|
Post by osha on Feb 5, 2018 20:51:30 GMT -7
www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-05/tiny-corner-rhode-island-shows-us-future-social-securityThis goes to show how this all works. It's crap! What about the people who worked their whole life and counted on this retirement as it was promised? Nope, the government can lie and they will all enjoy and comfy retirement while the slaves are left with scraps. You know, I believe in involuntary servitude. If a person has to work because this is the way this life is structured and you as an employee get to lie to my face about my future, you are enslaving me for your own personal gain and lying to me to keep me happy. Children get issued numbers when they are born so they can pay into a lying system against their own will. Involuntary servitude? When are people going to wake up. If we cannot trust our own leaders to be honest, how in the h*ll do we expect people to be honest?
|
|
|
Post by badman on Feb 7, 2018 20:35:41 GMT -7
Some of us are awake, osha. Socialism, communism, redistributionism, fairness, or whatever liberal labels apply always fail eventually.
In this case, you seem to ignore the added assault by liberal public sector unions.
BTW, the first recipient of social security received a yearly lump sum of 17 cents. Think about that.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Feb 7, 2018 22:02:16 GMT -7
But if you hire me and tell me that I will retire in a good way and even have me sign on the dotted line agreeing to such, you can lie?
It's not the point that things will fail, the point is people can lie. If there is no honesty with our leadership at local and state governments, then why should we expect honesty from anyone?
To add to your point, if we are going to say programs for the poor and elderly are going to fail, then why don't we demand a living wage for people? Sad reality is most people barely have two pennies to rub together. But this is the cow that is capitalism... Own the workers and own the government and always impress your investors with constant growth in the form of profits on the backs of modern day slave labor.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Feb 8, 2018 6:05:41 GMT -7
What ever the government 'gives' it can also take away. Social security was intended to help widows, orphans, and disabled from WWII. The tax collected went to a trust fund and was locked there until (I believe) the Nixon administration started the practice of borrowing from it. Soon, the baby boomers will flood the fund and outbound money will exceed inbound money.
Any decent accountant will tell you that if the same money were invested safely and over a long period of time, the returns will be much larger than any SS program would pay out. That's the power of compound interest. We should all have mandatory IRA accounts. Example: Let's say at 20 years old, you start saving $40 per month (roughly $10/week)at an interest rate of 6% compounded monthly. By age 65, your total payments are $21,600 but your account would have earned $89,190 for a total balance of $110,790.
I would love the option to invest my portion of the SS deduction and allow the employer's deduction to go to the government. I'd also be willing to have my SS payout to be reduced similarly.
|
|
|
Post by John Doe on Feb 8, 2018 13:26:16 GMT -7
easily fixed by scrapping the FICA cap and for medicare medicaid these can be fixed by congress stopping to accept bribes from big pharma and big insurance to keep the status quo and doing nothing to lower healthcare costs which are primarily pharmaceutical costs.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Feb 8, 2018 16:24:02 GMT -7
easily fixed by scrapping the FICA cap and for medicare medicaid these can be fixed by congress stopping to accept bribes from big pharma and big insurance to keep the status quo and doing nothing to lower healthcare costs which are primarily pharmaceutical costs. True dat. Good points.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Feb 8, 2018 19:51:49 GMT -7
What ever the government 'gives' it can also take away. Social security was intended to help widows, orphans, and disabled from WWII. The tax collected went to a trust fund and was locked there until (I believe) the Nixon administration started the practice of borrowing from it. Soon, the baby boomers will flood the fund and outbound money will exceed inbound money. Any decent accountant will tell you that if the same money were invested safely and over a long period of time, the returns will be much larger than any SS program would pay out. That's the power of compound interest. We should all have mandatory IRA accounts. Example: Let's say at 20 years old, you start saving $40 per month (roughly $10/week)at an interest rate of 6% compounded monthly. By age 65, your total payments are $21,600 but your account would have earned $89,190 for a total balance of $110,790. I would love the option to invest my portion of the SS deduction and allow the employer's deduction to go to the government. I'd also be willing to have my SS payout to be reduced similarly. I understand your point. But, my issue is the promise. If the government can tell the people they can work and pay into a system with mandatory deductions, they owe it. If I walk away from my house because I go broke, who takes ownership? I cannot be dishonest no matter the circumstance and why should we give the government a pass? Sure, better options, but they were promising something and they need to stand behind that promise just like I can't walk away from my house payment and say oops without punishment. My big issue is we are a system backed by confidence. We have monopoly money and everyone is forced to play the game. So when someone says "I will trade your life (labor) for some peace when you age" they should stand behind that. And if they lie, then I should have the right to lie and walk away from my responsibility with no punishment. I mean, I give you my life and you get to lie in return while I am forced and have been forced to pay honestly? Intended for X person or not, a promise is a promise and it's a heck of a time to look at old people and say "oh, by the way, we lied, sorry about your luck" all while looking in the eyes of someone who has the economic cards stacked against them.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Feb 8, 2018 19:54:36 GMT -7
easily fixed by scrapping the FICA cap and for medicare medicaid these can be fixed by congress stopping to accept bribes from big pharma and big insurance to keep the status quo and doing nothing to lower healthcare costs which are primarily pharmaceutical costs. I agree but when will our government bite the hand that feeds them? The rich is the savior in this world (I'm being funny here) and we would never want to cost them more. They need money to control the slaves so the government can mandate costs (SS) and lie about the returns. Sick world we live in and it seems to be getting sicker by the day.
|
|
|
Post by badman on Feb 9, 2018 20:58:14 GMT -7
osha, the article you referenced contains a link to the actual court opinion. Here is the short version.
Public sector union squeezes town into a contract that it can't afford. After union realizes town can't pay, union arranges new town employees to enroll in the state's pension plan and tries to squeeze state into paying this town's employees a rate that is higher than all other state employees.
State disagrees..union sues..court agrees with state.
What is your level of discontent with the union's role?
|
|
|
Post by osha on Feb 9, 2018 23:48:16 GMT -7
osha, the article you referenced contains a link to the actual court opinion. Here is the short version. Public sector union squeezes town into a contract that it can't afford. After union realizes town can't pay, union arranges new town employees to enroll in the state's pension plan and tries to squeeze state into paying this town's employees a rate that is higher than all other state employees. State disagrees..union sues..court agrees with state. What is your level of discontent with the union's role? It's simply about honesty. I don't really care what the circumstances were, if you agree to something then you stand by that something. And it is much deeper then that article as well. We stand behind one set of laws for us and another for them. I can't walk away from my house if I owe even if I am broke. I promised to pay and that's the end of it.
|
|
|
Post by badman on Feb 10, 2018 17:21:21 GMT -7
osha, it would be hard to challenge such a noble position.
But since there is limited activity here, allow me to try to keep a good debate going forward. If an agreement is being negotiated under duress, (such as police and firefighters potentially walking off their duty) would you as Mayor choose a Reagan approach, (fire and ban for life future city public employment)or would you choose to try to protect your citizens by meeting the union's demands?
|
|
|
Post by osha on Feb 10, 2018 18:24:27 GMT -7
I would find a middle ground. Perhaps a tax (small) to meet the demands of such a thing.
Unions in my mind can be a good thing, but none of us have unlimited funds (including local governments). So as a people, we have to agree on what is important. Do we agree to a small tax to bring in more money to contribute to a better retirement? Or do we agree that other things are needed?
Each jurisdiction in the USA has a set of issues that are different. For instance, here in Appalachia, people are generally poor and a tax (even a small one) could create a huge burden on the people who are already struggling. In California (for instance), the economics are not the same.
I believe that there is a fine line between what people want and what people need. And there is room for discussion on these issues on a broad scale. But the fact for most that is hard to ignore is seniors are one of the biggest demographics hit by poverty and that needs to be talked about sooner then later.
As a mayor, I would make sure I would make promises I could keep and no matter the cost, I would keep those promises. But of course I would plan for those promises. Unions can never demand what is not there and there would be talks.
|
|
|
Post by badman on Feb 13, 2018 19:11:42 GMT -7
You are contradicting yourself,IMO. I threw you an easy bone with my "short version", but you didn't seem to notice or maybe you had already made up your mind. I think your words were "I don't really care..."
If "none of us have unlimited funds (including local governments)", how do you conclude that "oh, by the way, we lied, sorry about your luck" is either logically or emotionally consistent?
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Feb 14, 2018 5:43:09 GMT -7
What ever happened to the founding concept of a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people"?
|
|
|
Post by osha on Feb 14, 2018 14:53:52 GMT -7
You are contradicting yourself,IMO. I threw you an easy bone with my "short version", but you didn't seem to notice or maybe you had already made up your mind. I think your words were "I don't really care..." If "none of us have unlimited funds (including local governments)", how do you conclude that "oh, by the way, we lied, sorry about your luck" is either logically or emotionally consistent? It comes to a point that is the same for everyone, what do we cut to make ends meet? Local governments are no different. Short version? Don't write checks your *ss can't cash. Now the longer version? Don't make promises you can't keep even if it means saying no. There is always room for negations.
|
|