So Joe... what is the "fair share"???

[Orangecat]

yup
Therefore not making it a PonzI Scheme
A Ponzi scheme is designed to generate revenue quickly and then bail before the pyramid collapses

SS been working for 80 years

You're not intelligent enough to hold an adult conversation. Enjoy your bliss, kid.

 

[rightwinger]

You're not intelligent enough to hold an adult conversation. Enjoy your bliss, kid.

The Courts have sided with me on the legality of SS Skippy

 

[rightwinger]

SS will soon be paying out more than it takes in. Yet another textbook definition of a ponzi scheme, Dumbass.

SS needs a minor adjustment to maintain solvency
Been done many times before

 

[Orangecat]

The Courts have sided with me on the legality of SS Skippy

I never contended the courts ruled agaist SS, imbecile.

 

[Oddball]

yup
Therefore not making it a PonzI Scheme
A Ponzi scheme is designed to generate revenue quickly and then bail before the pyramid collapses

SS been working for 80 years

Because it's maintained at the point of a gun, dullard.

Nobody with any economic sense would "invest" is a pension plan that has such a shitty ROI as Socialist Insecurity.

 

[Nostra]

SS needs a minor adjustment to maintain solvency
Been done many times before

So? Still a ponzi scheme, Dumbass.

 

[MarcATL]

Those on the left believe that you can make one person rich by making another person poor...

Words of a bona fide fool.

 

[BluesLegend]

Im not saying the top 10% dont. I know they do. The point is to the narrative that we at one time had tax rates that were in the 70% or higher stratus might be true but it's a moot point because no one paid them. You could make a tax bracket with a rate of 100% but if no one is in that bracket it's meaningless.

What the progressives always seem to miss is that if you make the taxes high enough people will just stop making the money, or pass that cost down the line to a consumer. 30% of 100 is more than 90% of 0.

Nobody ever paid even close to those 70% rates that's another big fat whopper LIE! Faced with government seizing 70% of every dollar they might earn the wealthy said **** it, it's not worth the risk. So they parked their money in investments, tax free bonds that shielded them from the 70% rate.

That created stagnation. If the wealthy are not using their money to take risks, start new businesses and create jobs then the poor and middle class suffer. So the rate was lowered to encourage the wealthy to pull that money back out into play, take risks, create or expand businesses thus creating more jobs and lifting up all the classes.

Don't let these lying SOB politicians fool you. If the mooching deadbeat government jacks up the rates on the wealthy they will flee to safety to protect their wealth, they are not idiots. I guess the poor and middle class can celebrate in the unemployment and welfare lines.

 

[rightwinger]

I never contended the courts ruled agaist SS, imbecile.

Therefore it is no Ponzi Scheme

 

[rightwinger]

So? Still a ponzi scheme, Dumbass.

Evidently not, Skippy

 

[bripat9643]

yup
Therefore not making it a PonzI Scheme
A Ponzi scheme is designed to generate revenue quickly and then bail before the pyramid collapses

SS been working for 80 years

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[rightwinger]

Who do you think you're fooling?

Your claim Skippy
Burden of proof is on you

 

[Couchpotato]

yup
Therefore not making it a PonzI Scheme
A Ponzi scheme is designed to generate revenue quickly and then bail before the pyramid collapses

SS been working for 80 years

Yeah because of Government compulsion. SS would collapse without that compulsion. Why else would SS be unable to continue to pay benefits past a certain date? SS is definitely a Ponzi scheme it works because the new "investors" don't have a choice but to contribute. Is it your contention that if the Government stopped collecting SS taxes that they would be able to fund SS for the people who are due SS with the money currently in the fund? Yeah that' what I thought...... Give Madoff the power of the Government and he would still be making money......

 

[Couchpotato]

Your claim Skippy
Burden of proof is on you

"A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒnzi/, Italian: [ˈpontsi]) is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.[1] The scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from legitimate business activity (e.g., product sales or successful investments), and they remain unaware that other investors are the source of funds. A Ponzi scheme can maintain the illusion of a sustainable business as long as new investors contribute new funds, and as long as most of the investors do not demand full repayment and still believe in the non-existent assets they are purported to own."

Minus anyone believing that SS is a legitimate business generating profits SS is the literal definition of a Ponzi Scheme. The Gov just has the advantage of being able to force people to "invest", cut "profit payments" however and whenever they want, and no one can ever demand full payment of their investment. So they just improved on the fraud. Congrats.

 

[Nostra]

Evidently not, Skippy

Dude, you have been provided The textbook definition of ponzi scheme. SS fits perfectly.

You have been provided a link to experts explaining exactly how SS is a ponzi scheme.

All you have is “nuh -uh”.

This is why you are the board joke.

 

[Couchpotato]

There is no way a Bank can continue to gives loans without new money coming in from deposits.

Therefore, by your reasoning, Banks are just a Huge Ponzi Scheme.

My goodness dude.
Think before you type.

Wow. You actually think that's how loans work dont you......

 

[rightwinger]

Dude, you have been provided The textbook definition of ponzi scheme. SS fits perfectly.

You have been provided a link to experts explaining exactly how SS is a ponzi scheme.

All you have is “nuh -uh”.

This is why you are the board joke.

Burden of proof is on you Skippy
Repeating the same misinformation isn’t proof

”Experts” that are unable to prove their bizarre claims in courts are not experts

 

[jc456]

has fair share been defined?

I wonder, is fair share no share?

 

[Nostra]

Burden of proof is on you Skippy
Repeating the same misinformation isn’t proof

”Experts” that are unable to prove their bizarre claims in courts are not experts

Already proven by multiple posters.

You still have “Nuh-uh”

 

[jc456]

Letting people keep more of their money is not a shift of wealth from anyone to anyone.

If someone has zero, how do they shift nothing? Demofks, I mean huh?