|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:29 am Post subject: Re: ... |
 |
|
The projected deficit is in the trillions (and that's just SS, Medicare is around 5 times that amount). Raising taxes is not going to cut it.
Unless you think you can get the Wall Street bankers and financial oligarchs who run our country to give up their corporate welfare and bailout money (good luck with that)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yer, and the question is whether social security is sustainable.
I know we should just dump the whole system for wholesale corporate harlotry.
Nothing is sustainaable if your plan is to ho the row. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I said three years ago that Obama came into office early. (Timing.) Had he come into office a year or so later than he did, things would have been much different. However, you have to play the cards you are dealt.
He is obsessed with finding compromise. In 'normal' times, that might have worked, and might have been very useful. Even the transformation that he talked so much about.
However, he missed the boat. Or the boat missed him. Either way...
He studied recent history and came up with an approach. Trouble is, when he was in the middle of running, the plot changed and he didn't pick up on it.
The opposition went from slimey, despicable, near-traitors to all out, full-blown, blow up the republic slime balls. Christine O'Donnell, anyone?
IF the republic is lucky, he will recover and make a comeback in early September. If he doesn't, we will be speaking Chinese by Christmas after next. The irony, of course, is that the right wing America exceptionalists are doing everything in their power to make whatever exceptionalism that did exist a matter of history, not a matter of the present. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Yer, and the question is whether social security is sustainable.
I know we should just dump the whole system for wholesale corporate harlotry.
Nothing is sustainaable if your plan is to ho the row. |
Gotta love clicking on an updated thread and finding a big, fat, grinning straw man waiting there for you. I appreciate it Nowhere, you never fail to come through...
Still, I wonder - can the concept of saving a bit of your own money each month (instead of shelling it out to the bankrupt government) really be such a foreign/inconceivable concept to you that the only alternative you can think of is "corporate harlotry"? Really? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Yer, and the question is whether social security is sustainable.
I know we should just dump the whole system for wholesale corporate harlotry.
Nothing is sustainaable if your plan is to ho the row. |
Gotta love clicking on an updated thread and finding a big, fat, grinning straw man waiting there for you. I appreciate it Nowhere, you never fail to come through...
Still, I wonder - can the concept of saving a bit of your own money each month (instead of shelling it out to the bankrupt government) really be such a foreign/inconceivable concept to you that the only alternative you can think of is "corporate harlotry"? Really? |
Ask Koreans what they think about not having Social Security and what happens to those who don't manage to save enough for their retirement. It's not just a question of having sufficient personal responsibility. Many people struggle to make it from paycheque to paycheque or shit happens and eats up all their savings.
What's wrong with the concept of taking a bit out of your paycheque each month and getting it back when you retire (or if you become disabled, or for your children if you and your spouse die in an accident while they're still minors)? That's a guaranteed system that gives universal peace of mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Well it's odd that this mathematically unsustainable scheme has miraculously kept going since 1935, and that 2010 was the first year since 1983 that it failed to produce a surplus. |
So? They also told you housing prices would never go down. You were lied to, and now we have to face up to the situation. Things are not going to be the same. |
You mean things aren't going to be the same after 2037 if all goes as predicted by the likes of Timothy Geithner and if we rule out ever raising taxes to cover shortfalls.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Even according to the predictions of those most hostile to it, it will still keep going until 2037. If this is a ponzi scheme, ponzi schemes can't be all that bad. And, by the way, who benefits from this ponzi scheme? So long as right-wingers in government keep their grubby little hands off the funds, it's the public that benefits. |
Ponzi schemes can keep going for a long time (just look at Bernie Madoff). The difference in this case is that the ponzi schemers run our whole society  That's why they haven't run out of new customers till recently.
Moreover, the public doesn't "benefit" any more than any of Madoff's clients benefited. Sure, the money comes in for awhile (for those lucky enough to have started on it early enough), but when it runs out, a whole lot of people are going to be screwed. There's no such thing as a free lunch, that's just the reality of it. |
It's not a free lunch: money goes in, and money also goes out. And you seem to be forgetting that that money has been going out the whole time for the better part of a century. You say the public doesn't benefit any more than Madoff's clients benefited? Tell that to the millions of retirees who have never missed a cheque since the program started.
There may be one way in which the program resembles a ponzi scheme, however: somebody up there may have been skimming off the top. I'd like to know what happened to all the *surpluses* Social Security generated year after year for decades? Way more than the deficit of 2010.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| So the public is running a big scam on itself? |
In a word, yes. This is what happens when you trust the government more than you trust yourself. |
The fact is that this is a government program that runs very smoothly and benefits the population.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| You also failed to answer my question, which was what will happen to old people if Social Security is privatized? The costs of supporting retirees will not just go away. |
I don't have all the answers, I'm just describing the reality of the situation. Many people will probably just plain get screwed when they find that money isn't there.
| Quote: |
| Either you will have the elderly living in poverty, or continuing to work until they drop, or becoming an increasing burden to their children. Would you rather kick your grandparents out on the street, get a job mopping floors, or move in with you? I'd rather pay into Social Security, thanks. |
Personally I would make sacrifices to take care of my own parents no matter what (to the best of my ability). For many other retired people on their own it may mean they have to go back to work (sad, but the reason would be that their savings had been invested in SS instead of having been put away in a private fund). As for you preferring to pay into SS, again, with respect it doesn't really matter what you or anyone "wants" if the unfunded liabilities grow too big. At a certain point it just becomes unsustainable. The scheme is already projected to be trillions in the hole, and inflation is already making the SS payments go less and less far each year. |
I would also make sacrifices to take care of my parents, but we have in place a system that substantially reduces the common burden. I say let's not scrap it before we actually need to and let's not be too quick to believe the predictions made of it by proven politically motivated liars. We're talking about projections rather than facts after all. Also, the foreseeable consequences of privatizing Social Security - which is what most right-wingers want - are higher premiums and lower payouts. They talk about investing in the stock market also, which is like taking your life savings to the casino. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Yer, and the question is whether social security is sustainable.
I know we should just dump the whole system for wholesale corporate harlotry.
Nothing is sustainaable if your plan is to ho the row. |
Gotta love clicking on an updated thread and finding a big, fat, grinning straw man waiting there for you. I appreciate it Nowhere, you never fail to come through...
Still, I wonder - can the concept of saving a bit of your own money each month (instead of shelling it out to the bankrupt government) really be such a foreign/inconceivable concept to you that the only alternative you can think of is "corporate harlotry"? Really? |
Ask Koreans what they think about not having Social Security and what happens to those who don't manage to save enough for their retirement. It's not just a question of having sufficient personal responsibility. Many people struggle to make it from paycheque to paycheque or shit happens and eats up all their savings. |
This actually would be much, much less of a problem if it weren't for inflation (cause by the government). If we had a stable money system, or even deflation (which is good for everyone, except those in debt), the cost of living would be lower and our savings would be secure. As it stands, our savings get chipped away at each year, and even investing our money in anything except gold these days is too risky to bother with unless you're an insider like Warren Buffet (or George Soros). But anyway, side issue...
| Quote: |
| What's wrong with the concept of taking a bit out of your paycheque each month and getting it back when you retire (or if you become disabled, or for your children if you and your spouse die in an accident while they're still minors)? That's a guaranteed system that gives universal peace of mind. |
What's wrong with it? Well for starters, people are forced into it. Not having the option to opt out is akin to stealing peoples' money. Beyond that, why is it considered more moral for the federal government to handle people's retirement savings than for the private sector? (and that includes individuals who want to be responsible for themselves, not just evil corporations)... Clearly the government is doing a poor job of it (they have cut benefits and raised taxes before), and the only thing that can keep it afloat is to take even more of our money (and no doubt cut benefits). Pay more, get less: that is their "solution". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:09 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
I mentioned it.
| Quote: |
| (c) increase SS taxes. This is the Huffpo article's solution. This would be a more favorable solution in a better economic climate when the tax burden would be less onerous. Specifically, Huffpo would like tax millionaires on SS payments. This seems unnecessary, because millionaires receive the same benefits as workers do. Thus, taxing them more for social security will politicize the program, which is fairly defensible as it is now. But I would agree to an increase in the cap on SS if necessary, say up to $200,000. |
The cap = the $106k cap. I stated raising the cap is a preferable alternative to doing nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Well it's odd that this mathematically unsustainable scheme has miraculously kept going since 1935, and that 2010 was the first year since 1983 that it failed to produce a surplus. |
So? They also told you housing prices would never go down. You were lied to, and now we have to face up to the situation. Things are not going to be the same. |
You mean things aren't going to be the same after 2037 if all goes as predicted by the likes of Timothy Geithner and if we rule out ever raising taxes to cover shortfalls. |
Yes, they will no doubt raise taxes and cut benefits, and the scheme will roll along for awhile longer. It is still only delaying the inevitable, and costing people more money than it is worth. Don't forget about inflation either (the hidden tax).
| Quote: |
| It's not a free lunch: money goes in, and money also goes out. And you seem to be forgetting that that money has been going out the whole time for the better part of a century. You say the public doesn't benefit any more than Madoff's clients benefited? Tell that to the millions of retirees who have never missed a cheque since the program started. |
I'm not talking about the people who were lucky enough start in on it early. I'm talking about the rest of us who will have to pay and not get our checks (or only get a part of it).
| Quote: |
| There may be one way in which the program resembles a ponzi scheme, however: somebody up there may have been skimming off the top. I'd like to know what happened to all the *surpluses* Social Security generated year after year for decades? Way more than the deficit of 2010. |
Of course the government skims. There are two ways to look at the so-called SS "trust": as either trillions in assets belonging to the public, or trillions of debt held by the treasury... It is an accounting trick. Anyway, the surpluses were only on account of incoming money exceeding payouts in the 80's. Times have changed, those surpluses are gone, and payouts are exceeding income. This is not projected to change, but to worsen.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| So the public is running a big scam on itself? |
In a word, yes. This is what happens when you trust the government more than you trust yourself. |
The fact is that this is a government program that runs very smoothly and benefits the population. |
What tense are you speaking in? Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this... You seem to feel it is worthwhile, whereas I think it is unsustainable and wasteful, and that the task of looking after peoples' retirement savings could be handled by the private sector (where people at least have a choice in where they place their money).
| Quote: |
| I would also make sacrifices to take care of my parents, but we have in place a system that substantially reduces the common burden. I say let's not scrap it before we actually need to and let's not be too quick to believe the predictions made of it by proven politically motivated liars. We're talking about projections rather than facts after all. Also, the foreseeable consequences of privatizing Social Security - which is what most right-wingers want - are higher premiums and lower payouts. They talk about investing in the stock market also, which is like taking your life savings to the casino. |
That sort of so-called "privatization" is just corporate looting. I would never advocate such a thing (handing over a government monopoly to a corporation to run as a new privatized monopoly, jacking up prices)... Competition in a free market system would likely benefit people though. But more than that, I believe people should save their own money. As for investing it in the stock market, that is about the worst thing you could do (you are right that it's like a casino), but if the banks ever start instituting negative interest rates (charging people to keep their money on deposit), then people may be forced to stick their money there to avoid losing it. That's why buying gold is such a good idea, even if it is expensive (at least the price goes up on average)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EDIT
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
[q
Ask Koreans what they think about not having Social Security and what happens to those who don't manage to save enough for their retirement. . |
They seem to be getting along well with just the NPS. Why don't you tell us?
Saving for one's one retirement SHOULD be something that everyone does IN ADDITION with any pension, social security or other plan run by the government.
Don't assume that the tooth fairy (government) will be always there to take care of you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
