- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is one major cause of wealth disparity a poor rate of return on social security?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:24 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:24 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
What "point" would you suggest such calculations be based upon?
I think the study is somewhat misguided. There is no "point" to use. The poor are poor not b.c of social security, but b.c they make a shitty income/have no skills. Letting them invest that in stocks vs. social security isn't going to stop them from being poor.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:37 pm to Hawkeye95
We all live in society and thus must contribute to society. Taxes are not theft. Excessive Corp profits are theft. (I know how do you define this).
War profiteering is theft.
War profiteering is theft.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:42 pm to Zed
quote:First, there is a slight skew, but not enough to overcome even a modest ROI differential.
A lot of poor people get back more from Social Security than they ever put in, no?
Second, the OP presumption is that SS withholdings would equate dollar-for-dollar regardless of ROI. IOW whatever the input, output would be increased.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:48 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:Obviously that includes lack of investment capacity.
The poor are poor ... b.c they ... have no skills
So if the government is taking money from working-class individuals, or from underpaid wives with Masters Degrees, and then finally giving it back at some point based on an atrocious calculated ROI, that is a preferred m.o.?
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:34 pm to Zed
quote:
A lot of poor people get back more from Social Security than they ever put in, no?
probably so for those on disability, although they're not all that huge a piece of the social security outlays
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:40 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:You must have one fricked up definition of "equitable".
No eliminating the cap on taxes makes the whole system for equitable for all Americans.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:22 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:Not dying isn't much if a feat.
Call it a reward for lasting so long in life.
quote:"You didn't build that"
Payment for building and maintaining society.
quote:False. It's a safety net for ungrateful children that don't want to take care of their parents.
It's a safety net for senior citizens.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:24 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
eliminating the cap on taxes makes the whole system for equitable for all Americans.
No. Equitable is paying for what you use. Soaking off your wealthier neighbor is mooching.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:28 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Why should it?
In short, total compensation has not kept pace with increases in productivity.
Modern increases in productivity come largely from automation and mechanization. Both of which are provided by capital investment--not increased labor.
Because a worker that cranked out 2 widgets an hour by hand, can crank out 10 widgets by using a computer controlled machine doesn't make the worker more valuable. It makes the machine more valuable.
quote:If you're near retirement and 100% in stocks, you get what you deserve. Being stupid carries a high price.
Suppose you turned 65 on September 16, 2008? Young people have time to recoup their losses after a market crash, but retirees don't.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 9:30 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:34 pm to Zach
quote:This. I have no problem with taxes that go toward public goods. Taxes used for personal expenses... are nothing more that state-sanctioned theft.
Wrong. If you and I pay a tax to build a bridge that we both can drive over it is not theft.
If the govt taxes me 100 bucks so that you can buy food because you're too damn lazy then it is theft.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 9:36 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:I agree. Why do the poor get away with paying less?
We all live in society and thus must contribute to society.
quote:how do corporations force you to buy their products?
Excessive Corp profits are theft.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 6:53 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Why should it?
I didn't assign a value judgement, just postulating on a cause. But if you think it's a good thing, then you would have to conclude that growing wealth disparity is a good thing.
quote:
If you're near retirement and 100% in stocks, you get what you deserve. Being stupid carries a high price.
And ultimately, there is the problem with privatizing Social Security.
There would be a LOT of stupid people suffering from their poor choice to leave their investments in stocks. Unfortunately, that's exactly what would happen. The entire reason SS exists is because we as a society decided that all that suffering is unacceptable, regardles of how stupid the sufferers are.
Our market system, economy and government exist to serve US, we do not exist to serve the market. Regardles of how fair or unfair something is in the marketplace, if it doesn't serve society, it should be changed - regardless of ideology. We're human beings, not economic automatons.
There is a similar sargument with those who would admonish the poor for their so-called bad decisions to have children. You simply cannot tell human beings that they are not rich enough to have a family. It is unrealistic. You cannot expect people to pull out of a bull market wholesale just prior to retirement. It is unrealistic.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 7:02 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Taxes are not theft. Excessive Corp profits are theft.
You're an idiot
Posted on 5/29/14 at 7:09 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Is it a factual thing?
But if you think it's a good thing
Posted on 5/29/14 at 7:15 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Is it a factual thing?
TA was assuming for arguments sake that it is. Did you read his post?
Posted on 5/29/14 at 7:19 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Excessive Corp profits are theft. (I know how do you define this). War profiteering is theft.
Profit is what drives all work. No one works for free. Why can't people realize this? You want new technology, cheap food, cheaper energy, cars, healthcare, and everthing better and faster. Yet, profits are bad? What else drives innovation. Need? Yes, to some degree. But only to the point to satisfy a minimal standard. And the person that provides even the minimum wants reimbursement. The best you can hope for is a level playing field for all.
Why not give tax credits for passing profits along? Figure out ways to make it a win-win situation. Some think higher taxes promote this, but that's bullshite. If anything it makes employers hold more profits to offset loses in taxes. It may promote capital improvements, but companies want do things that aren't needed just to "save" on taxes. Money spent is money spent. Hell, I'd be fine if I could give a portion of my tax bill directly to employees of my choosing.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 7:21 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:And, there would be a LOT of people who would end up in significantly higher tax brackets due to NOT fricking up. Then, you could have the straight up old people welfare program that people seem to want SS to become.
There would be a LOT of stupid people suffering from their poor choice to leave their investments in stocks
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:03 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:There was an earlier one regarding personal income vs inflation.
Is it a factual thing?
TA was assuming for arguments sake that it is. Did you read his post?
quote:quote:
Wages have been out-paced by inflation since 1970. The purchasing power of the working class has consequently gotten smaller.
Per capita personal income was $3893 in 1970 ( LINK)
Adjusted for inflation that would equate to an income of $23,036.33 in 2012.
But,
Per capita personal income was actually $42,693 in 2012.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:27 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
All they need is a private property right to keep and invest what they are contributing to Social Security right now.
Thanks to the crooks in Congress Social Security is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme....a slush fund for politicans to use as they please. I was there in the eighties when politicians lied to the American people and raised S/S taxes. The crooks warned that the ratio of workers-to-retirees was dropping and we needed to "build up" the S/S Trust Fund in anticipation of the 'all those retiring babyboomers' coming over the horizon. So they raised S/S Taxes to 12% [6% employee matched by 6% employer]. The resulting infusion of $$ created surplus. Seemed like a workable solution until Congress voted to 'steal the S/S Trust Fund' and include [and account] the monies as part of the general fund. Neat trick which allowed the crooks [excuse me politicans] in Congress to gain access to all that S/S money, and spend to their hearts content, and hide the true $$ of the annual deficit. Pay the money back? No fear....just issue IOU's.
Make matters worse....America elects the ultimate crook.....one Barack Hussein Obama. Pookie sets about spending money like a drunk sailor. Now we're trillions of dollars in debt, with the annual deficit of between $ 1 - 1.5 trillion. No problem! Get the Treasury Secretary to fire up the printing press at treasury and print some 'funny money'. Then let the Fed Chairman roll out something called Quantative Easing. Sounds all official and comforting. You know another supposedly viable solution.
So Congress comes along an adds other goodies to Social Security like Supplmental Security Income {SSI} and starts paying out generous Disability Payments. Believe those folks on Disability Payments are now up to 10+ mlllion {did I read that right?} Imagine that....all those benefits for S/S, SSI and Disability paid with borrowed and QE money. Did I mention Earned Income Credit or THE Affordable Healthcare Act? Life is great and the democrats [and some RINO's] keep getting elected on something called Compassionate Conservatism.
So you complain about a poor rate of return on the government Social Security. Maybe we should be asking our politicans in Washington what is the true condition of the so-called Social Security TRUST Fund? Notice I said the government S/S......remember S/S belongs to the government. That S/S account to have with S/S is an illusion. The projected benefit figure you see on your annual S/S Statement is just a number....a promise to pay. The money has been spent by your pal NOBAMA and his blood sucking thieve buddies in Congress.
Sleep on that tonight.
Have a great day!
This post was edited on 5/29/14 at 8:51 am
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:38 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:I also don't see it as a value judgement. The again I don't see wealth as value judgment to begin with.
I didn't assign a value judgement, just postulating on a cause. But if you think it's a good thing
quote:Nope. "Wealth disparity" is a stupid measure-- because it isn't a measure at all. It's a comparison. It tells you nothing about whether one is richer, or poorer. It only serves to measure how jealous and envious of "the rich" one should be.
then you would have to conclude that growing wealth disparity is a good thing.
As noted by the corrected stats... We are generally all more wealthy than we were in 1970. Who cares if someone else got more? No one ever got rich counting his neighbors' wealth.
quote:How is that better? As it is... smart people suffer from the poor choices of the stupid. What did the smart people do to deserve the burden?
And ultimately, there is the problem with privatizing Social Security.
There would be a LOT of stupid people suffering from their poor choice to leave their investments in stocks.
quote:Dangerous way of thinking. Do old people soaking off wealth of others serve society? (See the OP!) Maybe we should just kill them off? What about the disabled? Do they serve society?
Regardles of how fair or unfair something is in the marketplace, if it doesn't serve society, it should be changed
quote:Sorry. I will never share the view that man cannot govern himself. Even taking that view... Why do certain men have dominion to govern others? Are they somehow a superior group without he same flaws?
You simply cannot tell human beings that they are not rich enough to have a family. It is unrealistic. You cannot expect people to pull out of a bull market wholesale just prior to retirement. It is unrealistic.
Your argument is the same justification used for slavery and segregation. We can't possibly have those inferior people running around loose out the streets!
This post was edited on 5/29/14 at 9:02 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News