quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orincoro, you said: "It was not intended to be the sole means for retired people, it was intended to insure that those who had not saved enough for one reason or another had something minimal on which to survive."
Are you aware that in that sentence you contradict yourself?
No, because I don't. Retired people are not meant to use these funds as their sole means of living. I clearly refer to "retired people" as a group in the first case, and distinguish between them, and those who have not saved enough. And I said "sole means" as opposed to "something minimal." Were social security much more generous than it is, it could be the sole means of support. As it is, it is "something minimal," upon which those with no other options can, if necessary, survive. But it is not enough to survive safely or comfortably without other supports. It was not intended for retired people (again, as a group) to use it in this way.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I still say that what would be most fair to most people would be a flat rate percentage of net income. Then we could throw away the thousand plus page book of Income Tax Rules and tell people what they owe in one sentence.
Yes, and then you can live the way we do in this country, with 90% of the population making just enough to survive, while the rich have endless pools of capital upon which to draw, and the government has fewer funds to improve infrastructure, education, etc, and is wildly corrupt to a degree Americans only fantasize about, accepting cash bribes for favorable legislation.
You don't understand the economic arguments you are making. You don't understand the effects of such laws. You don't seem to care about them. I don't know why.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do you prove that Social Security was never INTENDED to provide the entire living wage of the retired? Where is that intent stated in the law? Whose intent are you talking about? And is the intent of Social Security when it was first enacted generations ago the same as what is intended now? --And again, intended by whom?
You forget, that those "rich" who no longer have most of their wealth (THAT THEY HAVE EARNED!) confiscated by the thievery of govenment, can create far more jobs to employ the rest of us. (1) It is a fact that most jobs in America are provided by small businesses, and (2) it is a fact that most small businesses are taxed as individuals in the $250,000 to $10 million range.
Why don't you understand this basic economic reality, and why don't you care about it?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They didn't earn that wealth alone, they earned it under a system they voluntarily agree to participate in, and they are richly - pun intended - rewarded for their job creation. So much of your rhetoric falls flat on its face.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Why don't you understand this basic economic reality, and why don't you care about it?
To care about it in the way you want us to care about it, you would have to show that a taxation plan you favor liberates the rich to employ the rest of the plebes much more readily and with much higher incomes.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, SS was started when personal pensions were the norm for most companies. Can you find anything that DOES show SS was suppose to do more than supplement other retirement income?
You are literally the only person I have ever met that doesn't already know this.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, when it comes to the Social Security thing, I get Ron's feelings on the matter.
Maybe SS isn't meant to do more than supplement other retirement income. But damn it, there's something about the idea of old people living on too little that bothers me greatly.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, guys, are you intentionally misunderstanding him or something? Ron is often a little difficult, I get that. But what he said in this particular moment seems clear enough.
First of all, small business in America is a business with less than 500 employees. That's according to the US SBA.
Secondly, to Ron's point about taxes... it is a pretty well established fact that a significant number (I see the figure 80% being tossed around the internet but don't have time to try and track down the IRS data where they supposedly got that number, so it may be inflated) of the "wealthy," those making over 250k per year, are actually small business owners who file taxes as individuals. These people frequently don't actually have copious amounts of cash lying around, either. If their business takes in 270k, and they spend 220 or 230 or 240 on payroll, inventory, etc... they didn't actually make all that much.
That's all Ron is saying, I think.
Dabbler, I'm not even sure I can parse your comments. What, precisely, are you asking?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Secondly, to Ron's point about taxes... it is a pretty well established fact that a significant number (I see the figure 80% being tossed around the internet but don't have time to try and track down the IRS data where they supposedly got that number, so it may be inflated) of the "wealthy," those making over 250k per year, are actually small business owners who file taxes as individuals
Wait, what? I really would like to see a source on that before I accept it as pretty well established.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If their business takes in 270k, and they spend 220 or 230 or 240 on payroll, inventory, etc... they didn't actually make all that much.
Nor would they be TAXED all that much -- not on that personal tax return they are apparently passing the income along to. (Payroll taxes are another story.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was asking him which definition of SBA, because online I was finding different definitions: under 100, under 250, under 500. Also, because I think it makes a difference to understand what a SBA is. A financial solution that aims to help a SBA that is under 50 employees intuitively sounds like it would be different from one that helps SBAs at 450 employees. And an SBA at 450 employees seems like it would have a lot more in common with a 1000 employee company.
But my second comment I was just confused why RL was sending me to his (2) to answer my question.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: dabbler: SBA is the Small Business Administration. They only have one definition.
Actually, that's not true. While it's generally less than 500 people, there is more than 1 definition for how small a business can be and still be considered a "small business" and it varies by industry (as well as in what the context is - some Government contracting rules define it differently - but it's not really worth going there at this point)
posted
What I meant by one standard was more that every business at a given point in time is either a small business or it isn't, with no "sometimes yes, sometimes no" situations, but yes, it is a less simple standard for certain types of businesses.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: How do you prove that Social Security was never INTENDED to provide the entire living wage of the retired? Where is that intent stated in the law? Whose intent are you talking about? And is the intent of Social Security when it was first enacted generations ago the same as what is intended now? --And again, intended by whom?
You're asking me to prove it? I mean, what? That was the intent of the law. You look at the law, you look at the time, you figure out what the intent was. Congress at the time was quite clear about what Social Security was all about. What it wasn't about was a full-benefits retirement plan for all people. The law doesn't necessarily contain a clause saying: "here we lay forth the intended outcomes." This is common knowledge. I don't even know how to begin addressing your question.
As for what is "intended now," well, the system was created a long time ago. The government has a way of adapting to new realities. That many people rely on this system for their whole income is of course true. The idea that it was intended to be so at the beginning? Sorry, no. What I can't figure out is whether you're angry that social security exists, or whether your angry that it doesn't live up to your fantasy of what it is supposed to be.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From the original 1935 Social Security Act: Sec. 1. [42 U.S.C. 301] For the purpose of enabling each State, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to furnish financial assistance to aged needy individuals, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this title. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare[4] (hereinafter referred to as the “Secretary”), State plans for old-age assistance
Note the repeated use of the word "assistance." It was a helping hand, not a total replacement. And for that matter, it was understood that only a needy few (or at least, minority) would collect, not everyonePosts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
