Wouldn't this fix the soc. security problem?

[Velociryx]

Arrian, it's a good attempt, but I've never seen Kid unsuccessfully jack a thread.....

I'm thinking this one is doomed (although I'm behaving and not saying a dang thing to light the match!)

-=Vel=-

[Jon Miller]

Re: Wouldn't this fix the soc. security problem?

Originally posted by Albert Speer
instead of taxing only the first $68,400 of income at 12.4%, why not keep taxing beyond this relatively low 68K?

wouldn't that generate enough revenue to at least partially fund soc. security?

(not the mention the fact that the present situation makes soc. security taxes an unfair burden on the poor)

I agree

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


They also have immediate needs Arrian. If their need for savings was greater more poor people would save.

Clearly someone who cannot afford to eat & pay rent cannot save. Then again, I'm not aware that those people pay into Social Security.

I believe that more people would save if more of them were properly educated w/regard to financial planning. Especially people who are poor (but not in abject poverty).

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
He does, but that's another debate. Let's leave that alone.

For the purposes of this thread, let us agree to assume that the basic nature of U.S. economics will not change - we will remain an essentially capitalist society - and that the only thing up for discussion is the Social Security system.

-Arrian

I'm sorry. That's crazy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Clearly someone who cannot afford to eat & pay rent cannot save. Then again, I'm not aware that those people pay into Social Security.

I believe that more people would save if more of them were properly educated w/regard to financial planning. Especially people who are poor (but not in abject poverty).

-Arrian

Eating and paying rent are not the only needs people have.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Arrian, it's a good attempt, but I've never seen Kid unsuccessfully jack a thread.....

I'm thinking this one is doomed (although I'm behaving and not saying a dang thing to light the match!)

-=Vel=-

The only one jacking this thread is you.

[Velociryx]

The biggest advantage to privitizing the system would be that the government couldn't raid the kitty to prop up prokbarrel projects.

Of course, this is not to say, that private companies never screw people over (Enron), but the government has proved repeatedly that it can't keep hands off.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I don't know why you agree with this Kid, it basically states SC is unsolvant no matter what, and is just the current gernation screwing the new ones. I guess you only care about current poor people.

I don't disagree about the younger generations getting screwd. We have to fix the system, but that's simply not possible until the current crissis is over (and we will get through it, although benefits may have to be decreased and taxes may have to increase), and a private sceme will never work better.

[Arrian]

Eating and paying rent are not the only needs people have.

Duh. Damn, man. I picked the two most basic ones (food and shelter).

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The biggest advantage to privitizing the system would be that the government couldn't raid the kitty to prop up prokbarrel projects.

Of course, this is not to say, that private companies never screw people over (Enron), but the government has proved repeatedly that it can't keep hands off.

-=Vel=-

And the problem with putting it in private banks is people funding ponzzi schemes and bubbles with massive pools of ready money, causing massive savings and loans meltdowns which then have to be financed by the state because as I said before all that money needs to be insured.

At least we get something from pork barrel, like a bridge or a road here and there- I don't think a possible multi-trillion dollar bailout will do anyone much good.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The biggest advantage to privitizing the system would be that the government couldn't raid the kitty to prop up prokbarrel projects.

Of course, this is not to say, that private companies never screw people over (Enron), but the government has proved repeatedly that it can't keep hands off.

-=Vel=-

There is some truth to this, but generally if the govt didn't spend the trust then taxes would need to be raised for desired programs. Worse, the money would sit in the trust leaking from the economy with no productivity what so ever.

[Velociryx]

GePap: Essentially you're saying that there *isn't* an elegant solution, and I would have to agree with that. I suspect that what'll happen is at the 11th hour, some desperate measure will eek through the system and we'll have a dose of harsh medicine to correct things.

Gonna suck, but that seems to be the basic pattern.

Kid: A trust is like any other investment. It doesn't just "sit there." It is used to buy stocks, bonds, or other financial instruments. I can make two phone calls right now and set up a trust with American Century, with whom I already have an account.

Within seconds after depositing the money, it's gone off to the market to buy stuff. It's not just sitting in a room under lock and key.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

The problem is that sucha reform will cost trillions to implement- and I still suspect some sort of state run bank would have to be created along with all the rules to keep that money as safe as possible.

I assume the gov. would still use that money to finance possible deficit spending - why borrow it from Chinese banks we will have our own.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This is a misconception. This kind of misconception is very common, and I have to explain it often. This misconception comes from the idea that banks / stocks etc... manage YOUR money, and that it remains YOURS from the beginning to the end.

They don't. They invest that money in various things that are more or less risky. Your money basically disappears immediately, as it is used in some investment made by the fincancial institute, or as it is used to pay wages, or dividens for other people, etc.

I thought pensions were often what is called 'unit' based. When you make a contribution you buy a certain number of units. The value of a unit is based pretty much on the value of the shares or investments that make up the fund you are buying into.

I would think the money goes to buying the investment item that makes up the fund, the liability raised by giving out your money is matched by an asset created by the increased capital portfolio of the fund. There is of course an intrinsic risk associated with what you are buying, but when you buy it you are informed of the risks involved, and you choose high risk high return or low risk low return schemes. Effectively you are investing in a kind of stock market, but the point is you are investing in your future with a level of control over what you invest in - you can invest in foreign and growing economies for example. A state scheme does not invest, or attempt to grow the money in home or foreign markets, and as a result you get a worse return on investment, especially in countries where the population is aging.

[Velociryx]

So...we spend trillions on a thrift bailout or trillions on reform...either way....

-=Vel=-

The only one jacking this thread is you.

Bites lip to spare the thread, smiles sweetly, and ignores.

(that was DIFFICULT, guys, but done for you. )