Look up synonyms and semantics. Because that is the type of off-topic discussion you wish to provoke instead of addressing the fallacy that is Social Security.
/ignore giant
And then you go on a whole post about it ... all this after you were the one that wanted to talk about it in the first place.
Seems to me you are the one going off-topic.
If you want to call a horse a zebra, go ahead. But it doesn't change the definition of either horse or zebra and you will continue to hold false beliefs.
If you say they are similar, then you are being accurate.
But, hey, we all know your concern is more with saving face in an argument than learning something new.
The point was that roads are essential to everyone in the economy so one cannot sit there saying "I don't like road taxes and have no compelling reason to pay them." It is different for SS.
And then you go on a whole post about it ... all this after you were the one that wanted to talk about it in the first place.
Seems to me you are the one going off-topic.
If you want to call a horse a zebra, go ahead. But it doesn't change the definition of either horse or zebra and you will continue to hold false beliefs.
If you say they are similar, then you are being accurate.
But, hey, we all know your concern is more with saving face in an argument than learning something new.
I'll tell you what. How about you address THE TOPIC now. Instead of arguing the semantics of which way Social Security is a scheme and rip off, why don't you argue about whether it should exist, ways to reform it, if you support it, etc.
I'll tell you what. How about you address THE TOPIC now.
King Trumptman, huh?
Title of thread: "Social Security Myths"
Myth #73: SS = Ponzi Scheme.
It's a myth you keep repeating, so it needs to be corrected. SS works in the same way financially, but there is no false pretense of a real investment. In a Ponzi scheme, investors are scammed into believing their returns are coming from something other than money put up by later investors. If you want to call it the "SS Scheme" and put it in the same family as Ponzi and pyramid schemes, that's fine. But a Ponzi scheme includes the intention to defraud. As pointed out on wikipedia, they are fueled and thus grow by the greed of the investors. Not the case with SS.
But people perpetuate the myth because they a) don't understand those distinctions and b) aim to equate it with a well-known scam in order to present it in a more negative light.
One of your arguments for why SS is bad (that it is a ponzi scheme) is simply not a sound argument. By repeating it you are perpetuating a Social Security Myth.
It's a myth you keep repeating, so it needs to be corrected. SS works in the same way financially, but there is no false pretense of a real investment. In a Ponzi scheme, investors are scammed into believing their returns are coming from something other than money put up by later investors. If you want to call it the "SS Scheme" and put it in the same family as Ponzi and pyramid schemes, that's fine. But a Ponzi scheme includes the intention to defraud. As pointed out on wikipedia, they are fueled and thus grow by the greed of the investors. Not the case with SS.
But people perpetuate the myth because they a) don't understand those distinctions and b) aim to equate it with a well-known scam in order to present it in a more negative light.
One of your arguments for why it is bad (that it is a ponzi scheme) is simply not a sound argument. By repeating it you are perpetuating a Social Security Myth.
I consider Social Security an attempt to defraud. I think most politicians, be they Republican or Democrat, have known it is unsustainable for years. It has been the easiest means of playing upon people's fears (old age, death, sickness) to get they to most easily cough up a large percentage of tax money. The easiest means of getting people to agree to tax increases is to claim it will only be on the rich. The second easiest is to hit them in their fears. People who owe no federal income tax gladly toss away their 13% towards social security out of fear, and the false belief the government will take care of them in their old age.
Again when started Social Security had dozens of payers for each retired person. The average life expectancy was much lower as well. The number of people collecting has grown but the tax increases have been hugely disproportionate to the number of people collecting. In addition the government has simply spent what was already collected and still gone trillions into debt. The IOU's are owed from the government, to the government. They can simply inflate them away and destroy the wealth of millions after already taxing it away and spending it as well.
I consider Social Security an attempt to defraud. I think most politicians, be they Republican or Democrat, have known it is unsustainable for years. It has been the easiest means of playing upon people's fears (old age, death, sickness) to get they to most easily cough up a large percentage of tax money. The easiest means of getting people to agree to tax increases is to claim it will only be on the rich. The second easiest is to hit them in their fears. People who owe no federal income tax gladly toss away their 13% towards social security out of fear, and the false belief the government will take care of them in their old age.
Again when started Social Security had dozens of payers for each retired person. The average life expectancy was much lower as well. The number of people collecting has grown but the tax increases have been hugely disproportionate to the number of people collecting. In addition the government has simply spent what was already collected and still gone trillions into debt. The IOU's are owed from the government, to the government. They can simply inflate them away and destroy the wealth of millions after already taxing it away and spending it as well.
SS works in the same way financially, but there is no false pretense of a real investment. In a Ponzi scheme, investors are scammed into believing their returns are coming from something other than money put up by later investors. If you want to call it the "SS Scheme" and put it in the same family as Ponzi and pyramid schemes, that's fine. But a Ponzi scheme includes the intention to defraud. As pointed out on wikipedia, they are fueled and thus grow by the greed of the investors. Not the case with SS.
SS is still missing a few of the distinguishing characteristics:
a) belief that profits are coming from something other than the investments of others
b) growth driven by enticement of high returns over a short period of time and, therefore, typically dependent on rollover of investments.
c) because ponzi schemes rely on an overvalued or nonexistent investment opportunity or asset of some sort, liabilities inherently exceed assets at all times.
So go on with your belief that SS is an intentional fraud. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But it's not a ponzi scheme.
The point was that roads are essential to everyone in the economy so one cannot sit there saying "I don't like road taxes and have no compelling reason to pay them." It is different for SS.
You're an idiot if you can't see what the real point is. People pay taxes on things they don't use and don't want. Deal with it.
Gee, I guess I can't help but getting but getting all bleeding heart all over this.
I've come home from dropping off my 91 year old friend at her West LA apt. Her Social Security barely pays for it. I guess it's her tough luck that she decided not to marry a rich guy (hey, she had the opportunity, more than once), and had the misfortune to watch her field (fashion illustration) be taken over by the computer age, and her advancing age take her out of the workforce at 88 years old, when the bookstore we worked in was closed by the corpaorate parent. Too bad she made the decision to live so long; I guess we should just plan on being soylent green for the best of the economy.
Like I said, at the moment I am not the most non-partial at the moment. I wish I had the money to make sure that that this wonderful woman does not have to face the end of her days with these impediments, but if I don't die in the saddle, I willmost likely be there too. So, most likely. will you.
So what are the alternative ways to help disabled and retired workers and the families and dependents of deceased, retired and disabled workers?
Disabled workers... job retraining programs, and the many current welfare programs we already have.
Retired workers.... Retired is supposed to mean you don't have to work. It is by no right a guarantee but rather the result of good planning and saving. If you haven't propertly saved, paid off your house, etc, then you do what everyone else who doesn't have enough does. You work.
Families of deceased workers. By this I assume you mean spouse since any children should be fully independent by the time anyone would retire. If a child is not independent and the parents are deceased, they would become a ward of the state. If one parent is alive, somehow above 65 and yet still has a child under 18, they should do what anyone else who has dependent children does to support them. Work. Again retirement is not a guarantee, even with Social Security. If you have dependent children, no savings, no pension, etc. You are going to have to work to support them.
Dependents of disabled workers... if they are a spouse, they have the option of working while applying for benefits provided by general welfare, AFDC, WIC, etc.
The point was that roads are essential to everyone in the economy so one cannot sit there saying "I don't like road taxes and have no compelling reason to pay them." It is different for SS.
The point Bunge made is that you pay sometimes for things you will never use. For example you pay for schools even if you do not have childrens.
Gee, I guess I can't help but getting but getting all bleeding heart all over this.
I've come home from dropping off my 91 year old friend at her West LA apt. Her Social Security barely pays for it. I guess it's her tough luck that she decided not to marry a rich guy (hey, she had the opportunity, more than once), and had the misfortune to watch her field (fashion illustration) be taken over by the computer age, and her advancing age take her out of the workforce at 88 years old, when the bookstore we worked in was closed by the corpaorate parent. Too bad she made the decision to live so long; I guess we should just plan on being soylent green for the best of the economy.
Like I said, at the moment I am not the most non-partial at the moment. I wish I had the money to make sure that that this wonderful woman does not have to face the end of her days with these impediments, but if I don't die in the saddle, I willmost likely be there too. So, most likely. will you.
What sob story? She is fully ambulatory and capable of working at 91. That is much better health than most. As for not marrying a rich guy, what about her now likely retired 74 to 65+ age children who could take care to assist her since they are likely retired as well.
Dealing with real estate, there are plenty of homes sold with "mother-in-laws" smaller homes the size of a one bedroom apartment in the back. Many women of her age often help a younger child purchase one with the proceeds from their own home sale. (The unlucky husband, we don't have to consider his means of getting by, he is dead.) Consider the purchasing opportunities a 91 year old woman had that you will never have had. She was buying homes and land when Disneyland was still a bunch of fruit orchards. Any home purchased on land in LA when she was younger would have been worth many, many times more than she would have ever paid for it by the time she retired.
My own mother's previous home, the one I grew up in, would likely list for about $250k. She and my father purchased it for about $28k in 1977. If she had stayed in it. She would have three years left on the mortgage with payments of approximately $200 a month. (Lower than my electric bill most months.) Instead she sold it and purchased a beach front condo for $90k a number of years ago. That condo just appraised for $390k. She had the money and ability to purchase it back when they had just started building them. When the community was still "speculative" etc. I'll have no such opportunity. Should I feel sorry for her, or her for me?
You say she decided not to marry a rich guy (more than once.) You attempt to make it appear that she cared nothing for money. I don't find it odd that people who care nothing about wealth, often end up having none. Why should I care about their lack of wealth when they themselves claim not to. (Or lie in claiming they do not)
Why should I care about their lack of wealth when they themselves claim not to. (Or lie in claiming they do not)
Because without their combined efforts you wouldn't have anything. They've contributed to this country to make it possible for you to do what you've done and they've sacrificed to make it easier, and in come cases simply possible when it wasn't before, for you to succeed.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Look up synonyms and semantics. Because that is the type of off-topic discussion you wish to provoke instead of addressing the fallacy that is Social Security.
/ignore giant
And then you go on a whole post about it ... all this after you were the one that wanted to talk about it in the first place.
Seems to me you are the one going off-topic.
If you want to call a horse a zebra, go ahead. But it doesn't change the definition of either horse or zebra and you will continue to hold false beliefs.
If you say they are similar, then you are being accurate.
But, hey, we all know your concern is more with saving face in an argument than learning something new.
Originally posted by bunge
I live two blocks from one and I walk past another on the way to work.
I don't care that you don't drive there. I care that you buy products that wouldn't exist there if it weren't for the roads on which they are shipped.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Bunge, BR can you go back on the topic please.
The point was that roads are essential to everyone in the economy so one cannot sit there saying "I don't like road taxes and have no compelling reason to pay them." It is different for SS.
Originally posted by giant
And then you go on a whole post about it ... all this after you were the one that wanted to talk about it in the first place.
Seems to me you are the one going off-topic.
If you want to call a horse a zebra, go ahead. But it doesn't change the definition of either horse or zebra and you will continue to hold false beliefs.
If you say they are similar, then you are being accurate.
But, hey, we all know your concern is more with saving face in an argument than learning something new.
I'll tell you what. How about you address THE TOPIC now. Instead of arguing the semantics of which way Social Security is a scheme and rip off, why don't you argue about whether it should exist, ways to reform it, if you support it, etc.
Take the circus somewhere else.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'll tell you what. How about you address THE TOPIC now.
King Trumptman, huh?
Title of thread: "Social Security Myths"
Myth #73: SS = Ponzi Scheme.
It's a myth you keep repeating, so it needs to be corrected. SS works in the same way financially, but there is no false pretense of a real investment. In a Ponzi scheme, investors are scammed into believing their returns are coming from something other than money put up by later investors. If you want to call it the "SS Scheme" and put it in the same family as Ponzi and pyramid schemes, that's fine. But a Ponzi scheme includes the intention to defraud. As pointed out on wikipedia, they are fueled and thus grow by the greed of the investors. Not the case with SS.
But people perpetuate the myth because they a) don't understand those distinctions and b) aim to equate it with a well-known scam in order to present it in a more negative light.
One of your arguments for why SS is bad (that it is a ponzi scheme) is simply not a sound argument. By repeating it you are perpetuating a Social Security Myth.
Originally posted by giant
King Trumptman, huh?
Title of thread: "Social Security Myths"
Myth #73: SS = Ponzi Scheme.
It's a myth you keep repeating, so it needs to be corrected. SS works in the same way financially, but there is no false pretense of a real investment. In a Ponzi scheme, investors are scammed into believing their returns are coming from something other than money put up by later investors. If you want to call it the "SS Scheme" and put it in the same family as Ponzi and pyramid schemes, that's fine. But a Ponzi scheme includes the intention to defraud. As pointed out on wikipedia, they are fueled and thus grow by the greed of the investors. Not the case with SS.
But people perpetuate the myth because they a) don't understand those distinctions and b) aim to equate it with a well-known scam in order to present it in a more negative light.
One of your arguments for why it is bad (that it is a ponzi scheme) is simply not a sound argument. By repeating it you are perpetuating a Social Security Myth.
I consider Social Security an attempt to defraud. I think most politicians, be they Republican or Democrat, have known it is unsustainable for years. It has been the easiest means of playing upon people's fears (old age, death, sickness) to get they to most easily cough up a large percentage of tax money. The easiest means of getting people to agree to tax increases is to claim it will only be on the rich. The second easiest is to hit them in their fears. People who owe no federal income tax gladly toss away their 13% towards social security out of fear, and the false belief the government will take care of them in their old age.
Again when started Social Security had dozens of payers for each retired person. The average life expectancy was much lower as well. The number of people collecting has grown but the tax increases have been hugely disproportionate to the number of people collecting. In addition the government has simply spent what was already collected and still gone trillions into debt. The IOU's are owed from the government, to the government. They can simply inflate them away and destroy the wealth of millions after already taxing it away and spending it as well.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I consider Social Security an attempt to defraud. I think most politicians, be they Republican or Democrat, have known it is unsustainable for years. It has been the easiest means of playing upon people's fears (old age, death, sickness) to get they to most easily cough up a large percentage of tax money. The easiest means of getting people to agree to tax increases is to claim it will only be on the rich. The second easiest is to hit them in their fears. People who owe no federal income tax gladly toss away their 13% towards social security out of fear, and the false belief the government will take care of them in their old age.
Again when started Social Security had dozens of payers for each retired person. The average life expectancy was much lower as well. The number of people collecting has grown but the tax increases have been hugely disproportionate to the number of people collecting. In addition the government has simply spent what was already collected and still gone trillions into debt. The IOU's are owed from the government, to the government. They can simply inflate them away and destroy the wealth of millions after already taxing it away and spending it as well.
Nick
Yup.
Originally posted by trumptman
I consider Social Security an attempt to defraud.
Good for you. And it's not a ponzi scheme:
Originally posted by giant
SS works in the same way financially, but there is no false pretense of a real investment. In a Ponzi scheme, investors are scammed into believing their returns are coming from something other than money put up by later investors. If you want to call it the "SS Scheme" and put it in the same family as Ponzi and pyramid schemes, that's fine. But a Ponzi scheme includes the intention to defraud. As pointed out on wikipedia, they are fueled and thus grow by the greed of the investors. Not the case with SS.
SS is still missing a few of the distinguishing characteristics:
a) belief that profits are coming from something other than the investments of others
b) growth driven by enticement of high returns over a short period of time and, therefore, typically dependent on rollover of investments.
c) because ponzi schemes rely on an overvalued or nonexistent investment opportunity or asset of some sort, liabilities inherently exceed assets at all times.
So go on with your belief that SS is an intentional fraud. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But it's not a ponzi scheme.
Originally posted by BR
The point was that roads are essential to everyone in the economy so one cannot sit there saying "I don't like road taxes and have no compelling reason to pay them." It is different for SS.
You're an idiot if you can't see what the real point is. People pay taxes on things they don't use and don't want. Deal with it.
I've come home from dropping off my 91 year old friend at her West LA apt. Her Social Security barely pays for it. I guess it's her tough luck that she decided not to marry a rich guy (hey, she had the opportunity, more than once), and had the misfortune to watch her field (fashion illustration) be taken over by the computer age, and her advancing age take her out of the workforce at 88 years old, when the bookstore we worked in was closed by the corpaorate parent. Too bad she made the decision to live so long; I guess we should just plan on being soylent green for the best of the economy.
Like I said, at the moment I am not the most non-partial at the moment. I wish I had the money to make sure that that this wonderful woman does not have to face the end of her days with these impediments, but if I don't die in the saddle, I willmost likely be there too. So, most likely. will you.
Originally posted by giant
So what are the alternative ways to help disabled and retired workers and the families and dependents of deceased, retired and disabled workers?
Disabled workers... job retraining programs, and the many current welfare programs we already have.
Retired workers.... Retired is supposed to mean you don't have to work. It is by no right a guarantee but rather the result of good planning and saving. If you haven't propertly saved, paid off your house, etc, then you do what everyone else who doesn't have enough does. You work.
Families of deceased workers. By this I assume you mean spouse since any children should be fully independent by the time anyone would retire. If a child is not independent and the parents are deceased, they would become a ward of the state. If one parent is alive, somehow above 65 and yet still has a child under 18, they should do what anyone else who has dependent children does to support them. Work. Again retirement is not a guarantee, even with Social Security. If you have dependent children, no savings, no pension, etc. You are going to have to work to support them.
Dependents of disabled workers... if they are a spouse, they have the option of working while applying for benefits provided by general welfare, AFDC, WIC, etc.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
The point was that roads are essential to everyone in the economy so one cannot sit there saying "I don't like road taxes and have no compelling reason to pay them." It is different for SS.
The point Bunge made is that you pay sometimes for things you will never use. For example you pay for schools even if you do not have childrens.
Originally posted by tmp
Gee, I guess I can't help but getting but getting all bleeding heart all over this.
I've come home from dropping off my 91 year old friend at her West LA apt. Her Social Security barely pays for it. I guess it's her tough luck that she decided not to marry a rich guy (hey, she had the opportunity, more than once), and had the misfortune to watch her field (fashion illustration) be taken over by the computer age, and her advancing age take her out of the workforce at 88 years old, when the bookstore we worked in was closed by the corpaorate parent. Too bad she made the decision to live so long; I guess we should just plan on being soylent green for the best of the economy.
Like I said, at the moment I am not the most non-partial at the moment. I wish I had the money to make sure that that this wonderful woman does not have to face the end of her days with these impediments, but if I don't die in the saddle, I willmost likely be there too. So, most likely. will you.
What sob story? She is fully ambulatory and capable of working at 91. That is much better health than most. As for not marrying a rich guy, what about her now likely retired 74 to 65+ age children who could take care to assist her since they are likely retired as well.
Dealing with real estate, there are plenty of homes sold with "mother-in-laws" smaller homes the size of a one bedroom apartment in the back. Many women of her age often help a younger child purchase one with the proceeds from their own home sale. (The unlucky husband, we don't have to consider his means of getting by, he is dead.) Consider the purchasing opportunities a 91 year old woman had that you will never have had. She was buying homes and land when Disneyland was still a bunch of fruit orchards. Any home purchased on land in LA when she was younger would have been worth many, many times more than she would have ever paid for it by the time she retired.
My own mother's previous home, the one I grew up in, would likely list for about $250k. She and my father purchased it for about $28k in 1977. If she had stayed in it. She would have three years left on the mortgage with payments of approximately $200 a month. (Lower than my electric bill most months.) Instead she sold it and purchased a beach front condo for $90k a number of years ago. That condo just appraised for $390k. She had the money and ability to purchase it back when they had just started building them. When the community was still "speculative" etc. I'll have no such opportunity. Should I feel sorry for her, or her for me?
You say she decided not to marry a rich guy (more than once.) You attempt to make it appear that she cared nothing for money. I don't find it odd that people who care nothing about wealth, often end up having none. Why should I care about their lack of wealth when they themselves claim not to. (Or lie in claiming they do not)
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
You're an idiot if you can't see what the real point is. People pay taxes on things they don't use and don't want. Deal with it.
That doesn't make it right and let's not devolve into hostilities here. Please keep it civil.
Originally posted by trumptman
Why should I care about their lack of wealth when they themselves claim not to. (Or lie in claiming they do not)
Because without their combined efforts you wouldn't have anything. They've contributed to this country to make it possible for you to do what you've done and they've sacrificed to make it easier, and in come cases simply possible when it wasn't before, for you to succeed.
Originally posted by BR
That doesn't make it right and let's not devolve into hostilities here. Please keep it civil.
Well I'll be more than happy to cut the defense budget down to a quarter of what it is and use the extra coin to kill all Social Security taxes.