year for defense. It costs $400 billion for interest (and that is with rates low). That is $3.4 trillion, roughly what we collect in taxes. The deficit is basically everything else. National Parks. Agriculture and FDA to keep your food safe. NASA. FEMA to bail you out when your neighborhood floods. Unless you want to close down the entire government, we not only can't reduce taxes, we have to raise them to cut the deficit.



UNLESS you are prepared to cut Social Security and Medicare. We can't close a $600 billion deficit out of the $600 billion of discretionary spending. The only feasible way to close the gap is either raise taxes or cut the $2 trillion of spending on the elderly. I understand that would cause human hardship. I understand granny would die sooner and be in more pain until she does. My parents are elderly and use these programs and I GET IT that their life would be worse if these programs were cut. But I understand math and reality. We aren't going to cut 90% of discretionary spending. And we aren't going to increase taxes by 20% to cover the revenue gap. So either we cut payments to the elderly or we live with permanent deficits. And I believe any system that can't continue indefinitely won't. I just don't know when and how the crash will come.


The government has been stealing 12.4% of my paycheck for 30 years. That is my money. I earned it. If i kept it and invested it like the rest of my money, I wouldn't need social security.

If big pharma would stop making those evil meds, the old will die quicker and the problem goes away.
blueinbr is offline  
post #695 of 701 (permalink) Old 11-22-2016, 12:51 PM
Moderator
 
EleGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 31,493
EleGirl is offline  
post #696 of 701 (permalink) Old 11-22-2016, 01:36 PM
Member
 
john117's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 11,139
Re: Was this an anti-woman anti-foreigner vote?

I'm aware how it's funded - Ponzi - but the bottom line is that it's funded. It's not an "entitlement".

You can debate the details of Ponzi vs savings account but the reality is, people pay into the system and collect.

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/facts...alSecurity.htm

I've maxed out SS contributions for a while and based on the projection I should be getting a decent sum. I know my kids will be paying for me but such is life.

If I don't get it all, such is life again. I have a pension, and a crap load saved in my 401.
john117 is online now  
post #697 of 701 (permalink) Old 11-22-2016, 03:14 PM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,681
Re: Was this an anti-woman anti-foreigner vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueinbr View Post
The government has been stealing 12.4% of my paycheck for 30 years. That is my money. I earned it. If i kept it and invested it like the rest of my money, I wouldn't need social security.
That attitude was exactly what FDR and the progressives were counting on. In fact it is not your money. If you die today the money is gone. If you live to be 150 yrs old you will get back tons more than you ever paid in. They intentionally set it up with an ID number so it would look like "your money" in "your account", whereas it never was anything like that.

Thus you and every other older adult will fight to keep "their money" from being taken away. A clever bit of psychology to keep us dependent on them and to keep us demanding dependency.

Absolutely we would be better off had they never taken the money from us and we had invested it ourselves. Hell, one of the proposals back in the 80's or 90's was to privatize SS and invest the funds for growth. If fedgov had simply put the money into basic investments we would all be better off, but politicians being the *********s they are, they spent it and put IOU's in there which the workers have to pay back. That's a double dip by the fedgov into our paychecks!


Quote:
Originally Posted by blueinbr View Post
If big pharma would stop making those evil meds, the old will die quicker and the problem goes away.
Don't give the politicians any ideas....

Last edited by Thor; 11-22-2016 at 03:22 PM.
Thor is online now  
post #698 of 701 (permalink) Old 11-22-2016, 08:14 PM
Forum Supporter
 
blueinbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,956
Re: Was this an anti-woman anti-foreigner vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by john117 View Post
I'm aware how it's funded - Ponzi - but the bottom line is that it's funded. It's not an "entitlement".

You can debate the details of Ponzi vs savings account but the reality is, people pay into the system and collect.

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/facts...alSecurity.htm

I've maxed out SS contributions for a while and based on the projection I should be getting a decent sum. I know my kids will be paying for me but such is life.

If I don't get it all, such is life again. I have a pension, and a crap load saved in my 401.


It most certainly is an entitlement.

So you have a pension? From evil corporations? How dare they make a profit and fund your pension plan.

You have too much money. You should be sharing with those who have less.

Plus you got the tax break from the 401k. You should give that money back.

You remind me of the hourly employees i used to work with. They always complained how the company screwed them.

Big homes, second homes, RVs, boats, jet skis, college paid for kids, private schools when younger.

Ha.
blueinbr is offline  
post #699 of 701 (permalink) Old 11-22-2016, 08:29 PM
Member
 
john117's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 11,139
Re: Was this an anti-woman anti-foreigner vote?

Entitlement is getting something for nothing. Hardly the case, as I've paid into SS since the mid 80's. Not to mention paying a crap load of federal taxes for 3+ decades.

Pension... A benefit I have earned for sticking around the same company for 31 years. Evil Co. froze it a while back using some remarkable slight of hand.

401k? It's tax DEFERRED, not tax FREE.

Sharing? Take two six figure earners, and see what they pay in taxes. Hint: it's ugly.

Do I deserve it? Hard to tell. I spent a decade in college, and specialized in really obscure stuff. I made some judgment calls as to where the industry was going and did well. Wife likewise. Who the he!! knew what analytics or UX was 15 years ago...

The hourly workers (back then) I knew rarely sent their kids to college, btw. It was toys and trips. While my friends were hitting the golf course every weekend i learned new stuff on my own and / or went back to school. Last time we went on vacation was 2012.

Believe me, I don't feel guilty at all.
john117 is online now  
post #700 of 701 (permalink) Old 11-22-2016, 08:35 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,330
Re: Was this an anti-woman anti-foreigner vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueinbr View Post
The government has been stealing 12.4% of my paycheck for 30 years. That is my money. I earned it. If i kept it and invested it like the rest of my money, I wouldn't need social security.

If big pharma would stop making those evil meds, the old will die quicker and the problem goes away.
12.4%?? Friggin sweet payment for those roads and stuff...

Some of us pay 25-33% for much less, and that's not including 15% sales tax (on all local purchases and any import over $500)

spotthedeaddog is offline  
post #701 of 701 (permalink) Old 11-22-2016, 08:38 PM
Forum Supporter
 
blueinbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,956
Was this an anti-woman anti-foreigner vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by spotthedeaddog View Post
12.4%?? Friggin sweet payment for those roads and stuff...



Some of us pay 25-33% for much less, and that's not including 15% sales tax (on all local purchases and any import over $500)


I was discussing only the 6.2% FICA and the corresponding equal employer match, which effectively is compensation paid that you don't get. The discussion was about social security.
blueinbr is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vote fraud expert Bev Harris exposes electronic voting machines See_Listen_Love Politics and Religion 8 11-02-2016 06:49 PM
Does it doom a relationship if the woman doesn't need "Acts of Service?" Begin again General Relationship Discussion 67 07-15-2016 07:32 AM
Cancelling a vote? TX-SC General Relationship Discussion 19 05-05-2016 08:36 PM
Terminally ill woman sued by ex for writing nasty notes on the alimony checks TeddieG The Social Spot 11 12-21-2015 06:58 PM
my husband went for a dinner with another married woman yellowmoon General Relationship Discussion 63 12-18-2015 08:29 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome