If given the option to pay in something or nothing to the government, what would you take?
The option most people would take. Which is to invest the money myself. Get a higher return and not actually have to have the government decide when I retire. To actually have enough to live above the poverty level. To actually contribute more back to society because those earnings are taxed. To actually invest in the economy instead of draining it. And if I die my wife gets all of what I've invested.
Especially the way it's being sold now. The conservatives are telling people it's essentailly a swindle.
There's a new company selling a retirement product. You pay in through forced payroll withdrawl. The return is about 1.5% you'll still be taxed on that gain. The money is paid out in monthly installments when they decide you are old enough to retire. If you die 1 day after your eleigible they keep all of it. Want to sign up? It's called Social Security.
If that was a private company the government would have shut it down years ago, the anti capitalists on the left would be holding it up as a poster boy for corporate malfeasance and rightly so. But because it has the name government attached it's o.k.
Amazing that the left is so concerned about library records being able to be reviewed in the patriot act, they scream loss of freedom. Then they turn around and embrace one of the biggest takers of freedom of all.
Like I said Rick, Rat, if it's such a good idea people why would most people opt out of it as even you admit?
Don't know, you had no problem generalizing about conservatives. But it's only fair to ask, Do you think S.S is fine the way it is or should people be able to opt out?
rat, under the current rules, i won't be able to collect until at least 2044. at my current salary i'll dump into the system 180000 over the course of my working years. no way in hell am i going to see that money come back to me.
People say shit like that because they're arrogant and prefer to talk down to people
A). It's easy to say and it makes them appear sufficiently cynical and sophisticated to the ways of the world.
See above.
B). It's a way of indicting a previous generation for fiscal mismanagement.
It's not any one persons fault. It has nothing to do with someone wanting to indict a previous generantion. Do you think it might just be becasue they are actually concerned about their retirement ? Nah, they probably want to just to seem sufficiently cynical and sophisticated in the ways of the world, yea that's it.
C). When the money arrives, which it will, they know there won't be anyone around to call them on it.
nor do you know that i will. on the other hand, if i'm paying attention and the stock market tanks, i can sell off every share in my 401k, hold the cash in the account and wait for a recovery. i might not make back every cent in the account, but at least i know i'll have something there for me.
Plus if you die before then they get to keep it. What a swell deal. Of course I'm only saying that because I want to sound sufficiently cynical and sophisticated in the ways of the world.
You're not interested in fixing it. You're interested in destroying it.
No, that's not true. One could say it's already destroyed because it was set up to fail since the begining. The idea of social security isn't bad, but the current format is simply messed up.
Government has done a helluva lot better by me than any private entity has done.
Man, you must be in some dire straits.
My private retirement does a hell of a lot better than Social Security will ever pay me.
Means testing whether or not you get all the money you and your employer have paid into the system for years and years is inherently unfair. But so what, the fact is it's a welfare system pure and simple.
Under Bush's proposal, people already receiving or about to receive their benefits will NOT LOSE THEM. People not yet there will have the choice to stay in the system as it is or opt to invest SOME OF their own SS taxes. They will not be allowed to opt out entirely. It is forced savings.
I wish they'd done this thirty years ago. I'd be rich when I retire.
I think it's you who needs to try again... I don't have issues with you. Just your attitude. You seem to think you are better then everyone else here.
Bottom line... It's LAME....
I said it before and I'll say it again.
I will admit your constant insults are quite amusing but again they just solidify my initial point. You rant and rave like a child who doesn't get his way. When someone doesn't think or believe in what you do you find it easier to call them names and flap off at the mouth. It's high school man... take a trip to the future and catch a clue.....
Anyway, when they admit that, maybe we can really do something to fix it.
You're not interested in fixing it. You're interested in destroying it.
If given the option to pay in something or nothing to the government, what would you take?
The option most people would take. Which is to invest the money myself. Get a higher return and not actually have to have the government decide when I retire. To actually have enough to live above the poverty level. To actually contribute more back to society because those earnings are taxed. To actually invest in the economy instead of draining it. And if I die my wife gets all of what I've invested.
Especially the way it's being sold now. The conservatives are telling people it's essentailly a swindle.
There's a new company selling a retirement product. You pay in through forced payroll withdrawl. The return is about 1.5% you'll still be taxed on that gain. The money is paid out in monthly installments when they decide you are old enough to retire. If you die 1 day after your eleigible they keep all of it. Want to sign up? It's called Social Security.
If that was a private company the government would have shut it down years ago, the anti capitalists on the left would be holding it up as a poster boy for corporate malfeasance and rightly so. But because it has the name government attached it's o.k.
Amazing that the left is so concerned about library records being able to be reviewed in the patriot act, they scream loss of freedom. Then they turn around and embrace one of the biggest takers of freedom of all.
Like I said
Rick, Rat, if it's such a good idea people why would most people opt out of it as even you admit?Because conservatives are trying to teach people to hate and distrust their own government.
Because conservatives are trying to teach people to hate and distrust their own government.
Because conservatives are trying to teach people to hate and distrust their own government.
Sing your "sweet freedom" song at the Senior Citizens centers , Rob.
Maybe you can tell the Depression Babies how wonderful the stock market works for them.
Freedom from want is freedom, too. And that's what SS gave them.
yeah. what conservatives preach is that its unpatriotic to distrust the government. or at least those charged with leading it.
yeah. what conservatives preach is that its unpatriotic to distrust the government. or at least those charged with leading it.
Sing your "sweet freedom" song at the Senior Citizens centers , Rob.
Maybe you can tell the Depression Babies how wonderful the stock market works for them.
Freedom from want is freedom, too. And that's what SS gave them.
Key word there being gave. It's not 1932. Times change and the system has changed. Some people haven't.
jethro for one. but in general, all you need to do is look around you.
joe!
jethro for one. but in general, all you need to do is look around you.
Freedom from want is freedom, too. And that's what SS gave them.
SS doesn't make anyone freedom from want. You really do live in la-la land.
Tell me, does the left not distrust the government too? Both sides do.
anyone sane on the left distrusts it. i trust the government about as far as i can kick it.
yeah. what conservatives preach is that its unpatriotic to distrust the government. or at least those charged with leading it.
and conservatives do not "preach" mistrust of those that lead the country. In fact, conservatives supported Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld and company.
blow me.
Â
anyone sane on the left distrusts it. i trust the government about as far as i can kick it.
Well Rick was just said...... Â
Because conservatives are trying to teach people to hate and distrust their own government.
Guess you're a conservative then Ares.
So you trust the government as far as you can throw them but are comfortable having them run the largest retirement plan in the county?
inconsistency is a hallmark of liberals.
So you trust the government as far as you can throw them but are comfortable having them run the largest retirement plan in the county?
have i ever said that?
inconsistency is a hallmark of liberals.
and because i don't fall lockstep with one line of thinking i'm automatically the other?
Government has done a helluva lot better by me than any private entity has done.
That I know.
And in return, they've gotten bang for the buck.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 7, 2005 at 10:27am.]
have I ever said that?
Don't know, you had no problem generalizing about conservatives. But it's only fair to ask, Do you think S.S is fine the way it is or should people be able to opt out?
[Edited by on Jan 7, 2005 at 10:26am.]
i'd just as soon opt out of it. its not as though i'm going to see a cent of my 6.7 percent of my paychecks or whatever the rate is anyway.
"its not as though i'm going to see a cent of my 6.7 percent of my paychecks or whatever the rate is anyway."
People say things like this for three reasons:
A). It's easy to say and it makes them appear sufficiently cynical and sophisticated to the ways of the world.
B). It's a way of indicting a previous generation for fiscal mismanagement.
C). When the money arrives, which it will, they know there won't be anyone around to call them on it.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Jan 7, 2005 at 10:49am.]
Exactly.
BTW being self employed I have to pay in the other half that my employer normally would.
rat, under the current rules, i won't be able to collect until at least 2044. at my current salary i'll dump into the system 180000 over the course of my working years. no way in hell am i going to see that money come back to me.
BTW being self employed I have to pay in the other half that my employer normally would.
yeah, but that half is deductible :)
"no way in hell am i going to see that money come back to me. "
You don't know that.
People say things like this for three reasons:
People say shit like that because they're arrogant and prefer to talk down to people
A). It's easy to say and it makes them appear sufficiently cynical and sophisticated to the ways of the world.
See above.
B). It's a way of indicting a previous generation for fiscal mismanagement.
It's not any one persons fault. It has nothing to do with someone wanting to indict a previous generantion. Do you think it might just be becasue they are actually concerned about their retirement ? Nah, they probably want to just to seem sufficiently cynical and sophisticated in the ways of the world, yea that's it.
C). When the money arrives, which it will, they know there won't be anyone around to call them on it.
BTW being self employed I have to pay in the other half that my employer normally would.
yeah, but that half is deductible :)
Yea great.
nor do you know that i will. on the other hand, if i'm paying attention and the stock market tanks, i can sell off every share in my 401k, hold the cash in the account and wait for a recovery. i might not make back every cent in the account, but at least i know i'll have something there for me.
What were the Republicans offering at the time of the New Deal, Rob?
Anything besides highfawlutin' platitudes?
ares 1/7/05 10:59am
Plus if you die before then they get to keep it. What a swell deal. Of course I'm only saying that because I want to sound sufficiently cynical and sophisticated in the ways of the world.
What were the Republicans offering at the time of the New Deal, Rob?
What was that you were saying about a desire to indict a previous generation?
That's a jethro answer.
What were the Republicans offering at the time of the New Deal, Rob?
Anything besides highfawlutin' platitudes?
That's a jethro answer.
You're not interested in fixing it. You're interested in destroying it.
No, that's not true. One could say it's already destroyed because it was set up to fail since the begining. The idea of social security isn't bad, but the current format is simply messed up.
Government has done a helluva lot better by me than any private entity has done.
Man, you must be in some dire straits.
My private retirement does a hell of a lot better than Social Security will ever pay me.
Not dire straits by any measure I can think of.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 7, 2005 at 11:53am.]
I was joking, Rick.
Oldie-but-goodie
http://www.bleacheatingfreaks.com/files/News.1.6/reallifevsinternet.wmv
Means testing whether or not you get all the money you and your employer have paid into the system for years and years is inherently unfair. But so what, the fact is it's a welfare system pure and simple.
Under Bush's proposal, people already receiving or about to receive their benefits will NOT LOSE THEM. People not yet there will have the choice to stay in the system as it is or opt to invest SOME OF their own SS taxes. They will not be allowed to opt out entirely. It is forced savings.
I wish they'd done this thirty years ago. I'd be rich when I retire.
They have already spent that money, and it is NOT in any account.
You aren't THAT naive, are you?
Go find where the hell I even talked about it being in some account and let me know.
Means testing.
Fold disagrees because it's a Bush plan. If it was a Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi or any liberal plan, he would be all for it.
You better be careful... that OTS guy will shit-hammer you.
Man, I waited all night for that. Another winning comment from Fold!
[Edited by on Jan 9, 2005 at 05:09am.]
I think it's you who needs to try again... I don't have issues with you. Just your attitude. You seem to think you are better then everyone else here.
Bottom line... It's LAME....
I said it before and I'll say it again.
I will admit your constant insults are quite amusing but again they just solidify my initial point. You rant and rave like a child who doesn't get his way. When someone doesn't think or believe in what you do you find it easier to call them names and flap off at the mouth. It's high school man... take a trip to the future and catch a clue.....
You keep talking like an idiot and I'll keep pointing it out :).
Wasn't it you that just said:
You need to learn to post 1 time, and don't try to explain yourself too much... Nobody gives a shit. K?
Gee, thanks.
You can feel free to see it however you want, entertainment or not. If you are offended by my posts & if they bother you then ignore me.
If they aren't important then don't respond to them.
Telling me to leave just makes my point again. You can't handle people not agreeing with you.
More child like responses :).
Have a good day Fold... I'll be talking to you later.