Gotta Pay your Fair Share

#26
#26
LouderVol said:
how is that a personal attack? Because I replaced "Oil" with "vol"?

you have said I was dumb and a democrat.
Click to expand...

You are posting a lie about what I “believe”. You have dragged my comments, that you are taking out of context, into a completely different thread. That is dumb. I didn’t say that YOU are dumb. I said that your POST is dumb. Do you understand?
 
Last edited:
#28
#28
LouderVol said:
except it is EXACTLY what you posted. I was able to quote you.

you haven't explained how they are different. or explained how one tax on my income is different than another tax on my income.

I suspect you are going to go into another long winded legalese diatribe again that doesn't actually make any point to counter what I have said.
Click to expand...

I said that claiming what has been paid into Social Security is no more the individual tax payer’s money is than what a tax payer has paid into defense spending. Somehow you’ve changed that analogy into “he believes its not our money they are taking”.

It isn’t “another long winded legalese diatribe”. It was pointing out that converting a 90 year old, tax payer funded social welfare program (Social Security) into a defined contribution plan with individually owned accounts is turning it into something completely different.
 
#29
#29
Thunder Good-Oil said:
I said that claiming what has been paid into Social Security is no more the individual tax payer’s money is than what a tax payer has paid into defense spending. Somehow you’ve changed that analogy into “he believes its not our money they are taking”.

It isn’t “another long winded legalese diatribe”. It was pointing out that converting a 90 year old, tax payer funded social welfare program (Social Security) into a defined contribution plan with individually owned accounts is turning it into something completely different.
Click to expand...
that has been my entire point since I brought it up. talk about failing to understand context. my proposal is a better option, I am sure there are others too. There are better options because its not the Ponzi Scheme where the federal government takes our money.

I fail to understand your logic. you admit its our money when its taxed from us. but then once it hits the government's hand's its no longer our money? Defense isn't a welfare program, there isn't any direct wealth redistribution, or any bogus promise of that money coming back. If you wanted to say SS is similar to Medicare, housing, food stamps, we would be closer to agreeing.

Its still all our money. there is no "government funded" program. there are only TAX PAYER funded programs. I mean i guess the two trillion deficit a year is not our money taken away now, but money we tax payers now owe, so its still all on us.
 
#30
#30
Thunder Good-Oil said:
You are posting a lie about what I “believe”. You have dragged my comments, that you are taking out of context, into a completely different thread. That is dumb. I didn’t say that YOU are dumb. I said that your POST is dumb. Do you understand?
Click to expand...
I understand you don't like facing the reality of the stances you hold in other threads being applied elsewhere because it highlights the problems with those stances. Its not like logic completely changes between threads. and we are still talking about the feds taxing our income, but you think its completely different because its a different thread.
 
#31
#31
LouderVol said:
that has been my entire point since I brought it up. talk about failing to understand context. my proposal is a better option, I am sure there are others too. There are better options because its not the Ponzi Scheme where the federal government takes our money.

I fail to understand your logic. you admit its our money when its taxed from us. but then once it hits the government's hand's its no longer our money? Defense isn't a welfare program, there isn't any direct wealth redistribution, or any bogus promise of that money coming back. If you wanted to say SS is similar to Medicare, housing, food stamps, we would be closer to agreeing.

Its still all our money. there is no "government funded" program. there are only TAX PAYER funded programs. I mean i guess the two trillion deficit a year is not our money taken away now, but money we tax payers now owe, so its still all on us.
Click to expand...

I’ve said Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme and provided clear reasons why.

I said that the trust funds don’t belong to us any more than what has been spent on defense. Social Security has never been defined contribution accounts owned by individual tax payers.

It was your money before it was taken as a tax. After the tax revenue has been taken it’s only yours as having been a taxpayer. It then belongs to all citizens.
 
#32
#32
LouderVol said:
I understand you don't like facing the reality of the stances you hold in other threads being applied elsewhere because it highlights the problems with those stances. Its not like logic completely changes between threads. and we are still talking about the feds taxing our income, but you think its completely different because its a different thread.
Click to expand...

You understand very little of what I’ve posted. You obviously have limited comprehension of my stances.
 
#37
#37
Thunder Good-Oil said:
You are posting a lie about what I “believe”. You have dragged my comments, that you are taking out of context, into a completely different thread. That is dumb. I didn’t say that YOU are dumb. I said that your POST is dumb. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

Weird to call it a lie given you doubled down on the same claim in this thread with your joke about owning f16s
 
#38
#38
Thunder Good-Oil said:
I said that claiming what has been paid into Social Security is no more the individual tax payer’s money is than what a tax payer has paid into defense spending. Somehow you’ve changed that analogy into “he believes its not our money they are taking”.

It isn’t “another long winded legalese diatribe”. It was pointing out that converting a 90 year old, tax payer funded social welfare program (Social Security) into a defined contribution plan with individually owned accounts is turning it into something completely different.
Click to expand...
This is correct.
 
#39
#39
Thunder Good-Oil said:
I’ve said Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme and provided clear reasons why.

I said that the trust funds don’t belong to us any more than what has been spent on defense. Social Security has never been defined contribution accounts owned by individual tax payers.

It was your money before it was taken as a tax. After the tax revenue has been taken it’s only yours as having been a taxpayer. It then belongs to all citizens.
Click to expand...
This is not correct in my opinion. For the last 40+ years, I have said SS is a Ponzi scheme. If it were not, then it would not be "running out of money" to pay off the early contributors. If it were not, the tax rates for it would not have been rising ever since the program started to try and stay ahead of the grift.

It is one of the few things I really did not like about Reagan's legislative efforts.
 
#41
#41
GroverCleveland said:
This is not correct in my opinion. For the last 40+ years, I have said SS is a Ponzi scheme. If it were not, then it would not be "running out of money" to pay off the early contributors. If it were not, the tax rates for it would not have been rising ever since the program started to try and stay ahead of the grift.

It is one of the few things I really did not like about Reagan's legislative efforts.
Click to expand...

Paying early “investors” with money from new investors is an element of a Ponzi scheme. But minus an actual fraud, Social Security being a social welfare agency rather than an investment opportunity, and with the accounting being transparent it really isn't a Ponzi scheme. It’s simply an underfunded government program. At least the assets are segregated with the two trusts.
 
#42
#42
Vol8188 said:
Weird to call it a lie given you doubled down on the same claim in this thread with your joke about owning f16s
Click to expand...

Doubled down? Do you understand that individual taxpayers don’t individually own what they’ve paid into the program? The statements indicate each taxpayer’s current benefits, it’s not an owned account balance.
 
#44
#44
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Paying early “investors” with money from new investors is an element of a Ponzi scheme. But minus an actual fraud, Social Security being a social welfare agency rather than an investment opportunity, and with the accounting being transparent it really isn't a Ponzi scheme. It’s simply an underfunded government program. At least the assets are segregated with the two trusts.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying but this is a long play grift on taxpayers in my opinion.

Edit: Perpetrated by FDR.
 
#45
#45
GroverCleveland said:
I understand what you're saying but this is a long play grift on taxpayers in my opinion.

Edit: Perpetrated by FDR.
Click to expand...

When Social Security began, the rate was only 1% (x2) on the first $3,000 of wages. Then with the Baby Boomers paying in at 6.2% (x2) they miscalculated sonething so that there wasn’t enough to pay benefits once the Boomers retired. Probably a combination of several things including about a fifth of the current taxes going to the disability insurance beneficiaries who likely paid in practically nothing.

A major miss was failing to accurately estimate how many years the old age beneficiaries would still be alive. That is also creating a stress on the Medicare system.

Another bad practice was not doing anything (or not doing enough) to address the annual deficits as soon as it was evident that those deficits would use up the surpluses. Instead of making adjustments as soon as the deficits were identified and raising taxes a bit or reducing benefits more than they’ve been doing, the elected officials kicked the can down the road for future elected officials to deal with an even bigger problem.

At least it will get better after the current, small generation (Generation X) of workers are replaced by a bigger generation. But that will take a generation or more.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LadyVolette
#47
#47
Thunder Good-Oil said:
When Social Security began, the rate was only 1% (x2) on the first $3,000 of wages. Then with the Baby Boomers paying in at 6.2% (x2) they miscalculated sonething so that there wasn’t enough to pay benefits once the Boomers retired. Probably a combination of several things including about a fifth of the current taxes going to the disability insurance beneficiaries who likely paid in practically nothing.

A major miss was failing to accuratly estimate how many years the old age beneficiaries would still be alive. That is also creating a stress on the Medicare system.

Another bad practice was not doing anything (or not doing enough) to address the annual deficits as soon as it was evident that those deficits would use up the surpluses. Instead of making adjustments as soon as the deficits were identified and raising taxes a bit or reducing benefits more than they’ve been doing, the elected officials kicked the can down the road for future elected officials to deal with an even bigger problem.

At least it will get better after the current, small generation (Generation X) workers are replaced by a bigger generation. But that will take a generation or more.
Click to expand...
The gig/ worker job hoppers that follow GenX concern me.. true, there are more of them, but they tend to want to work non traditional ways that don’t necessarily scoop up all the soc sec rev.. but hopefully I’m wrong and/or they grow up or settle down some.. then we’ll be fine .. as GenX we are survivors 😂 we’ll be okay no matter what
 
#48
#48
Thunder Good-Oil said:
When Social Security began, the rate was only 1% (x2) on the first $3,000 of wages. Then with the Baby Boomers paying in at 6.2% (x2) they miscalculated sonething so that there wasn’t enough to pay benefits once the Boomers retired. Probably a combination of several things including about a fifth of the current taxes going to the disability insurance beneficiaries who likely paid in practically nothing.

A major miss was failing to accuratly estimate how many years the old age beneficiaries would still be alive. That is also creating a stress on the Medicare system.

Another bad practice was not doing anything (or not doing enough) to address the annual deficits as soon as it was evident that those deficits would use up the surpluses. Instead of making adjustments as soon as the deficits were identified and raising taxes a bit or reducing benefits more than they’ve been doing, the elected officials kicked the can down the road for future elected officials to deal with an even bigger problem.

At least it will get better after the current, small generation (Generation X) workers are replaced by a bigger generation. But that will take a generation or more.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they didn’t predict people living for twenty years in nursing homes.. there are a lot more medications that prolong your life, but not necessarily your quality of life.. when social security started the average American lifespan was what? 59?
 
#49
#49
LadyVolette said:
Yeah, they didn’t predict people living for twenty years in nursing homes.. there are a lot more medications that prolong your life, but not necessarily your quality of life.. when social security started the average American lifespan was what? 59?
Click to expand...

It doesn’t sound like a lot in the number of years the average life expectancy of 65 year olds has increased, but it resulted in half again as many people.

“Increases in life expectancy are a factor in the long-range financing of Social Security; but other factors, such as the sheer size of the "baby boom" generation, and the relative proportion of workers to beneficiaries, are larger determinants of Social Security's future financial condition.”

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov
 
#50
#50
Thunder Good-Oil said:
It doesn’t sound like a lot in the number of years the average life expectancy of 65 year olds has increased, but it resulted in half again as many people.

“Increases in life expectancy are a factor in the long-range financing of Social Security; but other factors, such as the sheer size of the "baby boom" generation, and the relative proportion of workers to beneficiaries, are larger determinants of Social Security's future financial condition.”

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov
Click to expand...
Interesting.. It’s wild how GenX is such a small generation comparatively speaking.. probably why we get forgotten about a lot 😂 I notice it a lot in healthcare, it’s mostly retired or soon to retire boomers and millennials.. don’t know what happened 😂
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top