He said it again

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

All money belongs to the government, and what it doesn't take from you is your allowance for doing your chores.

"The money we're spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy are a major driver of our deficit," he argued in 12-minute remarks. "We can't afford to keep that up, not right now."

It's just weird that people can think this way in the United States where we have a constitution that was designed to protect people and their property from the government.

[Kat Kid]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

[slobber]

All money belongs to the government, and what it doesn't take from you is your allowance for doing your chores.

"The money we're spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy are a major driver of our deficit," he argued in 12-minute remarks. "We can't afford to keep that up, not right now."

It's just weird that people can think this way in the United States where we have a constitution that was designed to protect people and their property from the government.

I always hate that when they say that. If they would just say, "The revenue we are losing on these tax cuts...." it would sound so much better/accurate.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money. 

[Kat Kid]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.

unearned?  Don't taxpayers pay in?

[Mr Bread]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.

unearned?  Don't taxpayers pay in?

Yes, but not everyone who receives it is/was a taxpayer. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.

unearned?  Don't taxpayers pay in?

You pay in much less than you receive.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.

unearned?  Don't taxpayers pay in?

You pay in much less than you receive.

Isn't that the idea behind all investment programs?

[Dr Rick Daris]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.

unearned?  Don't taxpayers pay in?

You pay in much less than you receive.

not if you die before you have the ability to receive it.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.

unearned?  Don't taxpayers pay in?

You pay in much less than you receive.

not if you die before you have the ability to receive it.

I think this is the idea behind Obamacare.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.

unearned?  Don't taxpayers pay in?

You pay in much less than you receive.

Isn't that the idea behind all investment programs?

Lol at the government being seen as an investment vehicle.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.

unearned?  Don't taxpayers pay in?

You pay in much less than you receive.

Isn't that the idea behind all investment programs?

Lol at the government being seen as an investment vehicle.

What else would social security be seen as?

[slobber]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.

unearned?  Don't taxpayers pay in?

You pay in much less than you receive.

Isn't that the idea behind all investment programs?

Lol at the government being seen as an investment vehicle.

What else would social security be seen as?

If you do the math, it basically earns an annual rate of less than 2% for the average American. Probably why he says lol at it being an investment vehicle.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.

unearned?  Don't taxpayers pay in?

You pay in much less than you receive.

Isn't that the idea behind all investment programs?

Lol at the government being seen as an investment vehicle.

What else would social security be seen as?

If you do the math, it basically earns an annual rate of less than 2% for the average American. Probably why he says lol at it being an investment vehicle.

Yeah, it's a crappy investment, but it's still an investment. He also claimed that most Americans get much more than they put in. Adjusting for inflation, most Americans actually get much less.

[slobber]

Don't know if I should put this here or not, but here is my solution to SS:

It is an opt in program that allows the Government to continue charging me and my employer at the same rate. However, the government gets to keep 75% of what it collects and it can use that to pay for other people's SS benefits when the funds run out. I NEVER get any of this money or any hand out from the government as it relates to SS. I get to choose how to invest the remaining 25% and it remains mine. The only caveat is that if I am injured on the job in the first 5 years of opting in, then I get some sort of disability coverage.

What I am saying is basically that if I were to make $100k/yr, I am fine with letting the gov have roughly $9k to support other people's SS benefits who don't opt in or are already receiving SS. I think I can outperform what the government is doing with the entire $12k if I just have control over $3k. If I am wrong, at least I know that what I invest will still be available for me whenever I retire. I am not certain that very much of it will be with the current system.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Don't know if I should put this here or not, but here is my solution to SS:

It is an opt in program that allows the Government to continue charging me and my employer at the same rate. However, the government gets to keep 75% of what it collects and it can use that to pay for other people's SS benefits when the funds run out. I NEVER get any of this money or any hand out from the government as it relates to SS. I get to choose how to invest the remaining 25% and it remains mine. The only caveat is that if I am injured on the job in the first 5 years of opting in, then I get some sort of disability coverage.

What I am saying is basically that if I were to make $100k/yr, I am fine with letting the gov have roughly $9k to support other people's SS benefits who don't opt in or are already receiving SS. I think I can outperform what the government is doing with the entire $12k if I just have control over $3k. If I am wrong, at least I know that what I invest will still be available for me whenever I retire. I am not certain that very much of it will be with the current system.

It would take an incredible performance to outperform $12k at 2% with only $3k, though. Just going with the $12k at 2% seems like the much smarter decision here.

[slobber]

It's $3,000 vs. $9,000. The total is $12,000.
The deal is, what we have is broken. This is a way to try to help fix it without completely dissolving what we have (which is probably impossible to do.).
$3,000/yr earning 10% out performs $9,000/yr earning 2% over 20 years.
I know 10% seems like a pipe dream, but the fact is that 2% is becoming more of a pipe dream as the money I pay in is getting paid out fairly quickly now rather than actually earning anything and that will continue to speed up, hence why the system is broken.

[steve dave]

OMG HE SAID IT AGAIN!?

[slobber]

OMG HE SAID IT AGAIN!?

SD, this is not KK related.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's $3,000 vs. $9,000. The total is $12,000.
The deal is, what we have is broken. This is a way to try to help fix it without completely dissolving what we have (which is probably impossible to do.).
$3,000/yr earning 10% out performs $9,000/yr earning 2% over 20 years.
I know 10% seems like a pipe dream, but the fact is that 2% is becoming more of a pipe dream as the money I pay in is getting paid out fairly quickly now rather than actually earning anything and that will continue to speed up, hence why the system is broken.

Are you also figuring the $6000 you are voluntarily giving to the US government every year when you run those numbers? You aren't just creating an account and letting it sit for 20 years, you know. In Account A, you are putting in $3000 every year for 20 years and earning 10% (a very ambitious figure), while in Account B, you are putting in $9000 every year and earning 2%. The annual payments are so much higher with Account B that you simply are not going to be able to outperform it with Account A, especially considering that you are forfeiting $6000 that you are not required to forfeit if you go with Account B.

[slobber]

It's $3,000 vs. $9,000. The total is $12,000.
The deal is, what we have is broken. This is a way to try to help fix it without completely dissolving what we have (which is probably impossible to do.).
$3,000/yr earning 10% out performs $9,000/yr earning 2% over 20 years.
I know 10% seems like a pipe dream, but the fact is that 2% is becoming more of a pipe dream as the money I pay in is getting paid out fairly quickly now rather than actually earning anything and that will continue to speed up, hence why the system is broken.

Are you also figuring the $6000 you are voluntarily giving to the US government every year when you run those numbers? You aren't just creating an account and letting it sit for 20 years, you know. In Account A, you are putting in $3000 every year for 20 years and earning 10% (a very ambitious figure), while in Account B, you are putting in $9000 every year and earning 2%. The annual payments are so much higher with Account B that you simply are not going to be able to outperform it with Account A, especially considering that you are forfeiting $6000 that you are not required to forfeit if you go with Account B.

Sorry, typo on my part. It takes 30 years. Again, I am not just trying to make my life better, I am trying to solve the broken system that is SS. I may not make as much money, but at least the system I propose gives me control and I am confident that something will be there for me when I want it.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's $3,000 vs. $9,000. The total is $12,000.
The deal is, what we have is broken. This is a way to try to help fix it without completely dissolving what we have (which is probably impossible to do.).
$3,000/yr earning 10% out performs $9,000/yr earning 2% over 20 years.
I know 10% seems like a pipe dream, but the fact is that 2% is becoming more of a pipe dream as the money I pay in is getting paid out fairly quickly now rather than actually earning anything and that will continue to speed up, hence why the system is broken.

Are you also figuring the $6000 you are voluntarily giving to the US government every year when you run those numbers? You aren't just creating an account and letting it sit for 20 years, you know. In Account A, you are putting in $3000 every year for 20 years and earning 10% (a very ambitious figure), while in Account B, you are putting in $9000 every year and earning 2%. The annual payments are so much higher with Account B that you simply are not going to be able to outperform it with Account A, especially considering that you are forfeiting $6000 that you are not required to forfeit if you go with Account B.

Sorry, typo on my part. It takes 30 years. Again, I am not just trying to make my life better, I am trying to solve the broken system that is SS. I may not make as much money, but at least the system I propose gives me control and I am confident that something will be there for me when I want it.

It's true that the $3000 earning 10% will outperform $9000 earning 2% over a 30 year period, but if you were given an option of taking 25% of your money and trying to outperform what the government could do with 100%, you should be comparing what you can do with $3000 vs what the government can do with $12,000. Those would be your two options, after all.

[p1k3]

"he said it again!!"

[nicname]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.

Save money on overseas military cutbacks, keep SS and medicare afloat for current dependents and let future would be dependents opt out rather than pay in going forward while working to phase them out completely. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Time to cut social security and medicare.  Amirite?

It would be better if we had never had both, but, as most of us have learned, once you give someone an unearned entitlement, you can never take it away even if it means the destruction of those providing the money.

unearned?  Don't taxpayers pay in?

You pay in much less than you receive.

Isn't that the idea behind all investment programs?

Lol at the government being seen as an investment vehicle.

What else would social security be seen as?

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.