• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

We are all Americans.

Yes and as Americans we have personal responsibility for our own expenses. I don't expect you to fund my retirement but you are. I don't expect you to pay my state expenses but you are, all because the Federal Govt. is allowed to collect taxdollars and spend it on personal responsibility issues.
 
@Conservative, so what you are saying basically is military spending boosts the economy? I'm not disagreeing with you, just making sure thats what you are saying.
 
Yes and as Americans we have personal responsibility for our own expenses. I don't expect you to fund my retirement but you are. I don't expect you to pay my state expenses but you are, all because the Federal Govt. is allowed to collect taxdollars and spend it on personal responsibility issues.

I'm not paying for your retirement, just a part of it, because I don't think SS is a livable wage. Plus, on that premise, why should i care, if i'm getting that same benefit when i get to your age? BUTTTTTT who knows if i will have that when i get there, but on a philosophical level I have no problem paying that tax, when i would be getting it back when i retire.
 
@Conservative, so what you are saying basically is military spending boosts the economy? I'm not disagreeing with you, just making sure thats what you are saying.

Govt. spending is 20% of the economy. What I am saying is that it is the role of the govt to defend this country and for anyone to claim that our current 750 billion dollar budget is the reason for our 3.7 trillion dollar budget makes them naive and flat wrong. Eliminate the defense and you still have a 500 billion plus deficit
 
I'm not paying for your retirement, just a part of it, because I don't think SS is a livable wage. Plus, on that premise, why should i care, if i'm getting that same benefit when i get to your age? BUTTTTTT who knows if i will have that when i get there, but on a philosophical level I have no problem paying that tax, when i would be getting it back when i retire.

You are indeed paying my SS if you are working. My SS contributions were spent long ago. You may or may not get the SS benefits when you are my age. Where is the money going to come from to pay for those benefits? There aren't going to be enough workers when you retire to pay your benefits so you better think about it
 
What we need is a growing economy from which the govt. gets revenue. the focus solely on Income tax revenue is nearsighted. First thing has to be to define the role of the govt. and put a realistic budget in place, then match that budget with revenue requirements. Right now 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans aren't paying much in FIT and 47% of current income earning households aren't paying a dime in FIT. Most liberals ignore that problem if you indeed believe we have a revenue problem. I don't, I believe we have a spending problem along with a GDP growth problem.

Why bother tax those incomes? you wouldn't get much money from them anyway.
 
I'm not paying for your retirement, just a part of it, because I don't think SS is a livable wage. Plus, on that premise, why should i care, if i'm getting that same benefit when i get to your age? BUTTTTTT who knows if i will have that when i get there, but on a philosophical level I have no problem paying that tax, when i would be getting it back when i retire.


Ponzi schemes never work. Even the most elaborate ones collapse.


J-mac
 
Why bother tax those incomes? you wouldn't get much money from them anyway.

The govt. does need revenue to fund itself and we need a govt. just not a 3.7 trillion dollar govt. I am for a flat tax or a consumption tax, not a progressive income tax.
 
You are indeed paying my SS if you are working. My SS contributions were spent long ago. You may or may not get the SS benefits when you are my age. Where is the money going to come from to pay for those benefits? There aren't going to be enough workers when you retire to pay your benefits so you better think about it

*sigh* I said i'm not paying for your retirement, unless you plan to retire on just SS. Also, I said on a simply philosophical level, I don't have a problem with it, because the way it was set up, makes sense. Its another argument about whether or not it actually in reality will be there for me, and it would be, if our country and our policies weren't ass backwards
 
Ponzi schemes never work. Even the most elaborate ones collapse.


J-mac

:roll: :roll: :roll:

NO PONZI scheme in the history of the world has ever lasted 75 years. Ponzi schemes depend on garnering an ever-increasing pool of new investors to pay out returns to prior investors. When the potential pool of new investors runs dry, they collapse. This will occur when the scheme runs up against the natural limits of its recruitment strategy; in the ultimate case, it can't keep going past the point where the entire population is already subscribed.

This should provide us with a hint as to why, as Kevin Drum writes (rebutting Shikha Dalmia), Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. The entire population of working Americans has already been subscribed to Social Security for decades, yet the system continues to pay out benefits on time. That is because the actuarial calculations underlying its revenues and benefits are sound.

Social Security: A monstrous truth | The Economist
 
:roll: :roll: :roll:

NO PONZI scheme in the history of the world has ever lasted 75 years. Ponzi schemes depend on garnering an ever-increasing pool of new investors to pay out returns to prior investors. When the potential pool of new investors runs dry, they collapse. This will occur when the scheme runs up against the natural limits of its recruitment strategy; in the ultimate case, it can't keep going past the point where the entire population is already subscribed.

This should provide us with a hint as to why, as Kevin Drum writes (rebutting Shikha Dalmia), Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. The entire population of working Americans has already been subscribed to Social Security for decades, yet the system continues to pay out benefits on time. That is because the actuarial calculations underlying its revenues and benefits are sound.

Social Security: A monstrous truth | The Economist

Another Leftist who doesn't understand either demographics or debt. This shouldn't happen in a first world country..
 
:roll: :roll: :roll:

NO PONZI scheme in the history of the world has ever lasted 75 years. Ponzi schemes depend on garnering an ever-increasing pool of new investors to pay out returns to prior investors. When the potential pool of new investors runs dry, they collapse. This will occur when the scheme runs up against the natural limits of its recruitment strategy; in the ultimate case, it can't keep going past the point where the entire population is already subscribed.

This should provide us with a hint as to why, as Kevin Drum writes (rebutting Shikha Dalmia), Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. The entire population of working Americans has already been subscribed to Social Security for decades, yet the system continues to pay out benefits on time. That is because the actuarial calculations underlying its revenues and benefits are sound.

Social Security: A monstrous truth | The Economist



Does the current system rely on current workers taxation in order to pay for those benefits of those no longer working and or contributing themselves? That sir is the definition of a ponzi scheme.

J-mac
 
Does the current system rely on current workers taxation in order to pay for those benefits of those no longer working and or contributing themselves? That sir is the definition of a ponzi scheme.

J-mac

well...thats not true, by pure definition its not a ponzi scheme, there are some similarities because your getting money from other people blah blah blah but on that basis then the entire government is a ponzi scheme anytime you get a government service.
 
Another Leftist who doesn't understand either demographics or debt. This shouldn't happen in a first world country..

YEAH AND YOUR A POOPY FACE!...thats the equivalent of your argument there.
 
Does the current system rely on current workers taxation in order to pay for those benefits of those no longer working and or contributing themselves? That sir is the definition of a ponzi scheme.

J-mac

As noted above, that's simply not true. 1) You don't seem to know the definition of a ponzi scheme. 2) Your definion would make every single thing done by the government a ponzi scheme.

I know you want to buy into this. But it is simply koolaid for the faithful and not much more. You can oppose SS with legitmate reasons. You don't need to go all nutter.
 
well...thats not true, by pure definition its not a ponzi scheme, there are some similarities because your getting money from other people blah blah blah but on that basis then the entire government is a ponzi scheme anytime you get a government service.

Not all. Just those where the government invents public entitlements not outlined as in the scope of the federal government to, or taxpayer to be mandated to fund. Think Article 1, Section 8.

J-mac
 
Not all. Just those where the government invents public entitlements not outlined as in the scope of the federal government to, or taxpayer to be mandated to fund. Think Article 1, Section 8.

J-mac

Different argument. You're pulling a Conservative here trying to switch the paramaters of the debate.

:coffeepap
 
As noted above, that's simply not true. 1) You don't seem to know the definition of a ponzi scheme. 2) Your definion would make every single thing done by the government a ponzi scheme.

I know you want to buy into this. But it is simply koolaid for the faithful and not much more. You can oppose SS with legitmate reasons. You don't need to go all nutter.


Give us the definition then, and please point out how ss is different.

J-mac
 
Ok, it isn't exactly like a ponzi scheme because you have the choice to buy into a ponzi scheme, SS you do not. In a ponzi scheme, you use the people in the 2nd round of investment to pay off the 1st round. The 3rd round to pay off the 2nd and 1st round and so on. In SS, you use the current workers to pay off the 1st round workers. As the 2nd round workers enter SS, the current workers pay off the surviving 1st and 2nd round workers. The only other difference I can see is that if you die while you own a share a ponzi scheme, your family may get a payout. If you die without ever drawing on SS after you paid into it for 40 years, your family won't see a dime.
 
If you die without ever drawing on SS after you paid into it for 40 years, your family won't see a dime.

That's how insurance works. OTOH, if you live to be 100 you may draw more than you paid in. It's insurance -- not a ponzi scheme.
 
Give us the definition then, and please point out how ss is different.

J-mac

You've received two now, one from me explaining the difference and another above. From the more recent one:

Ponzi schemes are frauds in which the operator promises or credits investors with exceptional returns, supposedly based on the performance of the assets purchased. The organizer acquires no assets, pays maturing promises or other withdrawals with funds from new depositors and skims money off the top to support lavish.

(Snip)

Social Security is an insurance system in which people make contributions while they work and receive benefits when retired or disabled. Payroll taxes, interest income on bonds in the trust funds and, since 1983, revenue from taxes on benefits fund the annuities.

The system has lower costs per benefit dollar than private insurance systems. The poverty rate among the elderly is below that of the general population, thanks largely to Social Security.

Social Security pays the bulk of benefits out of current contributions. To remain almost entirely self-financing, the system runs surpluses now to fund deficits later because the ratio of those paying in to those drawing out, which stood at 4.0 in 1965, is declining — it's projected to fall to 2.1 in 2035 before stabilizing.

No, Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme | Deseret News

Now, you can pretend you haven't been answered, but the fact is you have.
 
That's how insurance works. OTOH, if you live to be 100 you may draw more than you paid in. It's insurance -- not a ponzi scheme.

Fantastic, government mandated insurance. I think that will take the conversation in another direction. Just another program that should not be at the Federal level.
 
Fantastic, government mandated insurance. I think that will take the conversation in another direction. Just another program that should not be at the Federal level.

That explains the 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and the goal of liberalism, create a nanny state where there are no consequences for poor choices and no such thing as personal responsibility issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom