 |
My taxes support them, plus my taxes support schools and libraries too.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I saved money for my retirement. I hope you are saving too.Quote:
SS and Medicare are insurance policies I'm paying for which big government is squandering. I would much rather have been able to decide where my money went towards my retirement.
That doesn't make them part of a socialist economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
So I should just kiss my SS and Medicare goodbye? I paid for it.Quote:
I saved money for my retirement. I hope you are saving too.
If all of us pay into the pot for something, that's socialist.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I get SS and Medicare AND have a nest egg that I have saved up over the years to dip into for all the things SS doesn't cover. You can do that too!Quote:
So I should just kiss my SS and Medicare goodbye? I paid for it.
Socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goodsQuote:
If all of us pay into the pot for something, that's socialist.
Wrong, it's a straw man argument. They are not part of the production and distribution of goods in our economy. The only thing I can even remotely recall our government producing is helium and privatization of that began in 1996 via the Helium Privatization Act of 1996.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That didn't answer my question.Quote:
I get SS and Medicare AND have a nest egg that I have saved up over the years to dip into for all the things SS doesn't cover. You can do that too!
I am the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
This is silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
So Tom socialism is not the provision of services by government?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Our government produces nothing but more dependents.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yes that will be true while you have a growing population and unemployment at high levels, but they cannot change unemployment without putting large numbers on the government payroll, changing unemployment will come when the private sector gains confidence and begins investing. You cannot give people incentives to become employed if there are no jobs, what you could do is give every new signon from the unemployment rolls a one year tax holiday giving them time to get set up again and reducing the wage burden on the employer who may not have to pay higher wagesQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The economy produces dependants when its not working up to full potential. No good paying jobs, no spending, no economy. What you think that Walmart workers, and McDonalds can create enough demand for goods and services to spur a consumer driven economy? Hasn't worked yet, nor has the job creators helped either despite record profits, AND the Bush Tax cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
But you think its okay they get rich because charity needs their donations to take care of all those poor people they helped create by shipping good paying jobs to sweat shop and overseas slave labor.
Now you want to cut your own benefits because the government is lousy and we are broke?! You guys make excuses based on some weird stuff.
No that would be the nanny state .I have no problem with legitimate government services. The local governments can build golden calves for all I care so long as they stay within the law. The Federal government is rightly and intentionally restricted by the ConstitutionQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
No they only want to spend OPM not their own, heaven forbid they might actually get a tax increase. There are ways to fix all this, increase the standard deduction a little and do away with all deductions, no options as to whether you do actual or not, and allow a concession maybe for very large medical expenses. Manipulate the scales so the threshold where you actually pay tax is higher but no one actually pays more tax and introduce a new tax scale for those who earn ,say, more than $1M. Next take all those above a certain income off welfare, SS or any other benefit.
What does this do, it cuts waste by reducing the number and complexity of the tax returns. It cuts waste by not paying benefits to those who don't need it. It also means that the incidence of any increase falls on a small group with large incomes
The term, 'means of production' is pregnant with many possibilities, as is the term 'socialism' . The means of production of a modern society could include some of the things Wondergirl suggests. I think she mentioned such things as schools and the fire department.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
As frustrating as it is Tom,some terms don't fit into neat boxes. Terms such as 'socialism' are next to useless when we try to give them a precise meaning when we try to exemplify particular occurrences.
Tut
Here is the problem I have with not giving SS to those that paid into it. It would be means testing. What your saying is that a person who bought something already loses the right to ownership of it just because they have done well. To me that is not right. It would be like having auto insurance that you have paid on for years and when you have an accident some decides you can afford to pay for it even though you have been paying into it for just such an occasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Wait until you see the great 401-K theft by the government .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
What exactly is the 401-K? I'll assume it has something to do with socialism.
Tut
Here is the Obot's idea of coming together for a common purpose and finding common ground to averting the fiscal cliff .
Yesterday's bid was increase taxes on the high income earners ,to increase revenue by $1.6 trillion ; a massive stimulus INCREASE in spending ,and a unilateral blank check to eliminate the debt ceiling . (presented by Turbo-tax Tim to the Repubics on Capitol Hill)
I suppose they think that was a serious proposal .
Today instead of staying in DC to negotiate with Congressional leaders ,the President is off the Philly to do some more community organizing .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
OK then. But I'm still the none wiser.
Tut
Quite the opposite . It is a pension plan funded by the participant ,sometimes with a matching contribution by an employer. The only govt participation is a deferral of taxes until the participant starts to withdraw funds. It is very popular and allows someone to plan and fund retirement and NOT rely on the minimal amts they will receive from the Social Security system. In many cases ,these accounts have replaced traditional pension plans.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
The problem for the Dems is that they see all this untapped wealth and drool . They have been planning since at least 2006 for the government seizure of 401-K plans .They claim the money would be converted to some kind of government managed accounts that would pay a guaranteed minimal rate of return .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I see. Sounds a bit like the superannuation schemes we have in Australia. We have some type of co-super scheme whereby the Australian government matches your super saving on some type of dollar for dollar basis.
I would venture to say that there are similarities and differences between us and you in terms of government involvement. Anyway, our schemes are going quite well at the moment despite government involvement.
Tut
I think you are misleading them Tut, we have basically two schemes, the employer funded statutory scheme which is funded by offsets to salary increases with a current legislated12% contribution, each employee has a personal account and the private investment schemes consisting of personal contributions, the government co-payment is a very small part of that scheme, but contributions are concessionally taxed at 15%
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Thanks for the clarification.
Venturing to say was a misadventure on my part.
Thanks again for the info. I'll have to talk to my accountant.
Tut
Yes you should do that, the government fiddles around the edges with superannuation often making small changes to the rulesQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Whatever the plan is ;the seizure of private accounts is criminal .If they want to change the rules about the tax advantages fine . But I participate heavily so I can retire without having to rely on the government for my upkeep.
I'll assume all the risks of having my money in the private sector. I don't need the nanny state telling me I'm not competent enough to manage my own account.
I read something about this just yesterday.
Steal my money and promise to give some back? Yeah right.Quote:
Does Government Want To Drain Americans' 401(k) Plan?
Posted 11/28/2012 06:39 PM ET
War On Wealth: As Washington debates what to do about the fiscal cliff that it foolishly created, many potential sources of new revenue will be thrown on the table. One of them is likely to be 401(k) plans.
Retirement is an American's reasonable expectation. We put money into investment plans so that our work today funds our hard-earned leisure of tomorrow.
But many in Washington see our investment accounts not as the expressions of well-planned, disciplined decisions but as untapped reservoirs of wealth they can drain to fix the problems that they caused.
The tax protection that 401(k)s have now can be wiped out by grasping politicians who refuse to do what's right, which is to severely cut spending.
The war on retirement, particularly 401(k)s, is quiet now. But that's because it's a cold war.
And like the postwar tensions between the East and West, it could erupt at any time into a hot war.
One group of retirement plan professionals is warning that the hostilities might be closer than many of us think. The American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries launched on Monday, according to Reuters, "a media campaign intended to educate U.S. employers and workers that the federal government might consider changing the tax benefits of retirement savings accounts."
A website set up by the ASPPA advises account holders to tell lawmakers to "keep their hands off your retirement savings" and explains that "Congress needs to reduce the deficit, and part of deficit reduction will most likely be 'tax reform' that increases tax revenue" — the strong suggestion being that Washington is coming after Americans' 401(k)s.
If the ASPPA were alone in issuing its warnings, it could be written off as the hyperbole of an isolated group. But Washington's lust for Americans' retirement investments is well documented.
President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, for instance, proposed lowering the cap on the amount workers could place in their 401(k)s without incurring taxes.
And nearly three years ago, Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara wrote on these pages about the Treasury and Labor departments "asking for public comment on 'the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams.'"
"In plain English," said Gingrich and Ferrara, "the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years."
More than 60 million American workers have a 401(k) or similar — 403(b) or 457(b) — plan. But taxing these accounts or lowering the amount that can be contributed to them tax-free would do little to close the deficit and cut the debt.
Total assets in 401(k)s are roughly $3 trillion. So even if they were seized in their entirety, they would merely retire less than 19% of Washington's $16.3 trillion debt.
Taxed at 50%, 401(k)s would narrowly cover the $1.3 trillion deficit that Washington rang up in 2012.
Already a large chunk of America's retirement is held in the federal government's hands. Between 1937 and 2009, Social Security took in nearly $14 trillion in payroll tax revenue.
In all but 11 of those years, the government collected more than it spent on benefits.
Yet despite all the surpluses, the Social Security program is in financial trouble and Congress needs more revenue to fix it, just as it is looking for more of other people's money to avoid the fiscal cliff plunge.
Don't think for a minute that 401(k)s aren't on the table as a part of the solution.
And when they are served up in front of hungry politicians, they can be quickly devoured. All that will be left for the account holders will be a few crumbs.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" -Ronald Reagan
Hello again,
So, EVERYBODY has their sacred cow. One, two, three. Don't tax me. Tax that guy behind the tree.
I understand. You don't like that we owe, but you don't want to HELP pay for it.. That ain't right..
Look. I have the answer.. With my plan (or Romney's plan - I don't want to steal it), you can KEEP all your 401k money, we can fund the military's wish list forever, and our entitlements won't have to be touched...
Look. I'm a free market guy. But, when the free market DOESN'T self correct, then I have NO problem with the government stepping in. The health care industry has proven itself unable to STOP the runaway price increases. It's BANKRUPTING us. Food stamps aren't doing that. Unemployment isn't doing that. Unions aren't doing that. Run away health costs are.
Now, there's a fix. Romney said something about the Israeli's being able to spend 9% of GDP LESS on health care and get BETTER results... Hmmmm... Let me see. Can we do that? Aren't WE exceptional?
If I had to choose between a REAL takeover of the health care industry (the one YOU talk about is fake), or MASSIVE cuts to our military, to the safety net, and to YOUR 401k's, I'd go to where the money is.. There's enough money laying around over there to fix EVERYTHING... The only thing lacking is our WILL. Let's do it.
excon
How does the individual cost of health care have anything to do with runaway spending by the government ?
I pay my "fair share" of taxes, I can't help it if that big government that 75% of Democrats love spends more than I pay in. Leave the rest of my stuff alone including my health care, and stop penalizing us for being responsible when government is not. It's not that complicated ex, stop wasting our money.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:
I'm not sure what you're asking...
But, here's how the math works out... YES, I know how to do arithmetic. Our GDP is around $1.7 Trillion.. Let's say we achieve only a 5% savings instead of the 9% the Israeli's do. That's about $850 Billion a year, EVERY year, that we SAVE. That's REAL money.
Now, like you, I'd RATHER my doctor be self employed and on his way to his third million, but I'd be OK with him being a civil servant, IF it meant that my beloved country would be SAVED from bankruptcy.
But, that's just me.
excon
Then you'll have the Soviet Union all over with doctors saying they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work .
Hello again, tom:
Who you going to believe? Mitt Romney, or WND?
excon
You guys are a piece of work, and so misinformed. Your 401K is the exclusive domain of Wall Street, and pensions are the exclusive domain of The JOB CREATORS/and Wall Street. Government spending has nothing to do with either of them, yet as we have seen the first thing that goes when the job creators want more loot are YOUR benefits, 401K, and pensions.
Still confused? Just look at Hostess who used a Venture capital company to lower labor cost and extract high fees for themselves and bonuses for the top while NOT funding the agreed upon pension plans. That was years ago, and now they are doing the same with another venture capital company and going through liquidation through bankruptcy.
Workers left holding the bag, shareholders left with the loot. The Romney solution to bad management we voted against. That wasn't government spending screwing the workers, its Wall Street and their business model.
Now to the article you site Speech full of right wing false hoods to deflect the true nature of extractions free markets, and shift blame on politicians and government, while they loot our nest eggs, and crash our personal safety nets for profit. You better look closer as to what's been going on folks and don't forget the GLOBAL crash caused by Wall Street and their rich friends that we are still recovering from, while they have continued to loot and pillage. None of which has anything to do with the deficit, but everything to do with keeping them rolling in dough.
Private health care costs have been rising for years and would have done so unabated until the ACA demanded changes that made them rebate to consumers after expenses the money they collected in premiums and stopped them from cutting corners with limiting YOUR benefits. The government through Medicare and Medicaid are also victims of runaway costs as we are as consumers.Quote:
How does the individual cost of health care have anything to do with runaway spending by the government?
In truth we are all victims of ever rising health care costs both public, and private.
nope it's my money and if the government goes through with this plan I will join any class action suit filed against the theft .Quote:
Your 401K is the exclusive domain of Wall Street,
You are getting mighty excited over this conspiracy theory. True fact is the rich people who control YOUR nest egg are the ones you should watch closely.
That's who you sue when you LOSE money. Oh that's right, you can't. Bummer.
Your mattress is stuff with money?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Obamacare was once a conspiracy theory too.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
To the right maybe, but to the rest of us it was a step toward a solution. I guess it was a gift to the poor and middle class women and minorities. Just one reason Obama was re elected.
Don't spread this around but righties got the gift too!
Had I done that with the money the government confiscated out of my pay check for the last 40 years ,I'd get a higher return on my investment than what I'll likely get from any Social Security payout.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But being a responsible person ,I made provisions to be able to survive on my own without what the government thinks I deserve in retirement . Now the government wants to confiscate my hard earned nest egg because they see it as a source of untapped revenue to fund their wasteful spending .
Yeah we got the shaft wrapped in a bow.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:25 PM. |