Conservatives and their supporters want the money. Either skimmed through commissions on private accounts or through diverting the decommitted funds directed to conservative constituencies. Could be industry tax cuts or gov't contracts. Professional conservatives don't want smaller government, they want the trough to themselves. The entire W presidency was about exactly this. Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
Nonsense. (Early in & out) people in Bernie Madoff's scheme thought the same thing. ITS THE SAME THING. Business's would go to jail for setting up such a system. You're just transferring future costs to your kids... who will be left like Bernie's victims. Look at Greece where people retire at 50 & now wonder why there's not enough money to pay them what they were promised. Why not set up a proper insurance program that's built on proper legal financial principles? Wonkster was correct on basic economics. We're frickin' doomed.
SS has absolutely paid for itself, and will continue to pay for itself with proper management. The idea that it is a ponzi scheme is ridiculous.
Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too.. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only 30K over your working life, that’s close to $220,500. If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working (me) you’d have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years, and that’s with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you’d have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever had.
It's not a Ponzi scheme. It simply transfers the interest income that would be earned in a 401K to subsidize the previous generations and the poor. There's a calculator here. Expect a 1% to 2% return http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/08/updated-approximating-social-securitys.html
Social Security of 12.4% on $30,000 is $3.720 yearly. A 2% return is $267, 440 after 45 years (age 67). With a life expectancy of 15 years (82) and a 2% return that would be $1605 a month for 15 years.
Nothing to cut?! The Obama stimulus is still part of the baseline budget and it increased federal spending by 24%. You could start by cutting that entirely. Thats a solid TRILLION.
Was this posted from your Occupy tent ? Good lord. Buy the liberal talking points hook, line, and sinker much ?
You don't understand what a baseline budget is. The stimulus (mostly tax cuts btw) was a one time expenditure. Most economists agreed it was necessary, even if it could have been applied better. It is exactly the kind of spending Reagan was referring to when he said deficits don't matter. Wars are not part of the baseline budget either. Both need to be paid for with short term revenue increases. Our politics will not allow for logical policy. Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
Exactly. Inflation is the direct result of government printing money today, and causing individuals wealth (saved money & it's buying power) to disappear in the future. It's the result of politicians today, making future voters pay (far more than they deserve) for today's fiscal irresponsibility. Sorry, so did Maddof's system... until the math caught up with it. You simply can't fool mother nature. Most people, even those in the bottom half of intelligence, have enough common sense to realize this simple truth. Technically it's not fully a Ponzi scheme... but the end result is just as certain. And it's worse in the aspect that the government FORCES you to buy into it, unlike Maddof's crooked scheme. The money was never set aside as in a (proper, legal insurance or pension system); it was spent & replaced with IOU's. (1) What happens when the US economy goes off the cliff and future borrowing costs are unsustainable? (2) In the 1930's, 17 workers supported each recipient. It's now at 3 to 1, and headed to 2 to 1. With a growing tax burden... growing spending... growing debt & the cost/burden of borrowing... increasing inflation with it's resultant growing costs of goods & services.... and our general shaky economic future... how in the world can anyone make sense of that worsening (2 to 1) reality? (3) And remember... as an entitlement program, Congress can change the rules regarding benefit eligibility at any time... and they will... because you can't change the math. Let free markets work! Let them deal with such matters and get government out. Fire insurance, car insurance, life insurance, IRAs & investment instruments... all work. And they don't have the liabilities, costs, & uncertainties that (corrupted) government schemes (always) do.
The calculator assumes that wages would be inflation neutral and keep up with inflation and that the COLA for benefits would be the same. Not always a safe assumption I know. Based on that model there's a 1 to 2% return for present day contributors based on today's rules. We both know that such rules are lucky to last one generation (20 years) and never last 2 generations (40 years). 40 years ago we had cradle-to-grave employment and Michael Moore would be filming "Flint Michigan--the city where US hopes and dreams are fulfilled". Closing to "Roger and Me" 1989 "As we neared the end of the 20th century", as the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, it was truly the dawn of a new era. This film cannot be shown within the city of Flint. All the movie theatres have closed."
"Free markets" only function properly when there are competitive markets. "Competitive" means that there are enough firms in an industry that none of them is able to control the market; each is at the mercy of the market as to the quality and prices of thier products, and as to the wages they pay. Now try to think of a single major industry in the U.S. in which that is the situation. Without exception, every major industry is an oligopoly, with a very few firms controlling the overwhelming majority of the market. Oligopolistic markets do not work efficiently. They produce higher prices and lower output than would be the case with competition (lower wages, too). To view the economy of the U.S. as essentially "competitive", is unrealistic to the max. Big corporations want decreased government regs, not to increase "competition", but to increase their ability to use their monopoly power to suck profits out of the economy at the expense of consumers. "Rivalry" is not the same thing at all as "competition".
You have a slightly distorted view of markets & capitalism. You're blaming corporations instead of the government. Big corporations don't want decreased regs... they want their own regs. Government's sole role is (supposed to be) to make & enforce (commercial) law. But they now go beyond that & produce markets that aren't free. You're correct that business will try to get competitive edges over competition. But the size & amount of competition has NOTHING to do with things like prices or wages. (The huge) Standard oil lowered the prices of petroleum products for people... dramatically. Much more & much faster than if there were 50 small companies. McDonalds does much the same thing with fast food... think prices (of other food places) would go down if McDonalds disappeared tomorrow? The size of any corporation has nothing to do with "fairness"... that's a marxist distortion (propaganda) of true capitalistic forces. And it (that marxist view) then requires government interference with free markets (with it's proven resultant misery). Business can only get a (non-free market) advantage by using (the power of) government. And they do it (all too much) through regulations (law). Subsidies for the sugar industries cost consumers billions in costs for our food. That's anti-free market, under the guise of protectionism. And it's only possible with government. Drug companies get regulations (passed) that make it too costly for competitors to get into the game. And so do other sectors. Government & Unions do the same thing with no-bid contracts & procedures (laws) that also limit (shut out) competition. Full blown Monopolies can ONLY happen with government (collusion). (the Railroads of the late 1800's). Without government (help), natural monopolies will NOT hurt consumers. They will produce lower prices, higher quality, or they will fail, or they will be replaced by other competition. Only government can eliminate competition (in a free market). That's essentially the definition.
