Social Security Reform is BACK Baby!

Bush is right, of course, when he says in his budget proposal that Social Security in its current form is unsustainable.

Let's do nothing.

Let's have 80% rates on income taxes instead.

Fine idea right guys?
 
Blame Dubya's out of control spending with an illegal war, tax breaks for the oil companies, tax breaks for the corporations, tax breaks for the wealthiest, no bid contracts to Halliburton, missing Iraq money, etc. That's why he needs to cut medicare, medicaid, SS, school funding, and so on.

With the medicare, medicaid, and SS - I said do it, let the old get screwed since they are the ones that vote in record numbers anyway. The majority of them are responsible for this abomination in the white house today. And while we're at it, eliminate all farm subsidies too. Screw the farmers, seriously.
 
The left wing playbook never gets old.

They're still on Version 1.0 published in 1968 and haven't changed it since. A whole new generation of EZB's spouting it off like Nintendo fans saying Super Mario Brothers and Zelda make Nintendo the greatest game company ever. Never mind that the playbook is 37 years old or that Nintendo's games are 20 years old. They're classics that never need to be updated.

Sure those that continue to spout it have no idea what decade or century it may be but it doesn't stop them from thinking they're right.

God bless the ignorant.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Bush is right, of course, when he says in his budget proposal that Social Security in its current form is unsustainable.

Let's do nothing.

Let's have 80% rates on income taxes instead.

Fine idea right guys?[/QUOTE]

Sure, let's not increase the cap on taxable income above $90K.

Let's take it all and bet on "Papa's Moustache" at the horse track instead.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']They should just kill SS outright. Immediately. Also, flat tax.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying to kill the idea of a flat tax, or eliminate a progressive tax in favor of a flat tax? You realize that you'd be paying more taxes with a flat tax than a progressive tax, right, since the government needs to collect more from the middle-class to make up for the difference? I assume you're not wealthy since you're a frequent CAG visitor.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sure, let's not increase the cap on taxable income above $90K.

Let's take it all and bet on "Papa's Moustache" at the horse track instead.[/QUOTE]

There's a reason they don't do that mykey.

SSI was never created as a wealth transfer. It was designed so that what you paid in, you got back later on.

If you tax everything above 90k it becomes, unquestionably, a wealth transfer.

Unless of course you want to start paying millionaires and billionaires $180,000 a month or so down the road to keep in line with what they contributed.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why?[/QUOTE]

It is a pyramid scheme, built on concepts that are not sound and if Social Security had been privately run it would have been illegal.

Its not working and no matter what other spending goes on, it will continue not to work. It would take a larger and larger portion of tax revenue as time goes on and eventually it will be defunct altogether. It was a poorly thought out plan, the "social" part of it should have given it away.

The reality is that if people are allowed to choose where their money goes, rather than being forced into this pyramid scheme they'll have a say and control over their future rather than being herded into this plan like a bunch of cows.

But, of course some people know this system is flawed and if they can't keep herding cattle into it, how flawed it is will be fully exposed. Much like they don't want to let people choose schools, they don't want to let people choose their retirement plans either. Choice, the enemy of socialism...

As far as flat taxes, they are the only taxes that make sense. If taxes are too high for a low income person to pay them, they are too high period. Flat taxes make the most sense, don't punish someone for making more money. We have our massive social programs, then we have to have our massive tax programs to pay for our massive social programs, etc, etc, etc. Believe me, you don't want it like Germany with 16% sales tax and 50% income tax (getting around that is why Uwe Boll can make his movies). Oh yeah, but they've got "free" healthcare and "free" college, you just have to pay for it the rest of your life whether or not you use it.
 
The problem with SSI is that when it was enacted the average life span was 68 and you were only going to be collecting it for 3 years.

Now with people living well into their 70's, 80's and 90's you're paying people for 10-30 years.

From a 1996 actuary- a man age 65 can expect to live to 80.3. A woman to age 83.8. A girl born in 1996 who misses the diseases of breast cancer and heart disease can figure on a lifetime to age 92.
Link

By the same measure of life expectency as when SSI was enacted SSI would be awarded at 77 for men and 80 for women. Or say 78 1/2 as an average.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why?[/QUOTE]KrAzY3 pretty much covered it.[quote name='E-Z-B']Are you saying to kill the idea of a flat tax, or eliminate a progressive tax in favor of a flat tax? You realize that you'd be paying more taxes with a flat tax than a progressive tax, right, since the government needs to collect more from the middle-class to make up for the difference? I assume you're not wealthy since you're a frequent CAG visitor.[/QUOTE]Switch to flat tax. I don't mind paying more personally, I just think it's the only acceptable way to do things.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']There's a reason they don't do that mykey.

SSI was never created as a wealth transfer. It was designed so that what you paid in, you got back later on.

If you tax everything above 90k it becomes, unquestionably, a wealth transfer.

Unless of course you want to start paying millionaires and billionaires $180,000 a month or so down the road to keep in line with what they contributed.[/QUOTE]

So, let me get your argument straight: people get exactly what they pay into social security, so it isn't a wealth transfer.

Yet we don't want to tax people more, so they will end up getting what they put into social security?

Interesting paradox there. Somehow putting it into the stock market is better than increasing the FICA limit, or simply doing away with paying SS benefits to those who have accumulated a certain degree of wealth by the time they retire?

By that logic, then, if we want total parity in regards to what people get out of it, why don't we simply tax every American the same amount regardless of income? That way, since poor and wealthy probably use the roads the same as each other, we don't have the wealthy giving handouts to the poor in the form of paved roads. We can also tax people regardless of income the same in regards to military spending; after all, your freedom shouldn't cost any more than mine.

Yes, what a brilliant idea! fuck the flat tax, because that unfairly burdens the hardworking, and in no way privileged, members of our society! Everybody pays the same amount! With just under 121 million housing units in the US, let's look at the budget for next year, shall we?

$2.7 trillion for 2007, according to USA Today. Since we don't want to unfairly tax any of the wealthy, lest we become communist pinko bastards, each household's fair share of taxes becomes $22315. Since the median income is $48K per year (pre tax, of course), that's totally easy! There are going to be a number of people whose income delves into the negative as a result of this equal share of taxation (at least the bottom 20% of the population, and likely more). Well, fuck 'em. Take out the middle man, and have them negotiate with Chinese bankers to cover their fair share of taxes.

Y'all flat tax motherfuckers are just suckers of the liberal machine.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, let me get your argument straight: people get exactly what they pay into social security, so it isn't a wealth transfer.

Yet we don't want to tax people more, so they will end up getting what they put into social security?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. This isn't me this is the position held by politicians Democrat and Republican.

I'm not saying people get exactly what they put into SSI/FICA but their payments upon retirement are a direct result on what they put into the system. You should be receiving statements from the Social Security Administration annually that show what you made every year you started working, how much you paid into the system and how much your benefits would be if you became disabled or retired in the current year.

If you go to Senators, including Ted Kennedy himself, he will tell you that we cannot tax SSI/FICA above the $89,700 threshold or SS loses its original intent which was to provide like benefits to every American. It's also a misnomer that income above $89,700 isn't taxed, it's taxed at a different rate. As an employee your SSI/FICA rate is 7.65% which is matched an additional 7.65% by your employer for a combined 15.3% rate on every payroll dollar under the threshold. Above $89,700 the rate is 1.45% for an employee another 1.45% matching for the employer.

If you're self employed you pay both sides of SSI/FICA and on the first $89.700 you're paying 15.3% on top of your marginal tax rate. If you're in the 28% tax bracket that makes your effective federal government t axation 43.3%. That carries over to income above $89,700 where you are in fact paying an additional 2.9% of all income into SSI/FICA.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Looks like someone needs a lesson in how flat tax works. :roll:[/QUOTE]

I think its pretty clear that he knows how it works: he was simply proposing the next logical step. The most common argument for switching to a flat-tax structure is that its more 'fair'. The person who makes $20,000/year is taxed at the same rate as the person who makes $1,000,000/year - fair, right? But the guy who makes $1M is paying 50 times as much in taxes as the guy who makes $20k - how is that fair? He's not deriving any greater benefit from society - he's protected by the same military, police force, and fire service, he uses the same roads, etc.

If we want to be fair, then people should pay directly for what they use - if 2 people use the road system equally, they should pay the same amount. That's completely fair. It also won't work exactly for the reason that mykevermin stated, which is why people who propose the flat tax system don't support it. Once you've thrown 'fair' out the window, though, can you really claim it for the system you do support? That is, by not supporting an 'equal payment' tax system, you've already implicitely said that 'fair' isn't the most important factor. So why should we be terribly concerned about your argument that a flat tax is more fair?

I would argue that, even if a flat tax is more fair, there are other factors that make a progressive tax the better option. You can't base your argument for flat tax entirely on the basis of fair because you've already admitted that fair can be trumped. So if fair isn't the end-all and be-all of reasons for selecting a tax system, what other reasons are there for supporting the flat tax system?
 
The person making $20K isn't taxed at all on a flat tax.

Every flat tax proposal I've seen makes a family of 4's income below $45k tax free. You make less than that, you don't pay federal income tax.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The person making $20K isn't taxed at all on a flat tax.

Every flat tax proposal I've seen makes a family of 4's income below $45k tax free. You make less than that, you don't pay federal income tax.[/QUOTE]

Making it even more clear that it isn't fair. So if it isn't fair, what other benefits does it have?
 
Wait, if low income families/individuals to borderline middle class families/individuals are paying ZERO income taxes how isn't that fair?

Liberals never fail to amuse me. Proclaim their love for the poor and middle class and then say if they have to pay no taxes.... that's just not fair.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Making it even more clear that it isn't fair. So if it isn't fair, what other benefits does it have?[/QUOTE]

Intellectual simplicity. It's not fairness in terms of "equal pay," but it reduces the bureacratic aspect of taxation to a point that few people can realistically claim to be surprised with their federal and state taxes come the Ides of April. I think that's what many consider "fair"; the transition from an era of hundreds of various forms and the invitable "I owe HOW fucking much!?!?!?!" to one where people have the ability to reasonably estimate what one's taxes are.

Look, if it helps put H&R Block out of business (those motherfuckers are like corporate gerbils, I see so many new storefronts each year), then you have a grain of my sympathy. I'll also grant that I greatly prefer "flat tax" advocates to those severely selfish rich fucks - the "consumption tax to replace income tax" crowd. Though small in number compared to flat tax peeps, they're ten times the self-interested assholes.
 
I'm not the one who claimed that fairness in a tax system isn't an overriding goal.

Having some people not pay taxes despite using government services clearly isn't fair. I don't consider that a problem because to me, fairness isn't the most important aspect of a tax system. If you claim that fairness is an important aspect of a tax system, though, then this is clearly a problem.

So if you're going to push for a flat tax system based on the idea that its more fair, then you need to account for the fact that the very plan you're pushing for is itself massively unfair.
 
The entire tax business is a gerbiling of America. The most recent flat tax proposal before congress in 2001 floated by Dick Armey would have given every family under $34,800 a tax burden of $0. Allowing them a chance to buy a home, put a little away, instead of floating $2-4,000 annually to Uncle Sam depending on their deductions.

Then above that the tax rate would have been 17% with zero exemptions. Half the earned money in this country is offset by deductions of one kind or another. Whether its mortgage interest, unreimbursed medical expenses, capital/investment write offs, education expenses, moving expenses, business related travel plus tens of thousands more that you and I don't even know exist yet the good folks at H&R Block do.

The tax system is punative as it exists. It's the tool of lobbyists of every stripe, every special interest and every politician to reward and punish behavior. There's nothing neutral about it.

Flat taxes have been implemented and are the major system of taxation in nearly every former communist European country. It was started by Estonia, adopted by the Baltics and Russia's flat tax rate is 13%. Poland, Slovokia, Romania and Hungary have all adopted the flat tax. As a result when you hear about "new" Europe it's not just countries with friendly relations with the United States but places in which to do better business.

Drocket, you're brain dead. The biggest usurper of government services are the poor. Whether it's through welfare, Medicaid, food stamps or countless other services they take advantage of in direct monetary aid the amount of taxes they pay in a decade will never even come close to offsetting just one year on the government dole.

They're already a negative net effect on tax revenues. There's no point in denying that and pretending they're going to ever contribute their "fair" share. No amount of social engineering will ever eliminate an underclass. It just won't happen. So why pretend? Why have them jump through hoops filling out paperwork for 10 hours to pay $100-200 in taxes and have them be estatic they're getting a refund?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Intellectual simplicity. It's not fairness in terms of "equal pay," but it reduces the bureacratic aspect of taxation to a point that few people can realistically claim to be surprised with their federal and state taxes come the Ides of April. I think that's what many consider "fair"; the transition from an era of hundreds of various forms and the invitable "I owe HOW fucking much!?!?!?!" to one where people have the ability to reasonably estimate what one's taxes are. [/QUOTE]

Sweet, a real argument worth discussing :p

The tax law, as it exists, is definitely far too complicated. I think, though, that the progressive aspects of our tax system are probably the least complicated part of the system. I think you could easily write a good progressive tax system in less than, say, 10 pages, one that could easily be understood by everyone with a high-school degree.

One real problem that I have with the proposal of a flat tax system based on making things easier to understand is the source: the flat tax is pretty much entirely a right-wing idea. When you look at the reason why our current tax code is so complicated, you get 3 guesses as to who's responsible. Reagan campaigned heavily on the idea of simplifying the tax code in 1979 - when he was done rewriting it, it was 3 times as long and so complicated that you can put a dozen professional accountants in a room and get a dozen different interpretations of the law.

The people who most support the flat tax because its 'fairer' and 'easier' are pretty much uniformly the people responsible for the current tax law being as complicated as it is. To say that I find the situation suspicious is an understatement.
 
I wouldn't put any challenge of any tax policy to someone with a high school diploma with the exception of the flat tax.

With economic education in this country non-existent to inept I wouldn't count on that.

Why do you think it is that no tax program or benefit is ever categorized as "a tax giveaway to the rich"? Because average folks know squat about economic issues or competition.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']

As far as flat taxes, they are the only taxes that make sense. If taxes are too high for a low income person to pay them, they are too high period. Flat taxes make the most sense, don't punish someone for making more money. We have our massive social programs, then we have to have our massive tax programs to pay for our massive social programs, etc, etc, etc. Believe me, you don't want it like Germany with 16% sales tax and 50% income tax (getting around that is why Uwe Boll can make his movies). Oh yeah, but they've got "free" healthcare and "free" college, you just have to pay for it the rest of your life whether or not you use it.[/QUOTE]

I've dealt with 15% sales tax without complaining (in the "get rid of it" sense), don't think the extra 1% would bother me. Also many liberals would advocate not taxing those in poverty, meaning they aren't too high since they don't pay them.

And it's better to take from those who can afford it instead of taking from everyone equally because it's so unjust to "punish the wealthy". Taxing the wealthy (unless excessive obviously) will not effect greatly affect them when compared to the effect taxes have on those with less money. Better to tax those who can afford it than those who can't, they have the means to pay.

Also, if you haven't checked, we pay MORE in health costs than ANY other country. Universal healthcare isn't the cash sucker many think it is.
 
1. Bush's Social Security plan is moot since it's DOA. The AARP and the Democratic Party have succeeded in scaring the public enough so that no reform will be passed in the near future that makes any drastic changes. Unfortunately, drastic changes are exactly what are needed to fix a broken system.

2. A flat tax is a horrible idea because it takes a large chunk of the tax burden and transfers it from the richest and transfers it to the middle class and the poor. Even if you exempt the poor from taxation completely, it still hits the middle class hard -- especially if you take away deductions heavily depended on by the middle class such as the mortgage deduction. Our tax system is far too complicated and there are way, way too many specialized deductions -- I agree with PAD on that -- but a flat tax is the wrong solution.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I've dealt with 15% sales tax without complaining (in the "get rid of it" sense), don't think the extra 1% would bother me. Also many liberals would advocate not taxing those in poverty, meaning they aren't too high since they don't pay them.

And it's better to take from those who can afford it instead of taking from everyone equally because it's so unjust to "punish the wealthy". Taxing the wealthy (unless excessive obviously) will not effect greatly affect them when compared to the effect taxes have on those with less money. Better to tax those who can afford it than those who can't, they have the means to pay.

Also, if you haven't checked, we pay MORE in health costs than ANY other country. Universal healthcare isn't the cash sucker many think it is.[/QUOTE]

Well, in Germany it is going to move up to 20% or something. It isn't the only burden, believe me as you know social programs come with high costs.

I believe strongly that you should in the least tax people at a equal rate. Once again, as I said, if it is too much for a poor person to pay at that rate it should be too much for any person. A rich person, even with a flat tax rate will pay more than a poor person. Obviously, 10% of 10,000 is 1,000. 10% of 100,000 is 10,000. The richer person would be paying more in taxes than the poor person is making entirely. The real unfair part is to go ok, you make 10,000 so you don't pay taxes. You make 100,000 so we'll take half. That's socialism, and it amounts to stealing. What entitles us to more money proportionately? What position is it of ours to say because he makes more money he has to give a much larger percentage of it? A REASONABLE flat tax that people like George Oros can't get out of is the most fair and probably the best way to do things. Get rid of brackets, get rid of loophopes (which by the way tend to benefit the rich).

We have the best health care in the world as well. Believe me, my wife chose to come to America and she is getting far better care healthcare here. Healthcare she can afford on a relatively small wage as well (20K a year). And that was her first job she got once she entered the country. And she's covered by Blue Cross, which happens to be John Kerry's choice. The reality is that good healthcare is not that far out of reach, it is just that some people prefer to spend their money on cable, cell phones and the like. In Germany, the only way to get real good healthcare was to get private healthcare. But most people can't even have access to it, and they can't choose to put the money going into their "public healthcare" into private healthcare.
 
I'll say it before, I'll say it again, I'll say it until it makes sense.

The last flat tax proposed a family of 4 would have their first $34,800 tax free. That means they wouldn't even have money witheld until they made that much. $0, nothing, nada.

Beyond that they would be taxed at a flat 17% rate.

So figure this out.

Family of 4 makes $50,000.

Taxes paid on first $34,800?

$0

Taxes paid on remaining $15,200?

$2,584.

Total taxes paid on $50,000?

$2,584.

Effective tax rate on $50,000?

5.17%

What's the current tax burden on a family of 4 before deductions?

Taxes paid on the first $45,199, this is the break point from 15% to 27%.

$6,869.85

Taxes paid on the remaining $4,801.

$1,296.27

Total taxes paid on $50,000

$8,166.12

Effective tax rate on $50,000?

16.33%

So you tell me, which plan is better for a middle class family of 4 earning $50,000 annually.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']1. Bush's Social Security plan is moot since it's DOA. The AARP and the Democratic Party have succeeded in scaring the public enough so that no reform will be passed in the near future that makes any drastic changes. Unfortunately, drastic changes are exactly what are needed to fix a broken system.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but even Bush's own party has realized that the public actually wants them to save Social Security, not slit its throat in favor of some half-baked privatization scheme....

And, by the way, just how is the system broken? Are SS checks bouncing? Are old people going hungry or dying from exposure to the elements? Why is "drastic" change necessary? I don't think you've made that case at all.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/08/national/w132702S84.DTL


Congressional Republicans on Wednesday shunned President Bush's election-year call to cut Social Security benefits, and one committee chairman accused the administration of seeking to end "a pittance for widows and widowers."

"I have no plans to pursue these proposals," said GOP Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

The budget that Bush submitted to Congress on Monday proposes eliminating a $255 lump-sum death benefit that has been part of Social Security for more than 50 years. It also urges Congress to cut off monthly survivor benefits to 16- and 17-year-old high school dropouts.

If approved, the two proposals would save a combined $3.4 billion over the next decade, according to administration estimates.

Based on early reaction, or lack of it, prospects for congressional passage seemed remote.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']Well, in Germany it is going to move up to 20% or something. It isn't the only burden, believe me as you know social programs come with high costs.

I believe strongly that you should in the least tax people at a equal rate. Once again, as I said, if it is too much for a poor person to pay at that rate it should be too much for any person. A rich person, even with a flat tax rate will pay more than a poor person. Obviously, 10% of 10,000 is 1,000. 10% of 100,000 is 10,000. The richer person would be paying more in taxes than the poor person is making entirely. The real unfair part is to go ok, you make 10,000 so you don't pay taxes. You make 100,000 so we'll take half. That's socialism, and it amounts to stealing. What entitles us to more money proportionately? What position is it of ours to say because he makes more money he has to give a much larger percentage of it? A REASONABLE flat tax that people like George Oros can't get out of is the most fair and probably the best way to do things. Get rid of brackets, get rid of loophopes (which by the way tend to benefit the rich).

We have the best health care in the world as well. Believe me, my wife chose to come to America and she is getting far better care healthcare here. Healthcare she can afford on a relatively small wage as well (20K a year). And that was her first job she got once she entered the country. And she's covered by Blue Cross, which happens to be John Kerry's choice. The reality is that good healthcare is not that far out of reach, it is just that some people prefer to spend their money on cable, cell phones and the like. In Germany, the only way to get real good healthcare was to get private healthcare. But most people can't even have access to it, and they can't choose to put the money going into their "public healthcare" into private healthcare.[/QUOTE]

We have the best "potential" health care, but, overall, our health care system is not the best since its heavily based on whether someone can afford insurance or whether they can afford to pay. Emergency care will always be provided (they'll bill you for it), but they do what's essential, nothing more. There are 45 million uninsured americans (and more who have very poor insurance policies that don't cover much), and if you think they all could afford the 250+ (what mine cost when I took a year off from school and my job didn't offer it) a month then you're delusional. Many people barely, if even, have enough money for rent, food and similar necessities. Saying that 250, or more, isn't much to expect many poor people to pay is simply out of touch with reality. And, again, germany pays significantly less for universal health care than we do for our system. In our system when people step into a hospital their value is determined, moreso than in many other countries, by their wealth.

Though I don't understand "if it's not fair to tax a poor person it's not fair to tax a rich person". Why not? If I make 12k a year and you take out 20% of that I'm left with 9600. That 2400 would be very, very important to me. But if I made 200,000 and you took out 40,000, what effect do you think that is going to have? The government needs the money to run and to provide essential services for people and to ensure the poor get assistance when needed, the rich have the means to pay it, the poor don't.

You also don't understand what socialism is.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'll say it before, I'll say it again, I'll say it until it makes sense.

The last flat tax proposed a family of 4 would have their first $34,800 tax free. That means they wouldn't even have money witheld until they made that much. $0, nothing, nada.

Beyond that they would be taxed at a flat 17% rate.

So figure this out.

Family of 4 makes $50,000.

Taxes paid on first $34,800?

$0

Taxes paid on remaining $15,200?

$2,584.

Total taxes paid on $50,000?

$2,584.

Effective tax rate on $50,000?

5.17%

What's the current tax burden on a family of 4 before deductions?

Taxes paid on the first $45,199, this is the break point from 15% to 27%.

$6,869.85

Taxes paid on the remaining $4,801.

$1,296.27

Total taxes paid on $50,000

$8,166.12

Effective tax rate on $50,000?

16.33%

So you tell me, which plan is better for a middle class family of 4 earning $50,000 annually.[/QUOTE]

Using that simplistic example as proof that flat taxes work is laughable.

And if social security is a pyramid sceme then the entire structuire of the US capitalist system is a pyramid scheme. People who call Social Security a Pyramid Scheme have no fundamental understanding of how economics works. The problem with social security as it now stands is a demographics issue affecting the underlying economics.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Using that simplistic example as proof that flat taxes work is laughable.

And if social security is a pyramid sceme then the entire structuire of the US capitalist system is a pyramid scheme. People who call Social Security a Pyramid Scheme have no fundamental understanding of how economics works. The problem with social security as it now stands is a demographics issue affecting the underlying economics.[/QUOTE]

How is it laughable? Math doesn't lie. Would you like to elaborate on how my figures are wrong?

Social Security isn't a pyramid scheme. It's a Ponzi scheme. You're raising money from new investors to pay off past investors.

Ponzi Scheme

A fraudulent investing scam that promises high rates of return at little risk to investors. The scheme generates return by acquiring new investors.

Investopedia Commentary

The Ponzi scam is named after Charles Ponzi, a clerk in Boston, who first orchestrated such a scheme in 1919.

Although a Ponzi scheme is similar to a pyramid scheme in that both are based on new investors' funds to pay the earlier backers, they differ in that the Ponzi mastermind signs up new investors, who are used to attract potential investors, rather than the hierarchical pyramid setup whereby all the investors do the recruiting. Eventually, there isn't enough returns to go around and the schemes unravel.
 
Taxes aren't hard to understand.

We have a progressive tax for a reason. Everyone pays the same amount of taxes on the same amount of money. (PAD read it again if you have to) How is that not fair.

As far as "rich" people paying most of the taxes, guess what, they make most of the money. End of story.

I swear, we are the only country in the world that feel sorry for the rich.
 
Holy shit, me and PAD almost agree on something!! *faints*

I also think IRAs should be made 100% tax free. I know there's one that's tax free in, taxed out, and then another that's taxed in, taxed free out. It should just be tax free in and tax free out. Businesses, especially smaller ones, should also get tax credits for 401k plans, providing health insurance, and tuition reimbursement.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']We have the best "potential" health care, but, overall, our health care system is not the best since its heavily based on whether someone can afford insurance or whether they can afford to pay. Emergency care will always be provided (they'll bill you for it), but they do what's essential, nothing more. There are 45 million uninsured americans (and more who have very poor insurance policies that don't cover much), and if you think they all could afford the 250+ (what mine cost when I took a year off from school and my job didn't offer it) a month then you're delusional. Many people barely, if even, have enough money for rent, food and similar necessities. Saying that 250, or more, isn't much to expect many poor people to pay is simply out of touch with reality. And, again, germany pays significantly less for universal health care than we do for our system. In our system when people step into a hospital their value is determined, moreso than in many other countries, by their wealth.

Though I don't understand "if it's not fair to tax a poor person it's not fair to tax a rich person". Why not? If I make 12k a year and you take out 20% of that I'm left with 9600. That 2400 would be very, very important to me. But if I made 200,000 and you took out 40,000, what effect do you think that is going to have? The government needs the money to run and to provide essential services for people and to ensure the poor get assistance when needed, the rich have the means to pay it, the poor don't. [/QUOTE]

A: Healthcare is available in many forms. There are clinics, there are charities, etc... if one is entirely unable to care for themself there are others that will help take up the slack in most cases. Ultimately though, it is your responsibility and if you can not adaquately care for yourself that is no problem but your own. I believe in individual rights as well as responsibilities. I think they go hand in hand. We have a higher level of health care available because of the way our system works. In Germany, they share the misery, they spread it out so that everyone gets a little bit of it. In America, and yes it is unfortunate, the people who either can not afford or chose not to pay for healthcare are the ones that get the most misery. Which is more responsible. To punish everyone because a few can not care for themselves? I feel sorry for them, but listen bro. I don't have healthcare, my wife does. It was a choice I made voluntarily. I have a PS2 and about 100 games though. I spend my money how I want and if I get sick and can't get care, you know who will be to blame? Myself... Yet, of course I am one of your statistics.

B: You are claiming that it is ok to take more from people that have more, merely because they have more. I suppose if someone has no children, and they want children we should be able to take from someone that has 5 or 6? I mean come on, they have so many kids who needs that many? Oh wait, you say they are THEIR kids and they had them and should keep them? Well its THEIR money and they earned it and should keep it. Oh wait, dude has 2 cars and one has none? Well, give up the extra car you don't need it as much as the other guy. Or how about this, you have two healthy kidneys, I just need one. I think you should be forced to give it to me, after all you just need one. Is this the world you envision?
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Sorry, but even Bush's own party has realized that the public actually wants them to save Social Security, not slit its throat in favor of some half-baked privatization scheme....

And, by the way, just how is the system broken? Are SS checks bouncing? Are old people going hungry or dying from exposure to the elements? Why is "drastic" change necessary? I don't think you've made that case at all.[/QUOTE]

Yes, Congress has chickened out on any real reform because, as I said, the Democrats and the AARP have succeeded in their campaign to scare people enough to oppose any meaningful changes, while Bush's series of pro-reform speeches were a dismal failure.

The system is not broken in the present day, obviously, because we have a surplus within the Social Security program; in other words, we take in more in Social Security taxes than is paid out. As you should know, and probably do, the problem is in future years when the Baby Boomers start retiring and we start paying out more than is taken in. There are multiple problems related to this development in the program, which will happen in only about 10-15 years:

1. There is no extra money saved to pay out since Congress has spent that money by taking it every year for a very long time to cover other costs and never replenishing it. Both parties can obviously share the blame here.

2. To pay promised benefits, taxes would have to drastically be raised or spending drastically cut in other areas. Alternatively, the government could break their promises to retirees and cut benefits. A large cut would be necessary as we move more and more into a deficit in the program.

3. Assuming some upward pressure on payroll taxes, that would seriously damage the economy and create a real problem with then less jobs and prosperity leading back to less SS taxes leading back to pressure to increase the payroll taxes more.

And those are just the reality of Social Security problems that are coming up. Ideally, I'd say the program should be phased out and younger workers be allowed to take their money and invest somewhere with greater return, which would benefit everyone. Unfortunately this would require the government to be responsible and also to cover transition costs, which seems incredibly unlikely at the present time given the environment I've already discussed above.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']A: Healthcare is available in many forms. There are clinics, there are charities, etc... if one is entirely unable to care for themself there are others that will help take up the slack in most cases. Ultimately though, it is your responsibility and if you can not adaquately care for yourself that is no problem but your own. I believe in individual rights as well as responsibilities. I think they go hand in hand. We have a higher level of health care available because of the way our system works. In Germany, they share the misery, they spread it out so that everyone gets a little bit of it. In America, and yes it is unfortunate, the people who either can not afford or chose not to pay for healthcare are the ones that get the most misery. Which is more responsible. To punish everyone because a few can not care for themselves? I feel sorry for them, but listen bro. I don't have healthcare, my wife does. It was a choice I made voluntarily. I have a PS2 and about 100 games though. I spend my money how I want and if I get sick and can't get care, you know who will be to blame? Myself... Yet, of course I am one of your statistics.[/quote]

A few does not equal 45 million americans. The quality of free clinics here are questionable at best, but the poor aren't covered as you seem to think they are. Having a higher level doesn't mean much when many people don't have access to it. Sweden is probably the best example of universal health care, and even in examples where there are major issues (canada) there is relatively little call for a u.s. style system. In fact that threat is a scare tactic used by politicians.

But I'd like to know where you expect the 13% of americans living in poverty (and well over 20% of children) to come up with this money? You are one of those statistics, but there are many, many people who don't have health insurance because they simply can't afford it, not because they think they just don't want it.

We have 45 million uninsured americans in this country. You repeatedly show yourself to be naive about the affects of poverty, what people in poverty deal with, and the effects that has on children. It's not "I can only buy 1 big screen TV instead of 2". You also seem to be under the assumption that we live in a society were your fate is entirely up to you, but there are many, many factors that contribute to poverty. If you have a family and you don't have health insurance everyone will be affected if you get sick. It's not just something you deal with.

Quality health care is only as good as how many people can access it. Many countries with universal health care have very good hospitals and health care quality. Sure we have the best, it doesn't do much when a sizeable percent of the population can't take advantage of it.

B: You are claiming that it is ok to take more from people that have more, merely because they have more. I suppose if someone has no children, and they want children we should be able to take from someone that has 5 or 6? I mean come on, they have so many kids who needs that many? Oh wait, you say they are THEIR kids and they had them and should keep them? Well its THEIR money and they earned it and should keep it. Oh wait, dude has 2 cars and one has none? Well, give up the extra car you don't need it as much as the other guy. Or how about this, you have two healthy kidneys, I just need one. I think you should be forced to give it to me, after all you just need one. Is this the world you envision?
Click to expand...

You really need to find better examples. You can maintain composure during arguments (more than I can say for some of the others), but you weaken your arguments with your examples, they're ridiculous. We already have decided taxation is acceptable. It's not acceptable to take any amount of organs or children from people unwillingly.

The poor and the rich earn money. We both agree they can't keep all of it, that taxes are a necessity. It's a matter of degree. If I make 20,000 dollars and you take 5,000, that's 25%. If I make 200,000 and you take 50,000 that's still 25%. But, who do you think that 25% affects more? A much greater effect is felt by those making 20,000. Is it fair to take 5,000 from the poor worker when the rich person would feel almost no effect from paying 55,000 compared to 50k? The end result is the same, yet the person who makes 200,000 isn't going to be concerned over the extra 5k.

You're overly concerned with what's fair on paper, when what's fair real in practice is often much different.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'].

And those are just the reality of Social Security problems that are coming up. Ideally, I'd say the program should be phased out and younger workers be allowed to take their money and invest somewhere with greater return, which would benefit everyone. Unfortunately this would require the government to be responsible and also to cover transition costs, which seems incredibly unlikely at the present time given the environment I've already discussed above.[/QUOTE]

"reality"?? to that I say. Maybe. Remember the dire predictions of the 10-15 year problem is based a ridiculously low rate of growth.
 
While were at this universally available heathcare system, we should also consider letting the government build automobiles and issue one to each working member of a household. That way, we'll all be assured to have the most fuel efficient, road worthy and safest car available for our convenience. And It will ensure that we all make it to work on time every day.

After that, we should consider letting the government build all our houses. Then we can issue them out as new families need them. Everyone will have the biggest, most energy efficient house to shield them and their car from the elements and help keep us alive and happy. And why stop there? Shouldn't all our staples for survival be provided by the government? Gasoline, cheese, bread, water? Aren't these part of our essential needs? Don't these need to come before we even start talking about healthcare? After all, if I don't eat and die from starvation, talking about healthcare is pretty much a moot point.

Personally, I don't think it's fair that I have to work 50+ hours a week for my daily bread and the rich middle management guy who lives in the subdivision down the street gets to drive a better car and live in a bigger house than I do. I work much harder than he does, so I think I deserve to drive a Lexus too.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
You really need to find better examples. You can maintain composure during arguments (more than I can say for some of the others), but you weaken your arguments with your examples, they're ridiculous. We already have decided taxation is acceptable. It's not acceptable to take any amount of organs or children from people unwillingly. [/QUOTE]

Well, there are still societies that consider children and human beings to have financial value. They can and are sold and traded. It is also rather common in some countries for internal organs to be bought and sold. Not to say I justify this, but I certainly do not justify taxing a right person at a greater percentage just because they can spare it. Which was the heart of my comparison. It is not universally accepted that taking more just because someone has more is ok. As my car comparison was alluding to. Or, if you want more examples that don't involve children and organs, how about a homeless guy and someone with a huge house. If they don't even use a few rooms, I suppose we should demand they house the homeless guy, right? I mean, they don't even use the rooms much less need them and the guy really needs the house!

And before you say something about oh that's not taxes, taxes are acceptable propery is different... not really, the IRS can and does repo property hence the comparison is valid. So once again, is that the world you envision? In which someone who has more of something of value, can have it taken from him and given to someone with less? That IS what you are advocating.

By the way, good point bmulligan. I mean we know how well it worked with the Trabant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant
 
[quote name='bmulligan']While were at this universally available heathcare system, we should also consider letting the government build automobiles and issue one to each working member of a household. That way, we'll all be assured to have the most fuel efficient, road worthy and safest car available for our convenience. And It will ensure that we all make it to work on time every day.

After that, we should consider letting the government build all our houses. Then we can issue them out as new families need them. Everyone will have the biggest, most energy efficient house to shield them and their car from the elements and help keep us alive and happy. And why stop there? Shouldn't all our staples for survival be provided by the government? Gasoline, cheese, bread, water? Aren't these part of our essential needs? Don't these need to come before we even start talking about healthcare? After all, if I don't eat and die from starvation, talking about healthcare is pretty much a moot point.

Personally, I don't think it's fair that I have to work 50+ hours a week for my daily bread and the rich middle management guy who lives in the subdivision down the street gets to drive a better car and live in a bigger house than I do. I work much harder than he does, so I think I deserve to drive a Lexus too.[/QUOTE]

The problem with this reasoning is that health care is a service, and one that can be provided only by highly trained professionals. You can get a second- or third-hand car. You can get food from the food bank. You can set up a tent in a park, or stay in a homeless shelter. But you can't get treated for illness by anyone but a doctor, and even third-rate doctors are too expensive unless you are insured.

How do the poor handle this conundrum? By waiting until they are deathly ill and then going to an emergency room, which must treat them, and then never paying the ER bill. This raises all our costs by making sure they receive the highest level of treatment possible, all very expensive, and making sure that the rest of us eat the cost.

Now compare that with universal health care, where the poor get treated earlier at a lower cost. They are healthier, more likely to contribute to society, and less of a drain on our medical system.

Seems like a much more reasonable solution. And it's only a matter of time before U.S. companies, which are losing more and more money to health care, start signing on at rapid pace. And when they do, I look forward to the about-face that will be performed by all the conservatives who've been arguing against universal health care. (Not that I will expect them to eat their words, because intellectual consistency is not their strong suit, nor a capacity to recognize their own hypocrisy).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top