Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Seed Discussion Forum => Topic started by: Ft. Lauderdale on May 11, 2006, 09:45:00 AM
-
LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON "PEOPLE POWER" AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!
KEEP IT GOING!!!!
2008 Election Issue!!
GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.
This must be an issue in "2008" Please! Keep it going.
----------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresspersons do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.
In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until! they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..
For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each of th ose two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH...
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!
From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, -every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)-we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.
Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made
That change! would be to:
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
then sit back.....
and see how fast they would fix it.
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
-
On 2006-05-11 06:45:00, Ft. Lauderdale
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
then sit back.....
and see how fast they would fix it.
That is actually not a bad idea.
On 2006-05-11 06:45:00, Ft. Lauderdale wrote:
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
Yech! Now why did you have to go and ruin an otherwise excellent post?
:scared:
GREGFL...forgot to log in!
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-11 07:58 ]
-
Gosh, Greg where is your sence of humor now :grin:
-
A Senator or Congressperson would have to write
the bill.
There is no way that will happen.
-
Have some faith.
If ye have the faith of a grain of a mustard seed nothing shall be impossible to you.
:roll:
-
CHeck out "SOcial security" on Snopes.com.
This sounds great for a talk show host but anyone who is really interested knows the reality.
the guys in congress don't have to worry about the government giving them retirement benefits, they were set before they got there, and will work as lobbyists after they leave.
-
On 2006-05-12 04:41:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Have some faith.
If ye have the faith of a grain of a mustard seed nothing shall be impossible to you.
:roll: "
Com'n buddy, stop using that dead analogy. We all know mustard seeds can't have faith, and that if they could, and as hard as they might wish to be a mighty mustard "tree", they still will only grow up to be mustard greens and a little scrubby bush.
:razz:
:razz:
-
Just got back from the post office where a giddy, mindless clerk was all aflutter over how much fun it is voting on the new machines.
"Have you been to vote yet? It's so fun! You push the little button and...."
"No", says I, "I'm not going to go pretend to vote." That seemed to piss her off and offend her almost as much as Terry when I answer question about Art and the Seed honestly.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 9&forum=32 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=12779&forum=32)
"There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds."--Lord Alfred TennysonFaith is believing something you know ain't true.
--Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist
-
Just got back from the post office where a giddy, mindless clerk was all aflutter over how much fun it is voting on the new machines.
"Have you been to vote yet? It's so fun! You push the little button and...."
"No", says I, "I'm not going to go pretend to vote." That seemed to piss her off and offend her almost as much as Terry when I answer question about Art and the Seed honestly.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 9&forum=32 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=12779&forum=32)
"There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds."--Lord Alfred TennysonWhen an innocent Californian millionaire gets killed by a drug squad
trying to seize his house with a bogus search warrant, people better ask themselves if they really want to turn their cops into money-makers.
--Vancouver Police Const. Gil Puder
-
Your way of being honest sounds crude rude and vulgar to me. Hey I'm just being honest. :grin:
Does a young girl having fun offend you? Maybe if you can think back when you wern't so mean and bitter, something will click...
If we are being honest, then you come off as an old witch. I just wanted to let you know.
Peeing on graves and being insulting isn't very ladylike.
:em:
-
and why arent we "pretending" to vote? what did i miss ?
-
Personally, computer voting has never sat right with me and I reluctantly used a computer machine to vote in 2004. I am not sure that there is any way to vote now that cannot be manipulated, even absentee votes.
None of this is really NEW news, but in case you guys aren't up on the latest here's some links on how the issue has developed over the past year.
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums ... 15595.html (http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html)
http://www.wesh.com/news/5542983/detail.html (http://www.wesh.com/news/5542983/detail.html)
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 50309/1021 (http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060415/OPINION01/604150309/1021)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/033106L.shtml (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/033106L.shtml)
[ This Message was edited by: Stripe on 2006-05-16 21:39 ][ This Message was edited by: Stripe on 2006-05-16 21:42 ]
-
Hey Greg!
How come my last 3 posts all say
posts - 415
Does it have anything to do with mustard?
just kidding. How come its not changing?
(Please don't say its got to want to change.)
-
ie...How many Psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
One...but the light bulb has got to want to change... :grin:
-
OK I just got it they all change with every post.
:idea: :roll:
-
Yep, you got it. Also, if you change anything like your name or signature,it will change all posts you have made.
-
There is such an obviously easy fix for Social Security that I cannot believe the American public as a whole isn't demanding it's implementation. There is a cap on the percentage of income that SS taxes are taken out of. I think its something like 85,000 or 90,000. After that, the income isnt taxed. My question is, WHY NOT? Those people in that higher income bracket almost always have IRA's or other investments that they draw off of after retirement in addition to SS. The poor and middle class, however, usually don't. Not only do I think they should tax every income level for Social Security, they should tax the higher incomes a higher percentage. That in itself would fix the Social Security situation, in my opinion. BUT, since the powers that be, our SUPPOSED representatives in Congress are in that higher tax bracket who aren't taxed, it will NEVER be changed unless WE stand up and DEMAND it.
Ok getting off my soapbox now.
-
Good info, SSH - I didn't know that upper brackets weren't taxed for SS. Wow!
Poison...
-
Yes, the cap is 90,000 income. After that the employer and tax-payer pay no SS taxes on any additional income. There is also a cap on benefits.
Removing the income cap would result in 100 billion in taxes on high income earners and on employers. It would levy 15% more taxes on all wages made over 90,000..and this burden would be split between the wage earner and the employer.
Is this "fair"? Specifically, should the wealth creators in our society pay for everyone else? Should small businesses be funding your retirement? At what point does this become a hinderance to a productive society?
What you are advocating is further socialization of our economy. You are advocating forcing people to fund a system they don't even need or want. You are asking people to pay a disproportinate amount because they have taken the risks and steps necessary to make a high wage, or just because they are a business owner or stock holder of a corporation.
Businesses would be forced to pay 1/2 percent of this additional tax burden. Businesses pass all expenses off to their customers in the form of higher prices or fees. Therefore, this portion of the tax would actually be passed onto the consumer. This is how people screw themselves by supporting taxes "on the rich". Doesn't happen in the real world.
This idea sucks.
-
On 2006-05-18 04:06:00, SHH wrote:
"There is such an obviously easy fix for Social Security that I cannot believe the American public as a whole isn't demanding it's implementation. There is a cap on the percentage of income that SS taxes are taken out of. I think its something like 85,000 or 90,000. After that, the income isnt taxed. My question is, WHY NOT?
The simple answer is that is the level of income that the maximum BENEFITS are capped. For a more detailed answer, see my post above.
-
On 2006-05-18 04:06:00, SHH wrote:
"There is such an obviously easy fix for Social Security that I cannot believe the American public as a whole isn't demanding it's implementation. There is a cap on the percentage of income that SS taxes are taken out of. I think its something like 85,000 or 90,000. After that, the income isnt taxed. My question is, WHY NOT?
Because this is the level of income that the maximum BENEFIT is calculated.
You aren't suggesting that people making, say $300,000 per year should pay social security based on that amount, but collect a benefit based on $90,000 per year.
Or are you? If so, please explain how this is an equitable system.
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-18 07:32 ]
-
A case is made that the "rich" gain disproportionately from the "system," and should pay a disproportianate amount toward supporting it.
Another interesting factor is how unprepared the average boomer is for retirement.
G
-
Most people that are young and not disabled
will make fun of Social Security and think
it is a farce.
I have never seen anyone turn down Social Security, have you?
It is one of the smartest programs ever set up in the US.
Also, it is one of the most criticized prorams this country has ever had.
We all get old, we all get some kink of disability with age, or some tragically at a younger age.
Social Security saves peoples lives, and help stabilize the country and creae the large middle class who acculmulated enourmous wealth for the US!
Viva Social Security!
-
Social Security was never intended by Congress to be the PRIMARY source of retimrement income. Remember, it was part of the New Deal legislation, like the PWA, the CCC and a whole host of other government programs designed and implemented to put cash in the markets and create some movement in the economy. If I recall my history lessons correctly, Social Security was enacted in 1935 to provide assistance to many of the older persons who lost their entire life savings in the 1929 market crash - those who had no other means of support in old age; it also has provisions for disablity and survivor benefits.
That is has grown from a fall back position to the only provision for retirmement for some citizens is dangerous indeed. Just like the rest of you, I've contributed all my life, and hopefully I'll personally get some benefit return. Fortunately or unfortunately, people are living much, much longer than the reitrement program ever predicted. Thus the payments to current recipients are greater than the contributions of current recipients. Yeah, they are spending my money.
Having tried to get benefits for children on behalf of deceased parents with little to no employment history - or establishing disability benefits for a minimum wage worker - I can tell you it's not a pretty picutre. There's no way a fully disabled person can live on $428.00 per month. It's certainly nothing you would want to count on to protect your family.
-
Social security is a SCAM, pure and simple.
Got any idea what percentage of our annual budget goes to social security and medicare benefits?
anyone?
5%
10%
15%
20%
40%
50%
Keep in mind it was 2% When the program started.
Our government is redistributing the wealth of this country to a priviledged class...people who live to be over 65.
The entire purpose of Social security has been buried under a tremendously corrupt and inequitable system that seeks to appease an important voting block of citizens instead of doing what is right and necessary.
One more comment before I give the percentage of GNP away that these programs are draining from our budget. It is always the piss poor who refuse to try to get ahead in life or are bitter over failures that advocate voting the money out of people's pockets that have taken tremendous risks at great sacrifice in order to get ahead. All these "tax the rich" ideas are just stupid and short sited, hurt the economy and are not "fair" by any measure of fairness.
Oh yeah, our government currently spends 42 FUCKING CENTS OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR COLLECTED IN TAXES REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH to the elderly in the form of social security and medicare benefits. Chew on that number for a minute. 42% of every tax dollar taken in is handed over to people who's only reason for collecting it is they have lived to a specific age.
We spend more money on SS benefits than we do on the Military by a substantial margin, and This figure is rising every year!
Meanwhile, people moan and bitch about giving money to homeless mothers(ALL housing assistance amounts to 2% of our budget and Wic benefits to children(ALL food and nutrition assitance is 1.8% of our budget).
The whole situation is un-fucking real.
-
What kind of statement is this???
"It is always the piss poor who refuse to try to get ahead in life or are bitter over failures that advocate voting the money out of people's pockets that have taken tremendous risks at great sacrifice in order to get ahead."
Refuse to try to get ahead???? Refuse? Do you seriously think that people CHOOSE to be poor? Do you think that the only reason people are not wealthy is because they didnt want to take risks??? Greg what planet are you living on? I have worked like a dog every year of my adult life with the exception of 3 when I was a stay at home mother. I make less than 35,000 a year. And Im educated and have 22 yrs experience in my field. However, I could not continue college because I didnt have the money for tuition, I couldnt qualify for assistance, and I couldnt afford to pay my bills without working fulltime and to finish college would have required me to not work at all. I left home at age 18. I worked my way into 10-12 cars, and 3 homes over the years without anybody's help. But if I had an opportunity you can bet I would have taken it to become more financially secure. I have a 401k but can only afford to put 3% into it. Thats not going to make me financially secure in 20 yrs for sure. YOu make it sound as if all a person has to do is take a risk and suddenly become wealthy. What about those poor saps who work for 25 yrs as a self employed electrician, painter, or plumber, fixing YOUR 400,000 dollar house, and cannot afford to put money aside due to bills and medical insurance, and have to rely on Social Security when they turn 65? Are you going to tell THEM they didnt take risks? That they just wanted to be poor???? Try volunteering at an abused womens shelter sometime. Try serving food at a soup kitchen. Maybe then you will see the REALITY of what shape this country is really in.
-
GREGFL...forgot to log in.
On 2006-05-18 18:31:00, SHH wrote:
"What kind of statement is this???
"It is always the piss poor who refuse to try to get ahead in life or are bitter over failures that advocate voting the money out of people's pockets that have taken tremendous risks at great sacrifice in order to get ahead."
Yes, that is generally the whiners who come sucking at the tit of the wealthy to solve all their problems.
On 2006-05-18 18:31:00, SHH wrote:
Refuse to try to get ahead???? Refuse? Do you seriously think that people CHOOSE to be poor? Do you think that the only reason people are not wealthy is because they didnt want to take risks???
No, but again, those are typically the whiners who come looking for a handout. The poor who are doing everything to get out of their situation don't usually advocate this tomfoolery. I didn't when I was poor.
By the way, this is called a qualifer..."the piss poor WHO refuse to get ahead". This isn't an indictment of all poor people. Reading comprehension is a good thing SHH.....
On 2006-05-18 18:31:00, SHH wrote:
Greg what planet are you living on?
The circular revolving one I like to call "reality".
On 2006-05-18 18:31:00, SHH wrote:
"a bunch of personal history that tended to support my conclusion above.
Yes, I have worked hard in my life also (but not now!) My first year in business I made 18,000 dollars and worked 75 hours per week. No shit. I set the alarm at 3:00 in the morning because I couldn't afford a secretary so I had to work 4 or 5 hours before opening time just so I could be available for my customers. I also had to pick my son up from the babysitter because my ex was a lazy bitch, and also spend my evenings with him so he could have a normal life. You would seem to suggest my reward for making that sacrifice would be to pay a disproporyinate NON VOLUNTARY percentage of my wages so some old fucks can golf in Florida and chug designer pills on my tab. Fuck em. If someone is needy, let them be needs tested, but to hijack my money so others can coast offends me.
Also, Thanks for making my point for me. You have nothing but emotion to fall back on when you suggest it is equitable to tax disproportinate amounts of money out of those who are successfull. I am sorry you haven't been able to make any real money in your life, but that doesn't mean I should pay your way. 42 cents out of every dollar ridistributed to the elderly and the percentage rising every year? You think this is equitable? You think hitting up high wage earners "solves" this problem?
I suggest an economics 101 class for you.
By the way, I have spent time living homeless as a child (thanks Art!) and in a trailer as an adult. I drove an old station wagon that the doors flew open if you took turns too fast. I took a 2000 dollar loan and put it on the "pass" line and opened a business at 27. Last year I paid more in taxes than you made, and frankly I don't appreciate it. I am also an advocate of social programs to help the needy, but when my millionare neighbors all laugh at their SS checks while they are golfing and gulping down anti depressents and driving around in their "jazzys" all on my tax dollar, I take offense.
Sue me.
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-18 18:56 ]
-
Yes my father who worked for our lovely United States government off and on for over 35 years as a CONTRACTOR because that is how the Govt. gets away with paying benefits, is very appreciative of his $475 a month Social Security check he receives, which by the way, would only pay for half of his 11 medicines if he didnt have medicaid in addition to medicare. My father, who was employed by our govt, cannot afford to live on his own anywhere, and has to live with me. He has never been able to obtain private medical insurance because of his diabetes and heart disease, and therefore spent most of his earned money on housing expenses and medical expenses so therefore, no retirement to fall back on when he lost his leg in 2004. So, yea he is out playing golf on that social security check. Try living in MY reality Greg.
-
again, you are falling back on a personal emotional argument and ignoring what I said...in this case.."if someone is needy, let them be needs tested,but to hijack my money so others can coast offends me." Your response ignored that and only focused on the second part of that sentence where I said.." but to hijack my money so others can coast offends me." I ask you, Was your response a fair assessment of what I said? I think not.
Are you guilty here of only seeing this issue thru your own lenses and ignoring what I am writing? that is the second major mis-characterization of what I have said.
In any event, I don't hold you accountable. This is a common thing people do...when they have a problem they look at other segments of society to solve it for them. I just personally find it offensive. I also support your right to disagree.
Fair enough?
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-18 20:24 ]
-
Hey Greg ,just for the record ... How long & why were you homeless?
-
Depends on when you are talking. But when I fled St Pete (the story is online), I lived in my car for a while, then I lived in a foster home, then I ended up living in Ft Lauderdale. I paid rent at 16 to my mother, and At 18,I got my own apartment. I have scraped and worked for every penny I ever got.
I guess it really isn't fair to blame Art for having to flee St Pete, but on some level the insanity of my family and the "tough love" and "Greg needs help" mentality all came from lessons they learned at the seed. But I will concede right now without Art and the Seed, my Pop had problems. The Seed just let him focus his ultra-control tendencies into a direction that was not healthy.
So, in a sense I retract that statement...but not totally.
-
Hey for all you've been through...I've got to hand it to you. You have done OK for yourself.
Even though we don't agree on alot of things...you are a pretty likable guy. :scared: )
-
I am also an advocate of social programs to help the needy, but when my millionare neighbors all laugh at their SS checks while they are golfing and gulping down anti depressents and driving around in their "jazzys" all on my tax dollar, I take offense.
I'll be your huckleberry, Greg.
It seems to me that your problem is not really with poor people wanting something for nothing, it's rich people who ARE getting something for nothing. Which, I agree, is offensive.
People who are collecting SS (retirement) now will draw more out of the system than they've ever paid into it. They spent their working lives during the most peaceful, profitable time in this country's history, they've had more technological and health advancements than in all other generations combined and did they use all of that to save for their future and provide for their children? Hell, no. They went on cruises and bought fancy houses and now they want to whine about having to choose between buying medicine and buying food. Well, grampa, maybe if you hadn't bought a new car every two years and you'd skipped on that cosmetic surgery (but, hey, you don't look a DAY over 57!) and saved your money, you wouldn't be facing the food vs. meds decision now.
I agree the answer is to means test. And means test TODAY, not twenty years from now. But we also need to eliminate the income ceiling for FICA/Medicare contributions. We need that money to keep the system going. Also, for debt service on W's most excellent idea of having an entire country basically live off (and finance a war on) its credit cards. Oh, and pyramid schemes.
If Social Security doesn't keep going, none of us is going to get a damn thing, never mind about proportionate benefits. When you eliminate medical benefits for anyone, much less several million medically needy people, it causes the overall cost of health care to go up. Which raises insurance premiums for individuals and, yes, small businesses.
If this country can't service its debt and we become more banana republic than we already are, your property values are going to go down, inflation will go up and so will crime. Creating a Dickensian underworld of disenfranchised people is NOT going to help your business unless, of course, your business is prisons or personal protection. Supply-side economics has run its course.
While we're at it, we might as well put some of these old people back to work. They're healthier than they've ever been, they're going to live about forever, they seem to have all kinds of time to lobby the government for more benefits, let's give 'em jobs. Have them do all the low-paying, no-risk-taking, PETTY things the rest of us are doing for chump change. Like taking care of you when you're sick. Or educating your kids. Or cleaning your house, checking your groceries, keeping your local water system working, servicing the airplane you're getting on. Then we'll all have time to make REAL money.
If you don't like the word "tax," think of it as a "convenience fee."
-
I am no expert on economics and I can't argue the numbers. All I know is, I have seen third world contries where the poor live in squalor and the rich live in walled compounds with private security. Greg, I think you're a great guy, but it's always the self-made who think they are god's gift, and that the reason the other poor schmuck didn't make it is because he's a lazy ass. And you may be right. I've met quite a few poor folks in my life, and many of them are lazy. I've met a lot of wealthty folks too, and many of them are lazy as well. There's a guy in my neighborhood, collects aluminum cans and scrap - works it like a job, rides his bike with a tin man made of cans on the handlebars - what's his story? Don't know, but he works hard every day. When I was in my early 20s, and making min. wage jobs, hell yeah, I couldn't pay for health insurance and all the niceties. I remember prayimg my checks would clear.
My mother is now dependant on SS. Lives in a subsidezed apartment, and scrapes along. She put herself through law school at age 42, after raising three kids in the suburbs. Ended up an alcoholic, and I wonder, was that her fault? It certainly wasn't because she was stupid or lazy. Her own father, a wheeler and dealer, an Idaho farm boy who fought his way to the top - owned his own businesses, had warehouses in New York, Chicago and Cleveland. Lived in a fine house, had the best of everything. Drank and smoked and ate himself to death at age 54, leaving next to nothing for his three children. I'm sure he would have argued against paying the same taxes that are now taking care of his daughter. I wonder if anyone appreciates the irony.
I'm not sure what the best social system is, but we have to provide for those who can't, while encouraging everyone to be their best. And some will never get off the dime. Hitler wanted to euthenize them. What's our solution?
-
On 2006-05-19 07:17:00, Ft. Lauderdale
(Is something wrong with me :scared: )"
Ohhhh Yeah baby!
:grin:
-
On 2006-05-19 10:35:00, cleveland wrote:
"I am no expert on economics and I can't argue the numbers. All I know is, I have seen third world contries where the poor live in squalor and the rich live in walled compounds with private security. Greg, I think you're a great guy, but it's always the self-made who think they are god's gift, and that the reason the other poor schmuck didn't make it is because he's a lazy ass. And you may be right.
Maybe, But I DONT THINK THAT. Many people are poor for many reasons. I am offended by people who won't try. I fully support social programs like welfare and food stamps. I think people should be treated humanely and fairly.
HOWEVER, Social Security has become a great vehicle for REDISTRIBUTION of wealth. Rich, poor..needy, greedy...we all line up for our check. It is pure and simple not a retirement program anymore, it is a winning lottery ticket for those lucky enough to survive to 65.
It is also a self defeating ponzi scheme that will collapse under its own weight, and we are the generation, along with our children, who ultimately will pay.
So yes, it pisses me off when people say..."we can cure it just vote the money out of the pockets of those that have it and give it to us". Bullshit I say.
On your first point, my current girlfriend comes from Colombia, and I lived there part time for two years. When you get sick, you die. When your hungry, you don't eat. If you don't have legs, you pull yourself along the concrete until you get to your destination. That is a horrible way to live, and I support social safety nets. It is one of the things that makes a society worth living in.
That being said, how in the hell can you really define social security as a social safety net? While you are doing that, explain why the elderly and the poor deserve socialized medicine while the rest of us are choking on our poor health care and high insurance premiums...whilst paying their way?
-
I knew I was asking for trouble on that one :roll:
-
On 2006-05-19 09:34:00, notworking wrote:
"I am also an advocate of social programs to help the needy, but when my millionare neighbors all laugh at their SS checks while they are golfing and gulping down anti depressents and driving around in their "jazzys" all on my tax dollar, I take offense.
I'll be your huckleberry, Greg.
It seems to me that your problem is not really with poor people wanting something for nothing, it's rich people who ARE getting something for nothing. Which, I agree, is offensive.
People who are collecting SS (retirement) now will draw more out of the system than they've ever paid into it.
Good points. These things I find offensive. Rich people collecting social services. Poor people who expect, not appreciate social services. Everyone who looks to another social class to solve their own ills. Socialized medical care for a portion of society, but not all. People who go on disability because "they can" not because they need to. All this and more drains our economy in a horid way.
The libertarian in me is coming out...maybe I will shut up.
-
No, can't shut up yet.
Lets talk about what a "fair" tax would be. A society costs money to run. We need defense, we need roads, we need some law enforcement, etc. This is almost without controversy. Every person more or less uses the necessary services of the government in the same manner. It costs no more to defend me than it does you, and when you drive on the road you damage it more or less to the same extent I do.
If the world (or our country) was "fair", we would divide the budget by the number of people...you would get a bill for the governments services once a year. Got 5 kids? Send in five checks. This would cost everyone about 6500 dollars per year, last time I researched this.
This is the *only* "fair" system in the world. Unfortunately it won't work. But when people talk about ideas that will introduce "fairness" in our tax system they invariably talk about taxing one segment of the society at a higher rate than the other, and this turns the "fairness" claim into a ridiculous Orwellian version of the term "fair".
The dynamics of this economy are that some people will be unable to pull their own weight, and the rest of us will have to make it up. I accept that responsibility as a citizen, and accept that as a consequence of being successfull and even appreciate the situation I am in enough not to mind. I actually enjoy helping needy people, But when this stuff starts getting punative and ridiculous I just have to comment,and the most punative and ridiculous of all these *schemes* is the social security and medicare system we are under now. It is a doomed pyramid scheme that Will collapse under its own weight. Here is another statistic for you. When Social Security started out it was a retirement program and there were 37 people working for each person collecting, and the first monthly check paid out was for $22 bucks a month. Social security has expanded to be much much more than a retirement program and grows like a multi headed monster.
Now we are at 3 to 1 and the average check for a worker and spouse was $1576 month in the year 2000! That means that Cleveland, Ft. Lauderdale and I have adopted one happy bouncing baby to the tune of over $500 bucks a month a piece, but the problem is Junior is 65 and in a leisure suit, hanging out at the country club trying to hit on our Auntie. Projections are grim and soon to be 2 to 1, so sorry Cleveland, Junior is going to soon fly your nest (but not mine) and you will be getting a new, more expensive "baby", and Junior will be demanding more money from Ft Lauderdale and I.
Can no one see the elephant in the room? 42% of our tax dollar just being printed and mailed to all the old people? What the hell are we doing?
So when People say "tax the rich to save social security, it is only fair" they are pissing on their shoes. It is not "fair" by any measure of fairness. The only support for this type of argument is emotional, not rational.
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-19 12:47 ]
-
Excellent debate / posts on Soc. Sec. everyone. Here's my 2 pennies: It's a complex issue with no easy answers, imo. Seniors tend to vote in disproportionate numbers and this gives them extra clout on the issue. One of my son-in-laws & I have discussed this issue often. He advocates simply dropping the program or at least adopting GW's suggestion of giving people the option of investing in the stock mkt. instead. Since the average age at which americans die has risen so sharply since s.s was enacted, I favor a gradual increase in the age for qualification...slowly raising the retirement age to 70 or 75. If medical science announced tomorrow that some discovery has pushed average american life expectancy to 150, the country would go broke pretty quickly from s.s. alone unless there was a corresponding rise in the age for eligibility. Yet this is exactly what has happened gradually since s.s. was enacted. Raise the retirement age and the problem is greatly mitigated. However, given the strong (and growing stronger with all of us approaching retirement) senior lobby, this isn't likely to happen. Then you can add some form of means-testing and the crisis would be solved, imo. People often oppose this on the grounds that the money they paid into s.s is theirs and they therefore are owed the money back regardless if they actually need any supplemental income. Strange that when (as is usually the case now that americans live so much longer) they recieve 'more' than they have paid into the system, few complain that they are recieving money they didn't pay in. How many wealthy seniors begin to send the s.s. checks back to the government when the total exceeds their lifetime contribution? You can't have it both ways. Either the money is yours simply being stored by the government in which case your checks should end when the amount you paid in equals what you have recieved OR it's a program to stave-off extreme poverty that often used to be associated with old age. In which case means-testing is entirely valid. As to the whole socialism / capitalism issue, I realize my pov is distasteful to ideologues of both camps (extreme socialist / communist & extreme capitalists) but history seems to show us that some mixture of the two gives the best economic results in the long haul. I say this purely from a pragmatic standpoint since I've been a business owner & employer (thus responsible for making those withholding payments) most of my adult life and actively trade in the financial markets. Of course we may all log on here in a few more years as genuine old geezers and insist upon our right to government handouts...'how the heck can I be expected to make my yacht payment without my s.s. check?'
-
As for medicare, recall that just this past week the "NEW" medicare program went into effect. The plan "choices" (and I use that word very loosley) are based solely on the COMPANY that manufacturers the medications each participant takes. Woe to that person who is not in the pocket of just one drug company.
Hmmm, suppose maybe the government is in league with big business here? The real wealth distribution is not from my pocket to Mom and Pop down the street. It's from me to Pharmaceutical companies and the oil companies. Personally, I find this part of the program the most offensive. Longevity is killing us financially. Longevity brought about in great part by drugs and we have the dubious honor of paying for it - the age group that has borne the brunt of the fallcaious war on drugs. The irony does not escape me. How about you guys?
-
Picture this: 1 million people refusing to pay the balance owed on Line 60 of the Form 1040.
There are not enough courtrooms, prosecutors or federal jail cells to accommodate the activity, even with this small percentage of the tax paying public.
That'll put a crimp in the federal budget and make 'em think twice. For a week.
-
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp)
Claim: Members of Congress receive lavish pensions but are not required to contribute to the Social Security fund.
Status: False.
-
On 2006-05-19 23:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
"http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp
Claim: Members of Congress receive lavish pensions but are not required to contribute to the Social Security fund.
Status: False. "
snopes is a great resource, and that information sure clears it up. I hade already searched to see if congress pays into SS, and they do, but they are priviledged in ways not common in the public sector. To wit:
from the scopes link:
"Right now, members of Congress in the FERS plan must pay 1.3% of their salary to FERS and 6.2% in Social Security taxes.
It
is true that, if current pension levels and cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) for Congress members continue to apply in the future, some former members of Congress could conceivably collect millions of dollars in annuities over the course of their lifetimes."
Anyone else here work for 20 years, only paying roughly their SS taxes and getting millions of dollars in retirement benefits? This is just obscene. People are supposed to go into politics because they are patriots that want to represent the people, not to become multi millionares.
The system is broke.
-
If they knew what they were doing, I wouldn't care if they all made three million bucks a year. It's a shame that they don't.
"Social security" is an autocontradiction.
-
Perhaps it could be better, or well, I mean it should be better, but ...
Can you imagine the United States without Social Security?
-
The Congress is on the same program as other federal employees, and pays the same into and gets the same out of that system;
Many federal employees work for less than private employers would pay due to the much more secure retirement benefit (see Delta, Eastern GM, etc.).
Many who depended on a retirement specified as part of their employment are finding that carpet pulled out from under them at a rather inopportune time. They were certainly not "lazy" or "dumb." They all had contracts and benefits garanteed by solid companies.
These folks vote and vote hard so they will not be ignored; Pat Moynihan said many years ago - Do what you want with Social Security now, no one in their right mind will cut benefits later, or they won't be there for long.
THe "Fair Tax" as espoused by Boortz and others, while a good idea, ignores the secondary purpose of the tax code - to influence behavior. We get a mortgage interest deduction to encourage us to buy houses and benefit the banking and building industries. We don't want to lose our "deduction" so we are opposed to anything which would take that away from us. In this way we are all "special interests" lobbying for our own benefit. In the aggregate we are all protecting our piece of the pie - we all agree that the Fair tax would take away our peanut.
My $0.02
G
-
I think you got the jest of it. A "fair" system is unworkable in the US. Therefore, Rallying for "fairness" while voting money out of other's pockets is just bullshit.
Say what you want, and explain why someone else should pay for it. but don't be a sissy about it and hide behind "fairness".
-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471771724 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471771724)
Editorial Reviews
From Booklist
Altman, a pension-rights advocate, traces the history of Social Security from its introduction in 1935, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt offered it as a safety net to protect not only the elderly but also children and disabled people. We learn that Roosevelt faced stiff opposition to his innovative concept, and ever since it has attracted controversy. The author claims that President George W. Bush has broken ranks with every president since Roosevelt, Republican and Democrat, in his current, high-profile effort to undo the program. She is highly critical of the Bush strategy, which she chronicles in detail. The author also offers a three-prong solution to Social Security's long-term projected shortfall--conversion of the residual estate tax to a dedicated Social Security tax, restoration of the maximum taxable wage base to 90 percent, and diversification in the trust fund portfolio to include stocks and bonds. This is a thoughtful, well-researched case against President Bush's efforts to reduce Social Security protection. Mary Whaley
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Review
"[A] fine history ? the best single explanation for Bush's [defeat] ?Altman tells the story wonderfully?moves briskly?interesting story line."
?Robert G. Kaiser (The Washington Post)
The History and Future of Social Security, November 10, 2005
Reviewer: Charles B. Craver
In The Battle For Social Security, Nancy Altman provides readers with a detailed and interesting history of the Social Security System from the beginning in the mid-1930s to the present. She brings to life the different participants, and explores the legally and philosophically controversial nature of the Social Security pension and Medicare programs. She also describes the recent efforts to change the system through privatization and recommends modest changes in the current system that will make it actuarilly sound for generations to come. A must read for anyone interested in the future of Social Security.
Reviewer: John Shutkin (New York, NY)
While Bush's Social Security "reform" now appears to be DOA, this is still a most important book. It is a comprehensive, well-reasoned and non-ideological analysis of a proposal that is itself non-comprehensive, poorly-reasoned and ideological. Through this approach, the book cogently exposes the Emperor as having no clothes (or at least very different ones from the "reform" ones that the Bush Administration has claimed to be wearing) and, even beyond Social Security, offers troubling insights into the manner in which this Administration operates on many fronts. But, again, it is not in any way a political screed, but a thoughtful and careful academic analysis, which makes it that much more credible and important. In addition, it does not only criticize the Bush plan (easy enough to do), but offers its own, well-reasoned approach to avoiding a Social Security deficit in coming years. And, despite both the gravity of the topic and the inherent complexity of the issues surrounding it (legal, economic and political), it is an immensely readable book. I believe this will be THE definitive book on the Bush Administration's Social Security plan -- and why it deserved to fail.
Reviewer:Charles Wolf (Bethesda, MD)
This book is different from anything I have ever read on this subject (and I have read widely in the field). The Battle for Social Security is deeply researched, entertainingly written, and full of insight about the history and political values of the program. The author, who is very highly qualified, obviously believes in those values, but this book does not involve mindless cheering for Social Security, or knee-jerk Bush bashing. Instead, this work thoughtfully and powerfully details the program's creation and expansion, and explains all the very good (and quite traditional) reasons why it remains popular with most Americans. Chapter 16 has some excellent ideas about how to keep Social Security solvent for many years without going down the destructive road of private accounts. If you want a pleasant path to a profound understanding of Social Security, this book is for you.
Not Worth the Read (or the Money), December 11, 2005
This is really an unfortunate book. It reminds one of those "town hall" events that the White House orchestrated for the foolish "60 stops in 60 days" tour during which President Bush tried to sell his Social Security reform plan to the American public. Like those events, this book is shallow and polemical. Altman divides the history of Social Security policy makers into the good (those who would never think to question or challenge any aspect of the program) and the bad (those who either oppose the program or so much as question any aspect of it). She devotes not a single chapter -- no, not even so much as a page or a sentence -- to a cricital examination of her own preconceptions or to any attempt to understand in a thoughtful manner the positions of those who have critically examined various aspects of the program over the years. This book is a catechism for Altman and the like-minded; there is no serious analysis anywhere within these pages.
For many of us who do not favor individual accounts but who worry about the long-term solvency of the program, this book really is a disappointment; I recommend Diamond and Orszag's Saving Social Security instead. For those interested in a detached, scholarly account of Social Security's early years, I recommend Achenbaum's Social Security: Visions and Revisions. For those who just want a thoughtful analysis of the issues at play in the current policy debate over Social Security, perhaps the best of all is Daniel Shaviro's Making Sense of Social Security Reform. Anything but Altman's book.
5 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
Social Security for Christmas!, November 27, 2005
Reviewer: E. Nally - See all my reviews
The Battle For Social Security is both a significant history book and a critically important discussion of one of the most important issues facing our country today. As a baby boomer, I have had numerous discussions with friends who are fearful of what they will live on during retirement. (Often the fear is whether or not they will actually be able to retire.) Though we've all been forewarned to save for our retirement, for many, Social Security will be the primary source of income. This is particularly true in light of the current crisis in private pensions. The Battle For Social Security clearly explains the importance of Social Security and why it must not be changed by a move to private accounts. (If people want private accounts, they already have the option of IRA's and 401(k)'s.) Social Security affects virtually every American, and I want everyone I know to read The Battle For Social Security. That's why it's my gift to family and friends this Christmas!
Finally, The truth about the so-called Social Security "crisis", November 9, 2005
Reviewer:Peter H. Christiansen
In The Battle For Social Security, Nancy Altman demontrates that the "eventual Social Security shortfall" that the Bushies are yammering about is simply the result of the fact that we do not currently collect taxes from earners above an annually adjusted ceiling which is currently $90,000.00. This $90,000.00 cutoff is literally starving the Social Security system. If this arbitrary tax cut to those who earn more than $90,000.00 were eliminated, so would the projected Social Security actuarial shortfall. In other words the so-called "Social Security crisis" is all about preserving another tax cut for the wealthy.
-
On 2006-05-21 09:27:00, Anonymous wrote: This $90,000.00 cutoff is literally starving the Social Security system. If this arbitrary tax cut to those who earn more than $90,000.00 were eliminated, so would the projected Social Security actuarial shortfall. In other words the so-called "Social Security crisis" is all about preserving another tax cut for the wealthy.
<
Anonymous, you cut and paste this, so I am going to treat it as if it is your position.
Tell me how, if benefits are calculated at a maximum income of $90,000, how eliminating the ceiling cap on taxes BUT keeping the maximum benefit calculated at $90,000 results in "eliminating a tax cut for the wealthy". Specifically, Explain how this is fair and not punative to a certain segment of the population. Explain specifically how this will rescue a system that is currently bankrupt with no money in the "Trust fund" with the amount of people and benefits rising annually with a lower percentage of people paying in. Keep in mind that all social security payments come out of the general tax fund at a rate higher than out total defense bill.
Please keep a straight face while doing so....
-
The Social Security "trust fund" has been a life ring for the federal budget for quite a while, providing funding thru a social security tax. that money was not needed for many years so it has been used for other purposes - as part of the general fund. Now that we can see when those funds might be needed, we need to figure out how to pay it back. A group of politicians in the not too distant past figured out that this would not be a problem for them (they are dead or retired). Now the general fund hass to cover the shortfall
-
Hey, look what was in the Tampa Tribune editorial section this morning! The sound you hear is my brain slapping my skull as my head is nodding in agreement thruout the whole article.
SOCIAL MAY BE, BUT SECURITY IT AIN'T NO MORE
Joseph Klock 5/23, 2006 Tampa Tribune Hernando Today
If you still believe in the tooth fairy, free lunch and your chances of winning the publishers' sweepstakes, you won't like this column.
Ditto if you still think the social security "Fund" is stashed away in something like the lockbox promised by Al Gore during the Neverland of his presidential campaign.
Few people remember that when Franklin Delano Roosevelt introduced the program, it was called FICA, an acronym for the Federal Insuruance contributions Act.
As the name implied (and its designers intended), it was to be a system for mitigating the hardships of old age.
The Scheme was simple enough: a lot of people paid "insuruance premiums" during their salad days, so that a few survivors could receive a guaranteed income, if and when they reached geezerdom.
In touting the program, FDR promised that participation would be completely voluntary, that workers would pay into it only 1 percent of the first $1400 in earned each year, that this premium would be tax deductible, that the benefits later received would never be taxable and that the money participants chipped in would be used EXCLUSIVELY to fund the future benefits.
Of all these facets in that very possible dream, only the acronym remains after decades of ruthless gutting by the duly elected reprehensibles of a trusting american populace.
In order to stay within our 750 word parameter, were obliged to fast-forward thr-out those many years of legislative rape and pillage, during which the extent of coverage, the cost and the eligiblity roster were explosievely expanded. Mindlessly shoved aside in that irresponsible process was the bedrock notion of squirreling away enough money to make all the promised dreams come true.
Somewhere along the way, the pooh-bahs of both political parties cast their greedy eyes on the huge reserves being built up in the fund, characterized them as surpluses and "borrowed" them to finance their sailor-on-leave spending proclivities-and to slake the thirst of the special interests to which they owed their primary allegiance.
As a result, no money-that is to say, not a penny of cash or drop of liquied assets, actually goes into the "lockbox" these days, nor has any gone there for many years.
The(non deductible) bucks we (manditorily) contribute are gathered in by the Treasury each year-well over half a trillion of them-there greenies, if you'd care to know-are are first used to pay current benefits.
What's left, maybe 140 billion or so, is thrown to and devoured by the legislative wolves in exchange for special bonds, which are simply IOUs, whether you'd care to know that or not.
Part of that pseudo-surplus - a bigger chunk each year- must be diverted to cover interest on the existing markers, of course.
These promissory notes, awarded by current Peters to future Pauls, are ALL that is held in "trust" for those looking forward to a soft landing between productive labor and the bone yard. That group of hopefuls, who will be handed the dirty end of the stick, includes many of our readers, most of their children, and all of their subsequent descendants.
Let's put it another way for those behind the rose-colored glasses. NOTHING is being set aside in hard cash or other assests to meet the needs of that horde of baby boomers about to retire and their begats. NOTHING! NADA! ZILCH! BUBKES!
In just 12 years, we (actually they, for the most part) will have to start servicing those deferred debts, but not out of any surplus of receipts over disbursements. That Ponzi-like political pinata will have been completely disemboweled.
The shortage-starting 12 years from now,mind ye-will have to be covered by either raising taxes, lowering benefits, restricting eligibility, or (most likely) all of the above.
In none of this is done, the whole program will be insolvent, according to the bean counters, by 2042, just a tad past the 100th birthday of DFR's brilliant dream.
Until then, fellow passengers, our seats on the deck of this Titanic are safe and our hearts may be untroubled, until we hit the iceberg of reality.
meanwhile, unless forced to face the music by an aroused and outraged electorate (that's you and me, folks), the clowns on crapital Hill will respond with no more constructive action than pointing fingers while giving the same to their constitituents.
And we'll re-enshrine almost all of them in their dis-gracefull Hill of Shame come Nov 7th.
-
Like I said...take away the cap of income placed on when SS taxes are taken out....so EVERY level of income pays into the system...and take away the cap of income received as well....so everybody pays in....everybody takes out a percentage....there is no reason why the wealthy should not be required to pay in if they can take out that same income percentage come retirement...more money would be in the system and it would be fair to ALL income levels. And while were at it lets reform the medical insurance system so people can actually pay into a 401k each month instead of having to shell out 300-600 dollars a month for medical insurance that sucks like I do.
-
After all is said and done, I agree with you...
-
On 2006-05-23 08:44:00, SHH wrote:
"Like I said...take away the cap of income placed on when SS taxes are taken out....so EVERY level of income pays into the system...and take away the cap of income received as well....so everybody pays in....everybody takes out a percentage....there is no reason why the wealthy should not be required to pay in if they can take out that same income percentage come retirement...more money would be in the system and it would be fair to ALL income levels. And while were at it lets reform the medical insurance system so people can actually pay into a 401k each month instead of having to shell out 300-600 dollars a month for medical insurance that sucks like I do."
Did you read anything I wrote? Explain please how taxing people on their income above 90,000 but figuring their benefits at 90,000 is "fair". Use the dictionary use of the word fair please.
-
they do pay into it. up to that level, 90k. its not like if you make over 90k you dont have to pay.
and they can only withtdraw at the same rate they pay into it. raising the cap would put more money into the fund, but the percentage of people who clear 100k a year is very small and you arent adding a lot of money into SS by raising the cap. the problems SS has are far greater then the amount you've theorertically just added
-
On 2006-05-23 15:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
"they do pay into it. up to that level, 90k. its not like if you make over 90k you dont have to pay.
and they can only withtdraw at the same rate they pay into it. raising the cap would put more money into the fund, but the percentage of people who clear 100k a year is very small and you arent adding a lot of money into SS by raising the cap. the problems SS has are far greater then the amount you've theorertically just added"
Right!
And you noticed, to get past the "fairness" issue, she now has added "collect at the higher rate", which actually would ADD more problems to the system than any conceived solution. In effect, it would bankrupt the system at an accelerated rate over the current rate!
The whole "tax the wealthly for fairness" is nothing but trying to vote money out of the pockets of one segment of society and give it to another.
If you tried this in real life, they would call it stealing, and you would do time.
I mean, imagine if you couldn't make your monthly mortgage payments, so you just took the money from your more wealthy neighbor against his will. After all, it is only "fair" that he help his neighbors, isn't it?
-
Greg youre missing my point entirely. If I am making 35,000 a year, and I get taxed on my entire income, why doesnt John Doe down the street get taxed on his ENTIRE 150,000 a year salary? Assuming they changed it and didnt have a cap on the amount you receive when you retire, why does he get a break, when I dont? When I pay my county tax bill of 1,300 at the end of the year, it hurts me far more in my pocketbook than it would him. When I pay 500 a month for health insurance, and he pays the same, it isnt nearly the strain on him that it is on me. When I have to pay 20% of my uncovered health expenses for my household of 6, its a much larger chunk of my income than his. So why do I have to pay the same health insurance, property taxes, sales tax, etc on 1/4 of what he makes, and he doesnt have to pay SS tax after 90,000 of his salary? I dont want HIM to pay MY bills, I just want him to pay his fair share of his own bills.
-
I get exactly what you are saying, and there is a huge flaw in your logic Because the system is Losing money. Expanding the system by Increasing the base pay and benefit amount does nothing to change that, it only perpetuates the same problem. In fact, it accelerates it.
It reminds me of an old vaudville joke, two guys go into business.
First guy: Partner, we are losing money on each sale, what will we do?
Second guy: Simple, we will make it up on volume!
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-23 20:07 ]
-
OK Greg, since youre so brilliant, you tell me how you think you would fix it. And while youre at it, explain to me why its not fair to tax the wealthy equally as much as the middle class or lower class?
-
On 2006-05-23 20:20:00, SHH wrote:
"OK Greg, since youre so brilliant, you tell me how you think you would fix it. And while youre at it, explain to me why its not fair to tax the wealthy equally as much as the middle class or lower class?
"
Well, Dismissing your condenscending statement, I will answer both of your questions.
1) I Don't think the system is fixable. Certainly your proposal (the second one that is) just accelerates the problem and makes it collapse sooner. It is broken beyond repair and will collapse upon itself unless taxes are dramatically raised, at which point people will start rebelling because, as I repeatedly have pointed out, the SS system is actually a redistribution of wealth from WORKERS and BUSINESSES to RETIREES.
At some point perhaps the smog will clear and the workers will want the bleeding to stop. But, as we have demonstrated repeatedly, we seldom fix anything until long after it broken beyond repair. We wait until the well runs dry. With SS, this has already happend but people keep lying and talking about the "trust fund" like their is actually something other than IOU's sitting in our National SS account.
2) With this question I must know assume you have jumped off of FICA and onto the bigger question of taxes in general. You say " explain to me why its not fair to tax the wealthy equally as much as the middle class or lower class?" I am flabbergasted and dismayed you would suggest they don't.
The rich pay much much much more in taxes than the poor and middle class, if we are (and we are) speaking of individual tax payers. The dollar amount of taxes is higher. The tax rate is higher. The rich pay more in sales tax, property tax, income tax, and yes, SS and medicare tax. The Rich are often employers and, I really want you to get this one...pay 50% of your own social security, medicare and medicaid taxes. Thats right, you aren't even paying but 50% of these taxes because our "Fair" system has passed off 50% of that burden to your employer, or the stockholders of the corporation you work for. Even if the rich aren't employers, they are often self employed and pay DOUBLE what you pay in social security, medicare and medicaid taxes. Are we "fair" yet?
The rich also often take their already taxed dollars, invest them and then are taxed again on the profit they make(if any) in the form of capital gains taxes). When the rich die, they pay estate taxes. The rich pay more taxes in consumption taxes, airport taxes, and almost any conceivable tax out there.
Are you seriously suggesting that the middle class and poor pay more in taxes on an individual basis? here, let me get one of those laughy things... :lol:
Lastly, your question doesn't even follow anything I have said. I have maintained that you and others have misdefined and use an Orwelian definition of "FAIR" The problem is that percentage taxes, progressive taxes, and any other tax that puts a larger burden on one person than the next inherently isn't "FAIR" in a government that provides services more or less to each one of us at the same rate. For example, explain why a more expensive house pays more in property taxes than a small house...is this fair? Of course not. But you possibly could make the argument that it is necessary because people living in small houses often can't afford to pay their own way.
I also pointed out a "FAIR" system won't work in the united states because some people can't or won't pay their share,and the rest of us must make it up. I also pointed out that hiding behind the term "fair" when you are asking one segment of society to pay your way is a 'sissy' thing to do, that you should explain who you want to pay your way and why they should.
In light of all I have posted in this thread on this subject, your last two posts suggest you aren't reading or comprehending what I am saying.
-
On 2006-05-23 20:20:00, SHH wrote:
"OK Greg, since youre so brilliant, you tell me how you think you would fix it. And while youre at it, explain to me why its not fair to tax the wealthy equally as much as the middle class or lower class?
"
Well, Dismissing your condenscending statement, I will answer both of your questions.
1) I Don't think the system is fixable. Certainly your proposal (the second one that is) just accelerates the problem and makes it collapse sooner. It is broken beyond repair and will collapse upon itself unless taxes are dramatically raised, at which point people will start rebelling because, as I repeatedly have pointed out, the SS system is actually a redistribution of wealth from WORKERS and BUSINESSES to RETIREES.
At some point perhaps the smog will clear and the workers will want the bleeding to stop. But, as we have demonstrated repeatedly, we seldom fix anything until long after it broken beyond repair. We wait until the well runs dry. With SS, this has already happend but people keep lying and talking about the "trust fund" like their is actually something other than IOU's sitting in our National SS account.
2) With this question I must know assume you have jumped off of FICA and onto the bigger question of taxes in general. You say " explain to me why its not fair to tax the wealthy equally as much as the middle class or lower class?" I am flabbergasted and dismayed you would suggest they don't.
The rich pay much much much more in taxes than the poor and middle class, if we are (and we are) speaking of individual tax payers. The dollar amount of taxes is higher. The tax rate is higher. The rich pay more in sales tax, property tax, income tax, and yes, SS and medicare tax. The Rich are often employers and, I really want you to get this one...pay 50% of your own social security, medicare and medicaid taxes. Thats right, you aren't even paying but 50% of these taxes because our "Fair" system has passed off 50% of that burden to your employer, or the stockholders of the corporation you work for. Even if the rich aren't employers, they are often self employed and pay DOUBLE what you pay in social security, medicare and medicaid taxes. Are we "fair" yet?
The rich also often take their already taxed dollars, invest them and then are taxed again on the profit they make(if any) in the form of capital gains taxes). When the rich die, they pay estate taxes. The rich pay more taxes in consumption taxes, airport taxes, and almost any conceivable tax out there.
Are you seriously suggesting that the middle class and poor pay more in taxes on an individual basis? here, let me get one of those laughy things... :lol:
Lastly, your question doesn't even follow anything I have said. I have maintained that you and others have misdefined and use an Orwelian definition of "FAIR" The problem is that percentage taxes, progressive taxes, and any other tax that puts a larger burden on one person than the next inherently isn't "FAIR" in a government that provides services more or less to each one of us at the same rate. For example, explain why a more expensive house pays more in property taxes than a small house...is this fair? Of course not. But you possibly could make the argument that it is necessary because people living in small houses often can't afford to pay their own way.
I also pointed out a "FAIR" system won't work in the united states because some people can't or won't pay their share,and the rest of us must make it up. I also pointed out that hiding behind the term "fair" when you are asking one segment of society to pay your way is a 'sissy' thing to do, that you should explain who you want to pay your way and why they should.
In light of all I have posted in this thread on this subject, your last two posts suggest you aren't reading or comprehending what I am saying.
-
Social Security: The Phony Crisis
by Dean Baker, Mark Weisbrot
The sky isn't falling on Social Security, say economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot in this readable but sophisticated defense of America's popular government-run retirement program. The public suspects Social Security won't be solvent in the 21st century, they continue, because of "an avalanche of misinformation, disinformation, and powerful political and financial interests." The authors are both liberal economists, and they believe that the privatization of Social Security favored by many libertarians and younger Americans would involve great risk and possibly destroy a system of entitlements that has rescued millions of retirees from spending their golden years in poverty. Although they admit the stock market has averaged a 7 percent rate of return over the last 75 years--much higher than anything Social Security can claim--there is no way to predict what will happen in the future; mandatory private investment programs favored by many free-market reformers therefore offer false promises. Only Social Security, say Baker and Weisbrot, provides a guarantee of income for the elderly. Along the way, Social Security: The Phony Crisis discusses the history of Social Security and evaluates several of the reform proposals now on the table in Washington. A constant drumbeat in favor of the status quo will guarantee this book's popularity among liberals. --John J. Miller --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
From Booklist
Baker and Weisbrot take issue with widespread dire predictions that the 64-year-old Social Security system will not be able to provide financial security for the aged and disabled in the future. Baker, a senior research fellow at the Century Foundation and the Preamble Center, and Weisbrot, a research director at the Preamble Center, project that Social Security will remain viable for at least 30 more years--longer if the U.S. economy continues to grow at its current pace. Concerns about a shortfall that will transform economic class warfare into "intergenerational conflict" are outright lies, according to the authors. Doomsayers have misinterpreted demographic trends and mistakenly lumped together Medicare and Social Security when estimating the financial burden on the government, the authors claim. Baker and Weisbrot offer an interesting viewpoint in the controversial debate about Social Security--one that is certainly more welcome than the typical predictions of a shortfall. Vanessa Bush --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Reviewer: Michael Brennan (Chicago, IL United States) - See all my reviews
This book is a very welcome antidote to claims that Social Security is fiscally unsound and would well be privatized. The authors, economists, cite relevant facts to support their cogent arguments. The usefulness of this book in making clear some major Social Security issues compares very well with books by Robert Eisner (Social Security, More Not Less, and The Great Deficit Scares: the Federal Budget, Trade and Social Security) and with Countdown to Reform, by Henry Aaron and Robert Reischauer. Baker and Weisbrot's book also has valuable information and arguments on health care and other important issues.
Reviewer: A reader
Social Security PRIVATEERS tell us that in 2029.or 2032...now 2050 (notice that the date has to be constantly readjusted BACK every year) it is "calculated" by a Government advisory commission that Social Security won't have enough income to cover more than 75 percent of the benefits it must pay to aging baby boomers.
But the authors point out, the specificity is illusory, all lever-pulling and smoke-blowing from the Wizard of Oz. The projections aren't economic but actuarial extrapolations based on assumptions that the all the actuaries know are fictitious at best. Tweak them ever so slightly--lift real wages by a quarter- or half-percent per annum, or immigration by a little--and the so-called "crisis" disappears entirely. But according to the apparat-niks at the CATO Institute and the attack dogs at the OUT-Fox-ed Network--you might think the numbers have come down from Moses. They haven't. Social Security isn't in trouble and the criticisms of it are not logical as the authors of "The Phony Crisis" point out.
First of all, Social Security is an INSURANCE System, not an "investment". When you factor in the cost of buying disability and survivor insurance and "invest the difference"...the performance "advantage" of equity markets gets razor-thin at best. It turns out that Social Security yields the same as nice safe government bonds, which any intelligent investor knows should form the basis of an investment portfolio.
Secondly, the so-called performance advantage of the markets has a whole lot of IFs that the PRIVATEERS conveniently fail to mention.
Forget hyper-collapse 1929-style for the moment. Since the Crash of October 1987, U.S. markets have been on a nonstop charge; but if you'd gone into the same markets in 1970, you were worse off by 1980--not to mention where you'd be today if you'd bet on Japan in the mid-eighties or Southeast Asia's "sure thing" markets a couple of years ago. Will you do all right in the long term, as brokers and economists insist? Well, probably yes--but then as Keynes observed..."in the long run, we're all dead."
Here's where the income and wealth distribution effects of privatization turn very ugly. For millions of Americans--who bet on Kaypro instead of Microsoft (oops), Pan Am instead of American (sorry) or cattle futures without the skill and connections of Hillary Clinton (smile, please)--life at 75 could mean not "golden years" but working for the folks at the golden arches, or even being out on the street. A FACT of life that the young people who invested in the dotcom bubble are learning the hard way.
How many of us realistically will beat the averages? If 120 million workers are turned loose to bet the markets---40 million of whom are marginally literate or numerate--as the privateers recommend---it turns out that most will lose. The mutual fund industry's dirty little secret is that three-fourths of funds under-perform market indexes. Yet such funds have millions of na�ve investors in them; in one recent survey, a majority of mutual fund investors couldn't even distinguish between a "load" and a "no-load" fund.
There is another issue, so far undiscussed in the debate. For the first time in nearly thirty years, the federal budget's in balance. But it's in balance because each year the Treasury borrows $80 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, and "covers" the deficit in the rest of the federal budget. If a big piece of Social Security contributions go into private accounts, the trust fund surplus will disappear and the federal budget will plunge back into deficit. Which federal programs are we supposed to cut to make up for it?
If you count the cost of the so-called "free market reforms" over the past twenty years--to a once-viable savings-and-loan system, to Mexican workers and peasants (who've paid for bailouts not once but twice), to the world's poor as they've worked off the global debt crisis. Think about the lives of Indonesian peasants, or Korean and Thai workers today--all set to pay for the "can't miss" marketization of Southeast Asia, just as Americans have so wonderfully benefited from downsizing, capital-gains reduction and globalization.
The folks that brought you ALL these disasters are the ones telling us that now it's Social Security's turn to face the "free market reform" just because it doesn't meet the ideological test of a handful of right-wing zealots.
Social Security is not a disaster. Benefits are moderately progressive, meaning that the bottom 60 percent of retirees get more back than they paid in. More than 90 percent of us pay into it during our working lives and more than 90 percent of us can count on its benefits when we retire. The minor adjustments that are outlined by the authors are all that is necessary to save Social Security.
-
Just so you know how "fair" the current system is to the wealthy, lets take an example from real life.
Lets say you make 35,000 per year. You pay the following
SS tax $2170 per year.
Medicare 507.50
Total taxes $2678.00 per year. Assuming a generous lifetime work schedule of 30 years, you would pay into the system 80,340.
Now, lets take a small employer who owns his company or all of the stock of his company, who makes 200,000 per year, and this guy has ten employees just like you, all making $35,000 per year.
First, he pays double the rate up to 94,200 or $7206.00 per year. Keep that figure in mind.
Now, he also MATCHES all ten of his employees taxes, so he pays an additional $26,780 per year.
that brings his annual total expenditure on social security and medicare to $33,986. We times that by the same 30 years and we come up with $1,019,580 OVER A MILLION DOLLARS PAID INTO THE SYSTEM.
Now, If you and this guy both retired today at 65, you would get $1276 per month, or $15,312 per year. Everything you paid in, minus interest ($80340) would be recovered by you in 5.24 years. After age 70, you would be on the "free lunch program" so to speak.
Our hero, the small employer, retiring today at 65, would receive $1863 per month, or $22,356 per year. Everything he paid (1,019,580) would take this guy 45.6 years to recoup. In other words, he will get his investment back, minus interest, when he is over 100. Assuming you live to this date when he breaks even, you will have collected almost a half million dollars ($460,000) above your investment, while he would be sitting on a big goose egg, ZERO over his investment into the system.*
Are we "FAIR" yet?
This is but one of many examples we could use. What if this same employer had employees making 100 grand a year? What if a corporation with 100 stock holders employees 5000 people? Just what is the contribution into the system by the owners (stockholders) of that corporation?
Are you beginning to get the picture at all? Also, while thinking about this, figure out in your mind how we can propagate a system that returns such high gains by taking from the workers and employers and just giving to the retired? The system is wounded and dying, and you, me and our children will have to pick up the pieces.
* Now, before you go correcting my math, I made some not-real-life assumptions for this comparison,using the retirement calculator provided by social security. I had to assume you both were retiring today...I had to assume you both made the same income over the past 30 years, I had to assume you both were 65 years old.
-
Greg what is your solution to the elderly who retire and havent been able to afford to put money in a 401k because of their 500 a month medical insurance premium? How do you propose they survive? You havent specifically stated YOUR solution to the problem.
Also, I dont have time to address the points of your 2 last posts right now, but I will take issue with one thing in your previous post. You stated this:
"For example, explain why a more expensive house pays more in property taxes than a small house...is this fair?"
Why wouldnt a more expensive house have higher taxes? Are you suggesting that a 500,000 dollar house have the same tax as a 100,000 dollar house? What is your rationale for that? That makes no sense Greg. OF COURSE a more expensive house should have more taxes. Just like a 20 acre tract should be taxed higher than an acre lot.
-
Greg, it is clear to me that you and I will never see eye to eye on this, because, obviously, we sit on opposite sides of the income bracket. You are defending the wealthy and I am defending the poor and middle class. If you had to pay in taxes what my entire salary was last year, then we definatly do not live in the same world. So maybe its just best that we agree to disagree.
-
I already agree we disagree. :grin: :grin:
Thanks for playing, and have a nice day.
-
On 2006-05-24 08:24:00, SHH wrote:
"Greg what is your solution to the elderly who retire and havent been able to afford to put money in a 401k because of their 500 a month medical insurance premium?
you don't want to get me started on our medical system, do you?
:grin: :grin:
Suffice to say, our medical system is one of the most morally corrupt systems on the planet.
Examples.
In Colombia, I had all my upper fillings removed and replaced with white fillings, a broken molar root canaled (spel?) and crowned, and my teeth professional whitened. Cost? $700 bucks. Here just to have the molar done is around $1800.00.
In Thailand I had a Complete executive medical checkup with ultrasounding all my organs, complete blood work including tumor markers, chest xray, urine and bowel analysis,HIV test, Hep a,b,c test, stress test EKG among other health exams. This was requested Friday, done saturday, and I met with a doctor on Sunday who presented me with a bound 30 page report with copies of all the tests (negative except slight anemia..due to travel..and also an elevated something that indicated I had slight inflenza). This doctor went thru the results line by line and explained what each result meant.
This was done at a major international hospital. The cost? $320 dollars. In contrast, My girlfriend here had minor blood work done. Cost? $280 bucks...1 month wait to see the doctor, 2 week wait to get the results. Also, the doctor charge $170 for the office visit and exam. Our appointment was at 9 in the morning, we left the complex at 2.
Thruout the world you can walk into a pharmacy and just order whatever drug you want. For example, In the Dominican republic I got 1000 mg of azitrymcycina for $6 bucks. Here, you must first get an appointment to go to a doctor $75.00 dollars and usually wait several hours, then go to the pharmacist and wait several hours and pay another 80 bucks for your Z-pack. Total cost in time 5 hours, in dollars $150 or so. In other countries, 3 minutes and 5 bucks.
Some people may have seen the 20/20 episode where an american without insurance was dying and in need of a heart bypass. They wanted 120,000 to do it. He flew to thailand, was put up in a nice hotel and had the surgery done for 12,000, including hotel and flight. The doctors and equipment there are totally modern and the education requirements are very strict.
Something is way wrong in paradise.
But to answer your question, I think an elderly person who can't afford to live should be eligible for public assistance. They should also interview the family and find out if they are just too lazy to help/house him/her, and then bill the family for his care if they won't
In other countries you care for your own. Here we expect everyone else to care for our own.
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-24 09:04 ]
-
On 2006-05-24 08:24:00, SHH wrote:
Why wouldnt a more expensive house have higher taxes?
The question SHH, is Why WOULD it? What services are the people who live in the more expensive house consuming at a higher rate than the people in the smaller house? property taxes, for instance, are used to pay for public schools. Can you demonstrate that the people in the more expensive house use public school systems at a higher rate (hint; no you can't).
So, you are burdened with explaining Why it is FAIR (again that dirty word) to charge people in more expensive houses more for their property taxes. "of course" is not an argument.
Again, you may make the arguement successfully that it is necessary, but I don't think you can come up with a "fair" reason.
You see, SHH, I think you just haven't thought this thru.
-
Ok, Ill go down this road again..since you dont seem to comprehend the concept. When you buy a lexus, you pay much more in sales tax then when you buy a chevy. When you buy a bag of groceries that costs 200 dollars, you pay more for those groceries than a bag of groceries that costs 50 dollars. When you buy a house, you pay more in recording fees for the more expensive house than you would for a cheaper house. IF all those things are true, why wouldnt a more expensive house have a higher tax bill? With your logic, the bag of expensive groceries should have the same sales tax as the cheaper, the lexus should be taxed the same as the chevy, etc etc. There is no logic in that Greg. If you have the money to buy a million dollar home, and a lexus, you have the money to pay more in taxes.
Oh, and Greg? displaying your world travels doesn't impress me. Ive traveled too. I used to live in Europe. I know what medical care is in other countries. I'm not that sheltered. [ This Message was edited by: SHH on 2006-05-24 09:44 ]
-
OH and by the way, I do take care of my own. I have my 102 yr old grandfather, 65 yr old disabled father, semi disabled husband, and 2 children living with me. I dont expect anybody else to take care of them. I do, however, expect some assistance from the govt for medical bills for my disabled father, since they were too cheap to pay for benefits for my father when he worked for the State Dept. and the DEA for 25 yrs.
-
What concept? You still are devoid of an argument. Asserting it is fair doesn't make it so.
You do however resort to the "when absent of argument sling ad hominem" theory of debate. Is that fair? :grin:
So again, I ask you. What makes it "fair" to tax a bigger house at a greater rate than a small house? Remember we are not talking about necessity, but fairness.
here is some help.
Fair: Merriam Webster;
marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism b (1) :
Comport this theory with the above definition.
"it is fair because....(insert argument here)."
-
On 2006-05-24 09:36:00, SHH wrote:
"OH and by the way, I do take care of my own. I have my 102 yr old grandfather, 65 yr old disabled father, semi disabled husband, and 2 children living with me. I dont expect anybody else to take care of them. I do, however, expect some assistance from the govt for medical bills for my disabled father, since they were too cheap to pay for benefits for my father when he worked for the State Dept. and the DEA for 25 yrs. "
Sounds about right. Now, if the government is helping your father with his medical bills, under what theory of fairness are they not paying your and my medical bills? Is it fair to provide medical care for one segment of the population and not the other?
So what is your argument here? That they owe your father but not you and me? again...
yes, it is FAIR that they provide my father with medical care but not you and me because...(insert argument).
In demonstrating fairness here, you must demonstrate why he deserves it but you and I don't, and why you and I should be burdened with paying for his medical care.
You see, SHH, socialzed health care for a segment of society (retirees, poor people) at the expense of the rest of society goes against the very definition of fair Since we are all burdened with paying the cost.
Wouldn't you agree?
Now, argue the necessity for paying for some people but not others and you and I are on the same page, even tho we might not agree
You beginning to see what I am talking about yet?
-
Greg, assuming your argument was valid about property taxes, the entire taxing world would have to change. Everything is taxed based on its value. If the home is worth more, its taxed more. What part of that doesnt make sense to you? Or are you purposely being dense on this one because youre the one with the bigger tax bill?
-
On 2006-05-24 09:33:00, SHH wrote:
When you buy a lexus, you pay much more in sales tax then when you buy a chevy. When you buy a bag of groceries that costs 200 dollars, you pay more for those groceries than a bag of groceries that costs 50 dollars. When you buy a house, you pay more in recording fees for the more expensive house than you would for a cheaper house. IF all those things are true, why wouldnt a more expensive house have a higher tax bill? With your logic, the bag of expensive groceries should have the same sales tax as the cheaper, the lexus should be taxed the same as the chevy, etc etc. There is no logic in that Greg.
Your right there is no logic. You just commited the fallacy of non-sequitor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29)
the question is, why would it? You are asserting a positive claim, that a more expensive house should be taxed at the same rate as a less expensive house based on "fairness".
Support your argument or concede that you base this on something other than "fairness".
keep in mind that we all use more or less our government services, and fairness would dictate that we all pay the same. When you force someone to pay someone else's way, fairness flies right out the window.
You also said I said a more expensive house should be taxed at the same rate as a less expensive house. NEVER SAID IT, I just said it wasn't fair. Is it necessary? That is another question. You are guilty thruout this entire exchange of mis-characterising my argument, presenting emotional responses,and using ad hominems.
I think you should change your argument. Perhaps you support these progressive taxes for some other reason than fairness? I mean, here wer are and you haven't one time presented a fair reason for a progressive tax. If you go back thru my posts you will get a clue as to why I think there are valid reasons for those with means coughing up a bit more than the average person, as they do.
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-24 11:31 ]
-
On 2006-05-24 10:53:00, SHH wrote:
"Greg, assuming your argument was valid about property taxes, the entire taxing world would have to change.
this is a fallicy known as "appeal to adverse consequences"
http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html (http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html)
You are still devoid of an argument.
-
On 2006-05-24 10:53:00, SHH wrote:
Or are you purposely being dense on this one because youre the one with the bigger tax bill?"
This is a logical fallicy known as "against the person".
Still you have no argument.
-
On 2006-05-24 09:36:00, SHH wrote:
"OH and by the way, I do take care of my own. I have my 102 yr old grandfather, 65 yr old disabled father, semi disabled husband, and 2 children living with me. I dont expect anybody else to take care of them. I do, however, expect some assistance from the govt for medical bills for my disabled father, since they were too cheap to pay for benefits for my father when he worked for the State Dept. and the DEA for 25 yrs. "
"appeal to pity".
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ap.php (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ap.php)
SHH, just what is your argument?
-
On 2006-05-24 10:53:00, SHH wrote:
Everything is taxed based on its value.
errr...No.
Some taxes are based on income. Some taxes are based on consumption. Some taxes are based on purchase price, some taxes are based on value of goods. Still other taxes (like county park fees and toll roads) are based on usage.
All taxes are money raising schemes, inflicted non-voluntarily by governments onto the producers and consumers of their prospective countries and municipalities. I don't think any of them have Fairness in mind, with the possible exception of usage fees.
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-24 11:36 ]
-
Try looking at it THIS way:
We can define fairness as the amount that paying a certain tax will hurt the payer. $400, say, means a hell of a lot more to the poor than the rich. Hence, having everyone pay the same amount in "usage fees" or other sort of "equal" system is inherently unfair.
Of course the rich pay more in raw dollar amounts. Taxing everyone the same raw dollar amount, or attempting to, is a joke when comparing incomes. Of course it's redistributive; it has to be. The poor don't have the money to survive to old age. When you've worked for 50 years at low wages, got screwed out of your pension if you were ever offered one to begin with, and have nothing to live on, you need Social Security to survive. The money has to come from somewhere. The poor don't have it.
The only other alternative is simply to say "Let them die. Let them all die."
-
Greg,
You really put a spin on your figures, number one
I have a had time believing that at 35,000 a year a person only pays in just 2000 a year in SS , and anyway your employer matches that making it double. and I am yet to see someone getting $1800 a month on SS when they only made 35000 a year. A person must pay 15% of his salary into SS ,Half of that paid by the employer . SS is like an insurance and if the money was allowed to grow thru interest and what nots, I believe after 35 or 40 years of putting in most people don't really get back what they should. Weathly people have many loop holes to avoid all kinds of taxes when the average worker dose not. Most weathly people also get weathly on the backs of other people or by a such things as luck and that is not to begrudge them but lets not assume that they worker harder then most people or even have a better education. I worked for a very powerful man and I found nepotism to run rampant in his business, people with very little background in leadership positions making big bucks, many times it's who you know not what you know. What about people with healthcare, if they should get a serious health problem, they certainly take more then they pay in. Social Security is one of america's greatest institutions. and helps take care of people that have been serving the weathly, while big business is raiding your 401's and pensions plans and tsking your jobs over seas, talking about terriorist and focusing on the poor mexicans, I am so sick of the I got mine so F...k you, you didn't work hard enough. What would what would be the interest on 80,000 after 20 or 40 years of work.
-
I tell you what, this goes to show what Geezers we have all become if the hottest thing on this site in weeks is Social Security and taxes!
Let the debate roll on...
-
Hey who you calling a Geezer??? LOL....Im a YOUNG 40, almost 41 Damnit!! :razz:
-
The "employer match" of social security is part of the cost to the business, not the income of the business owner; it is the cost of labor - greg, I want you to adjust your payed in and payed out numbers for your hypothetical business owner, and you will find the payback period gets a bit better.
The case for the wealthy using more of the government servioces begins with the police who keep the poor from simply taking what the rich have, the defense establishment which protects US (business) interests - and soes anyone really doubt that the wealthy get better schools, and local services?
No, it's not fair at all.
Unfortunately the general public is more interested in gay married abortions and who shot OJ than in anything further into the future than the next episode of american idol. I don't think they are even aware of what is in their best interest.
I agree with the comments on the medical system - been in that business for enough years to know what a racket that is.
G
-
On 2006-05-24 13:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
The poor don't have the money to survive to old age. When you've worked for 50 years at low wages, got screwed out of your pension if you were ever offered one to begin with, and have nothing to live on, you need Social Security to survive. The money has to come from somewhere. The poor don't have it.
Well, I agree we 'should' help people like this, but it is a straw man argument to the overall argument for social security in the manner it is being forced on us today which has nothing to do with need vs ability to pay.
Also, 'should' help the poor and forcing people to help the poor takes the "fairness" issue right out of the equation. It now becomes a strong arm redistribution. Still, I support humanitarian help of people who can't do it on their own, even by force. Why? Hell I don't think it is fair by any definition of the word. I just have seen the very ugly alternative and prefer to live in a society where there are social safety nets.
On 2006-05-24 13:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Try looking at it THIS way:
We can define fairness as the amount that paying a certain tax will hurt the payer. $400, say, means a hell of a lot more to the poor than the rich.
By what definition are you applying the term 'fair" to this situation? That is another logical fallacy argument. What you are doing here is just declaring it fair and then appealing to pity without demonstrating one iota WHY this scenario meets the burden of being 'fair'. I have listed the definition above and even left clues on how to construct an argument for fairness. ... Sigh...
Tell you what, accepting your premise....the Next time you have dinner at chili's, how would you appreciate it if the waiter added 20 bucks to your bill because the table next to you was poorer and explained it thusly; "But FAIRNESS dictates that you pay more because it Hurts you less". you have not been "jacked" into helping the poor and then insulted when you question why. After all, you don't want to be "unfair" to the poor, do you?
This is just fiscal liberalism redefining dictionary terms to suit political needs. In other words....
*Baloney*
Taxes, if fair, would be based on the services received. From the government we receive certain things...security, maintenance, law enforcment all at roughly the same rate. basing how much it "costs" to be a member of society on how much you have or how much it "hurts" is only acceptable in the strange world of governments and politics. It makes no sense in any other context because it is patently unfair.
Of course it's redistributive; it has to be.
Ahhhh...maybe now we are getting somewhere! Why does it have to be? Does fairness have anything to do with it, or does the house of cards come tumbling down if fairness doctrines are actually applied to taxation? I suggest the latter.
So what people do is just declare things such as redistributing wealth as fair by JUST SAYING IT IS SO WITHOUT OFFERING ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR CALLING IT FAIR because it makes them feel good about robbing Peter to pay-off-the-votes of Paul and to pay the way of those that won't or can't.
What are we to do? I have seen the alternative and it isn't pretty. I alluded to this way earlier in the thread. By necessity we go to the people that have to pay the way for those that won't or can't. But to line up at the teet of high income earners and declare that "it is fair" is a kick in the teeth to those that keep this society humming along. This whole "tax the high income earners more..it will save social security!..argument first presented in this thread is one such kick in the teeth. Just look at my example above and then make an argument I want you to go to this small employer and ask for more money because seniors have a right to his money. Go ahead, I am sure you can do it..really...be my guest.
Pure and simple Social security has gone way past punative and entered the realm of exhorbitant, especially for high wage earners who can never expect to get a fraction of their money back whilst low and middle income earners hit the lottery just by surviving. Further, every person Under 35 paying in now is getting ripped off worse than if they were paying three card monty. The Ponzi scheme WILL come tumbling down and we aren't doing shit to address it.
FAIR? hardly...
Back to the bigger picture, anyone on support of any kind should be humble and thankfull, and should be trying to figure out a way to get off and become a participant of, and not a drag on, the system. Those that can't should be thankfull they live in a system that can and does help them instead of demanding handouts while talking trash about people who pay a disproportinate amount into the system.
Lastly, our politicians should all be shot in the crotch, what with the Social Security Mess we are left with. But they keep buying those senior votes year after year, and we like mindless drones accept our low expectations of them and keep re-ellecting them to fuck us again and again.
-
On 2006-05-24 14:12:00, Johnny G wrote:
"The "employer match" of social security is part of the cost to the business, not the income of the business owner; it is the cost of labor -
G"
You are obviously not a business owner and/or are not familiar with profit/loss statements. It is only "cost of labor" because the government demands it by cohersion.
In absense of being jacked of this money by the government, it would go right to the bottom line of the small business owner. In other words, the government involuntarily requires, by threat of force, the business owner to pay 50% of all social security and medicare taxes collected.
Moving it one step back to 'the business' ignores the fact that all businesses are either a fictitious name or fictitious entity for a real person or group of people. These taxes come directly out of the pocket of the people paying them. No way around it.
Do you not see this?
No, I am sorry, you are DEAD WRONG on this one.
-
On 2006-05-24 14:12:00, Johnny G wrote:
The case for the wealthy using more of the government servioces begins with the police who keep the poor from simply taking what the rich have, the defense establishment which protects US (business) interests - and soes anyone really doubt that the wealthy get better schools, and local services?
Unfortunately the general public is more interested in gay married abortions and who shot OJ than in anything further into the future than the next episode of american idol. I don't think they are even aware of what is in their best interest.
first part of your argument, I have heard that bantered around before, and even if it is true that the wealthy use some services to a greater extent, the poor also do the same, just different services. So while I am glad someone FINALLY made a valid argument for fairness, I don't think yours holds up to scrutiny.
By Jebus, Thanks for understanding the basic premise Johnny! I was beginning to doubt anyone was paying attention to what I was saying.
For the second part, I agree 100%.
-
On 2006-05-24 14:12:00, Johnny G wrote:
does anyone really doubt that the wealthy get better schools, and local services?
Well
As to schools, the wealthy under utilize the public school system while paying much greater tax rates. The day of the wealty neighborhoods having all the great public schools is pretty much over.
Local Services? I think that yes, in the past wealthy neighborhoods were maintained at a much better rate than others. Streets were paved more often, etc. This is becoming less and less common, except in private areas that pay for their own maintenance. On the inverse, poor neighborhoods require much more police, firemen, social service offices, and other services.
I think again we all use services more or less at the same rate, and certainly not at the disparaging differences we pay into the system.
here is an article that was written to demonstrate our tax dollars at work. It is out of context in this discussion but it helps demonstrate how we all pretty much use the government services, sometimes without even realizing it.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28731 (http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28731)
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-24 14:52 ]
-
Greg, you missed my point entirely. Intentionally, even.
The reason it has to be redistributive is because without that, the elderly poor will die. There's no getting around it. If they are too old to work, and they don't have the money to support themselves, and they don't get the money from somewhere, they die. It's just that simple. And don't give us any BS about private savings plans or any high-sounding crap about fiscal discipline either, because they didn't have the money while they were working.
Person A knows someone who can get him a good job; Person B lost his manufacturing job to India. Person A has a forty-hour work week and gives his kid a dirt bike for Christmas; Person B works overtime so his kid can ride a bike, period. Person A can afford Chili's every night; Person B eats Campbell's and ramen. Family A can afford to send their kid to a private teen gulag; Family B, with some belt-tightening, scrapes by enough for community college. (Okay, I admit it, that last one was a cheap shot.) This is fair? And now we're going to say to Person B, "Guess what, buddy? No safety net for you! Too old to work? That's your problem! Guess you wish you didn't lose your tiny 401k in the latest stock market crash, huh?"
This is capitalism at its most merciless.
What the actual problem is, and no one wants to admit, is that we have ways of keeping people alive, and no way of keeping them still able to work. This creates, yes, a drain on the system.
The choice remains: Either we, as a society. keep them alive or we kill them. If you're going to argue to kill them, there is a serious argument there, but don't dance around the subject.
-
Greg, you cannot really be serious with your statement in a previous thread that low and middle income earners "hit the jackpot" with their Social Security income, because they lived long enough????? Hit the jackpot???? Hit the jackpot??? What world do you live in Greg? I was thinking the other side of this world but now Im beginning to think it may be on another planet! Do you seriously think that my father's $475 dollars a month is hitting the jackpot??? That is his ONLY income. His 11 medicines if he didnt have medicaid, would cost him over 800 a month. Not to mention, food, rent if he rented a place, electricity, phone, etc. I know good and well $475 is probably half your car payment so it probably isn't a concept you can relate to that some people LIVE on $500-700 a month in Social Security. Hitting the jackpot wouldnt be what Id call it.
-
On 2006-05-24 15:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Greg, you missed my point entirely. Intentionally, even.
The reason it has to be redistributive is because without that, the elderly poor will die. There's no getting around it. If they are too old to work, and they don't have the money to support themselves, and they don't get the money from somewhere, they die. It's just that simple. And don't give us any BS about private savings plans or any high-sounding crap about fiscal discipline either, because they didn't have the money while they were working.
Person A knows someone who can get him a good job; Person B lost his manufacturing job to India. Person A has a forty-hour work week and gives his kid a dirt bike for Christmas; Person B works overtime so his kid can ride a bike, period. Person A can afford Chili's every night; Person B eats Campbell's and ramen. Family A can afford to send their kid to a private teen gulag; Family B, with some belt-tightening, scrapes by enough for community college. (Okay, I admit it, that last one was a cheap shot.) This is fair? And now we're going to say to Person B, "Guess what, buddy? No safety net for you! Too old to work? That's your problem! Guess you wish you didn't lose your tiny 401k in the latest stock market crash, huh?"
This is capitalism at its most merciless.
What the actual problem is, and no one wants to admit, is that we have ways of keeping people alive, and no way of keeping them still able to work. This creates, yes, a drain on the system.
The choice remains: Either we, as a society. keep them alive or we kill them. If you're going to argue to kill them, there is a serious argument there, but don't dance around the subject."
Shh, if this is you, you are ignoring my argument in totality. Specifically you are ignoring the repeated statement that I support helping people who can't help themselves. Yet you continue to come back with over emotional rebuttals to an argument that isn't even mine while ignoring the argument that you made... that progressive taxation is "fair".
Is that how you really wish to interact with people?
-
That wasnt me Greg, the last one was me.
-
On 2006-05-24 15:35:00, SHH wrote:
"Greg, you cannot really be serious with your statement in a previous thread that low and middle income earners "hit the jackpot" with their Social Security income, because they lived long enough????? Hit the jackpot???? Hit the jackpot??? What world do you live in Greg? I was thinking the other side of this world but now Im beginning to think it may be on another planet! Do you seriously think that my father's $475 dollars a month is hitting the jackpot??? That is his ONLY income. His 11 medicines if he didnt have medicaid, would cost him over 800 a month. Not to mention, food, rent if he rented a place, electricity, phone, etc. I know good and well $475 is probably half your car payment so it probably isn't a concept you can relate to that some people LIVE on $500-700 a month in Social Security. Hitting the jackpot wouldnt be what Id call it. "
If your father is collecting $475 a month, then his figure is way below the average, and the amount he paid in was very low.
so in relation to what he paid in, absolutely he paid the jackpot. The rest of the emotional argument is just diversionary. I have repeatedly said we should help people like that. Are you intentionally ignoring what I say?
Where is your argument for "fairness"?
-
On 2006-05-24 15:36:00, SHH wrote:
"That wasnt me Greg, the last one was me."
Sorry. I just responded to your last one. Whoever wrote that, you picked up the conversation in the middle and totally mis-represented my position. take the time to catch up on the argument or stay out of it.
-
"Greg,
You really put a spin on your figures, number one
I have a had time believing that at 35,000 a year a person only pays in just 2000 a year in SS "
i pulled an old income statement where i cleared just over 35k and i had paid 2077.00
so he's pretty close
- one thing SHH said before just commenting on, SS isnt a "tax" per se. its meant to be a benefit. a forced benefit to be sure, but you contribute x amount of dollars you are permitted to get a certain amount back per month. if you contribute more, you can get more. if you make 35k per year for your life, vs someone who make 50k per year, that 50k person gets to have more. he's finally getting "his" money back.
secondly the exapmle of paying money, taxes and medical insurance bills taking up more of a percentage of a middle income person's budget then a rick persons budget is a bit off in the sense that medical insurance is not a tax. medical insurance premiums are determined by your age, gender and previous healthy history. i dont see how it should have anything to do with your income level. yes its easier to be 40 rich and pay your medical insurance of 500 a month, then 40 and not rich.
i dont mind a bit of a scalled tax system because i think a society should be able to provide what is affectively some assistance or burden shiftting to somoene who can better handle it. however i think that needs to be reasonable. the question of course is where is "reasonable" exactly. i think they need to raise the income level at which taxes begin being calculated, i think its currently 15k. i think it should come up to 20 or 25k before taxes begin gettnig paid. of course the governement will do this quite reluctantly and they seem to be very free in spending money rapidly. so they need a as big a budget as they can get and they look to assess as much money as they can at every turn. no one can ever accuse the government of being fiscally responsible even in the best of econmonic conditions. they find plenty of things to waste money on.
probably i think the worse tradegy of SS is that the benefits are inadequate. anyone who tries to live off what they will actually get (including current money's) will be sadly disappointed. and yet the politicians kept finding ways to take money ot of the fund (or keep money out of the fund) that was meant to be for our retirement. our money set aside for our own good. so its just more money into a tax pile (i know i started off saying its not a "tax" per se) that we wont see the benefit of.
-
Im caught up Greg, I typed that last post while you were typing your last post. I know exactly what this argument is about, and yes, it is fair to tax the wealthy more than the poor. It is fair to pay higher taxes on a more expensive house. It is fair to charge more for a better car, it is fair for those of us "privedged" folk to take care of the poor and elderly.
-
"lastly, our politicians should all be shot in the crotch, what with the Social Security Mess we are left with. But they keep buying those senior votes year after year, and we like mindless drones accept our low expectations of them and keep re-ellecting them to fuck us again and again."
you know greg and i dont see eye to eye all that often, but i couldnt agree more with this statement.
there have always been real problems that real people face, i.e. taking care of a parent or grandparent with completely in adequate medical care or financial support from a society that should certainly be capable of providing it, but politicians manage to avoid the problems and dump them on the next generation succesfully time after time after time. and we keep reelecting them. the congressional check writing scandal of the late 80s (i think it was late 80s) being the perfect example of it i think. even when they were demonstrated to be spending congressional budge money on their personal homes (and no, not for an office to work from) so many of them were reelected or narrowly defeated. thats just sad. the real problem isnt that the rich should pay 38% compared to 35% vs someone else paying 25% maybe who should be paying 24%..its that they manage to waste the resources that are provided to them so grossly.
-
On 2006-05-24 15:50:00, SHH wrote:
"Im caught up Greg, I typed that last post while you were typing your last post. I know exactly what this argument is about, and yes, it is fair to tax the wealthy more than the poor. It is fair to pay higher taxes on a more expensive house. It is fair to charge more for a better car, it is fair for those of us "privedged" folk to take care of the poor and elderly. "
Still
no
argument.
-
Wow, you last two anons......
:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: [ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-24 17:03 ]
-
You keep on saying Greg, that its not fair to tax the wealthy more than the middle class or the poor. Tell me, why not? You keep on saying I dont have a valid argument about whats fair and what isnt. I think its fair for those who earn more to pay more. Because, in this society that we live in, thats how it works. You earn more, you pay more. You buy a bigger house, you pay higher taxes. It wouldnt be fair any other way. Why is it not fair for wealthy citizens to pay more? Why would it be fair for poorer citizens to pay as much as wealthy? What is fair to you? A straight 10% tax? a flat rate for everybody no matter what? tell me, how would you do it?
-
On 2006-05-24 15:49:00, Anonymous wrote:
""Greg,
You really put a spin on your figures, number one
I have a had time believing that at 35,000 a year a person only pays in just 2000 a year in SS "
i pulled an old income statement where i cleared just over 35k and i had paid 2077.00
so he's pretty close
Yes I am. I pay SS and medicare tax as an employer on a bi-weekly basis. I handle my own accounting so I know what I speak. In addition, I took the benefit amounts and extrapolated a monthly figure using the Social Security Administrations "retirement calculator". I also used the employers estimates based on a fictitional version of my own situation.
Isn't it funny how people come to online debates and just say basically "you are full of it" and have nothing to back it up with? You gotta love the comment paraphrased, "you really spin your numbers because I have a hard time believing them".....Leaving no real rebuttal or reason for their discrediting comments other than a "hard time" feeling they are having.
Double yawn. Get an argument anon. The real question is why you don't educate yourself on what you are paying, where the money went, and who is fucking who (thanks to Ging for that).
-
On 2006-05-24 17:10:00, SHH wrote:
"You keep on saying Greg, that its not fair to tax the wealthy more than the middle class or the poor. Tell me, why not? You keep on saying I dont have a valid argument about whats fair and what isnt. I think its fair for those who earn more to pay more. Because, in this society that we live in, thats how it works.
Wow. How convincing. It is fair because that is how it works. This is your argument? This after I asked you for pages and pages to comport the dictionary meaning of fairness with this concept? Not very well thought out, eh?
You are asking me AGAIN to explain why it isn't "Fair"? This convinces me you either aren't reading or aren't paying attention. I suggest you go back and read my detailed posts on fairness, what a 'fair' system would entail, why it isn't fair, and why 'fairness' is an unacheivable goal in our society. Like anon above, I don't mind paying more than my share (ie: more than what is fair) as a price to pay to live in a privelidged society, but when it becomes punative (and it is) I reserve the right to speak out. I also reserve the right to speak out against stupid comments, like it is "fair" to ask other people to pay your way.
Damn, I feel like a broken record.
-
I never said I was asking someone to "pay my way". I want people to pay their share, equally. Not pay my share, pay their own share. Since when is that unfair? Youre being obtuse on purpose Greg, and then telling me that I am. Sorry, its not me this time Greg. Its you. You will never understand my point of view on this because you dont live in the real world like I do, struggling to make ends meet, buying hundreds of dollars of medicine a month, paying a mortgage payment of 1,060 a month just so my son and I wont have to live in a ghetto and in a decent school district, paying ridiculous premiums for crappy medical insurance, paying 200 a month for electricity, and scraping by on 33,000 a year while STILL paying my fair share of income tax, property tax, ad valorem tax, and SS tax. dont tell me I dont know what FAIR is Greg. Try living in a regular American worker's world again. Youll find its not all peaches and cream.
-
On 2006-05-24 17:32:00, SHH wrote:
"I never said I was asking someone to "pay my way". I want people to pay their share, equally. Not pay my share, pay their own share. Since when is that unfair? Youre being obtuse on purpose Greg, and then telling me that I am. Sorry, its not me this time Greg. Its you. You will never understand my point of view on this because you dont live in the real world like I do, struggling to make ends meet, buying hundreds of dollars of medicine a month, paying a mortgage payment of 1,060 a month just so my son and I wont have to live in a ghetto and in a decent school district, paying ridiculous premiums for crappy medical insurance, paying 200 a month for electricity, and scraping by on 33,000 a year while STILL paying my fair share of income tax, property tax, ad valorem tax, and SS tax. dont tell me I dont know what FAIR is Greg. Try living in a regular American worker's world again. Youll find its not all peaches and cream."
SHH fallacies in the last two posts.
1) Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam, literally, "argument from pity"): An emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate. While pathos generally works to reinforce a reader?s sense of duty or outrage at some abuse, if a writer tries to use emotion merely for the sake of getting the reader to accept what should be a logical conclusion, the argument is a fallacy
and
2)Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum Ad Traditio): This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it.
3)Argumentum ad Populum (Literally "Argument to the People): Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser.
4) Argumentum Ad Hominem Circumstantial: To argue that an opponent should accept an argument because of circumstances in his or her life.
I offer these criticisms of your argument in hopes that next time we can talk more productively.
-
On 2006-05-24 17:32:00, SHH wrote:
"I never said I was asking someone to "pay my way". I want people to pay their share, equally. Not pay my share, pay their own share.
I would apologize, but first we need to resolve this you wrote, on page two....
On 2006-05-24 17:32:00, SHH wrote:
My question is, WHY NOT? Those people in that higher income bracket almost always have IRA's or other investments that they draw off of after retirement in addition to SS. The poor and middle class, however, usually don't. Not only do I think they should tax every income level for Social Security, they should tax the higher incomes a higher percentage.
So which is it SHH, should we each pay our own share as in post#1, or should we gouge the higher income earners, as in post #2 because...
"WHY NOT? Those people in that higher income bracket almost always have IRA's or other investments"
-
When I said the higher incomes pay a higher percentage...I think you misunderstood...granted I didnt word it very well. I meant that they should be taxed on all of their income. The higher percentage of their income then what they are being taxed at now, (100% of it) not like right now, which is I think 90,000. I mean that, maybe it didnt come across like that so im sorry for that misunderstanding. But, I am still not asking anybody to pay MY way, or for all the wealthy to pay for all the poor, I just think that the wealthy should pay into SS on their entire income, like the rest of us poor schmucks.
-
but this brings us full circle.
First, high income earners pay up to 94,200 in income, and future benefits (if any) are calculated on this figure.
If you raise the income limitation and benefit limiation, you just increase the size of the program, not solve any problems. Hence my joke I left you about the two guys in business....
The scenario you suggested on page two is the one touted in the press by fiscal liberals, just raise up what the rich are paying (and leave their benefits alone).
So, SHH, either way it is a loser. One does nothing to solve our problems, and the other is a special interest grab redistribution of income to the elderly, many if not most who are not needy.
I hope if you take nothing else away from this exchange, it is that high income earners (which is different than 'wealthy') pay a disproportinate (unfair) percentage of the taxes. Many do so willingly because they feel they are giving something back, but calling it "fair" and suggesting they should pay more because "why not" is really a slap in the face.
-
but my question would be why should they pay more into SS, because they would then be able to withdraw more. based on the amount you contribute is the amount you are able to get back. so it doesnt accomplish the same thing as raising income taxes might, as far as distributing the burden to someone better able to shoulder it. sure you could raise the number and maybe its even a good idea to do so, but it wont solve anything really. the reason their was a cap in the first place was someone making over a certain amount wasnt going to "need" ss, so they didnt "assess" against it. ss being what you put into it you get back out of it(in theory). i've i put in double what you put in, i get double back out. so bill gates starts contributing 1 million a year to SS, whoa be when he retires, his check will break the postman's back.
and "fair" would be everyone paying the exact same percentage in taxes. fair - would be "fair" to everyone. your arguement truely isnt for fair, its for a perhaps "moral" distribution of the tax burden. which again might be what this society should do, but if you wanted fair, everyone would be 10% (or whatever the number is). then the rich would pay more then the middle and lower incomes. but the exact same percentage. and that comes closer to meeting the definition of fair. however, thats i think not pratical or pragmatic for what our society should do, so there is a graduated tax system. you cross a certain threshold, you pay a higher percentage on money earned above that threshold, and so on. i think the overall society does benefit for this even though those indiviuals dont. i do believe that as a society we need to do this, even though it isnt "fair". i tend to believe that some things in lifejust arnt, but are still a good way of doing things.
for the most part you've just asserted something is fair, without making an actual arguement for why its fair. fair would be to both parties though. any argument i've seen from you has just stated as to why its beneficial to the person who's making less money who does of course have very real burdens in life. burdens which are more difficult to meet then for someone making more money. but that's not an arguement that the system is fair, because to do that I want you to demonstrate how its without preference to "all parties involved", and that you cannot do. now again, that isnt to say that the way we are doing it now isnt a better idea then a flat rate. i tend to think it is(and i am offering no arguement or facts as to why here, just my gut feel), but i do think that the system is grossly flawed. tax law is way to complicated which posses a significant burden to small business and individuals who have to figure out how to meet their tax obligations. i think they can and should simplify it and that would be an act of government actually doing something useful for thepeople. should i really spend an entire month trying to gather up all the forms and documents neccessary to prove to the irs that i made xyz, and have all these deductiions and my small in home busines qualifies, and i get hurricane money back, and have these medical bills and etc etc etc...ort pay someone to help me meet my obligation ---- years of tax code piled upon modifications and special intest groups over and over again have created a jumbled mess. and alluding to something someone said earlier to greg, in reference to SS not being a burden to the business who pays half into it as well, thats not exactly true,. sure its cost of doing business, and they will attempt to pass that onto the customer, but also products have ceiling costs that the consumer will not pay more than for that product. so especially for a small business this is a very real expense which makes it harder for them to operate. they cannot just go and charge anything they want, people need to be willing to pay it(or able). and those costs are damaging there. just like medical insurance premiums as a benefit paid. costs spike, and the money has to come from somewhere. medical insurance went up 20% last year, can you imagine walking into your favorite store tomorrow and everything you paid for yesterday was 20% more? what about 50% more, hey just covering cost of doing busines. poney up. those cost bleed into other things, now you are paying more to buy your widget and have less money to go to eat with so you dont go out to your favorite local restuarant as much (apparently chillies on this board) so they feel a pinch, fire somone etc etc. some costs are easily absorbed but at some point thats not so easy. and our goverment imposes (as do most) and very large financial and adminstrative burden on business, and some of that is neccessary but some of it is not. business would thrive better and our personal lives would improve if we eleviated the unncessary parts. somewhere i could swear i remember reading government existed for our benefit....since its "our" governement.
-
and ammusing incident i am remember happened a year or two ago, but i cannot find the article. sharpton was asked by the press what percentage he felt the highest income earners in the country should pay, the top 1% and the percentage he stated (and i cannot find the number) was less then they actually paid at that time.
what you are looking for is the top 1% or (2 or 3) where they make a signiciantly higher income, and i am not talking about the billgates, but more 'average" people, paying enough to compensate for about 80% of the population, and thats just not possible. they can carry a higher percentage burden but also they can only shoulder so much. there are more problems than just increases can and will fix.
-
i say we go the opposite route of the chinese. we make everyone have two kids. (so 4 per couple)
that way we get them to work when they are 14...(cuts out high school, which lowers city budgets thus cutting our taxes while increasing taxable income so the city can build more swimming pools, we need them since my plan is brilliant and we will all retire early)...
now i know what you are thinking, if no high school then these kids are only good for working at DQ, but i think the smart one can earn " passes" and be allowed to only work part time and they can go to school. however - eligibility will be determine during their infancy and early childhood. children who scream in restuarants or movie theater - will be "fined" and with enough demerits, lose school eligibilty. this will of course scare the parents who will not bring their children to these two venues until they are 12 or so.....and thus allow the rest of us to go to the movies or dinner in peace!!!
those parents too stupid to realize their kids will scream in a restaurant probably created a stupid kid anyways, they'll bring them out, they'll scream, they'll get fined, and off to work they go. thats most of the population i think. kids will be working and since thats' 4 incomes for one household, mom and dad can now retire at 45 and go to the pool (that we built with our freed up tax dollars)
a possible side benefit is the scream kids will probably only get employed at places like DQ and McDonalds, we will figure that out rather quickly and not want to go their any longer (since i doubt their manners have improved, because they have stupid parents incapable of passing on manners, hey i doubt they have them themselves) and so we wont attend those restaurants any longer, which will improve our calory intake considerable, and thus improve our waistlines (especially as we age) and our cholestoral, which will improve our sex lives (hey we look hotter, and no - not the cholesteral part the waist line part, and yes i read virginia wolfe so i believe in stream of conciousness writing even though my spelling sucks), improved sex life, extra calory burn....et c etc, health care premiums drop...we are having more sex, have more money, now we dont need any psychological counselling (previously we had lazy kids, who we were working very hard to support and wanted to smack regularly after a long day at work, or we were seeing small screamign children in restuarants where we went to relax, and were getting a small insight into why postal workers go, well postal, and so we had guilt aboutit and went and saught counselling over the whole dilema)
save money, fly to bahamas....
-
one additional point, we have 4 kids so that of couse there are two paying into SS for each one of us, and thus the pyrmaid scheme that SS needs in order to work really well is maintained.
there are some possible negative environmental effects....over population, polution, garbage, deforestation, but there are no conclusive studies that any of these things have long term negative effects from an impartial, approved, government reconginzed private entity and that is still under study....to be reconveened in 2080.....
-
On 2006-05-24 18:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"but my question would be why should they pay more into SS, because they would then be able to withdraw more. based on the amount you contribute is the amount you are able to get back. so it doesnt accomplish the same thing as raising income taxes might, as far as distributing the burden to someone better able to shoulder it. sure you could raise the number and maybe its even a good idea to do so, but it wont solve anything really. the reason their was a cap in the first place was someone making over a certain amount wasnt going to "need" ss, so they didnt "assess" against it. ss being what you put into it you get back out of it(in theory). i've i put in double what you put in, i get double back out. so bill gates starts contributing 1 million a year to SS, whoa be when he retires, his check will break the postman's back.
and "fair" would be everyone paying the exact same percentage in taxes. fair - would be "fair" to everyone. your arguement truely isnt for fair, its for a perhaps "moral" distribution of the tax burden. which again might be what this society should do, but if you wanted fair, everyone would be 10% (or whatever the number is). then the rich would pay more then the middle and lower incomes. but the exact same percentage. and that comes closer to meeting the definition of fair. however, thats i think not pratical or pragmatic for what our society should do, so there is a graduated tax system. you cross a certain threshold, you pay a higher percentage on money earned above that threshold, and so on. i think the overall society does benefit for this even though those indiviuals dont. i do believe that as a society we need to do this, even though it isnt "fair". i tend to believe that some things in lifejust arnt, but are still a good way of doing things.
for the most part you've just asserted something is fair, without making an actual arguement for why its fair. fair would be to both parties though. any argument i've seen from you has just stated as to why its beneficial to the person who's making less money who does of course have very real burdens in life. burdens which are more difficult to meet then for someone making more money. but that's not an arguement that the system is fair, because to do that I want you to demonstrate how its without preference to "all parties involved", and that you cannot do. now again, that isnt to say that the way we are doing it now isnt a better idea then a flat rate. i tend to think it is(and i am offering no arguement or facts as to why here, just my gut feel), but i do think that the system is grossly flawed. tax law is way to complicated which posses a significant burden to small business and individuals who have to figure out how to meet their tax obligations. i think they can and should simplify it and that would be an act of government actually doing something useful for thepeople. should i really spend an entire month trying to gather up all the forms and documents neccessary to prove to the irs that i made xyz, and have all these deductiions and my small in home busines qualifies, and i get hurricane money back, and have these medical bills and etc etc etc...ort pay someone to help me meet my obligation ---- years of tax code piled upon modifications and special intest groups over and over again have created a jumbled mess. and alluding to something someone said earlier to greg, in reference to SS not being a burden to the business who pays half into it as well, thats not exactly true,. sure its cost of doing business, and they will attempt to pass that onto the customer, but also products have ceiling costs that the consumer will not pay more than for that product. so especially for a small business this is a very real expense which makes it harder for them to operate. they cannot just go and charge anything they want, people need to be willing to pay it(or able). and those costs are damaging there. just like medical insurance premiums as a benefit paid. costs spike, and the money has to come from somewhere. medical insurance went up 20% last year, can you imagine walking into your favorite store tomorrow and everything you paid for yesterday was 20% more? what about 50% more, hey just covering cost of doing busines. poney up. those cost bleed into other things, now you are paying more to buy your widget and have less money to go to eat with so you dont go out to your favorite local restuarant as much (apparently chillies on this board) so they feel a pinch, fire somone etc etc. some costs are easily absorbed but at some point thats not so easy. and our goverment imposes (as do most) and very large financial and adminstrative burden on business, and some of that is neccessary but some of it is not. business would thrive better and our personal lives would improve if we eleviated the unncessary parts. somewhere i could swear i remember reading government existed for our benefit....since its "our" governement. "
Good post!
Actually, to fit the definition of fair, everyone would pay based on the services they receive, meaning every citizen, give or take, would roughly pay the same amount. That would amount to approx 6500 per Citizen. got 10 kids? Send 10 checks for them, plus yours and your spouse. Pay your own way. Everyone has an obligation to pay for the society in which they live. No one has a right under a doctrine of fairness or any other reason to expect others to foot the bill for them.
However...That won't work. Period.
We need X amount of dollars to provide X amount of services. Every citizen has an obligation to pay for the services they receive.
But the won't. They can't. Therefore we are faced with moral decisions, not "fair" decisions. Do we let people starve? Do we really want a nation of angry poor people? Are hungry americans what we want to see? Are sections of america living in pestulence and filth really in all of our best interests?
Of course not. So we accept that the world, our world isn't "fair", and we mitigate this by forcing people to help us create a system that works for the majority. So we vote money out of the pockets of people that have it to force a betterment of society.
Then it gets strange. We socially design systems to redistribute wealth to certain segments of society based on arbitrary things like "age". These people come to expect this and even argue that it is "fair" that almost half of our national budget goes to pay off their votes and their special interests. They even stoop to emotional arguments that don't hold any water, ignoring the fact that many people are paying to benefit a relatively few, and the numbers are grim indeed for the future.
Like all Ponzi schemes, Social Security will come crashing down,the only real question is "when" and the impact of the crash is yet to be known, but suffice to say our society will scarcely resemble the pre SS crash one we currently live in, and there is plenty of blame to go around.
-
Actually, to fit the definition of fair, everyone would pay based on the services they receive, meaning every citizen, give or take, would roughly pay the same amount
THAT'S ONLY FAIR IN YOUR WORLD, GREG.
-
round and round in circles we go. Do you feel that bold and big letters constitute an argument?
You just don't like the fact that our system isn't Fair. Does it make you feel better to redefine the word fairness so you can feel better about the realities of our system?
My explanation fits the DEFINITION of fair. Offer an alternative "fair" system, explaining why some should pay the way for others using a doctrine of fairness, or just stop playing games.
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-25 06:40 ]
-
On 2006-05-24 13:55:00, cleveland wrote:
"I tell you what, this goes to show what Geezers we have all become if the hottest thing on this site in weeks is Social Security and taxes!
Let the debate roll on..."
Its all Ft. Lauderdales fault, I tell ya! He started this thread.
Linch him!
:grin: :grin: :grin:
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-25 08:04 ]
-
Hey, My first job was at a "Dipper Dan" which was like a classy DQ. (so I guess I resemble that remark) I went on to Carvel with a hair net after that. I guess I would have been one of the dumb ones per the other poster. Maybe thats why I bought into the Seed so well. :rofl:
-
Gregs just probably getting a little grumpy because his deductables are hitting 18. :grin:
-
Hey, my son just graduated college!
My daughter is currently 16, so all is well in paradise.
However, I still say Lynch Ft. Lauderdale!
It's the only solution, I swear.
:lol:
-
My daughter will be out of town next weeks, so I'll have to go and accept an award for "Attitude, Achievement, & Attendance" on her bahalf at her highschool. She's knockin' em dead academically, making honor roll and taking advanced maths next year. This after hearing from the principal several times what a low opinion he has of homeschooling. He never would answer me when I asked him why. Maybe I'll ask him again at the awards ceremony.
Attendance? Well, I guess they just needed another A word to round it out, eh? W/E.
But I'm particularly satisfied w/ their recognition of her attitude. Despite being an honor role student, she's been suspended at least 3 times this year on zero tolerance violations either for standing down bullies or for making people laugh. This last one was just the final straw for me.
Her "crime" was this. On the way into French class, she noticed the word detestes on the chalk board. So she picked up the chalk and wrote a large, rather rounded "W" underneath it, which may or may not have vaguely resembeled a ball sack. In the referal slip, the teacher described my daughter's art work as "Big hairy balls". When the dean of students, Mr W. (I shit you not!) read it to her, she said "They weren't hairy." Attitude indeed!
So, when the notice of suspension came to me in the mail, I responded thusly.*
"Mr. W."
Dear Mr. W,
I am in receipt of your recent letter. I have to say that I find the content of it somewhat puzzling. I know you suspended my daughter. Naturally I do. I live with her and she?s an honest young woman. How presumptuous that you, a stranger, would think otherwise? But that?s nowhere near as frankly disturbing as the next sentence. You hope to bring about a change in Heather?s behavior? And you want me to collude with you in this??
Have you met my daughter, Mr W? Let me tell you a little bit about her. She is just about the most hard working, responsible, charming, clever and compassionate young woman I have ever met. Day in, day out, she gets herself to school on time and well prepared for classes. She also holds a part time job. After about two years on that job, she decided to give formal schooling a shot, and turned in her notice. In those two years, she so impressed her co-workers that they gave her a going away party. After the cards and cash and cake, the boss came out and informed her that he had rejected her resignation and that, instead, he was giving her two prime shifts per week. She now earns, on average, $7 - $8 per hour, which she manages better than most adults I know.
Do you understand why she has decided to attend your school? Her primary reason was not, as you might flatter yourself to think, because she thinks she can?t get an education or the attendant paperwork from anyone but you. We?ve made sure she knows better than that. No, her primary reason for wanting to attend your school was that you have all the other teenagers locked up there. There is no other access. Kids in this town are either not allowed or not comfortable doing what teenagers are supposed to do in their towns. There are no hang outs where kids go to kill some free time and see what their friends are doing. No drop games at the park. No young couples strolling down the sidewalk, no kids jumping ramps on their bikes. No public concerts or music or even advertisements for them. There is no laughter, no fun, no life outside of the structured, supervised, captive world you seem to insist upon forcing them to accept. Hell, (ooops! Is that a zero tolerance word too?) the elementary kids don?t even get a recess! Who taught you how to deal with kids, Mr. W? Where do you get the idea that it?s good for kids to never laugh, never play, never do a thing unless and until some stuffed shirt instructs them?
Go spend a couple of hours in some of these neighboring towns one weekend and just watch. You?ll see the difference.
So our daughter has agreed to jump through all of the hoops, meet all of the requirements set before her in order to have some kind of access to what social life may be available to her in this sad little town. And you must admit, if you?re honest, that she?s doing a spectacular job. She is, once again, on the honor roll. Are you surprised? I?m not. Not in the least.
Her ?crime?, as I understand it, was to make a joke which ran afoul of your much vaunted zero tolerance policy. This was not the sort of cruel joke that?s only funny if it hurts someone. It was not mean spirited like, for example, all the cheerleaders ganging up on the new girl, humiliating her by throwing spittle covered candy and paper wads at her just to demonstrate that they could do that and no one would intervene. It was just a small, kind gesture intended to alleviate some of the boredom and monotony which you seem so intent on inflicting on these kids. Her ?crime? was to make her fellow captives laugh for a moment. No good deed ever goes unpunished.
These are not 10 year old children we?re dealing with, Mr. W. These are young adults who, whether you like to think of it or not, have to deal with real life issues each and every day in and out of school which are far more disturbing than an ambiguous line drawing on a chalk board. To pretend otherwise is to insult their intelligence and their worth. To punish them for finding ways to make each other laugh, to make the best of a less than perfect situation, to cope with life on their own terms, THAT is offensive. But then, then! To try, as you so frequently do, to get us to join with you and gang up on our own child? Now THAT is patently deplorable behavior. For anyone, but especially for an adult! You should be deeply ashamed of yourself, Mr. W.
We have never asked or wanted you to change our daughter's behavior. And we certainly don?t want her to be more like you. It is our fond hope that, one day, you will see the sense of changing your behavior to be more like some of these kids. But I don?t hold out much hope.
[sig]
Mother w/ tenure
[sig]
Father, also tenured
*some editing for privacy and such.We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again---and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.
Mark Twain
-
Just got the afternoon paper. This is not yet in the online edition, so I'll type it in for ya:
Some Monessen students oppose scheduling change
Frank Davis plans to graduate next week from Monessen Highschool, but he has one last project to take care of before he accepts his diploma. Davis, 19, is on a mission to convince the Monessen school board and administration to reverse a decision to switch from block scheduling to an 8 period school day. The High School established its block scheduling system in 1996 following the opening of the new high school/middle school facility. With block scheduling, students attend 4 90 minute classes each day. Their class schedules change each semester. Davis said students learned about the decision while scheduling courses for the 2006-2007 school term. "The block scheduling has been working, so why do they need to change it?", Davis asked.
Davis began a student petition drive and had friends stand with him outside the Monessen FoodLand to help him solicit signatures in protest of the change. He said about 150 students and 50 city residents have signed the petition.
He plans to present the petition at 7:30 tonight at the school board special meeting.
District superintendent, Dr. Cynthia Chelen, said administrators decided to return to an 8 period schedule because of rising standards related to Pennsylvania system of school assessment testing.
She explained that, with block scheduling, some students may have only one math course each school year.
"There is too much time lapse between when students are having math and English classes,", Chelen said, "they need to have these courses every day."
Although the district has met proficiency standards in terms of average yearly progress and is meeting it's PSSA score requirements, Chelen said administrators must look to the future.
"We're currently holding our own and we did meet our average yearly progress for two consecutive years, but that bar keeps rising," Chelen said. "Our numbers keep getting closer."
Chelen said an average day for students under block scheduling might include math, science, English and physical education. But some students take mostly elective courses and no core classes.
She said the board has studied the issue for several months and decided that returning to an 8 period day w/ 45 minute classes would be best for the students (aka mushrooms) The new plan involves an administrative decision and doesn't require a board vote at a public meeting, Chelen said.
"We would never make a decision like this casually," said board member Marilyn Pivarnik, a retired Monessen school district teacher and principal. "This decision is long overdue."
Pivarnik said block scheduling provides no "continuity" and it makes it harder for students to retain what they have learned.
"If you have Spanish this year and don't have Spanish II till next year, how do you remember what you have learned" she asked ["I dunno, speak it?" I thought]
Highschool principal, Randal Marino, and agrees that students should have daily English and math.
"A student might take math in their freshman year and not have it again till their sophomore year," Marino.
He said the state will add science questions to the PSSA test which re-enforces the decision to employ the 8 period system.
Marino said he has received "mixed reaction" from students and teachers about the change.
"Any time you make a change, there's bound to be concerns," Marino said. "We just felt it was imperative we do this."
Davis doesn't agree. He contends there will be more homework with the change, constant class changes resulting in less teaching time and more cost for the taxpayers. And, even though he is graduating, he cares about the future of the underclassmen.
"No one even asked the students or even the teachers", Davis said. "This is our school, after all, don't you think they should ask us before they rearrange it?"
Patrick Major, 15, a freshman signed the petition.
"I think it's going to be hard for a lot of the students", he said, "it seemed fine the way it was.
Chelen said the district set aside money for the new books and a tentative budget that requires no tax increase.
The superintendent said she expects some students will be unhappy about the change because they are accustomed to having little or no homework under the block scheduling system.
"I've had many kids go off to college and tell me they weren't used to the heavy work load because they had such a light load here" Chelen said.
School board president, Jack Howell said the decision is a good one.
"Change is always hard to deal with, but in the long run we feel this is the best thing to do", Howell said.
Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction- faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.
--Thomas Edison, American inventor
-
Oh, forgot to say, Frank is my daughter's boyfriend.
So, am I worried about social security? No, not really. I never did think the system would hold up long enough for me to use it. It is, after all, set up like a Ponzi Scheme and they always fall down eventually. So my strategy has been to plan on alternative means of support for my doting years. Word to the wise, if you ever run into the dynamic duo mentioned above, try and stay on their good side.
A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question
about it.
--GW Büsh, Business Week, July 30, 2001
-
Just what part of FL do you live in? You seem to talk about lynching quite a bit. Are you one of those good ole boys? ::bigsmilebounce::
Do you resemble Colonel Saunders and wear a white suit? ::bwahaha2::
-
Nope, no little beard or chicken grease on my shirt.
:grin: :grin:
-
BTW, great letter. It seems your daughter is going to that school depicted in the movie 'footloose'.
Does it not?
:lol:
-
On 2006-05-25 13:26:00, GregFL wrote:
Now, Should I bold and Cap lock my agreement?
LOL, nope, just mark your calendar and turn up for drinks if/when I get down to St. Pete for that boat party and we'll toast the day. :grin:A vote for GW is a vote for America's Führer.
--Anonymous (it's best that way...)
-
BTW, you should have been there for the school board meeting. Kid took the floor as first order of business from the residents. Up till that point we watched as they chewed up a pair of prospective lighting contractors, who left w/ crimson ears, then proceeded to rubber stamp everything.
The board members were downright rude, picking nails, playing with gadgets, having side conversations. Clear contempt. Every single resident, including a former teacher, current teacher and a couple of current students and parents, opposed the change. The board basically said, unanimously, "Fuck off, we'll do what we want."
The kids think the effort failed, but I don't. They opened the discussion tremendously. Even Mr. W. was clearly proud of the kid. I wonder if maybe he just don't like white kids much.
There are a great many questions concerning The Seed that need to be answered. Both the methods of "obtaining" Seedlings and the method of indoctrination need to be aired so that all can see how close 1984 really is.
John Henninger Attorneys and Counselor at Law, Clearwater, FL
-
We need to remember that the purpose of schools is to teach the kids, but what they teach is not the stated curriculum - rather they teach kids to be good little cogs in the machine. The reading, writing and 'rithmatic etc. are just filler and propaganda.
The purpose is to teach that there is always an authority that has the answer, so you should not think for yourself, lest you be "wrong" and get publicly humiliated for your lame attempt to think for yourself.
Kids are taught that the system of bells and schedules trumps knowledge, understanding, and introspection. They are also conditioned to follow that schedule 8 hours a day 5 days a week with the reward of "the weekend" - it's normal to be miserable all week for two lousy days of respite, conditioning for the assembly line.
THey are also taught that looks and connections count for more than knowledge and effort in the contests that really count. A pecking order is established whereby the fat, ugly kids are shoved to the corner and the pretty, athletic ones are held up as examples for us all.
The school board (OK, I'm started now) is simply another wealth (re)distribution program whereby supporters of the current board get good money to provide substandard product at outrageous margins under sweetheart contracts. There are many layers of bureaucracy between the board and actual teachers and kids. The administrators are there to make sure that accountability disappears into a fog of reporting structure designed for obscuration not accountability.
Enough of this rant
G
PS. I look to my social security benefits to buy me a burger and fries once a month if I am lucky.
-
Johnny G., right on! You are one fart smucker, as we used to say...
I am a former teacher so I can vouch for that. The ideal of universal public education was a one-room school house ideal in a mainly rural america, after WW I it became an idealogical training ground for assembly line workers. Now it's mainly a farce (although there are excellent teachers) the right wing would like to privitize it (and destroy it - Greg, you wouldn't want to pay for all those lazy f**kers to sit in study hall and take gym, would you?) and the left...go back to the good old days of small community school...
I don't know what scares me more, Ginger's daughter's sass or her mom's maniacal letter to the clueless school official. It's all a big waste of time in some ways.
Personally I am a left-winger so I gladly pay my taxes for universal public education, flawed as it is. I completely hated most of my first 13 years in school and was a college drop out, so I missed the good times. I then went on to teach for a decade - hardest thing I ever did - and happily left the world of school bells, study halls, cafeterias and enforced mindless routine and conformity, punctuated by meaningless rebellion.
And social security...I have worked hard all my life in mostly lower-paying 'do good' jobs and yup, Greg, I hope we can all support one-another when the day comes. Everyone is losing their health and pension benefits which used to come from the company, which they passed on to their customers anyway. It's called the Social Contract, and it is disappearing with a wimper. Oh, the times, they are a-changin'!
Here's my theory: let's all imagine that we are blameless, unborn souls waiting to be born. At birth, you are randomly assigned a family, race, intellegence, looks, athleticism, social class - your fate. Then you are to make the best of it with the other randomly-assigned souls. How will you treat each other, knowing you were just as likely to be a Calcutta begger as to be the son or daughter of a Fortune 500 magnate? Just as likely to be muslim, jew, christian or hindi? (Sidenote: great bumper sticker: "I'm a radical atheist: I will force you to not believe") What kind of social system? Greg's social darwinism? Liberal democracy? Dictatorship (hey, the trains run on time!) See, I am more of a philosopher than a policy wonk, I'll let the rest of you argue over percentages and rates.
-
On 2006-05-26 07:58:00, cleveland wrote:
What kind of social system? Greg's social darwinism?
"
You misrepresent my position horribly by calling me a social darwinist, and you arrive at this misrepresentation soley because I point out the inherent unfairness in our system of tax collection.
Just so you know, I am more of a libertarian in the classic sense. That is, fiscal conservative/socially liberal. I think certain social systems are for the betterment of us all, including a public school system that works, public transportation in large cities, welfare and housing assistance for the truly needy. With this in mind, and these things are clearly evidenced by what I wrote in this thread, how in the hell can you characterize me as a "right winger" or "social darwinist"? That is patently false.
Your self-described stance, 'left winger' really denotes a desire to force your will on other people no more or less than an actual 'right winger'. Both positions care to force others to act as they see fit. "left wingers want to force you to "help" others, and right wingers want to control your behavior. I find both positions morally reprehensivle.
You may think that we should all "support each other" but you are woefully absent when it comes to explaining how that is going to happen without voting money out of the pockets of people at a rate that becomes so punative you will cause a revolt right before the well runs dry. The idealistic stance that we can save medicare, all support each other happily forever, and skip down the road holding hands while funding our utopia on phony SS bonds and printed money is just not facing the realities of what is occuring with our "retirement" program.
Hint #1: Somebody is getting fucked.
Hint #2: Take a peek in the mirror.
-
On 2006-05-26 07:58:00, cleveland wrote:
Everyone is losing their health and pension benefits which used to come from the company, which they passed on to their customers anyway. It's called the Social Contract, and it is disappearing with a wimper. Oh, the times, they are a-changin'!
Well, it's not really disappearing. We've just contracted all of that to government. Private enterprise can't compete. They can't set pricing by edict, they have to take what the market will pay. They have to provide actual value. Public institutions don't have to do that. They exist by fiat.
The way we used to do it, the social contract was left to society, which in it's worst state, is said to be far better than government in its best.
And why should an old guy such as yourself be frightened of a sassy 16 year old?
The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics
is often very tolerant and human. But when fanatics are on top,
there is no limit to oppression.
--H.L. Mencken
-
Latest:
Students gain support
By COLLEEN POLLOCK
Friday, May 26, 2006
MONESSEN - High school students opposing a change in class scheduling for next year received support from some educators and parents Thursday night.
Art teacher Jason Biagini asked the school board and administration to retain the four-class per day block schedule at least another year instead of converting to an eight-period day. He said the latter system will allow students to earn only seven credits per year instead of eight because one period is a lunch break, and will likely result in students taking fewer elective courses.
"I don't see the benefits," said Biagini. "I don't see how this (block system) is lowering our standards."
Biagini said students can now earn 32 credits in four years, with the district standard for graduation set at 29 credits. He said the most an incoming freshman can earn is 28 credits.
Biagini said the block scheduling also provides students an opportunity to custom-design their education.
"I feel that a seven-class day is going to be more of a cookie-cutter education where everybody will be getting more of the same education," he said.
Superintendent Cynthia Chelen said the board decided in December to return to an eight-period schedule so the district can continue to meet rising standards relating to the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment testing.
According to the administration, the eight-period schedule provides for greater continuity throughout the year in subjects such as math, language arts and science.
Each class in the eight-period day is 45 minutes. Chelen said total class time will increase by 15 minutes per day under the eight-period schedule because the current teaching blocks differed in lengths, from 80 to 110 minutes.
During the special meeting, the board accepted a 150-signature petition, presented by senior Frank Davis, asking to keep the block system in place. The board did not indicate whether it will revisit the subject.
Retired teacher Virginia Monaghan said she resisted change to the block scheduling when it was first introduced in 1995, but has since become an advocate.
"I have implicit faith I this board, but I ask you to rethink this," said Monaghan. "I was one who has taught both ways, and I tell you there is no comparison. We can solve the continuity problem by hand-scheduling the students."
Monaghan said changing classes eight times per day will result in greater class disruption.
"If you go back to an eight-period day with 45 minutes, maybe your only going to get 15 minutes of instruction," said Monaghan, who noted that teachers can be taught to use block classroom time more effectively.
Parent Ginger Orbis said extra classes per day will require more homework and leave children with less family time at home.
"We have kids who don't even know their parents in this town, in this country," said Orbis. "We have kids who get up, go to school, do their sports, maybe pass their parents in the hallway and otherwise never see them. That's a problem."
Orbis said the block scheduling also allows students more time to know their teachers and receive extra help, if needed.
Parent Colleen Major said her son, a junior who takes accelerated courses, is worried he will not be able to retain his honors status, play football and continue his part-time job if the current schedule is altered.
"I can't fathom that child having to take the seven honors classes he wants to finish up the (senior) year," said Major. "Instead, he's going to be filling his schedule with electives, which I don't want."
Major suggested the board consider phasing in the new system rather than converting all at once.
Director Roberta Bergstedt said the decision to switch was not a rash one.
"We did a great deal of research that all alluded to the fact the block scheduling is not as effective as we once thought it was," she said.
In other action Thursday, the board agreed to spend $556,910 on energy conservation measures that are projected to save the district $902,5000 over 15 years.
TRANE representatives were on hand to present findings of the 360-page energy audit prepared by Pathfinder Engineers LLP, of Rochester, N.Y.
Energy conservation measures adopted by the board include upgrades to the lighting system and building automation system, a cooling tower, building automation system/demand control ventilation, third floor classroom air conditioning and new exterior doors at the elementary school and upgrades to the building automation system at the high school/middle school. The package also includes the $25,771 cost for the energy audit and a $3,750 project management fee.
The suggested conservation measures are eligible for Act 77 rebates.
According to Chelen, the auditing firm guarantees the energy savings projected for each measure.
Images and text copyright © 2006 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co.
Reproduction or reuse prohibited without written consent from PittsburghLIVE.com
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleyi ... 55576.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleyindependent/news/monessen/s_455576.html)The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected.
Will Rogers, American humorist, political commentator and cowboy philosopher
-
John, you ever read any John Taylor Gatto?
No laws, however stringent, can make the idle industrious, the thriftless provident, or the drunken sober
--Samuel Stiles
-
Yes, saw him speak a few years ago - read a couple of his books, "Dumbing us Down" and "The Underground History of American Education."
I got into "homeschool propaganda" pretty heavy for a while. The system is broken so we took the other option.
G
-
Jeez, Greg, I'll call you whatever you want to be called. I am just for a certain amount of pooled resources/shared benefit it society, which tends to be left wing. You are for 'to each his own,' (sounds that way to me), classically right wing. Libertarians come in different stripes, too.
So - I am aware that taxes are backed by police power, i.e., guns, and that is seizing and redistribution. What is your alternative for providing for the common good? Voluntary compliance? Or - social darwinism...
Tell me what you position is, and please refrain from the ad hominem attacks! (Just kidding, Mr. Debate!) (The Fallacy of Taunting)
Ginger - a lot of 16 y.o scare me, which is why I am not a high school teacher anymore! (also - joking! Sort of!)
Parenthetically yours...
-
On 2006-05-30 10:49:00, cleveland wrote:
"Jeez, Greg, I'll call you whatever you want to be called. I am just for a certain amount of pooled resources/shared benefit it society, which tends to be left wing. You are for 'to each his own,' (sounds that way to me), classically right wing. Libertarians come in different stripes, too.
So - I am aware that taxes are backed by police power, i.e., guns, and that is seizing and redistribution. What is your alternative for providing for the common good? Voluntary compliance? Or - social darwinism...
Tell me what you position is, and please refrain from the ad hominem attacks! (Just kidding, Mr. Debate!) (The Fallacy of Taunting)
Parenthetically yours..."
Well, if you read a little deeper into what I wrote, instead of instinctively negatively reacting to the whole 'fairness' argument, you will come to understand my positions a bit better.
I am not against social services per se. In fact, when it is demonstrated that the government may be able to solve problems that the private sector can't or won't (medical care?), then the government should step in. Some would call me a leftist pinko for that stand. I also think that taxation should strive for some semblence of fairness, and that everyone should pay something as a way to realize that their participation in society is not free. I don't care if it is $100 per year. Needs testing social services should be mandatory. I also think the government should stay the hell out of your personal business unless they can demonstrate you are harming someone else. Still further, I think people shouldn't be penalized for being producers in the economy, at least not at rates that are way over the top, like they are now. I don't mind paying my taxes, I just don't want to pay for 10 other people as well.
I have many positions that don't fall into categories such as republican, democrat, or libertarian. But I most closely resemble a libertarian. That being said, I haven't adopted any political parties platform as my own, and I likely won't in the future.
I realize this may not help you categorize me, but if you had read what I had wrote, you would understand that 'social darwinist' was a mis-representation of who I am.
-
Greg, you're using some of the language of the right wing, and the social darwinists, so...
-
"should the wealth creators in our society pay for everyone else?"
That's the essence of your idea. Marx would say that the rich are "parasites who live off the labor of the working class."
Same idea, turned on it's head.
Perhaps if those who are fortunate enought to have can share with those who do not, AND those who can will work to their best ability AND no one cheats - we can have an equitable system. I think some people call in "communitarianism." But that will most likely only work for small, homogenous communities (Denmark, anyone?)
Anyway, I am just reacting to your emotional tone. Perhaps it would be better if you didn't imply that all the rich were virtuous, hard-working heroes and all the poor were lazy, scum-sucking slobs. Welfare queens and noblesse oblige. Ginger, where are you on this argument?
-
On 2006-06-01 13:49:00, cleveland wrote:
"Greg, you're using some of the language of the right wing, and the social darwinists, so..."...That's the essence of your idea. Marx would say that the rich are "parasites who live off the labor of the working class."
If you think voting all the money out of the 'rich' people's pockets is a workable solution, then we will just have to disagree.
I reject the idea that the rich or the poor are society's victims, nor do I think because someone has money they automatically owe the poor something. I personally don't mind, however, paying a bit more than my share. But I already posted that. Maybe you didn't read that far into my post?
I don't fit in these categories you are trying to squeeze me into. My ideas are all over the board. Sorry.
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-06-01 15:22 ]
-
On 2006-06-01 13:57:00, cleveland wrote:
Anyway, I am just reacting to your emotional tone. Perhaps it would be better if you didn't imply that all the rich were virtuous, hard-working heroes and all the poor were lazy, scum-sucking slobs. Welfare queens and noblesse oblige. Ginger, where are you on this argument?
"
I never implied this. You are reading it into my words unfairly.
-
Ma Ma