America's Highly Progressive Federal Tax System
Warren Buffett made this claim in an August 2011 NY Times article titled "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich":
The chart above shows the average tax rates paid by income quintiles (and the top 1%) in 2009 for all federal taxes (income, social insurance, corporate and excise taxes), according to new data from the CBO. Here are some comments:
1. Warren Buffett's tax situation is not typical for "wealthy" taxpayers, because the average tax rate for those in the top quintile is more than 23% compared to Buffett's 17.4% rate. As has been documented, Buffett's lower-than-average tax rate is because he receives most of his taxable income as dividends (which have been taxed previously at the corporate level) and capital gains - taxed at only 15% - and not as ordinary income, which would be taxed as high as 35%. He may also receive income from tax-exempt municipal bonds.
2. More importantly, it seems highly unlikely that Buffett's secretary and other co-workers are paying effective federal tax rates of 33-41%. It's important to note that Buffett has only mentioned federal income taxes and payroll taxes, and not state income taxes, and has specifically reported his 17.4% rate on only federal taxes. Given the tax data in the chart above, it's either the case that: a) Buffett's assessment of his co-workers' tax data is inaccurate, or b) all of his office workers faced extremely unusual tax situations last year, which are not at all representative of the taxes paid by typical Americans.
3. Our federal tax system is highly progressive on average - higher income groups pay higher rates of federal taxes even when including payroll taxes - in general and on average. Buffett's suggestion and anecdotal "evidence" that the federal tax system is regressive in at least some cases (his secretary and lower-paid employees pay a higher federal tax rate than he does) is not typical, but can only be considered as special cases of extreme outliers, both for him and his employees.
"Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as
payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds
like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4% of my taxable
income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of
the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33% to 41% and averaged 36%."
The chart above shows the average tax rates paid by income quintiles (and the top 1%) in 2009 for all federal taxes (income, social insurance, corporate and excise taxes), according to new data from the CBO. Here are some comments:
1. Warren Buffett's tax situation is not typical for "wealthy" taxpayers, because the average tax rate for those in the top quintile is more than 23% compared to Buffett's 17.4% rate. As has been documented, Buffett's lower-than-average tax rate is because he receives most of his taxable income as dividends (which have been taxed previously at the corporate level) and capital gains - taxed at only 15% - and not as ordinary income, which would be taxed as high as 35%. He may also receive income from tax-exempt municipal bonds.
2. More importantly, it seems highly unlikely that Buffett's secretary and other co-workers are paying effective federal tax rates of 33-41%. It's important to note that Buffett has only mentioned federal income taxes and payroll taxes, and not state income taxes, and has specifically reported his 17.4% rate on only federal taxes. Given the tax data in the chart above, it's either the case that: a) Buffett's assessment of his co-workers' tax data is inaccurate, or b) all of his office workers faced extremely unusual tax situations last year, which are not at all representative of the taxes paid by typical Americans.
3. Our federal tax system is highly progressive on average - higher income groups pay higher rates of federal taxes even when including payroll taxes - in general and on average. Buffett's suggestion and anecdotal "evidence" that the federal tax system is regressive in at least some cases (his secretary and lower-paid employees pay a higher federal tax rate than he does) is not typical, but can only be considered as special cases of extreme outliers, both for him and his employees.
209 Comments:
Stop mentioning facts, Mark. Dear leader is trying to win reelection.
Read Mankiw's recent posts where he shows the rates when you take payments minus benefits from transfer payments. The net results is a far more progressive system, with the bottom quintile receiving 3 dollars in benefits for every dollar earned.
Why use taxable income as a benchmark?
AGI is a much better measure (or total compensation including health insurance and retirement benefits) to compare.
According to IRS stats and my really shitty analysis
These loopholes that the rich get to use lower their taxable income about 12% from AGI, but that pales in comparison to the loopholes used by the commoners like myself. The available IRS data doesn't account for the impact on AGI that employer sponsored health and retirement plans have on AGI for most people.
Note that Buffett never actually releases the numbers for how much he or his workers are making. I bet it's something like he pulled in $100 million in capital gains, taxed at 15% for a total of $6 million, plus a couple hundred thousand for everything else, which doesn't raise the percentage much to 17%. Here's the critical part: his office co-workers likely pull in $100-200k/year and so pay about 20% in federal income tax, plus social security (12% if you include employer contribution) and other state and local taxes pushes it up to the mid-30s percentage. He then uses his secretary, likely making $70-100k, as a token front for this group, when most of his co-workers are making much more than her and are hardly in her income class. Classic bait-and-switch: make it seem like all the "secretaries" are paying 30-40% when most are higher-ups making much more and the only reason his rates are so low is that he is the most successful long-term investor of his generation, with long-term capital gains tax of 15%. The fact that Buffett tries to hoodwink the country with such math shows what a political hack he's become.
Google Trend for "income tax refund" is steadily up beginning in 2009.
The Middle Class, or middle quintile now gets more back from the feds than what is collected from them...
"That is, the middle class, having long been a net contributor to the funding of government, is now a net recipient of government largess."
Well moneyjihad you have to understand where Dear Leader is coming from...
Courtesy of Zero Hedge: President Obama: "If You've Got A Business - You Didn't Build That. Somebody Else Made That Happen"...
The only point Warren really has is that it is stupid to treat a capital gain from the sale of an asset after 366 days differently than the sale of the same asset after 365 days.
Of course, he won't actually come out and say that. Nor will he ever have to pay on the bulk of his capital gains because he is going to donate it because he knows it will be used better than if he donated it to the government.
Not to mention Buffett is talking about raising taxes on people like him which is different than raising taxes everyone making $250K+
people will argue about the progressive tax system and other vagaries of tax policy but when will we decide how to balance the budget and pay down the debt?
I see the continuing arguing about who pays what and why as basically avoiding getting to a point where we actually see a list of what to cut.
Or to put it another way - how much debate would we have on this if we had no deficit and no debt?
It would be interesting to know which "income" number that graph uses. I suspect it is based on salaries and ignores capital gains.
The dirty little secret of the federal income tax system is that they top money makers, like Warren Buffet move most of their actual income into long term capital gains and pay a flat 20% on it. Only a very small portion of their income is taxed at the higher rate.
Graphs like this usually don't include capital gains and go based on AGI taxed on the conventional sliding scale.
Frankly, one of the best things to do would be to start taxing coroproations the way we tax people. US citizens are taxed on their income no matter where in the world they earn or keep said income. Corporations that do business in the US should face the same requirements.
Owen, you have no idea what you are talking about.:
The dirty little secret of the federal income tax system is that they top money makers, like Warren Buffet move most of their actual income into long term capital gains and pay a flat 20% on it. Only a very small portion of their income is taxed at the higher rate.
The tax rate on Long Term Capital Gains and Qualified Dividends is 15%. In 2009 there were just over 8000 people with AGI over $10M as a group they paid a 35% tax rate on about 52% of their income and pay the 15% LT Cap Gains rate on 33% of their income. Don't Believe me? Check the IRS numbers yourself.
Graphs like this usually don't include capital gains and go based on AGI taxed on the conventional sliding scale.
AGI includes Capital Gains. Obviously you have never looked at or calculated your own taxes. Otherwise you would know that this is on your 1040 clear as day.
Thanks for playing.
@ Owen DeLong
You complain about how the rich aren't paying enough taxes. What right do you have to their productivity in the first place? Before we start talking about the data (which clearly shows that the tax system is highly "progressive" - I hate that term btw) you need to demonstrate why the government should be taking money from those who earned it and giving it to you. What claim do you have on it? Provide a moral basis for your demands please.
@ Owen DeLong
The dirty little secret of the federal income tax system is that they top money makers, like Warren Buffet move most of their actual income into long term capital gains and pay a flat 20% on it. Only a very small portion of their income is taxed at the higher rate.
I get the feeling from reading your post that you don't think a 20% tax on capital gains is high enough (I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so please clarify if I am misreading you).
But, I have to ask 'why should capital gains be taxed at all'? One has already been taxed when the income is earned. Then if one has the ability to save and invest, boosting the captial base and allowing for capital formation in the country, they are penalized in the event that they are successful. Why should they be penalized? Capital investment is what builds strong economies, under which 'normal' people benefit as well. Why should this be penalized? When one saves & invests one is actually providing a service for society, this should be encouraged.
@TradetheLeaders,
The tax burden wouldn't be that bad if the main role of the Federal Government wasn't to take money from young middle class workers and give it to old middle class retirees (or not so old "disabled" - I recently read that the disability portion of SS is approaching $250B/year) I'm not even talking about the part of the budget which is paying people to do various things, which many will argue is waste of money.
How much of the federal budget is taking money from one group of people and giving it to another simply because the other exists.
There are some functions for government which were outlined in the Constitution. Maybe you think they are not required either, but (to me at least) they are more "legitimate" reasons for taxes than running the Nanny State.
@ Itchy
"taking money from some people and giving it to others"
This refers to the welfare state. But I am also refering to Social Security (in case it wasn't already obvious), corporate welfare, and essentially all government action in the private sector. All interferences in the private sector result in changed incentives and disrupt the normal action of a free market and cause money to be spent in ways that would not otherwise have been necessary.
If the role of government was limited to 1) Providing a police force 2) Providing a court system and 3) Providing a military and possibly a very small welfare state do those born with certain disabilities then the tax burden would be minimal.
If you'd like some fun, ask someone who complains about the rich not paying their "fair share" of income taxes, what percentage of total Federal income taxes the Top 1% SHOULD bear. I've done this at least 30 times. I've never once gotten an answer that was above the actual current number, which is 40%.
Oh, I meant Social Security too.
I'm 32, I've paid and hated it since my very 1st paycheck. I'm sure during the rest of my working years I'll be asked to contribute more and wait longer to collect. When that day arrives, I'll be told sorry not enough money, you saved for your retirement so our new means testing dictates that you don't get any.
They can keep my employer's 6.2% to pay current and near retires, just let me opt out and give me my 6.2%.
"How much of the federal budget is taking money from one group of people and giving it to another simply because the other exists"...
Well itchy it seems like 60+% goes towards the federal government wealth transfer scams...
From the Independent Institute: Government Co$t Calculastor
I recently read that the disability portion of SS is approaching $250B/year
Try $128 billion in fiscal 2011. Thanks for playing.
Table 11.3
I recently read that the disability portion of SS is approaching $250B/year
Try $128 billion in fiscal 2011. Thanks for playing.
I was wrong about $200 Billion
The author includes the Medicare expense for people on disability, but uses two different numbers $59B and $69B for 2009 and 2010. I have no idea where he found those numbers.
Thanks for pointing out my error and making me find the paper again.
Sprewell says: "Note that Buffett never actually releases the numbers for how much he or his workers are making..."
Whenever politicians help the poor, the middle class is hurt the most, not the rich.
It would be interesting to know which "income" number that graph uses.
If you check out the link, you'll see it includes all income such as:
-Labor income
-Business income
-capital gains
-capital income
(excluding capital gains)
-income received in retirement for past services
-other sources of income.
-Cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other
government assistance programs.
A couple of links for you.
"Is Warren Buffett Paying His 'Fair Share'?"
http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-warren-buffet-paying-his-fair-share.html
CHART: Average Effective Tax Rate by Taxpaying Population
http://www.twitpic.com/8o8avd/full
CHART: Average Effective Tax Rate by Adjusted Gross Income (AGI)
http://www.twitpic.com/7hkke9/full
CHART: Share of Total Taxes vs. Share of Total Income
http://www.twitpic.com/71yhky/full
And don't forget about the truck-sized holes in the current tax system.
"Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits"
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201141061fr.html
"Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States" = illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants
All of what mark says is true, but it is all anecdotal. The tax code at present is not nearly progressive enough.
The last round of social security fixes would have been enough,except for the fact that income at the very top increased much faster than expected, with the result that many more people exceeded the maximum SSliability and stopped paying.
Nearly one third of workers will ne disabled at some time on their career. If it has not happened to you yet, count your blessings.
I am certain you would be much happier working, even a grunt job, tan you would be lying in bed groaning while cashing That "free" social security check.
Sequel by the Creek stated:
"Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits"
That is correct but also...
"In 2010, the IRS owed undocumented workers more in claimed additional child tax credits than it collected from those workers in taxes.
and an investigation...
"...has found many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico."
"All of what mark says is true, but it is all anecdotal. The tax code at present is not nearly progressive enough."-Hydra
LOL! Nearly 50% have 0 Federal tax liability and the top 1% pay what?
Owen and Hydra,
Yeah, not progressive enough! Ha!
The top 400 income earners pay almost as much taxes as the entire bottom 50% with an average rate of 19.8%. The bottom 50% has an average rate of 1.94%.
Get a fucking clue.
Not authorized to work?
How big a government do you want?
That is because the entire bottom 50% has virtually no money.
Especially compared to the top 400.
At what point do you decide to change the ratios? When you take 50% of all That the bottom half has, bandit still adds up to less than 10% of what the top 400 have?
Get a fucking clue. Try raising a family of three on $28,000 a year and save for retirement, plus your health savings account.
Do we have excess spending? Of course. After we cut all of that, the tax code is still not progressive enough,given the current situation.
The mere fact you mention that the top 400 pays more than the bottom 50% (can afford to pay) points out exactly the problem.
hydra says: "At what point do you decide to change the ratios? When you take 50% of all That the bottom half has, bandit still adds up to less than 10% of what the top 400 have?"...
What's your point? An attempt to rationalize the use government to steal for the bottom 50%?
Why should someone making $250K/year pay even one more penny in taxes than someone making $25K per year?
They have no tax liability because they have nothing to pay with. I know, because I have done some of their tax returns and I know how they live.
You are talking about people 90 years old who get 9000 a year from ss.
How much would you have them pay?
"You are talking about people 90 years old who get 9000 a year from ss.
How much would you have them pay?"...
Every penny they own hydra...
After all you're talking about the fools that embraced the socialist crapola in the first place...
Why should they pay more? Because the others have nothing to pay with.
Because that Guy making $250 k has a lot more to protect.
If for no other reason, because he has a lot farther to fall.
I just watched a friend file for bankruptcy. He was not in the $250 category, but well over $100k. He simply got crushed by a combination of circumstances.
He had two sets of parents in trouble and three children who just finished college. To be sure, he made choices I would not have. But you tell me, how do you fault a Guy who gave too much support to his family, and then took a sudden job setback?
He was wiped out in a matter of months. If he had been in the $25k category, it would have been a matter of weeks.
.
After you take every penny they own, then what? Where will you get the next penny?
I presume it will come from people richer than them.
Actually, I am nottalling about those that bought into the socialist crapola.
I am talking about good hardworking people who despite their best efforts, found themselves in a a situation where that socialist crapola was all they had.
It could happen to you tomorrow.
@Hydra
Your posts suggest a misunderstanding about capitalism. You constantly say something like "but the bottom x% only have a small amount of money therefore they have less tax liability"..
This is true. They don't have much money. What you miss is that capitalism is NOT a fixed pie. There is not a fixed amount of wealth in society. It's NOT like there is $1M in capital and if I have $500k then everyone else has a maximum of $500k combined. The pie is always expanding. That is what innovators & entrepreneurs do. That's why the top 1% is wealthy, because they are expanding the pie by creating more wealth. The bottom x% ought to do the same NO ONE IS HOLDING THEM BACK.
"Get a fucking clue. Try raising a family of three on $28,000 a year and save for retirement, plus your health savings account."
a) Don't be a dumbass and have 3 kids if you only make $28 k a yr.
b) suck it up like people used to and get a 2nd job. Or move to N Dakota.
c)Don't vote for economy killers like Obama. You might get a job from a small businessman who would otherwise be in Obama's tax and regulatory crosshairs.
"I presume it will come from people richer than them."
I vote they take it from you and see how you enjoy it.
Juandos is on record as claiming that the tax rate for 90 year holds subsisting on a pension should be 100%.
So much for his arguments I'm favor of minimum government interference.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ydra,
That is because the entire bottom 50% has virtually no money.
$1,500,000,000,000 is "virtually no money"? You're an idiot.
you take 50% of all That the bottom half has
What are you talking about? Do you just randomly make shit up on the fly, then act as if it's reality?
Try raising a family of three on $28,000 a year and save for retirement, plus your health savings account.
You mean like all American families did for most of American history? $28K/year is far more than the average American has made over the last 200 years, yet somehow they all had fairly decent lives.
How about acting like a fucking adult and take responsibility for your own life? If you can't get by on $28K/year because you're an irresponsible schlub, DON'T HAVE THREE FUCKING KIDS!! Get better skills, show up to work, and you can actually make a LOT MORE money.
The median wages for a high school drop out working full time is $27K/year. You know what that means? Almost everyone making $28K/year or less doesn't work full time and doesn't have a whole lot of skills. If you're not willing to work full time and develop some skills, don't expect everyone else to pick up the slack for you ineptitude.
After we cut all of that, the tax code is still not progressive enough,given the current situation.
How progressive should it be? On what moral or economic basis do you justify the progressiveness you want?
The mere fact you mention that the top 400 pays more than the bottom 50% (can afford to pay) points out exactly the problem.
You got that right, the problem is that the bottom 50% are not paying their fair share. There total income is 1200% that of the richest 400, but they pay only 21% more in total taxes.
You are talking about people 90 years old who get 9000 a year from ss.
In 90 years, this person was completely unable to save and plan properly for his life, being the richest people in the richest country to ever exist, and you expect me to have sympathy for this complete slack ass? Hysterical.
And you act like SS isn't part of the problem, making it harder for people to save and invest in their own future, when the government pisses away 13% of every working American's pay check.
Why should they pay more? Because the others have nothing to pay with.
Poppycock. All Americans have enough to live more comfortably than 95% of humanity and you're claiming they "nothing to pay with"? This is simply reflective of your complete lack of perspective.
He had two sets of parents in trouble and three children who just finished college.
So his parents are complete fuck ups for not planning their retirement properly and now he fucked up by going into hock by buying a totally overpriced "education" for his three children, instead of teaching his kids how to stand on their own two feet and provide themselves as adults, and now he's everyone else's problem? Your friends "problems" are self inflicted wounds, not random circumstances that could not be avoided.
how do you fault a Guy who gave too much support to his family
Easy. You don't help anyone else out by becoming a victim and a burden yourself. You said it right when you said "too much support". There is such a thing.
Hint to your friend: live within your means.
"I presume it will come from people richer than them"...
What a silly presumption hydra...
Let the next set of clowns who want to be showered with socialist largesse pay for it all up front first...
"I am talking about good hardworking people who despite their best efforts, found themselves in a a situation where that socialist crapola was all they had"...
Well hydra if you feel so compassionate about these 'down on their luck but screwed despite their supposedly best efforts" I think you should step forward and volunteer to take them all in....
Put your money where your compassion is...
"It could happen to you tomorrow"...
Yeah but so what hydra? Does that supposedly give me license to steal someone else's money to mitigate my poor life choices?
"Juandos is on record as claiming that the tax rate for 90 year holds subsisting on a pension should be 100%"...
Don't you really mean that its time for that parasite to pay for the government promised free lunch the fool was dumb enough to believe existed hydra?
"So much for his arguments I'm favor of minimum government interference"...
An absolutely illogical statement hydra...
It makes no sense at all...
Itchy: Why use taxable income as a benchmark? AGI is a much better measure (or total compensation including health insurance and retirement benefits) to compare.
AGI is the usual and reasonable measure.
juandos: Courtesy of Zero Hedge: President Obama: "If You've Got A Business - You Didn't Build That. Somebody Else Made That Happen"...
Obama: Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
"That" refers to roads and bridges, not to who built the individual business.
Ken: In 90 years, this person was completely unable to save and plan properly for his life, being the richest people in the richest country to ever exist, and you expect me to have sympathy for this complete slack ass? Hysterical.
Most people apparently do care about the 90 year old. Of course, this 90 year old grew up during the Great Depression, probably fought in WWII, then may have worked in a factory, paying into social security and medicare. When the factory closed just before he retired, they cut his pension. His wife got sick, and without sufficient health insurance he depleted their savings. He may be your grandfather.
In the traditional system, people stayed on the farm and worked in an extended family. During the Great Depression, many people were forced to migrate, often leaving their elderly relatives behind to fend for themselves. Many elderly suffered or even died because they had no one to look after them. Social security not only provides a basic income for seniors, but provides economic mobility for their children.
Government has a role. However, too many Americans don't realize how much government has driven-up the cost of living, resulting in higher prices and higher taxes, fees, fines, fares, tolls, tuition, etc..
Government's role is not to place and keep its boot on the neck of the economy. The country desperately needs massive deregulation, massive spending cuts, and massive tax cuts from government, to unleash economic growth.
It's better to promote growth and tax it than prevent growth and tax it even more.
Unlike Clinton who reversed course after the huge 1994 election loss, Obama has been trying to speed-up the same failures after the huge 2010 election loss.
So, it looks like the economy is receding in a deep depression, while the train wreck (the U.S.-Europe-China-U.S. states, etc.) continues.
I recently read that the disability portion of SS is approaching $250B/year
You read wrong
Disability benefits
Every penny they own hydra...
After all you're talking about the fools that embraced the socialist crapola in the first place...
It's a lot simpler and cheaper to just kill them all. /sarc
How_Companies_Are_Bypassing_The_US_tax_rates
corporate_tax_percent
@bart
If you had bothered to read the rest of the posts, you would have noticed that I posted a link to the paper making this claim. The author includes the additional Medicare expense. I also corrected myself the total was closer to $200B
Itchy:
Yes, I saw the other post but after I'd posted my chart. And you're still very wr0ng - it's $128.935B... if you bothered to actually look up the real data from the SSA
Medicare is not disability, except when you go Orwellian with redefinitions - aka, spin & lies.
It's a lot simpler and cheaper to just kill them all. /sarc
============================
I get it. Problem is there are a lot of people who see this kind of uncaring thought and assocciate it with all conservatives.
It does not do the cause any good.
none-the-less, in the eyes of some, if you are sick or old, you're a money pit that takes money away from others.
The GOP "Replace" plan basically is if you get sick or old, die quickly.
but God Forbid we have death panels.
"Juandos is on record as claiming that the tax rate for 90 year holds subsisting on a pension should be 100%"...
Don't you really mean that its time for that parasite to pay for the government promised free lunch the fool was dumb enough to believe existed hydra?
"So much for his arguments I'm favor of minimum government interference"...
An absolutely illogical statement hydra...
===============================
No, but I beleive he should get benefits commensurate with what he contributed. Getting what you pay for is not being a parasite.
Sorry for the typo, should read
"So much for his (Juandos) arguments in favor of minimum government interference"...
If you are in favor of taxing some people at a 100%, you are not in favor of minimum interfernece by government. Nor are you interested in the best outcome at the minimum cost.
In 90 years, this person was completely unable to save and plan properly for his life, being the richest people in the richest country to ever exist, and you expect me to have sympathy for this complete slack ass? Hysterical.
===============================
For 87 years this person did pretty well, then hit a string of bad luck that could happen to anyone. His string of bad luck was compounded by uncaring thoughtless people like yourself who used the "Free market system" to prey on and take advantage of the old codger.
You may think you are invulneable or so wealthy it could never happen to you.
If so, you are wrong.
$1,500,000,000,000 is "virtually no money"? You're an idiot.
=================================
What are you talking about? Do you just randomly make shit up on the fly, then act as if it's reality?
Where did the trillion and a half come from?
Look I agree, if you don't make eneough to raise three kids, you should not have three kids.
Given that the three kids exist, are you going to hold their parents mistakes against them, or are you willing to see that they get an equal opportunity as other kids, even if it does not provide equal results?
The fact remains that many of that bottom half you talk about have virtually nothing to pay taxes with, therefore the bottom half argument is largely a shibboleth.
If you modify that argument to include only those people who actually could pay a little more, then the starting point is a lot different from 50%, and your argument is much more believeable.
It is a fine and noble belief to think that anyone can lift them selves by their shoelaces, but a casual look around proves it to be a false one: some people are just hopless, and will never earn a dime, some are capable of rising above and escaping their circumstances, but many of them can only do so with some kind of a jump start.
When you take a walk in the real world, you will find it does not look the same as it does from your high horse.
and you expect me to have sympathy for this complete slack ass
================================
No, I don't expect you to do anything, based on your comments.
@Bart,
The cost of someone being on long term disability before full retirement includes the disability cost and the Medicare cost.
The fact that the government separates these two and only counts part of it as disability does not change the total cost. Who is being Orwellian?
Medicare does not provide disability much less to people under 65 with one exception - those on kidney dialysis.
Medicare is primarily for those 65 and over and it pays for medical care - not payments for disability.
Larry G: "in the eyes of some, if you are sick or old, you're a money pit that takes money away from others."
Larry,
Let's be certain we understand what most conservatives actually advocate. It's not that we believe the sick and the old should suffer. Rather, we believe that personal responsibility always works better than collectivist actions. Also, we believe that charity should be voluntary, not forced through government action.
What do you believe, Larry? Do you believe it is OK for the majority of voters to force the minority who are taxpayers to be "charitable"?
" What do you believe, Larry? Do you believe it is OK for the majority of voters to force the minority who are taxpayers to be "charitable"? "
I too believe in personal responsibility but I do support mandated payroll contributions instead of the old living in cardboard boxes under bridges or the rest of us paying for their care because we won't let them live in cardboard boxes
I'm pragmatic.
Will we REALLY, as a society, watch the elderly live on the streets until they die ?
I do not think we will so what's the next best option?
it's the mandatory payroll tax.
Every single industrialized country in the world does it this way.
the only countries in the world that do not do it this way are 3rd world countries.
what's a realistic solution - as opposed to a dogmatic and unrealistic one?
We'd not have the medical cost problem we have right now if we had the spine to repeal EMTALA.
But we don't have the spine to do that so what's the next best?
Larry G: "Medicare does not provide disability much less to people under 65 with one exception - those on kidney dialysis."
Not exactly sure what your sentence meadn, Larry.
The social security website provides this information for those receiving social security disability payments:
"You will get Medicare coverage automatically after you have received disability benefits for two years."
" Do you believe it is OK for the majority of voters to force the minority who are taxpayers to be "charitable"? "
I believe in the governance that was set up in our Constitution - an elected government.
Zachriel,
"During the Great Depression, many people were forced to migrate, often leaving their elderly relatives behind to fend for themselves. Many elderly suffered or even died because they had no one to look after them."
Yeah, FDR's war on capitalism was indeed brutal and devastating to millions of Americans.
Larry G: "Medicare does not provide disability much less to people under 65 with one exception - those on kidney dialysis."
Not exactly sure what your sentence meadn, Larry.
The social security website provides this information for those receiving social security disability payments:
"You will get Medicare coverage automatically after you have received disability benefits for two years."
Are they talking about Part A or Part B?
Part A is what you pay for via your payroll tax.
Part B you don't pay for with payroll tax.
Normally, Part B costs about $100 a month and only pays 80% of covered services.
I was also making the distinction between payments because you are disabled verses
"free" medical care.
But it could be true that Medicare Part B is provided "free" to those on disability. I just have not seen it anywhere (yet).
Larry G: "Will we REALLY, as a society, watch the elderly live on the streets until they die ?"
That's not going to happen, larry. If Americans did not have the social security safety net, they would save for their retirement. They would maintain relationships with family. Private charity would take care of the very few Americans who could not or refused to be responsible for their own welfare.
You apparently are a bleeding heart who also has little faith in hishuman beings.
Larry,
"The GOP "Replace" plan basically is if you get sick or old, die quickly."
What a load of ignorance. I guess in this particular thread you are dogmatic partisan. Let us know when you're "just asking questions"
again.
"That's not going to happen, larry. If Americans did not have the social security safety net, they would save for their retirement. They would maintain relationships with family. Private charity would take care of the very few Americans who could not or refused to be responsible for their own welfare."
did not happen before SS guy. there was a huge poverty rate for the elderly prior to SS.
You apparently are a bleeding heart who also has little faith in hishuman beings.
It's a reality. Every single industrialized country in the world including places like Singapore require payroll savings.
You're advocating a 3rd world approach. Show me where it works.
it doesn't
well Paul.. when the GOP passed the "repeal" recently, where was their "replace"?
Wouldn't it have been a powerful statement to include the Replace with the Repeal?
the GOP has no real plan other than to kill Medicare and MedicAid.
"I believe in the governance that was set up in our Constitution - an elected government."
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the entirety of Larry's knowledge of the Constitution.
" "I believe in the governance that was set up in our Constitution - an elected government."
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the entirety of Larry's knowledge of the Constitution. "
not at all guy but you gotta admit it can trump a lot....
Our forefathers explicitly set up a majority-rule governance to include even how SCOTUS operates.
the "blather" about protecting minorities are words with no actual remedies as long as laws apply to everyone.
Larry the Liberal,
"well Paul.. when the GOP passed the "repeal" recently, where was their "replace"?"
For now, it was the previous system that didn't add yet another massively unaffordable entitlement that erodes the quality of healthcare and is enforced by thousands of new IRS goons.
"Wouldn't it have been a powerful statement to include the Replace with the Repeal?"
A statement is all it would be since it has to get through Harry Reid's Senate. But there are many versions of GOP health care plans out there that have no chance of getting through the command economy Democrats. They all spin around the usual principle of reducing the 3rd party payer distortion that Obamacare only accelerates to a ruinous level.
"the GOP has no real plan other than to kill Medicare and MedicAid."
You're a mindless, partisan idiot.
"not at all guy but you gotta admit it can trump a lot...."
Oh yeah, when you have lawless Presidents like Obama and liberal activist judges who have contemptfor the actual Constitution.
You're side is winning, Larry. Here's the scoreboard that proves it.
*Your*
ack!
"well Paul.. when the GOP passed the "repeal" recently, where was their "replace"?"
this is a nonsense argument. it's based on the false assumptive premise that we need top down healthcare policy.
when you cut out a cancer, you don't replace it.
we do not need a top down federal policy. we just need to keep cutting things out until medicine works like a free market.
when picking and going to a doctor works like going to the grocery store, we'll be most of the way there.
this is a nonsense argument. it's based on the false assumptive premise that we need top down healthcare policy.
when you cut out a cancer, you don't replace it.
we do not need a top down federal policy. we just need to keep cutting things out until medicine works like a free market.
when picking and going to a doctor works like going to the grocery store, we'll be most of the way there. "
if you want to offer people a real choice then you detail your approach and if your approach is to get rid of Medicare, MedicAid and EMTALA then be honest enough to say so.
The current opposition approach is "elect us and "trust us" ".
Why not win over the folks who are on the fence with a specific proposal?
Opposition-only is negative and voting repeal when there is no offered alternative basically proves that they have no real approach that they are actually willing to share with voters.
"if you want to offer people a real choice then you detail your approach and if your approach is to get rid of Medicare, MedicAid and EMTALA then be honest enough to say so."
It's already been done, Larry the Liberal. The Ryan plan does none of those things while rolling back government and introducing more competition.
"Opposition-only is negative and voting repeal when there is no offered alternative basically proves that they have no real approach that they are actually willing to share with voters."
Again, this is nonsense but you will just repeat the same Obama talking points over and over since you're a dogmatic liberal.
repealing obamacare IS a specific proposal and a good start.
the reason they are not going further is political realpoilitc and cowardice.
medicare and social security are monstrous third rails in US politics.
touch them and die.
seniors will line up to vote against you and keep the gravy train going for as long as they can.
you are the one who professes to want to assess "reality" larry.
that's reality.
i do not think they are pushing far enough and would prefer to see them cut more, but they need to get elected first.
you seem to be ignoring that bit.
Morganovich,
"the reason they are not going further is political realpoilitc and cowardice."
The House GOP passed the Ryan budget 2 yrs in a row now. Harry Reid just ignores it and lawlessly passes nothing.
the reason they are not going further is political realpoilitc and cowardice.
yes.. the TRUTH here.. Kudos
medicare and social security are monstrous third rails in US politics.
touch them and die.
seniors will line up to vote against you and keep the gravy train going for as long as they can.
Actually Seniors I've seen at AARP meetings are very concerned that Medicare is not sustainable and they know that changes have to be made.
But they want some specifics from those that want to change it and they do not like Ryan's approach.
you are the one who professes to want to assess "reality" larry.
that's reality.
that's true but reality is being honest about what your approach is instead of hiding it or saying "you'll find out after you elect us"
i do not think they are pushing far enough and would prefer to see them cut more, but they need to get elected first.
you seem to be ignoring that bit.
actually I think many people know that our current system - beyond just Medicare and MedicAid is not sustainable and they want to see competitive alternatives proposed.
Reality is that we are gridlocked right now and we have no way to go forward without some real alternative proposals.
" The House GOP passed the Ryan budget 2 yrs in a row now. Harry Reid just ignores it and lawlessly passes nothing."
Then why did they not make it the Replace part of Repeal when they voted so that everyone knows that is the GOP plan?
I do not think the GOP will actually run for election with the Ryan Plan but if they do I'd congratulate them for being honest enough to run for election on that basis.
When you talk to GOP candidates for office I do not see them supporting the Ryan Plan.. they talk "ideas".
but God Forbid we have death panels.
It's just a matter of time, on the current trend lines. *deep sigh*
The fact that the government separates these two and only counts part of it as disability does not change the total cost.
As I said, feel free to redefine anything you want (or *have*) to in order to make yourself right.
War = Peace
Medicare = Disability
Love = Hate
"Actually Seniors I've seen at AARP meetings are very concerned that Medicare is not sustainable and they know that changes have to be made."
Uh huh, do any of your co-horts at the greedy geezer coalition envision any "changes" that result in less $$ transferred into their pockets?
"Then why did they not make it the Replace part of Repeal when they voted so that everyone knows that is the GOP plan?"
"Everyone" should already know the GOP plan since they passed the Ryan plan 2 yrs in a row. I know that just doesn't satisfy an earnest guy like you who is just out to be pragmatic and solve problems, goshdarnit! Oh well.
"When you talk to GOP candidates for office I do not see them supporting the Ryan Plan.. they talk "ideas"."
And when you talk to Democrat candidates, they run like rabbits from Obamacare.
paul-
that's a fair point.
the ryan budget is a real and principled proposal.
my fear is that the gop are happy to use it to granstand in the house and try to score points knowing full well the plan is doa in the senate and that many would back off if it looked like it could actually pass congress and not get vetoed.
it does seem pretty ridiculous though the the gop is being branded as the part of no when they have been consistently putting forth a plan that is getting shot down by the dems who seem to have no plan of their own other than "steady as she goes until we hit the iceberg".
i can't say i have much affection or respect for either party, but ryan seems like a good guy and has some very sensible ideas. he seems more libertarian than gop, but, in the gang was that is dc, you have to join the crips or the bloods or you'll never get into a position of influence.
a good understanding of the SS, disability and Medicare (A&B) funds can be found on the annual trustees report:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html
skip down to:
"What Were the Components of Trust Funds Outlays in 2011?"
and you can see what was funded from payroll taxes and what was funded from general revenues.
still not sure if people on disability receive Medicare Part B after 2 years.
Larry the Liberal,
"that's true but reality is being honest about what your approach is instead of hiding it or saying "you'll find out after you elect us"
"we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it."
~Nancy Pelosi speaking before Obamacare passed.
Uh huh, do any of your co-horts at the greedy geezer coalition envision any "changes" that result in less $$ transferred into their pockets?
yes. they know changes are inevitable and many support tightening up the benefits and increasing the premiums especially on a means-tested basis.
People who own 2 houses and 3 cars should not be paying $100 a month for health insurance. People know that is wrong.
"Then why did they not make it the Replace part of Repeal when they voted so that everyone knows that is the GOP plan?"
"Everyone" should already know the GOP plan since they passed the Ryan plan 2 yrs in a row. I know that just doesn't satisfy an earnest guy like you who is just out to be pragmatic and solve problems, goshdarnit! Oh well.
"When you talk to GOP candidates for office I do not see them supporting the Ryan Plan.. they talk "ideas"."
And when you talk to Democrat candidates, they run like rabbits from Obamacare.
yup... but that does not excuse the GOP not being forthright about their solutions.
"and you can see what was funded from payroll taxes and what was funded from general revenues."
Who cares? Both taxes are sucked from my wallet and head to the same rat hole. You're talking about accounting gimmicks.
"we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it."
~Nancy Pelosi speaking before Obamacare passed.
true.
but it's the same approach with the GOP so we're getting nowhere.
The GOP say the what better solutions.
I take them at their word. Let's see them.. don't keep make excuses about what the Dems did - show that you are better than the Dems ...
"yup... but that does not excuse the GOP not being forthright about their solutions."
yup....but you only bang the table demanding accountability from the GOP who send legislation to be ignored by the worthless Harry Reid. You ask for nothing from your beloved Democrats who hand you goodies.
" Who cares? Both taxes are sucked from my wallet and head to the same rat hole. You're talking about accounting gimmicks"
and you can go live where they don't do that or you can live here and realize that your own selfish ideas are going no where.
you makes your choices guy.
if you stay here - you have to deal with the realities of what might change - realistically - and be willing to offer alternatives that have some realistic chance of success.
Otherwise. not exactly sure what you're expecting....
yup....but you only bang the table demanding accountability from the GOP who send legislation to be ignored by the worthless Harry Reid. You ask for nothing from your beloved Democrats who hand you goodies.
well..they never sent legislation to their own GOP in the House now did they?
why did they go through the motions of a symbolic "repeal" and not do something serious in the way of a real REPLACE proposal?
this is just obstruction and obfuscation.
they have no intention of actually offering a real competing proposal.
the name of their game is "trust us, we'll tell you after we are elected".
Will we REALLY, as a society, watch the elderly live on the streets until they die ?
We already are, and the trends are not positive.
MOrganovich,
"my fear is that the gop are happy to use it to granstand in the house and try to score points knowing full well the plan is doa in the senate and that many would back off if it looked like it could actually pass congress and not get vetoed."
Well, maybe, but by voting for it they still opened themselves up to charges by liberal dickbags like Larry that they are "killing Medicare and Medicaid." Right now incumbent Republican House members are running for re-election all across the country being demagogued with that exactly. They should at least get a few points from intelligent, fair-minded people like you for that.
" Well, maybe, but by voting for it they still opened themselves up to charges..."
you mean.. just simply telling the truth about what they plan to do?
why is that "opening yourself up"?
here you have folks running for election and you're advocating secrecy on their plans?
ha ha ha
that sounds like a problem guy.
"and you can go live where they don't do that or you can live here and realize that your own selfish ideas are going no where."
Says the guy on the receiving end of massively unsustainable largesse
courtesy of the taxpayers. You could very well be right though. We'll see in November if the freeloaders have finally won out.
Larry,
"why is that "opening yourself up"?"
because you, Obama, and the rest of the takers are liars appealing to the sizeable % of the public who feel entitled to something for nothing.
larry g: "Every single industrialized country in the world including places like Singapore require payroll savings."
Singapore's social security system does not use Peter's forced savings to pay for Paul's welfare:
"Like the U.S., Singapore also has a compulsory social welfare system. However, since it is based on individual savings and building assets, it stands in marked ontrast to the American welfare state."
Chile privatized its social security system 30 years ago. The results have been astonishing:
"We in America receive the benefit of a 1-2% return on our Social Security investment. Future generations of Americans will likely get even less, if the program works at all. In Chile private social security accounts have averaged a 9.23% return on the investment. The Chilean model buys a lot greater security...housing, food, medicine, care...for Chiles aging population while ensuring a much smaller burden will fall on the shoulders of younger generations."
because you, Obama, and the rest of the takers are liars appealing to the sizeable % of the public who feel entitled to something for nothing.
so you advocate hiding your views when running for election?
"well..they never sent legislation to their own GOP in the House now did they?"
I don't even know what that' supposed to mean.
larry g: "Every single industrialized country in the world including places like Singapore require payroll savings."
Singapore's social security system does not use Peter's forced savings to pay for Paul's welfare:
it's mandatory guy. it requires that you save for your retirement instead of what you were advocating.
"Like the U.S., Singapore also has a compulsory social welfare system. However, since it is based on individual savings and building assets, it stands in marked ontrast to the American welfare state."
The Singapore system subsidizes coverage for people who cannot afford it and they fix prices for providers.
You need to read things that are not biased guy so you get the true story and not propaganda.
Chile privatized its social security system 30 years ago. The results have been astonishing:
again - it's mandatory. It requires people to save.
"We in America receive the benefit of a 1-2% return on our Social Security investment. Future generations of Americans will likely get even less, if the program works at all. In Chile private social security accounts have averaged a 9.23% return on the investment. The Chilean model buys a lot greater security...housing, food, medicine, care...for Chiles aging population while ensuring a much smaller burden will fall on the shoulders of younger generations."
Would you be okay with a Singapore/Chili style mandatory payroll tax system?
fess up .... yes or no guy.
" if the program works at all. In Chile private social security accounts have averaged a 9.23% return on the investment."
what would have happened to people's personal accounts in the US in recent years?
wouldn't the have taken the same hit that people's other investments took?
US private pension plans have also taken huge hits recently - creating huge unfunded liabilities.
won't personal savings accounts be just as vulnerable ?
"I believe in the governance that was set up in our Constitution - an elected government."
Larry, Larry, Larry....the founders set up a government where ONLY the House of Representatives was popularly elected. It's called a Republic. The president is chosen by the electoral college....senators were first elected by state legislatures...and the supreme court has never been elected. The founders greatly feared a "tyranny of the majority" so they wrote the constitution as to ensure individual rights. In fact, they enumerated many of them.
What you are proposing seems to be, majority rule, damn the constitution. You already believe the government can force me to participate in SS/Medicare, buy private medical insurance coverage, etc. Is there anything the government can't do?
larry-
"you mean.. just simply telling the truth about what they plan to do?
why is that "opening yourself up"?"
do you really think this poorly or are you just trying to be deliberately misleading here?
they are proposing something that is necessary and difficult. it takes free goodies away from someone.
"eat your vegetables" is not usually the popular policy even if it is the needed one.
they open themselves to attacks that they are taking away the goodies. we want cake, not peas! obama promised me free cake!
the politics of favoring fiscal responsibility against an opponent who claims food stamps are magic and foments class war against a ewalthy few to promise you more free goodies is difficult.
people tend to vote their wallets and "free beer once i get done robbing morgan" is popular with many, who, like you frequently do, favor the use of tyrannical democratic majority to circumvent the right of others. such rights are inalienable and come from person-hood, not government fiat. it says so right in the constitution. alas, we are far along the slippery slope to serfdom again and our rights have become distressingly alienable and erode by the year.
"
won't personal savings accounts be just as vulnerable ?"
1. who cares? what makes this the role of the government?
2. no. not if they were invested well. bonds are way, way up. if you had this portfolio in bonds, you cleaned up.
3. why should it be any different that any other savings be it for a house, a car, emergencies, kids college, whatever? you save money. you choose a level of risk and liquidity that makes you comfortable, you save. there is NO foolproof savings method. put it in your mattress and you get eaten by inflation.
4. federally mandated savings and investment plans are a disaster. SS has negative NOMINAL returns. after inflation, you are losing 4-6% a year. that is CRIMINALLY bad. you see what happened at MF global? taking money from client accounts is a felony. why do we allow our government to do it? (because that is precisely what they are doing) SS had been one of the greatest thefts or wealth in all of recorded history. you want to trust them, hey, go ahead, but given any choice in the matter, i would not let them within a country mile of my money and i do not appreciate folks like you suggesting that i be forced to let them have it.
Larry, Larry, Larry....the founders set up a government where ONLY the House of Representatives was popularly elected. It's called a Republic. The president is chosen by the electoral college....senators were first elected by state legislatures...and the supreme court has never been elected. The founders greatly feared a "tyranny of the majority" so they wrote the constitution as to ensure individual rights. In fact, they enumerated many of them.
I agree! No tell me the practical reality with regard to majority.
Does a majority affect legislation?
does a majority affect SCOTUS decisions?
tell me specifically what powers the minority has.
"What you are proposing seems to be, majority rule, damn the constitution. You already believe the government can force me to participate in SS/Medicare, buy private medical insurance coverage, etc. Is there anything the government can't do? "
I'm not proposing anything. I'm advocating that one recognize the practical realities.
the country runs basically on a majority basis.
show me how it's not.
even the SCOTUS decides Constitutional Issues via majority vote.
All the minority gets to do is write their own opinion but they do not prevail.
does the system we have work the way the forefathers intended?
"
won't personal savings accounts be just as vulnerable ?"
1. who cares? what makes this the role of the government?
the fact that the govt FORCES you to do it?
2. no. not if they were invested well. bonds are way, way up. if you had this portfolio in bonds, you cleaned up.
so people's personal investments and pensions were not invested "well" and that's why they got whacked?
ha ha... dream on guy
3. why should it be any different that any other savings be it for a house, a car, emergencies, kids college, whatever? you save money. you choose a level of risk and liquidity that makes you comfortable, you save. there is NO foolproof savings method. put it in your mattress and you get eaten by inflation.
you do indeed but are you agreeing that the govt should force you to save?
stop sliding sideways here. You cited Singapore and Chili as "better" than our system and I asked you if you thought mandated savings was good thing because both their systems depend on that in order for them to work. Otherwise, others would be paying for those who did not save.
4. federally mandated savings and investment plans are a disaster. SS has negative NOMINAL returns. after inflation, you are losing 4-6% a year. that is CRIMINALLY bad. you see what happened at MF global? taking money from client accounts is a felony. why do we allow our government to do it? (because that is precisely what they are doing) SS had been one of the greatest thefts or wealth in all of recorded history. you want to trust them, hey, go ahead, but given any choice in the matter, i would not let them within a country mile of my money and i do not appreciate folks like you suggesting that i be forced to let them have it.
SS had a better return than many private pension plans in the last 10 years.
what happens to those who invest badly and have no money left when they no longer work and need it?
so you DO AGREE that the govt should force you to pay payroll taxes, correct but you like the other systems better because they are individual accounts ...correct?
or are you advocating individual accounts but no mandatory saving?
"so you advocate hiding your views when running for election?"
Not necessariy, but it's a disadvantage when you have snakes like Obama who lied and hid his radicalism and was rewarded for it.
"you mean.. just simply telling the truth about what they plan to do?"
They can count on the fact that liberal hacks like you will not tell the truth about what they plan to do.
Incidentally, in this same thread you accuse them of hiding their plans and telling the truth about their plans.
You do this because you are a mindless, liberal hack.
"so you advocate hiding your views when running for election?"
Not necessariy, but it's a disadvantage when you have snakes like Obama who lied and hid his radicalism and was rewarded for it.
geeze Paul.. when you run for election, you ought to be telling people what you're going to do....otherwise it's totally dishonest.
"you mean.. just simply telling the truth about what they plan to do?"
They can count on the fact that liberal hacks like you will not tell the truth about what they plan to do.
you know it works the opposite way also but that's not justification for lying to people. How can they trust you if you 're not up front with them?
Incidentally, in this same thread you accuse them of hiding their plans and telling the truth about their plans.
You do this because you are a mindless, liberal hack.
right.... and your type is just a wonderful person... :-)
"I'm not proposing anything. I'm advocating that one recognize the practical realities."
Shorter Larry: accept reality, I'm going to continue to suck your wallet dry and there's nothing you can do about it.
Shorter Larry: accept reality, I'm going to continue to suck your wallet dry and there's nothing you can do about it.
well the first step to change guy - is to accept the reality - and then go from there.
you can't accomplish much if you're pretending...
larry-
you misssed this utterly.
"
the fact that the govt FORCES you to do it?"
my point is why should it be a role of government? they could force you do lots of things. that owuld not make it legal, desirable, or just.
"
so people's personal investments and pensions were not invested "well" and that's why they got whacked?
ha ha... dream on guy"
and now you are just revealing your financial ignorance. if you are saving money that you might need soon, you do it in safer vehicles, like bonds. bands are way, way up. when yields drop, price does what larry? when you sell, you get that price. there is nothing tricky about this. 14 year olds know this.
"
you do indeed but are you agreeing that the govt should force you to save?
stop sliding sideways here. You cited Singapore and Chili as "better" than our system and I asked you if you thought mandated savings was good thing because both their systems depend on that in order for them to work. Otherwise, others would be paying for those who did not save."
and i have answered you a dozen times, but you have the memory of an etch a sketch.
no, the government should not mandate savings or force you to do it. i do not know how to state that in any simpler language. what will it take to get you to understand this.
i have never made any comments about chile, so i ahve no idea what you are talking about there.
i used singapore as an example of a system where most services are cash pay and to demonstrate that such a system keeps costs low, and availability, choice, and quality high. that is what cash pay does.
we already see this is the cash pay healthcare business in the us.
you do not need forced savings to get these benefits.
why are you always so anxious to force people to do things? it's paternalistic, intrusive, inefficient, and unjust.
and just how would i pay for you if you did not save? you'd just not get care. so long as every transaction is voluntary, the issues you are doubtless going to try and raise about hospitals being forced to accept all patients go away. these problems arise from coercion. take it out of the system, and they go away.
"
SS had a better return than many private pension plans in the last 10 years."
no, it didn't. that's just flat out wrong.
ss is down nominally in the last 10 years.
the s+p was 916 10 years ago. today it is 1354.
bonds are way up as well.
you are just making up facts.
"so you DO AGREE that the govt should force you to pay payroll taxes, correct but you like the other systems better because they are individual accounts ...correct?"
NO. NO. 1000 times no. how many times do i have to say that? what will it take to get you to understand this? NO. i oppose government coercion and forced savings.
if you want things be they a house, a car, or the security of being able to afford healthcare you save. it's called personal responsibility.
if you want to cut a deal with a private insurer where you put that money in a healthcare only account and promise to spend it first in exchange for cheap coverage of catastrophic events, great, go for it so long as you both agree to the terms.
the government need not be involved at all.
"geeze Paul.. when you run for election, you ought to be telling people what you're going to do....otherwise it's totally dishonest"
Oh, you mean like your hero Obama did when he promised a "net spending cut," no taxes on anyone under $250 k, and disavowed Hillary's "cadillac" health care tax?
Dishonest like that?
"you know it works the opposite way also but that's not justification for lying to people. How can they trust you if you 're not up front with them?"
Again: see Obama. That doesn't seem to bother you.
"right.... and your type is just a wonderful person... "
excellent comeback.
Oh yeah, the biggest lie: Obama also campaigned against the mandate. Now let's see you pick up that turd by the clean end.
larry-
you misssed this utterly.
"
the fact that the govt FORCES you to do it?"
my point is why should it be a role of government? they could force you do lots of things. that owuld not make it legal, desirable, or just.
"
so people's personal investments and pensions were not invested "well" and that's why they got whacked?
ha ha... dream on guy"
and now you are just revealing your financial ignorance. if you are saving money that you might need soon, you do it in safer vehicles, like bonds. bands are way, way up. when yields drop, price does what larry? when you sell, you get that price. there is nothing tricky about this. 14 year olds know this.
Morg - how many pension plans managed by "professionals" got whacked? How many private and public pension plans lost big in the last downturn?
If I am ignorant -you are ignoring the facts.
"
you do indeed but are you agreeing that the govt should force you to save?
stop sliding sideways here. You cited Singapore and Chili as "better" than our system and I asked you if you thought mandated savings was good thing because both their systems depend on that in order for them to work. Otherwise, others would be paying for those who did not save."
and i have answered you a dozen times, but you have the memory of an etch a sketch.
no, the government should not mandate savings or force you to do it. i do not know how to state that in any simpler language. what will it take to get you to understand this.
yes but how can you point to Singapore and Chili as better plans that the US when BOTH have mandated savings?
i have never made any comments about chile, so i ahve no idea what you are talking about there.
well you jumped in to this conversation... that cited Chili.
i used singapore as an example of a system where most services are cash pay and to demonstrate that such a system keeps costs low, and availability, choice, and quality high. that is what cash pay does.
yes.. but the savings accounts are mandatory, the govt subsidizes care for those who use up their accounts and the govt controls prices and requires price disclosure.
It's a heavily govt-run system that you're citing ONE aspect of as what we should do ..and ignoring all the other things that make that system work.
we already see this is the cash pay healthcare business in the us.
I'm all for cash pay.. you know...
you do not need forced savings to get these benefits.
indeed but the problem is what happens to those who do not save? Singapore's answer is to make them save instead of having to subsidize them later on.
why are you always so anxious to force people to do things? it's paternalistic, intrusive, inefficient, and unjust.
because voluntary savings does not work. I'm not advocating it as much as recognizing what works and what does not.
and just how would i pay for you if you did not save? you'd just not get care. so long as every transaction is voluntary, the issues you are doubtless going to try and raise about hospitals being forced to accept all patients go away. these problems arise from coercion. take it out of the system, and they go away.
by paying higher prices to subsidize ERs and MedicAid.
"
SS had a better return than many private pension plans in the last 10 years."
no, it didn't. that's just flat out wrong.
ss is down nominally in the last 10 years.
it has a fixed interest rate right? Do pension plans have a guaranteed rate of return like SS? Nope.
the s+p was 916 10 years ago. today it is 1354.
bonds are way up as well.
you are just making up facts.
nope. Pensions plans got whacked. Thems the facts. Virginia has a huge unfunded liability because their pension plan got whacked in the last recession. Va is not alone. Many people's 401Ks got whacked also.
"so you DO AGREE that the govt should force you to pay payroll taxes, correct but you like the other systems better because they are individual accounts ...correct?"
NO. NO. 1000 times no. how many times do i have to say that? what will it take to get you to understand this? NO. i oppose government coercion and forced savings.
I was asking Jet because he posted the Singapore/Chili stuff.
if you want things be they a house, a car, or the security of being able to afford healthcare you save. it's called personal responsibility.
if you want to cut a deal with a private insurer where you put that money in a healthcare only account and promise to spend it first in exchange for cheap coverage of catastrophic events, great, go for it so long as you both agree to the terms.
the government need not be involved at all.
doesn't the govt have to approve HSAs?
" Oh yeah, the biggest lie: Obama also campaigned against the mandate. Now let's see you pick up that turd by the clean end. "
there's a CLEAN end?
Who knew?
re: obama's lies.
the question is did the folks who actually vote for Obama get about what they thought was possible given the circumstances?
we all know that you guys who voted against it don't care if he did or did not..and will claim as much as you can in opposition.
so what...?
Larry G: "US private pension plans have also taken huge hits recently - creating huge unfunded liabilities."
U.S. private pensions have unfunded liabilities for several reasons:
1. corporations were allowed to reduce pension funding whenever boom markets raise pension fund values;
2. workforces were reduced while retiree populations grew;
3. Actuaries years ago underestimated the lifespans of future retirees.
Only the last reason is applicable to an indivdually funded private retirement system. If a worker underestimates his lifespan, he could run out of money.
"doesn't the govt have to approve HSAs?"
no. they can be established for you by an employer or you can deposit them at an insurer to get better rates (or you can just save yourself).
you act as though you need the government to save.
when did that start?
Larry G: "what would have happened to people's personal accounts in the US in recent years?"
Most financial analysts recommend:
1. gradually reducing the equity share of retirement savings accounts as one ages;
2. diversifying equity investments to reduce exposure to single sector shocks (such as high tech in 2001 or finance in 2008)
3. adopting a lifestyle which requires one to withdraw only 4 percent of retirement savings each year;
4. purchasing catastrophic health insurance and long term care insurance to ensure retirement savings are not suddenly depleted.
Following those steps will make it extremely unlikely personal accounts will be seriously depleted in retirement.
Larry G: "US private pension plans have also taken huge hits recently - creating huge unfunded liabilities."
U.S. private pensions have unfunded liabilities for several reasons:
public and private and 401K - all
1. corporations were allowed to reduce pension funding whenever boom markets raise pension fund values;
2. workforces were reduced while retiree populations grew;
3. Actuaries years ago underestimated the lifespans of future retirees.
Only the last reason is applicable to an indivdually funded private retirement system. If a worker underestimates his lifespan, he could run out of money.
individuals with self-directed 401K plans got whacked Jet...
everyone got whacked - public, private, 401K, etc.
then the market goes down big-time everyone gets whacked.
that's the vulnerability in pensions that depend on market performance.
there are no guarantees.
"
Morg - how many pension plans managed by "professionals" got whacked? How many private and public pension plans lost big in the last downturn?
If I am ignorant -you are ignoring the facts."
no larry, you are ignoring the facts.
pension plans are up from 10 years ago.
there was a downturn. it's recovering. pension plans tend to be heavily in equities are they are taking a long term view and looking for the higher returns they get if they are willing to ride out the volatility.
they have dramatically outperformed social security. cash in a sock in your drawer outperforms SS.
i actually worked out my returns from SS once. it's about -90bp a year.
i then looked at an alternate scenario where i took all that money, but it in bonds and then used it as 65 to buy an annuity.
the payout on that annuity was 7x my projected SS payment.
no savings plan is perfect or riskless, but SS is one of the worst out there. the money was stolen larry. the whole thi8ng is a pile of ious that cannot be honored without just printing money and inflicting the damage on all savers in the form of inflation.
i do not think you grasp just how badly SS has been managed. if those running it were a private company, they would all be in jail. if a fund had returns like that, it would go out of business. SS only exists because we are forced to participate.
if you assume 4% inflation and -90bp annual returns, the $1 you put in when you are 25 will be worth 13 cents when you retire.
"
because voluntary savings does not work. I'm not advocating it as much as recognizing what works and what does not."
and your evidence for that is what?
that's quite a claim to make with nothing to back it up.
voluntary savings works for lots of things. college funds, cars, houses, you name it.
but you claim it is different here.
why?
"
nope. Pensions plans got whacked. Thems the facts. Virginia has a huge unfunded liability because their pension plan got whacked in the last recession. Va is not alone. Many people's 401Ks got whacked also."
but they are up from 10 or 20 years ago.
that's more than you can say for SS.
equity investing is volatile. actuarial assumptions can be wrong.
but they are dramatically better than ss.
what is it you have against freedom and personal responsibility larry?
why do you think someone else should (or needs) to be forcing us to save?
Larry G: "what would have happened to people's personal accounts in the US in recent years?"
Most financial analysts recommend:
1. gradually reducing the equity share of retirement savings accounts as one ages;
2. diversifying equity investments to reduce exposure to single sector shocks (such as high tech in 2001 or finance in 2008)
3. adopting a lifestyle which requires one to withdraw only 4 percent of retirement savings each year;
4. purchasing catastrophic health insurance and long term care insurance to ensure retirement savings are not suddenly depleted.
Following those steps will make it extremely unlikely personal accounts will be seriously depleted in retirement.
yes... but ALL of the pension plans made mistakes as well as individuals with 401K (who were being advised by "professionals".
when everyone across the entire spectrum gets whacked.. you can't really blame it on "bad" investing...
some folks escaped the damage by being especially smart and careful... most did not.
Larry G: "I was asking Jet because he posted the Singapore/Chili stuff."
Well, since you're asking ...
I personally have no problem with irresponsible people ending up impoverished.
I believe wholeheartedly in private charity for taking care of those who end up unable to care for themselves.
However, because there are so many damned bleeding hearts - those who cannot understand how safety nets do more harm than good - I would reluctantly accept forcing workers to save for themselves. That is, forcing Paul to take care of himself is preferred to forcing Peter to take care of Paul.
But, be certain you understand me: personal freedom and personal responsibility is what I would institute if I could rid the world of all the damned bleeding heart do-gooders.
larry-
there is no year in the past from which a simple portfolio of 50% S+P and 50% 10 year bonds doe not have positive nominal returns to today.
literally, there is not one.
the s+p is down 7.7% from where it close in 2007.
the dividends alone cover that.
the 10 year yielded 4% in 2007.
even if it's price had not risen, that's 20% return. add in the price appreciation and it's more like 35%.
this notion that somehow all the plans are still wrecked from the crisis is just unsupportable.
the facts are clear.
the real problems are undercontribution and actuarial mistakes, especially around life expectancy.
sure, they love to whine that it was the crisis, but that is not an excuse anymore. the returns are there (unless you are a really bad investor). this is just an excuse to avoid taking blame.
if your 401k is still down from 2007, you have really bad/imprudent investments.
i actually worked out my returns from SS once. it's about -90bp a year.
you're not comparing apples to apples.
SS is an insurance annuity.
you can buy that same product on the private market and SS performs well in comparisons and private annuities are inherently risky.
i then looked at an alternate scenario where i took all that money, but it in bonds and then used it as 65 to buy an annuity.
unless you are including death and disability and survivor benefits then you're cherry picking.
the payout on that annuity was 7x my projected SS payment.
no savings plan is perfect or riskless, but SS is one of the worst out there. the money was stolen larry. the whole thi8ng is a pile of ious that cannot be honored without just printing money and inflicting the damage on all savers in the form of inflation.
wrong Morg. SS is funded from FICA taxes. What was "stolen" was the trust fund (which works like 200 other trust funds also work).
FICA generates about a trillion a year and it all goes to pay SS benefits.
i do not think you grasp just how badly SS has been managed. if those running it were a private company, they would all be in jail. if a fund had returns like that, it would go out of business. SS only exists because we are forced to participate.
show me a credible non-propaganda link
SS has low administrative expenses and provides reasonable returns for the various options it provides.
if you assume 4% inflation and -90bp annual returns, the $1 you put in when you are 25 will be worth 13 cents when you retire.
and you'd not be doing a fair comparison.
"
because voluntary savings does not work. I'm not advocating it as much as recognizing what works and what does not."
and your evidence for that is what?
the fact that all industrialized countries have mandated payroll taxes and all 3rd world countries do not.
that's quite a claim to make with nothing to back it up.
we know from experience that it does not work. Every country that has it now, at one point in the past did not - and they went to mandated savings because the prior approach ended up with destitute who had to be taken care of by taxes.
voluntary savings works for lots of things. college funds, cars, houses, you name it.
no. those are loans that have to be paid back. Most people gets loans. they don't save for the things you cite.
but you claim it is different here.
why?
because of the obvious way things really are...
"
nope. Pensions plans got whacked. Thems the facts. Virginia has a huge unfunded liability because their pension plan got whacked in the last recession. Va is not alone. Many people's 401Ks got whacked also."
but they are up from 10 or 20 years ago.
yup.. but not recovered.
that's more than you can say for SS.
equity investing is volatile. actuarial assumptions can be wrong.
true... and for all things private and public...
but they are dramatically better than ss.
SS is not invested nor risked. it competes well when compared to similar private annuities.
what is it you have against freedom and personal responsibility larry?
I'm not against it. I'm in favor of it but the reality is some people will not save and we as a society will not let them die in the streets and instead take taxes from all of us to pay for those that did not save.
why do you think someone else should (or needs) to be forcing us to save?
because if we don't we end up with the bill.
Larry G: "I was asking Jet because he posted the Singapore/Chili stuff."
Well, since you're asking ...
I personally have no problem with irresponsible people ending up impoverished.
yup - but you don't represent the average American.
I believe wholeheartedly in private charity for taking care of those who end up unable to care for themselves.
yup so does everyone else but most Americans will not allowed the impoverished to die. You have to accept this reality if you really want to advocate for something that has a chance to become a law.
However, because there are so many damned bleeding hearts - those who cannot understand how safety nets do more harm than good - I would reluctantly accept forcing workers to save for themselves. That is, forcing Paul to take care of himself is preferred to forcing Peter to take care of Paul.
you are correct. I keep asking how many elected representatives have advocated repeal of EMTALA and as far as I know not one has.
What chance do we have in dealing with the ER scofflaws if not one elected official is willing to cut them off?
But, be certain you understand me: personal freedom and personal responsibility is what I would institute if I could rid the world of all the damned bleeding heart do-gooders.
yup.. but you lose.. those bleeding hearts would dispatch you in minutes if you actually attacked them.. they're like that you know....
:-)
Larry the Liberal,
"the question is did the folks who actually vote for Obama get about what they thought was possible given the circumstances?"
No, the question is DID HE LIE? You were so concerned about the public trust just a second ago when we were talking about the GOP.
"so what...?"
So Obama's a liar and that doesn't bother you a whit because he promises not to take away your "free" stuff.
No, the question is DID HE LIE? You were so concerned about the public trust just a second ago when we were talking about the GOP.
did he satisfy the folks who voted for him and wanted health care?
what will the GOP do to satisfy those who want something different than ObamaCare?
"so what...?"
So Obama's a liar and that doesn't bother you a whit because he promises not to take away your "free" stuff.
He's no more a "liar" than Reagan or Bush was.... all politicians make promises they cannot keep.
What is the GOP promising?
they're hiding. they are basically saying "trust me". "elect me" and then I'll tell you what I promise to do.
that's truly dishonest IMHO.
They say REPLACE and it's a lie.
there is no REPLACE. It's a ruse but what the GOP is saying is "you have to elect us to find out that we're actually not going to do anything or we'll do stuff that if you knew we were going to do ..we'd never get elected".
so Obama lies but the GOP is much worse.. they lie much worse.
"
you can buy that same product on the private market and SS performs well in comparisons and private annuities are inherently risky."
that is totally untrue.
back that up. show me the figures. i will bet you that you cannot.
coyote has run through the math as well.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/01/social_security-2.html
you are just flat out wrong here lar.
"because of the obvious way things really are..."
translation: you have no answer. nice try but that would not convince a 3rd grader. the fact is you have no answer. just be honest about it. your view is based on nothing but your emotional attachment to a paternalistic nanny state.
"
wrong Morg. SS is funded from FICA taxes. What was "stolen" was the trust fund (which works like 200 other trust funds also work)."
and that fund is going to repaid how lar? oh yeah, from the general fund. you seem to have no idea how this works. who do you think has to pay the ious that replaced the "trust fund"? it's either non fica taxes or printing money, which is just another kind or tax (on savers) and makes the problem worse as SS is indexed to cpi.
"
yup.. but not recovered."
most are. i walked you through the math on a really simple portfolio. if your fund is still down from 2007, you are a really bad investor. just the S+P + dividends is up from 2007. our investors are up 135% after fees (about 160% before fees) since 2007. most of the funds i know are well over their 2007 highs.
you are just making stuff up here larry.
"
because if we don't we end up with the bill."
no, we don't.
that's what charity is for. people do not save because they have a safety net. take it away, and they will, just like they used to.
"
yup - but you don't represent the average American."
who cares? the whole point of rights and liberty to not to have the views of the average american forced upon you.
you really do not get this inalienable rights and liberty thing larry.
Larry, and a few others,
Please use HTML tags so that your replies are clearly distinguished from the comments you reply to. I usually make bold the comments of others which I include in my comments.
If you cannot use HTML, then be respectful and use names, colons, and quotation marks. For example:
jetbeagle: "Well, since you're asking ..."
"did he satisfy the folks who voted for him and wanted health care?"
Did he lie about how he was going to implement it? Did he or did he not campaign against the mandate. Let me repeat your remarks about the GOP where you hold such high standards: "geeze Paul.. when you run for election, you ought to be telling people what you're going to do....otherwise it's totally dishonest"
Answer the question or continue to look like the mindless, liberal hack you are. Did he "tell the people what he was going to do?" Otherwise, he's like totally dishonest.
And no, he didn't satisfy all the people who voted for him and wanted health care. His poll numbers and the support numbers for Obamacare prove that.
"they're hiding. they are basically saying "trust me". "elect me" and then I'll tell you what I promise to do."
You told us they were going to kill Medicaid via the Ryan plan. So they're not hiding, asshole.
"that's truly dishonest IMHO."
You don't care about dishonesty, Larry, as long as you're on the receiving end of the free lunch. You've demonstrated that over and over every time you pop in here with your ignorant comments.
morganovich: "people do not save because they have a safety net. take it away, and they will, just like they used to."
Exactly right.
"yup - but you don't represent the average American."
The Larry Two Step:
1.do you subscribe to idea X?
2. You do? Well then you're in denial about reality.
people do not save because they have a safety net. take it away, and they will, just like they used to.
=================================
Right, they still won't save, but the safety net will be gone. The resulting conditions will remind us why we put up the safety net.
"Respectful?
You mean as in you ignorant liberal dickhead ?"
Actually, Jet Beagle is always respectful towards ignorant liberal dickheads like Larry.
private annuities are inherently risky
==============================
They are private right?
How many times have banks gone under and how many times has the government gone under?
SS is not a good investment vehicle, but people misrepresent what it is and isn't. Because it is secure, SS ALLOWS you to make riskier investments with your other money if you choose. Absent SS a prudent investor would have to invest a good chunk of savings in conservative investments, so the opportunity COST of SS is nowhere near as high as claimed.
Zachriel,
Most people apparently do care about the 90 year old.
Does that 90 year old care about me or mine? If not, why should I care about him?
Of course, this 90 year old grew up during the Great Depression, probably fought in WWII, then may have worked in a factory, paying into social security and medicare.
So?
When the factory closed just before he retired, they cut his pension.
That's what happens when you depend on others for your retirement.
His wife got sick, and without sufficient health insurance he depleted their savings.
He elected the politicians that drove up the price of medical care, now you're saying we should take pity on him for not being able to afford the system he wanted?
He may be your grandfather.
Fine. He can move in with me and I'll take care of him. What I won't do is expect you or anyone else to be forced to take care of him.
In the traditional system, people stayed on the farm and worked in an extended family. During the Great Depression, many people were forced to migrate
NO ONE WAS FORCED TO MIGRATE. People chose to because living and working on a farm sucks.
often leaving their elderly relatives behind to fend for themselves. Many elderly suffered or even died because they had no one to look after them.
Failing to raise children who loved him enough to take care of him when he needs it means that we need to make a permanent financial suck on future old people (all young people become old)?
Social security not only provides a basic income for seniors, but provides economic mobility for their children.
False.
hydra-
governments go under all the time.
there are lots of banks that have been around longer than the us has.
The average net worth in America is $77k. Excluding the top one percent it is worse than that.
Where is the money for that multithousand dollar health savings plan going to come from, the kids milk money?
You think SS is a scam? Talk to my grandfather whow worked for one company for forty years. The year he retired his company declared bankruptcy and cancelled the retirement plan: he got zero.
"Absent SS a prudent investor would have to invest a good chunk of savings in conservative investments, so the opportunity COST of SS is nowhere near as high as claimed."
Perhaps, but absent SS "surplus" that masks the size of the deficit, the government would not have been able to piss away staggering sums on failed liberal programs that create nothing but misery and dependency. So the opportunity cost of SS may be far higher than we can imagine.
governments go under all the time.
===================================
Sure they do, but not as often as banks.
The risk of a private retirement plan failing is greater than the risk of a government failing.
Part of my fathers retirement plan included a paid up life insurance policy, the value of which basically evaporated when the company went under.
Social security not only provides a basic income for seniors, but provides economic mobility for their children.
False.
==============================
Nice Opinion.
Hydra,
His string of bad luck was compounded by uncaring thoughtless people like yourself who used the "Free market system" to prey on and take advantage of the old codger.
The thoughtless free market system that made his life immeasurably better than any other system ever made anyone else's life is responsible for his compounded bad luck and the uncaring of those who support a system that builds such prosperity? You really don't know much about the free market system, do you?
You may think you are invulneable or so wealthy it could never happen to you.
If so, you are wrong.
I don't, but I also know that my trials are not other people's responsibilities.
Where did the trillion and a half come from?
From the link I provided, which links directly to source. You can check it out yourself, if you can figure out how to use a mouse.
Given that the three kids exist, are you going to hold their parents mistakes against them
Yes, or do you not understand that subsidizing stupip behaviour results in MORE stupid behavior?
some people are just hopless, and will never earn a dime
By choice. Never forget that this is by choice and NEVER due to lack of opportunity.
hydra-
"Where is the money for that multithousand dollar health savings plan going to come from, the kids milk money?"
from the money they are currently being forced to plow into fica.
if the average household makes $52k, fica is $8k a year.
if we stop taking that money away from people, then they would have it to save.
"Where is the money for that multithousand dollar health savings plan going to come from, the kids milk money?"
Where is the money for that multi-trillion dollar debt going to come from? The kids' milk money?
Does that 90 year old care about me or mine? If not, why should I care about him?
===============================
You have a plan for evaluating that premise?
Is he a veteran who fought for your right to say stupid things? If so, I would say he cared about you and yours.
It appears that Hydra and apparently everyone he knows lives a life that could be straight out of a Dickens novel.
"Sure they do, but not as often as banks."
which is why you choose a bank carefully. there are many banks that have been around longer than any country.
you can also hedge it. if you are worried, buy CDS's on the bank's debt.
they cost around 50bp. if the bank went under, you'd get paid out at 200:1 and could go buy a new annuity somewhere else.
the us federal government has $140tn i liabilities and no clear way to meet them. would you put your money in a bank like that?
He may be your grandfather.
Fine. He can move in with me and I'll take care of him.
================================
How big is the health savings plan you put aside for such an eventuality?
What happens if you find you cannot take care of him?
What you are suggesting is that the resto fo us should put our trust in a private annuity which is promised and guaranteed by ----- you: an individual person who says stupid things.
I put that in the high risk category, because I cannot trust you to take care of your grandfather. Maybe you will and maybe you won't, but If I consider you statitstically with everyone else in the same boat, well, you are a bad risk.
Perhaps, but absent SS "surplus" that masks the size of the deficit, the government would not have been able to piss away staggering sums
================================
You mean like Bear Sterns and Morgan?
"How many times have banks gone under and how many times has the government gone under?"...
LOL!
Love the outlook hydra!...
Guess what? The government is under now...
It only gets better amigo: Largest private owner of U.S. Treasuries: debt doomsday in 2016[video clip]
hydar-
also:
no one is making you buy that annuity. it's a choice. buy government bonds if you think it's a better idea. buy annuities from 5 banks to diversify. put money in bonds and stocks.
you could put the money in your sock drawer and it would outperform social security. a savings account would trounce it.
"You mean like Bear Sterns and Morgan?"
huh?
"Respectful?
You mean as in you ignorant liberal dickhead ?"...
You mean the facts aren't respectful hydra?!?!
Naw dude, just kidding you...
Still the fact of the matter is that we as a nation can no longer afford these 'socialist and constitutionally questionable programs' and maybe we never could...
Consider the following from EconMatters: U.S. National Debt: Wealth Tax vs. Income Tax
Look at the state of California and its problems of what happens when excessive government largesse comes back around to bite the productive citizens in the collective ass: Calpers Generates 1% Return, Misses Discount Rate Target By 87%
"You mean like Bear Sterns and Morgan?"...
Well yeah hydra but then again Obama's venture socialism was also an epic fail of monumental proportions and also with a questionably legal twist: Federal funds flow to clean-energy firms with Obama administration ties
Overall, the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers...
Is this what are extorted tax dollars should be going for?
"No, but I beleive he should get benefits commensurate with what he contributed. Getting what you pay for is not being a parasite"...
Well hydra the money extorted by the federal government for the Ponzi scheme called socialist security comes nowhere close to the monies that the same individual will receive if that person is getting checks five to seven years after retirement...
I note that others here have also shown this little tidbit to you and of course in previous threads on this site it has been made apparent to you time and again...
You would have done better if that FICA money had instead gone into a simple passbook savings account...
Paul: Yeah, FDR's war on capitalism was indeed brutal and devastating to millions of Americans.
http://ourfuture.org/files/images/Depression-GDP-output-1.gif
Jet Beagle: Singapore's social security system does not use Peter's forced savings to pay for Paul's welfare
That is incorrect. Most medical services include subsidies with the amount of subsidy tied to income.
http://tinyurl.com/SingaporeMeansTesting
Jet Beagle: Does that 90 year old care about me or mine? If not, why should I care about him?
He quit school in the Depression because he had to work, volunteered to fight fascism, worked hard, paid taxes.
Yet, you called him a "complete slack ass."
Jet Beagle: NO ONE WAS FORCED TO MIGRATE. People chose to because living and working on a farm sucks.
Millions were forced to migrate by the precipitous drop in farm prices, and by the Dust Bowl.
morganovich has left a new comment on the post "America's Highly Progressive Federal Tax System":
"
you can buy that same product on the private market and SS performs well in comparisons and private annuities are inherently risky."
that is totally untrue.
back that up. show me the figures. i will bet you that you cannot.
here's one: http://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/annuities-vs-social-security/
coyote has run through the math as well.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/01/social_security-2.html
you are just flat out wrong here lar.
nope. ya'll are comparing apples and oranges. SS is an insurance annuity not a pension plan
"because of the obvious way things really are..."
translation: you have no answer. nice try but that would not convince a 3rd grader. the fact is you have no answer. just be honest about it. your view is based on nothing but your emotional attachment to a paternalistic nanny state.
oh horse manure..
"
wrong Morg. SS is funded from FICA taxes. What was "stolen" was the trust fund (which works like 200 other trust funds also work)."
and that fund is going to repaid how lar? oh yeah, from the general fund. you seem to have no idea how this works. who do you think has to pay the ious that replaced the "trust fund"? it's either non fica taxes or printing money, which is just another kind or tax (on savers) and makes the problem worse as SS is indexed to cpi.
Morg the trust fund is 2.1 trillion. That's enough for two years of SS.
FICA is how SS is funded. The trust fund is a small set-aside fund.
you could take that fund away and FICA would continue to fund SS (at a reduced rate).
"
yup.. but not recovered."
most are. i walked you through the math on a really simple portfolio. if your fund is still down from 2007, you are a really bad investor. just the S+P + dividends is up from 2007. our investors are up 135% after fees (about 160% before fees) since 2007. most of the funds i know are well over their 2007 highs.
horse manure
you are just making stuff up here larry.
"
because if we don't we end up with the bill."
no, we don't.
yeah we do. Why do you think Singapore and Chile required mandatory payroll instead of voluntary? one reason guy.
that's what charity is for. people do not save because they have a safety net. take it away, and they will, just like they used to.
in your opinion not in most people's who vote and most govt that implement such systems.
yup - but you don't represent the average American."
who cares? the whole point of rights and liberty to not to have the views of the average american forced upon you.
you really do not get this inalienable rights and liberty thing larry.
Oh I do "get it" but do you "get" the difference between an opinion like yours and having it actually implemented.
what you favor has zero chance of happening. A compromise might but you're not in that business... it's all or nothing so it's nothing.
re: HTML..
I'll try...
re: lies and dishonesty
I think Obama delivered what he promised to the people who voted for him.
The folks who voted against him would not give him credit for anything he did anyhow so it's no big loss.
The GOP is not promising anything to those who they are seeking votes - the middle voters.
they are basically saying " we'll repeal ObamaCare and trust us for what else we'll do".
that's dishonest.
they're not even promising those who would vote for them anything.
why would people vote for that?
morganovich: "people do not save because they have a safety net. take it away, and they will, just like they used to."
Jet - Exactly right.
then why - when both Singapore and Chile when they had the opportunity to go to a voluntary free market system they instead went to a mandated tax and govt controlled system?
why?
The Larry Two Step:
1.do you subscribe to idea X?
2. You do? Well then you're in denial about reality.
nope.
1. - do you understand and recognize what the reality is BEFORE you come up with an idea that will work instead of coming up with some lame-brained idea that has no chance of succeeding because it ignores reality.
Zachriel,
I appreciate your attempt to attribute quotes to the proper authors. However, I wasn;t the author of two of the three statements which you attributed to me.
The Singapore quote was mone.
I wasn't aware of Singapore's subsidies for medical services. But I was referring to the retirement savings programs for both Singapore and Chile.
here's another article on why SS is an annuity not a pension:
Social Security: The Cheapest Annuity in Town
http://blogs.smartmoney.com/encore/2012/05/30/social-security-the-cheapest-annuity-in-town/
Zachriel,
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/newdealunemploy.jpg
"He quit school in the Depression because he had to work, volunteered to fight fascism, worked hard, paid taxes."
Or maybe he did none of those things. In any case, why is this my problem?
"Millions were forced to migrate by the precipitous drop in farm prices, and by the Dust Bowl."
And so in response FDR created the fascist AAA in 1933 that forced farmers to plow under crops and kill off livestock at a time when millions were going hungry. Yeah, that solved everything and really caused that GDP to skyrocket!
"I think Obama delivered what he promised to the people who voted for him."
He LIED about the mandate. He lied about cutting spending. He lied about transparency. He lied about going "line by line" through the federal budget. He lied about putting any pending bills online 5 days before he signed them. He lied about not raising taxes.
And you, Larry, lie when you pretend to care about dishonesty from politicans.
"The folks who voted against him would not give him credit for anything he did anyhow so it's no big loss."
In other words, Larry does not care when Obama lies.
"they are basically saying " we'll repeal ObamaCare and trust us for what else we'll do".
that's dishonest."
What's really dishonest is you pretending we haven't already mentioned the Ryan plan.
"they're not even promising those who would vote for them anything.
why would people vote for that?"
They're promising me they will roll back the handouts to freeloaders like you and to the new ones Obama is doing his bestto create. So I'll vote for that.
"I think Obama delivered what he promised to the people who voted for him."
He LIED about the mandate. He lied about cutting spending. He lied about transparency. He lied about going "line by line" through the federal budget. He lied about putting any pending bills online 5 days before he signed them. He lied about not raising taxes.
he didn't do anything that other politicians do. I can give you a laundry list for each President.
so what?
And you, Larry, lie when you pretend to care about dishonesty from politicans.
I care when they say "trust me" and make no disclosures about what they will do.
"The folks who voted against him would not give him credit for anything he did anyhow so it's no big loss."
In other words, Larry does not care when Obama lies.
Nope. the people who voted for him to start with can legitimately judge him for what he delivered and not.
the folks who voted against him will continue to be against him no matter what.
"they are basically saying " we'll repeal ObamaCare and trust us for what else we'll do".
that's dishonest."
What's really dishonest is you pretending we haven't already mentioned the Ryan plan.
they did not say REPEAL and our replace is Ryan's Plan because if they had it would cost them the election and they know it so they avoiding making that promise.
"they're not even promising those who would vote for them anything.
why would people vote for that?"
They're promising me they will roll back the handouts to freeloaders like you and to the new ones Obama is doing his bestto create. So I'll vote for that.
no they're not. they're playing you by implying things without every really making specific proposals that voters can actually judge them on. They're basically running a "trust me" campaign.
Do you people have jobs?
Larry vs. Larry:
"he didn't do anything that other politicians do. I can give you a laundry list for each President."
or?
"geeze Paul.. when you run for election, you ought to be telling people what you're going to do....otherwise it's totally dishonest"
Hmmm, how to explain the double standard?
"no they're not. they're playing you by implying things without every really making specific proposals that voters can actually judge them on. They're basically running a "trust me" campaign."
Once again, moron, THEY PASSED THE RYAN PLAN 2 YEARS IN A ROW.
Hydra,
What you are suggesting is that the resto fo us should put our trust in a private annuity which is promised and guaranteed by ----- you: an individual person who says stupid things.
Nothing is guaranteed, stupid. Did you miss when Obama held SS hostage so he could get his debt ceiling raised? Even though we've been told that the government will guarantee this, what went down was what everyone who has opposed predicted: whatever the government "gives", it can take away. This is the boneheaded problem with idiots like you: you think there are actual guarantees and that the government cares.
Let me clue you in on something that all adults know: nothing is guaranteed and politicians only care about getting reelected and public bureaucrats only care about getting a bigger budget. If I cannot (in the scenario you're talking about) take care of my grandfather, he'll die. As unfortunate as that is, that's the reality of life.
Using the government to force others to take care of him may help him, but as Bastiat says there are things seen and things unseen. In your relentless drive to do things that are seen, you completely ignore the devastation you are causing in the unseen. That money you take from Paul to pay for my father guarantees Paul now is less prepared to take care of his grandfather. And since the government always takes his cut, the amount of help my grandfather gets is LESS than the amount of help Paul's grandfather would have gotten.
In other words, since you live in a fantasy land and simply assume that all those who are young and healthy now will remain young and healthy, therefore, they should all be made worse off to pay for the old and infirm.
However, in the real world those young healthy people will become old and infirm. But you have made it harder for them to prepare and take care of themselves because you couldn't give a shit about them.
It is people like you who have created the dependence culture. It is people like you who have herded black people into inner city ghettos to have them kill each other. It is people like you who have destroyed black families. It is people like you who preen about helping others, when all the while you create hells on earth. It is people like you who care more about empty rhetoric, than doing something that actually works that causes such unnecessary misery.
Ken - are you essentially opposed to govt in general?
Can you name a country that you believe does govt "right"?
It also does not speak well of you when you name call those you disagree with.
Hydra represents far more people than you do - in this country - and around the world.
you are the minority.
you have no country that works the way you say it should.
Larry G: "Can you name a country that you believe does govt "right"?"
Larry, you have used this argument before - implying that because a practice is not used anywhere today, it must not be valid. Don't you think that's a little closed-minded?
Consider slavery. Slavery was a common, almost global practice a few hundred years ago. That didn't make it right.
Or consider women's suffrage. I don't know of any country which allowed women to vote in the 19th century. That didn't make it right.
The majority of the U.S. population currently believes it is acceptable to force productive citizens - and only productive citizens - to be charitable. That doesn't make it right.
Libertarians and like-minded citizens are trying to change this nation, just as abolitionists changed the nation in the 19th century and suffragists did in the early 20th century.
Can you provide a moral argument to support your apparent belief that it is acceptable to force some - but not all - of the population to be charitable?
Larry, you have used this argument before - implying that because a practice is not used anywhere today, it must not be valid. Don't you think that's a little closed-minded?
no. it recognizes reality.
Consider slavery. Slavery was a common, almost global practice a few hundred years ago. That didn't make it right.
agree...
Or consider women's suffrage. I don't know of any country which allowed women to vote in the 19th century. That didn't make it right.
agree again
The majority of the U.S. population currently believes it is acceptable to force productive citizens - and only productive citizens - to be charitable. That doesn't make it right.
the majority of the industrialized world....
Libertarians and like-minded citizens are trying to change this nation, just as abolitionists changed the nation in the 19th century and suffragists did in the early 20th century.
and they have to convince the majority and so far, they have not.
Can you provide a moral argument to support your apparent belief that it is acceptable to force some - but not all - of the population to be charitable?
yes. basically if society will not let those who refuse to save (and their children) die in the streets - and will instead tax everyone to "save" them - you are stuck with mandating enforced savings.
When I see the libertarians convince a majority to repeal EMTALA, MedicAid and MediCare I will believe you have succeeded.
Until then - your "success" at convincing people is pretty dismal in terms of how many in Congress represent your views and submit real REPEAL legislation of EMTALA, MedicAid and MediCare.
That is a pragmatic view of the reality that I work off of.
I seriously believe in individual responsibility and I openly acknowledge the moral hazard conundrum when you "save" people and then people get used to being "saved".
From a practical point of view - it is easier to build a system that does not have moral hazards from one that does not already have them than it is to attempt to rollback in countries that are thoroughly invested in govt "help".
you're swimming upstream not through riffles but waterfalls.
Larry G: "yes. basically if society will not let those who refuse to save (and their children) die in the streets - and will instead tax everyone to "save" them - you are stuck with mandating enforced savings."
No, Larry, you are not. Taxation is not the only way to take care of the irresponsible and the unfortunate.
You did not provide a moral argument to justify a majority forcing others to be charitable. All you can offer is that "majority rules".
Larry,
I'm going to ask respectfully one more time: please stop quoting me without somehow clearly indicating where my words stop and yours start.
Larry G: "yes. basically if society will not let those who refuse to save (and their children) die in the streets - and will instead tax everyone to "save" them - you are stuck with mandating enforced savings."
No, Larry, you are not. Taxation is not the only way to take care of the irresponsible and the unfortunate.
true - but you have to convince a majority of a better way before they'll go along with it.
You did not provide a moral argument to justify a majority forcing others to be charitable. All you can offer is that "majority rules".
the "moral" argument is that people don't want to be taxed to pay for those that are irresponsible so they support mandated savings instead.
Since both Singapore and Chili only recently changed their systems why do you think they went with mandated savings rather that other "better" ways?
So Singapore.. on in 1999 (I believe) had the opportunity to go to a voluntary system without mandated payroll taxes and without govt subsidies for those who did not save and without govt control of the prices and price disclosure...
and instead they chose the govt imposed system that included mandated savings.
Don't you think if Singapore failed to implement what you advocate that it's an even harder task to convince the US to do so?
If Singapore had actually implemented a real free-market system with no govt involvement, I would have given you even odds for the US to adopt a similar system but since no country has even come close to doing what you advocate - then a pragmatic view is that you're blowing some serious smoke.....
As I said - when I see polls that the public supports doing away with EMTALA - and letting people be directly responsible instead of being able to get "free" treatment at virtually any hospital - I'll take seriously the idea that we could actually see such a change.
I just don't think Americans are going to watch a kid die because his parents can't afford to pay for his lifesaving care.
not going to happen.
@Jet - I'll try to make the extra effort guy for you guy.
How about this?
Thanks, Larry.
larry-
" the majority of the industrialized world...."
you cannot possibly think this is a response to jet.
you agree that wide agreement on issues like slavery and women's suffrage did not make them right.
then in literally you next sentence, yo try to defend the redistribution of wealth by force by claiming that everyone does it?
do you not see the inconsistency there?
that is precisely the rationale that you just agreed proves nothing.
good grief.
"That is a pragmatic view of the reality that I work off of."
no, you don't. your views are internally inconsistent and based upon logical fallacies that you yourself have repudiated.
that is not pragmatism, it's baseless emotional dogmatism.
Larry G,
Ken - are you essentially opposed to govt in general?
Any rational person is. All rational people recognize that government is a necessary evil.
Can you name a country that you believe does govt "right"?
All government does some right. This is no way means that everything all governments do is right. Try not to be such a dumbass.
It also does not speak well of you when you name call those you disagree with.
Fuck you.
Hydra represents far more people than you do - in this country - and around the world.
Appeal to the mob doesn't speak well of you or Hydra.
you are the minority.
So?
you have no country that works the way you say it should.
I know.
Can you name a country that you think is 100% perfect and works exactly as you think it should? If not, then you should also recognize what a perfidious question you've just asked.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry and Hydra,
Can either one of you articulate why it's such a great idea to fuck over tomorrow's old people in order to "help" today's old people? Can either one of you articulate on what moral grounds you stand, when advocating for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich (old people are 47 TIMES wealthier than the young)?
" the majority of the industrialized world...."
you cannot possibly think this is a response to jet.
well.. it's the reality... right?
you agree that wide agreement on issues like slavery and women's suffrage did not make them right.
but that does not make what you want as "right", guy. slavery is clear cut... government and taxation is not.
then in literally you next sentence, yo try to defend the redistribution of wealth by force by claiming that everyone does it?
nope. I say that's what people want AND they think it IS "right".
do you not see the inconsistency there?
no. People believe that helping others is one of the things that govt is for.
that is precisely the rationale that you just agreed proves nothing.
I realize it's not your view.
good grief.
you're equating that the whole industrialized world might think slavery is "ok" as equivalent to thinking mandated savings for rainy days ....
ya'll want revolutionary change.
realistically, you have a much better chance at EVOLUTIONARY change.
For instance, the might well be support for a Singapore type system as a first step...towards more responsible personal behavior.
but you guys won't agree to that - you want a revolution...and that's just not realistic.
"nope. I say that's what people want AND they think it IS "right"."
which is meaningless and inconsistent as you already said that just because people wanted slavery and agreed that it was right did not make it so.
you seem to have a weird mental block around this logic larry.
you keep trying to appeal to majority rule to demonstrate rightness when you have already admitted that the majority supporting something does not prove that it is right.
you do this over and over and try to describe this logical fallacy as "reality" or "pragmatic" when what it really is is provably bad logic.
you keep appealing to the tyranny of the crowd and ignoring that that is precisely what our form of government was set up to prevent.
which is meaningless and inconsistent as you already said that just because people wanted slavery and agreed that it was right did not make it so.
you seem to have a weird mental block around this logic larry.
you keep trying to appeal to majority rule to demonstrate rightness when you have already admitted that the majority supporting something does not prove that it is right.
you do this over and over and try to describe this logical fallacy as "reality" or "pragmatic" when what it really is is provably bad logic.
you keep appealing to the tyranny of the crowd and ignoring that that is precisely what our form of government was set up to prevent.
Morg - isn't your basic position that if the majority supports a tax to pay for something you disagree with that you are being "enslaved"?
so if you disagree with a tax you have to pay - others are "enslaving" you?
larry-
my point is that you are repeatedly being logically inconsistent and seem unable to see it.
you are using an invalid argument, over and over.
now you are trying to change the subject and wiggle out.
let's take this one issue at a time.
do you or do you not accept that "everyone does it" is not a proof of rightness or legality?
if you do, then why do you keep trying to use it as justification?
if you do not, then why did you agree with the points about slavery and suffrage?
When the tax consists of taking from you and giving to themselves under force of imprisonment, what else would you call it? This is why all wealth transfers are moral rot; they are all based on slavery.
so any tax that you disagree with in a majority-elected government is "enslavement"?
let's ask the question a different way larry:
by what right or consistently applicable ethical principal is is just for you to vote yourself money out of my pocket and then take it by force?
try defending these wealth transfers from first principles.
i will bet that you cannot and will hide once more behind the logical fallacy of "everyone does it".
give it a shot lar.
i think the exercise will show you how morally indefensible the position is.
it's just tyranny of the majority sanctioned theft masquerading as common good.
let's take this one issue at a time.
do you or do you not accept that "everyone does it" is not a proof of rightness or legality?
if you do, then why do you keep trying to use it as justification?
if you do not, then why did you agree with the points about slavery and suffrage?
"everyone does it" - ALL majority-elected governments tax and "force" you to pay the tax regardless if you personally agree or not.
the "right" or "wrong" of it is like saying that - that KIND of governance (that allows majority rule) is wrong.
majority-elected governments define what taxation will pay for (and not).
Different people will say that some taxes are "right" and some are "wrong" (the ones they disagree with).
but essentially it seems to me that your position is that ANY government that allows the majority to determine what to tax and for what purpose is "wrong" if the majority's view of what is "right" is different from your view.
The Constitution clearly gives people the right to decide by vote what they will agree to be taxed for and not.
In fact, the Constitutions of every single industrialized Democracy in the world allows that also.
are you saying that all industrialized governments are "inconsistent" in their logic about "forcing" taxes to pay for others?
I'm not so much advocating that position as pointing out that virtually every Democracy in the world which is people who vote - believe that taxation is 'right' and not enslavement.
larry,
You are smart enough to see the difference between:
a. enacting taxes to pay for national defense or police; and
b. enacting taxes to transfer money from one household to another.
I imagine that you can even provide a moral argument to justify the first tax. But you don't have any moral justification for the second.
You are smart enough to see the difference between:
a. enacting taxes to pay for national defense or police; and
b. enacting taxes to transfer money from one household to another.
I imagine that you can even provide a moral argument to justify the first tax. But you don't have any moral justification for the second.
in the minds of MOST voters - taxing to pay for others IS MORAL.
If they did not believe that - they'd vote out of office anyone who said otherwise.
Again - I cite you EMTALA - a law that says that you will pay for others medical care - and I cite to you that not one elected official has said that it is wrong to "tax" others to pay for medical care of others and that it should be repealed.
If someone REALLY believed that making others pay for medical care was wrong - shouldn't they advocate repeal of that law?
How many have done that?
How many have been voted out of office for NOT saying they would repeal EMTALA?
larry-
wow. have you ever even read the us constitution?
the whole point of the document is that the inalienable rights of the individual have primacy and cannot be violated by the government no matter how big a majority supports it.
we've been around and around this a dozen times, but you seem unable to grasp the concept and keep trying to use majority rule as a justification even though you have repudiated such around slavery and suffrage.
i am really at a loss here. there seems to be no way to get this point across to yo in any sort of durable way.
your description of the constitution is so completely wrong it's difficult to know where to start.
the rights of the individual as enumerated there are inviolate.
the powers of the federal government are strictly limited.
read the 10th amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
so, where in the constitution are the powers of wealth redistribution delegated to the federal government?
sure, they can tax, but what entitles them to use that power to redistribute wealth?
"
in the minds of MOST voters - taxing to pay for others IS MORAL."
and, as predicted, you run back and hide behind tyranny of the majority.
in 1750 slavery was moral in the minds of most voters. did that make it so?
you have already said no.
what will it take for you to see this inconsistency in your thinking?
i'm honestly baffled that you can keep making these contradictory arguments.
Post a Comment
<< Home