The Numbers Case For SS Reform

[rtwngAvngr]

Well then I hope you find a way of paying off the two trillion we have to loan to finance the system change. We could even keep the tax level as it is now by cutting other taxes and adding the SS tax in.

This is worst case scenario, because it all assumes that we won't be generating as much money after the Bush tax cuts as we did before, so if those tax cuts have worked we will have a surplus we can allocate our surplus to SS. Most people on this board seem to find the Bush tax cuts are perfect on the Laffer curvre, so the surplus should start coming in any time.

We can invest the extra funds to the private sector. The SS system already relies on the private sector investments to generate some money, so we could simply put some extra money in there and get our rewards. In the years where benefits exceed contributions the system is designed to run on the revenue generated by the private sector. The SS system is designed so that it only needs to be modified at the margins to account for demographic or economic changes.

Yeah. well. Modifications always occur at the margins, don't they? The margins ARE the modification.

Private accounts is the way to go. You want to save the transition costs. Just cancel the whole thing damn program and tell people to go open their own private retirement account. The government needs to be out of the personal financial success business altogether.

 

[cptpwichita]

Remember, everyone can't succeed. Some people have to fail and dig ditches. If everyone was a millionaire then the dollar would be worth very little.

So people shouldn't save money for retirement?People shouldn't develop new job skills (work their way up the ladder of success)?People shouldn't work to leave something for their kids when they die (without the government taking it)?People should not be empowered to have some ownership in this society?

Not all will succeed during their working lifetime but it gives hope and the determination to push onward knowing that retirement will be very comfortable.Isn't it democrats that complain that retirees have to choose between dog food and prescription drugs because the social security benefits just don't cut it?

We can increase work visas and immigration to fill the "hole digger" jobs.What i was talking about is a no-interest loan at birth paid back at some point in the future.Most people save money and if you start at birth with a considerable amount with the magic of compound interest then the government doesn't need to take care of you at retirement but i guess that is what really scares democrats.

I know what you are thinking-"what about me?That's not fair to me!",the individuals not in the old system can still pay to support the individuals not under the new plan until everyone is under the new plan.I know you won't get the great benefits of the new system but that is too bad,tough luck i guess-STOP BEING SO DAMN SELFISH AND THINK ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR COUNTRY.

How to pay for this?I guess we could start cutting spending and move to the fair tax plan to start.we could start by getting rid of the postal service,department of education,united nations funding,national endowment for the arts,pbs and npr,subsidies (corporate welfare),foreign aid (international welfare) and start cutting domestic welfare programs.

 

[IControlThePast]

Oh no, I am all for people succeeding and doing their best. It is just that if everyone is a millionaire, like you said, they would technically have a million dollars, but their net worth really wouldn't change from what it is now compared to what others have, but only cause inflation. If it did, then it would be the socialism, the redistribution of wealth you hate. If everyone had more purchasing power, the cost of living would go up because more could be charged for services and those Giffen goods.

I'm not jealous. I've had your plan actually, the same thing was set up by my parents when I was born. I favor cutting our spending and balancing our budget too, so the children won't have to be paying it off.

 

[cptpwichita]

Oh no, I am all for people succeeding and doing their best. It is just that if everyone is a millionaire, like you said, they would technically have a million dollars, but their net worth really wouldn't change from what it is now compared to what others have, but only cause inflation. If it did, then it would be the socialism, the redistribution of wealth you hate. If everyone had more purchasing power, the cost of living would go up because more could be charged for services and those Giffen goods.

Competition in the free market keeps prices low.Employee wages and benefits,governmental regulations and taxes keep prices high-Not individual wealth (people will still look for the BEST DEAL and competition drives down prices and increases quality).Doesn't inflation mostly have to do with interest rates?If we had the national retail sales tax combined with major cuts in government spending,loosen regulations,remove the minimum wage and promote free and open trade creating new markets for american goods and services we could see a huge economic boom.We also should move towards health care savings accounts which would increase the profit margins of companies and lower prices enabling them to better compete in the world market.Another area we are lacking in is the number of new engineers and scientists,if we are to be the leader in innovation and creation of new goods and sevices our system of education must be reformed-PRIVATIZATION IS THE KEY.

 

[IControlThePast]

Competition in the free market keeps prices low.Employee wages and benefits,governmental regulations and taxes keep prices high-Not individual wealth (people will still look for the BEST DEAL and competition drives down prices and increases quality).Doesn't inflation mostly have to do with interest rates?If we had the national retail sales tax combined with major cuts in government spending,loosen regulations,remove the minimum wage and promote free and open trade creating new markets for american goods and services we could see a huge economic boom.We also should move towards health care savings accounts which would increase the profit margins of companies and lower prices enabling them to better compete in the world market.Another area we are lacking in is the number of new engineers and scientists,if we are to be the leader in innovation and creation of new goods and sevices our system of education must be reformed-PRIVATIZATION IS THE KEY.

First thing, Giffen goods influence the CPI and CLI. Price can be raised on Giffen goods resulting in an increase in sales (suprisingly enough). These are the basic things that almost everybody buys. Inflation is often the result of government policies to increase the money supply, the amount of money available to purchase, goods, securities, and services. There is Phillips Curve or Demand inflation that occurs according to Neo-Keynsian Theory, and Supply Side Theory claims that an increase in the supply of money leads to an increase in inflation. Here are a couple links to get you started on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

 

[rtwngAvngr]

First thing, Giffen goods influence the CPI and CLI. Price can be raised on Giffen goods resulting in an increase in sales (suprisingly enough). These are the basic things that almost everybody buys. Inflation is often the result of government policies to increase the money supply, the amount of money available to purchase, goods, securities, and services. There is Phillips Curve or Demand inflation that occurs according to Neo-Keynsian Theory, and Supply Side Theory claims that an increase in the supply of money leads to an increase in inflation. Here are a couple links to get you started on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

So which statements of cptwichita's are you disagreeing with?

 

[IControlThePast]

So which statements of cptwichita's are you disagreeing with?

I am saying that flooding the market with currency equally distributed to everybody will cause inflation. The inflation adjusted cost will be the same, but the good will cost more dollars. The market will keep the inflation adjusted cost the same, but there will be a good deal of inflation because of the extra currency. Inflation is bad for the economy, so don't do it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am saying that flooding the market with currency equally distributed to everybody will cause inflation. The inflation adjusted cost will be the same, but the good will cost more dollars. The market will keep the inflation adjusted cost the same, but there will be a good deal of inflation because of the extra currency. Inflation is bad for the economy, so don't do it.

We all know what inflation is and that it's generally bad. cptp was talking about the effects of lowering taxes and encouraging free markets and such. I think there's a disconnect; your post seems at best, tangential.

 

[cptpwichita]

so a loan at birth with a growth period of 65 years is not better than a working lifetime of social security witholdings that are not your private property and you have no legal right to according to the supreme court and which benefits can be changed at the whim of a politician?

 

[cptpwichita]

we give money to corporations,countries and individuals free all the time.what is wrong with giving someone a loan at birth which would completely cover their retirement when they do retire at 65 or so and get rid of the current system once everyone has been transferred over to the new system?

 

[IControlThePast]

We all know what inflation is and that it's generally bad. cptp was talking about the effects of lowering taxes and encouraging free markets and such. I think there's a disconnect; your post seems at best, tangential.

He said that the free market would prevent inflation, because it drives down prices, and that individual wealth does not influence it. I talked about how the inflation adjusted prices would be the same because of the free market and how the money supply (the individual wealth of people) contributes to inflation in the major economic theories.

we give money to corporations,countries and individuals free all the time.what is wrong with giving someone a loan at birth which would completely cover their retirement when they do retire at 65 or so and get rid of the current system once everyone has been transferred over to the new system?

so a loan at birth with a growth period of 65 years is not better than a working lifetime of social security witholdings that are not your private property and you have no legal right to according to the supreme court and which benefits can be changed at the whim of a politician?

Who do we give money to for free? We provide services (demand) for people on welfare like transportation, but do not give them cash handouts anymore. Demand lowers inflation. We provide drug money through healthcare systems which provides the demand for healthcare. If all the people on government healthcare don't have the money for a doctor, there will be many less doctor visits (less demand). We give services or money only able to be allocated for services to those otherwise unable to afford them in order to increase demand and lessen inflation. Make sense?

The thing about the current SS system is that money is taken from people and given to others. It does not just generate upon itself through interest. There is not a sudden injection in the money supply, so that is how that works without the inflation we would get from your system. Interest rates are one way the government tries to stop inflation, but they would change the interest rates in the personal accounts so that there wouldn't be a large increas in money supply. Generally, they would keep the interest you got on the $5,000 low so the amount doesn't change much, basically wiping out your scheme.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

He said that the free market would prevent inflation, because it drives down prices, and that individual wealth does not influence it. I talked about how the inflation adjusted prices would be the same because of the free market and how the money supply (the individual wealth of people) contributes to inflation in the major economic theories.

Yep. Tangential.

 

[cptpwichita]

He said that the free market would prevent inflation, because it drives down prices, and that individual wealth does not influence it. I talked about how the inflation adjusted prices would be the same because of the free market and how the money supply (the individual wealth of people) contributes to inflation in the major economic theories.



Who do we give money to for free? We provide services (demand) for people on welfare like transportation, but do not give them cash handouts anymore. Demand lowers inflation. We provide drug money through healthcare systems which provides the demand for healthcare. If all the people on government healthcare don't have the money for a doctor, there will be many less doctor visits (less demand). We give services or money only able to be allocated for services to those otherwise unable to afford them in order to increase demand and lessen inflation. Make sense?

The thing about the current SS system is that money is taken from people and given to others. It does not just generate upon itself through interest. There is not a sudden injection in the money supply, so that is how that works without the inflation we would get from your system. Interest rates are one way the government tries to stop inflation, but they would change the interest rates in the personal accounts so that there wouldn't be a large increas in money supply. Generally, they would keep the interest you got on the $5,000 low so the amount doesn't change much, basically wiping out your scheme.

We give money to countries through foreign aid.We give money for subsidies to farmers,amtrax,the airlines,etc.We give money through programs like food stamps,housing and prescription drugs to individuals.All government hand-outs and programs come from money forcibly taken from individual tax-payers (income redistribution).Social security is not guaranteed as the supreme court has already told us and benefits can change at any given time.So personal accounts are a bad idea all together since it would cause inflation?We should happily embrace the wonderful government for all the gracious gifts they bestow upon us?

Show me in the constitution where it says it is governments responsibility to provide individuals retirements,or food,or clothes,or housing,or health-care,etc.

 

[cptpwichita]

Icontrolthepast.
What should the government provide to its citizens and how and how much should it take from them?

I believe in a small limited federal government which provides for our safety and security and little more.I believe we should get rid of the income tax and use a national retail sales tax to provide for the necessary functions of the federal government.Everything else should be left to the states and the people.I believe in free and open trade.I believe in controlling our borders and allowing for immigration at levels that suit our needs.I believe government should not try to regulate how individuals live their own lives (prostitution,drugs,gay marriage,get rid of the fcc ,etc.).

I told you what I believe,how about you?

 

[IControlThePast]

We give money to countries through foreign aid.We give money for subsidies to farmers,amtrax,the airlines,etc.We give money through programs like food stamps,housing and prescription drugs to individuals.All government hand-outs and programs come from money forcibly taken from individual tax-payers (income redistribution).Social security is not guaranteed as the supreme court has already told us and benefits can change at any given time.So personal accounts are a bad idea all together since it would cause inflation?We should happily embrace the wonderful government for all the gracious gifts they bestow upon us?

Show me in the constitution where it says it is governments responsibility to provide individuals retirements,or food,or clothes,or housing,or health-care,etc.

I've already talked about that in my post I created. Those are not "money supply." They are services or funding only applicable for services. Those programs create demand for airplanes, food, construction, drug companies, etc. Demand lowers inflation.

Happily. The " necessary and proper" clause

Icontrolthepast.
What should the government provide to its citizens and how and how much should it take from them?

I believe in a small limited federal government which provides for our safety and security and little more.I believe we should get rid of the income tax and use a national retail sales tax to provide for the necessary functions of the federal government.Everything else should be left to the states and the people.I believe in free and open trade.I believe in controlling our borders and allowing for immigration at levels that suit our needs.I believe government should not try to regulate how individuals live their own lives (prostitution,drugs,gay marriage,get rid of the fcc ,etc.).

I told you what I believe,how about you?

I think we should have a government responsible for ensuring our inalienable rights and that people should be allowed to engage in whatever behavior they wish that is not harmful to others. I feel that we need a fair economic system with strict rules on competition, because the free market will not remain free without regulations (monopolies will come in and take over and take away freedom, etc). I feel the government should provide insurance programs for moral reasons and to give people increased investment confidence. I don't believe in free trade because since we are significantly better than other countries when it comes to our wealth, that wealth will flow outward and either we will have the same bad working conditions as third world countries or our workers will be largely unemployed. I believe in strict border control for defense purposes, and a less funded but high technology army. We need to cut some funding to pay off the debt. I feel we should have a graduated income tax to prevent the same monopolies on wealth. Social mobility is important to the functioning of capitalism, and the superior product should win, not the company or person that has a head start and can use money to defeat a superior product. I feel that people should generally have a large amount of freedom, as I see you do too, but I feel that the consolidation of power inherent to the totally free systems will result in a more totalitarian state than if some controls are placed in the systems to prevent the consolidation of power.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I've already talked about that in my post I created. Those are not "money supply." They are services or funding only applicable for services. Those programs create demand for airplanes, food, construction, drug companies, etc. Demand lowers inflation.

Happily. The " necessary and proper" clause



I think we should have a government responsible for ensuring our inalienable rights and that people should be allowed to engage in whatever behavior they wish that is not harmful to others. I feel that we need a fair economic system with strict rules on competition, because the free market will not remain free without regulations (monopolies will come in and take over and take away freedom, etc). I feel the government should provide insurance programs for moral reasons and to give people increased investment confidence. I don't believe in free trade because since we are significantly better than other countries when it comes to our wealth, that wealth will flow outward and either we will have the same bad working conditions as third world countries or our workers will be largely unemployed. I believe in strict border control for defense purposes, and a less funded but high technology army. We need to cut some funding to pay off the debt. I feel we should have a graduated income tax to prevent the same monopolies on wealth. Social mobility is important to the functioning of capitalism, and the superior product should win, not the company or person that has a head start and can use money to defeat a superior product. I feel that people should generally have a large amount of freedom, as I see you do too, but I feel that the consolidation of power inherent to the totally free systems will result in a more totalitarian state than if some controls are placed in the systems to prevent the consolidation of power.

We already have anti monopoly laws.

Economic protectionism will only cause a trade war, then everyone loses.

Government provided eveything is too expensive, and will reduce the individual motivation to produce and achieve.

You ideas are generally very bad.

 

[IControlThePast]

We already have anti monopoly laws.

The reason we really don't like this is because it is a case where a superior product is defeated by an inferior one due to manipulation of money. Strict control (although not quite EU strict) of competition can help because there are other cases. The superior product always deserves to win.

Economic protectionism will only cause a trade war, then everyone loses.

Everyone will realize it is MAD (mutually assured desctruction)and not have a trade war, like how there hasn't been nuclear war yet. The other markets have far more to gain from us joining them than we do. We will either have to take a drop in our living conditions or have a huge increase in unemployment if we do the free trade. Many people are waiting to work for less than us.

Government provided eveything is too expensive, and will reduce the individual motivation to produce and achieve.

Not true. Who said those who don't have the individual motivation to produce and achieve will be eligible for the government provided aid. There will also be a maximum time someone is able to be on the system, before they are forced off. While on the system they must continually be trying to get off of it. If you make it harder to get the system than a real job only those who really deserve the support will be on the system.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The reason we really don't like this is because it is a case where a superior product is defeated by an inferior one due to manipulation of money. Strict control (although not quite EU strict) of competition can help because there are other cases. The superior product always deserves to win.

Consumers will decide which products they value the quality of and which ones they look at the price of. There are premium brands people are willing to pay for, even in our curerent system. We? who's we? the borg?

Everyone will realize it is MAD (mutually assured desctruction)and not have a trade war, like how there hasn't been nuclear war yet.

How utterly naive.

The other markets have far more to gain from us joining them than we do. We will either have to take a drop in our living conditions or have a huge increase in unemployment if we do the free trade. Many people are waiting to work for less than us.

Market protectionism is bad mojo. I don't think you realize the extent to which our standards of living are subsidized by cheap foreign goods. seems like you don't really get it.

Not true. Who said those who don't have the individual motivation to produce and achieve will be eligible for the government provided aid. There will also be a maximum time someone is able to be on the system, before they are forced off.

If they will eventually be forced off, why not make the period 0 days.

While on the system they must continually be trying to get off of it. If you make it harder to get the system than a real job only those who really deserve the support will be on the system.

Yep. except lib welfare workers will encourage them to stay single and never get a checking account, so the dem reason for being is still there. Just like they do now.

 

[cptpwichita]

I've already talked about that in my post I created. Those are not "money supply." They are services or funding only applicable for services. Those programs create demand for airplanes, food, construction, drug companies, etc. Demand lowers inflation.

Happily. The " necessary and proper" clause



I think we should have a government responsible for ensuring our inalienable rights and that people should be allowed to engage in whatever behavior they wish that is not harmful to others. I feel that we need a fair economic system with strict rules on competition, because the free market will not remain free without regulations (monopolies will come in and take over and take away freedom, etc). I feel the government should provide insurance programs for moral reasons and to give people increased investment confidence. I don't believe in free trade because since we are significantly better than other countries when it comes to our wealth, that wealth will flow outward and either we will have the same bad working conditions as third world countries or our workers will be largely unemployed. I believe in strict border control for defense purposes, and a less funded but high technology army. We need to cut some funding to pay off the debt. I feel we should have a graduated income tax to prevent the same monopolies on wealth. Social mobility is important to the functioning of capitalism, and the superior product should win, not the company or person that has a head start and can use money to defeat a superior product. I feel that people should generally have a large amount of freedom, as I see you do too, but I feel that the consolidation of power inherent to the totally free systems will result in a more totalitarian state than if some controls are placed in the systems to prevent the consolidation of power.

I agree with you probably on most social issues like-legalized gambling,prostitution,drugs and free speech.I am pro-life and I don't know what your position is on that.I agree with you on the border issues-I believe in controlled immigration that meets our needs not their (other countries)needs.I do believe we need to stop funding the military defense of countries like japan and germany and decrease the size of the military have a more high-tech military with more special operations units.I believe in a strong intelligence community with lots of human intelligence.I believe in taking strong measures at securing our nation by stricter school visas and cargo inspection.I believe in large budget cuts like ending funding in the u.n.,foreign aid,ending the postal service,ending the department of education,ending subsidies,domestic welfare programs,privatizing social security and really ridiculous spending projects that congressmen come up with.

Have you examined the fair tax?the national retail sales tax could really help us.

 

[IControlThePast]

I agree with you probably on most social issues like-legalized gambling,prostitution,drugs and free speech.I am pro-life and I don't know what your position is on that.I agree with you on the border issues-I believe in controlled immigration that meets our needs not their (other countries)needs.I do believe we need to stop funding the military defense of countries like japan and germany and decrease the size of the military have a more high-tech military with more special operations units.I believe in a strong intelligence community with lots of human intelligence.I believe in taking strong measures at securing our nation by stricter school visas and cargo inspection.I believe in large budget cuts like ending funding in the u.n.,foreign aid,ending the postal service,ending the department of education,ending subsidies,domestic welfare programs,privatizing social security and really ridiculous spending projects that congressmen come up with.

Have you examined the fair tax?the national retail sales tax could really help us.

I agree but I think we should invest in a more high tech, not larger military. Change the funds into investment into development of new technology which can hopefully benefit the civilian sector as well. I don't know about the postal system, the education system needs to be federalized or privatized, but I would like to keep some domestic welfare. I am pro-life too because I consider a fetus another person able to be harmed.

I have looked at the national sales tax, and don't really like it. It encourages people to create the crisis of saving, not spending their money. It also shifts a disproportional amount of taxes onto the lower income segment. For example, someone being taxed around $100k would have to spend yearly $400k to get the same amount of money in taxes. Those I know who are taxed at $100k per year don't spend nearly that amount of money each year. I think that if the lower income segment recieves extra money, it is more likely to spend that money (to live at the same standard as the higher incomes) than a higher income segment, which might just save it for the kids or put it in the bank. I think it would just be better to keep the taxes under the correct section of the Laffer curve until we completely pay off the defecit though.