27 Aug 08
Originally posted by uzlessNo, not the same thing at all. If people actually took that money and invested it, I am certain that if the money was invested in something like the Wilshire 5000 the returns would far outstrip SS.
Um, you say no and then say EXACTLY THE SAME THING I SAID????
Sure, the words are different but it's the same frickin thing there cupcake.
My point was that it was forced savings.
I'd really like to see the tax base on SS increased. I like the idea of charging a FICA tax on 100% of the money someone makes on investments. With the extra money, allow people to invest part of the FICA tax in a personal investment account made up of conservative investments and government bonds.
Forced savings is the key Ding Dong.
27 Aug 08
Originally posted by duecerYep, that's what is needed everyone taxed at the same rate i.e. a flat poll tax X dollars a year per each individual person, we'd see a massive reduction in guvamint then. Bring it on.
Social Security would be a great investment if everyone were taxed at the same rate. Warren Buffet earns the majority of his money through investments which are taxed at 15%, and do not include social security tax. I'm not sure on the maximum taxable rate, but it was $82k a few years ago. If the tax were flat and the same rate regardless of income or source, ...[text shortened]... . Its only 1% of the population that would not see good returns. Seems like a good plan to me😀
27 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIn the Uk we have an estimated 1.9 million people living on 'social security' benefits who are capable of working but who have given up the ghost thanks to Labour politicians having encouraged them to 'take it easy'. In places like parts of Glasgow many of the inhabitants have not worked for three generations.
Social Security is often touted as a crucial safety net that protects American retirees from abject poverty. In reality, Social Security has made it harder for retirees to grow wealthier by reducing their ability to save and thus has contributed to poverty in old age, argues Texas A&M economist and Independent Institute Research Fellow Edgar K. B s," concludes Browning.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2302
Meanwhile we have to import Poles and others to do the work left undonel! It's called 'Socialism'.
27 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaAnd what if instead of government shrinking it stays the same size and they simply cut services so as to maintain their size??
Yep, that's what is needed everyone taxed at the same rate i.e. a flat poll tax X dollars a year per each individual person, we'd see a massive reduction in guvamint then. Bring it on.
27 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Eladar"Term" it however you want. "Forced Saving", "Guaranteed Retirement Income". "Old Age Security"...the label doesn't really matter.
Forced savings is the key Ding Dong.
Fine, you want to risk putting your money into the stock market and hoping like hell that when it comes time for you to retire that the stock market hasn't crashed and wiped out your savings.
While some may agree with you and want to take that risk, the Government, starting with FDR has taken a different view and recognized that "forced savings" are a guaranteed way to provide for you when you retire.
Myself, I still have many years before retirement and I cheer every day the stock market goes lower because it makes it cheaper for me to buy mutual funds. Ideally, the stock market would stay low for the next few decades and then in the year I retire, bolt up 10,000% percent. I'd be a rich man. But EVERYONE else who was hoping to use stock market gains to bolster their retirement income in the intervening years would have lost out.
Now, as an American, I'm sure you see no problem with this scenario, but fortunately, there are still those among you that understand what FDR was trying to accomplish. Based on these forum posts, it seems that spirit, once the envy of the world, has been replaced by something less endearing.
To anyone that lost their savings in the market I suppose you would chant rather indifferently alongside Ms. Antoinette.
27 Aug 08
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe SS admin. "loans" the money to the govt. It is supposed to be an investment, but with the Rethuglicans doubling the national debt, it turned out to be a poor investment.
does the govt really spend the SS budget on its own projects? i've heard that somewhere but haven't found it on wikipedia. 🙂
or is the argument just that this is money the govt should be spending from general inlays?
