I'd completely eliminate the welfare state. I get rid of the departments of Education, Commerce and Labor. I'd drastically reduce the EPA and then I'd break for lunch.
Paying for the certainties of life, that you will get old, that you will get sick and that you will die, was never the reason why we constituted a Federal Government. We've been through this before Hondo, who you like me to predict your Kunt act response?
It's almost like these departments and programs were created for a reason. Seriously one of the dumbest posts I've seen.
Great fucking argument. If a Department is created by the Federal Government it was obviously created for a "reason" and thus can never be eliminated or altered. Gosh I wish I could make smart posts like that.
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God) (2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system (3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
That's fine, if that's their choice. Personally, if i would have been allowed to take every dollar that I and my employers have paid into the Social Security system since the early 1980s and invested that money in a simply index fund I'd be much better off than what I'd receive from Social Security at the time of my retirement. But I didn't get that choice.
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God) (2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system (3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
That's fine, if that's their choice. Personally, if i would have been allowed to take every dollar that I and my employers have paid into the Social Security system since the early 1980s and invested that money in a simply index fund I'd be much better off than what I'd receive from Social Security at the time of my retirement. But I didn't get that choice.
That's not what Social Security is for. SS is to ensure that all old people can at least have a roof over their head and food on the table, so we don't have to deal with poor old folks living under bridges and shit, like the way it used to be.
@SFGbob where's your support for whitewashing history books???
I don't support that my strawman ass fucking friend. Now where's your link in support of your claim that Texas is banning Anne Frank from their history books?
I'd completely eliminate the welfare state. I get rid of the departments of Education, Commerce and Labor. I'd drastically reduce the EPA and then I'd break for lunch.
Paying for the certainties of life, that you will get old, that you will get sick and that you will die, was never the reason why we constituted a Federal Government. We've been through this before Hondo, who you like me to predict your Kunt act response?
But of coarse you wouldn't touch defense even though it's one of the biggest line items. Entitlements should be on the table but you're not going to balance the budget without reducing military spending.
@SFGbob where's your support for whitewashing history books???
I don't support that my strawman ass fucking friend. Now where's your link in support of your claim that Texas is banning Anne Frank from their history books?
Dude. Fucking read. Seriously. Go back and fucking read my posts.
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God) (2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system (3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
That's fine, if that's their choice. Personally, if i would have been allowed to take every dollar that I and my employers have paid into the Social Security system since the early 1980s and invested that money in a simply index fund I'd be much better off than what I'd receive from Social Security at the time of my retirement. But I didn't get that choice.
That's not what Social Security is for. SS is to ensure that all old people can at least have a roof over their head and food on the table, so we don't have to deal with poor old folks living under bridges and shit, like the way it used to be.
It's redistribution, which is why you hate it.
I hate it for many reasons, that's just one. Are we to assume that the poor people living under bridges and shit never worked a day in their lives?
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God) (2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system (3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
That's fine, if that's their choice. Personally, if i would have been allowed to take every dollar that I and my employers have paid into the Social Security system since the early 1980s and invested that money in a simply index fund I'd be much better off than what I'd receive from Social Security at the time of my retirement. But I didn't get that choice.
That's not what Social Security is for. SS is to ensure that all old people can at least have a roof over their head and food on the table, so we don't have to deal with poor old folks living under bridges and shit, like the way it used to be.
It's redistribution, which is why you hate it.
I hate it for many reasons, that's just one. Are we to assume that the poor people living under bridges and shit never worked a day in their lives?
I think it's safe to assume that most of them worked for their entire productive lives. As you note, social welfare was, ahem, rather limited in the pre-1933 USA.
There wasn't worker's comp either, so industrial accidents (much more common in a pre-OSHA world) could be a death sentence, or send a family spiraling into poverty.
@SFGbob where's your support for whitewashing history books???
I don't support that my strawman ass fucking friend. Now where's your link in support of your claim that Texas is banning Anne Frank from their history books?
Dude. Fucking read. Seriously. Go back and fucking read my posts.
Sorry, I still haven't figured out how later posts on this board don't always show up at the end of the thread.
@SFGbob where's your support for whitewashing history books???
I don't support that my strawman ass fucking friend. Now where's your link in support of your claim that Texas is banning Anne Frank from their history books?
Dude. Fucking read. Seriously. Go back and fucking read my posts.
Sorry, I still haven't figured out how later posts on this board don't always show up at the end of the thread.
Now you can't figure out how time works? Don't they teach that in second grade? Ok fine.... I'll explain. Just because you hit the send button now, doesn't mean someone else didn't hit the send button before you, but after the last time you refreshed the page.
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God) (2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system (3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
So your justification for bloated entitlements is that when given a choice people overwhelmingly choose free shit?
I'm shocked! Shocked that public employees would endorse unsustainable pension programs at the expense of privately employed tax payers.
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God) (2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system (3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
So your justification for bloated entitlements is that when given a choice people overwhelmingly choose free shit?
I'm shocked! Shocked that public employees would endorse unsustainable pension programs at the expense of privately employed tax payers.
I think the poont is that "defined benefits" retirements are way better than IRAs, corporate propaganda for the last 30 or so years notwithstanding
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God) (2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system (3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
So your justification for bloated entitlements is that when given a choice people overwhelmingly choose free shit?
I'm shocked! Shocked that public employees would endorse unsustainable pension programs at the expense of privately employed tax payers.
I think the poont is that "defined benefits" retirements are way better than IRAs, corporate propaganda for the last 30 or so years notwithstanding
They also require the entity, be it the government or business, to grow continuously to meet the future demands. Which is always funny (or shitty) when a business fails because of slow growth or regressive revenues and the board blames the retirement system for excess costs. No.... If you funded it to begin with and had the proper assumptions, it would be self funded and it would be a benefit, not a burden.
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God) (2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system (3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
So your justification for bloated entitlements is that when given a choice people overwhelmingly choose free shit?
I'm shocked! Shocked that public employees would endorse unsustainable pension programs at the expense of privately employed tax payers.
I think the poont is that "defined benefits" retirements are way better than IRAs, corporate propaganda for the last 30 or so years notwithstanding
They also require the entity, be it the government or business, to grow continuously to meet the future demands. Which is always funny (or shitty) when a business fails because of slow growth or regressive revenues and the board blames the retirement system for excess costs. No.... If you funded it to begin with and had the proper assumptions, it would be self funded and it would be a benefit, not a burden.
But then you wouldn't post 3-5% profits every year and pay a dividend to the shareholders. Short term thinking, it's the American way. Planning is hard.
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God) (2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system (3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
So your justification for bloated entitlements is that when given a choice people overwhelmingly choose free shit?
I'm shocked! Shocked that public employees would endorse unsustainable pension programs at the expense of privately employed tax payers.
I think the poont is that "defined benefits" retirements are way better than IRAs, corporate propaganda for the last 30 or so years notwithstanding
They also require the entity, be it the government or business, to grow continuously to meet the future demands. Which is always funny (or shitty) when a business fails because of slow growth or regressive revenues and the board blames the retirement system for excess costs. No.... If you funded it to begin with and had the proper assumptions, it would be self funded and it would be a benefit, not a burden.
But then you wouldn't post 3-5% profits every year and pay a dividend to the shareholders. Short term thinking, it's the American way. Planning is hard.
They do that on purpose. Threaten bankruptcy. Kill the pension, then return 2 years later more profitable again. Hurting the worker and helping the millionaire owners.
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God) (2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system (3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
So your justification for bloated entitlements is that when given a choice people overwhelmingly choose free shit?
I'm shocked! Shocked that public employees would endorse unsustainable pension programs at the expense of privately employed tax payers.
I think the poont is that "defined benefits" retirements are way better than IRAs, corporate propaganda for the last 30 or so years notwithstanding
They also require the entity, be it the government or business, to grow continuously to meet the future demands. Which is always funny (or shitty) when a business fails because of slow growth or regressive revenues and the board blames the retirement system for excess costs. No.... If you funded it to begin with and had the proper assumptions, it would be self funded and it would be a benefit, not a burden.
Sweet Geezus, because the money it takes to fully fund a pension program grows on trees and isn't a burden for any private company to come up with.
There's a reason why the only people who still have pension plans are all government employees.
401K has been a great deal for me and my only regret is that I didn't start it when I first got out of college. Now imagine if my 401K also included every dollar that's been taken from me and my employers since I first started working. Hell, I'd already be retired.
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God) (2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system (3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
So your justification for bloated entitlements is that when given a choice people overwhelmingly choose free shit?
I'm shocked! Shocked that public employees would endorse unsustainable pension programs at the expense of privately employed tax payers.
I think the poont is that "defined benefits" retirements are way better than IRAs, corporate propaganda for the last 30 or so years notwithstanding
They also require the entity, be it the government or business, to grow continuously to meet the future demands. Which is always funny (or shitty) when a business fails because of slow growth or regressive revenues and the board blames the retirement system for excess costs. No.... If you funded it to begin with and had the proper assumptions, it would be self funded and it would be a benefit, not a burden.
Sweet Geezus, because the money it takes to fully fund a pension program grows on trees and isn't a burden for any private company to come up with.
There's a reason why the only people who still have pension plans are all government employees.
401K has been a great deal for me and my only regret is that I didn't start it when I first got out of college. Now imagine if my 401K also included every dollar that's been taken from me and my employers since I first started working. Hell, I'd already be retired.
Agreed. And of course, that used to be a benefit of working for a larger corporation rather than a smaller firm. Also too, part of the reason qualified individuals take positions with the government rather than private industry is that they are willing to accept lower pay in exchange for better benefits.
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God) (2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system (3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
That's fine, if that's their choice. Personally, if i would have been allowed to take every dollar that I and my employers have paid into the Social Security system since the early 1980s and invested that money in a simply index fund I'd be much better off than what I'd receive from Social Security at the time of my retirement. But I didn't get that choice.
That's not what Social Security is for. SS is to ensure that all old people can at least have a roof over their head and food on the table, so we don't have to deal with poor old folks living under bridges and shit, like the way it used to be.
It's redistribution, which is why you hate it.
I hate it for many reasons, that's just one. Are we to assume that the poor people living under bridges and shit never worked a day in their lives?
I think it's safe to assume that most of them worked for their entire productive lives. As you note, social welfare was, ahem, rather limited in the pre-1933 USA.
There wasn't worker's comp either, so industrial accidents (much more common in a pre-OSHA world) could be a death sentence, or send a family spiraling into poverty.
You think there are a lot of retirees out there with pre-1933 work histories? We're talking about people who are working and retired now.
Comments
It's redistribution, which is why you hate it.
There wasn't worker's comp either, so industrial accidents (much more common in a pre-OSHA world) could be a death sentence, or send a family spiraling into poverty.
Seriously race. Where did you find this guy?
I'm shocked! Shocked that public employees would endorse unsustainable pension programs at the expense of privately employed tax payers.
There's a reason why the only people who still have pension plans are all government employees.
401K has been a great deal for me and my only regret is that I didn't start it when I first got out of college. Now imagine if my 401K also included every dollar that's been taken from me and my employers since I first started working. Hell, I'd already be retired.
Just let the actual duck do the heavy lifting hondo. You aren't helping