[Big Mac]

Will 2008 be an infamous year in which Stagflation returns? It looks like it to me right now, so don't be surprised when you start hearing it from commentators in the coming months. GDP is still growing right now, but with the credit crunch, declining home values, the declining dollar and record energy prices I think we're in danger of seeing economic stagnation and inflation - stagflation. The first time we saw it was under Carter, and it took huge interest rate hikes to combat it.

[RAILhead]

It will be as the lemmings wish it to be.

[Cold Warrior]

They could always cut my FICA taxes and lower my property taxes (currently $4500/yr). That's $10,000 more a year I'd have to invest in purchases or investments. The government just pisses it away on failing schools, overpriced and inefficient infrastructure, and a supplemental retirement cradle (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) that won't exist for me in 30 years.

We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

[Big Mac]

Cut FICA? They're going to raise it. I had to crack up when Barka Yomomma said that all the Democratic candidates believe Social Security is a fiscally sound program.

[Cold Warrior]

I know. And that makes it all the more frustrating, because I'll still be throwing money into a worthless system. I'd be willing to support a small increase if I could direct it into a 401k/Roth IRA account that's untouchable before a certain age. After all, FICA is just mandatory retirement deductions, held in trust by the government, with piss-poor growth.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Cut FICA? They're going to raise it. I had to crack up when Barka Yomomma said that all the Democratic candidates believe Social Security is a fiscally sound program.

It was a fiscally sound program until Ronald Raygun lowered taxes, and then raided SS to cover the resultant shortfalls. It is also one of the most efficient government programs ever, with 3.5% administrative costs. Of course, if you'd rather hand over huge fees to investment bankers to possibly get any return on your investment, they'd no doubt be glad to take your money, as they know damn well how gullible lots of people are.

[Cold Warrior]

a sound and balanced portfolio over 20-30 years will yield far better gains than SS.

And 3.5% is ridiculous. Any mutual fund or 401k with that kind of drain on return would be laughed out of existence.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It was a fiscally sound program until Ronald Raygun lowered taxes, and then raided SS to cover the resultant shortfalls. It is also one of the most efficient government programs ever, with 3.5% administrative costs. Of course, if you'd rather hand over huge fees to investment bankers to possibly get any return on your investment, they'd no doubt be glad to take your money, as they know damn well how gullible lots of people are.

Wow. Just wow.
I don't think I've ever actually met anyone that really thought relying on SS was a better idea than an actual investment account. Simply amazing.

[thunderous_funker]

SS was never meant to be a full pension. It was a safety net. But as private pensions starting going the way of the Dodo, it kept getting expanded.

And despite all that abuse, it HAS been a miraculously successful program. Social Security and the G.I. Bill are the most successful social programs ever devised in the country and are the backbone of America's vaunted middle-class. Well, middle-class of previous generations at least.

Now the program has been looted and plundered and the same crooks who stole it are now telling us it doesn't work (and even trying to make us forget that it ever worked at all).

Revisionist history gets easier and easier with the MTV generation, I swear.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker 

Now the program has been looted and plundered and the same crooks who stole it are now telling us it doesn't work (and even trying to make us forget that it ever worked at all).

Wait, so it works sooooooooooooooooooooooo amazingly well that it was looted and plundered and rendered non-working by "crooks" and "idiots" (those we have to replace with those mythical non-idiots who'll get things done, as mentioned in the other thread).

So, I guess if we can juuuuuuust get it back to the "good ol' days" when it worked.... a future gang of crooks and idiots can loot and plunder it again as they see fit, with absolutely no consequences other than all of us going, "Gee, gosh shucks, that's too bad!"

Hot damn! What a miraculous success story! I'm convinced! Where do I sign up to have these crooks and idiots given full control over my health and financial future? SIGN ME UP!

[gumby5647]

God I'm glad I don't pay into Social Security.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by gumby5647 

God I'm glad I don't pay into Social Security.

How do you avoid that?

[HackManDan]

Government employees don't pay into SS, cause we have our own pension system, at least that's the case in CA.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by HackManDan 

Government employees don't pay into SS, cause we have our own pension system, at least that's the case in CA.

I don't know about that. SS is part of the FICA taxes, which are 12.5% of wages, and come as a payroll deduction. It's money you never get, and should be done everywhere in the US. Do your payroll receipts list FICA?

[HackManDan]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior
I don't know about that. SS is part of the FICA taxes, which are 12.5% of wages, and come as a payroll deduction. It's money you never get, and should be done everywhere in the US. Do your payroll receipts list FICA?

California government employees (state/local) do not pay that 12.5% FICA tax. My HR rep told me that we are exempt because we pay 7-8% of our pay in our pension system, CalPERS (or another city/county pension program). Its a pretty sweet deal since government employees retire at 2.5-3% @ 55 (the minimum retirement age), meaning that if I work for 30 years, I get 2.5% of my salary for every one of those years when I retire, hence 30 x 2.5% = 75% of my ending salary. So if I made $100,000 my last year of work, I would get $75,000 in pension every year till I die, plus medial benefits.

The retirement percentage (2.5-3%) is determined by labor contract, with law enforcement employees usually the only ones getting 3%.

Additionally, some labor contracts between cities and unions specify that the employee contribution be paid by the city.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Wow. Just wow.
I don't think I've ever actually met anyone that really thought relying on SS was a better idea than an actual investment account. Simply amazing.

Did I say anywhere that relying on SS was better than an actual investment? I didn't think so.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It was a fiscally sound program until Ronald Raygun lowered taxes, and then raided SS to cover the resultant shortfalls. It is also one of the most efficient government programs ever, with 3.5% administrative costs. Of course, if you'd rather hand over huge fees to investment bankers to possibly get any return on your investment, they'd no doubt be glad to take your money, as they know damn well how gullible lots of people are.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Did I say anywhere that relying on SS was better than an actual investment? I didn't think so.

You implied as much.

Care to elaborate?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Did I say anywhere that relying on SS was better than an actual investment? I didn't think so.

As CW pointed out, it sure seemed that's what you were saying. Or perhaps you were just setting up a silly hypothetical just to find something that's a worse idea than SS.

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So, I guess if we can juuuuuuust get it back to the "good ol' days" when it worked.... a future gang of crooks and idiots can loot and plunder it again as they see fit, with absolutely no consequences other than all of us going, "Gee, gosh shucks, that's too bad!"

You say all this, and then you support blowing up trillions in Iraq. Where do you think that money is coming from? I agree with you, that I don't want gangs of crooks and idiots taking my money for "retirement" and actually spending it on wars on imaginary threats. But you?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Cut FICA? They're going to raise it. I had to crack up when Barka Yomomma said that all the Democratic candidates believe Social Security is a fiscally sound program.

What cracks me up about this is when the Republicans were fighting for lowering taxes during the Clinton Administration, the mantra was "Save Social Security First"! Funny how things change contingent upon whether there's an (R) or (D) after the name.

[gumby5647]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

How do you avoid that?

Railroad Retirement Board

Railroad Retirement Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What cracks me up about this is when the Republicans were fighting for lowering taxes during the Clinton Administration, the mantra was "Save Social Security First"! Funny how things change contingent upon whether there's an (R) or (D) after the name.

The Republicans, and especially the incumbents who are fearful of the despicable lobbies like the AARP, are almost* as bad as the Democrats when it comes to real reform of our federal pyramid schemes. They don't want to piss off seniors, so unless the next president pushes the issue they will simply stick their heads in the sand along with the Dems and await the immense and unprecedented fiscal crisis that will assuredly hit us in the next decade without dramatic reforms.

*almost but not just as bad because at least many Republicans support means testing.

And as for Iraq versus our pyramid schemes, everyone thought Iraq was a threat, and the president was given bipartisan authority to go to war over it. We won't see the full fruits of our labors in Iraq for a while to come (even now things have settled down considerably), but eliminating a state supporter of international terrorism was a wonderful thing; killing terrorist fiends every day in Iraq is a wonderful thing. It's just unfortunate that we couldn't have done it in a cheaper way (in terms of American lives and money). I guess we could have pulled out immediately after ousting Saddam thus plunging the country into full civil war, or we could have just bombed the country into oblivion, but. . .

[peeb]

1. You are not using the term 'pyramid scheme' in the same way as the rest of the world. As has been pointed out, social security and other federal systems are among the most efficient anywhere - far more so than their private counterparts.
2. 'Everyone' (actually, not everyone) thought Iraq was a threat because Bush et al lied to them.
3. We could have, oh, you know, focused on real threats, not invaded random countries for no reason.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by peeb 

2. 'Everyone' (actually, not everyone) thought Iraq was a threat because Bush et al lied to them.

No, just the gullible. More intelligent people saw it coming a mile away and were telling people from day 1 that it was a load of horse crap.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by peeb 

1. You are not using the term 'pyramid scheme' in the same way as the rest of the world. As has been pointed out, social security and other federal systems are among the most efficient anywhere - far more so than their private counterparts.

Okay, you've made that claim, now back it up. Where are the private systems and how do you know they're inferior? I doubt you can find anyone in the U.S. who enjoys their own separately funded government pension plan would want to switch. And how do you know the entitlement programs are so efficient? I truly beg to differ. Btw, a pyramid scheme is set up so that early members get payments from those who are signed up later; eventually the system runs out of money because the people on the bottom have no one to feed off of. That's how our entitlement programs work, so they are pyramid schemes. The problem is compounded by the fact that the money contributed goes into the general fund of the federal government so that whatever is left gets spent by Congress, as well as by the fact that the Dems have resisted means testing so that the wealthy draw from a system originally intended for the poor. Even though entitlement lovers like the status quo, the systems truly suck and are going to fail without considerable, politically unpopular alterations.

2. 'Everyone' (actually, not everyone) thought Iraq was a threat because Bush et al lied to them.

Sure, proved he lied. The Dems saw the same intelligence and overwhelmingly came to the same conclusion.

3. We could have, oh, you know, focused on real threats, not invaded random countries for no reason.

I guess you don't consider a state supporter of international terrorism a real threat. Good for you.