Public Believes "Facts" that Don't Happen to Be True

[Daddubo]

Am I the only one, with a rural Michigan education from the 70's, that got the memo that social security should NOT be one's "retirement" program?" I could have swore there was a big push in the 80's (and continuing today) with 401(k) plans, etc where everyone was told to "plan for retirement." Now 30 years later people are saying that their sole retirement is SS? Hello? HELLO?! Did you pay attention to anything the last 30 years or were you all smoking the curtains? If you take all the payments for SS you put in and put in a reasonable rate of return tied to the applicable federal rate, then you should only be expecting a few hundred bucks a month... Enough for a can of SPAM or two every month... anything over that is a ponzi scheme... wake up America....

True SS shouldn't be relied on for retirement but the way the job market is today with decreasing pay and the way 401's and IRA's taking a hit every few years those aren't worth a crap either I finally took mine and put it in an annuity so I won't loose any more. If most just took their money and put it is a regular savings account they would have been money ahead unless of course your bank closed. The Feds don't like it when the people have too much money they are harder to control so I think they manipulate the markets so the public looses their money and Wall Street gets bailed out (with Republicans or Democrats). But it is easy to say don't rely on SS when you are making or have big bucks. I have a Union Pension coming and a Wife that is 10yrs younger so I will still have income and health care from her but that 2g's a month from SS would be nice to see in a few years it will help with the beer & boating. :grin:

 

[Four Suns]

Well... see... if your 401(k) is in the stock market then, by definition, you are one of the "greedy investors". It's not real hard to connect the dots... Punishing companies (i.e. high corporate income tax) punishes share holders and then punishes your 401(k)....

I like the "marry a 20 year old hot chick that makes a lot of money when I'm 60" plan... Let me run that by my wife.

 

[Daddubo]

I like the "marry a 20 year old hot chick that makes a lot of money when I'm 60" plan... Let me run that by my wife.[/quote]

I would go with the 20yrs younger the 20yro she would be hard to keep up with!:smt100 But it,s probably cheeper to keep the one you have she would get the Boat +$$$$$$$.:lol:

 

[comsnark]

I like the "marry a 20 year old hot chick that makes a lot of money when I'm 60" plan... Let me run that by my wife.

I am sure the (20 year old) wife would be fine with that plan.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Personally, if they 100% did away with Social Security, eliminated the 6% FICA, and my employer gave me THEIR SHARE of the the 6% FICA. . . I would be very fine with that.

I have FAR better odds achieving the "Hot 20 year old making alot of money" plan.

 

[Woody]

Why is it that they always want to cut retirement? How about cutting departments that would save Billions like the Energy Dept. and the Dept. of Education. Stop all subsidies to the Oil Companies and they would start paying fair market value to drilling on Federal land. Then any one with wealth over 1mil they are dropped from SS rolls they would still pay but not receive. Congress and the Senate would be dropped from full pay when they retire and they would go to ½ pay after 20 and then put on the same structure an the military where they would get 2% year increase after 20, that should save a few buck$

This seems unfair to me. What??

 

[Vince_nj1]

I think we need to re-call of our troops and replace them with the unemployed living in government housing. They can go off to war and add some value, while our veterans can take over their free housing. I bet the vets will even mow their own lawn.

 

[chumbley]

Why is it that they always want to cut retirement? How about cutting departments that would save Billions like the Energy Dept. and the Dept. of Education. Stop all subsidies to the Oil Companies and they would start paying fair market value to drilling on Federal land. Then any one with wealth over 1mil they are dropped from SS rolls they would still pay but not receive. Congress and the Senate would be dropped from full pay when they retire and they would go to ½ pay after 20 and then put on the same structure an the military where they would get 2% year increase after 20, that should save a few buck$

Great. Another tax on the so-called rich. What defines "wealth over $1M"? Total assets? Investments? In what?

Boo Hiss

 

[chumbley]

I think we need to re-call of our troops and replace them with the unemployed living in government housing. They can go off to war and add some value, while our veterans can take over their free housing. I bet the vets will even mow their own lawn.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Woody]

Why is it that they always want to cut retirement? How about cutting departments that would save Billions like the Energy Dept. and the Dept. of Education. Stop all subsidies to the Oil Companies and they would start paying fair market value to drilling on Federal land. Then any one with wealth over 1mil they are dropped from SS rolls they would still pay but not receive. Congress and the Senate would be dropped from full pay when they retire and they would go to ½ pay after 20 and then put on the same structure an the military where they would get 2% year increase after 20, that should save a few buck$

Great. Another tax on the so-called rich. What defines "wealth over $1M"? Total assets? Investments? In what?

Boo Hiss

Ya, the rich guys get fkd again.

 

[chumbley]

Go figure! Think about it. You have a $500K house. A $200K boat. A couple of cars. A 401k. Some investments. A bit of money in the bank. All your furniture, jewelry, clothing, and other possessions. Add it up.

Millionaire ain't what it used to be. These aren't rich people. These are upper middle class people. They worked hard. They may have caught a few breaks along the way. They aren't scamming the system. They are investing in your communities and hiring your neighbors. Why in the world should they continue to pay into someone else's retirement and be dropped from their own?

Just further down the path towards socialism. Sorry, I meant a "leveling of wealth in America".

Perfect - a country of mediocrity. And the motivation to be successful and get ahead and create wealth and fund the tax base and give to charities will be what - having nothing more than the guy down the street who does nothing gets? Punish those that are successful. So fewer people will try - and fewer people will succeed - and overall wealth in this country will diminish - and pretty soon it's the rest of the world providing much needed food and medicine to the poor Americans. We hope.

 

[Woody]

There's a whole lot of people that believe in fairness and sharing only because they think they'll be on the receiving end. Let this ball get rolling and I believe many of them will regret it in the end. In the last couple years I've been insulted and nearly assaulted by outspoken, Obama enpowered people. They've not done the best for themselves but hey, it's OK. They don't like that I don't want to share, heck I don't feel I'm rich, I just have a little more than they do.

 

[JediJD]

A couple of points...first, Packer and Comsnark have made references to the "Bush" deficits vs. the "Obama" deficits...(as if one being slightly better than the other gave it the moral high ground). A more accurate representation would be the "Bush/Democratically controlled Congress" deficits vs. the "Obama/Democratically controlled Congress" deficits...both of which were staggering to a point never before seen in the collective history of capitalism. Note to Packer and Comsnark...Bush wasn't our favorite either, but he was better than the alternatives. (addressing 1, 2 and 3 of the original points).

Another quibble...the reference to the election of Obama as a mandate for health care reform. First, there wasn't a great choice. We had one party advocating gun rights, lower taxation and business freedom (that was actually Obama) and the other advocating reduced immigration reform, tax hikes, and suspensions of the First Amendment (that would have been McCain). Obama actually polled to the RIGHT of McCain on several issues. In addition, in a fairly close popular election, one previously tepid voting block (African-Americans) appeared in unheard of numbers and voted apparently 95% in one direction...a situation not previously encountered in the history of the Republic (although the Catholic vote for Kennedy was similarly skewed). The voting block that included government employees (other than military), students below 25, zero or low income wage earners, and unions, came out in record numbers in one direction (an endorsement not of Health Care reform but rather the 1600's Scottish observation that democracies cannot sustain themselves after 51% of the people realize they can vote themselves unearned benefits at the expense of the other 49%). Instead of "reform"...which arguably could have been reduced government interference and streamlining...the system was nationalized (how's that investment in GM going, btw?) There were several issues, across party lines, that could have gotten traction if the opportunity was available...such as interstate insurance policies, tort reform, and allowing greater access to medical care by other than MD's and pharmacists (LPN's/PA's running "doc in the boxes", for example).

There are a lot of people that believe as Comsnark and Packer appear to...that the security of collectivism is preferable to the risk/reward of capitalism (I really don't mean to characterize their positions, and admit that in a cursory review I may have incorrectly synthesized them but will gladly be corrected). In fact, study after study seem to show that roughly 30% of the population is hardwired on either side of the economic pendulum. (I've read Das Kapital, I suspect they haven't read Rand or Von Mises).

Point number eight deserves special consideration. For those who actually believe that statement...why not carry it to its logical extreme and let government hire everyone and buy everything? Following the inferences of eight, that would solve all the problems. (For the bright kids in the front of the class, the reason that tautology doesn't work is that government doesn't create wealth, it spends the wealth created by others.)

The part about this debate that actually comforts me, is that fewer people on this forum seem to support the position of collectivism than agree with portable gas generators bungie corded to their decks.

 

[chumbley]

JD - that was a LONG way to go to be able to work in a reference to portable generators!

 

[comsnark]

JD: Excellent post.

I only have time for a quick comment; but I would like to address some of the broader stuff later.

A couple of points...first, Packer and Comsnark have made references to the "Bush" deficits vs. the "Obama" deficits...(as if one being slightly better than the other gave it the moral high ground). A more accurate representation would be the "Bush/Democratically controlled Congress" deficits vs. the "Obama/Democratically controlled Congress" deficits

Are we forgetting the Bush/Republican controlled congress's deficits? While the current deficits are higher; fiscal conservatism was definitely not on the 2000-2006 agenda. They actually passed the unfunded Prescription Drug benefit and fought two unfunded wars.

Obama actually polled to the RIGHT of McCain on several issues.

Heresy!!!! (but true just the same)

 

[JediJD]

Are we forgetting the Bush/Republican controlled congress's deficits? While the current deficits are higher; fiscal conservatism was definitely not on the 2000-2006 agenda. They actually passed the unfunded Prescription Drug benefit and fought two unfunded wars.

No question. There were some terrible decisions made, and I admit supporting some of those decisions at the time (the wars, not the prescription drug boondoggle...and in retrospect, I wish I had some, not all, of the war decisions back). I made the mistake of diverting from my fundamental philosophy, and I will try to do less of that.

 

[Daddubo]

> > A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so
> > many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and
> > among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to
> > support more government programs, in other words redistribution of
> > wealth.
> >
> > She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch
> > conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures
> > that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a
> > professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil,
> > selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
> >
> > One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher
> > taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.
> >
> > The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be
> > the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking
> > how she was doing in school.
> >
> > Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and
> > let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was
> > taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which
> > left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She
> > didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many
> > college friends because she spent all her time studying.
> >
> > Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
> >
> > She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy
> > classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so
> > popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited
> > to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for
> > classes because she's too hung over."
> >
> > Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's
> > office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your
> > friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and
> > certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
> >
> > The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily
> > fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked
> > really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of
> > hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She
> > played while I worked my tail off!"
> >
> > The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the
> > conservative side of the fence."
> >
> > If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between
> > conservative and liberal or progressive or neocon I'm all ears.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great
> > test!
> >
> > If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
> > If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
> >
> > If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
> > If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
> > everyone.
> >
> > If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
> > If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
> >
> > If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
> > situation.
> > A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
> >
> > If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
> > Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
> >
> > If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
> > A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
> > (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
> >
> > If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping
> > for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
> > A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

 

[Daddubo]

Great. Another tax on the so-called rich. What defines "wealth over $1M"? Total assets? Investments? In what?

Boo Hiss

I was talking 1mil yearly income, the middle class is the only ones that get screwed when they talk about raising the retirement age the rich don't care because they have the big bucks and the poor don't care because everyone else is paying for them.

 

[JediJD]

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm trying to understand. How is raising the retirement age "screwing" the middle class? Social Security was designed as a safety net for people in the twighlight of their lives. Now 65 is no longer a twilight. The life expectancy has changed pretty dramatically from inception and the math is different. We accept that in gas prices, and college diplomas...why not in Social Security?

On another track...we all know that SS doesn't make economic sense and needs to be fixed. We apparently only have three choices...increase payments in (through taxes or contributions), reduce benefits, or raise the retirement age. Of the three choices, which do you choose?

 

[jason78]

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm trying to understand. How is raising the retirement age "screwing" the middle class? Social Security was designed as a safety net for people in the twighlight of their lives. Now 65 is no longer a twilight. The life expectancy has changed pretty dramatically from inception and the math is different. We accept that in gas prices, and college diplomas...why not in Social Security?

On another track...we all know that SS doesn't make economic sense and needs to be fixed. We apparently only have three choices...increase payments in (through taxes or contributions), reduce benefits, or raise the retirement age. Of the three choices, which do you choose?

I understand why they want to raise the retirement age and I also why the SS system is failing. Too much coming out, not enough going back in- as well as all the borrowing from SS that has been done for other spending. I have a private retirement plan and don’t expect to have SS around when I retire.

What happens when someone pays in to the system for 50 years then dies right before they collect? They get $250, Wow, what a great deal isn’t it? Imagine what they could have had if they would have been able to keep and save that same money? At least something to leave to their family.

 

[skibum]

I like option #4 - Stop putting anyone new on SS. This means stop taking money from their paychecks, and stop promising them any future SS "benefits".

• For those under 30 currently in the system, take 1/3 of their current deductions, and pay them 1/3 of their due benefits when they retire. They should be required to put the other 2/3 of what would have been collected for SS pre-tax into a true retirement savings account at a bank. If they withdraw the money post retirement, it should be tax free. This should make up for the 2/3 that they will not get from SS post retirement.

• For those between 30 and 40, take 2/3 of their previous deductions and pay 2/3 benefits upon retirement. Require them to save the other 1/3 in a private account under the same rules until they retire.

• For those over 40, nothing changes.

Obviously, there will be a gap between revenue taken in vs. payouts for at least 25 years. This country made promises, and we should keep them. I'd support a temporary tax on imported manufactured goods to cover the costs, as long as it was adjusted yearly to the lowest necessary rate to cover SS payouts and completely gone when there are no more SS benefits to payout.

If there is still a gap, George Soros could just write a check to pay it off. He has "enough" money. We should just take it. :grin: