Jump to content

Beautiful common sense


Cardboard
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wonder how much he would be worth if the 2008 bailout didn't happen.

 

These guys want bailed out when the system works against them but don't want to pay for it after.

 

This would never happen, but an easy way for people not to leave is for the US to either declare an act of war against any country that accepts them or ban any country they live in from trade. Let's see how many move then. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ain't about leaving, which is a terrible situation when you get to this but, how about capital is formed, ideas generated, people employed, wealth created for all by the way, etc.

 

But yeah if we get to this, some will leave, tax evasion will rise by a ton and people will start ventures in more welcoming places.

 

"I wonder how much he would be worth if the 2008 bailout didn't happen."

 

What would you be worth? You say that you are a Christian and all that, well isn't introspection a big part of it and not envying others?

 

What business have you guys started? How much sacrifice and risk have you made?

 

I can't say that I have started very much but, I have a ton of respect for those who have sacrificed much of their lives to start a successful enterprise and create jobs for thousands of people who then send their kids to school, live better, etc.

 

I think it is perfectly normal that they are rewarded handsomely and as I mentioned before you don't take it with you so it always flow back into society one way or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ain't about leaving, which is a terrible situation when you get to this but, how about capital is formed, ideas generated, people employed, wealth created for all by the way, etc.

 

But yeah if we get to this, some will leave, tax evasion will rise by a ton and people will start ventures in more welcoming places.

 

"I wonder how much he would be worth if the 2008 bailout didn't happen."

 

What would you be worth? You say that you are a Christian and all that, well isn't introspection a big part of it and not envying others?

 

What business have you guys started? How much sacrifice and risk have you made?

 

I can't say that I have started very much but, I have a ton of respect for those who have sacrificed much of their lives to start a successful enterprise and create jobs for thousands of people who then send their kids to school, live better, etc.

 

I think it is perfectly normal that they are rewarded handsomely and as I mentioned before you don't take it with you so it always flow back into society one way or another.

 

Who said I was envious? This is about fairness. For whatever it's worth, I'm quite sure that our relative net worths would be much closer than they currently are if the bailout didn't happen. Heck, mine might even be higher since I used to live on $8,000 a year and his company would have (most likely) gone bankrupt! I don't even have much either!

 

As far as sacrifices go, what does that have to do with anything? What sacrifices has he made? 

 

He benefited from the system tremendously, he should be willing to pay it back. Oh no, he has to pay 2% or 3% a year. The horror! If he wants to swap financial positions with me, I'm happy to take on the burden of the 2% a year. I'll do 5% a year even. ;)

 

This kind of nonsense is making folks go to Warren. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elizabeth does a bait-and-switch just like many other Dems.

 

She is hiking the tax rate by 15% for the top 2% (i.e. 2.4 million households) while screaming about billionaires.

 

Let someone else's kids pay for my unlimited fabulous healthcare and generous monthly stipend for the rest of my life. Big decline in spirituality.

 

This is ain't about leaving, which is a terrible situation when you get to this but, how about capital is formed, ideas generated, people employed, wealth created for all by the way, etc.

 

But yeah if we get to this, some will leave, tax evasion will rise by a ton and people will start ventures in more welcoming places.

 

"I wonder how much he would be worth if the 2008 bailout didn't happen."

 

What would you be worth? You say that you are a Christian and all that, well isn't introspection a big part of it and not envying others?

 

What business have you guys started? How much sacrifice and risk have you made?

 

I can't say that I have started very much but, I have a ton of respect for those who have sacrificed much of their lives to start a successful enterprise and create jobs for thousands of people who then send their kids to school, live better, etc.

 

I think it is perfectly normal that they are rewarded handsomely and as I mentioned before you don't take it with you so it always flow back into society one way or another.

 

Who said I was envious? This is about fairness. For whatever it's worth, I'm quite sure that our relative net worths would be much closer than they currently are if the bailout didn't happen. Heck, mine might even be higher since I used to live on $8,000 a year and his company would have (most likely) gone bankrupt! I don't even have much either!

 

As far as sacrifices go, what does that have to do with anything? What sacrifices has he made? 

 

He benefited from the system tremendously, he should be willing to pay it back. Oh no, he has to pay 2% or 3% a year. The horror! If he wants to swap financial positions with me, I'm happy to take on the burden of the 2% a year. I'll do 5% a year even. ;)

 

This kind of nonsense is making folks go to Warren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elizabeth does a bait-and-switch just like many other Dems.

 

She is hiking the tax rate by 15% for the top 2% (i.e. 2.4 million households) while screaming about billionaires.

 

Let someone else's kids pay for my unlimited fabulous healthcare and generous monthly stipend for the rest of my life. Big decline in spirituality.

 

This is ain't about leaving, which is a terrible situation when you get to this but, how about capital is formed, ideas generated, people employed, wealth created for all by the way, etc.

 

But yeah if we get to this, some will leave, tax evasion will rise by a ton and people will start ventures in more welcoming places.

 

"I wonder how much he would be worth if the 2008 bailout didn't happen."

 

What would you be worth? You say that you are a Christian and all that, well isn't introspection a big part of it and not envying others?

 

What business have you guys started? How much sacrifice and risk have you made?

 

I can't say that I have started very much but, I have a ton of respect for those who have sacrificed much of their lives to start a successful enterprise and create jobs for thousands of people who then send their kids to school, live better, etc.

 

I think it is perfectly normal that they are rewarded handsomely and as I mentioned before you don't take it with you so it always flow back into society one way or another.

 

Who said I was envious? This is about fairness. For whatever it's worth, I'm quite sure that our relative net worths would be much closer than they currently are if the bailout didn't happen. Heck, mine might even be higher since I used to live on $8,000 a year and his company would have (most likely) gone bankrupt! I don't even have much either!

 

As far as sacrifices go, what does that have to do with anything? What sacrifices has he made? 

 

He benefited from the system tremendously, he should be willing to pay it back. Oh no, he has to pay 2% or 3% a year. The horror! If he wants to swap financial positions with me, I'm happy to take on the burden of the 2% a year. I'll do 5% a year even. ;)

 

This kind of nonsense is making folks go to Warren.

 

If you're in the top 2%, your kids will be just fine - even with the tax increase. ;)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top 2% corresponds to a living wage in the high-cost areas like Silicon Valley.

 

I meant we are in this deficit problem because Medicare and Social Security was put in place when people had more children. With the current rate of reproduction, the number of taxpayers will be dwarfed by the number of retirees.

 

The number of births per 1000 people in California has gone down by half over the last 30 years.

 

Elizabeth does a bait-and-switch just like many other Dems.

 

She is hiking the tax rate by 15% for the top 2% (i.e. 2.4 million households) while screaming about billionaires.

 

Let someone else's kids pay for my unlimited fabulous healthcare and generous monthly stipend for the rest of my life. Big decline in spirituality.

 

This is ain't about leaving, which is a terrible situation when you get to this but, how about capital is formed, ideas generated, people employed, wealth created for all by the way, etc.

 

But yeah if we get to this, some will leave, tax evasion will rise by a ton and people will start ventures in more welcoming places.

 

"I wonder how much he would be worth if the 2008 bailout didn't happen."

 

What would you be worth? You say that you are a Christian and all that, well isn't introspection a big part of it and not envying others?

 

What business have you guys started? How much sacrifice and risk have you made?

 

I can't say that I have started very much but, I have a ton of respect for those who have sacrificed much of their lives to start a successful enterprise and create jobs for thousands of people who then send their kids to school, live better, etc.

 

I think it is perfectly normal that they are rewarded handsomely and as I mentioned before you don't take it with you so it always flow back into society one way or another.

 

Who said I was envious? This is about fairness. For whatever it's worth, I'm quite sure that our relative net worths would be much closer than they currently are if the bailout didn't happen. Heck, mine might even be higher since I used to live on $8,000 a year and his company would have (most likely) gone bankrupt! I don't even have much either!

 

As far as sacrifices go, what does that have to do with anything? What sacrifices has he made? 

 

He benefited from the system tremendously, he should be willing to pay it back. Oh no, he has to pay 2% or 3% a year. The horror! If he wants to swap financial positions with me, I'm happy to take on the burden of the 2% a year. I'll do 5% a year even. ;)

 

This kind of nonsense is making folks go to Warren.

 

If you're in the top 2%, your kids will be just fine - even with the tax increase. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As far as sacrifices go, what does that have to do with anything? What sacrifices has he made?  "

 

You really have no clue, do you?

 

Ever met management people and how many hours they put through? CEO's, people who startup businesses?

 

Well, let's see. What do you think sacrifice really is?

 

Let's look at 2 examples.

 

1) CEO, works long hours to get a fat bonus but missing out on family time (which he doesn't really care that much about anyway). Ego reigns supreme. Sacrificing to make a lot of money isn't really sacrifice.

 

2) A solider. Dies defending values that he believes in. Has no chance at "making it big."

 

 

So, please, tell me, what did he sacrifice?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top 2% corresponds to a living wage in the high-cost areas like Silicon Valley.

 

I meant we are in this deficit problem because Medicare and Social Security was put in place when people had more children. With the current rate of reproduction, the number of taxpayers will be dwarfed by the number of retirees.

 

The number of births per 1000 people in California has gone down by half over the last 30 years.

 

Elizabeth does a bait-and-switch just like many other Dems.

 

She is hiking the tax rate by 15% for the top 2% (i.e. 2.4 million households) while screaming about billionaires.

 

Let someone else's kids pay for my unlimited fabulous healthcare and generous monthly stipend for the rest of my life. Big decline in spirituality.

 

This is ain't about leaving, which is a terrible situation when you get to this but, how about capital is formed, ideas generated, people employed, wealth created for all by the way, etc.

 

But yeah if we get to this, some will leave, tax evasion will rise by a ton and people will start ventures in more welcoming places.

 

"I wonder how much he would be worth if the 2008 bailout didn't happen."

 

What would you be worth? You say that you are a Christian and all that, well isn't introspection a big part of it and not envying others?

 

What business have you guys started? How much sacrifice and risk have you made?

 

I can't say that I have started very much but, I have a ton of respect for those who have sacrificed much of their lives to start a successful enterprise and create jobs for thousands of people who then send their kids to school, live better, etc.

 

I think it is perfectly normal that they are rewarded handsomely and as I mentioned before you don't take it with you so it always flow back into society one way or another.

 

Who said I was envious? This is about fairness. For whatever it's worth, I'm quite sure that our relative net worths would be much closer than they currently are if the bailout didn't happen. Heck, mine might even be higher since I used to live on $8,000 a year and his company would have (most likely) gone bankrupt! I don't even have much either!

 

As far as sacrifices go, what does that have to do with anything? What sacrifices has he made? 

 

He benefited from the system tremendously, he should be willing to pay it back. Oh no, he has to pay 2% or 3% a year. The horror! If he wants to swap financial positions with me, I'm happy to take on the burden of the 2% a year. I'll do 5% a year even. ;)

 

This kind of nonsense is making folks go to Warren.

 

If you're in the top 2%, your kids will be just fine - even with the tax increase. ;)

 

Don’t forget that in 1935 (the year social security was enacted) the average life expectancy of men was 59 and women was 64. You couldn’t collect social security until you were 65. That is a stark contrast to today. People still had to save for themselves and their own retirement. SS was basically a safety net if you potentially outlived your savings past your expected death rate.

 

Perhaps we should A.) abolish this nonsense and let people invest the 12.4% themselves or B.) Raise the collection age to 79.

 

I vote for A

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top 2% corresponds to a living wage in the high-cost areas like Silicon Valley.

 

I meant we are in this deficit problem because Medicare and Social Security was put in place when people had more children. With the current rate of reproduction, the number of taxpayers will be dwarfed by the number of retirees.

 

The number of births per 1000 people in California has gone down by half over the last 30 years.

 

Elizabeth does a bait-and-switch just like many other Dems.

 

She is hiking the tax rate by 15% for the top 2% (i.e. 2.4 million households) while screaming about billionaires.

 

Let someone else's kids pay for my unlimited fabulous healthcare and generous monthly stipend for the rest of my life. Big decline in spirituality.

 

This is ain't about leaving, which is a terrible situation when you get to this but, how about capital is formed, ideas generated, people employed, wealth created for all by the way, etc.

 

But yeah if we get to this, some will leave, tax evasion will rise by a ton and people will start ventures in more welcoming places.

 

"I wonder how much he would be worth if the 2008 bailout didn't happen."

 

What would you be worth? You say that you are a Christian and all that, well isn't introspection a big part of it and not envying others?

 

What business have you guys started? How much sacrifice and risk have you made?

 

I can't say that I have started very much but, I have a ton of respect for those who have sacrificed much of their lives to start a successful enterprise and create jobs for thousands of people who then send their kids to school, live better, etc.

 

I think it is perfectly normal that they are rewarded handsomely and as I mentioned before you don't take it with you so it always flow back into society one way or another.

 

Who said I was envious? This is about fairness. For whatever it's worth, I'm quite sure that our relative net worths would be much closer than they currently are if the bailout didn't happen. Heck, mine might even be higher since I used to live on $8,000 a year and his company would have (most likely) gone bankrupt! I don't even have much either!

 

As far as sacrifices go, what does that have to do with anything? What sacrifices has he made? 

 

He benefited from the system tremendously, he should be willing to pay it back. Oh no, he has to pay 2% or 3% a year. The horror! If he wants to swap financial positions with me, I'm happy to take on the burden of the 2% a year. I'll do 5% a year even. ;)

 

This kind of nonsense is making folks go to Warren.

 

If you're in the top 2%, your kids will be just fine - even with the tax increase. ;)

 

Don’t forget that in 1935 (the year social security was enacted) the average life expectancy of men was 59 and women was 64. You couldn’t collect social security until you were 65. That is a stark contrast to today. People still had to save for themselves and their own retirement. SS was basically a safety net if you potentially outlived your savings past your expected death rate.

 

Perhaps we should A.) abolish this nonsense and let people invest the 12.4% themselves or B.) Raise the collection age to 79.

 

I vote for A

 

I usually agree with you but I would have to go with B, unquestionably (I think they should raise it).

 

A lot of people live solely on social security. They either don't understand investments or are taken by high fees or a variety of other reasons. 401ks have been a terrible idea for the general public. Letting people manage their own social security would be even worse.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote author=Castanza " data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="17611" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic" 385188#msg385188 data-ipsquote-timestamp=1571267963]

The top 2% corresponds to a living wage in the high-cost areas like Silicon Valley.

 

I meant we are in this deficit problem because Medicare and Social Security was put in place when people had more children. With the current rate of reproduction, the number of taxpayers will be dwarfed by the number of retirees.

 

The number of births per 1000 people in California has gone down by half over the last 30 years.

 

Elizabeth does a bait-and-switch just like many other Dems.

 

She is hiking the tax rate by 15% for the top 2% (i.e. 2.4 million households) while screaming about billionaires.

 

Let someone else's kids pay for my unlimited fabulous healthcare and generous monthly stipend for the rest of my life. Big decline in spirituality.

 

This is ain't about leaving, which is a terrible situation when you get to this but, how about capital is formed, ideas generated, people employed, wealth created for all by the way, etc.

 

But yeah if we get to this, some will leave, tax evasion will rise by a ton and people will start ventures in more welcoming places.

 

"I wonder how much he would be worth if the 2008 bailout didn't happen."

 

What would you be worth? You say that you are a Christian and all that, well isn't introspection a big part of it and not envying others?

 

What business have you guys started? How much sacrifice and risk have you made?

 

I can't say that I have started very much but, I have a ton of respect for those who have sacrificed much of their lives to start a successful enterprise and create jobs for thousands of people who then send their kids to school, live better, etc.

 

I think it is perfectly normal that they are rewarded handsomely and as I mentioned before you don't take it with you so it always flow back into society one way or another.

 

Who said I was envious? This is about fairness. For whatever it's worth, I'm quite sure that our relative net worths would be much closer than they currently are if the bailout didn't happen. Heck, mine might even be higher since I used to live on $8,000 a year and his company would have (most likely) gone bankrupt! I don't even have much either!

 

As far as sacrifices go, what does that have to do with anything? What sacrifices has he made? 

 

He benefited from the system tremendously, he should be willing to pay it back. Oh no, he has to pay 2% or 3% a year. The horror! If he wants to swap financial positions with me, I'm happy to take on the burden of the 2% a year. I'll do 5% a year even. ;)

 

This kind of nonsense is making folks go to Warren.

 

If you're in the top 2%, your kids will be just fine - even with the tax increase. ;)

 

Don’t forget that in 1935 (the year social security was enacted) the average life expectancy of men was 59 and women was 64. You couldn’t collect social security until you were 65. That is a stark contrast to today. People still had to save for themselves and their own retirement. SS was basically a safety net if you potentially outlived your savings past your expected death rate.

 

Perhaps we should A.) abolish this nonsense and let people invest the 12.4% themselves or B.) Raise the collection age to 79.

 

I vote for A

 

I usually agree with you but I would have to go with B, unquestionably (I think they should raise it).

 

A lot of people live solely on social security. They either don't understand investments or are taken by high fees or a variety of other reasons. 401ks have been a terrible idea for the general public. Letting people manage their own social security would be even worse.

 

Option A is the ideal option, but option B is a good start. I just don’t see a compelling reason as to why to t should be involved in retirement. We live in the Information Age. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to learn about index funds or target retirement funds etc. Creating more responsibility for individuals is a key factor to a progressing society (in my opinion). Fiscal responsibility at a personal level carries over to future fiscal policy. Imagine the next generation of politicians 20-25 years from now.

 

You can almost hear the speech now.

 

“Back when I was younger all we had Was UBI. Well it wasn’t enough and that’s why I’m campaigning in Universal Income! So every American can have a 100% guaranteed financially secure life to live out their dreams!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As far as sacrifices go, what does that have to do with anything? What sacrifices has he made?  "

 

You really have no clue, do you?

 

Ever met management people and how many hours they put through? CEO's, people who startup businesses?

 

This logic has never made sense to me.  Let's assume someone worked day-and-night (like young Bill Gates hours) to become worth $25B.  We pass a very simple law: all wealth above $10B is immediately confiscated by the government.  This person has $10B now and had $15B taken from them overnight.

 

You actually believe, if you gave that person a time machine, they'd go back and not work their ass off to be worth $10B?  Like $10B just isn't worth their effort? 

 

There is ZERO correlation between hard work and wealth past a certain point.  A person worth $10B DID NOT work 10x harder than someone worth $1B.  Someone worth $1B did not work 10x harder than someone worth $100mm.  The ENTIRE hard work to wealth ratio breaks down VERY quickly.

 

As a banker turned industry employee, I can assure you the vast majority of CEO's in the F500 don't work crazy hours.  I wish that myth would just go away.  Hell, even Jeff Bezos admits that he doesn't get into work until around 10am (he likes to putter around the house and have breakfast with his kids) and doesn't like to have tough meetings after 5pm because he is tired.  Oh, and he insists on 8 hours of sleep a night.

 

The F500 CEO as workaholic is a narrative built to justify their compensation.  Besides, the skills one needs to be a great CEO don't require 15 hour workdays anyway.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote author=Castanza " data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="17611" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic" 385188#msg385188 data-ipsquote-timestamp=1571267963]

The top 2% corresponds to a living wage in the high-cost areas like Silicon Valley.

 

I meant we are in this deficit problem because Medicare and Social Security was put in place when people had more children. With the current rate of reproduction, the number of taxpayers will be dwarfed by the number of retirees.

 

The number of births per 1000 people in California has gone down by half over the last 30 years.

 

Elizabeth does a bait-and-switch just like many other Dems.

 

She is hiking the tax rate by 15% for the top 2% (i.e. 2.4 million households) while screaming about billionaires.

 

Let someone else's kids pay for my unlimited fabulous healthcare and generous monthly stipend for the rest of my life. Big decline in spirituality.

 

This is ain't about leaving, which is a terrible situation when you get to this but, how about capital is formed, ideas generated, people employed, wealth created for all by the way, etc.

 

But yeah if we get to this, some will leave, tax evasion will rise by a ton and people will start ventures in more welcoming places.

 

"I wonder how much he would be worth if the 2008 bailout didn't happen."

 

What would you be worth? You say that you are a Christian and all that, well isn't introspection a big part of it and not envying others?

 

What business have you guys started? How much sacrifice and risk have you made?

 

I can't say that I have started very much but, I have a ton of respect for those who have sacrificed much of their lives to start a successful enterprise and create jobs for thousands of people who then send their kids to school, live better, etc.

 

I think it is perfectly normal that they are rewarded handsomely and as I mentioned before you don't take it with you so it always flow back into society one way or another.

 

Who said I was envious? This is about fairness. For whatever it's worth, I'm quite sure that our relative net worths would be much closer than they currently are if the bailout didn't happen. Heck, mine might even be higher since I used to live on $8,000 a year and his company would have (most likely) gone bankrupt! I don't even have much either!

 

As far as sacrifices go, what does that have to do with anything? What sacrifices has he made? 

 

He benefited from the system tremendously, he should be willing to pay it back. Oh no, he has to pay 2% or 3% a year. The horror! If he wants to swap financial positions with me, I'm happy to take on the burden of the 2% a year. I'll do 5% a year even. ;)

 

This kind of nonsense is making folks go to Warren.

 

If you're in the top 2%, your kids will be just fine - even with the tax increase. ;)

 

Don’t forget that in 1935 (the year social security was enacted) the average life expectancy of men was 59 and women was 64. You couldn’t collect social security until you were 65. That is a stark contrast to today. People still had to save for themselves and their own retirement. SS was basically a safety net if you potentially outlived your savings past your expected death rate.

 

Perhaps we should A.) abolish this nonsense and let people invest the 12.4% themselves or B.) Raise the collection age to 79.

 

I vote for A

 

I usually agree with you but I would have to go with B, unquestionably (I think they should raise it).

 

A lot of people live solely on social security. They either don't understand investments or are taken by high fees or a variety of other reasons. 401ks have been a terrible idea for the general public. Letting people manage their own social security would be even worse.

 

Option A is the ideal option, but option B is a good start. I just don’t see a compelling reason as to why to t should be involved in retirement. We live in the Information Age. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to learn about index funds or target retirement funds etc. Creating more responsibility for individuals is a key factor to a progressing society (in my opinion). Fiscal responsibility at a personal level carries over to future fiscal policy. Imagine the next generation of politicians 20-25 years from now.

 

You can almost hear the speech now.

 

“Back when I was younger all we had Was UBI. Well it wasn’t enough and that’s why I’m campaigning in Universal Income! So every American can have a 100% guaranteed financially secure life to live out their dreams!”

 

Option A is the ideal for some people but not for the general population.

 

Most people are working and trying to take care of kids. Yes, yes "put it in an index fund and let it ride" sounds good but doesn't actually work for the average person. The financial service industry will take advantage of as much as they can. "Well, you can do better by moving over to this actively managed fund!"

 

First, the vast majority of people can't hold during large draw downs.

 

Second, it gives the boards an easy layup to overpay executives since the business owners aren't all that interested.

 

Look at how the Trump administration defeated the fiduciary rule. "“We think it is a bad rule. It is a bad rule for consumers…. This is like putting only healthy food on the menu, because unhealthy food tastes good but you still shouldn’t eat it because you might die younger'

 

http://money.com/money/4659485/trump-advisor-uses-terrible-food-analogy-to-defend-financial-deregulation/

 

I'd love to know how sucky performance and a lower amount for retirement provides as much pleasure as a doughnut. At least with a junk food, there is a benefit of good taste. I see no benefit to crappy products...well, to the consumer anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top 2% corresponds to a living wage in the high-cost areas like Silicon Valley.

 

I meant we are in this deficit problem because Medicare and Social Security was put in place when people had more children. With the current rate of reproduction, the number of taxpayers will be dwarfed by the number of retirees.

 

The number of births per 1000 people in California has gone down by half over the last 30 years.

 

Elizabeth does a bait-and-switch just like many other Dems.

 

She is hiking the tax rate by 15% for the top 2% (i.e. 2.4 million households) while screaming about billionaires.

 

Let someone else's kids pay for my unlimited fabulous healthcare and generous monthly stipend for the rest of my life. Big decline in spirituality.

 

This is ain't about leaving, which is a terrible situation when you get to this but, how about capital is formed, ideas generated, people employed, wealth created for all by the way, etc.

 

But yeah if we get to this, some will leave, tax evasion will rise by a ton and people will start ventures in more welcoming places.

 

"I wonder how much he would be worth if the 2008 bailout didn't happen."

 

What would you be worth? You say that you are a Christian and all that, well isn't introspection a big part of it and not envying others?

 

What business have you guys started? How much sacrifice and risk have you made?

 

I can't say that I have started very much but, I have a ton of respect for those who have sacrificed much of their lives to start a successful enterprise and create jobs for thousands of people who then send their kids to school, live better, etc.

 

I think it is perfectly normal that they are rewarded handsomely and as I mentioned before you don't take it with you so it always flow back into society one way or another.

 

Who said I was envious? This is about fairness. For whatever it's worth, I'm quite sure that our relative net worths would be much closer than they currently are if the bailout didn't happen. Heck, mine might even be higher since I used to live on $8,000 a year and his company would have (most likely) gone bankrupt! I don't even have much either!

 

As far as sacrifices go, what does that have to do with anything? What sacrifices has he made? 

 

He benefited from the system tremendously, he should be willing to pay it back. Oh no, he has to pay 2% or 3% a year. The horror! If he wants to swap financial positions with me, I'm happy to take on the burden of the 2% a year. I'll do 5% a year even. ;)

 

This kind of nonsense is making folks go to Warren.

 

If you're in the top 2%, your kids will be just fine - even with the tax increase. ;)

 

Don’t forget that in 1935 (the year social security was enacted) the average life expectancy of men was 59 and women was 64. You couldn’t collect social security until you were 65. That is a stark contrast to today. People still had to save for themselves and their own retirement. SS was basically a safety net if you potentially outlived your savings past your expected death rate.

 

Perhaps we should A.) abolish this nonsense and let people invest the 12.4% themselves or B.) Raise the collection age to 79.

 

I vote for A

 

I usually agree with you but I would have to go with B, unquestionably (I think they should raise it).

 

A lot of people live solely on social security. They either don't understand investments or are taken by high fees or a variety of other reasons. 401ks have been a terrible idea for the general public. Letting people manage their own social security would be even worse.

 

I disagree with both A and B. A is horrible because its a waste of energy and time for millions of people and it won't be effective. The average person is a horrible investor. Option B is bad because it defeat the whole purpose of retirement which to give the old people whose bodies and minds are degrading a chance to rest after a lifetime of work.

 

I prefer option C...copy Canada's solution. We did a few things:

1) We increased payroll taxes..this is one of the few tax increases I fully agree with. Interestingly our payroll tax for CPP is still LOWER than the US.

2) We have the CPPIB. Basically its in charge of investing the pension assets and it managed by investment professionals. The assets are not controlled by government they are controlled by the CPPIB which has a relatively non-political character (in huge contrast to CALPERS or CALISTERS). This model was in turn a copy of OTPP...Ontario Teachers Pension Plan.

 

So far this model has worked extremely well. Now I'm far less optimistic than others about the future prospects of CPPIB and OTPP despite the amazing record that OTPP has had. However one thing I'm sure of is that our pension system will be in a far far far far better position than the US 50 years from now. We have diverse real assets backing up our promises (infrastructure, forests, stocks, bonds, malls) instead of purely government IOUs.

 

You should copy the OTPP model, admit Canadians have done this better than you and move on to real problems (your healthcare system). Now I have to admit that if you do copy the OTPP model I am afraid that it will end up something like CALPERS which is a fucking disaster because you will end up politicizing the whole thing...so I suggest you just get Canadians to run it for you too and maybe a few professionals suggest by Buffett.

 

If you want to understand why the CaLPERS model failed...just look at their board of directors. ALL POLITICAL APPOINTEES. Then take a look at CPPIB board of directors...most come from the private sector:

http://www.cppib.com/en/who-we-are/governance-overview/board-directors/

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/about/board/board-members

 

You also aught to study the CPPIB and OTPP very carefully:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPP_Investment_Board

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Teachers%27_Pension_Plan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top 2% corresponds to a living wage in the high-cost areas like Silicon Valley.

 

I meant we are in this deficit problem because Medicare and Social Security was put in place when people had more children. With the current rate of reproduction, the number of taxpayers will be dwarfed by the number of retirees.

 

The number of births per 1000 people in California has gone down by half over the last 30 years.

 

 

 

A top 2% wage earner is an individual making 265k or a family making 470k. I assure you that you can live quite well on a top 2% salary, even in silicon valley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top 2% corresponds to a living wage in the high-cost areas like Silicon Valley.

 

I meant we are in this deficit problem because Medicare and Social Security was put in place when people had more children. With the current rate of reproduction, the number of taxpayers will be dwarfed by the number of retirees.

 

The number of births per 1000 people in California has gone down by half over the last 30 years.

 

 

 

A top 2% wage earner is an individual making 265k or a family making 470k. I assure you that you can live quite well on a top 2% salary, even in silicon valley.

 

According to this, that would put the family in the 1%:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/how-much-you-have-to-earn-to-be-in-the-top-1percent-in-every-us-state.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top 2% corresponds to a living wage in the high-cost areas like Silicon Valley.

 

I meant we are in this deficit problem because Medicare and Social Security was put in place when people had more children. With the current rate of reproduction, the number of taxpayers will be dwarfed by the number of retirees.

 

The number of births per 1000 people in California has gone down by half over the last 30 years.

 

Elizabeth does a bait-and-switch just like many other Dems.

 

She is hiking the tax rate by 15% for the top 2% (i.e. 2.4 million households) while screaming about billionaires.

 

Let someone else's kids pay for my unlimited fabulous healthcare and generous monthly stipend for the rest of my life. Big decline in spirituality.

 

This is ain't about leaving, which is a terrible situation when you get to this but, how about capital is formed, ideas generated, people employed, wealth created for all by the way, etc.

 

But yeah if we get to this, some will leave, tax evasion will rise by a ton and people will start ventures in more welcoming places.

 

"I wonder how much he would be worth if the 2008 bailout didn't happen."

 

What would you be worth? You say that you are a Christian and all that, well isn't introspection a big part of it and not envying others?

 

What business have you guys started? How much sacrifice and risk have you made?

 

I can't say that I have started very much but, I have a ton of respect for those who have sacrificed much of their lives to start a successful enterprise and create jobs for thousands of people who then send their kids to school, live better, etc.

 

I think it is perfectly normal that they are rewarded handsomely and as I mentioned before you don't take it with you so it always flow back into society one way or another.

 

Who said I was envious? This is about fairness. For whatever it's worth, I'm quite sure that our relative net worths would be much closer than they currently are if the bailout didn't happen. Heck, mine might even be higher since I used to live on $8,000 a year and his company would have (most likely) gone bankrupt! I don't even have much either!

 

As far as sacrifices go, what does that have to do with anything? What sacrifices has he made? 

 

He benefited from the system tremendously, he should be willing to pay it back. Oh no, he has to pay 2% or 3% a year. The horror! If he wants to swap financial positions with me, I'm happy to take on the burden of the 2% a year. I'll do 5% a year even. ;)

 

This kind of nonsense is making folks go to Warren.

 

If you're in the top 2%, your kids will be just fine - even with the tax increase. ;)

 

Don’t forget that in 1935 (the year social security was enacted) the average life expectancy of men was 59 and women was 64. You couldn’t collect social security until you were 65. That is a stark contrast to today. People still had to save for themselves and their own retirement. SS was basically a safety net if you potentially outlived your savings past your expected death rate.

 

Perhaps we should A.) abolish this nonsense and let people invest the 12.4% themselves or B.) Raise the collection age to 79.

 

I vote for A

 

I usually agree with you but I would have to go with B, unquestionably (I think they should raise it).

 

A lot of people live solely on social security. They either don't understand investments or are taken by high fees or a variety of other reasons. 401ks have been a terrible idea for the general public. Letting people manage their own social security would be even worse.

 

I disagree with both A and B. A is horrible because its a waste of energy and time for millions of people and it won't be effective. The average person is a horrible investor. Option B is bad because it defeat the whole purpose of retirement which to give the old people whose bodies and minds are degrading a chance to rest after a lifetime of work.

 

I prefer option C...copy Canada's solution. We did a few things:

1) We increased payroll taxes..this is one of the few tax increases I fully agree with. Interestingly our payroll tax for CPP is still LOWER than the US.

2) We have the CPPIB. Basically its in charge of investing the pension assets and it managed by investment professionals. The assets are not controlled by government they are controlled by the CPPIB which has a relatively non-political character (in huge contrast to CALPERS or CALISTERS). This model was in turn a copy of OTPP...Ontario Teachers Pension Plan.

 

So far this model has worked extremely well. Now I'm far less optimistic than others about the future prospects of CPPIB and OTPP despite the amazing record that OTPP has had. However one thing I'm sure of is that our pension system will be in a far far far far better position than the US 50 years from now. We have diverse real assets backing up our promises (infrastructure, forests, stocks, bonds, malls) instead of purely government IOUs.

 

You should copy the OTPP model, admit Canadians have done this better than you and move on to real problems (your healthcare system). Now I have to admit that if you do copy the OTPP model I am afraid that it will end up something like CALPERS which is a fucking disaster because you will end up politicizing the whole thing...so I suggest you just get Canadians to run it for you too and maybe a few professionals suggest by Buffett.

 

If you want to understand why the CaLPERS model failed...just look at their board of directors. ALL POLITICAL APPOINTEES. Then take a look at CPPIB board of directors...most come from the private sector:

http://www.cppib.com/en/who-we-are/governance-overview/board-directors/

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/about/board/board-members

 

You also aught to study the CPPIB and OTPP very carefully:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPP_Investment_Board

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Teachers%27_Pension_Plan

 

We're talking about the purpose of SS not necessarily retirement as a whole. The current model is nowhere near the original model of SS. I'm actually surprised you have this stance as you're generally more libertarian on your views.

 

Why is it we are fine with average Americans taking out car loans, mortgages, business loans, purchasing insurance for all the above but when it comes to retirement we think they are incapable? Schwab, vanguard, Fidelity, TDA, etc all have target retirement funds. None of them are taking anyone for a ride. You talk about the incompetence of people but nobody is asking why people are incompetent. It's because of SS people have become ignorant. You're also assuming SS is an efficient manner in which to save for retirement.

 

Look at the spread sheet I attached. Yes, its assuming you are hitting the income cap every year for SS. By age 68 you will have contributed $396,001 You are slotted to receive $3,408/month for social security. If you live to be 78 you will receive 408k in SS benefits.

 

Those same contributions compounded with a 5% annual return nets you $1,136,028 at age 68. My numbers are slightly skewed due to age/timeframe but even if you subtract 18 years off the beginning to simulate work starting at 18 (1969) you will have 1.05 mil at age 50 which would be 2.1m at age 65 with 5% compound. The 4% rule would net you 7k a month at age 65. That is a stark difference from SS and the "guaranteed" money you will receive.

 

You say people are incompetent, I say they are ignorant. Point this out to people and I'm sure their opinion would change. Not to mention the old saying goes, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." And again, I know this is assuming max earning and isn't apples to apples. You could probably just cut contributions in half for a more accurate comparison to the average person.

 

With all the waste, shady borrowing, administrative costs that come along with SS I can't see how it's a better option than making people save their own money.

 

SS_Lifetime_Contribution_calc..xlsx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...