- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
We are all Americans.
And your point is?Not a FIT Burden and that is what funds the Federal Govt.
Yes and as Americans we have personal responsibility for our own expenses. I don't expect you to fund my retirement but you are. I don't expect you to pay my state expenses but you are, all because the Federal Govt. is allowed to collect taxdollars and spend it on personal responsibility issues.
@Conservative, so what you are saying basically is military spending boosts the economy? I'm not disagreeing with you, just making sure thats what you are saying.
I'm not paying for your retirement, just a part of it, because I don't think SS is a livable wage. Plus, on that premise, why should i care, if i'm getting that same benefit when i get to your age? BUTTTTTT who knows if i will have that when i get there, but on a philosophical level I have no problem paying that tax, when i would be getting it back when i retire.
What we need is a growing economy from which the govt. gets revenue. the focus solely on Income tax revenue is nearsighted. First thing has to be to define the role of the govt. and put a realistic budget in place, then match that budget with revenue requirements. Right now 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans aren't paying much in FIT and 47% of current income earning households aren't paying a dime in FIT. Most liberals ignore that problem if you indeed believe we have a revenue problem. I don't, I believe we have a spending problem along with a GDP growth problem.
I'm not paying for your retirement, just a part of it, because I don't think SS is a livable wage. Plus, on that premise, why should i care, if i'm getting that same benefit when i get to your age? BUTTTTTT who knows if i will have that when i get there, but on a philosophical level I have no problem paying that tax, when i would be getting it back when i retire.
Why bother tax those incomes? you wouldn't get much money from them anyway.
You are indeed paying my SS if you are working. My SS contributions were spent long ago. You may or may not get the SS benefits when you are my age. Where is the money going to come from to pay for those benefits? There aren't going to be enough workers when you retire to pay your benefits so you better think about it
Ponzi schemes never work. Even the most elaborate ones collapse.
J-mac
:roll: :roll: :roll:
NO PONZI scheme in the history of the world has ever lasted 75 years. Ponzi schemes depend on garnering an ever-increasing pool of new investors to pay out returns to prior investors. When the potential pool of new investors runs dry, they collapse. This will occur when the scheme runs up against the natural limits of its recruitment strategy; in the ultimate case, it can't keep going past the point where the entire population is already subscribed.
This should provide us with a hint as to why, as Kevin Drum writes (rebutting Shikha Dalmia), Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. The entire population of working Americans has already been subscribed to Social Security for decades, yet the system continues to pay out benefits on time. That is because the actuarial calculations underlying its revenues and benefits are sound.
Social Security: A monstrous truth | The Economist
:roll: :roll: :roll:
NO PONZI scheme in the history of the world has ever lasted 75 years. Ponzi schemes depend on garnering an ever-increasing pool of new investors to pay out returns to prior investors. When the potential pool of new investors runs dry, they collapse. This will occur when the scheme runs up against the natural limits of its recruitment strategy; in the ultimate case, it can't keep going past the point where the entire population is already subscribed.
This should provide us with a hint as to why, as Kevin Drum writes (rebutting Shikha Dalmia), Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. The entire population of working Americans has already been subscribed to Social Security for decades, yet the system continues to pay out benefits on time. That is because the actuarial calculations underlying its revenues and benefits are sound.
Social Security: A monstrous truth | The Economist
Does the current system rely on current workers taxation in order to pay for those benefits of those no longer working and or contributing themselves? That sir is the definition of a ponzi scheme.
J-mac
Another Leftist who doesn't understand either demographics or debt. This shouldn't happen in a first world country..
Does the current system rely on current workers taxation in order to pay for those benefits of those no longer working and or contributing themselves? That sir is the definition of a ponzi scheme.
J-mac
well...thats not true, by pure definition its not a ponzi scheme, there are some similarities because your getting money from other people blah blah blah but on that basis then the entire government is a ponzi scheme anytime you get a government service.
Not all. Just those where the government invents public entitlements not outlined as in the scope of the federal government to, or taxpayer to be mandated to fund. Think Article 1, Section 8.
J-mac
As noted above, that's simply not true. 1) You don't seem to know the definition of a ponzi scheme. 2) Your definion would make every single thing done by the government a ponzi scheme.
I know you want to buy into this. But it is simply koolaid for the faithful and not much more. You can oppose SS with legitmate reasons. You don't need to go all nutter.
Give us the definition then, and please point out how ss is different.
J-mac
If you die without ever drawing on SS after you paid into it for 40 years, your family won't see a dime.
Give us the definition then, and please point out how ss is different.
J-mac
That's how insurance works. OTOH, if you live to be 100 you may draw more than you paid in. It's insurance -- not a ponzi scheme.
Fantastic, government mandated insurance. I think that will take the conversation in another direction. Just another program that should not be at the Federal level.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?