Amazing how at the first thing you disagree with, you go from a rational discussion to name calling. BTW, have you ever had tenure in any job you've had? I don't disagree that parents have a role here, but so to does the unions being in bed with the lib politicians. They won't allow teachers to be fired, won't allow a school voucher system, where parents could choose where to send their kids, public or private.
That something "kills taxpayers" is not any kind of figure of merit.
Seatbelts, airbags, doctors, and the police also kill taxpayers. It is reckoned that they save significanly more than they kill.
-- When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
List all the new programs that the libs running for president want and the cost, then we can talk.
BTW, seat belts, airbags and doctors are not govt programs.
rote:
That because you've had rather unsatisfactory governments for quite a while
would > > > kill taxpayers and even the libs know it.
Like krw knows his ideas are always right?
Other advanced industrial economies go in for more "free stuff" than the US does, and it doesn't seem to kill anybody - quite the reverse.
The inadequacies of the US health care system do mean that the country has rather lower life expectancy figures than you'd expect for a rich and adva nced industrial country.
plan
t and
It did some useful stuff. Copying the German/Dutch/French systems would hav e delivered universal health care at two thirds of the price per head of th e US system, and even the cheaper British National Health Service delivers better health outcomes than the US system, at half the price per head.
ntal want and the cost, then we can talk.
It would be a big list. A better approach would be to note that pretty much everything they have in mind is paid for by taxpayers in Germany, and does n't seem to have done the Germany economy any harm at all - they export $1.
27 trillion dollars worth of goods, while the US - with roughly four times the population exports just $1.58 trillion.But they do kill taxpayers, though not nearly as many as they save.
Seat belts have been compulsory everywhere I've lived - you can get fined i f you haven't done them up. Airbags aren't optional in new cars.
Anywhere that has universal health care has a government funded-deal to mak e doctors available. Quite why the US is the only advanced industrial count ry that doesn't have universal health care isn't all that obvious.
My suspicion is that US employers like having employer paid health insuranc e as one more way of keeping employees tied to the job. Like a lot of the o ther peculiar features of the US economy, it probably isn't the optimal sol ution for the population as a whole.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
It's always been pay-go. Put another way, the "trust fund" is a bookkeeping trick.
I don't understand how pay-go, whatever that is, makes it a bookkeeping trick. Sure, the money coming in has been paying the benefits going out. But that's how health insurance, auto insurance, life insurance and similar works too. It was never presented as anything other than that. It's always been known that the workers and employers were paying taxes to pay for the benefits going out. The excess of what comes in over what gets paid out went into US treasury securities which are virtually identical to the other treasuries that trade in the open markets every day and are valued as among the safest investments in the world.
No kidding. And I'm betting that state of affairs will be more stable than US Securities on the open market.
I see, don't address the points I raised where I politely addressed your points, edit the whole thing out, make a snide insult and then move on to imply that US securities that are traded every day worldwide are not stable. Nice, and wrong of course.
I know we are into semantics, but there is about $2.5 Trillion left in the trust fund*. The payments taken from the trust fund this year will be about $1 Billion
Mikek
holding paper.
The real problem is that there is not actually any thing in the trust fund. In earlier times the SS contributions were greater than what was paid ou t. So Congress spent the excess and put in an IOU. So starting now , Cong ress either has to collect real money in order to pay on the IOU. Or redu ce SS benefits. I am betting on both. Raising the amount collected from t he workers and also decreasing the benefits paid. Very likely not pay any SS funds to those with incomes over some amount. Congre ss will try to get more money from those with higher incomes, but that wil l not work. Not enough people with high incomes. And they already tax 85% of the payout to those with incomes over some amount. And also already co llect extra for Medicare from those with higher incomes.
Dan
It isn't mere semantics. There isn't $2.5 Trillion in there in the sense as sets were invested that a specific property claim can be made (like a priva te trust). SS is not an "investment." The money was spent, by law. The $2.5 Trillion that created the intragovernmental security came from SS taxes on taxpayers. The repayment of that debt will come from.... you guessed it: t axpayers, but not by SS Taxes. It'll be in a different box on the W-2. Citi zens are not holding paper.
If all you're going to do is spout emotionally charged sound-bites I'll pass on that.
Maybe, maybe not, your taxes are still spent to promote them.
-- When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
n
d. In earlier times the SS contributions were greater than what was paid out. So Congress spent the excess and put in an IOU. So starting now , Co ngress either has to collect real money in order to pay on the IOU. Or re duce SS benefits.
That's not true. The SS trust fund is redeeming it's securities and the treasury issues new ones in the open market as part of it's normal operations. It's swapping one debt instrument for another.
also decreasing the benefits paid.
It's true that it will have to be addressed, but there is no immediate need due to the trust fund being used. Congress could do nothing and there is sufficient funding to pay all commitments for 15 years. Sometime during that period, fixes will be made, just as they have in the past, currently neither party wants to address it.
n
assets were invested that a specific property claim can be made (like a pri vate trust).
Suppose it was a pension fund and that fund invested, as many do, in US govt securities. Is that not a valid pension fund, a trust?
No serious person ever claimed it was.
The money was spent, by law. The $2.5 Trillion that created the intragover nmental security came from SS taxes on taxpayers. The repayment of that deb t will come from.... you guessed it: taxpayers, but not by SS Taxes. It'll be in a different box on the W-2. Citizens are not holding paper.
And this comes as a surprise to you? Where does the money to pay the rest of the national debt come from?
Figures, someone asks how much will that cost and the lib bolts.
Since cars already have seat belts and air bags, why are we spending money that we don't have on that? Sounds like a good place to cut.
l the
en the
pretty
re plan
lent and
How - precisely - are the libs gong to find out the costs of the program be ing proposed by some unspecified Democrat?
In Australia, the Treasure works out the costs of program proposed by the m ajor political parties. It's not a cheap exercise, and the accuracy of the estimates isn't great.
What is fairly obvious is that the Democrats are prepared to spend more on social services than the Republicans are. They clearly aren't prepared to s pend as much as Scandinavian governments or the German government does spen d, and the tax burden in those countries isn't killing anybody - in fact th eir life expectancies are slightly longer than the US can manage.
Having a seat belt in your car doesn't do you any good if you don't do it u p, and idiots have been known to rip-out airbags to make room for the junk that they think they need.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
fund. In earlier times the SS contributions were greater than what was p aid out. So Congress spent the excess and put in an IOU. So starting now , Congress either has to collect real money in order to pay on the IOU. O r reduce SS benefits.
It is not true now. But what do you think will happen in 5 or 10 years when large amounts of real money is needed?
nd also decreasing the benefits paid.
That is just not true. The funding is just an IOU. Try giving an IOU to anyone on SS. How much food will that IOU buy?
Dan
There are estimates from various sources on the web and in the media. In fact, one estimate should be from all the lib presidential candidates that are proposing more free stuff. It's irresponsible to propose something, without understanding the cost.
Woooh there Pilgrim. What evidence do you have for that? Bernie wants a full socialist, Europe style US for example. And he's just one of them. And how much is spent doesn't enter into the equation, they think money grows on trees or rich pig capitalists have plenty that they can take.
and the tax burden in those countries isn't killing anybody - in fact their life expectancies are slightly longer than the US can manage.
Who put a man on the moon? Sweden? Who leads the world in technology, entrepreneurship? Who does the world need every time there is a world crisis and military action is needed?
Pure BS. Rip out air bags to make room for junk? If anyone did that, it would be such a nit, on a nit's ass, that it's beyond stupid. What space would that be? The air bags are in the steering wheel, behind door panels, inside the dash. Even if you made a hole, the only one that might have any usable space would be the passenger bag in the dash. Rip it out, have an ugly hole, have warning lights on? But heh, thanks for representing how silly libs justify their spending.
e:
st fund. In earlier times the SS contributions were greater than what was paid out. So Congress spent the excess and put in an IOU. So starting no w , Congress either has to collect real money in order to pay on the IOU. Or reduce SS benefits.
rs when large amounts of real money is needed?
Actually, I think it is true now. We were supposed to start drawing down the trust about now, or even earlier. But the economy picked up a bit, so it pushed out a bit. I think another poster said that we are in fact starting to draw it down. And the amount doesn't matter. The federal govt is selling debt securities in the open market all the time, yes? It's a combination of issuing new ones to cover the budget deficit and ones to replace maturing ones that are redeemed. The SS trust is just part of that. SS trust says we need $100 mil, the treasury just gives them the cash and sells $100 mil new treasury securities in the market. It's just swapping one part of our $22 tril national debt for another.
and also decreasing the benefits paid.
U to anyone on SS. How much food will that IOU buy?
What is not true? Per the above, there is no need to give an IOU to anyone on SS. And if SS securities are worthless, are all the US govt bond funds that trade every day worthless? Pensions that also have money invested in US securities, they are worthless? Could there come a day, where if the US continues to run huge deficits, where the US winds up defaulting on it's securities? Sure, but that's very different than claiming US securities are worthless today. The first sign of that would be rising rates on US securities and clearly investors, who actually put their money down, are not worried.
Not claiming the SS securities are worthless. Just that the only thing supporting them is faith in the US gov.
At some point the average investors are going to distrust the US securities. When that happens the Treasury will raise the interest rates to get investors to buy US Treasury Bonds. Which will make more investors worry.
Ponzi scams are good until they are not.
Dan
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.