sleeper;1474439 wrote:Just think, it could be in the politics forum if LJ wasn't a giant *****.

You should have just left a single * thus implying a wildcard, since LJ is a variety of things.

dlazz;1474594 wrote:You should have just left a single * thus implying a wildcard, since LJ is a variety of things.

Don't believe it, just ask him! :thumbup:

The solution to Social Security is easy.

1). Stop retaining the fraud that we need younger people to transfer their money to people on social security since 1971. This is a holdover from a bygone era. We don't need to "pay into" anything. Congress should pass a law that instructs the treasury secretary to instruct the Federal Reserve to provide a permanent and indefinite credit into the Treasury's "social security trust fund".

The creator of dollars can never run out of dollars to credit into old people's bank accounts when they no longer work. The question is whether those dollars will be able to be able to buy goods and services that younger people produce. And, if we keep leaving younger generations crippled by a bad a economy, they're not going to have kids and there's not going to be anybody producing real goods and services that the old boomers can buy with their dollars.

There is not a fixed supply of a commodity out there in the world that the dollar is pegged to that prevents us from doing this.

2). Immediately reduce the employer-side payroll tax to 0%-1%. Immediately reduce the employee side S.S. contribution to 0%-1%

3). Give the power to the FED to raise payroll tax rates in the event that they think there is too many dollars being placed into the economy (since they would now just create dollars by crediting bank accounts now to pay S.S. beneficiaries w/o taking dollars out due to the cut in the payroll tax rate). If the economy starts overheating, they raise the payroll tax rate just like they've raised the federal funds rate in the past and they can eventually reach a point where inflation is under control. Should be noted that inflation is unlikely to be problem anytime soon because these millenials with more money in their paycheck are just going to be paying down their own debt burdens anyways. A lower payroll tax rate simply gives them a chance.

Social Security is not insolvent and it can never be insolvent so long as we have a floating exchange rate and haven't pegged the dollar to anything. The idea that younger people pay for older people and have to have money removed out of their paychecks to pay for their own retirement and older people is a fraud. It is sad that we continued taking so much money from people to "pay" for social security since Nixon was president but there is no reason to keep doing it anymore.

Unfortunately, the only people who get this in Washington are Bernanke and Greenspan but deep down they think such things would be immoral (probably) because Greenspan is an open Randian libertarian and Bernanke is a closeted libertarian according to his Princeton colleagues so we'll just continue with silly ideas like "raising the payroll tax rate so S.S. is funded permanently" or "eliminating the cap so rich people pay their fair share into S.S." or "Privatizing it."

I think we should just eliminate it all together. Those who don't save for retirement can be fed wool and corn for the rest of their lives in subsidized 9x9 foot cubes.

sleeper;1474637 wrote:I think we should just eliminate it all together. Those who don't save for retirement can be fed wool and corn for the rest of their lives in subsidized 9x9 foot cubes.

I wish I could get my money I put into SS back. I would certainty get a better rate of return on my investment.

Commander of Awesome;1474643 wrote:I wish I could get my money I put into SS back. I would certainty get a better rate of return on my investment.

That's part of why we should nearly eliminate the payroll tax entirely. We should still have a very low payroll tax rate in place in case it needed to be raised to control inflation (unlikely). But, it would take away this argument that people aren't getting a "good return on their investment". We could pay any retiree a basic income in retirement without having ever taken any money out of their paychecks.

BoatShoes;1474651 wrote:That's part of why we should nearly eliminate the payroll tax entirely. We should still have a very low payroll tax rate in place in case it needed to be raised to control inflation (unlikely). But, it would take away this argument that people aren't getting a "good return on their investment". We could pay any retiree a basic income in retirement without having ever taken any money out of their paychecks.

Couldn't we do the same with an income tax?

sleeper;1474660 wrote:Couldn't we do the same with an income tax?

Yes. The same reasoning applies to an income tax. The only limit on the ability to eliminate the income tax is the worry that at some point we may not be taking enough dollars out of the real economy and we could have inflation. Liberal arguments that you need to raise taxes on the "rich" in order to "pay" for things we all want like education, air craft carriers...are false. It's like saying you need to take points off of a scoreboard from the winning team and give them to the losing team. The scorekeeper provides the points and has the ability to create points. Why would he need to take points from the winner??? Is it even possible to take points from the winner and "transfer" them to the loser? Not really, he just presses a button and they are deleted into the ether and then another button is pressed and the loser is credited with points out of the ether.


taxes serve other purposes. There's got to be some level of taxation to control inflation (given our large amount of government spending) and create a notional demand for the currency but that's it. If liberals want higher taxes on the rich because they want to alleviate inequality...limit their political power...those are political decisions and the people can decide on those grounds. The argument that we have to have higher income taxes on the rich to pay for things is just as invalid as the argument that young people have to pay payroll taxes to fund social security (in our monetary system anyway).

Greece for instance is on the Euro and doesn't have the power we have...so those types of arguments would apply to a country like that or one of our 50 states.

I'm for anything that gets rid of the income tax even if Obama himself signed it into law.

sleeper;1474676 wrote:I'm for anything that gets rid of the income tax even if Obama himself signed it into law.

Democrats will likely never support the reasoning I've laid out above because they don't want to have to make the moral case for why they want the income tax raised on rich people. It's an easier sell to say we must raise taxes on the rich in order to pay for things we all want and need!! It is the same reason why Republicans/Conservatives can't get on board with soft money because then they have to make the moral case as to why we should not transfer dollars to old people when they retire and cannot work. It is a much easier sell to say We Cannot...there is no alternative or we'll be ruined like Greeeeece because we cannot "afford it"!!!

Believe it or not Sleeper, it is tough to sell your idea of boxing people in cages who fail to save for their own retirement as morally just.

BoatShoes;1474690 wrote:Democrats will likely never support the reasoning I've laid out above because they don't want to have to make the moral case for why they want the income tax raised on rich people. It's an easier sell to say we must raise taxes on the rich in order to pay for things we all want and need!! It is the same reason why Republicans/Conservatives can't get on board with soft money because then they have to make the moral case as to why we should not transfer dollars to old people when they retire and cannot work. It is a much easier sell to say We Cannot...there is no alternative or we'll be ruined like Greeeeece because we cannot "afford it"!!!

Believe it or not Sleeper, it is tough to sell your idea of boxing people in cages who fail to save for their own retirement as morally just.

They are allowed to leave their cages if they'd like. If people don't like it, perhaps they should save money for retirement or find someone willing to pay for them to live outside of a 9x9 box. Typical of a liberal to always think the solution to the problem is more government rather than relying on the morals of society to identify a problem and solve it.

Also, your post sums up why I hate politics and stupid people. That is why I want a 10 question test that you must get 7 out of 10 correct to vote applied to everyone regardless of age, race, etc. If anyone thinks this hurts minorities, then they are racist for thinking minorities are too stupid to pass a test. The questions will be composed of simple things like "How many states make up the United States of America?"(which would eliminate the chance of Obama and his 57 state supporters from ever getting their vote to count. Do you really want people who can't answer that question to have a say in the future of the country? No.

But that will never happen because both parties rely on stupid people in order to win elections. If only intelligent people were allowed to vote, we'd never see a D or R in office ever again.

Every generation thinks the one coming after it is going to ruin everything but the kids are alright.

True....and the converse is true also...Every generation thinks their parents generation is ****ed.df

That doesn't exist now. There are no employment prospects for my cousin.

I don't know why the myth persists that you are entitled to a better standard of living than your parents, and that 'now' is the first time that a generation faces hard times.( see the great depression). But now, 80 years later we've been programmed to think that governments (and in this case 'generations') have complete control of economic downturns, and that if the economy doesn't just roar along to infinity then someone must be to blame. The truth is that individually, and generationally, you are dealt a hand and you have to deal with it. It's a matter of making choices given the circumstances. Some people are going to make good choices and some are not, but blaming an entire generation as an excuse for not stepping up to the plate is just whining. Complaning about the debt heaped on gen X and Y and blaming it on the boomers is just so disingenuous and absurd when you consider that manageable debt EXPLODED into crushing debt because of the people and policies voted into power by under 40's in OVERWHELMING numbers. In truth I believe that we all share in the responsibility for this debacle, but if you are going to insist on blaming 'boomers' and making this a generational 'war', I suggest you look in the mirror and get your own house in order.

Hitsrus is in denial. I cannot wait to watch you feed from a cage for the rest of your life. Enjoy your retirement, I know I will! :thumbup:

LOL @ we all share in this debacle. Half the people that are going to be affected by this haven't even turned 18 yet(more than half if you include the unborn). The other half has voted in 2 elections given McCain(a spend spend spend Republican), Romney(a douchebag who is basically a RINO) and Obama(BLACK.). Great choices and all Boomers!

Half the people that are going to be affected by this haven't even turned 18 yet(more than half if you include the unborn)

You mean the ones that are going to blame their problems on your generation? Keep voting the way you do...that'll fix it!

believer;1474331 wrote:The Y-ner Generation

As an aside, Woody Harrelson makes me lol.

HitsRus;1474876 wrote:You mean the ones that are going to blame their problems on your generation? Keep voting the way you do...that'll fix it!

Actually what we are going to do is sit back and watch the Boomers take us off the cliff. Enjoy that retirement! Hope you like being spoon fed corn during your golden years!

Actually what we are going to do is sit back and watch the Boomers take us off the cliff.

Yep...that would be you...never could do nothing for yourself.....we'll be wiping your asses for you cradle to grave...that's what you want....you vote for it every election.

HitsRus;1474929 wrote:Yep...that would be you...never could do nothing for yourself.....we'll be wiping your asses for you cradle to grave...that's what you want....you vote for it every election.

Nope can't do anything for ourselves so we'll let you ruin the country and we'll reap the long term benefits.

HitsRus;1474929 wrote:Yep...that would be you...never could do nothing for yourself.....we'll be wiping your asses for you cradle to grave...that's what you want....you vote for it every election.

Hey, the majority of you guys did too. Don't forget that. At least we can claim that we didn't know the Boomer politicians were liars, having participated in so few elections. You guys have been around long enough that you should know better.

"I don't know why the myth persists that you are entitled to a better standard of living than your parents,"

Because (1) most normal people love their kids and wish for a better life for them and (2) Even being greedy, if you want your entitlements you need young people to be employed, pay taxes, buy houses, reproduce, etc..

I don't know why Boomers get so personally offended when people tell them that life sucks now for young people. It isn't a personal attack, it is discussing reality. I'm pretty much in between the generations, but it is evident to me that on the whole the Boomers have pretty much ensured that we're looking at years of at best stagnation in Western economies. We had decades of short-sighted policies and eventually it has to be addressed.

I don't get it. I am very upset that my cousin can't find a job. I am very upset that my sister-in-law who has a degree from the University of Virginia and Oxford (UK) is working in a secretarial role with zero chance for advancement. I am very upset that they might delay marriage and having children because of a $&%^ economy.

And the Boomer's reaction is "hard times" happens. Really? Its almost as if it is a generation of sociopaths.

Tiernan;1474398 wrote:I personally as a boomer who earned every fk'n penny I have (...and I've got a **** pot full of 'em) don't give a rats ass what happens to the next generation after they pay for my SS.

But you've also saddled us with debt quickly approaching $20T. There's not enough money to go around to pay all those liabilities. Expect to take it on the chin like everyone else.

When you're looking at the monthly benefit in your SS summary...might want to give that a 15% haircut and then another 15% for inflation.

Tiernan;1474398 wrote:I personally as a boomer who earned every fk'n penny I have (...and I've got a shit pot full of 'em) don't give a rats ass what happens to the next generation after they pay for my SS.

Fewer employed = fewer people paying into that SS check your lazy ass is relying on.

And the "game" was set up for you to pay into SS, and then to get YOUR payment into it back. It was not set up for me to cover your Social Security when you get old.

So, quite frankly, I hope you get dicked out of it within these next 25 years. Won't be any skin off my back, and I won't owe you dick for it anyway.

Manhattan Buckeye;1474978 wrote:Because (1) most normal people love their kids and wish for a better life for them

It's hilarious how boomers think this way, but they refuse to help their children pay for college. "We want the best for you, but we're not going to give you that opportunity." Working a full-time summer job for four years would only net you (about) a years worth of tuition (not including room and board). Also assumes the worker doesn't spend money on anything else.

The truth is that the wages kids earn today go a lot less-further than they went 40 years ago.

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/02/14/minimum-wage-history/

dlazz;1475374 wrote:It's hilarious how boomers think this way, but they refuse to help their children pay for college. "We want the best for you, but we're not going to give you that opportunity." Working a full-time summer job for four years would only net you (about) a years worth of tuition (not including room and board). Also assumes the worker doesn't spend money on anything else.

The truth is that the wages kids earn today go a lot less-further than they went 40 years ago

Just because yours didn't, don't assume everyone else's doesn't. As far as wages are concerned, it's all relevant, and kid's have more expensive things at their disposal to spend their earnings on now as well.