Kelzie said:
Yes but current workers pay you back what you put in, correct? SS is not meant to be an investment, it's meant to be insurance.
Point conceded, but if you would look what you contribute to SS over the years versus what you could do if you had it back the numbers would show a much better quality of life from the private sector. People who are struggling to get by would see more money in their pockets without the withholding tax and if necessity would demand they invested in their futures, people would find this out, it would also in my opinion bring a new sense of responsibility to the U.S. society that has been lost over generations. Don't take it as me saying SS needs to be killed, I am merely pointing out it's failings.
Please do. Although something interesting to note is that increased gun controls often (not always) come with an increase in law inforcement to enforce it...which of course leads to an increased crime rate because you have more people to catch it.
Not necessarily, it could also mean that unarmed people are easier to victimize. Just a thought, but you can add all the law enforcement that you desire and they still won't catch everything.
I never said that the Great Deal brought us out of the Depression. Merely that relying on a war to do so is a bad policy.
Relying on war is a bad economic decision, this is true, because every downturn would require an act of war under that philosophy, with that, I merely pointed out the fact that any fixes the New Deal did actually bring about were overrated and not responsible for what they have been given historical credit for.
The New Deal created jobs. Were they temporary jobs? Yes. Would you rather have a temporary job than none at all? I certainly would.
That is a good point, but the idea behind temporary jobs and the economy is that they will have no effect on economic downturn, which was one of the key principles of the ND, I will concede that some temporary relief did come about because of the New Deal, but to me that is a serious teaser when the job is done.
Would the New Deal have brought the US out of the Depression? I don't know. A war kind of got in the way.
It probably would not, because there didn't exist a permanent mechanism for growth and investment.
What used to be easier? Before you say that abusers of the system are causing a drain on resources, I need to see some numbers that show how prevelant it is. I'm slightly sceptical that it's as big a problem as people say it it.
Well, admittedly data is hard to find, I simply look to people I have personally known on the program, yes, some of them used it for the right reasons, but the majority I knew used it to avoid the risks of the working world. This is more of a personal experience statement on my part.
You wouldn't be worse off. In net gain, you would still be better off making 205K than you would be making 85 K. You are simply taxed more because you are able to pay a higher percentage of your salary without feeling as much hardship. As it should be.
Here's the math behind the logic, after total taxation with no deductions(I don't have much to deduct(state/local/FEDERAL being the biggest)) my 205K would become about 112K(rough est.) and at 85k it would be around 59-62K, I would lose almost half of my gross income to taxes just breaking into the bracket, I would have to kill myself to make more than the lower part of the "wealthy" bracket just to make back that percentage in taxes, whereas I would lose around 32% to taxes in my location at a much lower gross income. so the question is: Why should I bust my butt to lose almost half of my income when I could lose less and take more time for myself. The money I would lose on a good year could be better spent on buying/building a house(an economic contribution), a vehicle upgrade, etc. The sad thing is that the money I work for is not considered mine by many politicians and a certain segment of the population. Even if I didn't want the nicer things in life the principle stands, it is my labor so it is my money, taking more from me than I think is fair is stealing.
In my (possibly limited) experience, there is a very fine line between bad choices and bad circumstances. Did the people who invested in Enron have something bad happen to them? Certainly. Was investing your life savings in one source a bad choice? Certainly. It is a difficult line to draw. I simply prefer helping people up.
I can agree with helping people up, but not giving handouts. Yes there is a fine line between the two, and maybe most people need some help, but the big problem is that an entitlement mentality is in fact taking over this nation and it occurs on all sides of the economic spectrum, and while I don't think helping out needs to be stopped, spending needs to be restricted to responsible levels, a concept I am afraid is long lost.