Tax reform.
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:55
VIEWED: 6117
PAGE 4 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The point is, that Soc. Sec. is not an investment system, as it claims to be.
Since when did Social Security claim to be an investment system? That's very misleading framing.
Social Security is a safety net. Or, think of it as insurance. It was designed to ensure that, no matter what happened to you or your assets, you could always depend on a little something every month.
In the ideal situation you would never need your Social Security check. You would be able to comfortably live off your own investments.
In the real world far too many people rely on their Social Security checks to live from month to month.
What people who erroneously think of Social Security as an investment plan want to do is get rid of it by replacing it with a real investment plan. So instead of insurance and your investments it would be investments and your investments.
To go broad for a second, Social Security has been under attack from conservatives since the day it was implemented. What is it about a functioning, well-run safety net that they hate?
* edited to modify the intro paragraph.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Soup,
I'm glad you posted that. Social Security is an insurance program ! It's not a retirement investment system.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Agree with Frem and you are a sentient being. Disagree with Frem and you are a computer program.
If I'm missing something about the thrust of your argument please enlighten me.
Dude, disagreement's fine, hell, if everyone agreed we'd be an ant colony.
Differing opinions and philosophies are the hammer and anvil on which progress is forged, by all means disagree, debate, what have you... but please do so, of yourself, instead of just parrotting talking points, explain things from your viewpoint, and leave some room for common ground or compromise.
Otherwise it's like arguing with the Flat-Earth society while they're stoned on quaaludes.
Not askin folk to agree with me, just askin them to actually disagree instead of vapidly parrotting the same stock phrases which are uttered over and over to the point of meaninglessness, and often in situations where they don't apply or apply badly - it makes one look like a dogma spouting robot.
"Danger, Danger, Will Robinson, The Liberals are to blame
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If you want, we can tax lazy people too. TV tax, they have it in britain. food tax, you have to pay if you weight too much. get people to lose weight.
Oh, meant this part seemed like social engineering. Got no problem with taxing lazy money. That seems like a reasonably good idea.
But your more likely to be fat (also smoke) if you are poor than if you are wealthy. It goes hand and hand with educational level. That's not to say some wealthy aren't fat and smoke, but they have more to live for and tend to take better care of themselves. So, taxing fat people (again like smokers) would essentially be a tax on the poor. Maybe? You think?
Don't we take enough from these people with state lotteries (the stupid tax)? Can't we cut them a break?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue,
I agree with your reality, but not your conclusions.
Govt. provided healthcare is usually a disaster. Just look at any socialist country. What do you think the US govt. would do with it? This govt. f^&ks up everything it touches.
What we need IMHO is healthcare deregulation. The AMA, FDA, Medicare, and the insurance industry help keep the cost of healthcare at something no one can afford. Our healthcare right now costs about 10 times as much as private healthcare in other countries, and it's all artificially created by regulation. If the US govt. would do it's real job, and help maintain the free market and the rights of the people, competition would bring the cost back down.
I'm supportive of the idea for picking up the health care costs of thiose who cannot pay by having the govt. pick up the tab when the cost exceed a threshold level which people should not be expected to pay, but if the costs were real market costs, that would be maybe 3 to 6 billion a year.
Govt. is amazingly inefficient and incompetent because it has no competition, and hence no evolution, it's the intelligent design of society.
If you think the US govt would save money by handling its own finances, just look at how the military spends money. Or how it executes things, or any branch of the govt. Look at Homeland security, or FEMA. And these are the guys you want to hire to look after your health?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue,
another thing.
The problem with big govt within a capitalist system is that it becomes a product that the people are forced to buy. No matter how the govt. pays for it, corporate taxes, individual taxes, deficit spending, etc., the people will end up paying for it. You can't tax the rich, England tried that, and all the rich left. So we the people are going to fit the bill. When you look at the efficiency of govt, and the quality of product it provides, who would buy the product if no one was forced to?
Nuclear bombs. A nice little product that destroys the world. You want to buy one for you govt? How about a nice set of bombers. Billion dollars each. Do you want to buy a DMV? or maybe a Homeland Security? Or Social Security (1/3 of your money back to you without interest in 40 years.)?
Nothing the govt. is selling would anyone buy except possible the post office and Amtrak. Maybe the people would pay to support the coast guard, national guard and national parks, but the rest people would just skip.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Soup,
Not framing. It's technically what the govt. uses as a defense, it's how it defines it. If it called it welfare, the value of the system would go up right away, but they'd have to explain why they're doling out near 70% of the social security disbersements to the wealthiest 5% of people.
Quote:
To go broad for a second, Social Security has been under attack from conservatives since the day it was implemented. What is it about a functioning, well-run safety net that they hate?
Sorry, but, what planet are you on? Well running? Okay, of the money that goes in, only one third ever comes out, the rest is stolen by crooked politicians. It is the only fund in the world which does not appreciate at all. Even the gold in fort knox appreciates just sitting there. Then when it comes out, two thirds goes where it is absolutely not needed. This means the fund is operating at ten percent efficiency, interest aside.
Now, let's take the interest. Suppose you could buy stock with the money instead, and that could be limited to index funds, over 40 years, (or even 20) crash or no crash, the yield is going to come out to around 9% a year. The average dollar spends twenty years in the fund, so it's a simple 1.09^20=5.6
So a regular dollar invested in the market becomes $5.60, any point in US history, through the fund.
So Joe Shmoe who bought the market, as a whole, through an index fund, got $5.60. Sammy Security got $0.33. 5.6/.33=17. The efficiency of the investment of Joe Schmoe was seventeen (17) times that of Sammy Security, and Joe didn't even do anything clever. He didn't invest in stem cells or hybrid cars, he invested in coca cola and universal pictures and scotch tape, or something equally boring. If the stocks performed poorly, the indexes pulled them and replaced them with others, and in a very boring way which hasn't failed in 300 years, it rolls on.
Social Security, on the other hand, is doomed to fail. It dies by the time anyone putting in now tries to take out. Worse yet, it's not in your hands at all, Uncle Sam keeps it safe from you. SO if some corrupt politician (there's no such thing, right?) comes along, and takes all the money out, boom, sorry people, the moneys gone. *Poof!*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, that part about fat people was intended to be over the top. I meant the part about the lazy money.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally I was going to respond to the original post and think some stuff up, but after reading all the nutty stuff people are posting I think I'll stay out of this for the most part.
However I can't let this go:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I favor a 'fat tax' as I call it. Money which isn't doing anything, it just sits there. Large amounts of cash are sitting in someone's bank account somewhere, earning interest, but not creating any business. If money isn't active in the economy, it's not doing anyone any good....etc...etc.
My question is this, what about retirement? I'm 20 and I'm planning on starting to save for retirement soon, I should have thousands of dollars "just sitting around" in not too long. With your idea I will be taxed on the money I'm trying to save for retirement, we already are facing a crisis of people who haven't saved enough for retirement, what do you think people are going to do when their savings are taxed?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
My question is this, what about retirement? I'm 20 and I'm planning on starting to save for retirement soon, I should have thousands of dollars "just sitting around" in not too long. With your idea I will be taxed on the money I'm trying to save for retirement, we already are facing a crisis of people who haven't saved enough for retirement, what do you think people are going to do when their savings are taxed?
Don't save! Live in the now man. Rather then save I'm sinking my money into my property. That way regardless of social security, I'll have a place to live, assuming the property taxes don't kill me.
Without my house payment I could live on retirement now and I'm about 18 years away.
I'm also paying on a nice lot of about two acres partially wooded and fronting the river (downhill so flooding wont reach the part I'll build the house on). I can either sell it later to a developer or build ma own little piece of Serenity a few years from now (built upon the backs of those I have sent to jail...).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME