Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 11-29-2007, 09:06 PM
Copernicus Copernicus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,912
Default Re: Is there no one who can articulate the purpose of Social Security?

[ QUOTE ]
Someone, anyone, take a shot at it.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to anticipate and avoid as many of your nits as possible:

Social Security is a government administered social program that may be amended from time to time, the purpose of which is to provide a mechanism for individuals to be provided with a core defined Joint and Survivor retirement benefit upon disability or healthy retirement, and which is to be supplemented by personal savings, insurance and/or other employer provided retirement benefts to maintain a total standard of living comparable to pre-retirement standards, and which is to be funded based on payroll taxes sufficient to provide those benefits.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 11-29-2007, 09:06 PM
TomCollins TomCollins is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Approving of Iron\'s Moderation
Posts: 7,517
Default Re: thank you (n/m)

Amazingly I think we are on the same page and I don't think there are any contradictions between what you said here, what I've said, or what nate has said.

You claimed that you made as much money as your expenses and were not saving anything. Where are you going to get the extra $250/month to pay off the loan? You are going to have to cut expenses or get more money somehow. And if you keep getting more and more IOUs, eventually you are going to have to pay the piper. Getting more money is going to mean increased tax revenues.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 11-29-2007, 09:16 PM
ConstantineX ConstantineX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Like PETA, ride for my animals
Posts: 658
Default Re: thank you (n/m)

So the crux is that because the IOUs are safe Treasury bills, and there would be larger financial implications if the United States defaulted on THOSE, there's no shenanigans going on. Am I right?
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 11-29-2007, 09:33 PM
Copernicus Copernicus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,912
Default Re: thank you (n/m)

[ QUOTE ]
Amazingly I think we are on the same page and I don't think there are any contradictions between what you said here, what I've said, or what nate has said.

You claimed that you made as much money as your expenses and were not saving anything. Where are you going to get the extra $250/month to pay off the loan? You are going to have to cut expenses or get more money somehow. And if you keep getting more and more IOUs, eventually you are going to have to pay the piper. Getting more money is going to mean increased tax revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres may not be any differences in the understanding of the transactions but there are huge differences in interpretration of those transactions and you and natedogg have said:

"Scam, pyramid scheme, ponzi scheme" No it isnt
"There is no Social Security trust fund" Yes there is
"Treasury investments by SS aren't assets" Yes they are
"Accounting shenanigans" no, there are none

If the prior nauseatingly detailed analogy isnt enough to convince you of the "no, yes, yes, no", theres nothing else I can do. Others of reasonable financial understanding and without anti-government agendas should be able to see past the rhetoric, Iron included.


Its a nit I said I wouldnt respond to but to make it clear, there are no additional loans to take or income needed, the new cash flow exactly replaces the $250 cash flow lost from the savings account. Yes there are underlying policy changes and interest rate differentials (eg why werent all of the assets invested in the utilities the whole time and more income generated) that result in that increse cash flow, just as there are policy decisions that were made regarding where Social Security funds get invested, but that doesnt change the essence of the transactions.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 11-29-2007, 09:34 PM
vulturesrow vulturesrow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Right
Posts: 7,937
Default Re: thank you (n/m)

[ QUOTE ]
Amazingly I think we are on the same page and I don't think there are any contradictions between what you said here, what I've said, or what nate has said.

You claimed that you made as much money as your expenses and were not saving anything. Where are you going to get the extra $250/month to pay off the loan? You are going to have to cut expenses or get more money somehow. And if you keep getting more and more IOUs, eventually you are going to have to pay the piper. Getting more money is going to mean increased tax revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

He never said otherwise. Nate is criticizing SS when he should be saving his fire and brimstone for Congress spending like drunken sailors (and I know a bit about drunken sailors. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )I know natedogg probably does hate the way the Congress spends. There are some legit criticims (the regressive nature of the taxes being most legitimate in my eyes)
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 11-29-2007, 10:19 PM
Copernicus Copernicus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,912
Default Re: thank you (n/m)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Amazingly I think we are on the same page and I don't think there are any contradictions between what you said here, what I've said, or what nate has said.

You claimed that you made as much money as your expenses and were not saving anything. Where are you going to get the extra $250/month to pay off the loan? You are going to have to cut expenses or get more money somehow. And if you keep getting more and more IOUs, eventually you are going to have to pay the piper. Getting more money is going to mean increased tax revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

He never said otherwise. Nate is criticizing SS when he should be saving his fire and brimstone for Congress spending like drunken sailors (and I know a bit about drunken sailors. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )I know natedogg probably does hate the way the Congress spends. There are some legit criticims (the regressive nature of the taxes being most legitimate in my eyes)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you focus on the regressive nature of the taxes, when the net system of benefits and taxes is not regressive, and is in fact slightly progressive?

If you believe that the net system should be even more progressive, eg a needs test to receive benefits, then that is social policy that can be debated.

However, that definitely moves you further away from a relatively pure and self-supporting retirement system to another wealth transfer program. With the boomers retirement a rational retirement policy needs to continue to focus on its main purpose, and not become just another welfare program.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 11-30-2007, 11:38 PM
natedogg natedogg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 2,570
Default Re: Is there no one who can articulate the purpose of Social Security?


[ QUOTE ]
the purpose of which is to provide a mechanism for individuals to be provided with a core defined Joint and Survivor retirement benefit upon disability or healthy retirement

[/ QUOTE ]

So the purpose of the Social Security plan is to provide a retirment and/or disability benefit? Why do we have a program to provide a retirement benefit?

natedogg
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-01-2007, 09:44 AM
mosdef mosdef is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,414
Default Re: Is there no one who can articulate the purpose of Social Security?

[ QUOTE ]
Why do we have a program to provide a retirement benefit?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

From the standpoint of the government, they have already make the promise to provide all citizens with adequate income. It's also true that, by the government's measures of "adequacy", citizens in the US do not save "enough" in their working years to have "adequate" post-employment income. Government gets caught in a game where they hand money over to people during their working years so they have "adequate" income, the people spend it all, and then at retirement they come looking for more income. It's easier for the government to manage this game if they have one program dedicated to providing post-employment income because then they can focus the rest of their energy on the employed citizens, which is who they really care about because their first focus in on manipulating the economy (where retirees don't play as big a part in production).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.