Social Security & Medicare: Facing Facts.
Ridgeway
and Richard Jackson A study released by the The Concord Coalition, August
29, 2000.
Oh, let me point out this is that EVIL Concord Coalition according to
those who have a self interest in the status quo or those not capable of
facing facts. Here is the URL for the report:
http://www.concordcoalition.org/facing_facts/alert_v6_n9.html
Summary: "Last month, the CBO released a study that tallies up federal
spending on the elderly and children. It shows that, per capita, spending
on the elderly towers seven-to-one over spending on kids, and that,
overall, it consumes 35 percent of the budget. This is before the age wave
even begins to roll in. By 2050, according to the White House, the major
senior benefit programs will consume an incredible 84 percent of budget
outlays...." the report goes on to say: "...hiking taxes to pay for the
growth in senior benefits would, under SSA's official economic and
demographic scenario, erase nearly nine-tenths of all growth in pretax
worker earnings over the next fifty years. And this projection may be
optimistic, since it assumes that longevity and health costs will grow at
just half their historical rates. Under a "high-cost" scenario, after-tax
earnings could suffer a catastrophic decline."
Note: See the NYTimes article of 12/7/99 "Panel Advises Adding to Life
Expectancies" by ROBERT PEAR. The subject of this article was the report
from The 1999 Technical Panel of Assumptions and Methods Report to the
Social Security Advisory Board lead by Eugene Steuerle of the Urban
Institute which concluded that "Social Security's long-term financial
problems were about 25 percent greater than the official government
estimates indicated..." The conclusion was the net result of many
factors. Although the panel assumed higher economic growth rates, the main
source of the difference with SSA's estimates was projected life
expectancy.
Continuing with the Concoard Coalition report, it says that the premise
that the young can finance current-law senior benefits and still enjoy big
gains in after-tax living standards-is mistaken..." hiking taxes to pay
for the growth in senior benefits would, under SSA's official economic and
demographic scenario, erase nearly nine-tenths of all growth in pretax
worker earnings over the next fifty years. And this projection may be
optimistic, since it assumes that longevity and health costs will grow at
just half their historical rates. Under a 'high-cost' [SSA] scenario,
after-tax earnings could suffer a catastrophic decline...." Enought of
this report, read it for yourself.
As a final quote (and good reference for objective numberical analysis on
Social Security & Medicare) I'd like to quote from "Retooling Social
Security for the 21st Century", by C. Eugene Steuerle & Jon M. Bakija,
Urban Institute Press, 1994. Although their policy positions are somewhat
liberal, the uthors present the reader with some very good objective data
analysis. They also provide a good basic summary of the net impact over
time of the evolution of Social Security with this from page 112:
-----------------------------start Steuerle-------------------------
"Since the system is set up mainly on a 'pay- as-you-go' basis, benefit
payments to retirees are dependent on tax revenues raised from the working
population. The growth in transfers going to those who have retired since
1940 could be financed only by rapidly accelerating payroll tax rates on
the working population. In effect, the system has been able to keep rates
rising fast enough to provide more than a generous quid pro quo for almost
all workers who have reached retirement age up to now. Those retiring in
the future, however, will have contributed vast amounts over their
lifetimes to support the transfers going to those who retired before them.
Meanwhile, the ratio of retirees to workers will increase dramatically.
As a result of these two factors, payroll taxes would have to rise
astronomically if they were to continue to finance net subsidies for all
participants, including high-income persons."
---------------------------end Steuerle quote---------------------------
Yes, indeed, it is about Facing Facts. Will American Grow up Before it
Grows Old? Some will, some won't. Lets hope enought do grow up in time
to deal with this problem.
=============================================================================
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Ridgeway <riri...@nyx.net> wrote: the comments following this
response;
It's amazing how the socialist manipulators who promised US
trusted pension and health insurance plans if the public would
only go along with the forced takings because they knew so much
more than average people. Now when we find out that these socialist
manipulators [socman] weren't really taking good care of the massive
pension and health savings [ over 16% of every dollar earned] but
they were taking it for spending it on their personal crooked
socialist politician perks.
Where can we find free people representatives and good government
politicians to stop these socman looters and deliver a fair return
on the social security funds as promised for all these years? JD
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike Coburn
Loads of reasonably correct stuff deleted for brevity. We
_are_ aware of the demographic problem --- Why do these
guys have to keep going over it all the time?
>
> -----------------------------start Steuerle-------------------------
>
> "Since the system is set up mainly on a 'pay- as-you-go' basis, benefit
> payments to retirees are dependent on tax revenues raised from the working
> population.
True but that the word "working" is somewhat misleading. i.e.
Tax revenues do not necessarily have to come from "working"
people.
The growth in transfers going to those who have retired since
> 1940 could be financed only by rapidly accelerating payroll tax rates on
> the working population.
This, is, of course the outcome of the introductory
sentence. Once you swallow line "A" then stinker "B"
slides easily down the gullet.
In effect, the system has been able to keep rates
> rising fast enough to provide more than a generous quid pro quo for almost
> all workers who have reached retirement age up to now. Those retiring in
> the future, however, will have contributed vast amounts over their
> lifetimes to support the transfers going to those who retired before them.
True story. A whole bunch of this support should have
come from sources other than wage taxes, but the rich
people are loath to ever pay their fair share of the
tax burden. But that was not the intent I'm sure.
What with Line "A" and "stinker" "B", the intend was to
set the "hook" in the brain of the reader so as to see
heinous acts that government (not mentioning Ronald
Ray Gun and his rich pals that benefited quite
nicely by raising the wage taxes and lowering the
income taxes) perpetrated upon the citizens.
And there you have it, friends --- Hook, line and "stinker".
> Meanwhile, the ratio of retirees to workers will increase dramatically.
True story again.
> As a result of these two factors, payroll taxes would have to rise
> astronomically if they were to continue to finance net subsidies for all
> participants, including high-income persons."
WOW... Another truth. But this would lead a normal
well adjusted intelligent human being to the conclusion
that we will _F_I_N_A_L_L_Y_ recognize that we should
not have ever been taxing _ONLY_ wages in the first place,
and now the rich bastards should be made to pay
double in an attempt to make up for what they should
have been paying all along.
> ---------------------------end Steuerle quote---------------------------
>
> Yes, indeed, it is about Facing Facts. Will American Grow up Before it
> Grows Old? Some will, some won't. Lets hope enought do grow up in time
> to deal with this problem.
>
> =============================================================================
Social Security (disability insurance, i.e. old age is a
disability) and Medical care should be entitlements
paid for by broad based consumption taxes levied in the
form of excise taxes. All of the tripe about saving
and investing has Jack Doodly to do with any of it.
--
Coburn ---
The opinions expressed herein above are mine. They are my property
so you can't have them. But use them. No rent or interest due.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
But not the whole story. The ratio of number of folks dependent on
workers to number of workers, kids and retirees combined, will not be
different from, say, 1960.
So the end of the world may have to be postponed a while.
>
>> As a result of these two factors, payroll taxes would have to rise
>> astronomically if they were to continue to finance net subsidies for all
>> participants, including high-income persons."
>
>WOW... Another truth.
If you accept the SS trustee assumption of 1.7% economic growth over
the next fifty years or so. Maybe we will do better.
But this would lead a normal
>well adjusted intelligent human being to the conclusion
>that we will _F_I_N_A_L_L_Y_ recognize that we should
>not have ever been taxing _ONLY_ wages in the first place,
>and now the rich bastards should be made to pay
>double in an attempt to make up for what they should
>have been paying all along.
Hmmm. THen how come Gov Bush proposes a massive tax cut with 42.6% of
the benefits going to the top one percent, who pay only 18.6% of all
federal taxes?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr
Ridgeway
: Ridgeway wrote:
: Loads of reasonably correct stuff deleted for brevity. We
: _are_ aware of the demographic problem --- Why do these
: guys have to keep going over it all the time?
[snip....]
Because people can understand the problem, in part from the demographic
perspective. What they should be asking themselves is: "Why does SS
suffer a problem BECASUE there is this demographic change? --- Honest
retirment funds, those with honest Trust Funds, are not adverserly
impacted by such a demographic ripple --- WHY?" If people can only latch
onto their being a SS problem because there is a demographic problem,
well, that's a lot done in itself, but I hope the smart people will
drill down into the problem and get to a deeper level of understanding.
Next Coburn goes on to indicate he would like to play Clintonesque games
on the meaning of "working people". OK --- I'll play. Is an assembly line
worker putting Personal Computers together for Mr. Dell one of the
"working people"? Yes. Is this assembler's supervisor one of the "working
people"? Yes. Is the engineer who designed the circuits one of the
"working people" as is the solid state physicist who invented transistors?
as is the venture capitalist and other investors who helped finance the
many companies that produce such goods and services? Again, I say that
these are all "working people", ---- YES! they are all working people. For
example I helped finance Mr. McCaw's celluar phone company becuase I
purchased his junk bonds. I, and those like me, are also "working
people". Some of the "working people" of this world work with their
hands, some with their heads, etc., all that engage in voluntary
transactions exchanging legally acquired economic resources are "working
people". Perhaps Coburn will now tell us his definition of "working
people".
Coburn goes on to say "Tax revenues do not necessarily have to come from
'working' people." Hummm? Afraid I don't fully understand this, perhaps
Coburn will explain.
A couple of observations and questions for Coburn.
(1) From a report on the SSA web page I found that Social Security income
replacement rates are about 68 percent for lower income earners (minimum
wage earners), 39 percent for average wage workers (about $30K/yr I
think), and only 25 percent for those earning the maximum subject to the
SS taxes (about $72K/yr). And, of course, income over the max subject to
SS taxes that is taxed at 0 percent BECAUSE it earns 0 percent in benefits
for those "working people". That last part, zero tax gets zero benefits,
seems to me to be the objectively fairest part of the SS benefits formula;
however, Coburn does not seem to like this general pattern of SS taxes
paid in vs SS benefis paid out --- I think Coburn would like that income
above the max subject to FICA taxes to also be taxed, but zero benefits
would still be earned by that income.
(2) Next Federal Income taxes (data from the Tax Foundation web page):
According to data released by the Internal Revenue Service, the
top-earning one percent of U.S. taxpayers (annual income over $250,736)
made 17 percent of the income earned in 1997 and paid 33 percent of the
total federal individual income taxes collected that year. This fraction
of the tax burden paid by the top one percent -- nearly a third of the
total -- is up from 32 percent for tax year 1996 and up from 24 percent
for tax year 1987. In 1996 their average tax rate was about 27 percent of
AGI.
Now, at the other end of the income spectrum, the bottom 50 percent of the
nation's taxpayers earned only about 14 percent of all income in 1997, but
they paid an even smaller fraction of the federal individual income taxes
collected-- about 4 percent. Their 1997 average tax rate was less than 5
percent of AGI.
Perhaps Coburn et. al. will now tell us with some specific percentages
and defintions who are "working people" and what are the "fair"
percentages of their income to take to fund their Social Security benefits
and the percentage to take to fund General Government. How high of a tax
rate should future generations pay? Of course Coburn et. al. could just
state, if it is indeed the case, that they are Marxist (Karl Marx that is)
and state that he believes in "from each according to ability to each
according to need" with Coburn and his crew to determine "ability" and
"need". Furthermore, he would need to close the loop and state that the
operation of their Marxist principle would have no adverse impact on the
general level of efficieny and productivity of the economy by the "working
people" --- otherwise it would result in a lower standard of living for
all, and I'm sure Coburn et. al. having nothing but the best of intentions
for all of us.
Last, and somewhat related to this general issue, I'd like to put in a
good obervation I saw in another thread (sorry I don't have the poster's
id) but he said: "There are hundreds of millions of ABLE BODIED people on
this earth who will ALWAYS be poor regardless of the general economy, or
the opportunities offered them. The only question to be asked is: who is
justly accountable for any specific individual's choices, family culture
or the consequences of either? How do we defend confiscating property (at
what amounts to gunpoint) from it's rightful owners and giving it to
others who did not earn it? It's a simple question. I invite you to
answer it."
OK-I'll answer it. There was a study some years ago (and I which I could
remember the exact reference to the unversity that did the study), about
what were the key factors that defined the difference between those higher
in the income distribution vs those lower in the income distribution.
The key factors that absorbed over about 80 percent of the observed
variance was:
a) Don't drop out of high school, stay and graduate from High School,
b) Don't get married till you graduate from High School,
c) Don't have kids till you get married,
d) Don't do Drugs.
Sound like good advice to me. If you want to impose a welfare state, I,
and others, might be willing to be more interested in your Utopian dream
so long as those that benefit are only those that followed say just any 3
of the 4 tests mentioned above. I would note that the Republicans tried
to make Drug testing a part of welfare reform but the Democrates would not
go for it. Also note that I have not included any ant vs grasshoper
saving and investment test, although I think that would be a good idea.
===========================================================================
Mike Coburn
How can I possibly answer that question? I suspect I
know the real answer and you can find a lead in my comments
about Ronald Ray Gun above. But I don't think that I
would ever like to depend on guessing why Gov Bush
would ever do anything. It seems apparent that
the oligarchy believes they will be better off with Al
Gore. Ergo, we will insure that the Republicans implode.
This ridiculous tax cut is like trying to sneak dawn past
a rooster.
Mike Coburn
So long as the funds used to do the referenced "venture" were actually
earned, and/or so long as the beneficiary of profit is the correct
and just beneficiary (and in many cases it certainly is) then I have
absolutely no problem with any of the stuff you wrote above. For the
purposes in this discussion I will admit the definition of all of the
folks referenced herein above as "working people". The question, of
course, is why would they not all be taxed the same if, in fact, they
are all "working people"? Why would the individuals who derive income
from rents, royalties, interest, dividends, capital gains, and other
"unearned" sources be exempt from this tax on "working people", if they
are, in fact, "working people"? I don't make that distinction, sir. I
would totally do away with it.
> Coburn goes on to say "Tax revenues do not necessarily have to come from
> 'working' people." Hummm? Afraid I don't fully understand this, perhaps
> Coburn will explain.
Income from interest, dividends, capital gains, rents, royalties,
and other "unearned" income does not attract an FICA tax. It will
also be noted that assets and wealth are not taxed at a Federal
level at all. Over the last 50 years excess revenue from FICA taxes
has been used to fund general governance so as to lighten the load
on the asset owners --- i.e. the true wealthy.
>
> A couple of observations and questions for Coburn.
>
> (1) From a report on the SSA web page I found that Social Security income
> replacement rates are about 68 percent for lower income earners (minimum
> wage earners), 39 percent for average wage workers (about $30K/yr I
> think), and only 25 percent for those earning the maximum subject to the
> SS taxes (about $72K/yr). And, of course, income over the max subject to
> SS taxes that is taxed at 0 percent BECAUSE it earns 0 percent in benefits
> for those "working people". That last part, zero tax gets zero benefits,
> seems to me to be the objectively fairest part of the SS benefits formula;
> however, Coburn does not seem to like this general pattern of SS taxes
> paid in vs SS benefis paid out --- I think Coburn would like that income
> above the max subject to FICA taxes to also be taxed, but zero benefits
> would still be earned by that income.
Nope. Coburn would like income to be taxed not at all.
It is amazing to me that you can continually misrepresent
my position like this. You must be a Republican.
> (2) Next Federal Income taxes (data from the Tax Foundation web page):
> According to data released by the Internal Revenue Service, the
> top-earning one percent of U.S. taxpayers (annual income over $250,736)
> made 17 percent of the income earned in 1997 and paid 33 percent of the
> total federal individual income taxes collected that year. This fraction
> of the tax burden paid by the top one percent -- nearly a third of the
> total -- is up from 32 percent for tax year 1996 and up from 24 percent
> for tax year 1987. In 1996 their average tax rate was about 27 percent of
> AGI.
I can't even guess as to what the point would be behind
all this blather. Wealthy = what one owns. Not how
much income one would have. And regardless of any of
that it is my position that social programs should be
funded by consumption taxes. --- NOTHING to do with
income _or_ asset ownership...
> Now, at the other end of the income spectrum, the bottom 50 percent of the
> nation's taxpayers earned only about 14 percent of all income in 1997, but
> they paid an even smaller fraction of the federal individual income taxes
> collected-- about 4 percent. Their 1997 average tax rate was less than 5
> percent of AGI.
If you ever want to quit harping about income then
perhaps you will have something of importance to
say.
>
> Perhaps Coburn et. al. will now tell us with some specific percentages
> and defintions who are "working people" and what are the "fair"
> percentages of their income to take to fund their Social Security benefits
> and the percentage to take to fund General Government. How high of a tax
> rate should future generations pay? Of course Coburn et. al. could just
> state, if it is indeed the case, that they are Marxist (Karl Marx that is)
> and state that he believes in "from each according to ability to each
> according to need" with Coburn and his crew to determine "ability" and
> "need". Furthermore, he would need to close the loop and state that the
> operation of their Marxist principle would have no adverse impact on the
> general level of efficieny and productivity of the economy by the "working
> people" --- otherwise it would result in a lower standard of living for
> all, and I'm sure Coburn et. al. having nothing but the best of intentions
> for all of us.
AAhh, yes. The Marxist pony... Lets bring that one out
and trot it around for all to see. I believe that I have
already posted on this topic many times, but I do appreciate
the opportunity to do so again. The use of this particular
forum is quite well suited:
Old age is a disability, totally unearned, and totally
unavoidable. NO matter how much you work and save you
will ultimately get old. When you are disabled due
to age you will be supported by these who are currently
producing. AT THAT POINT IN TIME it is irrelevant
whether the support you are afforded comes to you by way
of interest and dividends, are from a government tax
on consumption. In either case the current producers
are paying more for their lifestyle so that you are
supported.
Social Security should be a VERY FORGIVINGLY means
tested entitlement program funded with a broad based
consumption tax levied as excise taxes. Probably
the best such tax would be a tax on transportation
fuels collected at the refinery or the import
terminal.
> Last, and somewhat related to this general issue, I'd like to put in a
> good obervation I saw in another thread (sorry I don't have the poster's
> id) but he said: "There are hundreds of millions of ABLE BODIED people on
> this earth who will ALWAYS be poor regardless of the general economy, or
> the opportunities offered them. The only question to be asked is: who is
> justly accountable for any specific individual's choices, family culture
> or the consequences of either? How do we defend confiscating property (at
> what amounts to gunpoint) from it's rightful owners and giving it to
> others who did not earn it? It's a simple question. I invite you to
> answer it."
Well, I saw it and answered it. But the term "able bodied"
does not really apply, does it? This is _one_
of the characteristics that would distinguish social insurance
from Marxism.
> OK-I'll answer it. There was a study some years ago (and I which I could
> remember the exact reference to the unversity that did the study), about
> what were the key factors that defined the difference between those higher
> in the income distribution vs those lower in the income distribution.
> The key factors that absorbed over about 80 percent of the observed
> variance was:
> a) Don't drop out of high school, stay and graduate from High School,
> b) Don't get married till you graduate from High School,
> c) Don't have kids till you get married,
> d) Don't do Drugs.
>
> Sound like good advice to me. If you want to impose a welfare state, I,
> and others, might be willing to be more interested in your Utopian dream
> so long as those that benefit are only those that followed say just any 3
> of the 4 tests mentioned above. I would note that the Republicans tried
> to make Drug testing a part of welfare reform but the Democrates would not
> go for it. Also note that I have not included any ant vs grasshoper
> saving and investment test, although I think that would be a good idea.
>
> ===========================================================================
This typical stupidity of presenting a social insurance
system as equivalent to a "welfare state" is only accepted
by Libertarians and other dim wits. As a matter of interest
some of the Libertarians are becoming less "dim" and
recognizing that the Rand bible has a few flaws. Contrary
to the belief of the less informed Libertarian zealot, the
advent of social insurance does not totally destroy human
initiative.
Ridgeway
[snip...below I try to summarize Coburn's remarks, go back to the orginal
post to get all the details]
Coburn said with respect to who are "working people" and the FICA tax:
"...The question, of course, is why would they not all be taxed the same
if, in fact, they are all 'working people'? Why would the individuals who
derive income from rents, royalties, interest, dividends, capital gains,
and other "unearned" sources be exempt from this tax on "working people",
if they are, in fact, "working people"? I don't make that distinction,
sir. I would totally do away with it."
Coburn also said: "I can't even guess as to what the point would be behind
all this [tax foundation stats on who pays what rates] blather. Wealthy =
what one owns. Not how much income one would have. And regardless of any
of that it is my position that social programs should be funded by
consumption taxes. --- NOTHING to do with income _or_ asset ownership..."
Later he says "...Coburn would like income to be taxed not at all."
Coburn continued "...Old age is a disability, totally unearned, and
totally unavoidable. NO matter how much you work and save you will
ultimately get old. When you are disabled due to age you will be
supported by these who are currently producing. AT THAT POINT IN TIME it
is irrelevant whether the support you are afforded comes to you by way of
interest and dividends, are from a government tax on consumption. In
either case the current producers are paying more for their lifestyle so
that you are supported...."
Lastly, Coburn tells us "...This typical stupidity of presenting a social
insurance system as equivalent to a 'welfare state' is only accepted by
Libertarians and other dim wits." Coburn finishes with "...Contrary to the
belief of the less informed Libertarian zealot, the advent of social
insurance does not totally destroy human initiative."
Here are my points in response (in no particular order, except the last
item is intended to be the last item because it really answers this whole
debate):
* The reason those items you listed are taxed at a ZERO FICA rate is
because they earn ZERO SS benefits. If you want that income to be hit with
FICA taxes, then are you going to also grant SS benefits on them also? And
just as you want all income to be subject to the "same" FICA rate, I want
all income to earn SS benefits at the "same" rate --- that sounds fair;
somehow I don't think you like the last half of the level deal. I posted
actual stats on TAX RATES that showed the highest 1 percent of income
earners paid Federal Income Taxes 5 times higher than the lower half of
the income distrubtion (they are not the "same" rate). You did not seem
to be *SHOCKED* that this highest 1 percent paid 27 percent of their
Adjusted Gross Income in Federal Income Taxes whereas the lowest HALF of
the income distribution paid less than 5 percent of their AGI in Federal
Income Taxes. Do try to be a little more consistent in the future.
* "Consumption" is paid for with Income. That which was paid by the buyer
(even if barter) is "Income" to the seller for that which was exchanged
--- of course the seller will then someday be the buyer and so on. Thus,
a focus on "consumption" taxes does not really get away from the concept
of "Income". The net result is for all pratical purposes still just a tax
on income --- I'm willing to consider a consumption tax (first the 16th
admendment must be repealed so that we don't get both an income tax and an
consumption tax) that treats all forms of economic activity the "same" as
you suggest.
* If Old Age is as you describe, we are all forewarned and we should each
plan for the lifestyle we aspire to in old (or young) age. The succesful
(say like Micheal Dell) will get to enjoy the best health care along with
all the best sex, drungs, and rock 'n roll he want, I on the other hand
will not be so lucky --- get for him, too bad for me, compared to him I
screwed up big time, but it's my fault, not his, Dell does not owe me a
living. What did Dell do that I didn't, he found a way to employ his
talents and skills to serve a market in a highly efficient and effective
manner. I say vive le Dell and all like him! As for me, I must suffer
the toil and strife that are the just deserts of my failure to find a way
to serve my fellow men in the market place in as highly an efficient and
effective manner for goods or services that are highly valued.
* The level at which an economy produces for current and future
consumption for those in old age or young age or whatever age is NOT
independent of it organizing principle: central government command and
control vs. the price system that arises between "working people"
voluntarily exchanging goods or services. Your view that "social
insurance" does not tend to destroy human initiative runs contrary to the
documented historical facts. See for example the book _Free to Choose_,
by Milton Friedman (winner of a Nobel prize in Economics), 1979, see for
example the Chaper "Created Equal". Summary: High taxes on property,
income, inheritances, etc.., for government enforced income redistribution
fails in the long run for many reasons. One of the chief reasons is that
it must neccesarily go "against one of the most basic instincts of all
human beings. In the words of Adam Smith, 'The uniform, constant, and
uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition'". Trying to
interfere with people's pursuit of their own values, trying to use their
talents for their own benefit, leads to a depressing effect on
productivity and efficiency. That's a quick summary. Friedman gives
several real world examples throughout his book.
Economic incentives matter; a great deal!! Income from wages, rent,
interest, dividends, capital gains, etc... is a result of people trying to
find the highest and best use for their time and capital and in so doing
they channel resources to those things valued most by the other people
with whom they engage in exchanges of goods and services --- i.e the free
competitive market --- and in the long run, we are all better off if this
is the main organizing principle of society. You show your how utterly
foolish and Utopian you are if you deny this basic fact of life. I look
forward to *you* giving a reference by a noted economic expert to support
your suggestions that assert the contrary is true.
* What is the definition of "insurance" --- does this "insurance" have
an actuarial meaning like those other things that are also called
"insurance" (e.g. Car, House, Life, Health, etc...). Are the calculations
of "social insurance" premimums the same as for these others things that
most people use the word "insurance" for? I don't think so. Here is a
quote from E. J. Dionne from his Washington Post article "Social Security:
We Need to Talk", Friday, May 19, 2000; Page A31:
"Let's be frank: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid inject a bit of
socialism into our capitalist economy to limit the pain and harm that risk
can impose on the elderly, the poor and the vulnerable. But we don't call
it socialism. We call it social insurance..."
Yep! E.J. nailed it as to what people really mean, including Coburn, when
they talk about "social insurance" --- at least E.J. is willing to call it
what it is rather than try to play word games. Honesty is soooooo much
easier to deal with than lies.
========================================================================
Rumpelstiltskin
<michael....@gte.net> wrote:
I pretty much agree with everything you say, and particulary
replacing income tax with consumption tax. But what an unholy
mess the transition period would be in order not to unfairly penalize
those who've alread contributed to social security via taxes!
Mike Coburn
I have no problem with this: As I said "SS should be a
VERY FORGIVINGLY means tested entitlement funded by
a broad based consumption tax implemented as excise
taxes"
And
> just as you want all income to be subject to the "same" FICA rate, I want
> all income to earn SS benefits at the "same" rate --- that sounds fair;
And now we return to all that has been said above: NOT ONCE DID I SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT TAXING INCOME AT ALL. I really do not give a rat's ass
what you think is "fair". You have demonstrated thus far that you have
absolutely no credentials that would qualify your opinion in that
subject
as being other than a figment of your own imagination. Your continued
insistence on referencing income taxes of any sort is a testimonial to
your abject dishonesty. The rest of the garbage you have posted seems
to
be perfectly in line with this analysis.
> somehow I don't think you like the last half of the level deal. I posted
> actual stats on TAX RATES that showed the highest 1 percent of income
> earners paid Federal Income Taxes 5 times higher than the lower half of
> the income distrubtion (they are not the "same" rate). You did not seem
> to be *SHOCKED* that this highest 1 percent paid 27 percent of their
> Adjusted Gross Income in Federal Income Taxes whereas the lowest HALF of
> the income distribution paid less than 5 percent of their AGI in Federal
> Income Taxes. Do try to be a little more consistent in the future.
>
> * "Consumption" is paid for with Income. That which was paid by the buyer
> (even if barter) is "Income" to the seller for that which was exchanged
> --- of course the seller will then someday be the buyer and so on. Thus,
> a focus on "consumption" taxes does not really get away from the concept
> of "Income". The net result is for all pratical purposes still just a tax
> on income --- I'm willing to consider a consumption tax (first the 16th
> admendment must be repealed so that we don't get both an income tax and an
> consumption tax) that treats all forms of economic activity the "same" as
> you suggest.
Well. I suppose you can weasel around and come up with
whatever you'd like. You seem to spend a lot of time at
it. And I am ever so certain that you would dearly love
to buy aircraft carries and enforce the property rights
of all the asset owners with the proceeds of a consumption
tax. That fits and I would expect nothing less from you.
But I propose to use ALL proceeds of ALL excise and any
other consumption taxes to fund social programs such as
Social Security. Not one dime would I have government
use for any other purpose. The FICA tax is a vivid exposé
of what government can do with taxes it collects from
the average wage earner so as to benefit the wealth holder.
I would propose a 2% annual tax on the value of all assets
to totally replace the income tax with not one dime of
the proceeds of that tax being spent on ANY social program.
All proceeds of that tax to be used for the undisputed purposes
of government as in defense, law enforcement, and physical
infrastructure development.
> * If Old Age is as you describe, we are all forewarned and we should each
> plan for the lifestyle we aspire to in old (or young) age. The succesful
> (say like Micheal Dell) will get to enjoy the best health care along with
> all the best sex, drungs, and rock 'n roll he want, I on the other hand
> will not be so lucky --- get for him, too bad for me, compared to him I
> screwed up big time, but it's my fault, not his, Dell does not owe me a
> living. What did Dell do that I didn't, he found a way to employ his
> talents and skills to serve a market in a highly efficient and effective
> manner. I say vive le Dell and all like him! As for me, I must suffer
> the toil and strife that are the just deserts of my failure to find a way
> to serve my fellow men in the market place in as highly an efficient and
> effective manner for goods or services that are highly valued.
The point is that I really have little disagreement with what
you have presented in the previous paragraph. Those who manage
to acquire assets will have a much better retirement than those
who don't under the system I have proposed. I would not have it
otherwise. That is called justice. But it is possible to have
justice with compassion and it is possible to do this without all
the horrific strife we currently endure.
> * The level at which an economy produces for current and future
> consumption for those in old age or young age or whatever age is NOT
> independent of it organizing principle: central government command and
> control vs. the price system that arises between "working people"
> voluntarily exchanging goods or services. Your view that "social
> insurance" does not tend to destroy human initiative runs contrary to the
> documented historical facts. See for example the book _Free to Choose_,
> by Milton Friedman (winner of a Nobel prize in Economics), 1979, see for
> example the Chaper "Created Equal". Summary: High taxes on property,
> income, inheritances, etc.., for government enforced income redistribution
> fails in the long run for many reasons. One of the chief reasons is that
> it must neccesarily go "against one of the most basic instincts of all
> human beings. In the words of Adam Smith, 'The uniform, constant, and
> uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition'". Trying to
> interfere with people's pursuit of their own values, trying to use their
> talents for their own benefit, leads to a depressing effect on
> productivity and efficiency. That's a quick summary. Friedman gives
> several real world examples throughout his book.
I have a copy of the book right here on the desk, sir, and
there is much about it with which I would agree. It is a
question of degree.
> Economic incentives matter; a great deal!! Income from wages, rent,
> interest, dividends, capital gains, etc... is a result of people trying to
> find the highest and best use for their time and capital and in so doing
> they channel resources to those things valued most by the other people
> with whom they engage in exchanges of goods and services --- i.e the free
> competitive market --- and in the long run, we are all better off if this
> is the main organizing principle of society. You show your how utterly
> foolish and Utopian you are if you deny this basic fact of life. I look
> forward to *you* giving a reference by a noted economic expert to support
> your suggestions that assert the contrary is true.
Oh how you do go on...... I do not recall being in
opposition to the "free competitive market", nor do
I see any challenge from me in regard to such a
mechanism being the "main organizing principle of society".
> * What is the definition of "insurance" --- does this "insurance" have
> an actuarial meaning like those other things that are also called
> "insurance" (e.g. Car, House, Life, Health, etc...). Are the calculations
> of "social insurance" premimums the same as for these others things that
> most people use the word "insurance" for? I don't think so. Here is a
> quote from E. J. Dionne from his Washington Post article "Social Security:
> We Need to Talk", Friday, May 19, 2000; Page A31:
> "Let's be frank: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid inject a bit of
> socialism into our capitalist economy to limit the pain and harm that risk
> can impose on the elderly, the poor and the vulnerable. But we don't call
> it socialism. We call it social insurance..."
>
> Yep! E.J. nailed it as to what people really mean, including Coburn, when
> they talk about "social insurance" --- at least E.J. is willing to call it
> what it is rather than try to play word games. Honesty is soooooo much
> easier to deal with than lies.
>
> ========================================================================
Why do you ask the questions and then answer them?
Do you like jerking off in this way? The answer
to the questions about actuarial meanings and the like
are quite positive. It is a pretty damned good
bet that you will get old. It is almost an actuarial
certainty. It is also a certainty that there isn't
a damned thing you can do about it.
The same kind of situation exists in regard to medical
care: During the entire course of your life (harmful
life style choices addressed by proper excise taxation)
your individually controllable need for medical services
will be the same as anyone else's. You will be a
diabetic or you will not, and you will have a bad
liver or heart or you will not, and you will live to be
80 or 90 or 100 or not. REMEMBER THE EXCISE TAX ON
GREASE, ALCOHOL, AND TOBACCO.
The Medicare bill is very high. It is very high because
all the younger people are in the "young" group and all
the older (Medicare) people are in the "old" group. All
we have to do is combine the two groups and the expense
of the older group can be paid in insurance premiums instead
of being paid by a special Medicare tax. But, gee, that
would mean that the corporations would not be able to get
away with the crap they currently get away with. WE CAN'T
HAVE THAT!!!!!
Ridgeway
ALL..."
Now, I forget, who was it now that brought up the item that some things
like Interest, Dividents, Rents, and other forms of "unearned" "income"
were not subjected to the FICA tax? Who said "we should not have ever
been taxing _ONLY_ wages in the first place, and now the rich bastards
should be made to pay"? Let me repeat "taxing _ONLY_ wages", that sure
sound to me like someone who wants to tax income along with other things,
a lot of other things! --- but would it all be taxed the "same"??? Are you
going to play word games and double talk some more???
Who said "...not have been taxing _ONLY_ wages...the rich bastands should
be made to pay"?????? WHO? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------
Coburn said: "The FICA tax is a vivid expose of what government can do
with taxes it collects from the average wage earner so as to benefit the
wealth holder."
Sorry, you got it wrong --- AGAIN!! FICA redistributes "income" from high
wage earners to low wage earners (also from later entrants into SS to
early entrants to SS, from men to women, from singles to married, etc..).
The early entrants to SS, EVEN the high income earners did have a high
internal rate of return (not as high as the low income earners, but still
higher than market rate of return). However, that is part of the Ponzi
scheme effect. In fact in the not so distant future, even those in the
middle of the income distribution will loose money to the SS system on
net.
Now for the Fed Income tax, objective evidence indicated that in fact
those rich bastards (upper 1 percent) did not pay the "same" --- they paid
*MORE*, much, much, more than those in the lower half of the income
distribution; a much higher percentage of total taxes, and as a much
higher *percentage* of their income --- 5-to-1. I take it that anyone who
would say "the rich bastands should be made to pay" given this existing
level of taxation as measured against their income finds it way toooo low
for their definitino of "fair" and "sameness" --- wouldn't that be a
reasonable conclusion???? Then, just high a level of taxation is tooo
high for you??? George W. Bush says that no one should pay more than
one-third of their income to the Federal government. Is that upper limit
too high, too low, or just about right for you Coburn???
Coburn, you are full of class envy and double talk BS on the subject of
"same" taxes being paid by "working people".
So tell me Coburn, are you going to remember in other debates you engage
in from now on, when some yahoo brings up the subject that there are some
items that are not hit with the FICA tax (Interest, Dividends, Rent, ...,
income above the SS max), are you going to say "Hey, Wait a second, there
is a reasonable, fair, logical reason this is so."??? (i.e. zero SS tax
because there are zero SS benefits).
And when you talk about "consumption" taxes, are you going to tell people
that "consumption" is paid for with "income" thus a "consumption" tax is
as a pratical matter a "income" tax by other means??? Are you going to
tax all "consumption" the "same" for all "working people"??? Even I might
be interested in a "fair" consumption tax -- however, that along with your
asset tax is never going to happen, so why waste a lot of time debating
it.
------
Coburn said: "Contrary to the belief of the less informed Libertarian
zealot, the advent of social insurance does not totally destroy human
initiative...." he also said "I do not recall being in opposition to the
"free competitive market".
OK, you may have me on a technicality here, you said "totally destroy
human initiative", the word "totally" helps your case. No, socialism does
not "totally" destroy initiative, it just stifiles it and redirects it
into less productive areas. However, are you going to continue to suggest
that "social insurance" is not really just another word for "socialism"???
Why not just admit the truth???
=======================================================================
Ridgeway
In his last post Coburn failed to own up to saying with respect to FICA
taxes suggesting that they should "...not have been taxing _ONLY_
wages...the rich bastands should be made to pay"? I stand by my
interpretation that the above statement, along with him explicitly
interjecting that there are forms of income (rent, interest, dividends,
...) not subjected to FICA taxes, does in fact constitute a contradition
to Coburn's claim: "...NOT ONCE DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT TAXING INCOME AT
ALL..." (notice the capital letters, notice "say anything about taxing
income at ALL").
The above is one of many contraditions and BS double talk that Coburn,
like others of his kind, engage in. Even in his most recent post he said
with respect to FICA taxes again and the SS Trust Fund: "...The excess
collections are used to purchase bonds in support of general governance.
Such bond buying is a smoke screen. The excess is used for general
governance and the FICA taxes are simply a way of taxing lower wage
earners instead of taxing the unearned income of higher income earners.
i.e. a way to avoid taxing the rich..." ...etc...
Well -- T h e r r r e y o u g o a g a i n ....
You are so blinded by class envy you can't think straight:
a) You contradict your claim again by suggesting FICA taxes should be
applied to "the unearned income of higer income earners" in addition to
not "_ONLY_ wage" income,
b) You just can't let go of the fact that it is fair and reaonable to
apply a zero SS tax rate to income that generates zero credits toward SS
benefits,
c) I have no doubt that the bonds in the SS Trust fund will be repaid at
some point in the future, and with interest --- and they will be paid for
with General Revenue from Federal Income taxes, which, as I have pointed
out with objective evidence, are paid for by the rich (i.e. 95 percent of
Federal Income Taxes are paid by those in the upper half of the income
distribution, the lower half of the income distribution pay ONLY 5 percent
of all Federal Income taxes; and the rich pay a much higher percentage of
their income in taxes). Given the level of promises to past and current
seniors for SS & Medicare benefits in excess of the actuarial fair value
(by the reasonable definition of "insurance" premimums) of what they paid
into the system, future taxpayers are looking at *MUCH* higher tax rates
(FICA and Fed Income) than is currently the case. By the way, that was the
orginal debate that I had hoped to engage in before I got off on your
somewhat related tangent.
d) You simply can't except that your "social insurance" is not really
insurance (in actual meaning as applied to auto, home, health, life, ...
insurance); that it is really a form of socialism. I don't support SS as
it currently is because it is very poorly designed. I won't go into all
the ways SS is flawed politically and economically, but the solution is to
convert it into privately owned and managed mandatory savings accounts
like 401ks and IRAs. With such reforms the number that might need or want
to be subsidized with socialism would decrease greatly, economic
efficiency would advance, and the ability of politicians to manipulate the
electorate would be reduced.
======================================================================
George Stebbins
>In soc.retirement Mike Coburn <michael....@gte.net> wrote:
>: Ridgeway wrote:
>: Loads of reasonably correct stuff deleted for brevity. We
>: _are_ aware of the demographic problem --- Why do these
>: guys have to keep going over it all the time?
>
>[snip....]
>
>
>Because people can understand the problem, in part from the demographic
>perspective. What they should be asking themselves is: "Why does SS
>suffer a problem BECASUE there is this demographic change? --- Honest
>retirment funds, those with honest Trust Funds, are not adverserly
>impacted by such a demographic ripple --- WHY?" If people can only latch
>onto their being a SS problem because there is a demographic problem,
>well, that's a lot done in itself, but I hope the smart people will
>drill down into the problem and get to a deeper level of understanding.
Not in part, it is wholly a demographic problem. Since it is a
demographic problem it effects all retirement funds, both what you
call "honest" retirement funds, and Social Security.
George
Ridgeway
: On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:23:37 GMT, Ridgeway <riri...@nyx.net> wrotf:
:>In soc.retirement Mike Coburn <michael....@gte.net> wrote:
:>: Ridgeway wrote:
:>: Loads of reasonably correct stuff deleted for brevity. We
:>: _are_ aware of the demographic problem --- Why do these
:>: guys have to keep going over it all the time?
:>
:>[snip....]
:>
:>
:>Because people can understand the problem, in part from the demographic
:>perspective. What they should be asking themselves is: "Why does SS
:>suffer a problem BECASUE there is this demographic change? --- Honest
:>retirment funds, those with honest Trust Funds, are not adverserly
:>impacted by such a demographic ripple --- WHY?" If people can only latch
:>onto their being a SS problem because there is a demographic problem,
:>well, that's a lot done in itself, but I hope the smart people will
:>drill down into the problem and get to a deeper level of understanding.
: Not in part, it is wholly a demographic problem. Since it is a
: demographic problem it effects all retirement funds, both what you
: call "honest" retirement funds, and Social Security.
: George
Sorry, George, your wrong. Here is excerpts of an article by a noted
economist that explains why honest retirement funds are worried about the
demographic problem that's going to sink Social Security.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022299.asp
-------------------------------------------------
"Saving" social security by Thomas Sowell 2/22/99
NOTHING SEEMS SO INSECURE as Social Security. However, before we start
"saving" Social Security, we need to stop and think about why it needs
saving in the first place. Then maybe we can avoid making the same
mistakes all over again.
Some people blame the problem on the large numbers of "baby boomers" who
will be retiring in the next few decades. But why don't we hear about
private annuities that are worried about the number of baby boomers who
will be retiring?
Social Security's problems go much deeper than the size of the generation
that is going to be retiring. In fact, Social Security's problems go all
the way back to the beginning --- to the way it was set up, to the lies
that politicians told about it and to the misconceptions and political
irresponsibility that have now come home to roost.
Private insurance companies aren't panicked about the annuities they are
going to have to pay to baby boomers because insurance companies operate
in an entirely different way from Social Security. Insurance companies
take their customers' premiums and invest them to create real wealth.
Later, the earnings from that wealth can be used to pay annuities or life
insurance benefits whenever they become due.
For example, if an insurance company uses its customers' premiums to build
an apartment complex, then the rents coming in from those who live in the
apartments can be used to pay the annuities or insurance benefits owed to
those whose premiums built the buildings. The size of the previous
generation or the next generation doesn't matter.
The reason it matters under Social Security is that there has never been
any real wealth created. The government has simply been robbing Peter to
pay Paul. This worked great when the baby boomers were paying into the
system and their money was being used to pay benefits to a much smaller
generation that was retired.
Now it has become obvious to everyone that this game will not work any
more when the huge baby boomer generation itself retires. There will not
be enough people working to pay them all the benefits they were promised,
unless Social Security taxes are raised by huge amounts or the government
welches on its commitments to the retirees.
The biggest lie about Social Security is that it is some kind of
"insurance." But, unlike insurance premiums, Social Security taxes create
no wealth. They are spent when they get to Washington, just like other
taxes. Paper transactions create the illusion of a Social Security "fund,"
but there is no corresponding real wealth created --- no factories, farms
or railroads.
The basic principle of Social Security is the same as that behind illegal
pyramid schemes run by con men. The first people to put their money into
pyramid schemes get repaid handsomely from the money received from others
who join later. That is what attracts still more suckers and enables the
con men to rip them off.
Since the first people to join the Social Security system were from the
relatively small generation of the 1930s, their later retirement benefits
were easily paid with the money received from the much larger baby boom
generation. So long as the pyramid keeps expanding, things are great, but
eventually the pyramid stops expanding and those who joined last get left
holding the bag.
That is why pyramid schemes are illegal and that is why Social Security is
now in trouble. It is not because of some demographic fluke. It was a
demographic fluke that kept it from collapsing before now.
It was the deceptions and irresponsibility of politicians that got us into
this mess. If you think the way to get out of it is to let politicians
continue to guide Social Security in the future, then you have missed the
point completely.
------------------snip read rest of article for yourself ------------
Ridgeway
: Sorry, George, your wrong. Here is excerpts of an article by a noted
: economist that explains why honest retirement funds are worried about the
^not
Insert the the word "not" before worried above.
I make a lot of typo errors and I let them go
as this is an signficant impact I wanted to correct
(even though the context should make it apparent).
By the way, if your want more references on the
the problem with SS, just say the word.
: demographic problem that's going to sink Social Security.
Mike Coburn
Those are kind and welcomed words. You are correct in
that transition from one system to another is not easy.
Looking at it realistically, however, I really do not
see how FICA taxes can continue to be used as the financial
means of the SS system. When I said VERY FORGIVINGLY
means tested I really meant it. I am not interested in
changing the life style of seniors by cutting their SS
benefits. There are, however, many seniors that would
not be adversely affected by decreasing or even eliminating
their benefits. Bearing that in mind I would say that if
the consumption taxation resulted in rising prices then
it seems the COLA's would take care of it. All in all
I do not see a real problem. Yes -- Some seniors are
going to get short changed. But those that do will NOT
see a life style change. I am absolutely NOT interested
in protecting the heirs of the current SS recipients and
no one else should be either. It is extremely realistic
to look at the change as an early settlement of the estate:
The kids get the dough they would have gotten from
inheritance in the form of tax relief _RIGHT NOW_.
Mike Coburn
>
> Coburn said: "...NOT ONCE DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT TAXING INCOME AT
> ALL..."
>
> Now, I forget, who was it now that brought up the item that some things
> like Interest, Dividents, Rents, and other forms of "unearned" "income"
> were not subjected to the FICA tax? Who said "we should not have ever
> been taxing _ONLY_ wages in the first place, and now the rich bastards
> should be made to pay"? Let me repeat "taxing _ONLY_ wages", that sure
> sound to me like someone who wants to tax income along with other things,
> a lot of other things! --- but would it all be taxed the "same"??? Are you
> going to play word games and double talk some more???
>
> Who said "...not have been taxing _ONLY_ wages...the rich bastands should
> be made to pay"?????? WHO? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You really need to improve your reading skills AND
your analytical skills. -- I don't really care what
it "sounds like" to you. Anyone and everyone is
certainly invited and encouraged to read what I wrote
so as to see if they can interpret it the way you have.
Some of them might be able to do so. But most will be
more intelligent and rational than that.
> ------
>
> Coburn said: "The FICA tax is a vivid expose of what government can do
> with taxes it collects from the average wage earner so as to benefit the
> wealth holder."
>
> Sorry, you got it wrong --- AGAIN!! FICA redistributes "income" from high
> wage earners to low wage earners (also from later entrants into SS to
> early entrants to SS, from men to women, from singles to married, etc..).
> The early entrants to SS, EVEN the high income earners did have a high
> internal rate of return (not as high as the low income earners, but still
> higher than market rate of return). However, that is part of the Ponzi
> scheme effect. In fact in the not so distant future, even those in the
> middle of the income distribution will loose money to the SS system on
> net.
snore, snore, snore...
Each year the government collects money from wage earners
and uses most of it to pay SS benefits. The excess collections
are used to purchase bonds in support of general governance.
Such bond buying is a smoke screen. The excess is used for
general governance and the FICA taxes are simply a way of
taxing lower wage earners instead of taxing the unearned
income of higher income earners. i.e. a way to avoid taxing
the rich. It will be noted that the large FICA tax increase
came into being at the same time as the very large Ronald Ray
Gun income tax decrease on the higher incomes. The nice
special treatments for capital gains was part of the rich
man bake sale too.
> Now for the Fed Income tax, objective evidence indicated that in fact
> those rich bastards (upper 1 percent) did not pay the "same" --- they paid
> *MORE*, much, much, more than those in the lower half of the income
> distribution; a much higher percentage of total taxes, and as a much
> higher *percentage* of their income --- 5-to-1. I take it that anyone who
> would say "the rich bastands should be made to pay" given this existing
> level of taxation as measured against their income finds it way toooo low
> for their definitino of "fair" and "sameness" --- wouldn't that be a
> reasonable conclusion???? Then, just high a level of taxation is tooo
> high for you??? George W. Bush says that no one should pay more than
> one-third of their income to the Federal government. Is that upper limit
> too high, too low, or just about right for you Coburn???
Why do you keep up the incessant rambling and croaking about
income taxes and how the dudes with the most income pay the
most taxes? That has NOTHING to do with anything I've proposed.
I was talking about taxing assets and consumption. And I also
recall saying that asset taxes should not be used to finance
social programs. But if we can't do it my way then we will have
to do it with the piece of trash we have. That would mean a
total repeal of the FICA tax, and increase in income tax rates,
and still a VERY FORGIVINGLY means tested SS benefits system.
> Coburn, you are full of class envy and double talk BS on the subject of
> "same" taxes being paid by "working people".
Oh yeah.. The ubiquitous "Class Envy" pony. I was wondering
if you'd bring him out and trot him around ONE MO TIME.
And I'll leave it to the readers to determine who is using
straight forward analysis and logic as opposed to double talk.
> So tell me Coburn, are you going to remember in other debates you engage
> in from now on, when some yahoo brings up the subject that there are some
> items that are not hit with the FICA tax (Interest, Dividends, Rent, ...,
> income above the SS max), are you going to say "Hey, Wait a second, there
> is a reasonable, fair, logical reason this is so."??? (i.e. zero SS tax
> because there are zero SS benefits).
Well now: If we want an actual "investment" program
then what is the government doing running the thing?
SS is supposed to be a social insurance system and
no matter how tall your cotton might be right now
you could lose it all in the next big market crash.
As I said: A VERY FORGIVINGLY means tested
entitlement.
> And when you talk about "consumption" taxes, are you going to tell people
> that "consumption" is paid for with "income" thus a "consumption" tax is
> as a pratical matter a "income" tax by other means???
This is simple Libertarian crap, of course. We get income.
We can "consume" it, we can stuff it in a mattress (i.e.
"save" it), or we can "invest" it. Now I no you can count
at least as high as 3, so don't be so willing to give up
on this so sorting problem.
Are you going to
> tax all "consumption" the "same" for all "working people"???
The answer is yes. And I am prepared to take the lumps
I will get about consumption taxes being regressive. I
have proposed a very large tax on transportation fuels.
That increase in fuel cost will find its way into most
consumables but certainly live lobsters will be affected
to a greater degree than canned beans. Meanwhile, we
will find that the lower wage people truly are the
major beneficiaries of the social insurance system, as
they should be. Though the cost to them is dear the
benefits are very well worth it BECAUSE all of the
proceeds of the tax are used for social programs and none
of it for property rights enforcements.
Even I might
> be interested in a "fair" consumption tax -- however, that along with your
> asset tax is never going to happen, so why waste a lot of time debating
> it.
If it is not debated it will certainly never happen.
> ------
>
> Coburn said: "Contrary to the belief of the less informed Libertarian
> zealot, the advent of social insurance does not totally destroy human
> initiative...." he also said "I do not recall being in opposition to the
> "free competitive market".
>
> OK, you may have me on a technicality here, you said "totally destroy
> human initiative", the word "totally" helps your case. No, socialism does
> not "totally" destroy initiative, it just stifiles it and redirects it
> into less productive areas. However, are you going to continue to suggest
> that "social insurance" is not really just another word for "socialism"???
> Why not just admit the truth???
> =======================================================================
That's not nearly good enough, sir. There is a very BIG
difference between a Social Insurance system and actual
Socialism. In Socialism the means of production are owned
by the state. There is nothing that remotely resembles that
in a Social Insurance system funded by consumption taxes.
George Stebbins
>In soc.retirement George Stebbins <g.ste...@att.net> wrote:
>: On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:23:37 GMT, Ridgeway <riri...@nyx.net> wrotf:
>
>:>In soc.retirement Mike Coburn <michael....@gte.net> wrote:
>:>: Ridgeway wrote:
>:>: Loads of reasonably correct stuff deleted for brevity. We
>:>: _are_ aware of the demographic problem --- Why do these
>:>: guys have to keep going over it all the time?
>:>
>:>[snip....]
>:>
>:>
>:>Because people can understand the problem, in part from the demographic
>:>perspective. What they should be asking themselves is: "Why does SS
>:>suffer a problem BECASUE there is this demographic change? --- Honest
>:>retirment funds, those with honest Trust Funds, are not adverserly
>:>impacted by such a demographic ripple --- WHY?" If people can only latch
>:>onto their being a SS problem because there is a demographic problem,
>:>well, that's a lot done in itself, but I hope the smart people will
>:>drill down into the problem and get to a deeper level of understanding.
>
>: Not in part, it is wholly a demographic problem. Since it is a
>: demographic problem it effects all retirement funds, both what you
>: call "honest" retirement funds, and Social Security.
>: George
>
>Sorry, George, your wrong. Here is excerpts of an article by a noted
>economist that explains why honest retirement funds are not worried about the
>demographic problem that's going to sink Social Security.
>
> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022299.asp
>
Ř -------------------------------------------------
Your proof that I am wrong is an editorial on a right-wing web site,
give me a break. After all Thomas Sowell's job to lie for right-wing
causes.
Private annuities are not in trouble, after all they have the same out
that social security has. And that is simply cutting back on the
return from the annuity, so that the return from the annuity would be
equal to or the amount social security needs to cut back in benefits.
If you don't talk about the rate of return from annuities what you say
basically a meaningless, and Thomas does not talk about rates of
return. at
But let's look at one point here where Sowell is playing loose with
the truth.
>For example, if an insurance company uses its customers' premiums to build
>an apartment complex, then the rents coming in from those who live in the
>apartments can be used to pay the annuities or insurance benefits owed to
>those whose premiums built the buildings. The size of the previous
>generation or the next generation doesn't matter.
>
The problem here is that when you create new apartments you drive down
rents relative to income, so that there may not be enough to pay for
promised Social Security benefits. Of course it can be enough to pay
for an annuity depending on the rate of return for that annuity.
>Later, the earnings from that wealth can be used to pay annuities or life
> insurance benefits whenever they become due.
And of course this is the Lie it turns out that earnings in this
country, our national income is actually not a factor of wealth but a
factor of the money supply, historically about 1.7 times M2. Any
increase in output translates into things getting cheaper relative to
the dollars in circulation.
[snip]
>
>Now it has become obvious to everyone that this game will not work any
>more when the huge baby boomer generation itself retires. There will not
>be enough people working to pay them all the benefits they were promised,
>unless Social Security taxes are raised by huge amounts or the government
>welches on its commitments to the retirees.
>
And of course, Social Security is promising a larger share workers
incomes, which are about 75% of all earnings.
I could go on, but do you have to eat the whole egg to know that it's
rotten.
You should not go to the politicians and their fellow travelers, both
left and right to get your data.
George
Mike Coburn
> taxes suggesting that they should "...not have been taxing _ONLY_
> wages...the rich bastands should be made to pay"? I stand by my
> interpretation that the above statement, along with him explicitly
> interjecting that there are forms of income (rent, interest, dividends,
> ...) not subjected to FICA taxes, does in fact constitute a contradition
> to Coburn's claim: "...NOT ONCE DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT TAXING INCOME AT
> ALL..." (notice the capital letters, notice "say anything about taxing
> income at ALL").
<<<<<<< lots of stuff deleted >>>>>
I have said what I have to say. The stuff is there for all to see.
I will let the interested readers look it over and see what they
think. Perhaps if someone else can manage to misinterpret what
I said then I'll try to clarify. You have been reduced to
playing debating games instead of addressing the issues. I'm
not interested.
James A. Chamblee
Ridgeway
: return. [...snip...see George's previous posts....]
I'm glad see you agree that social security is going to have to cut
benefits in some way shape or form (by the way the SS benefits for income
replacement is not about 75% on average as I think you suggested, it is
about 42%, and that of course is the average of 68% for Minimum Wage
Income earners, about 39% for average wage earners, and down to 24% for
those making the max subject to SS taxes). I see that you would like
(perhaps need is the more appropriate word) to have some more references
as to the historical problem with Social Security (I've got even more if
these extras are not enough for you). Below are a few more references
that spell out the real reason SS is in trouble (and why private pension
system that have honest Trust funds are not). I may not agree with all of
these folks solution to the problem, but the historical basis of the
problem of SS is something no objective analyst (left, right, or center)
can cover up or deny --- the history of SS is certain, it is the future of
SS that is not, for example, the current law schedule of benefits are NOT
going to be paid. They are going to be cut in some way, shape or form by
about at least 25 percent. In my own lifetime since the time I started
paying into SS (one would think that was the time at which my "contract"
with the government was set), benefits were cut signficantly --- all
thanks to the historical fact described by these experts:
From testimony before the Senate Committee on the Budget, January 19,
1999, Henry J. AARON, here is his statement on the key historical fact
about Social Security that you some so incapable or unwilling to
acknowledge:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"...Social Security initially paid out benefits far larger than workers'
payroll taxes (and the employers' taxes paid on their behalf) could have
justified. This generosity produced the so-called "unfunded liability,"
which current and future workers will have to pay off at no direct benefit
to themselves. Furthermore, workers must pay off that liability whether or
not we retain the current system, privatize, or do some of both. I shall
not debate whether paying relatively generous benefits in the past was a
good or a bad idea. The simple fact is that we did, an unfunded liability
exists, and we must deal with it. Current and future workers must pay
extra taxes to pay off the liability."
------------------------------------------------------
NYTimes June 21, 2000, PAUL KRUGMAN: "The Pig in the Python":
"...The "financial" problem is how to pay for Social Security. This
problem is a legacy of Social Security's pay-as-you-go past: because the
baby boomers' contributions were used to provide generous benefits to
earlier generations, there isn't enough money in the system to pay the
benefits promised to the boomers themselves....As I've explained in
earlier columns, the implicit return on Social Security contributions is
low only because today's workers are in effect being taxed to pay the
system's debts from the past...."
NYTimes May 31, 2000, PAUL KRUGMAN: "Truth in Advertising":
"...The reason for that low return, once again, is not that the Social
Security Administration is a lousy investor; it's that today's workers
must over-contribute because previous generations of Americans didn't put
in enough to finance their own retirement..."
---------------------------------------------------
Here is a brief summary of Univerisity of Delaware Professor of Economics
William Harris work on the subject:
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UpDate/98/35/private.html
"Nothing can save 40-something Baby Boomers from getting a raw deal at
retirement because they're mired at the bottom of a massive pyramid
scheme, according to a UD economist whose analysis of the Social Security
system appears in the new issue of Humanomics, an international social
science journal.
Since 1940, U.S. retirees have received an estimated $6.6 trillion dollars
more in benefits than they've paid in taxes: an amount only slightly
higher than the current national debt, reported William T. Harris,
business and economics. This amount will rise and peak at more than $9
trillion around 2015, he said.
Privatizing the nation's "pay-as-you-go" Social Security system-or
funneling a certain percentage of taxes into individual retirement
accounts-might help offset the staggering imbalance between benefits paid
versus contributions made to the plan, said Harris, winner of four UD
teaching excellence awards. Given the system's huge payoffs to date,
however, "privatization simply wouldn't be a panacea," he added.
"We're talking about the ultimate pyramid scheme," said Harris, whose
latest study tracks Social Security benefits over a 65-year period,
beginning in 1955 and projected to 2020. "Those who got in early received
the biggest benefits for the smallest contributions. The rest of us will
experience a very poor rate of return on our investment for the next 22
years, and those retiring after about 2015 will get back less than they
paid into the system."
Until recently, Americans have reaped remarkably large rewards from the
Social Security system because tax rates remained low during their working
years, and benefits were based on the higher rates in effect at the time
of their retirement, Harris explained. When former U.S. President Franklin
D. Roosevelt launched the Social Security system 61 years ago, Harris
noted, Social Security taxes claimed only 1 percent of the average
worker's paycheck. By 1950, the rate rose to 3 percent-compared to a
current rate of more than 15 percent. Such low tax rates during the first
half of this century explain why the earliest retirees "received the
highest rates of return," Harris said.
The late Ida M. Fuller of Vermont, for example, the nation's first Social
Security recipient, paid only $44 in taxes for three years before she
retired in 1940. Yet, she collected $20,884.52 in benefits over the next
35 years, according to Harris. Subsequent Social Security recipients
enjoyed comparable windfalls. In 1955, those who retired at median-income
levels drew nearly $15,000 more in benefits than they paid in taxes,
according to research by Harris. And, workers who retired between 1970 and
1980 received the largest payoff, compared to their investment, he said.
The trend toward soaring benefits peaked in 1980, when the average worker
drew $145,400 in benefits, "over and above their contributions," Harris
reported. By comparison, today's 40-something employees, who entered the
workforce in 1980 when the Social Security tax rate was comparable to
current levels, "will pay large amounts into the system for 40 years and
then get 15 years' worth of benefits," according to Harris.
"The large benefits that our parents and grandparents and
great-grandparents have enjoyed for so many years are going to come home
to roost," he said. Currently, U.S. workers may receive partial Social
Security benefits at age 62, with full benefits payable at age 65. By the
year 2022, however, the minimum age for full retirement will rise to 67,
thereby further reducing the lifetime benefits paid to most workers,
Harris noted.
Policymakers are evaluating various options for Social Security reform.
The bipartisan National Commission on Retirement Policy (NCRP), for
instance, has recommended investing 2 percentage points of each
individual's Social Security tax into mutual funds. Under the NCRP
recommendations, taxpayers could decide how to invest their money, but
full retirement benefits would be withheld until age 70, beginning in
2029. Competing reform proposals call for differing degrees of
privatization, all of which would divert some percentage of Social
Security taxes into high-yield investments, coupled in some cases with
higher tax rates and/or reduced benefits.
To analyze Social Security benefits paid to date, Harris compiled data
from the monthly Social Security Bulletin and the annual Current
Population Survey. He also took into account average annual mortality and
birth rates to tally the number of employees who retired each year, as
well as the Social Security benefits paid to them, starting in 1955. His
analysis assumes that each retiree reached the average life expectancy and
worked continuously from age 20 to age 65, earning a median income, as
defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By projecting earnings, tax
rates, benefits and longevity statistics, Harris also predicted future
Social Security benefits, through the year 2020."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There you have it, references, from liberals and the University of
Delaware Professor Harris who I don't know if he is Liberal or
Conservative or whatever, his is just an objective analysis that was
published in a professional journal. Perhaps you (along with others like
Coburn, Taber, et. al.) should get together and do your own research and
analysis for your own article and submit it for peer review for
publication in a professional economics journal that counters what Harris
(and others) has to say. Till then, Harris's work, and others, including
Professor Sowell, whose quotes I've given about the historial basis of the
problem with Social Security, stand.
===================================================================
Ron Kelley
<jim-ch...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Why are you lot cross-posting all this crap to soc.retirement?
>
Cross posting???? Jim... check your header.
Ron Kelley
George Stebbins
>: Ø -------------------------------------------------
>
>: Your proof that I am wrong is an editorial on a right-wing web site,
>: give me a break. After all Thomas Sowell's job to lie for right-wing
>: causes.
>
>: Private annuities are not in trouble, after all they have the same out
>: that social security has. And that is simply cutting back on the
>: return from the annuity, so that the return from the annuity would be
>: equal to or the amount social security needs to cut back in benefits.
>: If you don't talk about the rate of return from annuities what you say
>: basically a meaningless, and Thomas does not talk about rates of
>: return. [...snip...see George's previous posts....]
>
>I'm glad see you agree that social security is going to have to cut
>benefits in some way shape or form (by the way the SS benefits for income
>replacement is not about 75% on average as I think you suggested, it is
>about 42%, and that of course is the average of 68% for Minimum Wage
>Income earners, about 39% for average wage earners, and down to 24% for
>those making the max subject to SS taxes).
All I was saying was that now three workers support a retiree in the
future it will be two.
> I see that you would like
>(perhaps need is the more appropriate word) to have some more references
>as to the historical problem with Social Security (I've got even more if
>these extras are not enough for you). Below are a few more references
>that spell out the real reason SS is in trouble (and why private pension
>system that have honest Trust funds are not).
Remember that my argument with you is not that social security is in
trouble, it is that if we change it into an honest trust fund than the
honest trust fund will be in trouble. In the sense that they will not
be able to pay benefits like those promised by Social Security.
> I may not agree with all of
>these folks solution to the problem, but the historical basis of the
>problem of SS is something no objective analyst (left, right, or center)
>can cover up or deny --- the history of SS is certain, it is the future of
>SS that is not, for example, the current law schedule of benefits are NOT
>going to be paid. They are going to be cut in some way, shape or form by
>about at least 25 percent. In my own lifetime since the time I started
>paying into SS (one would think that was the time at which my "contract"
>with the government was set), benefits were cut signficantly --- all
>thanks to the historical fact described by these experts:
>
Or they raise taxes. Trust me government can always change contracts
like this and they forced me into the military where they promise that
would be buried at government expense when I died, they took away that
benefit even I had already paid for it with my service.
>From testimony before the Senate Committee on the Budget, January 19,
>1999, Henry J. AARON, here is his statement on the key historical fact
>about Social Security that you some so incapable or unwilling to
>acknowledge:
>
Actually what they're saying is not strictly true, but he can be
thought of in this way. Remember they are simplifying an exaggerated
in a way that the general public can understand. That doesn't make
their point wrong, and that is there is there's a problem with the
funding of social security now that in the future can only be solved
by raising taxes or cutting spending. Remember that in 1950 only 10%
of retired workers were receiving benefits. If you were taxing workers
or forcing them into a privatization scheme, and that scheme generated
the same revenue that we generate now, i.e. enough money to pay for
95% of retired workers to receive benefits and a little more, the
surplus. You would generate a massive surplus, which could be used to
pay for baby boom, but we didn't do this. And there's nothing we can
do now fix it. So this leaves us with a demographic problem I referred
to before.
You notice, that none of the above refers to the problem with
privatization.
>Here is a brief summary of Univerisity of Delaware Professor of Economics
>William Harris work on the subject:
>
> http://www.udel.edu/PR/UpDate/98/35/private.html
>
[Sniped The article from the student newspaper look at the URL]
Here is another reference to Harris work the a little bit better than
a student newspaper.
http://www.ncbl.com/archive/08-98education.html
UD professor sees bleak times for Social Security
THE STUDY of economics has long been called the "dismal science." And
according to University of Delaware economist Dr. William T. Harris,
the economic outlook for the national Social Security system has never
looked bleaker.
In a June article published in the international social science
journal Humanomics, Harris claims that the Social Security system is
positioned to fail those who were born after 1965, and that proposed
privatization measures simply won't fix the rapidly ailing system.
"The problem with the system is the generous benefits that have been
paid there's no way that we can sustain the current level of
generosity because there's too many baby boomers retiring," explained
Harris, an assistant professor of economics at the university.
---
"There's no way even privatization can guarantee people generous
benefits related to taxes," he said.
You understand this is all I was ever saying. All you did was rant
rave about Social Security while providing no evidence why your second
statement about privatization is true. While Harris work points to my
contention that privatization will not work. In the end we can't
support current generosity, because of the demographic problem of too
many baby boomers retiring. And also privatization will not work
because of a demographic problem of too many baby boomers retiring.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>There you have it, references, from liberals and the University of
>Delaware Professor Harris who I don't know if he is Liberal or
>Conservative or whatever, his is just an objective analysis that was
>published in a professional journal. Perhaps you (along with others like
>Coburn, Taber, et. al.) should get together and do your own research and
>analysis for your own article and submit it for peer review for
>publication in a professional economics journal that counters what Harris
>(and others) has to say. Till then, Harris's work, and others, including
>Professor Sowell, whose quotes I've given about the historial basis of the
>problem with Social Security, stand.
What you have here, is basically parts of two editorials from the New
York Times, where Krugman is using will hyperbole to make his point.
And a statement by Henry J. AARON who was explaining things in terms
that a congressman would understand, but are not exactly true.
Although you can think of them in those terms, but the economy does on
actually work that way. You also do have an article in a student
newspaper that refers to a analysis published in a professional
journal, unfortunately you didn't find out what the analysis said.
Alas it supports my position and refutes Professor Sowell. After all,
the problems with social security probably cannot be fixed with
privatization. The only way you could it get to work is go back to
1937 and privatize Social Security then. Since that can not be done,
when I said about privatization stands.
Rule number one, when economists write in editorials and articles
outside their journal they will explain things in terms that somebody
who doesn't understand economic can understand. The problem is you are
taking this hyperbole as factual truth, and trying to build on. That's
why I warn you against using editorials.
George
Ridgeway
:>problem with Social Security, stand.
[snip...see previous posts....]
George said...
: What you have here, is basically parts of two editorials from the New
: York Times, where Krugman is using will hyperbole to make his point.
: And a statement by Henry J. AARON who was explaining things in terms
: that a congressman would understand, but are not exactly true.
Nope, they statements they made are EXACTLY TRUE weither
you like it or not.
: Although you can think of them in those terms, but the economy does on
: actually work that way. You also do have an article in a student
Nope, your wroong again, the economy does work that way.
: newspaper that refers to a analysis published in a professional
: journal, unfortunately you didn't find out what the analysis said.
Wrong, three in a row now. Harris said what he said and meant
what he said --- SS is a Ponzi Scheme; that is the historical
fact of life about Social Security.
: Alas it supports my position and refutes Professor Sowell. After all,
Your on a perfect streak, the quotes fully support Sowell's
position. Your called Sowell a right wing liar, sorry, but
you are wrong.
: the problems with social security probably cannot be fixed with
: privatization. The only way you could it get to work is go back to
None of the quotes I gave said privatization can solve all the
problems with SS. In the long run privatization can take the
money out of the hands of politicians so their chances to
missue the cashflows to buy votes will be decreased. Other
problems would also be solved in whole or in part.
: 1937 and privatize Social Security then. Since that can not be done,
: when I said about privatization stands.
What you said stands as an example double talk characteristic
of your your side.
: Rule number one, when economists write in editorials and articles
: outside their journal they will explain things in terms that somebody
: who doesn't understand economic can understand. The problem is you are
: taking this hyperbole as factual truth, and trying to build on. That's
: why I warn you against using editorials.
: George
Rule number one, they said what they said and what they said
about the Ponzi scheme nature of Social Security is the key
historical fact about SS. If SS were not a Ponzi scheme as
it is but were an Honest Trust Fund like a honest Pension
system it would not be facing the problems it has. Early
entrants into SS voted for politicains who promised benefits
in excess of the acturial fair value of the taxes paid in.
George, you would do well to warn people againist people
listening to YOUR editorials.
======================================================================
Ridgeway
Another poster has brought to my attention another excellent article
recerntly published by Tomas Sowell on this subject. Below is the URL and
a couple of paragraphs -- please go read the entire article for
yourself...
---------------------
Thomas Sowell wrote 'Social security-- a "risky scheme"' on 9/15/00
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell091500.asp
PEOPLE were amazed when Governor George W. Bush proposed reforming Social
Security because Social Security was considered to be "the third rail" of
American politics. But Social Security has now reached the point where it
is going to give us all a big jolt if we fail to touch it. The money just
isn't there to pay all the pensions when the huge baby boomer generation
starts retiring.
You might think that this would reflect badly on those who set up this
system in a way that allowed generations of Democrats in control of
Congress to keep adding to the goodies provided by Social Security,
without putting enough money into the system to pay for those goodies.
That was a real "risky scheme," to use Al Gore's favorite pat phrase....
There is a reason why you don't hear the same hysteria from private
financial institutions that you hear from the government about how hard it
will be to pay the baby boomers' pensions when they retire. Private
pensions are financed by investing the money that comes in, so that the
assets will be there when retirement time comes.
Forget about money for a moment. The real wealth of the country consists
of goods and services. When you add to those goods and services, the
country has more real things available for its people's use, including use
by people on pensions. That is what happens when private pension funds are
invested in tangible assets like buildings and factories -- and what does
not happen when the government runs Social Security and spends the money
as fast as it reaches Washington.
Private pensions belong to you. Government pensions are controlled by
politicians who can change the rules any time they want to. That is what
makes Social Security a risky scheme.
--------[read entire article at the URL provided]---------------
Excellent!
===================================================================
mason clark
>---------------------
>
>Thomas Sowell wrote 'Social security-- a "risky scheme"' on 9/15/00
>
> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell091500.asp
>
>PEOPLE were amazed when Governor George W. Bush proposed reforming Social
>Security because Social Security was considered to be "the third rail" of
>American politics. But Social Security has now reached the point where it
>is going to give us all a big jolt if we fail to touch it. The money just
>starts retiring.
Those boomer babies are really something! Mutations? They'll be able
to eat and live in the T-bonds now being stored in a vault. Remarkable!
If it weren't for their unique ability, I'd have expected them to live on their
contemporary production and resources. Or does that T-bond vault have
a big stack of Campbell's soup? But "the money just isn't there" for them to
eat, even with their multiple stomaches and chewing their cuds all day.
(damn, it's hard to get people to differentiate money from real goods)
Mason i'm having a dollar-fish sandwich for lunch
George Stebbins
prove me wrong is to provide evidence from the economic literature
that says SS is a Ponzi of a pyramid scheme. Put up or shut up.
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:20:06 GMT, Ridgeway <riri...@nyx.net> wrotf:
>In soc.retirement George Stebbins <g.ste...@att.net> wrote:
>: On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:55:47 GMT, Ridgeway <riri...@nyx.net> wrotf:
>:>problem with Social Security, stand.
>
>[snip...sees previous posts....]
>
>George said...
>
>: What you have here, is basically parts of two editorials from the New
>: York Times, where Krugman is using will hyperbole to make his point.
>: And a statement by Henry J. AARON who was explaining things in terms
>: that a congressman would understand, but are not exactly true.
>
> Nope, they statements they made are EXACTLY TRUE weither
> you like it or not.
>
Even if they were exactly true, a period a high return followed by low
return is not necessary cause to prove that something is Ponzi scheme,
let alone sufficient cause. And you declaring that it's true does not
prove that it's true.
>: Although you can think of them in those terms, but the economy does on
>: actually work that way. You also do have an article in a student
>
> Nope, your wroong again, the economy does work that way.
>
You declaring something true does not make it true.
>
>: newspaper that refers to a analysis published in a professional
>: journal, unfortunately you didn't find out what the analysis said.
>
> Wrong, three in a row now. Harris said what he said and meant
> what he said --- SS is a Ponzi Scheme; that is the historical
> fact of life about Social Security.
All I'm asking you do is find somewhere where he said this in serious
economic journal. Of course if he tried it he would never made it past
the journals referees. Remember you declaring something to be true
doesn't make it true.
>
>: Alas it supports my position and refutes Professor Sowell. After all,
>
> Your on a perfect streak, the quotes fully support Sowell's
> position. Your called Sowell a right wing liar, sorry, but
> you are wrong.
If Sowell says that social security is Ponzi scheme, than he is lying.
You declaring something to be true doesn't make it true.
>
>: the problems with social security probably cannot be fixed with
>: privatization. The only way you could it get to work is go back to
>
> None of the quotes I gave said privatization can solve all the
> problems with SS. In the long run privatization can take the
> money out of the hands of politicians so their chances to
> missue the cashflows to buy votes will be decreased. Other
> problems would also be solved in whole or in part.
>
>
>: 1937 and privatize Social Security then. Since that can not be done,
>: when I said about privatization stands.
>
> What you said stands as an example double talk characteristic
> of your your side.
>
Ad Hominem Abusive. All you did, is the snip what I said so that
nobody could read it, and then attack me for what you perceive as my
political stance. Instead of addressing the issue which is, why does
not Harris paper support the contention that Social Security is Ponzi
the scheme.
Here's the Paper check it out for your self.
"Intergenerational Redistribution Under Social Security," Humanomics,
Vol.14, No. 1, January 1998.
>: Rule number one, when economists write in editorials and articles
>: outside their journal they will explain things in terms that somebody
>: who doesn't understand economic can understand. The problem is you are
>: taking this hyperbole as factual truth, and trying to build on. That's
>: why I warn you against using editorials.
>: George
>
> Rule number one, they said what they said and what they said
> about the Ponzi scheme nature of Social Security is the key
> historical fact about SS. If SS were not a Ponzi scheme as
> it is but were an Honest Trust Fund like a honest Pension
> system it would not be facing the problems it has. Early
> entrants into SS voted for politicains who promised benefits
> in excess of the acturial fair value of the taxes paid in.
>
> George, you would do well to warn people againist people
> listening to YOUR editorials.
>
>======================================================================
If Social Security were a Ponzi scheme, some economist in some referee
economic journal would've provided evidence that this was true.
Remember you can always prove me wrong by providing evidence from
economic literature, which specifically says that social security, is
a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.
What you really get is something like this from the Advisory Council
on Social Security.
Restoring Security to Our
Social Security Retirement Program
Joan T. Bok, Ann L. Combs, Sylvester J. Schieber
Fidel A. Vargas, and Carolyn L. Weaver
Advisory Council on Social Security
As a related matter, we believe the proposal to increase the payroll
tax rate by 1.60 percent employee and employer rates combined in 2045
is grossly unfair to a whole generation of citizens who cannot
possibly defend their own political interests. This proposal amounts
to nothing more than imposing a tax that we are not willing to pay
ourselves on our grandchildren who have not yet been born. While we do
not agree with many of the characterizations of Social Security as
nothing more than a Ponzi scheme, we can understand why some citizens
might resort to such characterizations when they see proposals of this
sort.
If you read Martin Fieldstein works on social security, you will never
see him claimed that social security is a Ponzi the scheme. All his
work shows, is that social security is returning revenue that is what
the economy returns, a slow rate of growth. All Ponzi schemes will
eventually return zero revenue when it ran out of investors.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is to provide evidence from the
economic literature that says SS is a Ponzi of a pyramid scheme. Put
up or shut up.
George
James A. Chamblee
George Stebbins <g.ste...@att.net> wrote:
Ridgeway
: So you have stopped providing evidence see, all you have to do to
: prove me wrong is to provide evidence from the economic literature
: that says SS is a Ponzi of a pyramid scheme. Put up or shut up.
[snip...]
Harris said of Social Security: "We're talking about the ultimate pyramid
scheme". Read it again at this official release of the University of
Delware (or are they also just another right wing web site?):
http://www.udel.edu/PR/experts/ss.html
You claiming that he didn't say it doesn't make it so. You saying that it
is not true does not make it so. You saying anything does not change the
fact that HE SAID what HE SAID. And HE is the EXPERT on the subject, not
you. He gets to choose the time, place, and words he wants to use to
describe Social Security without having to clear it with YOU.
Sowell said Social Security is like a "Pyramid Scheme" --- you saying he
didn't say it doesn't make it so. You saying it is not true does not make
it so. You saying Sowell is a right wing liar doesn't make it so. You
declaring something true does not make it true; in this case it makes you
appear to be just what *YOU* are.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022299.asp
for more interesting and informed reading on SS see also
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell091500.asp
Milton Friedman has said Social Security is like a "Chain Letter" (_Free
to Choose_, Chapter 4 "Cradle to Grave", page 104) --- you saying he
didn't say it doesn't make it so. You saying it is not true does not make
it so. Is the work of a Nobel prize winner in Economics not good enough
--- according to what *you* judge to be acceptable? *You* saying Milton
Friedman doesn't know what his talking about, or that he is a bad
economist, or whatever, about his work doesn't make it so, what you say
doesn't amount to a hill of beans!!!!
Shall we now debate the meaning of ...is like a "Ponzi Scheme", ...is like
a "Pyramid Scheme", ...is like a "Chain Letter", or perhaps you would like
to debate what the meaning of the word "is" is? That's more like your
side's kinda debate.
The facts are that these people listed above are more expert than you (or
I) and their analysis carry more weight. If you don't like that, too bad
--- write your own book, get your own syndicated newpaper column, publish
your own research, etc.... get your own Nobel Prize in Economics --- then
you'll have a leg to stand on.
======================================================================
Mike Coburn
Quite!
George Stebbins
<jim-ch...@mindspring.com> wrotf:
>Cross-posting is rude. Please stop it.
>
>George Stebbins <g.ste...@att.net> wrote:
>
I have noticed that you only post one group at a time. It is not
considered rude to coss-post to a few relevant news groups.
Here is a few netiquette sites on cross-posting
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC52
http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
If you feel an article will be of interest to more than one Newsgroup,
be sure to CROSSPOST the article rather than individually post it to
those groups. In general, probably only five-to-six groups will have
similar enough interests to warrant this
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/computing/help/News/crosspost.html
It is considered good netiquette to check the FAQs before you
criticize.
In any event I did not add any news groups, the thread started with
these groups and I didn't start the thread,
George
John K. Taber
angels.
The trouble is, we are exhausted by the Social Security
arguments. We have been at it since 1996, first with
some hooligans trying to fight an intergenerational war,
then with Ridgeway who is indefatigable. We have studied
the source documents - the Trustees Report; SSA's Actuarial
Methods Report; C. Eugene Steuerle's book; good poop
at the SSA site explaining Ponzi schemes which SSA was
forced to take down; Berkowitz's book (pro SS);
Carolyn Weaver's book (anti SS); Robert Ball's writings;
Henry Aaron's writings; Dean Baker's and Mark Weisbrot's
book (pro SS); and on and on.
There are several of us in soc.retirement who are really
quite knowledgeable about Social Security, but knowledge,
facts, and arguments don't do any good against hobby
horse riders.
Now, we're tired. We just ignore Ridgeway's occasional
sallies.
I wish you the best in your contention with Ridgeway.
I once pointed out to him that NONE of the academic
scholars writing on SS, pro or con, call it a Ponzi
scheme. To no avail. But good luck anyhow. At least
Ridgeway no longer wants to see mobs of enraged
youngsters hang us older people as he once said in
his early eruptions. That's progress.
I removed soc.retirement from the followups. You and
Mason Clark can have him.
--
John K. Taber
"George Stebbins" <g.ste...@att.net> wrote in message
news:umsdss49rk12cvpp1...@4ax.com...
Jim Blair
Ridgeway <riri...@nyx.net> says:
>>>Ponzi Scheme!!!
>>George said...
>>is not.
>IS TOO!
>IS NOT!!
etc.
>.... All Ponzi schemes will
>eventually return zero revenue when it ran out of investors.
Hi,
And what would be the revenue return for the last person? That is, as the
human race become extinct, who will pay the Social Security to the last
person?
>
>All you have to do to prove me wrong is to provide evidence from the
>economic literature that says SS is a Ponzi of a pyramid scheme. Put
>up or shut up.
>George
So it is not a Ponzi scheme unless someone SAYS that it is, in some some
journal that is on your list of approved literature?
You claim that "saying it does not make it so". But does "not saying it
make it not so"? As in the Emperor and his new clothes?
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
John K. Taber
"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:8qav6v$hoi$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>
> Ridgeway <riri...@nyx.net> says:
>
> >>>Ponzi Scheme!!!
>
> >>George said...
>
> >>is not.
>
> >IS TOO!
>
> >IS NOT!!
>
> etc.
>
>
>
> >eventually return zero revenue when it ran out of investors.
>
>
>
> And what would be the revenue return for the last person? That is, as
the
> human race become extinct, who will pay the Social Security to the
last
> person?
>
> >
> >economic literature that says SS is a Ponzi of a pyramid scheme. Put
> >up or shut up.
>
> >George
>
some
> journal that is on your list of approved literature?
>
> You claim that "saying it does not make it so". But does "not saying
it
> make it not so"? As in the Emperor and his new clothes?
A Ponzi scheme is a fraud. There is nothing fraudulent about Social
Security.
So....
IS NOT
IS NOT
IS NOT
And my wonk is bigger than your wonk, so there! Carolyn Weaver,
ptui. Martin Feldstein, gaack, ptui! And by the way neither
of these wonks, who are your wonks, say it is a Ponzi scheme
because both are concerned with academic respectability.
I deleted soc.retirement from the follow ups.
--
John K. Taber
James A. Chamblee
gal...@hotmail.com
<792763E0DA43E434.DF862D17...@lp.airnews.net>,
Write to your Senator and include a sizeable contribution! Perhaps
you can get a law passed to that effect!
Social Security Facts:
==============================================================
- Signed by FDR Aug 14, 1935.
- Taxes began in Jan 1937, along with one-time, lump-sum payments.
- Regular monthly benefits began in January 1940.
- First recipient of monthly benefits was Ida May Fuller of
Ludlow, Vt. She made out like a bandit.
==============================================================
If you go to http://www.ssa.gov you can find a list of common
questions, including question 23, which is;
"Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?"
Followed by the incredible answer;
"Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be
invested in interest-bearing government securities or in securities
guaranteed by the government as to both principal and interest.[...]"
So they do earn interest, by law. They passed a law that the SS bonds
earn interest and so they do! I want them to pass a law that monkeys
will fly out of everyones ass because that would be quite a sight to
see!
The "investment" in these SS bonds is nothing but a bookkeeping scheme
which allows the government to spend the SS money on other things, but
to justify this mis-spending they declare that the money must be paid
back with interest by future taxpayers. Yes, the "interest" these bonds
earn is simply the taxes that the government will collect from future
taxpayers above and beyond the nominal SS taxation.
What is totally AMAZING is that right below this answer there is a
BUTTON labelled;
"Tell Me When This Answer Changes"
If you click on this button you can register to receive an automatic
e-mail when the answer to this question is changed! This is really
quite an interesting feature!!!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.