Retirement Turns Into a Rest Stop

[bow-tie]

I wholeheartedly agree with Martha, B.Smith, and those who believe some type of social safety should exist to help those who caught a bum-deal from life. *A healthy population is a productive population...


I also, however, wholeheartedly believe in Peggy's point:

Quote:

Martha_M said: And you are free to give to organizations that support your vision, just as I am free to give to organizations that support mine...

Personally, taxes make me irate. *I understand the importance a centralized unit, such as our govt, plays a role in supporting our common good, i.e. our military/defense, 'promoting general welfare', etc etc. *Such things seem sensible to me since they benefit everyone. *What I cannot stand, is sending a greater proportion of my income to some pol who wants to pamper his constituents with pork barrel spending. *I wish the $$s available to the government were fewer. *

I believe a smaller budget would allow greater accountability. *I wish that was as easy in practice as it was in theory. * I'll go down with guns-a-blazin' for the right to give for the greater good when all benefit, but I also want direct where MY $$s go to help promote my local firefighters, *peace officers, food bank. *Instead of taking 30% of my $$, take 10% for the common good, and I'll direct the remaining 20%, or whatever it works out to be, to the causes I believe in...

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

Life is unfair.

The government is screwed up.

Neither of the above will change. Ever.

Deal with it.

JG

[charlie]

laurencewill,

I don't think we are too far apart in our political
viewpoint. I have posted before that raising the
SS cap somewhat and indexing it to wage growth
would be fair. But, I submit that somebody like
Gates, who is contributing many millions to charity
and paying the salaries of all those $100k software
developers should have the right to determine how
his charitable contributions should be spent .... not
taxed away by the Gov. If you want to raise the
max tax bracket then fight the battle there .... not
on the FICA tax cap. The other point I would like
to make is that most of the job growth is provided
by small employers who make only a little more
than some they employ ..... raising the cap on them
would be a powerful disincentive, IMHO.

Cheers,

Charlie

[laurence]

Charlie,

I think you are right, not much to argue with on your points. Personally I sing Mr. Gates praises every time the subject comes up. Entrepenours are the backbone of our economy. I definitely feel we should avoid disincentives to their innovation. But as an aside, isn't most of his income non-payroll? A raising of the SS tax would be less than a blip on his radar screen. As far as small business owners go, I don't know how they see their income, but I was under the impression that unless they incorporate and give themselves a salaried position, they too can avoid most of this. I definitely don't know, I believe John Galt can speak to this with much more expertise than I. The reality is our best bet is to stay informed on circumstances, no matter how unfair they are, and use that knowledge to our advantage. Ah well, 14 years, six months from now I can ponder this all day if I want.....or not.

[charlie]

Laurancewill,

I don't know about other small business owners
but as a sole proprietor, I have to pay SS tax on
the net profits of my business. Most years my one
employee takes home more than I do.

Cheers,

Charlie

[charlie]

P.S. I forgot to add that I have to pay both the
employer's share and the employee's share
on the net profits ...... double tax.

Cheers,

Charlie

[JWV]

I would like to know if those who believe there should be not "safety net" have ever seen a hospital bill for a couple of inpatient surgeries and then outpatient chemo +/or radiation? It'll make you drop your teeth. Now, have you read your entire healthcare policy clause by clause, benefit by benefit so that you know exactly what's covered and at what facility, drug store, imaging center? Then have you put enough aside to cover all contingencies incase you get something not covered by your insurance or need treatment not covered or you go over your limit?

The interesting fact with cancer is the longer we live the more each of our chances of getting it increases. Maybe the answer is to just put old folks out on an ice flow or leave them in the woods with no food and water. It would really decrease the cost of healthcare for all of us-JG, which method do you prefer? You keep saying you're getting up in years and your healthcare problems are increasing.

Judy
And thanks Peggy for bringing out the best this board has to offer: Mikey, Martha, BobSmith, Farmer Ed, CT would be here but he's vacationing, I think.

I'd go with the "ice floes"

JG

[JWV]

Thanks for the sp correction, I hate it when I do that.

Have a nice journey to the afterlife.

Judy

[Hyperborea]

Quote:

I am beginning to see why people say there is no point to these sorts of arguments on message boards. *

Yup, it does become tiresome after a while. *There seems to be a large number of people who got a boost up in life and support to help them "make it" who now that they're "there" want to stop the funding of all those programs. *They got the benefit from those programs and now they want to close the door behind them. *Only thing they want more of is prisons and police to keep the riff-raff from taking "their" stuff or dying on the street in front of their house.

Plenty of them claim to be "religious" too but that doesn't appear to make any difference in caring for their fellow man despite all the rhetoric and stories in their book. *I think it just means that they have a social club to go to on Sunday to score more business connections.

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Yup, it does become tiresome after a while. *There seems to be a large number of people who got a boost up in life and support to help them "make it" who now that they're "there" want to stop the funding of all those programs. *They got the benefit from those programs and now they want to close the door behind them. *Only thing they want more of is prisons and police to keep the riff-raff from taking "their" stuff or dying on the street in front of their house. Plenty of them claim to be "religious" too but that doesn't appear to make any difference in caring for their fellow man despite all the rhetoric and stories in their book. *I think it just means that they have a social club to go to on Sunday to score more business connections.

I like to read posts by Martha and Bob Smith and Cutthroat and mikey and . . . But I really get uplifted by a good Hyper post with teethe in it.

Everyone is entilted to discuss their opinion of the subject, without rancor, I hope. Let's all try to refrain from slaimming other's perceived personal short-comings and continue to just address the issues brought up.

[newellcr]

Hello Folks,

JVW seemed to see a post where someone mentioned not having a safety net. I must have missed that one. The discussion by the rest of us has been about the degree of safety net as far as I can tell.

Just to review :P - In spite of the arguing, there seems to be a lot of agreeing about a safety net other than on the who should pay for it part of the equation. The folks deemed correct by the peanut gallery seem to prefer having government taxes fund a bigger safety net. The wrong, evil, and somehow unknowing folks suggest that society has the capability to fund a bigger safety net through charity organizations. The correct folks think that a bigger safety net would be expensive and therefore needs to be funded by the government (because that's how government promotes the general welfare) and that the rich can shoulder the burden because they are, well, rich after all. Hyper delivers a(nother) searing evaluation of the religious hypocritical right (is this a double redundant statement in your eyes Hyper?) that ignores his howling about paying taxes on future earnings based on employment as an alien in the society. And John gets an "A" in spelling...

I now return you to your regularly scheduled rants.

Kind Regards,

Chris

PS. Guest shows up before I can hit the post button. Guest, you seem to have some sense. Would you please register and invest your calm character into this board?

Thanks.

[nfs]

Quote:

In any event, I believe in basic health care for all and social security because I just believe it is the right thing to do.

I'm a Canadian who returned to Canada after about 15 years in the US.

Our health care system is wobbly at best when it comes to how to pay. So is yours in the US. The problems look different but, in the end, it all boils down to rationing a valuable service. The US rations by $, leaving those without $ without service as well. But Canada rations by $ too, because the $ available cannot treat everyone immediately. On both sides of the border, people die or are miserable because the $ available are finite and the demand unlimited.

Having lived in both systems, I assure you that there are warts in both. In the end, it's a political choice.

Let me end with an explicit riposte to Martha's words quoted above. I take your statement that "basic health care for all" is "the right thing to do" as an indication that you believe that society, through the government, has an obligation to provide what you consider a basic necessity.

If that is so, then I must point out that food is a much more important basic necessity than any medical procedure or product you can name. Why aren't you agitating for a federal program to ensure that everyone is well fed?

[Hyperborea]

Quote:

Hyper delivers a(nother) searing evaluation of the religious hypocritical right (is this a double redundant statement in your eyes Hyper?)

So far anyways. *I've yet to meet any that aren't either live or on the 'net. *I'll let you know if I do but I wouldn't suggest holding your breath.

Quote:

that ignores his howling about paying taxes on future earnings based on employment as an alien in the society.

No "howling" on paying taxes on the earning I make in the US. *I pay a sizable amount in taxes (including a large amount to fund Georgie's adventures) - taxation without representation - and I don't "howl". *I do object ("howling" if you will) to the idea that I will become a "possession" of the US government just by staying a certain amount of time. *I will be gone before that happens.

Now, if I was motivated by "pure greed" as some seem to be then I would be all for cutting every social program and lowering taxes (perhaps even a "flat" tax that would cut my tax load in half or more). *It would certainly bring me the most benefit and I would be gone long before the repercussions to society occur. *Why do some who plan on living in the US long term want to turn it into Somalia - little to no government oversight and little to no social safety nets?

[Martha]

Quote:

Let me end with an explicit riposte to Martha's words quoted above. I take your statement that "basic health care for all" is "the right thing to do" as an indication that you believe that society, through the government, has an obligation to provide what you consider a basic necessity. If that is so, then I must point out that food is a much more important basic necessity than any medical procedure or product you can name. Why aren't you agitating for a federal program to ensure that everyone is well fed?

I do. I support food stamp programs. And I supported AFDC and general assistance when they existed. I know many disagree with me. And as you say, it is a political choice.

Martha

[laurence]

Wow, the accusations on this board are way out of control! The reactions are way out of proportion to what was originally stated! At this point I'm to understand that because I go to church on Sunday and donate thousands of dollars a year voluntarily that I'm a "right wing religous hypocrite" motivated by "pure greed" and I want all poor people put in concentration camps to await their turn in the "showers". Geez! I was educated in public schools, including college, and now that I have a good job I pay my taxes happily knowing I'm helping the next generation get their "leg up". I'm just saying this latest SS plan is bad government, that eventually this Ponzi scheme will collapse, that we have to be smarter with our tax dollars. But I keep hearing back, "Your killing Babies! Baby Killer!" uh....let's dial it back some, eh?

[Zipper]

Come home Hyper!

We need you back here, eh!

A couple of more weeks and the snow will be gone.

[Cal]

Quote:

I want all poor people put in concentration camps to await their turn in the "showers". "Your killing Babies! Baby Killer!" uh....let's dial it back some, eh?

Well, you certainly contributed to "dialing it back some".

Quote:

this Ponzi scheme will collapse

There are many "tweaks" that can be made to prevent any foreseeable "collapse" without dismantling the program.

Charities can choose who they give their resources to - and they may not be blind to someone's age, race, ethnicity or religion. When economic times get bad - just when assistance in needed most - charity giving goes down. Charities can't run in deficits.

[laurence]

Sure there are tweaks that can avert problems, but this new private account plan isn't one of them! That's all I'm saying. In fact I stated what tweaks I support earlier in this thread. Well, judging from all the miscommunication, bashing, etc. etc. going on in just this thread among a subset of the population that is probably wealthier, more educated, and laid back than the average, it's easy to see how so little gets done in Whashington....