Gotta Pay your Fair Share

[LouderVol]

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.

like I said, legalese mumbo jumbo. just because its the government taxing us, vs an investment program, doesn't preclude it from being fraudulent. in fact that sounds like a Ponzi schemers wet dream. forcing people to pay in to the program via a tax doesn't make it ok on any level.

and you admitted its only "transparent" because you CAN see the numbers. not that they actually go out of their way to give you those numbers, or help anyone make sense of it. heck the government is going out of its way to bury the lead on the money problems in SS. and the people in washington who do know the problem don't have any real solution but to take more money to cover the current short fall. which is exactly what a ponzi scheme is.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

like I said, legalese mumbo jumbo. just because its the government taxing us, vs an investment program, doesn't preclude it from being fraudulent. in fact that sounds like a Ponzi schemers wet dream. forcing people to pay in to the program via a tax doesn't make it ok on any level.

and you admitted its only "transparent" because you CAN see the numbers. not that they actually go out of their way to give you those numbers, or help anyone make sense of it. heck the government is going out of its way to bury the lead on the money problems in SS. and the people in washington who do know the problem don't have any real solution but to take more money to cover the current short fall. which is exactly what a ponzi scheme is.

You couldn’t be more wrong. SS is not an investment. It’s not a non-existent entity. There hasn’t been anybody arrested for committing a Ponzi fraud.

You can be mad. It’s a government program designed to be supported by taxing wages and it’s currently experiencing annual deficits. Converting it to a defined contribution plan, as you’ve advocated, would make the annual shortages worse.

 

[LouderVol]

You couldn’t be more wrong. SS is not an investment. It’s not a non-existent entity. There hasn’t been anybody arrested for committing a Ponzi fraud.

You can be mad. It’s a government program designed to be supported by taxing wages and it’s currently experiencing annual deficits. Converting it to a defined contribution plan, as you’ve advocated, would make the annual shortages worse.

how? have a link doing some math? Because I did some very simple math in one of these threads, where my proposal would end up providing 2x or 3x more than my total SS contribution. but on only half the SS tax. Compounding interest is always going to be the better option than pure dollars saved, its why 401ks are a thing.

I didn't say SS was an investment. I even said "the government taxings us, VS an investment program". as I said earlier, it walks like a Ponzi scheme, talks like a Ponzi scheme, acts like a Ponzi scheme. to me that means its a Ponzi scheme, to you it can't be a Ponzi scheme simply because its the government is doing it. as if the government is somehow immune to doing wrong.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

how? have a link doing some math? Because I did some very simple math in one of these threads, where my proposal would end up providing 2x or 3x more than my total SS contribution. but on only half the SS tax. Compounding interest is always going to be the better option than pure dollars saved, its why 401ks are a thing.

I didn't say SS was an investment. I even said "the government taxings us, VS an investment program". as I said earlier, it walks like a Ponzi scheme, talks like a Ponzi scheme, acts like a Ponzi scheme. to me that means its a Ponzi scheme, to you it can't be a Ponzi scheme simply because its the government is doing it. as if the government is somehow immune to doing wrong.

It’s simple math. You remove from the equation EVERYBODY that pays more in than they receive in benefits and there’s a decrease in program tax revenues without a comparable decrease in expenditures.

Stop making this **** up:

to you it can't be a Ponzi scheme simply because its the government is doing it. as if the government is somehow immune to doing wrong.

I never said that. Stop lying.

 

[LouderVol]

It’s simple math. You remove from the equation EVERYBODY that pays more in than they receive in benefits and there’s a decrease in program tax revenues without a comparable decrease in expenditures.

Stop making this **** up:

I never said that. Stop lying.

yes, that was one of my points. the "contributors" keep their 6.2% to go into their own account. the employers 6.2% goes into the communal pot for the non-contributors. the contributors get no access to the communal pot.

heck I would even be open to adjusting it so it wasn't an even 6.2/6.2 split. I forget where the break even point is for the average contributor, but I would be fine with it being one percent higher than that, but no higher than 6.2%.

as I pointed out. my 12.4% will pay for something like 1.8 average separate SS draws for the average life expectancy.
putting my employers 6.2% into some type of investment program would yield something nearing 4 average separate SS draws for the average life expectancy. and that was on even pretty modest ROIs.

there is a well established reason people don't stick their retirement money into a bank account to draw bare bones interest. there are plenty of other vehicles that give a much better return. I think we should explore one of those and end the Ponzi scheme of SS. because at least in my world the contributors get back more than they put in, while still funding the social program aspect but ending the actual "social" aspect of it.

 

[LouderVol]

Stop making this **** up:

I never said that. Stop lying.

every time I bring it up you jump in with some legalese discussion that doesn't address the actual points. yes, technically you haven't said that the government can't do wrong, but you have defended them every single time like they are innocent. you don't contribute to the actual discussion, and have lashed out with personal attacks instead of engaging in actual discussion which would have avoided any threat of "lying".

you need to engage with simple words to the actual points I am making instead of cherry picking different points.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

every time I bring it up you jump in with some legalese discussion that doesn't address the actual points. yes, technically you haven't said that the government can't do wrong, but you have defended them every single time like they are innocent. you don't contribute to the actual discussion, and have lashed out with personal attacks instead of engaging in actual discussion which would have avoided any threat of "lying".

you need to engage with simple words to the actual points I am making instead of cherry picking different points.

Ironic.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

yes, that was one of my points. the "contributors" keep their 6.2% to go into their own account. the employers 6.2% goes into the communal pot for the non-contributors. the contributors get no access to the communal pot.

heck I would even be open to adjusting it so it wasn't an even 6.2/6.2 split. I forget where the break even point is for the average contributor, but I would be fine with it being one percent higher than that, but no higher than 6.2%.

as I pointed out. my 12.4% will pay for something like 1.8 average separate SS draws for the average life expectancy.
putting my employers 6.2% into some type of investment program would yield something nearing 4 average separate SS draws for the average life expectancy. and that was on even pretty modest ROIs.

there is a well established reason people don't stick their retirement money into a bank account to draw bare bones interest. there are plenty of other vehicles that give a much better return. I think we should explore one of those and end the Ponzi scheme of SS. because at least in my world the contributors get back more than they put in, while still funding the social program aspect but ending the actual "social" aspect of it.

You pull 50% of the tax revenue out of the largest social welfare program and think it will be solvent?

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

you haven't said that the government can't do wrong, but you have defended them every single time like they are innocent.

A dumb lie.

 

[LouderVol]

You pull 50% of the tax revenue out of the largest social welfare program and think it will be solvent?

No. I want SS to be dead. I want it completely out of the government's hands in some type of privately held 401k-esque situation. Have you been paying attention at all?

just because half of the contribution is removed, doesn't mean the total revenue is halved as well. again using math I have shown how my 50% in a non-SS system would contribute more than 100% of my contribution in SS. I don't see why that wouldn't uphold across the system at large, and you have offered nothing to counter it but disbelief. its the same math that works for an individual 401k, just at scale, with some accounts founded from a public pot of money.

it wouldn't even have to be an immediate switch. I could see some type of easing from SS into another program.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

No. I want SS to be dead. I want it completely out of the government's hands in some type of privately held 401k-esque situation. Have you been paying attention at all?

just because half of the contribution is removed, doesn't mean the total revenue is halved as well. again using math I have shown how my 50% in a non-SS system would contribute more than 100% of my contribution in SS. I don't see why that wouldn't uphold across the system at large, and you have offered nothing to counter it but disbelief. its the same math that works for an individual 401k, just at scale, with some accounts founded from a public pot of money.

it wouldn't even have to be an immediate switch. I could see some type of easing from SS into another program.

You still seem to be confused that Social Security is a social welfare program and not an investment/retirement program. You’ll never have an option to instead go with a defined contribution type of plan with your payroll taxes. That’s what 401(k)s and IRAs are for.

 

[LouderVol]

You still seem to be confused that Social Security is a social welfare program and not an investment/retirement program. You’ll never have an option to instead go with a defined contribution type of plan with your payroll taxes. That’s what 401(k)s and IRAs are for.

yes, I understand the people running the Ponzi scheme won't let it end. I have never said otherwise.

I want a better option, that at the very least improves the Ponzi scheme. if the government ACTUALLY cared about its people there are plenty of better ways to do it. they will never allow it, because most of those "better" ways are better because "they" aren't involved.

none of my proposals would negate the true private 401ks. this would just be A government mandated one. if it makes you feel better we can keep calling it a Social welfare program, we just change the way it works so that it is better for everyone.

i have never said that SS IS an investment program or a retirement program. I specifically stated that as one of the pieces of fraud by the government, because that is how it has been sold and understood by the public. which just goes back to it NOT being transparent, which just goes back to the government fraud, and my belief its a Ponzi scheme that no one will ever be punished for. except the users.

 

[utvolpj]

You still seem to be confused that Social Security is a social welfare program and not an investment/retirement program. You’ll never have an option to instead go with a defined contribution type of plan with your payroll taxes. That’s what 401(k)s and IRAs are for.

It actually is a social welfare program given that it will distributes funds (likely for life) to those who have contributed very little to nothing. You could argue it's not the main purpose but it absolutely is a function of ss

It should be ended as its simply govt mandated redistribution thru a ponzi scheme. We could call it a pyramid scheme if that feels better

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

yes, I understand the people running the Ponzi scheme won't let it end. I have never said otherwise.

I want a better option, that at the very least improves the Ponzi scheme. if the government ACTUALLY cared about its people there are plenty of better ways to do it. they will never allow it, because most of those "better" ways are better because "they" aren't involved.

none of my proposals would negate the true private 401ks. this would just be A government mandated one. if it makes you feel better we can keep calling it a Social welfare program, we just change the way it works so that it is better for everyone.

i have never said that SS IS an investment program or a retirement program. I specifically stated that as one of the pieces of fraud by the government, because that is how it has been sold and understood by the public. which just goes back to it NOT being transparent, which just goes back to the government fraud, and my belief its a Ponzi scheme that no one will ever be punished for. except the users.

It’s not a Ponzi scheme and it is transparent. Fraud is a crime and it’s not that either. It is in fact a social welfare program that has had recent deficits. There are also 2 trust funds that hold the accumulated surpluses. But if it makes you feel better to loudly call it things that it isn’t, enjoy your game.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

It actually is a social welfare program given that it will distributes funds (likely for life) to those who have contributed very little to nothing. You could argue it's not the main purpose but it absolutely is a function of ss

It’s the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program that we have in place as a society to assist millions of people. If you live long enough you will get rebates on some of the taxes that you paid into the program.

It’s how insurance works. Some get more out of the program than they pay in.

 

[utvolpj]

It’s the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program that we have in place as a society to assist millions of people. If you live long enough you will get rebates on some of the taxes that you paid into the program.

It’s how insurance works. Some get more out of the program than they pay in.

Ss is sold as retirement because that more palatable to the masses. Ask almost anyone to list its function and that will come out as #1. At its core it's simply a redistributive safety net for those who didn't save and paid for by current workers

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Ss is sold as retirement because that more palatable to the masses. Ask almost anyone to list its function and that will come out as #1. At its core it's simply a redistributive safety net for those who didn't save and paid for by current workers

It’s being sold as an anti-poverty social welfare program.

“Social Security has provided financial protection for our nation's people for over 80 years. Chances are, you either receive Social Security benefits or know someone who does. With retirement, disability, and survivors benefits, Social Security is one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in our nation's history.”

 

[utvolpj]

It’s being sold as an anti-poverty social welfare program.

“Social Security has provided financial protection for our nation's people for over 80 years. Chances are, you either receive Social Security benefits or know someone who does. With retirement, disability, and survivors benefits, Social Security is one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in our nation's history.”

Day whatever you want but the vast majority would list it as a retirement program. I'm guessing less than 1/3 would call it a war on poverty program

 

[LouderVol]

It’s not a Ponzi scheme and it is transparent. Fraud is a crime and it’s not that either. It is in fact a social welfare program that has had recent deficits. There are also 2 trust funds that hold the accumulated surpluses. But if it makes you feel better to loudly call it things that it isn’t, enjoy your game.

if a private individual or entity was running SS as it currently stands it would most certainly be fraud and a crime. the government giving itself carte blanche doesn't remove the troublesome nature of what they do.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Day whatever you want but the vast majority would list it as a retirement program. I'm guessing less than 1/3 would call it a war on poverty program

That’s their stated mission. I’m guessing less than 2/3 have the slightest idea of what it is.

I’m glad that they aren’t spending a significant portion of their annual budget on advertising.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

if a private individual or entity was running SS as it currently stands it would most certainly be fraud and a crime. the government giving itself carte blanche doesn't remove the troublesome nature of what they do.

Then I guess it’s really troublesome that providing enough for the poorest citizens to survive on.

What fraud? The trust funds aren’t speculating with the surplus balances. Distributions are transparent and clearly defined and set by Legislative. I’d reckon that there’s more theft from the defense, education, and Medicare lines of the overall budget.

 

[LouderVol]

Then I guess it’s really troublesome that providing enough for the poorest citizens to survive on.

What fraud? The trust funds aren’t speculating with the surplus balances. Distributions are transparent and clearly defined and set by Legislative. I’d reckon that there’s more theft from the defense, education, and Medicare lines of the overall budget.

its really troublesome because welfare is an addiction that cripples people just like any other addiction. once hooked it is almost impossible to break the cycle. the government uses that addiction to maintain the power and money going to them, while not actually helping anyone.

Seriously, who has it actually helped LIFT out of poverty to say its a good thing? Every government social welfare program has only INCREASED the number of dependents who have been crippled by dependency on the government.

the mob also distributed money it stole to the poor. doesn't make the least sleazy part of the mafia acceptable.

the fraud is how its sold and marketed. as PJ pointed out, too 99% of the population of the US its a retirement fund. you have said yourself, it isn't that. when sooo much of the population believes one thing, while its actually another, there is some fraud there. its fraud because its sold that you get "your" money back, while in reality it relies on stealing from the kids to pay for the parents.

I also think its criminal that automatic withholdings are a thing. that convinces people they aren't nearly as taxed as they are, which comes across as more fraud to me. but yes yes the government can give itself the power so that makes it "legal".

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

its really troublesome because welfare is an addiction that cripples people just like any other addiction. once hooked it is almost impossible to break the cycle. the government uses that addiction to maintain the power and money going to them, while not actually helping anyone.

Seriously, who has it actually helped LIFT out of poverty to say its a good thing? Every government social welfare program has only INCREASED the number of dependents who have been crippled by dependency on the government.

the mob also distributed money it stole to the poor. doesn't make the least sleazy part of the mafia acceptable.

the fraud is how its sold and marketed. as PJ pointed out, too 99% of the population of the US its a retirement fund. you have said yourself, it isn't that. when sooo much of the population believes one thing, while its actually another, there is some fraud there. its fraud because its sold that you get "your" money back, while in reality it relies on stealing from the kids to pay for the parents.

I also think its criminal that automatic withholdings are a thing. that convinces people they aren't nearly as taxed as they are, which comes across as more fraud to me. but yes yes the government can give itself the power so that makes it "legal".

I agree with some of this, but I’m not aware of the government selling it as “you’re getting your money back”.

It’s multiple things, but primarily a guaranteed income for the aged and disabled. I’d rather see the welfare like pieces come out of the general fund. I don’t know why that burden is exclusively on salary/wage earners and their employers. Maybe because the majority of tax revenues come from individuals.

I’d also like to see welfare mothers not be incentivized to squeeze out more and more kids and get bigger and bigger government checks for doing that. You can’t blame the kids, but at some point maybe the mothers should be deemed to be unfit to raise children and instead of giving them more government cheese they lose their kids.

 

[Godfatha]

Taxation is a form of slavery where the government owns you and whatever you earn.

 

[Sandman 423]

Taxation is a form of slavery where the government owns you and whatever you earn.

Can't forget paying rent on property you "own" lest it be taken back.