Social Security, the easy way to fix it...

You said that wealth has been redistributed from the middle class to the very wealthy. To redistribute means to "distribute (something) differently or again, typically to achieve greater social equality."

So if your assertion is to be correct, then someone or something has to take my (middle class) wealth and distributed it to the very richest. And if you are going to support your argument, you need to explain how my wealth has been distributed differently and given to the very wealthy, and who has done this.

 

It is a fact that the government is forcibly taking 12.4% of Americans income. Many who die before or just after never enjoy or pass on these funds. Even if you live numerous years after beginning benefits, you live a poverty level existence when those funds could have produced a much better private sector result.

You know well that the government has to further increase these taxes and start means testing a program that would not have survived the house, senate or SCOTUS as it has evolved. If it were handled this way in the private sector, people would be jailed. You cannot defend this program with intellectual honesty.

I'm not suggesting Americans have no old age plan, I'm suggesting it be a mandated private system that does not commit generational theft.

There was no mandate for this program. It was shoved down the peoples throat just like obamacare. Social safety nets are turning free Americans back into monarchy serfs.

Forced redistribution does not create prosperity for any class. It only promotes dependency.

 

"redistribution definition. Any process, such as inflation or taxation or the provision of social services, that reallocates household income." The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company."

False. It can also be the distribution of income and assets. For 30 years, a larger and large share of the nation's income has been redistributed from the middle classes to the wealthy.

 

That is not a "fact" at all. No one if forceably taking it from you, unless you break the law. If you don't want to pay taxes then leave. Then you won't have to.

Completely wrong. The only problem with SS is the level of benefits compared to the level of income. If taxes are inadequate because politicians pander to voters that isn't a problem with SS per se, it is a problem with funding it.

Why make a private system so some company can suck inordinate profits out of the money?

Nonesense. The program has been around for 80 years. If people didn't want it they could have voted it out at any time.

Agree. Reverse trickle down that has excluded 90% of prosperity for 30 years.

 

Could you please provide your definition of "redistribute"?

 

I'll decline to get into a semantic circle jerk with you. The distribution of income refers to how a nation's income is distributed amongst different classes in the country. Since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution that distribution of income has been redistributed from the middle class to the wealthiest.

My used of redistribute is completely consistent.

 

Basically even his own definition references the reallocation of household income which is what you are asking. For something to be real located it has to be initially possessed.

 

When a business obtains a revenue from selling a product, before it pays the worker his salary or the owner his dividend, who possesses it? The business. Whether the money they goes to the worker or the owner is based on many factors, including Govt policies, which over the past 3 decades have favored more of that going to the owner over the worker. Redistribution.

 

Actually, you aren't suggesting anything, as our past discussion showed.

You say words like "mandated private system" just like Bush said that when he tried to move in that direction.

The catch is that neither you nor ANYONE in politics at the time of Bush was able to describe a system that was suspected of possibly being successful.

Until you can define a system, the discussion is pointless.

 

It's very revealing that you continually use the term "redistributed" in your envious screeds but refuse to define your terms.

The ones doing the redistribution are those who take their neighbors' property and dole it out to others.

 

False. I cited a definition in my post above.

Yes, which is why we must reverse "trickle down" economics. We've been redistributing from the middle classes to the wealthiest for too long. It is hurting our economy.

 

Please provide your definition of "redistribute".

 

More game playing.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=412764&page=21&p=1065275714#post1065275714

 

Once again, It's not the nation's income. It is the income of individuals. GDP is simply the sum of individual incomes. The nation, qua nation, has no income.

And if you are saying that you are against inflation, taxation, and the provision of social services, then we are in complete agreement.

 

Repetitive and baseless semantics. The nation's income is the total income earned in the nation.

We are not.

 

Correct. It belongs to the individuals that earned it.

So are you in favor of inflation, taxation, and the provision of social services, i.e. redistribution? I thought you opposed redistribution.

 

Depends on what you mean by "earned" it. But certainly income and wealth can be redistributed in society by laws, policies and regulation which determine who "earns" it.

Where did I say that?

I said I opposed the continued massive redistribution of income and wealth from the middle classes to the richest.

 

It belongs to whomever it was voluntarily given. There is no "depends on" involved.

Yes, certainly we can institutionalize a system whereby we take our neighbors property by force. We can do any number of things, many of which are unethical. You haven't convinced me that legalized extortion is ethical.

Yes, and since you define redistribution as "any process, such as inflation or taxation or the provision of social services, that reallocates household income", I assumed you oppose inflation, taxation, and social services.

Or are you only in favor of redistribution in a particular direction?

 

Too many people have found today that they have placed themselves in a position of wanting...wanting what the other guy has. Those with little look at those with more and feel they are entitled to take some from others in order to balance things out. Iriemon and others are jealous of success and instead of taking steps to join them feel better just taking from them. As this nation collects more and more of these people with these demands, the group becomes big enough to effect elections and therefore politicians begin to pander for votes and we trend more towards socialistic policies.

IMO the US economy can no longer provide everyone in the workforce with everything they need, from jobs to higher pay. Separate from the economy, if government feels the need to subsidize millions of Americans then great but do it with taxpayer dollars instead of meddling in the private sector and redistribution of wealth. Individuals who desire more simply need to take steps to achieve more. Those who desire more but won't invest their time and efforts in achieving more will be left wanting...

 

Typical post by the greedy 1% apologist. People like OldManOnFire are greedy and more is never enough for them, even if it means the vast bulk of Americans and the whole economy suffer as a consequence.

Ever since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, the richest 1% has seen its share of the nation's income and wealth about doubt to a 20% and 40% share, respectively. Meanwhile the bottom 90% has seen its share shrink from 65% to just 50%.

But that is not enough for greedy people like OldManOnFire. They want more because more is never enough. So they blame hard working Americans, call them lazy and jealous to justify the "trickle down" policies that have resulted in the massive redistribution of income and wealth from middle class folks to the richest.

Because for the greedy, more is never enough.

When Americans wake up so will the country...until then...we remain comatose and hopeless peons of the richest and greediest.

 

What is so ridiculous about your constant diatribe of Reagan and those evil wealthy people is your so-called 'trickle down' was supposed to be based on leaving more tax dollars in the private sector which will encourage spending and investment which will encourage jobs, etc. In the past, and today, your wealthy people and corporations are paying the lion's share (85%) of federal income taxes! Today perhaps 100 million Americans are paying little to no federal income tax. In what possible way has your 'trickle down' effected the 100 million Americans mentioned above?

You want to take more tax dollars from the wealthy and do what with this money? Instead of 100 million Americans paying little to nothing in federal income taxes do you want all of them to get refunds based on the additional taxes you take from your wealthy? This would be outright redistribution of wealth.

Your Reagan trickle down has had NO negative effect on your middle class! Reagan trickle down has nothing to do with worker wages and benefits.

 

Being given something is not equivalent to earning it.

I don't need to. You're just saying that you should be able to pick and choose which laws you should have to follow and are enforced. It doesn't and can't work that way in an ordered society.

But no one is extorting from you. You choose to be here and take advantages of our economic system and society. The quid pro quo is you pay taxes for it.

Why would you assume that?

Depends on the circumstances.

Unlike you, it matters to me that 90% of Americans are not sharing in the growth of this country. Unlike you, it matters to me that the middle class has stagnated and hard working Americans have been shut out from the gains of their efforts. Unlike you, I care that tens of millions of working Americans are not being paid a basic level of income and need to rely on Government assistance. Unlike you, I care that there are tens of millions of seniors who don't have assets to live a poverty level life after retirement. Unlike you, I think it is obscene that our "trickle down" system distributes 20% of the entire income generated in the nation to just 1% of Americans. Unlike you, I care that tens of millions of Americans are being provided with health insurance.

So yeah, we have completely different views on the role of Govt.

 

Well...American workers only pay 6.2% in FICA and for this they receive Social Security and Medicare at retirement and millions also receive Disability...that 6.2% is an investment into their future to subsidize retirement and provide health care. If a person does not pay FICA then they generally don't receive the benefits. In what possible way is this a bad situation for tens of millions of American workers?

I'm guessing if you actually did some research, that over the decades, tens of millions of Americans are damned happy they had this government program in place...

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like you have it all figured out...

 

Who cares? Being given something (by the former owner) means it is now their property. Not your property.

Nope. Not saying I get to pick and choose what laws to follow. I'm arguing against the law as being unethical. That's what we do here on political forums. We talk about what laws we support and what laws we oppose.

Wait, are you describing taxation or extortion money?

Unlike you, I don't want the government to act like a common criminal.

 

What is so ridiculous about your constant diatribe about the lazy evil working people is your 'trickle down' was sold on the theory that if we gave the richest more money, it was "trickle down" on everyone else.

"Trickle down" worked fabulously well at getting more of the nation's money to the richest. But it trickled into their stock portfolios and offshore accounts, not the rest of Americans.

Wealthy people get 50% of the nation's income, and when you add it all the other taxes they barely pay more than the the share of income they get.

I've said it many times. I want to cut FICA taxes working people pay, and eliminate the special privileged income cap and exemptions from investment income. I want investment income taxes at the same rate of tax working people pay. I want to empower unions to represent more workers so they can leverage a fair wage. I want overtime laws expanded and enforced so that folks making $20k are forced to work 70-80 hour weeks without compensation. I want minimum wage laws increase to reflect inflation. I want progressive tax laws so that the very richest are paying progressively higher tax rates on their marginal income.

Baseless, unsupported claim. ^

Fact. v

Bottom 90%
1% vs. 90%