Federal Deficit Commission Draft Proposal a Good Start

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

R1

Guest
Oh, ok. I apologize for the bad memories. I have corrected the post then.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
You failed to answer the question.

Why do you have a computer? A phone? A television? An MP3 player? A shower? Some form of transportation? A chair? A sofa? A table? A desk?

None of those are required for survival. You must _immediately_ surrender them to goodwill.
 
P

phaze

Guest
R1":29kievag said:
If everyone across the board pays the same rate, it could be a much lower rate.
I'm confused. Isn't the problem that we need more money overall to pay at the current outlays? So on the surface we either have to reduce the amount paid out... changing amounts, changing eligibility... and/or raise more money by increasing rates in some manner... right?
 
R

R1

Guest
phaze":1f1ke6sw said:
R1":1f1ke6sw said:
If everyone across the board pays the same rate, it could be a much lower rate.
I'm confused. Isn't the problem that we need more money overall to pay at the current outlays? So on the surface we either have to reduce the amount paid out... changing amounts, changing eligibility... and/or raise more money by increasing rates in some manner... right?
Right, except the top income group(s) doesn't pay social security the same percentage of their incomes, they pay a very, very small (very insignificant) percentage. So if everyone across the board paid the same percentage, it would be a lesser rate.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Why would the people that don't need social security need to pay more for social security?

And again: Would you rather have 1% of $100M, or 100% of $20,000?
 
P

phaze

Guest
adrenalynn":3uq8t5q3 said:
Why would the people that don't need social security need to pay more for social security?

And again: Would you rather have 1% of $100M, or 100% of $20,000?
I suppose the logical answer to your first question would be... because it's Social Security - not your own personal retirement savings fund.

I gather the idea is that there are quite a few people in this country that will spend their lives working hard and difficult jobs... making just above a liveable wage... and when the day comes that these people can no longer work - they will through no egregious fault of their own - be unable to live their sunset days in a lifestyle that even approaches their previous meager life - if not for the benefit of social security.

You can extend this idea to people who are making even more than a meager wage - but the concept remains the same....

If said people were all forced to be the only source of savings - you would probably find their participation in the greater economic world to be far, far less.... or the rammifications on social stability in the country to be far, far more costly.

Extending this concept even a bit further.... while wealthy individuals don't need the money for their own retirement, the benefits they can gain from the situations I previously mentioned may make it well worth their contribution.

It's good to be wealthy in a country with a stable socio-economic structure. It's good to be wealthy in a nation without staggering amounts of impoverished. It no doubt contributes directly to your ability to be wealthy to have vast chunks of the populace not consumed with being able to provide entirely for their retirement and thus be better customers to your business... or to the businesses your business services... or to the businesses you invest in.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Not really. If people don't want to work, there's someone else that is more than happy to take their job. We don't have 100% employment rates in the US.

So let me ask you the same question since R1's cowardice shines through...

You don't need a television, car, computer, mp3 player, chair, desk, table, sofa, ... How can you live with yourself possessing these things when there are starving retirees out there. Shouldn't you be selling those things off to support them? Shouldn't you be donating your material goods to goodwill or the salvation army or something? All you need is food, water, shelter, and some basic clothing.

You want to take my "stuff" from me and give it to someone else, but not your own. What's mine is yours and what's yours is yours. How do you live with that?
 
P

phaze

Guest
adrenalynn":9la6bitw said:
Not really. If people don't want to work, there's someone else that is more than happy to take their job. We don't have 100% employment rates in the US.

So let me ask you the same question since R1's cowardice shines through...

You don't need a television, car, computer, mp3 player, chair, desk, table, sofa, ... How can you live with yourself possessing these things when there are starving retirees out there. Shouldn't you be selling those things off to support them? Shouldn't you be donating your material goods to goodwill or the salvation army or something? All you need is food, water, shelter, and some basic clothing.

You want to take my "stuff" from me and give it to someone else, but not your own. What's mine is yours and what's yours is yours. How do you live with that?
A bit confused by your response.... this is to me, right? What is the comment about not wanting to work in reference to?

Social Security doesn't require individuals to donate all their worldly possessions until every single other individual is at least at their equal level - in terms of "stuff."

You're taking the concept to an extreme that isn't realistic or desired by anyone.


I think one thing you struggle to grasp is how an evaluation of fairness is not... I'm struggling for the word here.... but an example - if there is something the government needs to do (in your opinion only), how if I pay $10.... then you pay $10... and that's fair - regardless of what our respective levels of wealth may be.

I'm not sure if you're willing to extend that evaluation from $ for $ to a % to % - there are those that will and see it as fair, but no further.

And then.... there is another group of people that will look at wealth and the relative effect on lifestyle a contribution will cause and evaluate fairness on that factor. Thus, you'll have people on the wealthier end of the scale paying not only a greater $ amount, but a greater % amount.... yet not having their relative lifestyle impacted.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
phaze":1s6kkebj said:
What is the comment about not wanting to work in reference to?
- you would probably find their participation in the greater economic world to be far, far less....
Social Security doesn't require individuals to donate all their worldly possessions until every single other individual is at least at their equal level - in terms of "stuff."

You're taking the concept to an extreme that isn't realistic or desired by anyone.
I'm not demanding you pay for my retirement. So why should you demand I pay for yours?

I think one thing you struggle to grasp is how an evaluation of fairness is not...
Is it "fair" if I steal your television? How about your computer?

Is "fair" defined as "whatever we can get away with stealing without someone getting shot"?

I'm struggling for the word here.... but an example - if there is something the government needs to do (in your opinion only), how if I pay $10.... then you pay $10... and that's fair - regardless of what our respective levels of wealth may be.
It's fair to demand I pay for your retirement. So is it fair that I demand you buy me a new car? The car's less expensive, right?

yet not having their relative lifestyle impacted.
[/quote]

It's fair that you dictate my lifestyle too? So if I'm funding your retirement, is it fair that I dictate you can only eat the cheapest of catfood purchased with my money?

---

If you can't/won't/haven't saved for your retirement, how about you can't retire unless you have family willing to support you in your waning years? Doesn't that sound "fair" to everyone?
 
V

vladdrac

Guest
Sounds a bit like Monica Crowley. Long ago the elderly were valued for their wisdom. Computers are Gods way of getting the elderly out and about....an antidote to FOX and WABC
 
R

rubicondsrv

Guest
retirement is not a right......

for most of history people worked for almost their entire lives, the concept that one should be "retired" on the dole for decades is ridiculous...

Most retirees are very capable of working, why should i subsidize their decades long holiday.

ss/medicare can be quite easily "fixed" by raising the eligibility age as such that most people don't ever collect......that is how it was when originally set up.....

no extra taxes required........
 
R

rubicondsrv

Guest
also the mortgage tax deduction is just a bad idea........it amounts to subsidies for stupid people to get homes they cant afford to pay for......

(the same goes for all targeted deductions............)
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
vladdrac":222wo9vy said:
Long ago the elderly were valued for their wisdom.
Oh, totally agreed. If they have wisdom of value to me, then I'm happy to employ them at standard consulting rates to impart that wisdom. I wouldn't ask for it without paying for it. That's theft too: theft of intellectual property.

Oh, wait. You mean that I should place monetary value on the theory of wisdom that is not imparted and therefore has no value to anyone except (but only in theory) the person who has it locked up in their noggin until they kick the proverbial bucket?

Naw, sorry, doesn't work for me.
 
P

phaze

Guest
adrenalynn":22tev05x said:
- you would probably find their participation in the greater economic world to be far, far less....
Although I think I explained it as I continued, you misinterpreted the meaning. What I mean is those individuals would participate less in the economy. They would have less income to spend outside of saving for their retirement.

Look... we've gone over all of this before. You don't agree with me.

I've stated this before... you(any individual) may be fabulous.... you may be REALLY fabulous.... and you may have earned yourself a nice living... but - you did not do this independent of the environment in which your wealth exists. You did this in a nation that DOES have a Social Security system... you did this in a nation that DOES have graduated tax rates.... a nation that does have a host of government spending intended to provide socio-economic stability. A nation that has a history of even adjusting all of these things and changing policies in response to the difficulties of the moment.

Even as much as you can trumpet how you've done whatever it is you have done without a single dime of help from anyone - let alone the government, unless you are printing money in your basement - the fact is your money came from somewhere... it came from others who have existed and benefited in this system.

Wanting to hit some kind of reset button after you've climbed to the top of the system - making it so you pay nothing more, or even less.... while the government only spends money on the things you want it to - while fitting with the selfish nature of the individual... is quite laughable in the context of.... well EVERYTHING ELSE.


And really... that's pretty much the answer for all your questions.
 
P

phaze

Guest
rubicondsrv":1lnqk890 said:
retirement is not a right......

for most of history people worked for almost their entire lives, the concept that one should be "retired" on the dole for decades is ridiculous...

Most retirees are very capable of working, why should i subsidize their decades long holiday.

ss/medicare can be quite easily "fixed" by raising the eligibility age as such that most people don't ever collect......that is how it was when originally set up.....

no extra taxes required........
Well... one simple reason is that retirement has been a good way to clear the workforce and make way for a new generation of workers. Probably some benefits for national productivity, as well.

Really though... I hope you guys get out there and push REAL HARD for the abolishment of Social Security and chastise the lazy 65+ crowd! That'd fantastic.
 
R

rubicondsrv

Guest
phaze":1s3169ji said:
Well... one simple reason is that retirement has been a good way to clear the workforce and make way for a new generation of workers. Probably some benefits for national productivity, as well.

Really though... I hope you guys get out there and push REAL HARD for the abolishment of Social Security and chastise the lazy 65+ crowd! That'd fantastic.

you do not have a right to a job......

using tax money to pay people to sit around for 20-30 years is insane
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
phaze":2zzqf92s said:
You did this in a nation that DOES have a Social Security system...
You like in a nation that has taxes.

So you'll be fine if the tax rate tomorrow is raised to 99.999999997%, right? We'll leave you a penny a decade. Don't spend it all in one place.

I'll bet you would probably grouse about that. So it appears there is a certain amount of theft, more than at present, less than 100%, that you welcome. For what? A guarantee in a Ponzi scheme that will collapse just before you want to cash in your chips?
 
B

bearack

Guest
rubicondsrv":ljo9jxut said:
phaze":ljo9jxut said:
Well... one simple reason is that retirement has been a good way to clear the workforce and make way for a new generation of workers. Probably some benefits for national productivity, as well.

Really though... I hope you guys get out there and push REAL HARD for the abolishment of Social Security and chastise the lazy 65+ crowd! That'd fantastic.

you do not have a right to a job......

using tax money to pay people to sit around for 20-30 years is insane
I had an argument with my sister recently about this. I find it repugnant that some feel that its societies obligation to support people whom are eldery retirement.

Before there was SS, people actually saved money to retire on. It's true, they did. People to this day still save money and chose not to depend on SS so they can actually enjoy their retirement and not living on a fixed income dictated by the state.
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
rubicondsrv":3b8496jq said:
retirement is not a right......

for most of history people worked for almost their entire lives, the concept that one should be "retired" on the dole for decades is ridiculous...

Most retirees are very capable of working, why should i subsidize their decades long holiday.

ss/medicare can be quite easily "fixed" by raising the eligibility age as such that most people don't ever collect......that is how it was when originally set up.....

no extra taxes required........
Perhaps we should just euthanize all those useless old people who are physically incapable of working any longer, rather than subjecting you to the trauma of having to having to pay more in taxes in exchange for living in a civilized world? :roll:

"Compassionate conservative".......most profound oxymoron ever!
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
If you feel you must. Instead, I think you and your "friends" should just be sending your entire paycheck to the IRS. Clearly this is something you feel strongly about. Strongly enough that you want to fund it yourself rather than stealing from someone else.
 
B

bearack

Guest
crazyeddie":160khxbk said:
rubicondsrv":160khxbk said:
retirement is not a right......

for most of history people worked for almost their entire lives, the concept that one should be "retired" on the dole for decades is ridiculous...

Most retirees are very capable of working, why should i subsidize their decades long holiday.

ss/medicare can be quite easily "fixed" by raising the eligibility age as such that most people don't ever collect......that is how it was when originally set up.....

no extra taxes required........
Perhaps we should just euthanize all those useless old people who are physically incapable of working any longer, rather than subjecting you to the trauma of having to having to pay more in taxes in exchange for living in a civilized world? :roll:

"Compassionate conservative".......most profound oxymoron ever!
Oddly enough, I should have more than enough on my own retirement savings to enjoy a fairly decent retirement at the age of 63 without using any government cheese. Granted, it cost me in my younger days. You know, couldn't by that BMW but rather put an extra 500 to 1000 away in CD's and Treasuries and other investments. You know, planning for my glory days.
 
R

rubicondsrv

Guest
crazyeddie":2ncks1t6 said:
[
Perhaps we should just euthanize all those useless old people who are physically incapable of working any longer, rather than subjecting you to the trauma of having to having to pay more in taxes in exchange for living in a civilized world? :roll:
!
how about they save their own money???

it is actually not hard to amass significant savings over several decades......frankly most "poor" people got that way by their own choice....

you do not need a new car or tv ect........

contrary to popular belief you do not need to have car payments, or cable tv......
 
B

bearack

Guest
rubicondsrv":2joshhyl said:
crazyeddie":2joshhyl said:
[
Perhaps we should just euthanize all those useless old people who are physically incapable of working any longer, rather than subjecting you to the trauma of having to having to pay more in taxes in exchange for living in a civilized world? :roll:
!
how about they save their own money???

it is actually not hard to amass significant savings over several decades......frankly most "poor" people got that way by their own choice....

you do not need a new car or tv ect........

contrary to popular belief you do not need to have car payments, or cable tv......
Years ago, when I owned a cataering company, one of my accounts was in the same building of a food distribution center for government assistance. I was floored with what kind of people were here, getting tax payer funded hand outs. Some pulling up in brand new Cadillacs, Lexus, BMW's and wearing $200 Nike Air Jordans and $1,000 neck chains. Yes, these type of people getting government assistance because they are spending what money they have on anything OTHER THAN FODD!
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
rubicondsrv":4wveh42b said:
how about they save their own money???

it is actually not hard to amass significant savings over several decades......frankly most "poor" people got that way by their own choice....
This attitude ignores both reality and human nature.

The fact is, most people just don't have the foresight, will, common sense, or cautious nature to start saving at an early age for their retirement. That's why we have Social Security, to make sure such people don't starve to death in their old age.

Bully for you that you are atypical and have saved enough to retire without Social Security. Most people can't.
 
R

rubicondsrv

Guest
This attitude ignores both reality and human nature.

The fact is, most people just don't have the foresight, will, common sense, or cautious nature to start saving at an early age for their retirement. That's why we have Social Security, to make sure such people don't starve to death in their old age.

Bully for you that you are atypical and have saved enough to retire without Social Security. Most people can't.[/quote]


so we should enable stupidity because "its human nature"

grrrreeeeaaatttt......


next you'll be suggesting subsidizing unfit parents to breed...........

oh wait, we already do that............
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY