Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)- Guest Blogger
We have all heard the cries that so-called entitlement programs like Social Security need to be cut in order to “save” them from extinction. Now that I am 62 years of age, I have become more interested in the issue of Social Security’s solvency.
CEO’s have gotten involved in the process through the now infamous Fix the Debt campaign initiated and funded by Billionaire Pete Peterson and the parallel campaign started by the Business Roundtable. Both of these campaigns are supported by big business and CEO’s of large corporations with no concern where their retirement funds are going to come from.
“In the current budget debate, the loudest calls for Social Security cuts are coming from two lobby groups led by CEOs who will never have to worry about their own retirement security.
The report, titled Platinum-Plated Pensions: The Retirement Fortunes of CEOs Who Want to Cut Your Social Security,
points out that two organizations, Fix the Debt, a PR and lobby machine launched in 2012 and led by more than 135 CEOs of major corporations, and the Business Roundtable, a 40-year-old association made up of about 200 CEOs of Americas largest corporations, are involved in a protracted campaign aimed at cutting, and ultimately, gutting Social Security.
Platinum-Plated Pensions, written by Sarah Anderson, the Director of the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, and Scott Klinger, Director of Revenue and Spending Policies at the Center for Effective Government, found that the CEOs belonging to Fix the Debt and Business Roundtable are sitting on massive nest eggs of their own.” Bill Berkowitz
Maybe I am an exception, but I was amazed to read the report linked above to see just who is claiming that the only way that Social Security can be saved for us mere peons is by raising the retirement age and reducing benefits. Many of the CEO’s making this claim have millions in their own pension or retirement accounts.
“According to Platinum-Plated Pensions, The average Business Roundtable CEO has $14.5 million in his gilded nest egg, more than 1,200 times as much as the $12,000 median retirement savings of U.S. workers who are within 10 years of retirement.
Ten CEO members of the Business Roundtable (four of whom are also members of Fix the Debt) have corporate retirement plans valued at more than $50 million. Of these, three have retirement assets of more than $100 million.” Bill Berkowitz
Now, in all fairness, just because someone has no need for their Social Security benefits, it doesn’t automatically disqualify their opinions on the subject of improving Social Security for all of us. However, these CEO’s do not have a real stake in what happens to Social Security because if it exploded tomorrow, they still have millions in their own accounts.
The ideas that Fix the Debt and the Business Roundtable have offered do nothing to make it more equitable or make Social Security work better for all retirees. Their idea of a “fix” is to delay benefits and force poor and middle class workers to stay in the work force even longer.
They even claim that raising the minimum retirement age to 67 is necessary because we are all living longer. Even that claim is suspect. One economic expert has brought some sunlight to the living longer claim.
“Before I get there, however, let me briefly take on two bad arguments for cutting Social Security that you still hear a lot.
One is that we should raise the retirement age — currently 66, and scheduled to rise to 67 — because people are living longer. This sounds plausible until you look at exactly who is living longer. The rise in life expectancy, it turns out, is overwhelmingly a story about affluent, well-educated Americans. Those with lower incomes and less education have, at best, seen hardly any rise in life expectancy at age 65; in fact, those with less education have seen their life expectancy decline.
So this common argument amounts, in effect, to the notion that we can’t let janitors retire because lawyers are living longer. And lower-income Americans, in case you haven’t noticed, are the people who need Social Security most.” Paul Krugman
While I am hoping Mr. Krugman is correct that lawyers are living longer, his evidence seems to suggest that the Fix the Debt and Business Roundtable people are all wet. Could those millionaire and Billionaire CEO’s have some ulterior motive? Could the CEO’s efforts and money spent pushing their Fix actually be an attempt to prevent the country from taxing the wealthy on all of their income or reducing or eliminating many of their tax benefits that harm the economy and fatten their wallets?
I have often wondered why millionaires don’t have to pay Social Security taxes on all of their income like the rest of us who make less than the $113,700 maximum for 2013. When a CEO makes $20 million a year, that CEO pays Social Security taxes on the first $113,700. When someone makes $60,000 a year, they pay Social Security taxes on their entire income. Why shouldn’t Social Security taxes be paid on all income, no matter what the sources? Wouldn’t that be more equitable?
Mr. Krugman also suggests that part of the problem seniors are facing is that the 401k accounts that many of their employers intitiated have not earned what was necessary to retire on due to the market crash and employer greed and employees making poor financial decisions.
“Today, however, workers who have any retirement plan at all generally have defined-contribution plans — basically, 401(k)’s — in which employers put money into a tax-sheltered account that’s supposed to end up big enough to retire on. The trouble is that at this point it’s clear that the shift to 401(k)’s was a gigantic failure. Employers took advantage of the switch to surreptitiously cut benefits; investment returns have been far lower than workers were told to expect; and, to be fair, many people haven’t managed their money wisely.” New York Times
What do you think is needed to strengthen Social Security for all workers? Paul Krugman and many Senators like Sen. Elizabeth Warren agree that we should be talking about strengthening Social Security and not cutting it. Some of the CEO’s mentioned above who have millions in their own retirement accounts have actually run up deficits in their own employees retirement accounts, but yet they still claim cutting benefits and extending the minimum retirement age are the way to go.
“While gilding their personal pensions, many Roundtable CEOs have allowed massive deficits to grow in their employee retirement funds:
- Of the Business Roundtable CEOs whose firms provide pension funds for their workers, 10 have deficits in these funds of between $4.9 billion and $22.6 billion.
- The Roundtable CEO with the largest deficit in his companys worker pension fund is Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric, with $22.6 billion. Immelts personal retirement fund is worth more than $59 million, the sixth-largest among Roundtable CEOs.” Bill Berkowitz
Are these CEO’s merely doing an end run in an attempt to steer Social Security funds into the private sector? Are they trying to steer the discussion away from taxing more income to strengthen Social Security? What do you think and who do you believe?
DavidM says: We keep talking back and forth, looking at the same issue from different perspectives, and I’m not sure more discussion on this issue is going to help.
Yes, my perspective is based in reality, and your perspective is based in selfish greed. I am pretty sure more discussion won’t help you, but you are not the only person reading this blog, and I don’t mind pointing out (with the help of others) the flaws in your reasoning and bullshit claims.
DavidM says: Social Security Administration sending people statements that show how much their current investment in Social Security has earned them
Except it doesn’t do that; I get those statements too, and they never claim that. They say if you continue earning what you are earning now, and the law remains as it is now, this is what your retirement benefit would be. So you can make appropriate plans, because the SSA also says, for all to see, that they pay about 40% of the wages most people have before retirement, and that most workers require about 75% more than that to live “comfortably.”
DavidM says: The entire event makes the company look like the taker and the government like the giver.
Perhaps to a child, not to any mentally competent adult.
DavidM says: This trust fund by law is NOT allowed to make investments other than in special issues of the United States Treasury where both principal and interest is guaranteed by the Federal government.
So? That doesn’t constitute robbery, it constitutes a prudent investment. The Federal Government will never go bankrupt, and will always pay that debt. It is not much different than a retired person investing their savings in zero-risk instruments, like Certificates of Deposit. There is no fraud there, the money invested in a CD can be invested in government bonds or risk-bearing loans; the CD is a contract with the investor that shields them from risk. The banks undertake it on the empirical fact that risk-bearing instruments return, on average, more than risk-free investments. Or on the leverage principle, that even risk-free investments of many millions can return more than risk-free investments in the thousands (by taking advantage of the economies of scale in accounting, statements, contracts and paperwork that come with multi-million dollar investments).
As long as the government honors the securities sold to the SSA, there is no fraud involved that affects the SSA.
DavidM says: Basically, this is the Congress robbing the Social Security taxes to pay for their pet projects and then giving Social Security an IOU.
As I said, as long as the IOU is repaid, it isn’t “robbing,” is it?
DavidM says: It is like you having a wife who doesn’t work outside the home and you loan her $100 for something she wants and then a year later she pays you back $101.46 with money you gave her to buy groceries.
No it isn’t, for several reasons. In your analogy, the “wife” is the government, and “I” am the SSA, loaning the Government $100. But my wife has her own alternative sources of income, namely income taxes from the people that are NOT SSA taxes, but are intended for general funding of government programs. She does not repay the $100 loan with more SSA taxes (that belong to the SSA), she repays them with income taxes to which she is legally entitled. The borrowing for “something she wants” may well be military actions or law enforcement actions that protect taxpayers, i.e. not something she “wants” at all, but something the people have demanded or is well within the scope of what people expect from the government, but have no specific tax to fund.
Your analogy also falls apart if, instead of “me” being the SSA, “me” is the taxpayers. As taxpayers, as long as the government gets done the job I demand, why would I care about the internal management of funds as long as the reserves I have demanded do exist and default is impossible? The SSA trust fund exists; the government does not default on its obligations to it. No harm is done, and there is no risk in the loans, and interest is earned which is far better than holding physical paper money (about the only other absolutely guaranteed risk-free alternative).
As always, your analogies do not hold water, as far as I can tell you are incapable of forming one that serves any useful purpose, because your view is fundamentally wrong and that fundamental flaw must be incorporated into all your analogies, and is glaringly evident in all of them.
Tony C wrote: “As always, your analogies do not hold water, as far as I can tell you are incapable of forming one that serves any useful purpose, because your view is fundamentally wrong and that fundamental flaw must be incorporated into all your analogies, and is glaringly evident in all of them.”
You ignore the economic effects of the policy and the conflation of terms. Terms from positive economic activity is used for non-economic activity, just like a Ponzi Scheme does. I don’t think there is much more to say about it. You insist on using only your peculiar tunnel vision and not look at the facts being put in front of you.
DaividM sez, “…(T)he government uses employers to withhold taxes from the pay earned by employees…. Many low level employees get a refund when taxes are due.The entire event makes the company look like the taker and the government like the giver. ”
As someone who has spent many years in the workplace, I can say with complete confidence that nobody blames the employer for withholding social security.
You obviously either have a very low opinion of the average American worker, or you, yourself, lack the ability to grasp the concept.
“To be clear, let me say that when I say ‘fraud’ in this context, I don’t mean a prosecutorial type of criminal fraud.”
Then you aren’t saying anything of relevant substance.
Your opinion – as odious as it often is – is just your opinion and it does not make something a fraud simply because you don’t like it. It makes it something you don’t like and nothing more absent proof of actual fraud. Hyperbole works better when it isn’t dependent upon legally operative language. “Fraud” has a specific legal meaning, SS is not a fraud by that definition and that definition is all that matters vis a vis whether or not SS is a fraud in fact versus something you simply don’t like.
Gene H wrote: ““Fraud” has a specific legal meaning, SS is not a fraud by that definition and that definition is all that matters vis a vis whether or not SS is a fraud in fact versus something you simply don’t like.”
The word “fraud” is not limited to the legal definition. Please consult the OED. It refers to wrongful deception intended to result in financial … gain, and also to a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably … being credited with accomplishments or qualities. As I said before, if the entity that creates laws observed this happening from private enterprise, they would craft laws to make it criminal. They have done so already for many businesses. The fact that they do not police themselves on this matter does not remove the fraudulent nature of the action.
DavidM,
“Even when I had applicants begging me to give them a job paying minimum wage, I hired them at a wage higher than minimum wage. I am certain that other corporations exist that do the same.”
Just to clarify here, but you’re claiming that job applicants actually requested that you pay them no more than the minimum wage?
And, out of the goodness of your heart you pay them more than the legally mandated minimum? You don’t put them on a probationary period, even just to offset the thousands of dollars you spend in training costs?
Wouldn’t you be able to put more people to work if you only paid the minimum wage whenever possible? Don’t you often claim that jobs are lost because of raises in the minimum wage?
It’s normally a sound business practice to limit labor costs, and to always avoid paying more for any good or service than is necessary. Don’t you often criticize the government for not operating more like a business?
Please, don’t make me wade through your inch-screens of gobble-dee-gook to find those many several instances where you make these claims.
It would be much more preferable if you would try to make your points without resorting to lies.
RTC wrote: “Just to clarify here, but you’re claiming that job applicants actually requested that you pay them no more than the minimum wage?”
Yes.
RTC wrote: “And, out of the goodness of your heart you pay them more than the legally mandated minimum? You don’t put them on a probationary period, even just to offset the thousands of dollars you spend in training costs?”
My employment contracts usually have a probationary period of 90 days, but I have always started pay at more than minimum wage during this period.
RTC wrote: “Wouldn’t you be able to put more people to work if you only paid the minimum wage whenever possible? Don’t you often claim that jobs are lost because of raises in the minimum wage?”
Yes. Primarily these types of jobs that are lost are not the type of jobs for which I hire people. The jobs I hire for require skill and training. The ones who request that I hire them at minimum wage want to prove to me that they have the ability to be trained. I even had one person beg me to have him work for free, just for the experience and training.
RTC wrote: “It’s normally a sound business practice to limit labor costs, and to always avoid paying more for any good or service than is necessary. Don’t you often criticize the government for not operating more like a business?”
Not exactly. I think the motivations in business cause the business to become more efficient at meeting actual needs. Government also sometimes perceives needs that don’t exist (like a broken health care system nobody is happy with). I think government should be as small as possible and let non-profits and businesses do many of the functions that they have taken up within the last 100 years.
RTC wrote: “Please, don’t make me wade through your inch-screens of gobble-dee-gook to find those many several instances where you make these claims. It would be much more preferable if you would try to make your points without resorting to lies.”
Not sure what lies you are seeing. You don’t have to search for anything, just ask. I usually have a pretty good memory.
David, what I said, “Paying low level employees as little as possible is one of tactics.”
Nothing about minimum wage. In some areas it is necessary to pay more than minimum wage in order have staff stability and to save money on training. It’s a trade off.
btw, “low level” in this instance includes middle management and most professionals.
When I first started working the company tried to pay me minimum wage. I refused and negotiated more. I was still underpaid and had to ask for raises. I refused one raise b/c the amount was insulting. They came back with what I thought was more fair, more than twice the original offer. Not the same company where I spent 19 years and have enough shxt to write a book.
DavidM says: Judging all corporations based upon your experience with one corporation is not wise.
We don’t have to believe it is true for all corporations. We reach the same conclusions if we believe it is true for a majority of corporations, or even a large number of corporations. Evil operators, unchecked, drive out good moral operators, because evil can earn a profit by doing harm that the good moral operators cannot bring themselves to earn.
DavidM says: No, that is not the central fraud.
Yes, it is, in a Ponzi scheme. The investors are misled into thinking they are receiving earnings from an investment; they are not told they are (collectively) receiving their own money back relabeled as “earnings.” Nobody would invest a million dollars to receive half a million of it back as “earnings” over five years with the result of losing the entire million. If they wanted to eat their seed corn, they could just spend 10% a year for twice as long. A fraud is necessary to pull off the Ponzi scheme, and the fraud is the pretense that their million dollars in capital is intact and earning the returns, not just being portioned back out to them. To the knowledge of the victim, their original investment is 100% intact and providing returns in excess of any market losses or setbacks. That is the central fraud of a Ponzi scheme; with any given statement the victims believe they could get their capital back out intact, and any normal risks of a few percent loss would be fully covered by the “profits” they already have received. That is the central lie, collectively the assets of the scheme are a few percent of the claimed value and aren’t “earning” anything.
Social Security never makes that claim. Taxes go to pay benefits. Excesses go into a trust fund that can be tapped to provide benefits when taxes are not enough. There is no fraud, there is no lie, it is not a Ponzi scheme, it is the Government version of an insurance program.
DavidM says: that it is an insurance program that invests its capital.
Insurance companies only invest their reserves. Their premiums pay claims. If claims exceed premiums, then the reserves cover the rest of the claims. If premiums exceed claims, the excess goes into reserves, which do get invested. That is how Social Security works, too. There is a Social Security Trust Fund that gets invested, and is used to cover SS claims in excess of the taxes used to fund SS.
Tony C wrote: “There is a Social Security Trust Fund that gets invested, and is used to cover SS claims in excess of the taxes used to fund SS.”
We keep talking back and forth, looking at the same issue from different perspectives, and I’m not sure more discussion on this issue is going to help. I see an element of fraud in the Social Security Administration sending people statements that show how much their current investment in Social Security has earned them. It leads people to believe that they are investing in their future by investing in Social Security. The SSA actually says it this way too. The result is that many people in society believe that SS is a retirement investment like investing in Mutual Funds or Universal Life Insurance. You seem to believe this to such a degree that while you admit that it is a pay as you go system, you continue to see it erroneously, like an Insurance company which provides retirement income through investments.
To be clear, let me say that when I say “fraud” in this context, I don’t mean a prosecutorial type of criminal fraud. I simply mean that it is deceptive. I see an element of fraud also in how the government uses employers to withhold taxes from the pay earned by employees. Many low level employees get a refund when taxes are due. The event is like a Santa Claus bearing gifts. The entire event makes the company look like the taker and the government like the giver. I think if any private company did either of these things, government would frown upon it and put a stop to it through some kind of criminal legislation, but because government is doing it, then it gets a pass.
You bring up the Social Security Trust Fund now, and I don’t know if you are purposely trying to perpetuate the fraud of this trust fund or if you have been deceived by it yourself. This trust fund by law is NOT allowed to make investments other than in special issues of the United States Treasury where both principal and interest is guaranteed by the Federal government. Basically, this is the Congress robbing the Social Security taxes to pay for their pet projects and then giving Social Security an IOU. The “investment” is paid back with interest from our own tax dollars. It is nothing like an investment in the normal sense of the word. It is like you having a wife who doesn’t work outside the home and you loan her $100 for something she wants and then a year later she pays you back $101.46 with money you gave her to buy groceries. (The actual interest rate for the 2012 year was only 1.458%).
@Davidm2575″. This trust fund by law is NOT allowed to make investments other than in special issues of the United States Treasury where both principal and interest is guaranteed by the Federal government. Basically, this is the Congress robbing the Social Security taxes to pay for their pet projects and then giving Social Security an IOU. The “investment” is paid back with interest from our own tax dollars. It is nothing like an investment in the normal sense of the word.”
Help me understand your position.
Individuals do purchase savings bonds and US treasury bonds. The US government, at maturity, does pay back principal, plus some interest, or at least some funds in addition to the principal that it calls interest.
So is that a some kind of scam because the government is paying back from tax dollars and did not really invest the money in, for example, a factory?
What is your position on savings bonds and government securities?
bigfatmike wrote: “So is that a some kind of scam because the government is paying back from tax dollars and did not really invest the money in, for example, a factory? What is your position on savings bonds and government securities?”
No, these are not the same thing at all. This is the way government borrows money when it has not collected enough taxes. They raise revenue through investors outside of itself. Whether individual or factory would not matter either. This is a completely different animal.
To be clear, I do not consider it a “scam” for SS to borrow from Congress or vice versa. There is just a fraudulent nature to it when it is called an investment. When people are led to view it as a legitimate investment that raises revenue from economic activity, then it becomes deceptive. For example, how Tony portrayed the Social Security Trust Fund as an investment. It is not that in the normal sense of the word investment. It is the right hand loaning money to the left hand.
The only way I might disagree with government borrowing is not related to an element of fraud, but on the political viewpoint that governments by virtue of forced taking of taxes should not have to borrow money to accomplish its goals. I think it is outrageous that our government pays over $400 billion toward interest of debt. This is from an entire budget of $3.8 trillion. That is more than 10% of our expenses, going to pay interest alone. I don’t run my household finances this way, and I don’t like my government wasting all our tax dollars on interest like this.
@Davidm2575 “There is just a fraudulent nature to it when it is called an investment. When people are led to view it as a legitimate investment that raises revenue from economic activity, then it becomes deceptive.”
But individuals and firms to take government securities into their portfolios and call it an investment. Some people consider US securities the safest investment they can make.
Is there some element of fraud involved when US securities are held for investment purposes?
bigfatmike wrote: “Is there some element of fraud involved when US securities are held for investment purposes?”
No. At least not that I can see right now.
The element of fraud enters the picture when an investment firm leads people to believe that they are investing their money, but in actuality, the return on the investment is paid from the money invested by others. That is a Ponzi Scheme. It is what Bernie Madoff did. He started an investment firm in 1960, did some trading in the beginning, but mostly paid off investors with money from other investors. He operated this way for almost 50 years, managing billions of dollars. He focused on charities because they were less likely to try to pull all their money out. There were people who tried to warn others about what Madoff was doing, but it had about as much effect as when people warn about how Social Security is setup under a similar model. Nobody listens. About half the investors in Madoff’s firm never lost any money, but a lot of others did. Social Security has a much larger base of investors, and they are forced to invest, so it will be able to operate a lot longer than 50 years. Just as many people were content with Madoff’s investment business and his strategy for getting 12% returns, many will be content with Social Security.
Elaine,
Hilarious cartoon!!
A little seasonal Ayn Rand humor:
Elaine M – the cartoon you shared seems to ridicule people who look at government like the Santa Claus myth. They think the money and gifts are magically available and expect them always to be there for them for free. It kind of makes Ayn Rand’s point for her, but perhaps some people don’t see it.
The concept of self-reliance is not that people cannot freely give to one another. Rather, self-reliance means that we should never EXPECT free gifts. We should not be looking for our Santa Claus or our government to be our source, but rather we should expect to carry our own weight. In time, we hope to have enough to help carry the weight of others too. True giving is being on the giving end, not the receiving end, so we should EXPECT to be giving and not receiving. Then when we do receive, what a surprise and a blessing it is. That is the right attitude.
I made the suggestion that increasing the minimum wage to 1960’s buying power levels would also benefit the social security fund.
raff: “corporations with employees do pay the employer share of Social Security taxes. However, I do like your concept. Maybe they should pay SS of their own!”
I know they pay half for their employees and my comment was intended to say that as “persons” they should be contributing on their own behalf, which you understood and made it more clear. Since they don’t “retire” they would never need to take out. They just “take” in other ways.
david: “How do you know that this is the reason or that this is how corporations think? I thought you did not believe that corporations are people, yet here you are talking about corporations as if they were evil people.”
I spent several years working in a major corporation and I know that profit is their one and only motivating factor, everything else is secondary. Paying low level employees as little as possible is one of tactics. Paying upper levels of management based on the profit they generate is another. This approach widens the wealth gap for their own benefit, i.e. employees will work for whatever they can get. I don’t believe that corporations are people but the 5 men in black say they are. And, yes, I’m suggesting that their behavior is evil.
bettykath wrote: “I spent several years working in a major corporation and I know that profit is their one and only motivating factor, everything else is secondary. Paying low level employees as little as possible is one of tactics. … employees will work for whatever they can get.”
Judging all corporations based upon your experience with one corporation is not wise. Hobby Lobby indicates that it has a different company policy.
There would be no corporations that pay low level employees higher wages than minimum wage if what you say were true. My corporation has always paid more than minimum wage. Even when I had applicants begging me to give them a job paying minimum wage, I hired them at a wage higher than minimum wage. I am certain that other corporations exist that do the same.
Elaine: Yeah, once she defines selfishness as a virtue, all principles can be thrown out the window. Anything good for her becomes a morally virtuous act, and any consequences to others are tough shit for them.
I fail to see how Social Security can be described as “fraudulent.” I have known quite a number of people who contributed to SS during their working years who receive/received a monthly SS paycheck once they retired. It works much the same as my teacher pension. I also fail to see how SS is “immoral” when it keeps a great number of our elderly population from falling into poverty.
*****
Tony,
Speaking of Rand–she accepted both Social Security and Medicare when she needed them.
Tony, yes, sadly morally bereft.
Annie: They aren’t moral, they just pretend they are, leaning on a redefinition of “morality” provided by the sociopath Ayn Rand that used circular logic and her own made-up definitions of words to define absolute selfishness as the only “moral” act.
DavidM: However, there is still a fraudulent nature to Social Security because it is represented like normal investment products in the business sector,
As I quoted, it is not represented that way by the government or by the Social Security Administration. How other people characterize it is immaterial; how the “business sector” characterizes it is immaterial, the entity collecting the taxes and providing the benefits goes out of their way to explain precisely what is happening. So as I said, anybody that cares to know does know exactly what is happening to their Social Security payment.
You are just lying, now. As your kind always ends up doing, just promulgating lies because the truth doesn’t agree with you, and no truth can justify your selfish, greedy, anti-social agenda of petty, jealous hatred.
DavidM: It is ridiculous for you to think that investors think their capital is safe.
Not when they are told it is; they think their capital is “invested” and “earning” when it isn’t. That is the central fraud; and nothing else. They expect general market risk and nothing else; they are told their money is “invested” in financial instruments when it isn’t, they are told their monthly checks or statements showing a “profit” are “earnings” when they are not.
The rest of your arguments are just as much drivel.
DavidM wrote: “It is ridiculous for you to think that investors think their capital is safe.”
Tony C wrote: “Not when they are told it is; they think their capital is “invested” and “earning” when it isn’t. That is the central fraud; and nothing else.”
No, that is not the central fraud. Capital not invested is generally safer than capital invested. The problem is that their capital is used to pay previous investors rather than being invested. This is how Social Security works too. The capital is not invested in anything, but rather it is used to pay previous investors.
It seems like the reason you cannot bring yourself to admit this simple fact about Social Security is because you believe the fraudulent idea of Social Security, that it is an insurance program that invests its capital.
Social Security is immoral? How is it possible that moral people could possibly view it in such a way, it’s beyond my understanding, truly.
Bron,
to compare social security benefits to mugging is outrageous. The whole idea of Social Security is to keep people out of poverty which helps them and society.
david,
voluntary taxes is not what this country ran on before the income tax. It was tariffs. Secondly, the wealthy have been so generous in paying their taxes by hiding it overseas and in corporations that I am sure that they will pay voluntary taxes.
rafflaw wrote: “voluntary taxes is not what this country ran on before the income tax. It was tariffs.”
I know that, which is why I used the word “also.” Did you miss that? I said, “We also need to evolve government toward being independent with a system of voluntary taxes based upon societies’ evaluation of their performance.”
rafflaw wrote: “Secondly, the wealthy have been so generous in paying their taxes by hiding it overseas and in corporations that I am sure that they will pay voluntary taxes.”
Hiding? You make it sound so sneaky. Privacy is only one advantage to offshore accounts. Less government regulation is a primary reason, so if you want everyone to keep their money here, stop supporting so much government regulation such that it makes it smarter for people to move the money elsewhere.
I suggest you take a trip to the Cayman Islands. When I visited there, they bragged about how they have no taxes oppressing them, and this led to them becoming a great financial haven for investors. The Cayman Islands is a territory of the United Kingdom has been exempt from direct taxation, just like we were prior to the 16th Amendment. So the money placed there and invested has no income tax, no capital gains tax, and no wealth tax. Because our government forbids investment in certain high performing funds, putting money offshore also gives access to greater investment opportunities. This especially becomes true in the global economy when making foreign investments. The wealthy are smart to keep money offshore. You are in error to think that somehow that means they are too selfish to contribute to needs in their community. Even President Obama has money put in offshore accounts. He is just too dim to realize it because other people who are smarter than him in the area of finances is taking care of his money for him. If you have a retirement fund of some kind, a mutual fund or 401(K) at work, there is a good chance some of your money is kept offshore as well and you just don’t realize it. Such financial prudence does not automatically make you too selfish to contribute to community needs.
Oh yeah.
She’s livin’ it up on $1800/mo.
🙄
Gene H wrote: “Oh yeah. She’s livin’ it up on $1800/mo.”
Are you serious? No wonder our federal government is going broke.
Do you know what her comment was about it last week? She said, “I’m actually earning more now than when I actually worked.”
I asked her how this was possible. She said that she was only getting in about 20 to 25 hours a week because she couldn’t stand her job, and so anytime they allowed her to leave or take time off, she did. So now, thanks to Social Security, she doesn’t have to work anymore, and her income is higher now than it was when she worked. Right now she is only getting about 70%, but in a few years, she will switch from disability to retirement and her pay will go up higher. It is really strange how you see that as good for the economy.