Purplepackage
Well-Known Member
This is the most in depth re rail of a thread lol
Amazon "Express"
- Thread starter MrFedEx
- Start date
Cactus
Just telling it like it is
Dano takes pride in his post count.
He thinks it makes him look "important."
Strongly Agree.
With a bit of tweaking it can be solvent. For example, highly paid people who participated in taking advantage of the rank-and-file shouldn't get a SS check. And all their earnings should be subject to SS taxes.
Van: The idea of means based SS has been kicked around in recent years but it is generally believed that it would be ruled unconstitutional. Subjecting all earnings to FICA would be ok but would probably require a corresponding increase in pay out in order for it to get through the courts. As for government spending 3 decades ago Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisc) had his annual "golden fleece" award listing wasteful spending but those appropriations bills containing pet projects including spending on weapons systems and hardware that the Pentagon plainly stated that it didn't need or want kept right on coming because they created jobs and jobs mean votes and votes mean reelection. And you and I will not live long enough to see the process change in any meaningful way
Right, people just like to throw around this or that is a scheme of some sort like it's all a big plan against you. It's math. Some of it is legal and some isn't and that is the difference. Trickle down is pyramid in nature as well.
It was all tongue-in-cheek to kid Dano...
Stock is worth $100. First 10 percent sell their stock, stock drops. By the time everyone is out the stock would be worthless and you would have lost all your money. The stock has its worth under normal trading, if everyone sold off on a complete crash a lot of people would be left in the cold and most 401K owners can't get out quick enough.
Last edited:
We aren't suffering in an historical fashion in any way.
Brownslave688
You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Complete and total horse
. Because I managed to save for retirement you should get a chunk of my money?!?!?!
Wtf is wrong with you people.
Brownslave688
You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Difference you have choices there.
Not if you like driving. Or have house payments. Life insurance, ok you have a choice there. But it's a very minor point, barely worth posting, oh well.
Brownslave688
You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Which is still insurance, but you are trying way too hard to be a devils advocate. The world isn't you or me, it is all of us and to think in general that these insurances are choices. People are living and by doing so certain costs come with it.
Complete and total horse
Because I managed to save for retirement you should get a chunk of my money?!?!?!
Wtf is wrong with you people.
Brownslave688
You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
59 Dano
I just want to make friends!
In what universe do you declare solvency by denying people the benefits that they are rightfully entitled to collect?
59 Dano
I just want to make friends!
Complete and total horse
Because I managed to save for retirement you should get a chunk of my money?!?!?!
Wtf is wrong with you people.
Amazingly, they're the ones trying to give the most detailed explanations of money and how it works.
59 Dano
I just want to make friends!
Nope.
An insurance company invests your premiums. The odds are that you'll never take as much in benefits as you paid in premiums.
Social Security? Nearly all participants will collect, and will collect significantly more than they paid in. It is virtually impossible for any plan to do that consistently... which is why they are illegal when anyone but the government operates one.
Did you guys ever stop for a moment to think about the fact that when Social Security became law in 1935 the retirement age was 65 but the average life expectancy at the time was 62? It's now more than a decade higher. It is quite common for 2 generations of the same family to be collecting Social Security. Something that was not factored in. It was quite a political battle to raise the retirement age a mere 2 years back in 1983. The odds of getting a bill through Congress raising it again is not good.
Similar threads
