Communist California to require Solar Panels on all new homes

[bripat9643]

kinda like talking to a garden slug, isn't it?

Sorry, I don't know any slugs that understand accounting.

says slug number one. only a slug would think that a bond was an asset to the entity selling the bond, its a liability, an account payable in high school bookkeeping.

only a slug would think that a bond was an asset to the entity selling the bond, its a liability,

I agree. Who thinks the bonds in the Trust Funds are an asset to the US Treasury?
They're an asset for the trust fund, they're a liability to the US Treasury.

They are an obligation to the Treasury. In theory they are an asset to Social Security. The problem is that both agencies are just subdivisions of the government. They are worthless to the government. The only way they can be paid is by taking the money out of the taxpayer's pocket.

The trust fund is a separate entity by law. It is "off budget" and is managed separately from the government finances.

The "Financial Statements of the United States Government" do not reflect Social Security Funds as assets because they are not government property but they certain include special issue treasury bills held by the trust fund as liabilities because they are part of government debt exactly as other treasury bills are treated.

It's a government agency. Only the gullible are fooled.

 

[danielpalos]

Solar windows could enable California to export energy.

Photovoltaic windows not only provide a clear view and illuminate rooms, but also convert sunlight to electricity for the building.[25] In most cases, translucent photovoltaic cells are used.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window#Solar_window

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then why didn't DumBama and the rest of the crooks bring back unions when they had the chance? Go ahead, bring back unions. It will only have the same result it did as last time, and that is businesses moving out of the country or otherwise investing in automation.

That's happening regardless. If you're so interested in saving American jobs then why don't you take a pay cut?

Yes it is happening, but will happen even faster than it is now if that's what you want. How would me taking a pay cut save an American job? If you want to save American jobs, support Republicans and their quest to eliminate illegals and build a wall so they stop coming here and taking American jobs.

Yes, Americans are lining up for the opportunity to be a part of the exciting meat processing industry. Second only in demand to the tomato harvesting arts.

No they are not. But in order to get workers, the pay scale will have to naturally increase and then you'll see Americans taking those jobs.

You've been hoodwinked to think that the only jobs foreigners take are agriculture jobs. Better think again before they come to where you work and take your job next.

So stop duping around and vote democratic 4 comprehensive immigration reform and SS ID card that can't be faked and a $15 minimum wage Etc. The GOP Loves cheap easily bullied workers and will keep this scam going forever. The wall is a bad joke, super duper.

Same shit over and over, day after day.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

you are a victim of left wing propaganda, if that is true, why does the government have to subsidize the solar industry at every step of the process and then subsidize the homeowner to get him to buy them?

I will have broken even on my system in about 4-6 years. Without the tax rebate I'd be looking at 7-8 years. I have also increased the value of my home.

I'm happy that you believe that.

It's not a belief, it's reality. I've compared my utility bills before my system was set up and I've seen my monthly savings and done the math. You're kind of the one coming from a place of ignorance, not me.

OK, great. I live in south Louisiana where we have lots of sunshine most of the year. Several of my neighbors have solar systems and not one of them has had that kind of result. Now, to be fair, with the federal and state subsidies they were almost free, but someone paid the entire bill ------------------guess who? you and me, and every other American taxpayer.

If solar was financially viable, there would be no need for subsidies, because the profit motive would put them on the market at competitive prices. That's my only point here

The purpose of these subsidies are to increase the volume of sales such that the private sector will sink more money into RD, developing lower cost more efficient panels so at some point the product becomes financially viable without subsidies. It certainly seems to be happening with solar panels. We are seeing dramatic drops in price and increased efficiency. In some places solar panels are financial viable right now but in others it will be a number of years due to the fact electricity rates are very low.

What I see as a problem is reducing subsidies since viability is dependent on local power rates.

Would solar become viable without subsidies? Maybe, maybe not. It sure didn't happen with light bulbs. For over 50 years, lighting manufactures made no improvements in the life of bulbs or their efficiency until government mandated improvements and provided subsidies.

And now we're stuck with toxic lightbulbs. It's just like when they mandated 1.5 gallon toilets. You had to flush the damn thing 5 times to do the job of a 2 gallon toilet. It created a black market toilet underground from Canada. They flush a little better now, but you still have to be careful with them.

 

[HappyJoy]

I will have broken even on my system in about 4-6 years. Without the tax rebate I'd be looking at 7-8 years. I have also increased the value of my home.

I'm happy that you believe that.

It's not a belief, it's reality. I've compared my utility bills before my system was set up and I've seen my monthly savings and done the math. You're kind of the one coming from a place of ignorance, not me.

OK, great. I live in south Louisiana where we have lots of sunshine most of the year. Several of my neighbors have solar systems and not one of them has had that kind of result. Now, to be fair, with the federal and state subsidies they were almost free, but someone paid the entire bill ------------------guess who? you and me, and every other American taxpayer.

If solar was financially viable, there would be no need for subsidies, because the profit motive would put them on the market at competitive prices. That's my only point here

The purpose of these subsidies are to increase the volume of sales such that the private sector will sink more money into RD, developing lower cost more efficient panels so at some point the product becomes financially viable without subsidies. It certainly seems to be happening with solar panels. We are seeing dramatic drops in price and increased efficiency. In some places solar panels are financial viable right now but in others it will be a number of years due to the fact electricity rates are very low.

What I see as a problem is reducing subsidies since viability is dependent on local power rates.

Would solar become viable without subsidies? Maybe, maybe not. It sure didn't happen with light bulbs. For over 50 years, lighting manufactures made no improvements in the life of bulbs or their efficiency until government mandated improvements and provided subsidies.

And now we're stuck with toxic lightbulbs. It's just like when they mandated 1.5 gallon toilets. You had to flush the damn thing 5 times to do the job of a 2 gallon toilet. It created a black market toilet underground from Canada. They flush a little better now, but you still have to be careful with them.

Your lightbulbs are safe. Here's a hint change your diet, if your flushing so much you've got problems.

 

[francoHFW]

That's happening regardless. If you're so interested in saving American jobs then why don't you take a pay cut?

Yes it is happening, but will happen even faster than it is now if that's what you want. How would me taking a pay cut save an American job? If you want to save American jobs, support Republicans and their quest to eliminate illegals and build a wall so they stop coming here and taking American jobs.

Yes, Americans are lining up for the opportunity to be a part of the exciting meat processing industry. Second only in demand to the tomato harvesting arts.

No they are not. But in order to get workers, the pay scale will have to naturally increase and then you'll see Americans taking those jobs.

You've been hoodwinked to think that the only jobs foreigners take are agriculture jobs. Better think again before they come to where you work and take your job next.

So stop duping around and vote democratic 4 comprehensive immigration reform and SS ID card that can't be faked and a $15 minimum wage Etc. The GOP Loves cheap easily bullied workers and will keep this scam going forever. The wall is a bad joke, super duper.

Same shit over and over, day after day.

Yes it is called the truth, it doesn't change, unlike your endlessly imaginative GOP BS hate imaginary scandalous GOP propaganda, super duper dupe. Your Heroes will turn us into a Banana Republic oligarchy and blame it on the victims, LOL. Arrrggghhhhhhhhh.....
...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here is an IKEA in Washington with a solar roof

It's viable and now some solar panels work best in defused light so they are more productive on cloudy days.

I'm sorry solar is 'extremely' unpopular in North Florida but that's kind of the shitty part of the state anyway.

The fact that IKEA put it on their roof proves nothing. You have no idea how much the spent or how much power it produces. It could be a big money loser, for all you know.

The fact that IKEA has it on their roof and you don't proves IKEA is smart.

I'm pretty sure they did the math before throwing it up on the roof, it's not like it's a god damned mystery or anything.

For all I know, it's a money saver for me.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

Social Security is bad news.

That fact that it keeps them out of poverty tells us very little about the rest.

It's bad news but yet you haven't posted and when I post good news about SS you completely disregard it. Makes total sense.

It's an argument that requires a great many definitions.

1. What is "good" news.
2. What is "bad" news.
3. What is poverty (which I realize has a specific defintion...but isn't one everybody thinks is correct...it is somewhat arbitrary.....and can become an entire debate on it's own).
4. The alternatives certainly are not discussed.

So when someone touts it as keeping people out of poverty, I find that meaningless. My response is no more meaningful.....

Your good news isn't so good to me. My bad news is just as meaningless. It's what we do in America.

BTW: While I totally understand the basis for Social Security when it was established.....poor houses were a very very tiny thing in reality....but they made great propaganda.

If there were no social security, the welfare rolls would be far larger today. Some people would have saved for retirement but as before social security, millions would spend their money on their family, providing a better home, or just spending more on themselves. During bad times, they would exhaust their saving, never to be replaced. When these people were no longer able to keep up will younger workers because of old age or health problems they would be shown the door to live with their kids or joint the ranks of the destitute. It is far better for society that government mandate retirement savings than having to pick up all the cost of supporting millions who didn't set aside funds for retirement.

Which is why we still need forced savings, but giving the people an option on their retirement investment. That takes it out of the hands of our federal government and frees us from their dependency.

It's like our IRA at work. If I got fired tomorrow, my employer has no access to it. All his and my contributions are sent to an investment company and they handle everything from there. The people who were promised a pension plan by the company got screwed when their company ran into financial troubles and screwed the workers to get the money. They ended up with nothing.

 

[Flopper]

Oh, you're making excuses. The poverty rate among the elderly has dropped drastically due to social security. But please don't go changing your views on SS, it's one of many things that makes the far right unpopular.

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Social Security....at the time.....was probably one of the better options available to the government trying to deal with a society in transition.

The sad thing is that it really never did much for the elderly who had made super low incomes (relative to what it paid to people who made more money). In that sense it was something of retirement program.

But, while I don't like it, the fact is that the elderly were being marginalized as the country was going through the I.R. and G.D. The unemployment rate was over 50%. But it should not have been a permanent thing.

Politicians have so screwed it up and put so many people on the rolls that were not supposed to be there...that they are going to screw it up for the people who need it the most.

I am not a fan either and wish I had that money back too.

But, I can see why it was done at the time.

The one bad thing (I shouldn't say just one) about social programs is once they're in place, it's impossible to get rid of them. I call this my raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can. So you go in the house and get that nice meaty hambone you were going to throw away at the end of the week. The animal dines in delight. Now give it a few seconds and try to take that hambone back and see what happens.

This is exactly how government handouts work. Once you give it to people, they believe it rightfully belongs to them no matter who provided it. And politicians from both sides are afraid of getting their hand chewed off in an attempt to take it away.

What started off as benevolence turned into over 80 federal welfare programs in less than a century, and the Democrats only want to see more.

Now that we see the problems these programs are causing, it's certainly a good enough reason to never support a candidate or party that wants more of them.

Contrary to popular opinion, social security benefits do not contain any government handouts. All of the funds in the Social Security Trust fund come from three sources, contributions from employees, employers, and interest earned on treasury bills. The fund balance as on 12/31/2017 was 2.8 trillion dollars. In 2017 the fund grew by 44.1 million. The fund has increased in value 49 of the last 60 years. The 11 years the fund decreased in value was due to contributions and interest earned falling below benefits paid. These were all during periods of economic slowdown. The last time this occurred was 1981.

During these times the treasury redeemed the treasury bills owned by the fund sufficient to cover the shortfall. These transfers were assets of the fund and at no time did the treasury transfer taxpayers funds to the Social Security Trust Fund.
Trust Fund Data

There are no funds in the Social Security Trust Fund. There's only a file drawer full of worthless I.O.U.s

The fact that the government records the special issue treasury bills issued to the fund as a liability and the Fund records them as an asset should be proof to any reasonable person that they are not worthless. You do not record worthless items as assets and loans with no obligation to pay as liabilities.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

The solution is to allow each person to have a personal account with his own personal funds. Of course, the swamp crocodiles are firmly against that because it would remove them from having control.

You can do that right now, anyone can.

Yes they can, but we would be way ahead of the game if we had all that SS money under our control instead of the government.

 

[francoHFW]

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

The solution is to allow each person to have a personal account with his own personal funds. Of course, the swamp crocodiles are firmly against that because it would remove them from having control.

You can do that right now, anyone can.

Yes they can, but we would be way ahead of the game if we had all that SS money under our control instead of the government.

Until the GOP has another corrupt bubble bust meltdown and you lose all your money just like 2008 and 1929-which is why we have social security and not 65% poverty among the elderly. But thanks for the offer super duper dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

The fact that IKEA put it on their roof proves nothing. You have no idea how much the spent or how much power it produces. It could be a big money loser, for all you know.

The fact that IKEA has it on their roof and you don't proves IKEA is smart.

I'm pretty sure they did the math before throwing it up on the roof, it's not like it's a god damned mystery or anything.

For all I know, it's a money saver for me.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

Social Security is bad news.

That fact that it keeps them out of poverty tells us very little about the rest.

It's bad news but yet you haven't posted and when I post good news about SS you completely disregard it. Makes total sense.

It's an argument that requires a great many definitions.

1. What is "good" news.
2. What is "bad" news.
3. What is poverty (which I realize has a specific defintion...but isn't one everybody thinks is correct...it is somewhat arbitrary.....and can become an entire debate on it's own).
4. The alternatives certainly are not discussed.

So when someone touts it as keeping people out of poverty, I find that meaningless. My response is no more meaningful.....

Your good news isn't so good to me. My bad news is just as meaningless. It's what we do in America.

BTW: While I totally understand the basis for Social Security when it was established.....poor houses were a very very tiny thing in reality....but they made great propaganda.

If there were no social security, the welfare rolls would be far larger today. Some people would have saved for retirement but as before social security, millions would spend their money on their family, providing a better home, or just spending more on themselves. During bad times, they would exhaust their saving, never to be replaced. When these people were no longer able to keep up will younger workers because of old age or health problems they would be shown the door to live with their kids or joint the ranks of the destitute. It is far better for society that government mandate retirement savings than having to pick up all the cost of supporting millions who didn't set aside funds for retirement.

Which is why we still need forced savings, but giving the people an option on their retirement investment. That takes it out of the hands of our federal government and frees us from their dependency.

It's like our IRA at work. If I got fired tomorrow, my employer has no access to it. All his and my contributions are sent to an investment company and they handle everything from there. The people who were promised a pension plan by the company got screwed when their company ran into financial troubles and screwed the workers to get the money. They ended up with nothing.

A horrific corporate right the GOP protects with its life...Hello?!?!

 

[HappyJoy]

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

The solution is to allow each person to have a personal account with his own personal funds. Of course, the swamp crocodiles are firmly against that because it would remove them from having control.

You can do that right now, anyone can.

Yes they can, but we would be way ahead of the game if we had all that SS money under our control instead of the government.

Not really, you could end up retiring right before a great recession hits, maybe you invested in the wrong crypto currency, perhaps your brother in law convinced you that Block Buster Video was making a come back. The point is SS is supposed to be low risk, guaranteed, that's the whole point of it. Blow your IRA up if you want.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

The solution is to allow each person to have a personal account with his own personal funds. Of course, the swamp crocodiles are firmly against that because it would remove them from having control.

You can do that right now, anyone can.

Yes they can, but we would be way ahead of the game if we had all that SS money under our control instead of the government.

Until the GOP has another corrupt bubble bust meltdown and you lose all your money just like 2008 and 1929-which is why we have social security and not 65% poverty among the elderly. But thanks for the offer super duper dupe.

You lost all your money in 2008? You must have held some bad investments.
Can you list your worst 3?

 

[francoHFW]

And the GOP doop gets absolutely crushed again... And here are the true GOP tax rates that are killing the non-rich and the country... BEFORE THE TRUMP GIVEAWAY 2 THE RICH.

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the GOP doop gets absolutely crushed again... And here are the true GOP tax rates that are killing the non-rich and the country... BEFORE THE TRUMP GIVEAWAY 2 THE RICH.

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

Looks like those liberal states are really taxes them poor folks...….bastards!

 

[francoHFW]

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

The solution is to allow each person to have a personal account with his own personal funds. Of course, the swamp crocodiles are firmly against that because it would remove them from having control.

You can do that right now, anyone can.

Yes they can, but we would be way ahead of the game if we had all that SS money under our control instead of the government.

Until the GOP has another corrupt bubble bust meltdown and you lose all your money just like 2008 and 1929-which is why we have social security and not 65% poverty among the elderly. But thanks for the offer super duper dupe.

You lost all your money in 2008? You must have held some bad investments.
Can you list your worst 3?

Typical doop who can't see past the end of their nose. No I did not lose anything. I have social security retirement thank you very much...

 

[francoHFW]

And the GOP doop gets absolutely crushed again... And here are the true GOP tax rates that are killing the non-rich and the country... BEFORE THE TRUMP GIVEAWAY 2 THE RICH.

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

Looks like those liberal states are really taxes them poor folks...….bastards!

Your ability to miss the point is truly amazing. Trust an accountant to be totally short-sighted...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The solution is to allow each person to have a personal account with his own personal funds. Of course, the swamp crocodiles are firmly against that because it would remove them from having control.

You can do that right now, anyone can.

Yes they can, but we would be way ahead of the game if we had all that SS money under our control instead of the government.

Until the GOP has another corrupt bubble bust meltdown and you lose all your money just like 2008 and 1929-which is why we have social security and not 65% poverty among the elderly. But thanks for the offer super duper dupe.

You lost all your money in 2008? You must have held some bad investments.
Can you list your worst 3?

Typical doop who can't see past the end of their nose. No I did not lose anything. I have social security retirement thank you very much...

If you have no investments and didn't lose anything, why are you posting your whiney ignorance here?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the GOP doop gets absolutely crushed again... And here are the true GOP tax rates that are killing the non-rich and the country... BEFORE THE TRUMP GIVEAWAY 2 THE RICH.

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

Looks like those liberal states are really taxes them poor folks...….bastards!

Your ability to miss the point is truly amazing. Trust an accountant to be totally short-sighted...

Why does liberal overtaxing of the poor make me short-sighted?

 

[bripat9643]

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Social Security....at the time.....was probably one of the better options available to the government trying to deal with a society in transition.

The sad thing is that it really never did much for the elderly who had made super low incomes (relative to what it paid to people who made more money). In that sense it was something of retirement program.

But, while I don't like it, the fact is that the elderly were being marginalized as the country was going through the I.R. and G.D. The unemployment rate was over 50%. But it should not have been a permanent thing.

Politicians have so screwed it up and put so many people on the rolls that were not supposed to be there...that they are going to screw it up for the people who need it the most.

I am not a fan either and wish I had that money back too.

But, I can see why it was done at the time.

The one bad thing (I shouldn't say just one) about social programs is once they're in place, it's impossible to get rid of them. I call this my raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can. So you go in the house and get that nice meaty hambone you were going to throw away at the end of the week. The animal dines in delight. Now give it a few seconds and try to take that hambone back and see what happens.

This is exactly how government handouts work. Once you give it to people, they believe it rightfully belongs to them no matter who provided it. And politicians from both sides are afraid of getting their hand chewed off in an attempt to take it away.

What started off as benevolence turned into over 80 federal welfare programs in less than a century, and the Democrats only want to see more.

Now that we see the problems these programs are causing, it's certainly a good enough reason to never support a candidate or party that wants more of them.

Contrary to popular opinion, social security benefits do not contain any government handouts. All of the funds in the Social Security Trust fund come from three sources, contributions from employees, employers, and interest earned on treasury bills. The fund balance as on 12/31/2017 was 2.8 trillion dollars. In 2017 the fund grew by 44.1 million. The fund has increased in value 49 of the last 60 years. The 11 years the fund decreased in value was due to contributions and interest earned falling below benefits paid. These were all during periods of economic slowdown. The last time this occurred was 1981.

During these times the treasury redeemed the treasury bills owned by the fund sufficient to cover the shortfall. These transfers were assets of the fund and at no time did the treasury transfer taxpayers funds to the Social Security Trust Fund.
Trust Fund Data

There are no funds in the Social Security Trust Fund. There's only a file drawer full of worthless I.O.U.s

The fact that the government records the special issue treasury bills issued to the fund as a liability and the Fund records them as an asset should be proof to any reasonable person that they are not worthless. You do not record worthless items as assets and loans with no obligation to pay as liabilities.

Private companies don't do that. The government does. Government is a criminal gang. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.