So you want to disband Social Security and provide for your own retirement huh?

Commerce is not defined by people buying things. Commerce is the interexchange of goods and services.

Learn your basic economic terms.

Whether or not you find a buyer is irrelevant. There is no business to speak of unless there is a good to service to less. In other words, unless someone creates a product or service for selling.

Hence, the chain of effects: Production -> Consumption.

There will always be buyers. Even things no one really wants will be consumed eventually if the price is low enough. Regardless, someone needs to produce these goods are services.

Buyers (or traders) come into fruition when there are goods or services to produce.

You should probably learn the definition of commerce first before you plan on giving lessons. Your ignorance is embarrassing.

I was eating while I was responding to you. Yes, debating you is really that easy.

Dumb question.

 

I understand entirely. Get back to me when you have a plan that might actually happen. Then we can discuss the economic soundness and sustainability issues. At least you've been thinking. That's more than I can say for most.

 

Social Security is bankrupting us, both financially and morally. At least $20 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and that's reported by our own govt offices. Morally, we no longer have elderly in our homes to influence children with their wisdom. We've arrogantly forgot about the moral development of our children in an effort to give our wisest "individual freedom". It was a ploy to gain votes. And people are going to ride it to the very end, and the checks are cut, before they will say otherwise.

 

That was the other person's plan not mine. I was just telling him that it wouldn't work. But thank you for yet another demonstration that conservative don't know a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing about economics.

 

Yes, the profits earned by retirement plans go to wall street, leaving the retiree with a lot less.
The Social Security System is the gold standard of retirement plans, because it is there when people retire, whereas so many private plans go away...

 

You just made my case for me.

 

Well, I don't think we are arguing opposite sides, really, except to the extent that you have an irrational fear of the market, and refuse to see that privatizing SS would indeed benefit the beneficiaries far better than the current confiscation/distribution ponzy fiasco we currently have.

 

I understand that for any given year, surpluses in social security, the cash is replaced with treasury notes. So can anyone tell me when its time to cash in those treasury notes so people can get their social security checks, where does this cash come from?

 

The cash comes from the Federal Reserve account, which is maintained by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The money generally comes from the Individual Income and Employment Taxes that the government collects on a daily basis, but the funds could also come from the money the government just borrows.

As of Today, the Government doled out $41 million dollars in Social Security EFT.

 

I want to do away with ALL personal taxes, all welfare (especially corporate, like farms) all foreign aid, 90% of gov't and 90% of the military. Absolutley doing away with SS and all other "entitlements". If you aint provided for your retirement, then live on charity or perish. That's the only thing that's righteous. YOu have no claim whatsoever to use gov't guns (ie, taxes) to take money from other people to support your (non productive) self.

 

So in other words, if they had not taken the surplus cash and replaced it with a worthless treasury note, they would not have to take it from the individual income and employment taxes that they collect on a daily basis. Am I the only one that has a problem with accepting this?

 

why don't you just off yourself when you can no longer care for yourself? why would you WANT to live such a worthless life, a burden on other people, hmm? cause you've been a parsite all the rest of your life, so you're used to being one?

 

Can you walk and chew gum too? Being too confused (to put it nicely) to understand what I am saying while shoveling food into your mouth seems to be all you have to brag about.

Its only dumb because you don't understand it. I doubt you can even complete the first layer of the question to do the simple math involved. The higher levels of the question no doubt elude you entirely.

 

That is generally how it works. The taxes the Government collects from your FICA are used to pay SS beneficiaries. The rest is invested in US Securities. Once Securities mature, they can be used to pay off existing beneficiaries, which the Government has done since deficits in the programme started accumulating within the past few years.

The trust fund doesn't exist. At least, not in a technical sense, anyway. The fund only exists as an accounting model. While people may point out that the trust fund does exist because it is growing, the only reason the trust fund is still growing is because projected interest earnings still exceeds the non-interest income deficit. So in an accounting sense, the trust fund is still growing, but there isn't an actual funded account.

 

I can't eat and type at the same time, if that is what you are getting at.

And I wasn't confused at all. I just didn't see how any of it was relevant to the discussion in the least. I get that you love exposition, but I don't see the point in it.

It's a dumb question because there is no point behind it. It doesn't take a math whiz to understand that they are the same. So what? What is the point of your ridiculous question?

I'm sure if I cared enough, I can find ridiculous inverses with percentages too...

 

Social Security has not missed a payment since 1935. Were we to make the chances you suggest I have very little hope of it making 15 years let alone another 80. Social Security would be solvent from now on if we raise the cap on it. Better yet tie it to worker productivity and take that money before corporate profits. But keep it the Hell out of the stock market.

In fact now that I think about "tie it to worker productivity and take that money before corporate profits" would be the EXACTLY right thing to do. It would have all of the benefits of what you want without the risks that come with your plan.

 

Thank you for verifying the limits of your intelligence. You correctly concluded that 20% of 80 and 80% of 20 are both 16.

What you failed to consider is than in one case you have 16 out of 20. In the other case you have 16 out of 80. The number is the same. But the circumstances are completely different.

The point is that the rich could in fact have FAR more wealth than they do. Its easier to make money in a good economy than a bad one. But they'd rather take less for themselves and drag down the economy to keep everyone else under their thumbs. Because they are not motivated by the best result for everyone. They are motivated by who gets the POWER. They want 16 out of 20 instead of 16 out of 80 because they don't want anyone else to get the remaining 64. Even if it meant they might get a little more themselves.

Bottom line is supply side is a rip off. But the thieves like it just fine.

 

As noted my plan does use the existing 15.3% in FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment taxes on the first $50,000 of income to fund the private investments but that also results in a loss of revenue for Social Security/Medicare which has to be "made-up" for. My proposal is to lift the cap and apply the 15.3% tax to all forms of income regardless of source or who receives the income. As noted my income tax plan eliminates "capital gains" and every dollar of income is a dollar of income regardless of who receives that income.

It is true that under our current Social Security welfare program that Republicans are trying to gut it. My proposal actually improves the safety-net that Social Security offers. As noted under my proposal the safety-net is $30,000/yr that is more than the maximum benefit, double the average benefit, and four-times more than the minimum benefit of Social Security today. Social Security doesn't have a spending problem. Social Security has a revenue and benefit problem as it is currently designed. It doesn't have enough projected revenue to fund the benefits that should be much greater than they actually are. I address both of those while Republicans just want to slash the benefits to match the inadequate funding.

Even more important is that my proposal increases the wealth of the People. It isn't designed to mitigate the poverty of old age but instead to eliminate the problem of poverty in old age. Not only does it eliminate the poverty for those that reach the point where they're too old to work if they die prematurely, and about 40% do, then the wealth they accumulated is passed on to their heirs increasing the "family" wealth.

One of the greatest problems I see, and that Democrats and Republicans are both ignoring, is that while they cite the fact that Americans are living longer the age where the person is basically "worn out" has not changed. By the age of 60-70 the person is basically worn out and can't realistically be expected to work any longer. It varies by person and profession but in some cases a person is literally worn out physically in their 50's. For example I have the knowledge and experience to work in the construction industry but since about age 60 it would be physically impossible to work in that trade. My hips and shoulder joints basically "gave out" at about age 60 and I wasn't even working in construction that would have significantly increased how quickly my body was worn out. Raising the retirement age based upon people living longer ignores the fact that just surviving longer does not extend the working age of the person.

Another huge advantage of my proposal is that it does establish a maximum age for retirement but not a minimum age for retirement. It would merely establish a financial criteria were the person would have enough income to live comfortably based upon asset accumumation to provide income. Once that criteria is reached the person could retire. They could contribute more voluntarily to their private Social Security investment account to reach that criteria of "asset accumulation" sooner and retire sooner if they choose. Tens of millions of Americans would probably be able to retire at 55 with more than enough assets to live on comfortable and actually still be young enough to really enjoy their retirement years before they become too old. At 65 I'm already facing a physical barrier to doing many of the things I would have loved to do in retirement that I could have enjoyed at age 55. We can even note that early retirement creates a "job opening" in the economy improving the job market.

 

The baby boomers are going to COLLAPSE SS, that's been known for over 40 years now. The polititians don't DARY touch ss, so the only thing that they CAN do is keep inflating the dollar until nobdy accepts it (for anything). Since it's down to being worth less than 2c, we aint got long to go. 10 years, tops, probably not even 5 years.

 

I believe that it can happen but only if people become informed that both the Republicans and Democratic political leaders are lying to us and that there is a better way to address the problem. That is what I'm attempting to do.

Republicans are lying when they say that Social Security has a spending problem. Social Security has a revenue and benefit problem and not a spending problem.

Democrats are lying when they say that Social Security cannot be "privatized" responsibly where the problem of "poverty" at retirement age is addressed as opposed to providing welfare (i.e. Social Security benefits) that only addresses the symptom of povery at retirement (and not very well at even doing that). The problem with the Democrats position is that Americans can't afford the taxation necessary for a Social Security welfare program that actually provides enough in benefits. Current Social Security benefits are only about 1/2 of what is really needed and we can't even fund the existing expenditures in the future.

I offer the solution to both and only by people becoming aware of the fact that there is an alternative to what Democrats and Republicans offer can we change the political landscape where such an option can be pragmatically implemented.

 

The problem with the baby boomers is there are over 4 million in numbers that were born in 1964, 1963, 1962, 1961 that surpass the total numbers of the generations that are younger. There isn't enough of them to get the last four years of the baby boomers through retirement. This is why the government wants immigration reform so illegals can start contributing to the system.

 

The only different circumstance is that no one is going to want to pay 80 cents on the dollar.

So your thesis about why the rich should be taxed more is because they would rather take less money?

Makes sense to me...

 

You are dangerous to the economy. And you can try to spin it as if both sides are equally guilty. But it wasn't the Democrats who hollered with glee when the spending limits were lifted that have prevented the rich from just BUYING the federal government.

 

As near as I can tell you must be about 80% fos. No, Vixun, the reason the rich should be taxed more is because our nation's infrastructure is about 30 years out of date. Bridges that aren't safe to drive on. Electrical grids that crash taking out the entire NE seaboard. That sort of thing. Taxing the rich at a higher rate would not only fix those problems but it would also create good paying American jobs. Those jobs would provide spending money for people to BUY things thus increasing demand. The increase in demand would require more goods to be made to fill that demand. That means even more jobs. Which provides even more money to be spent. The end result is an UPWARD economic spiral like we had in the 50's & 60's.

And it goes on and on like that until some idiot like Reagan comes along and convinces narrow minded conservatives that it would better if we went the other way (austerity). And then the economy crashes again. Because for some reason conservatives just can't grasp that when the government has money to provide higher education for it citizens, for example, the citizens become more valuable and productive workers. So they end up paying back to the government several times over what it cost to educate them. Their quality of life improves and their employers make more money too. Its a win for everyone on every level. But given a choice conservatives would rather live in a dystopia than a utopia. That's just the kind of people conservatives are.

I thought about you when I was at the store the other day Vixun. I was waiting in line at the cashier and noticed the automatic tellers were pretty busy. I thought about the days before computerized registers kept track of inventory. They actually had to pay somebody to do that manually. Now the auto registers are replacing the cashiers too. Which is all well and good as far as it goes.

The trouble comes in when the money saved by the machines ALL goes into the pockets of the stock holders of the store. Because while you might think they are entitled to it (and they certainly deserve a SHARE) the people who used to do those jobs no longer have money to spend. So any increase in profits that the owners might have made is lost due to loss of sales because the displaced workers aren't buying anything. Worse they have been given a temporary solution (unemployment compensation) for a permanent problem (loss of jobs with no sources of new jobs other than medical looming on the horizon.)

The solution is actually very simple. Just embrace the fact that with technology advanced to the stage that it is we no longer need everyone working. There just isn't anything for them to be doing. Instead we need a guaranteed permanent wage so they can continue to consume to keep everyone else working. IOW just give them the money that they would have gotten if a machine wasn't doing their job. And then compensate those who wish to work well enough to motivate them to continue.

Vixun I realize that, while everything I am saying makes perfect sense, you are too well indoctrinated into these current failing policies that your smarmy attitude will not allow you to embrace it. Conservatives are as incapable of decency as they are of logic. But the longer it takes to realize the blessing of the age we are living in the worse the real economy is going to get for the overwhelming majority of Americans. If allowed to play out the long game would be a nation where the 1% are well served by electronic devices while the rest of humanity forages for food in the wilderness. But as we all SHOULD have learned from the French Revolution people are only willing to put up with a particular degree of bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Then they start calling for the guillotines. The ONLY known cure for smarminess.

 

Oh, gee, look Vixun! Your job just got replaced by a FREE app!

Maybe this will help!

[video=youtube;xwbeSgEEe5M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwbeSgEEe5M[/video]