Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Who is Obama
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 353055" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>The very same one! </p><p> </p><p>And as I said in the post:</p><p></p><p> </p><p>This means AV, I don't consider it true privatization but then neither would the republican plan be. They would in effect still IMO control redistribution as they would still by law collect the money at the employer just as it's done now and they would still determine where and where not that money can be invested. Even 401k's and IRA's although limited are governed in this area. You can't go out and buy a lottery ticket even though it meets the definition of an investment (A very stupid one I might add) so again, there is gov't intervention in the market place and with individual liberty. Who sez the democrats are Pro-Choice? <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>There would be investment limitations and maybe not in your opinion as drastic as some democrats would have it but it still gov't controlled and like we learned with CS, they can change the rules any sweet time they so choose to do. But the more important point is that by-law you would be forced to take part just as I can't take my money out of CS or future money from UPS and take care of myself (which I would love to do and would in a heart attack if given the choice) and so too with these so called privatization accounts. </p><p> </p><p>A true "private" plan IMO means you go out and all on your own you choose to invest or not invest and then you decide by what means to do so and all decisions on the who, what, where and how are decided by you and any professional you might decide to do bidness with. </p><p> </p><p>The other roadblock that sits out there which everyone seems to ignore are the SCOTUS cases from the 1930's where the idea of SS (Social Retirement Insurance) was first attempted with Railroad workers and was shot down as outside Constitutional delegation of powers and then before the ink was dry on the decision, congress came back with what became the SS Act which was an income/excise tax. When this too went to SCOTUS, the gov't wised up and argued that this was an income tax on employee and excise tax on employer (which it is, read the code in Title 26) for the purpose of raising general revenue and that collected tax would go into the general revenue fund which it does. The funding for SS is not from a trust but rather from a line item in the budget itself which allows Congress to in effect commit the fraud so that the American public doesn't realize they are double taxed on the income level. One progressive and one flat if you will.</p><p> </p><p>Making SS privatized with funds linked directly to an individual account linked again to you would become the very issue (social retirement insurance) the court ruled against as UnConstitutional when the idea was first broached. The gov't in effect is caught between a rock (the public demanding the obvious, direct accounts to each person) and a hard place (SCOTUS who has ruled this type of gov't exercise is Un Constitutional in case law). </p><p> </p><p>I'd like to see the whole system abolished completely so maybe I'm not as impressed with the parlor tricks of the republicans and democrats.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 353055, member: 2189"] The very same one! And as I said in the post: This means AV, I don't consider it true privatization but then neither would the republican plan be. They would in effect still IMO control redistribution as they would still by law collect the money at the employer just as it's done now and they would still determine where and where not that money can be invested. Even 401k's and IRA's although limited are governed in this area. You can't go out and buy a lottery ticket even though it meets the definition of an investment (A very stupid one I might add) so again, there is gov't intervention in the market place and with individual liberty. Who sez the democrats are Pro-Choice? :happy-very: There would be investment limitations and maybe not in your opinion as drastic as some democrats would have it but it still gov't controlled and like we learned with CS, they can change the rules any sweet time they so choose to do. But the more important point is that by-law you would be forced to take part just as I can't take my money out of CS or future money from UPS and take care of myself (which I would love to do and would in a heart attack if given the choice) and so too with these so called privatization accounts. A true "private" plan IMO means you go out and all on your own you choose to invest or not invest and then you decide by what means to do so and all decisions on the who, what, where and how are decided by you and any professional you might decide to do bidness with. The other roadblock that sits out there which everyone seems to ignore are the SCOTUS cases from the 1930's where the idea of SS (Social Retirement Insurance) was first attempted with Railroad workers and was shot down as outside Constitutional delegation of powers and then before the ink was dry on the decision, congress came back with what became the SS Act which was an income/excise tax. When this too went to SCOTUS, the gov't wised up and argued that this was an income tax on employee and excise tax on employer (which it is, read the code in Title 26) for the purpose of raising general revenue and that collected tax would go into the general revenue fund which it does. The funding for SS is not from a trust but rather from a line item in the budget itself which allows Congress to in effect commit the fraud so that the American public doesn't realize they are double taxed on the income level. One progressive and one flat if you will. Making SS privatized with funds linked directly to an individual account linked again to you would become the very issue (social retirement insurance) the court ruled against as UnConstitutional when the idea was first broached. The gov't in effect is caught between a rock (the public demanding the obvious, direct accounts to each person) and a hard place (SCOTUS who has ruled this type of gov't exercise is Un Constitutional in case law). I'd like to see the whole system abolished completely so maybe I'm not as impressed with the parlor tricks of the republicans and democrats. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Who is Obama
Top