Bush tax cuts

dadx2mj · Post by **dadx2mj** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:14 pm

From what I have seen most of the abuses like FP is talking about are on the State level. Trust me trying to get on Social Security before you are 65 is no easy task. It takes a minimum of 6 months and you have to jump thru more hoops than I can count. Over 90% of the applications are denied on the first go around. Many end up having to use a Lawyer to get on it. Now Welfare and Food stamps are a different thing but they are run by the State.

xsiled · Post by **xsiled** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:01 pm

i dont want the money when im older and i dont want to pay for anyone else.

id rather have my money in the present to prepare for the future.

robbie · Post by **robbie** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:27 pm

Originally posted by xsiled
there are no tax to be cut for "poor" people as they pay little to none.

But yet don't the poor use MORE of the social resources?
Rob

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:05 pm

i dont want the money when im older and i dont want to pay for anyone else.

No problem. Sign a contract: when you hit age 65 you promise to blow your brains out. Although I can guarantee you'll start having 2nd thoughts around age 64.

i'd rather have my money in the present to prepare for the future.

Nothing to stop you from doing that anyway. Fact is though, few people do.

TheSovereign · Post by **TheSovereign** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:41 pm

im trying to become an ordained minister so i can opt out of social security...i cant wait till the whole thing crumbles

TruckStuff · Post by **TruckStuff** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:55 am

Originally posted by FlyingPenguin
Wait 15 years and see how your attitude changes. When you've maybe got a wife who's temporarily disabled for a few years, or you have child that's born retarded, or when your parents are too old to support themselves, or maybe when you fall off a ladder and break your back.

That's the problem: it won't BE here in 15 years. Hell, I'll be amazed if it survives the next 10 years. The federal government has proven over and over that it is a poor manager of money, yet we are forced to pump money into it every month.

I'm not saying that there aren't people who can/do benefit from it. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter in the long run b/c it won't be around to matter to people in my generation. Our parents generation are going to bankrupt the system, so why do we continue to artificially prop up a dieing system?

Lmandrake · Post by **Lmandrake** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 9:30 am

The federal government has proven over and over that it is a poor manager of money

Do you have some examples of how Social Security has been mismanaged?

Perhaps you would like to compare it to union pension funds, corporate retirement plans?

Do you know why GM is offering huge rebates to move iron? They need the cash to support their pension obligations. So GM didn't do much better. The crisis is driven by demographics. There is that big hump of baby boomers all getting older and living longer while old.

Of course, you could put them all out on the ice - as long as it is not one of your relatives...

Social Security will not die. Regardless of how you feel about it, it is a sacred cow and no politician from any party will kill it.

Remember, there are some things prostitutes won't do for money but there is nothing a politician won't do for a vote.

xsiled · Post by **xsiled** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 10:08 am

Originally posted by FlyingPenguin
No problem. Sign a contract: when you hit age 65 you promise to blow your brains out. Although I can guarantee you'll start having 2nd thoughts around age 64.

my father who is going on 55 doesnt expect a cent of it, at this point he has secured enough money , roth ira and such, that he wont need anything from social security to live the same life as he had while working.

there was a time when SS was a good idea, but at that point in time we had 15 young to middle age workers paying for 1-2 people. now we have 1-2 people paying a group that is one of the wealthiest as a group. now im not saying there are not cases where the money is not deserved or rather needed, but no one is entitled to anything and with the country ageing more then it is producing middle class members of society to keep such practices intact, this practice will either die, or be a hindrance until it is destroyed.

TruckStuff · Post by **TruckStuff** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 2:14 pm

Originally posted by Lmandrake
Do you have some examples of how Social Security has been mismanaged?

I didn't say SS has been mismanaged (which is another issue altogether), I said the government was a poor manager of money. Study after study have shown that on average, privately run funds outperform social security by 2, 3, 4 times or more. Do you consider that being a good money manager? Then again, Democrats usually think the federal government is always the wisest investor and the best possible place for your money...

Originally posted by Lmandrake
Perhaps you would like to compare it to union pension funds, corporate retirement plans?

Do you know why GM is offering huge rebates to move iron? They need the cash to support their pension obligations. So GM didn't do much better. The crisis is driven by demographics. There is that big hump of baby boomers all getting older and living longer while old.

Thats a result of unions, not poor financial management of the funds. Unions were able to "negotiate" there way into massive pension plans for workers. Now those workers are getting older and the coporations are still bound to these penions, hence the need for more cash. This is why workers these days don't get these types of pension plans. Its not that GM didn't manage the money well, its that there are too many baby boomers out there.

I'll agree that demographics is a contributing factor to the SS crisis, but its not the only factor. And that still doesn't change the fact that there isn't enough money to go around. So we are still left with the choice of a major overhaul of SS (e.g. privitization in some form), a major tax increase (upwards of 20% or more), or the total bunkruptcy of the program.