Re: OT (yeah, right!): Politics

Page 11 of 14  


So the kid I went to high school with, whose mother had died, was lying when he said he was getting social security payments? Wasn't disabled in any way that was evident in years of knowing him.

Doesn't apply.

That, however, does apply mutually. But please answer my question.
Dave Hinz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(or father) had sufficient quarters to qualify. And he stopped getting it at 18 or 21 or whenever he finished school, I forget which.
I do know about that because we raised my brother-in-law who was about 10 when his parents died. We had to keep extensive records to prove that what we got from SS for him was spent on him. It's been a long time, but I remember those payments as being very small.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard responds:

18 if not in school, 21 if. It ends when school stops in any case.
Probably easier to let the orphans starve.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who said anything about orphan? He was living with his (professionally employed) father in a nice neighborhood.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And yet, he is a case of someone who didn't pay a dime into the system, who was by all appearances rather well off, who was getting the money that is _supposed to_ be going for people who have contributed. Hence my use as an example. How many other "oh by the way, I forgot" situations are there, I wonder?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually a worse case than that: My brother had a friend getting social security until he was 18 (or 21 if he went to college) because both his parents were over 65. Don't know if that rule is still in effect or not, this was about 25 years ago. Father was still employed BTW at the time and had not yet retired.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If SS was being used for the stated purpose, fine, OK, it's reasonable but it's these "Oh by the way" cases where people who haven't paid in are taking out that I object to. A lot. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that anyone getting government money (employee of, or handout recipient) should be able to pass a drug test, to show that my tax money isn't going to support someone's destructive habit - if they can afford to buy drugs with that money, they're obviously not the people who should be getting it. (Dave pulls on Nomex)
Dave Hinz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:
<SNIP>

No - an _HONEST_ point of view. I do not like theft of any kind. I don't engage in theft personally and I oppose people using government to do their thieving for them. You want to support good causes then go right ahead - voluntarily not at the point of someone's gun. That's how I do it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


And what is the average retirement age? (Maybe 65?)
What is the average life expectancey (Maybe 74?)

And that is a big part of the problem. Had the Governmnet invested it prooperly (a PROPERLY managed student loan program is just one possiblity) we'd not be having this discussion.

I think that is close to the 'official figure' but the official figure only credits the typical pensioner with half (the deduction) of their contribution and does not credit them with the employer's matching contribution.

Except for:
1) Those who don't invest in it
and
2) Those whose pension plans have been looted, often with approval by the government regulators (e.g. Jones & Laughlin)
Without forced (e.g. socialist) participation in a retirement program we will have large numbers of people with no post-retirement income?
What do you propose be done about them? Soylent Green?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote: <SNIP>

I propose nothing for them. They are responsible for themselves. I strenuously object to being forced to participate in a system wherein I have to support people like this who cannot be bothered to plan for their future. To add insult to injury, that system doesn't even work well or efficiently...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
<SNIP>

Had the government invested it *AT ALL* we'd be better off. SS money more or less goes into the general fund. It is not "invested" in any real sense. SS resembles a Ponzi Scheme in this regard - today's "investors" are paying off yesterday's

Look again - my calculation was done at the maximum level of contribution - 7.5% each for the employee and employer regardless of income level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Uh no. LBJ invested a lot of in in Vietnam, for example.

According to my uncle, prior to LBJ SS funds were accounted seperately from the General Fund. It was under LBJ that the SS fund was merged into the General Fund.

You look again. Your calculation is not official. The official statements *I* receive from SSA do not give me credit for the contribution made by my employers.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Approximately. We can agree to so stipulate.

As I cited in another post, the average life expectancy of a U.S. 65-year-old in 2000 is an additional 17.9 years.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com says...

into the system for 30 years or so. And their 30s and 40s.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in message (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

If you are going to use the life expectance of someone who already made it to age 65, you need to account for contributions into the SS fund by those who died prior collecting, right?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Example: the life expectancy of a 40-year-old in 2000 was 38.9 [additional] years.
At *no* stage in life does an American alive in 2000 have a total life expectancy of less than 77.4 years.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Or even $10K? You're right - you did an overly simplistic analysis
And if you get rid of forced savings, what are you going to do about all the people who will choose to feed their kids instead of saving? Let them starve when they retire?
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

1) In a sane, non-coercive economy there is still plenty of room for voluntary charity. Even with the villanous system in place today, Americans are remarkable charitable in the private sector as well.
2) Why should I have to involuntarily underwrite people who have more children than they can reasonably afford? It is their choice to do so and thus _their_ responsibility. In the case of my immigrant grandparents (who had more children than "they could afford") the assumption (a good one as it turns out) was that _their children_ were their retirement safety net. This may be a novel idea for you, but there was a time when it was presumed that people were responsible for the consequences of their choices and it was not government's job to bail out the bad choices all the time.
3) "What About Those Poor Children (tm)" is the argument of last resort for pretty much all lost arguments and irrational positions. It plays well because almost no one wants to see children suffer. It is right up there with "If It Saves Just One Life (tm)" and "It Is The Right/Compassionate/Moral Thing To Do (tm)" arguments in proceeding from a false premise to a horrible invasion of Liberty.
One More Time: Good intentions cannot morally justify theft or force no matter how decent the person holding them may be or how good the intended results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The same reason all taxpayers involuntarily underwrite all governmnet activites.
You go to jail if you do not, that's why. I'll agree that sucks but think the alternative, anarchy, would suck worse.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Well sure, that is the reality of how things work today. But the whole point of having any political discussion is to see if we can do better. We can and we must or we will be doomed ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.