Adolf Bush, Free speech what is that?

[Bigboy]

So rich people with the most to invest stand to gain the most, while poor people who have nothing to invest ... gain nothing!

Hurray for making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

It's actually, people that don't know how to run a business, don't get to run a business.

 

[Trippyhippy]

It's actually, people that don't know how to run a business, don't get to run a business.

hows that?

 

[Bigboy]

hows that?

Ehh I think I missquoted you actually, I was stuck on the airline thingy in my head, but now as I look at it you were talking about social security. My bad.

 

[Firestreak]

I could explain it to you, but you probably wouldn't understand or you'd call me names.

Edit: I'm bored at work and going out of my mind trying to quit Smoking. I'll give it a shot.

The Social Security system is gender-blind. None of its provisions treat women differently from men. But that does not mean that the results are gender-neutral. Various cultural and biological differences add up to the fact that Social Security is much more essential, and a much better deal, for women than for men. Of all groups, none has more to lose from the privatization of Social Security than women. Compared to the average man, the average woman works fewer years outside the home, earns less per year, and lives longer after retiring. Together, these differences mean that women depend more than men do on spousal and survivors' benefits, they collect benefits for more years than men do, and a greater proportion of their total retirement income comes from Social Security.

Since women on average work fewer years at lower pay, they contribute less in payroll taxes over their lifetimes than do men. But in their various roles as retirees, spouses, and widows, women collect Social Security benefits for more years than men. The result is that women get more net benefits over their lifetimes than do men.

There are fourteen women for every ten men aged 62 or older. Above age 85, this ratio reaches twenty-four women per ten men. Consequently, 60 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries are women. Among those receiving survivor and disability benefits, women and children constitute 85 percent. Women also depend more on Social Security. Older women who are not part of a couple (either widows, divorcees, separated, or never married) get 51 percent of their income from Social Security, and 25 percent of them have no income but Social Security. For men in the same situation (a far smaller proportion of the total), the figures are 39 and 20 percent, respectively.

The poverty rate for older women is almost twice that of older men (in 1997, 13.1 percent versus 7.0 percent). For older women who are not in a couple, the rate gets much higher: more than one in four lives below the poverty line. Fewer than half of them had incomes in 1997 above $1,000 per month. Without Social Security's guaranteed benefits, the already marginal income security for older women would be much worse.

In spite of the improvement in employment opportunities for women, the role of homemaker and primary parent still falls unequally on wives and mothers. Private accounts would jeopardize income that wives, widows, and divorcees now receive under Social Security. The more individual control that passes to workers, the fewer rights their dependents will retain to secure retirement income. If the guarantees and redistributive features of Social Security are replaced with a system that provides benefits according only to how much a worker earns over that worker's lifetime and how fortunate that worker is in financial markets, the average woman, especially the average widow, will lose security and income from already low levels.

Privatization advocates often claim that converting Social Security to a system of private accounts would disproportionately help African Americans and Latin Americans because those groups are purportedly shortchanged by the current system. But in fact there is almost no difference in Social Security's payback by race. And because both of those groups on average earn lower lifetime earnings than whites, those minorities would be at greater risk of facing poverty in their retirement under privatization.

African Americans on average have two characteristics that are disadvantageous under Social Security: shorter life expectancy and a lower marriage rate. But they also have traits that lead to greater benefits under Social Security: a higher disability rate, more survivors receiving benefits, and lower average wages. Latinos also have relatively low incomes on average, but a longer life expectancy and fewer average years in the workforce.

But because African-Americans and Latinos on average have substantially less wealth upon retirement than whites, they are far more dependent on Social Security. Converting the program into a system where their retirement income would be more dependent on investment markets would make those groups even more vulnerable to poverty.

I've got two problems with this. First, right there is a logical fallacy. If you view social security reform as something that hurt people in low income levels, then that's all that needs to be said. Saying it hurts women, blacks and latinos is saying that it somehow looks at them any way differently than other people. By saying an attack on the poor is an attack on women, for example, you are saying all women are poor, and all men are rich. This doesn't make any sense. Just say, it is an attack on the poor.

Secondly, all the reform gives is a choice. So if these women, blacks latinos don't want to risk losing any money in the stock market, they can simply... keep their damn money with the government. You've failed to explain how giving people who'd rather allow their money to grow affect people who'd prefer to keep their money in the goverment. It's their money either way.

By that rational, we should just do away with it all together.

The inherant flaw of social security is this. The people who first recieved benefits didn't pay for it. They had the young paying for the old. Then those who paid, demanded benefits for themself when they got older. The problem being it wasn't designed for that. The elderly now got much much more than they paid into social security because of the generation below them being so massive. The government, being a shitty beaurocracy, didn't save the money, it just said "wow, we have so much money coming in, we must be smart!" And so instead of saving the money for the people who are paying, it overpaid the current retirees.

If we do nothing for reform, we might as well just do away with it, because it is either going to go bankrupt when that big generation hit retirement age, or they're only going to get a tiny fraction of what they paid out. I'd prefer to just get rid of it, because it's a terrible system and was a bad idea in the first place. Now if I got my way and it was just abolished, you could make those arguments I'm some sort of racist biggot or whatever because apparently women and black people are according to liberals unable to save for retirement, and therefore it's everyone else's responsibility?

So rich people with the most to invest stand to gain the most, while poor people who have nothing to invest ... gain nothing!

Hurray for making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

What the fuck are you talking about? Anyone who uses social security has the right to invest some of it. You can make 10% gain off a million dollars or a thousand dollars. This is no way favors anyone, it helps everyone, and the people who have less money need it the most, you know... the blacks, women and hispanics who according to you are all beggers. Of course for no reason at all tell them it's the evil republicans trying to take their money away so they're too afraid to use the system.

 

[Trippyhippy]

I've got two problems with this. First, right there is a logical fallacy. If you view social security reform as something that hurt people in low income levels, then that's all that needs to be said. Saying it hurts women, blacks and latinos is saying that it somehow looks at them any way differently than other people. By saying an attack on the poor is an attack on women, for example, you are saying all women are poor, and all men are rich. This doesn't make any sense. Just say, it is an attack on the poor.

Various cultural and biological differences add up to the fact that Social Security is much more essential, and a much better deal, for women than for men. Of all groups, none has more to lose from the privatization of Social Security than women. Compared to the average man, the average woman works fewer years outside the home, earns less per year, and lives longer after retiring. Together, these differences mean that women depend more than men do on spousal and survivors' benefits, they collect benefits for more years than men do, and a greater proportion of their total retirement income comes from Social Security.

Did you read that part? If that doesn't make sense, you are learning disabled.

Secondly, all the reform gives is a choice. So if these women, blacks latinos don't want to risk losing any money in the stock market, they can simply... keep their damn money with the government. You've failed to explain how giving people who'd rather allow their money to grow affect people who'd prefer to keep their money in the goverment. It's their money either way.

Have you ever been poor?

The inherant flaw of social security is this. The people who first recieved benefits didn't pay for it. They had the young paying for the old. Then those who paid, demanded benefits for themself when they got older. The problem being it wasn't designed for that. The elderly now got much much more than they paid into social security because of the generation below them being so massive. The government, being a shitty beaurocracy, didn't save the money, it just said "wow, we have so much money coming in, we must be smart!" And so instead of saving the money for the people who are paying, it overpaid the current retirees.

you mean our current president gave the largest tax cut in history to the wealthy and now we can't pay for anything but national defense?

If we do nothing for reform, we might as well just do away with it, because it is either going to go bankrupt when that big generation hit retirement age, or they're only going to get a tiny fraction of what they paid out. I'd prefer to just get rid of it, because it's a terrible system and was a bad idea in the first place. Now if I got my way and it was just abolished, you could make those arguments I'm some sort of racist biggot or whatever because apparently women and black people are according to liberals unable to save for retirement, and therefore it's everyone else's responsibility?

Do you realize in the first part of the article that I stated they have to save a lot more for retirement. I mean, everything you are saying tells me you either didn't read what I wrote or can't comprehend it.

What the fuck are you talking about? Anyone who uses social security has the right to invest some of it. You can make 10% gain off a million dollars or a thousand dollars. This is no way favors anyone, it helps everyone, and the people who have less money need it the most, you know... the blacks, women and hispanics who according to you are all beggers. Of course for no reason at all tell them it's the evil republicans trying to take their money away so they're too afraid to use the system.

This is just ignorant. You are spinning my words to skew my view to match that of all those "Dirty liberals" you think you hate so much. If you would listen to my words and take them for what they mean, you may agree with me. I'm sorry you are so scared to see anything from a different view that you have to call me racist for telling you women live longer and minorities make less money over the span of thier lives.

You like to say you are moderate, you may be, but not in a financial sense. You are as conservative as they come. Everyone in america can't be rich. This administration is helping to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

 

[Firestreak]

Various cultural and biological differences add up to the fact that Social Security is much more essential, and a much better deal, for women than for men. Of all groups, none has more to lose from the privatization of Social Security than women. Compared to the average man, the average woman works fewer years outside the home, earns less per year, and lives longer after retiring. Together, these differences mean that women depend more than men do on spousal and survivors' benefits, they collect benefits for more years than men do, and a greater proportion of their total retirement income comes from Social Security.

Did you read that part? If that doesn't make sense, you are learning disabled.

You've still never explained how privitizing social security hurts them. It should in theory help anyone who wants it. If they prefer not to use it, then they can keep their money in the system.

I understand that social security BENEFITS women more. You haven't made any points how privitizings hurts them. And quite honestly at this point, I don't think you actually know. You can repeat yourself about how the elderly population breaks down all you want, it doesn't prove your case.

Have you ever been poor?

God no, and what does that have to do... with anything? To the people who don't like the idea of privatized social security, it won't affect them as they can decide to keep their money in the system. To people who don't like the system, they can invest. The only clear message I'm getting out of you is, poor people can't be trusted with their own money. Way to go, democrats!

you mean our current president gave the largest tax cut in history to the wealthy and now we can't pay for anything but national defense?

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Taxes have nothing to do with social security. Our tax dollars don't go into it, and it doesn't go out to any other parts of the government. All it does is hold our money for us because the government deems us too stupid to look after our own money.

You like to say you are moderate, you may be, but not in a financial sense. You are as conservative as they come. Everyone in america can't be rich. This administration is helping to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

First off, I am as conservative as they come financially.

Secondly, that is such a crock of bullshit.

Before the tax Bush tax cut, the richest 10% of the country paid 96% of the taxes.
After the Bush tax cut, the richest 10% of the country pay 97% of the taxes.

Yes, the rich got more of a tax cut than the poor, because THE POOR DON'T PAY TAXES.

Personally, I think it's disgusting they have to shoulder that much of the load. Everyone gets one vote. The poor get by far the most benefit from the government. Why should the rich basically pay for everything? What business does the government have redistributing wealth? Besides being unfair, it's grossly inefficient and unproductive. Just compare the US to more socialized forms of economy like those in Europe and compare our economic growth to theirs. They're in a lot of fucking trouble lately. We've dipped down as low as into the 3% growth/year range and people get pissed at Bush. They're living in 1%. If we don't screw our heads on right we'll be right there along side them one day.

Also I'll tack on: The poor are not getting poorer. The poor have never gotten poorer. The bottom 20% of America's standard of living constantly rises, simply the other 80% also raises. Just because the gap may increase, it doesn't mean those at the bottom are declining. All we have here is the politics of jealousy.

 

[Trippyhippy]

You've still never explained how privitizing social security hurts them. It should in theory help anyone who wants it. If they prefer not to use it, then they can keep their money in the system.

I understand that social security BENEFITS women more. You haven't made any points how privitizings hurts them. And quite honestly at this point, I don't think you actually know. You can repeat yourself about how the elderly population breaks down all you want, it doesn't prove your case.





God no, and what does that have to do... with anything? To the people who don't like the idea of privatized social security, it won't affect them as they can decide to keep their money in the system. To people who don't like the system, they can invest. The only clear message I'm getting out of you is, poor people can't be trusted with their own money. Way to go, democrats!



You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Taxes have nothing to do with social security. Our tax dollars don't go into it, and it doesn't go out to any other parts of the government. All it does is hold our money for us because the government deems us too stupid to look after our own money.



First off, I am as conservative as they come financially.

Secondly, that is such a crock of bullshit.

Before the tax Bush tax cut, the richest 10% of the country paid 96% of the taxes.
After the Bush tax cut, the richest 10% of the country pay 97% of the taxes.

Yes, the rich got more of a tax cut than the poor, because THE POOR DON'T PAY TAXES.

Personally, I think it's disgusting they have to shoulder that much of the load. Everyone gets one vote. The poor get by far the most benefit from the government. Why should the rich basically pay for everything? What business does the government have redistributing wealth? Besides being unfair, it's grossly inefficient and unproductive. Just compare the US to more socialized forms of economy like those in Europe and compare our economic growth to theirs. They're in a lot of fucking trouble lately. We've dipped down as low as into the 3% growth/year range and people get pissed at Bush. They're living in 1%. If we don't screw our heads on right we'll be right there along side them one day.

The bold is factual, everything else is your opinion. Now you are the one trying to proove a case that something is bad. Shouldn't you get some facts in there somewhere?

 

[Firestreak]

You haven't even given me an opinion on how social security reform hurts women and minorities more.

Assuming you come up with a reason, which I'm doubting exists yet, a few fun things to consider.

There are more women than men in America, making men the technical gender minority.

There are minorities like Asian and Jewish that statically will benefit less from social security. Thereby Democrats hate men, Jews and Asians?

Racist bastards!!!

But seriously, explain to me how social security reform hurts the poor more. Until them all this race/gender bullshit is pointless.

And there were quite a few more lines up there you could bold. Like while you've explained how social security benefits minorities more, you never explained how reform hurts the minorities. That's a fact, not an opinion. Next, my statistics about the % of taxes paid, that's a fact. The percentages is a fact, that it's too much is my opinion. Also, under a certain income bracket, all income tax is returned, so yes, when I said the poor don't pay taxes, that's another fact not an opinion.

 

[Trippyhippy]

You haven't even given me an opinion on how social security reform hurts women and minorities more.

Am I going to have to write a novel to get you to understand?
If so, I will, but I'm sure anyone else that's bothering to read this thread(assuming we haven't run them off yet :wacko: ) understands that if women will get less money, that hurts them. Minorities make less money and have less to invest. That hurts them.

There are more women than men in America, making men the technical gender minority.

yeah, 1% more. 144million women vs 138million men. gender minority has nothing to do with it. Women live longer than men and need more money to survive on after retirement because they will live for more years. under privitaization, they can put 4% of there income back. Women also make less on average than men. so they can put less back, but it has to last them for longer. I can illustrate it no more plainly than that.

There are minorities like Asian and Jewish that statically will benefit less from social security. Thereby Democrats hate men, Jews and Asians?

Racist bastards!!!

Spin away. That's all you seem to know how to do.

But seriously, explain to me how social security reform hurts the poor more. Until them all this race/gender bullshit is pointless.

An example given on a page I found was for a woman making 32k a year. and it stated that she could save250k by the time she retired in 20 years.

32k is in the top 50% of earners. if you retire at 65 and live till 95, 250k gives you about 8k a year to live on. Granted, you can invest the lump sum, but also, that 250k is heavily dependant on when you retire. In the twentieth century, when stocks generally grew significantly, there were three twenty-year periods over which the market either declined or did not rise. The volatility of investment markets means that it matters a great deal whether you retire during an upswing or downturn. For example, a worker who invested his or her retirement fund in a stock portfolio that matched the Standard & Poor's 500 index and cashed out upon retirement in March 2000 would have a nest egg almost a third larger than someone who retired just a year later using exactly the same investment strategy. Of course, that is because the stock market plunged over those twelve months.

Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of "individual choice" and "personal control," while assuming in their forecasts that everyone's accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But studies have demonstrated that individual investors are far more likely to do worse than the market generally, even excluding the cost of commissions and administrative expenses. Indeed, research has found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.

Moreover, a number of surveys show that most people lack the knowledge to make even basic decisions about investing. For example, a Securities and Exchange Commission report synthesizing surveys of investors found that only 14 percent knew the difference between a growth stock and an income stock, and just 38 percent understood that when interest rates rise, bond prices go down. Almost half of all investors believed incorrectly that diversification guarantees that their portfolio won't suffer if the market drops and 40 percent thought that a mutual fund's operating costs have no impact on the returns they receive.

While predictions vary significantly about how investment markets will perform in the decades ahead, it's safe to say that any growth in individual accounts under privatization will be significantly lower than what the overall markets achieve.

And there were quite a few more lines up there you could bold. Like while you've explained how social security benefits minorities more, you never explained how reform hurts the minorities. That's a fact, not an opinion. Next, my statistics about the % of taxes paid, that's a fact. The percentages is a fact, that it's too much is my opinion. Also, under a certain income bracket, all income tax is returned, so yes, when I said the poor don't pay taxes, that's another fact not an opinion.

less benefit for minorities = Hurts Minorities.

And you should do research before you pull blind statistics out of thin air.
This link with all the tax info from the past 25 years seems to think it's the top 50% that pay 96% of taxes and not the top 10% like you seem to think in your dream world where everyone is rich just because you are.

I'm poor and I do pay payroll taxes, and no, I don't get it all back because i make over $11999/yr. The poor pay about 3% of thier income in taxes.

Then the people that make more in 1 year than I would make in 18 years pay 24% in taxes. But they also take advantage of loopholes in the system to keep from paying many of those.

So.. yeah... give me some facts.

 

[Firestreak]

Am I going to have to write a novel to get you to understand?
If so, I will, but I'm sure anyone else that's bothering to read this thread(assuming we haven't run them off yet :wacko: ) understands that if women will get less money, that hurts them. Minorities make less money and have less to invest. That hurts them.



yeah, 1% more. 144million women vs 138million men. gender minority has nothing to do with it. Women live longer than men and need more money to survive on after retirement because they will live for more years. under privitaization, they can put 4% of there income back. Women also make less on average than men. so they can put less back, but it has to last them for longer. I can illustrate it no more plainly than that.



An example given on a page I found was for a woman making 32k a year. and it stated that she could save250k by the time she retired in 20 years.

32k is in the top 50% of earners. if you retire at 65 and live till 95, 250k gives you about 8k a year to live on. Granted, you can invest the lump sum, but also, that 250k is heavily dependant on when you retire. In the twentieth century, when stocks generally grew significantly, there were three twenty-year periods over which the market either declined or did not rise. The volatility of investment markets means that it matters a great deal whether you retire during an upswing or downturn. For example, a worker who invested his or her retirement fund in a stock portfolio that matched the Standard & Poor's 500 index and cashed out upon retirement in March 2000 would have a nest egg almost a third larger than someone who retired just a year later using exactly the same investment strategy. Of course, that is because the stock market plunged over those twelve months.

Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of "individual choice" and "personal control," while assuming in their forecasts that everyone's accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But studies have demonstrated that individual investors are far more likely to do worse than the market generally, even excluding the cost of commissions and administrative expenses. Indeed, research has found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.

Moreover, a number of surveys show that most people lack the knowledge to make even basic decisions about investing. For example, a Securities and Exchange Commission report synthesizing surveys of investors found that only 14 percent knew the difference between a growth stock and an income stock, and just 38 percent understood that when interest rates rise, bond prices go down. Almost half of all investors believed incorrectly that diversification guarantees that their portfolio won't suffer if the market drops and 40 percent thought that a mutual fund's operating costs have no impact on the returns they receive.

While predictions vary significantly about how investment markets will perform in the decades ahead, it's safe to say that any growth in individual accounts under privatization will be significantly lower than what the overall markets achieve.

I read, I understand, I don't see a problem.

Your points are...?

Here are the facts you've given me.

Women and minorities have less money saved up on average, live longer, therefore need social security more.

Or as I prefer to look at it... people who love longer and made less money need social security more. Incidentally, MOST of them are women and minorities. It's not women and minorities who need it more. It's people who fall in that catagory. Some of them may be millionares, and some may die at 70. Some white males may me poor, like yourself if I may take a guess.

Individual investors in average will make less than the market average. Most Americans don't know shit about the stock market.

Yet your link doesn't saw how those investors compare against the shitty interest rate the current system gives them. The point isn't that they will make as much money as big firms, the point is that they'll be better off than with the governments rate of return.

Furthermore, people don't get total freedom to invest in any daring stock they wish. It's only designed to be put into low risk indexes. While even they may drop every once in a while, long term, they WILL gain money.

People who know the stock market better may stand to gain more than those who don't. But those who don't, DON'T LOSE ANYTHING SIMPLY BY GETTING THE OPTION. If you want to scare people away from using the system, go ahead and preach to all the minorities they're too stupid to use the system and they should just keep their money in social security.

If you don't want to use the system it has no negative consequences on you. By me making money, it doesn't hurt you if you prefer to keep your money locked up and secure.

And you should do research before you pull blind statistics out of thin air.
This link with all the tax info from the past 25 years seems to think it's the top 50% that pay 96% of taxes and not the top 10% like you seem to think in your dream world where everyone is rich just because you are.

I'm poor and I do pay payroll taxes, and no, I don't get it all back because i make over $11999/yr. The poor pay about 3% of thier income in taxes.

Then the people that make more in 1 year than I would make in 18 years pay 24% in taxes. But they also take advantage of loopholes in the system to keep from paying many of those.

So.. yeah... give me some facts.

Just the facts, JACK!

Look at your own statistics more carefully, the top 50% pay 96%... dun dun dun dun, BEFORE INCOME TAX RETURN!!!

You see table 1 where you got that from.

Table 1. Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2003 (updated October 2005)

and then table 4...

Table 4. Total Income Tax after Credits, 1980-2003 ($ Millions)

As Jerry Maguire said, SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

Next, your own situation.

3% of 12,000 bucks is....

350 bucks..!

Holy shit, 350 bucks, they're ganking you up in Washington! Oh my, you get a vote, and you pay 350 bucks. Then those guys who pay 24% in taxes making 18 times what you do pay 52,000 a year in taxes. We get the same vote. You get way more benefits from the government, and you pay... 1/149th the taxes I do. Bush really fucked the poor in the ass with a corn on the cob raw didn't he?

And guess what...! If you did your income tax return correctly, you wouldn't even be paying that 300. You're under the income level that you should be paying taxes at all, get one of those QuickTaxes programs that'll do it correctly for you.

Just be glad Bush is a hell of a lot more liberal than me, because if it was me, I'd dice the goverment to bits, make a flat tax that EVERYONE has to pay and cut out all nonessential programs from the government. The system we got now, with one guy paying 350 bucks and bitching about the guy who is fucking him over by only paying 52k is simply not justice. You won't be happy til I'm paying enough taxes that me and you have the same amount of money, I reckon.

 

[jender]

Thanks you for keeping this argument civil.


-Mod

 

[Ronith]

Why is it, that when Firestreak gets into a convo... the pages end up being like eleventy billion times longer <.<; damn you for being analytical - .-;

And IMO, the guy shouldn't have said that to his class, but wtf? I got teachers here all the time saying their opinions on Bush and how he runs the gvt. and no one says a damn thing... You would figure that the people would realize it's his opinion get over it, not saying that I don't agree/disagree with him, I try to stay out of politics^^

 

[Firestreak]

Why is it, that when Firestreak gets into a convo... the pages end up being like eleventy billion times longer <.<; damn you for being analytical - .-;

And IMO, the guy shouldn't have said that to his class, but wtf? I got teachers here all the time saying their opinions on Bush and how he runs the gvt. and no one says a damn thing... You would figure that the people would realize it's his opinion get over it, not saying that I don't agree/disagree with him, I try to stay out of politics^^

Just the same, would you want a science teacher teaching your kids creationism in the classroom? Teaching beliefs at a public school is wrong, period. People get away with it all the time, just this guy just went way too far.

 

[Darkdante]

The inherant flaw of social security is this. The people who first recieved benefits didn't pay for it. They had the young paying for the old. Then those who paid, demanded benefits for themself when they got older. The problem being it wasn't designed for that. The elderly now got much much more than they paid into social security because of the generation below them being so massive. The government, being a shitty beaurocracy, didn't save the money, it just said "wow, we have so much money coming in, we must be smart!" And so instead of saving the money for the people who are paying, it overpaid the current retirees.

If we do nothing for reform, we might as well just do away with it, because it is either going to go bankrupt when that big generation hit retirement age, or they're only going to get a tiny fraction of what they paid out. I'd prefer to just get rid of it, because it's a terrible system and was a bad idea in the first place. Now if I got my way and it was just abolished, you could make those arguments I'm some sort of racist biggot or whatever because apparently women and black people are according to liberals unable to save for retirement, and therefore it's everyone else's responsibility?

Not really Fire. Alot of people depend on Social Security, not just women and racial minorities.

Alot of people today even with thier defined benefit pensions would not be able to make it without social security.

 

[Firestreak]

I was being sardonic, it was Trippyhippy's argument that they need it most.

 

[Darkdante]

As far as the wealthy paying more taxes you can also look at it like this.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

The weathliest top 10% in America controls 70% of its wealth in 2001. Each of them make a hell of alot more than 18 times the amount that the rest of the 90% of Americans made back then.

Should they pay even more taxes than they do now? Hell yeah I think they should.

 

[Firestreak]

As far as the wealthy paying more taxes you can also look at it like this.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

The weathliest top 10% in America controls 70% of its wealth in 2001. Each of them make a hell of alot more than 18 times the amount that the rest of the 90% of Americans made back then.

Should they pay even more taxes than they do now? Hell yeah I think they should.

So you believe it's the job of the government to tell people they own too much money and give it to other people who didn't earn it?

 

[Palasin]

Lolol

LOLOLOLOL Firestreak click your OH link to your site, rofl is that a joke?

 

[Firestreak]

It just someone having a temper tantrum.

 

[Palasin]

hbfh

Usually the site Manager isnt the best to pick on? =P