🔥 This is why I oppose making things public institutions.
-
So the next problem is all the private pensions going bankrupt, leaving millions of people without any retirement funds. What then?
-
So the next problem is all the private pensions going bankrupt, leaving millions of people without any retirement funds. What then?
Retirement is your own personal problem.
Invest in Roth....
Stop expecting someone to pay for you to sit around doing nothing.
Besides, you just said 40 years experience is an advantage.
-
Yeah, you need to have a surplus in order to invest one. And it's all sucked up by the Boomers.
-
Do you understand that the problem is not Social Security?
Social Security is a problem in and of itself. No matter what bigger problems exist.
Social Security is just one of the faces of this problem.
No one is disagreeing about this!
-
Yeah, you need to have a surplus in order to invest one. And it's all sucked up by the Boomers.
Again, another reason to end social security....
What's the tally now?
-
Social Security is a problem in and of itself. No matter what bigger problems exist.
He seems to think that a bunch of Boomers not getting to retire and travel in a mobile is somehow my problem.
That's why, in his world, Social Security must exist.
I'm not completely understanding.
I don't give a fuck about anyone's retirement other than my own, and my parents.
-
0-1 against abolishment.
-
I haven't come up with a good enough reason to end social security.
Every complaint you've had is a good enough reason to end it.
-
He seems to think that a bunch of Boomers not getting to retire and travel in a mobile is somehow my problem.
It will be, since they are the largest voting bloc in America and will make it your problem.
That's why, in his world, Social Security must exist.
No, that's not "why". Social Security does good. It has been broken by demographics, which will pass. It's the demographics that are the problem, since the problem would have existed even if Social Security did not exist.
I don't give a fuck about anyone's retirement other than my own, and my parents.
You should start, since you're going to be paying for them. In Social Security, inflation, capital market deflation, and all sorts of other bad economic jujus.
-
He seems to think that a bunch of Boomers not getting to retire and travel in a mobile is somehow my problem.
Probably some of them won't. Independent retirement is a relatively new thing.
That's also not an argument that Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme, in case you were keeping score.
-
Social Security does good. It has been broken by demographics
And always will be susceptible.
I don't understand why you want to keep something with a glaring flaw.
Especially since you seem to compare it to unfunded pensions and hate the shit out of those.
It will be, since they are the largest voting block in America and will make it your problem.
They can only raise the tax rate on it.
You know who's good about lowering tax rates? Conservatives.
You should start, since you're going to be paying for them. In Social Security, inflation, capital market deflation, and all sorts of other bad economic jujus.
Welcome to tyranny of the majority. A trademark of socialism.
Can we stop voting for entitlements now?
-
I don't hate pensions. But if pensions are good, then so is Social Security. They have the same flaw, as you point out. Nobody wants to abolish pensions or 401k or IRA or any of the other retirement funding schemes...
They can only raise the tax rate on it.
You know who's good about lowering tax rates? Conservatives.
LOL! Too naive.
-
Keep making the argument that socialism is great on paper, if all these bad things don't happen.
But it's never the socialism or entitlement, it's the bad things that happen to fuck up socialism and entitlements.
And if there's a private sector thing that looks like the socialism entitlement, it's terrible. I'm going to use that to show how the bad thing is even worse, and the private sector shouldn't do those things.
But if the government does it, it's a good thing without any flaws.
It's not my castle, it's the sand underneath it. My castle is flawless.
-
They have the same flaw, as you point out
Only if they're unfunded, have no investments, don't have assets and no way to relieve or pay out.
401k or IRA or any of the other retirement funding schemes...
Don't have the same flaw.
-
Don't have the same flaw.
Capital deflation...
-
That's no where near the same flaw.
If an earthquake hit Houston and killed a few million, it doesn't mean I lose my retirement.
-
It is when there is little demand for capital, and lots of supply. Lots and lots of supply. Trillions and and trillions.
-
Social security is a reasonable thing when the wage for an unskilled worker doesn't allow him to fullfill the basic needs of a human being.
We still don't have automation enough to expect everyone to be skilled, and even if we had, what do you suppose we do with the disabled and whoever simple can't tend to his basic needs?
I'm OK with paying high taxes to support them.
-
Hint: the capital markets are sensitive to demographics too. The Boomers have saved by investing, and now they all want to sell "at the same time." The only way that is possible without a huge decline in prices is if demand keeps pace, by having larger populations in their savings phases.
-
what do you suppose we do with the disabled and whoever simple can't tend to his basic needs?
That's the only area where I'm convinced that welfare is needed.
However, it doesn't mean government is needed. Charity can also fill that need.
I don't need to get into the efficiency of either.
-
The Boomers have saved by investing, and now they all want to sell "at the same time." The only way that is possible without a huge decline in prices is if demand keeps pace
Oh no, will the rich white wall street guys save us by buying all the Boomer's stocks?
-
Doubtful, since we'll be transitioning to a service economy at the same time as capital deflation occurs.
-
On the flip side, we'll be able to buy more stuff.
Much love, China.... much love...
-
What kinds of stuff do you have in mind? (Not arguing at all, just interested)
-
Electric cars. :P
-
That's the only area where I'm convinced that welfare is needed.
However, it doesn't mean government is needed. Charity can also fill that need.
I don't need to get into the efficiency of either.
Social security is holding millions of people out of starvation in my country. It's 300 billion/year out of the government towards then. Charity wouldn't get even close to that here, these people aren't that charitable.
Of course, you have much less poor people, and much more charitable people in the USA, or at least more people with disposable income, maybe that could work there.
Perhaps the best move would make this decision happen on a city-by-city basis? Let some cities opt-out of social security and see what will happen.
-
Perhaps the best move would make this decision happen on a city-by-city basis? Let some cities opt-out of social security and see what will happen.
Then corporations would move to that location, pulling the majority of income earners with them and bankrupting social security.
Why is Texas such a popular state for corporate headquarters? No state income tax.
-
what about taxing the people instead of the corporations? corporations already have their HQs far away from home anyway
-
what about taxing the people instead of the corporations? corporations already have their HQs far away from home anyway
That gets complicated. Depending on how much the corporation needs an employee, one or the other would have to pay, in an economic (and unknowable) sense. You can't control the things that you don't know.
In my perfect little world, the only tax we'd have would be for land ownership and for other rents. But that ship has sailed, and will probably never become politically feasible. The middle class has invested too much in real estate and would be wiped out by a shift of that kind.
-
what about taxing the people instead of the corporations? corporations already have their HQs far away from home anyway
Then the corporations would move to your city, but not hire anyone in the city.
-
The middle class has invested too much in real estate and would be wiped out by a shift of that kind.
You'd force us back into lordships.
I'd love a simpler tax system though.
-
You'd force us back into lordships.
Yes, at this point.
It would have made sense at around the time of the Industrial Revolution, when landowners suddenly started charging big rents to use their land for things like factories and growing cities. That's free money for the rentier.
My secondary choice would be a Hobbesian consumption tax (i.e., national sales tax, and nothing else), but that's too regressive when you're starting with inequality (and you're always starting with inequality).
-
You'd force us back into lordships.
I was reading this book a few years ago:
The author mentioned that a serf in medieval England would have to spend one day per week working for the manor and the rest of the time was his own, which works out to a 17% tax rate if you leave out Sunday (which would have been a rest day).
-
Then the corporations would move to your city, but not hire anyone in the city.
Only if everyone in the city asks for a bigger salary to compensate for their taxes, but that's not how economy works, they'll have to take the normal market value.
The worse problem will be people with more money moving out of the city to avoid this tax, and poor people that needs help moving inside it. And there isn't a good solution for that AFAIK.
-
That's free money for the rentier.
There's a cost to being the responsible party though.
but that's too regressive when you're starting with inequality
Nothing saying we can't target sales tax at disposable income, like we already do.
The problem I have with so many sources of tax is that it masks the true tax rate, which you get into arguments with people about how high it really is.
-
The worse problem will be people with more money moving out of the city to avoid this tax, and poor people that needs help moving inside it. And there isn't a good solution for that AFAIK.
People mistake Scrooge's lack of sympathic for plain corporate greed, when he makes a good point.
"We already have a welfare system in place, why do you need more money".
And ironically, the people that like welfare the most, don't contribute as much to charity.
-
Maybe that's because I never saw a charity help with someone's retirement? Or making anything that could scale to the problems we face?
-
Sure, welfare is a great way to hide how much you're taking from the public, but when people begin to realize it, they fight it. So, you end up back in the same boat. You might argue that welfare provides more funds, but if that's true, then it really is just tyranny of the majority.
And of course, the ends justify the means. But the truth still remains, welfare is tyranny of the majority.
-
Maybe that's because I never saw a charity help with someone's retirement? Or making anything that could scale to the problems we face?
Not as a unilateral force. That's why it's more invisible.
Also, someone having to go to the soup kitchen to receive food, or having it delivered by an obvious charity, doesn't seem like a 'right', does it?
Welfare establishes a normalcy to the recipients life.
But it also removes humility, humility from the benefactor and the recipient. Which reduces empathy. And eventually you end up with perpetual fighting over how taxes are spent.
And the poor never get what they actually need, but what people can feel good about giving them.
I'm not convinced that welfare helps out as much as other people are.
-
There's a cost to being the responsible party though.
Yeah, but for aristocrats, little of it was productive for the society. Raising and razing armies is fun and all, but didn't help sales.
Nothing saying we can't target sales tax at disposable income, like we already do.
Yeah, good idea in principle. But that's kind of tricky too. How do we implement that? I suppose we could define a budget for each person, based on a market basket of necessary goods like food and water and clothes (but what kinds of food and clothes?) Or we'd have to tax specific products, which puts us in conflict with:
The problem I have with so many sources of tax is that it masks the true tax rate, which you get into arguments with people about how high it really is.
Agreed.
But the truth still remains, welfare is tyranny of the majority.
Eh. If Social Security did not exist, we'd still face the capital deflation problem, which is massive. Boomers own 95% of the stock market. (Seriously. The top 10% own 88%, and the middle class owns most of the rest)
Welfare establishes a normalcy to the recipients life.
The fact is, no government in the world will stay in power if it allows a massive humanitarian crisis like 80 million starving seniors. Unless it's a commie government, willing to kill its citizens. The west will print money and obfuscate it with quantitative easing and the like, to help stop the crash landing.
I'm not saying it's a good thing. But is the pimple on your nose the problem, or is it the greasy food? One is the cause, the other is a consequence. And if you eat greasy enough, you'll get a pimple somewhere. (OK, bad analogy over)
Edit: Also, http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~abel/pdf_files_papers/sseqity6.pdf. From Wharton Business School. About social security and Miller-Modigliani and market reactions to the Social Security portfolio's allocation.
-
Also, someone having to go to the soup kitchen to receive food, or having it delivered by an obvious charity, doesn't seem like a 'right', does it?
Social security provides much more than soup, you know. If I break my two arms and a leg, government will happily take care of me until I'm good enough to work again. There is no charity initiative that I know of that could replace that.
35% from our GDP is for paying taxes*, good luck expecting charity to cover it if we get hid of taxes.
- and that number is bullshit, because 50% of what my employers spends with me goes directly to government, and between 30 and 50% of whatever I buy too. guess we have to make up for the 1% not paying their part
-
There is no charity initiative that I know of that could replace that.
It's not really falsifiable, so it's not worth really debating.
1% not paying their part
I keep chuckling on the inside when people suggest that progressive taxes do anything at all.
The middle class pays the taxes, one way or another.
Yeah, but for aristocrats, little of it was productive for the society. Raising and razing armies is fun and all, but didn't help sales.
Yes it did.
Liberals and their thinking that security does nothing for sales.... lol.
If you're constantly being raided, you're not going to have many merchants coming your way.
Or we'd have to tax specific products, which puts us in conflict with:
It's the only practical solution I can come up with.
The fact is, no government in the world will stay in power if it allows a massive humanitarian crisis like 80 million starving seniors. Unless it's a commie government, willing to kill its citizens.
Big difference between doing nothing and pulling a trigger.
And, they absolutely would stay in power.
What, do you think the UN has any power.... or that EU actually gives a damn.
You put way too much faith in politicians.
-
You're ridiculous.
Here: from the Wharton school of business, about Miller-Modigliani and Social Security. http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~abel/pdf_files_papers/sseqity6.pdf
-
There have only been two humanitarian crises anywhere near this scale: Stalin and Mao's reigns, which led to terrible economic conditions that lead to the death of millions. And why did they stay in power? Because they were willing to kill to suppress any dissidents.
You're comparing people having to work instead of retire.... to a man that pulled the trigger on millions.
How do you manage to misinterpret everything?
I didn't, your comparison is ridiculous.
-
Please read medieval economic history. Stagnant growth for hundreds of years.
Yeah, they had plagues.... and shit. :P
-
Yeah, a demographic crisis limiting growth. Maybe we could learn something?
-
Yeah, a demographic crisis limiting growth.
Now you're comparing the plagues..
I give up.
Your comparisons are jumping the shark.
-
I guess we're (by which I mean you) aren't willing to learn something. Those Lefties over at the Wharton School of Business are killing America with their economic theory!
A paper by Stiglitz about Social Security reform: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~scholz/Teaching_742/Orszag-Stiglitz.pdf
Those damn Nobel prize winning Lefties, building up those stock markets and teaching business-people, always disagreeing with you!
-
You're comparing people having to work instead of retire.... to a man that pulled the trigger on millions.
telling millions of alzheimer afflicted octagenaries to work or starve is actually worse than pulling a trigger on them
-
Don't confuse him. He's swallowed the Us Versus Them Kool-Ade, and anybody who points out that reality sucks and you can't fight it is a Librrl. He's looking for someone to blame instead of trying to figure out how to profit from it. A service economy is not the way.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-demographics-rule-the-global-economy-1448203724
Amazon.com