If Social Security Had Been In Private Accounts The Stock Market Drop Could Have Been A Disaster

[Sun Devil 92]

I've done my homework, moron.

These claims are always backed with what ?

Metrics. Let's see them.

Then we can see how the relate to the progressive tax system and what social insurance has to do with it.

Let me know when you've got the data....then the fun begins.

Well, nitwit.....since you've ALREADY done "your homework"....lets see YOUR data....LOL

No, SFB...I didn't make the claim.

Mr. Peckerwood did. He goes first.

I asked for the metrics.

And you can spare me the sophomoric comebacks.

 

[nat4900]

And you can spare me the sophomoric comebacks.

You're correct on that count.......You just aren't worth it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And you can spare me the sophomoric comebacks.

You're correct on that count.......You just aren't worth it.

Does this mean you'll go a way ?

And I've noticed that David_42 hasn't responded to my request.

Or did he ask you to wipe his ass for him ?

 

[nat4900]

Or did he ask you to wipe his ass for him ?

Could have sworn that such was your official job...and that you, as most right wingers, were really good at such tasks....LOL

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Or did he ask you to wipe his ass for him ?

Could have sworn that such was your official job...and that you, as most right wingers, were really good at such tasks....LOL

Did you see me come to his rescue ?

You are way too easy.

I seriously doubt he wants you running front for him.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, they did. Can you find a single liberal who predicted the collapse of the USSR before 1989?

Can you find a single liberal that wanted to implement a totalitarian command economy with no democracy?

You all do. You all defend Obama whenever he wipes his ass on the Constitution by issuing an executive order that clearly violates the terms of the document. You all defend those "Black Lives Matter" thugs who hoot for the blood of police officers. You defend liberal campus hooligans who shout down and even assault conservative speakers who appear on campus.

I could go on and on about all the fascist activities liberals engage in.

So all you respond with is a silly misguided rant about the constitution and black lives matter? Where does Obama wipe his ass on the constitution, you hear idiots like trump talking about birthright citizenship and wiping there ass on it, but you're silent. What has Obama done that goes against the constitution? Yeah, cherry pick specific things said by people in BLM and stereotype the whole group, great idea, does that mean I can claim all trump supporters are white racists? Fascist activies? Insult to those who have actually experienced fascism, which you know nothing about.

Obama has wiped his ass on the Constitution numerous times. For instance, when he ordered the EPA to draft regulations on CO2 emissions. The worst example is when he unilaterally granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Changing the immigration laws is clearly a function of Congress, not the Administration.

Where in the constitution does it prohibit regulations on CO2 emissions? Guess who else gave amnesty to illegal immigrants..
Reagan!

You don't understand the constitution. There does not need to be anything in the constitution that says "you can't do X". That's not how it works.

The constitution outlines what government CAN do. If it's not listed there, then automatically government is not allowed to do it.

If there isn't a provision that says "Government can regulate X", then it is not constitutional for the government to do it.

Reagan did many many good things. He also did some things that were not good.

Just because he did Amnesty, doesn't mean it is magically a good idea.

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah. And why do you have tax evasion on a mass scale? Because taxes are too high.

Well, that is like saying that if I rob you at gun point, but only take $50 out of your wallet and leave the rest, you won't be pissed and report the robbery?

You'll have to explain your point better, because I didn't catch how what you said even remotely relates to the topic.

 

[Andylusion]

[

There is no solution to Social Security. The only solution is based on the idea that people will agree to pay more tax, without an increase in benefits. That's never going to happen. In Greece, the public routinely work black market jobs, to avoid paying their taxes.

That will be the future of America if we continue on this road.

Social Security was always a bad idea that was going to go really bad one of these days and bankrupt the country. Unfortunately we are approaching that time now with a $56 trillion dollar future entitlement program.

Why people were so weak minded as to agree to be taxed more so that the inefficient government (managed by corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups) would promise them some rinky dink pension if they lived is absolute stupidity.

We should all be responsible for our own retirement fund. If some of the idiots in this country chose to spend their money on pot and big screen TVs instead of providing for their retirement then that is their problem, not mine.

Social security is not a bad idea and some form of social security is NECESSARY. There are people who either don't or can't save for retirement. When they get to retirement age many of them can't work, can't take care of themselves, have major health issues and require expensive drugs. What do you do with these helpless people? Let them die!

The reason it is political suicide to go after social security or Medicare is because everyone gets old and the vast majority of people will rely on these programs in their old age.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about you help them?

Instead of demanding that other people pay for them, how about YOU help them?

Remarkable statement. This is a society of 300+ million people, we all pay taxes to help this society function and care for each other, citizens will give to private charities and do their part by paying taxes, that is helping. Regardless, it's a stupid statement to bring up, you might as well eliminate food stamps because "WHY DONT YOU HELP THEM." I'm sorry, but a civilized society must utilize the government to provide these services, we're all in this together.

But see.... I do. I have worked at the soup kitchen. I've worked at the homeless shelter.

Have you?

Of course not. You believe that other people should help them. That's why every time we talk about how Social Security is going broke, you never say "raise taxes on me!" You say, "let's raise taxes on the rich!"

Because all left-wing ideology is based on the myth that everyone else is going to foot the bill.

Well, Greece has shown us that trying that results in people leaving, and economies crashing, and entire countries imploding.

People get tired of everyone else, saying that everyone else should pay the bill.

It doesn't work.

 

[Andylusion]

Right wingers should simply realize that SS is HERE TO STAY, period. Yes modify it but only idiots on here would presume that everybody....every worker should rely on the whims of a casino-like stock market.....

You want to gamble with your money for retirement? Fine....do it with what money you deem discretionary.....but leave SS alone.

Yeah, just like everyone in Greece said "Pensions are here to stay! Just get over it! Don't reform it!".... look where that got them.

We're not going to just accept your head-in-the-sand approach to Social Security.

It's going to be reformed one way, or another. You better just simply realize SS is going to change, whether you like it or not. You can either be part of the solution, or you can be bitter and angry for the rest of your pathetic life. Make your choice.

 

[Andylusion]

Caught on what? Key word: "COULD"

You know, most children of your age would eventually grow up, navigate away from DailyKOS< and learn to think.

Not you though, you are doomed to remain perpetually stupid.

Wear the assclown with pride, you've more than earned it.

I'm find it actually quite helpful that they have clowns. I wish the right-wingers that have clown avatars would ditch them.

It's nice when the mindless clowns identify themselves. Whenever I see a clown avatar, my expectations for intelligent conversation drops instantly. So far most of them meet that expectation.

 

[nat4900]

It's going to be reformed one way, or another. You better just simply realize SS is going to change, whether you like it or not. You can either be part of the solution, or you can be bitter and angry for the rest of your pathetic life. Make your choice.

Idiot......I fully realize and encourage changes to be made to SS....beginning with raising the $117K ceiling for SS contributions. You do NOT throw the baby out with the bathwater. Live with it.

 

[David_42]

[

There is no solution to Social Security. The only solution is based on the idea that people will agree to pay more tax, without an increase in benefits. That's never going to happen. In Greece, the public routinely work black market jobs, to avoid paying their taxes.

That will be the future of America if we continue on this road.

Social Security was always a bad idea that was going to go really bad one of these days and bankrupt the country. Unfortunately we are approaching that time now with a $56 trillion dollar future entitlement program.

Why people were so weak minded as to agree to be taxed more so that the inefficient government (managed by corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups) would promise them some rinky dink pension if they lived is absolute stupidity.

We should all be responsible for our own retirement fund. If some of the idiots in this country chose to spend their money on pot and big screen TVs instead of providing for their retirement then that is their problem, not mine.

Social security is not a bad idea and some form of social security is NECESSARY. There are people who either don't or can't save for retirement. When they get to retirement age many of them can't work, can't take care of themselves, have major health issues and require expensive drugs. What do you do with these helpless people? Let them die!

The reason it is political suicide to go after social security or Medicare is because everyone gets old and the vast majority of people will rely on these programs in their old age.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about you help them?

Instead of demanding that other people pay for them, how about YOU help them?

Remarkable statement. This is a society of 300+ million people, we all pay taxes to help this society function and care for each other, citizens will give to private charities and do their part by paying taxes, that is helping. Regardless, it's a stupid statement to bring up, you might as well eliminate food stamps because "WHY DONT YOU HELP THEM." I'm sorry, but a civilized society must utilize the government to provide these services, we're all in this together.

But see.... I do. I have worked at the soup kitchen. I've worked at the homeless shelter.

Have you?

Of course not. You believe that other people should help them. That's why every time we talk about how Social Security is going broke, you never say "raise taxes on me!" You say, "let's raise taxes on the rich!"

Because all left-wing ideology is based on the myth that everyone else is going to foot the bill.

Well, Greece has shown us that trying that results in people leaving, and economies crashing, and entire countries imploding.

People get tired of everyone else, saying that everyone else should pay the bill.

It doesn't work.

Congratulations, I have as well, and do, but I know that a safety net is keeping millions out of homelessness, so I gladly pay my taxes as well. I believe that this is a civilized society where taxes are collected and we all work together, err, I am fine with my taxes being raised. Taxes on the rich should be raised, especially when income inequality is a growing problem that harms society, as proven by the recent IMF analysis done this June. Left wing ideology is not what you describe it as, and rambling about Greece to make a point means nothing, as addressed.

 

[nat4900]

From a recent email I received.......

The Department of Labor is completing rules to require retirement advisers to put clients' interests first. And Wall Street is mounting a last-ditch effort to preserve the status quo, which holds some advisers to that standard – known as a “fiduciary duty” – but lets others, including many brokers and insurance agents, recommend investments that generate more income for them, while saddling retirees with needlessly high costs, subpar returns, or inappropriate risks.

During four days of hearings in August, a procession of Wall Street witnesses insisted that they really do look out for the best interests of their clients; then, one after another, they came up with reasons why they should not be legally held to such a requirement. Their main argument (and the message of a campaign of fraudulent TV ads) is that if the new rules go through undiluted, millions of middle-income Americans will lose access to any financial advice.

That’s nonsense. Wall Street firms are asking us to believe that they would walk away from a multi-trillion dollar market if they had to abide by standards that already apply to financial professionals who oversee some $67 trillion in investments on behalf of 30 million people in this country. The opponents of this rule are looking out for themselves and their inflated profit margins, pure and simple.

 

[Uncensored2008]

From a recent email I received.......

The Department of Labor is completing rules to require retirement advisers to put clients' interests first. And Wall Street is mounting a last-ditch effort to preserve the status quo, which holds some advisers to that standard – known as a “fiduciary duty” – but lets others, including many brokers and insurance agents, recommend investments that generate more income for them, while saddling retirees with needlessly high costs, subpar returns, or inappropriate risks.

During four days of hearings in August, a procession of Wall Street witnesses insisted that they really do look out for the best interests of their clients; then, one after another, they came up with reasons why they should not be legally held to such a requirement. Their main argument (and the message of a campaign of fraudulent TV ads) is that if the new rules go through undiluted, millions of middle-income Americans will lose access to any financial advice.

That’s nonsense. Wall Street firms are asking us to believe that they would walk away from a multi-trillion dollar market if they had to abide by standards that already apply to financial professionals who oversee some $67 trillion in investments on behalf of 30 million people in this country. The opponents of this rule are looking out for themselves and their inflated profit margins, pure and simple.

"Advisors" are just a bit less ethical than used car salesmen. These people don't drive a new Porsche every year because they have the best interest of the client at heart.

That said, the proposed regulation does more harm than good - another Sarbanes Oxley type fiasco that puts trillions of dollars worth of regulation that produces zero results.

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism is what got us out of the Great Depression.

I don't agree.

A war economy got us out of the great depression. This is based on two factors, we removed a significant portion of the available labor pool and sent it off to fight and we increased production to meet the needs of the war effort.

Neither of these factors can be attributed to the market and are hardly Laissez Faire.

It was government intervention, that caused the GD to begin with.

Particularly the manipulation of monetary policy to benefit the well connected. Wall Street gets blamed, but the banks and money changers were the real culprits. The stock market was reactive to the credit markets.

In countries with mixed socialism and capitalism, including our own, the problems are always the Socialized parts. Never the Capitalist parts. Our own country, it's the heavily socialized areas that have problems... public education, health care, and banking.

Same is true around the world.

While I don't disagree, I caution you that the Fabians will attempt to cast law as socialism. Regulation of actions is not the distribution of the means of production. I think Sarbains Oxley is the most destructive law we have passed since 1913 - but it isn't socialist, merely stupid.

Progressive, doesn't always mean too high. I never said "progressive taxation" anywhere. I said that socialism results in ever growing taxes, and eventually people refuse to pay those taxes, resulting in a crash.

Greece is proof of this. No one is going to pay 58% of their income in taxes. So they don't.

And the experience in the US, is proof of this. When the tax rate was high, in the 70s to 90s... the rich hid their income, and collected non-cash benefits.

During the halcyon days of the leftists dream 90% tax rate, the top 1% paid a lower effective rate than they do today. High tax rates are a means of selling deductions and shelters. This is why the tax code typed out could circle the globe.

Warren Buffet is a perfect example. His yearly income is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 99%, and he wouldn't pay an extra penny in taxes. You could raise the Social Security limit, and he wouldn't pay a dime more.

Yes, there are other economies that have higher tax burdens than the US. And most have much larger "shadow economies" than the US. Shadow economies, is as the name suggests, the economic activities that are underground, and untaxed. Germany 16% of the economy is under ground. Brazil, 40%. Denmark 17%. France, 15%.
The US, only 8%.

As tax rates go up overall, so does the shadow economy, for exactly the reasons I pointed out.

Buffet is indeed a great example. He is no capitalist and depends on the corruption of government to fund his wealth. Capital gains are meant to close the gap for those who gain wealth through investment, but these tend to hurt small investors and retard economic growth.

Our founding fathers were brilliant men. They originally prohibited direct taxation. Any time there is direct taxation, favors WILL be sold to the elite. Only through indirect taxes, where the payer of the tax is anonymous is it possible for fair and honest taxation to exist. When a person buys a pack of gum, the sales tax paid will be there regardless of who the person is. Warren Buffet cannot defer his sales tax to next year so that an arranged "loss" will consume the tax. Corruption is difficult with indirect taxation - which is why democrats fight it so stringently.

If we ever want honest government - and few actually do - get rid of income and property taxes so that the ability to sell favors is removed from taxation.

I respect your position, because you at least understand some of the factors.

But to claim that shipping people off the war improved the economy, is ridiculous. Yes, logically if you ship people off to war, the unemployment rate will drop. That's not proof the economy improved. One Economist was on a talk show saying, by that logic, if we just round up all the unemployed, and toss them in prison, that would also lower unemployment, and "improve" the economy.

Further manufacturing improved, but not in economically beneficial ways. Yeah, you build a Tank for $500,000 a pop. On paper that's a vast increase in gross domestic production. But what value does a tank have in the real economy? Answer, none. Nor do army boots sell at the local women's fashion store. Aside from some crack pots in Montana, these productions have no real world value.

The economy is improved when there is naturally jobs available, and people choose to work, and when productions has natural value in the real economy.

By any measurement, the standard of living fell during World War 2. Yes, more people worked, but wages were held down by price controls. Automobiles were in short supply, meat, sugar, and eggs, as well as clothing and other things were all rationed. People lived more meager lives during the war.

Without focusing on a single data point of "unemployment dropped", I don't know how anyone can take a look at how life changed during the war years, and say the economy improved. It would be the one time in all human history, where the economy "improved" by everyone being worse off.

The real end to the depression, was after world war 2 ended, and the government controls and rationing ended. That's why we call it the roaring 50s. Not the roaring 40s.

Actually, the theory that banks and credit lenders caused the Stock Market crash, has been proven false. There is absolutely no evidence that the market was over valued at the time. Even the Federal Reserve commissioned research to determine the truth of that situation, and their own reports showed the market was not over valued.

Markets change value. When government policy changes the economic realities, the values on the market change. This is what happened.

I personally subscribe to the more loose version of "Socialism".

If you believe that Socialism is exclusively "Ownership of the means of production and distribution", then you are correct, it is not by that strict definition, Socialized.

socialism | a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

The key is "controlled" by the government.

People give money to their kids, and then their kid wants to blow it on something, and the parents say 'no no you can't buy that...'. Who really owns that money?

If I give you $20, but I tell when you can spend it, and when you can't.... who you can spend it on, and who you can't.... what you can buy with it, and what you can't.... If I put regulations on every aspect of what you do with that $20..... who owns the $20? Technically... legally... it might be you, but in reality it's really me.

When you read about the Union Carbide accident in Bhopal India, what you find out is that the government of India controlled where they built (too close to a populated area), controlled the parts they used to build the industrial complex (low quality locally made parts), and who they hired (low skilled and often resentful local people).

But technically, it's not socialism, because the government didn't directly 'own' the plant.

Of course the universal question is, at what point in increasing regulation, does it become socialism?

That's really hard to tell, but I would suggest that banking and health care, are both heavily socialized.

I've actually read where if a bank attempted to follow every single law on the books right now, in all agencies of the government, and in all states, that no bank in the country would remain open. The entire country would collapse. That's Socialized in my book, because the banks know, and the government knows, that if the bank does not do exactly what the government says (like make sub-prime loans), they can easily find a reason to punish them, or shut them down.

 

[David_42]

Please point to the countries you think are doing amazingly well.

I am not saying that they are not....I'd just like to see the list.

And you can also describe, in terms of measurable parameters, what "amazingly well" means.

Actually you should do your own work....if you dare.

No doubt the US has the largest GDP than any other country on the planet......But you'd be surprised as to what countries have better standards of living when it comes to LONGEVITY, WORK-LIFE, MORBIDITY, and HAPPINESS.

"Happiness" is a bullshit metric that can't be measured objectively. That's why commies like you are so fond of citing it. Longevity also doesn't necessary indicate how wealthy a country is. In fact, in the case of the United States, longevity is harmed by our wealth because we have all gotten so incredibly fat. "Work Life" just means how many days off you have every year. That doesn't do you much good if you have no money to go anywhere. "Morbidity" is just another name for "longevity."

So all your metrics don't prove jack squat.

LOL. Excuses excuses..

 

[David_42]

Capitalism is what got us out of the Great Depression.

I don't agree.

A war economy got us out of the great depression. This is based on two factors, we removed a significant portion of the available labor pool and sent it off to fight and we increased production to meet the needs of the war effort.

Neither of these factors can be attributed to the market and are hardly Laissez Faire.

It was government intervention, that caused the GD to begin with.

Particularly the manipulation of monetary policy to benefit the well connected. Wall Street gets blamed, but the banks and money changers were the real culprits. The stock market was reactive to the credit markets.

In countries with mixed socialism and capitalism, including our own, the problems are always the Socialized parts. Never the Capitalist parts. Our own country, it's the heavily socialized areas that have problems... public education, health care, and banking.

Same is true around the world.

While I don't disagree, I caution you that the Fabians will attempt to cast law as socialism. Regulation of actions is not the distribution of the means of production. I think Sarbains Oxley is the most destructive law we have passed since 1913 - but it isn't socialist, merely stupid.

Progressive, doesn't always mean too high. I never said "progressive taxation" anywhere. I said that socialism results in ever growing taxes, and eventually people refuse to pay those taxes, resulting in a crash.

Greece is proof of this. No one is going to pay 58% of their income in taxes. So they don't.

And the experience in the US, is proof of this. When the tax rate was high, in the 70s to 90s... the rich hid their income, and collected non-cash benefits.

During the halcyon days of the leftists dream 90% tax rate, the top 1% paid a lower effective rate than they do today. High tax rates are a means of selling deductions and shelters. This is why the tax code typed out could circle the globe.

Warren Buffet is a perfect example. His yearly income is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 99%, and he wouldn't pay an extra penny in taxes. You could raise the Social Security limit, and he wouldn't pay a dime more.

Yes, there are other economies that have higher tax burdens than the US. And most have much larger "shadow economies" than the US. Shadow economies, is as the name suggests, the economic activities that are underground, and untaxed. Germany 16% of the economy is under ground. Brazil, 40%. Denmark 17%. France, 15%.
The US, only 8%.

As tax rates go up overall, so does the shadow economy, for exactly the reasons I pointed out.

Buffet is indeed a great example. He is no capitalist and depends on the corruption of government to fund his wealth. Capital gains are meant to close the gap for those who gain wealth through investment, but these tend to hurt small investors and retard economic growth.

Our founding fathers were brilliant men. They originally prohibited direct taxation. Any time there is direct taxation, favors WILL be sold to the elite. Only through indirect taxes, where the payer of the tax is anonymous is it possible for fair and honest taxation to exist. When a person buys a pack of gum, the sales tax paid will be there regardless of who the person is. Warren Buffet cannot defer his sales tax to next year so that an arranged "loss" will consume the tax. Corruption is difficult with indirect taxation - which is why democrats fight it so stringently.

If we ever want honest government - and few actually do - get rid of income and property taxes so that the ability to sell favors is removed from taxation.

I respect your position, because you at least understand some of the factors.

But to claim that shipping people off the war improved the economy, is ridiculous. Yes, logically if you ship people off to war, the unemployment rate will drop. That's not proof the economy improved. One Economist was on a talk show saying, by that logic, if we just round up all the unemployed, and toss them in prison, that would also lower unemployment, and "improve" the economy.

Further manufacturing improved, but not in economically beneficial ways. Yeah, you build a Tank for $500,000 a pop. On paper that's a vast increase in gross domestic production. But what value does a tank have in the real economy? Answer, none. Nor do army boots sell at the local women's fashion store. Aside from some crack pots in Montana, these productions have no real world value.

The economy is improved when there is naturally jobs available, and people choose to work, and when productions has natural value in the real economy.

By any measurement, the standard of living fell during World War 2. Yes, more people worked, but wages were held down by price controls. Automobiles were in short supply, meat, sugar, and eggs, as well as clothing and other things were all rationed. People lived more meager lives during the war.

Without focusing on a single data point of "unemployment dropped", I don't know how anyone can take a look at how life changed during the war years, and say the economy improved. It would be the one time in all human history, where the economy "improved" by everyone being worse off.

The real end to the depression, was after world war 2 ended, and the government controls and rationing ended. That's why we call it the roaring 50s. Not the roaring 40s.

Actually, the theory that banks and credit lenders caused the Stock Market crash, has been proven false. There is absolutely no evidence that the market was over valued at the time. Even the Federal Reserve commissioned research to determine the truth of that situation, and their own reports showed the market was not over valued.

Markets change value. When government policy changes the economic realities, the values on the market change. This is what happened.

I personally subscribe to the more loose version of "Socialism".

If you believe that Socialism is exclusively "Ownership of the means of production and distribution", then you are correct, it is not by that strict definition, Socialized.

socialism | a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

The key is "controlled" by the government.

People give money to their kids, and then their kid wants to blow it on something, and the parents say 'no no you can't buy that...'. Who really owns that money?

If I give you $20, but I tell when you can spend it, and when you can't.... who you can spend it on, and who you can't.... what you can buy with it, and what you can't.... If I put regulations on every aspect of what you do with that $20..... who owns the $20? Technically... legally... it might be you, but in reality it's really me.

When you read about the Union Carbide accident in Bhopal India, what you find out is that the government of India controlled where they built (too close to a populated area), controlled the parts they used to build the industrial complex (low quality locally made parts), and who they hired (low skilled and often resentful local people).

But technically, it's not socialism, because the government didn't directly 'own' the plant.

Of course the universal question is, at what point in increasing regulation, does it become socialism?

That's really hard to tell, but I would suggest that banking and health care, are both heavily socialized.

I've actually read where if a bank attempted to follow every single law on the books right now, in all agencies of the government, and in all states, that no bank in the country would remain open. The entire country would collapse. That's Socialized in my book, because the banks know, and the government knows, that if the bank does not do exactly what the government says (like make sub-prime loans), they can easily find a reason to punish them, or shut them down.

That's how it should be, banks need to be heavily regulated. Remember the GD?

 

[Andylusion]

He made sure to take care of the elderly to the best of his ability, oh the horror! You trust the guy you're paying? Social security is meant to be available to virtually everyone, it shouldn't be privatized and left to those who would willingly let people lose it all, hell, you still fail to address how those in poverty would go through all of this. Then again, you're so out of touch with reality, it doesn't matter regardless.

Really? He gave how much of his millions to the elder?

Oh wait... you mean he taxed people like me, and gave my money to other people..... how benevolent. Screwing over people who work is "caring" in your world. Got it.

Yes, I trust the guy I'm paying. If he doesn't do well by me, then I don't pay him more. I trust that motivation, more than the guy you support who screwed me for other people's welfare.

Yep. The liberal model of compassion is a thug who gives some of his loot away to his accomplices.

Taxes are the price we all pay in a civilized first world society.

Nope, taxes are theft. they don't purchase anything anybody wants any more than being mugged by the local toughs "purchases" anything they have to offer.

Then take up arms and shoot the elderly collecting SS. They robbed you after all. LOL.

While there is some unintended truth in you comment.... The elderly screwed themselves.

My plan would involve phasing out SS, in favor of privatizing the system. This would require that we accept what is already true...... SS is simply a welfare system paid for by current taxes.... so.... phase it out. Pay for SS with taxes, but have the next generation of retirees move to a privatized system, that won't have never ending tax hikes and benefit cuts.

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism is what got us out of the Great Depression.

I don't agree.

A war economy got us out of the great depression. This is based on two factors, we removed a significant portion of the available labor pool and sent it off to fight and we increased production to meet the needs of the war effort.

Neither of these factors can be attributed to the market and are hardly Laissez Faire.

It was government intervention, that caused the GD to begin with.

Particularly the manipulation of monetary policy to benefit the well connected. Wall Street gets blamed, but the banks and money changers were the real culprits. The stock market was reactive to the credit markets.

In countries with mixed socialism and capitalism, including our own, the problems are always the Socialized parts. Never the Capitalist parts. Our own country, it's the heavily socialized areas that have problems... public education, health care, and banking.

Same is true around the world.

While I don't disagree, I caution you that the Fabians will attempt to cast law as socialism. Regulation of actions is not the distribution of the means of production. I think Sarbains Oxley is the most destructive law we have passed since 1913 - but it isn't socialist, merely stupid.

Progressive, doesn't always mean too high. I never said "progressive taxation" anywhere. I said that socialism results in ever growing taxes, and eventually people refuse to pay those taxes, resulting in a crash.

Greece is proof of this. No one is going to pay 58% of their income in taxes. So they don't.

And the experience in the US, is proof of this. When the tax rate was high, in the 70s to 90s... the rich hid their income, and collected non-cash benefits.

During the halcyon days of the leftists dream 90% tax rate, the top 1% paid a lower effective rate than they do today. High tax rates are a means of selling deductions and shelters. This is why the tax code typed out could circle the globe.

Warren Buffet is a perfect example. His yearly income is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 99%, and he wouldn't pay an extra penny in taxes. You could raise the Social Security limit, and he wouldn't pay a dime more.

Yes, there are other economies that have higher tax burdens than the US. And most have much larger "shadow economies" than the US. Shadow economies, is as the name suggests, the economic activities that are underground, and untaxed. Germany 16% of the economy is under ground. Brazil, 40%. Denmark 17%. France, 15%.
The US, only 8%.

As tax rates go up overall, so does the shadow economy, for exactly the reasons I pointed out.

Buffet is indeed a great example. He is no capitalist and depends on the corruption of government to fund his wealth. Capital gains are meant to close the gap for those who gain wealth through investment, but these tend to hurt small investors and retard economic growth.

Our founding fathers were brilliant men. They originally prohibited direct taxation. Any time there is direct taxation, favors WILL be sold to the elite. Only through indirect taxes, where the payer of the tax is anonymous is it possible for fair and honest taxation to exist. When a person buys a pack of gum, the sales tax paid will be there regardless of who the person is. Warren Buffet cannot defer his sales tax to next year so that an arranged "loss" will consume the tax. Corruption is difficult with indirect taxation - which is why democrats fight it so stringently.

If we ever want honest government - and few actually do - get rid of income and property taxes so that the ability to sell favors is removed from taxation.

I respect your position, because you at least understand some of the factors.

But to claim that shipping people off the war improved the economy, is ridiculous. Yes, logically if you ship people off to war, the unemployment rate will drop. That's not proof the economy improved. One Economist was on a talk show saying, by that logic, if we just round up all the unemployed, and toss them in prison, that would also lower unemployment, and "improve" the economy.

Further manufacturing improved, but not in economically beneficial ways. Yeah, you build a Tank for $500,000 a pop. On paper that's a vast increase in gross domestic production. But what value does a tank have in the real economy? Answer, none. Nor do army boots sell at the local women's fashion store. Aside from some crack pots in Montana, these productions have no real world value.

The economy is improved when there is naturally jobs available, and people choose to work, and when productions has natural value in the real economy.

By any measurement, the standard of living fell during World War 2. Yes, more people worked, but wages were held down by price controls. Automobiles were in short supply, meat, sugar, and eggs, as well as clothing and other things were all rationed. People lived more meager lives during the war.

Without focusing on a single data point of "unemployment dropped", I don't know how anyone can take a look at how life changed during the war years, and say the economy improved. It would be the one time in all human history, where the economy "improved" by everyone being worse off.

The real end to the depression, was after world war 2 ended, and the government controls and rationing ended. That's why we call it the roaring 50s. Not the roaring 40s.

Actually, the theory that banks and credit lenders caused the Stock Market crash, has been proven false. There is absolutely no evidence that the market was over valued at the time. Even the Federal Reserve commissioned research to determine the truth of that situation, and their own reports showed the market was not over valued.

Markets change value. When government policy changes the economic realities, the values on the market change. This is what happened.

I personally subscribe to the more loose version of "Socialism".

If you believe that Socialism is exclusively "Ownership of the means of production and distribution", then you are correct, it is not by that strict definition, Socialized.

socialism | a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

The key is "controlled" by the government.

People give money to their kids, and then their kid wants to blow it on something, and the parents say 'no no you can't buy that...'. Who really owns that money?

If I give you $20, but I tell when you can spend it, and when you can't.... who you can spend it on, and who you can't.... what you can buy with it, and what you can't.... If I put regulations on every aspect of what you do with that $20..... who owns the $20? Technically... legally... it might be you, but in reality it's really me.

When you read about the Union Carbide accident in Bhopal India, what you find out is that the government of India controlled where they built (too close to a populated area), controlled the parts they used to build the industrial complex (low quality locally made parts), and who they hired (low skilled and often resentful local people).

But technically, it's not socialism, because the government didn't directly 'own' the plant.

Of course the universal question is, at what point in increasing regulation, does it become socialism?

That's really hard to tell, but I would suggest that banking and health care, are both heavily socialized.

I've actually read where if a bank attempted to follow every single law on the books right now, in all agencies of the government, and in all states, that no bank in the country would remain open. The entire country would collapse. That's Socialized in my book, because the banks know, and the government knows, that if the bank does not do exactly what the government says (like make sub-prime loans), they can easily find a reason to punish them, or shut them down.

That's how it should be, banks need to be heavily regulated. Remember the GD?

Which was created by government regulations and controls. No amount of regulations would have prevented the Great Depression.

And all of the controls and regulations dragged out the Depression for over a decade.

 

[David_42]

Really? He gave how much of his millions to the elder?

Oh wait... you mean he taxed people like me, and gave my money to other people..... how benevolent. Screwing over people who work is "caring" in your world. Got it.

Yes, I trust the guy I'm paying. If he doesn't do well by me, then I don't pay him more. I trust that motivation, more than the guy you support who screwed me for other people's welfare.

Yep. The liberal model of compassion is a thug who gives some of his loot away to his accomplices.

Taxes are the price we all pay in a civilized first world society.

Nope, taxes are theft. they don't purchase anything anybody wants any more than being mugged by the local toughs "purchases" anything they have to offer.

Then take up arms and shoot the elderly collecting SS. They robbed you after all. LOL.

While there is some unintended truth in you comment.... The elderly screwed themselves.

My plan would involve phasing out SS, in favor of privatizing the system. This would require that we accept what is already true...... SS is simply a welfare system paid for by current taxes.... so.... phase it out. Pay for SS with taxes, but have the next generation of retirees move to a privatized system, that won't have never ending tax hikes and benefit cuts.

They didn't screw themselves, right wing nuts like you screwed them. Your plan will never exist, you're a lone raving "Christian capitalist" on an Internet board.