Re: US debt now $63.8 Trillion and rising fast

[Guest guest]

I think the intention of nationalized health care will be the extermination of as many of the elderly as possible as quickly as possible. Sure they are a powerful voting bloc, but they are on the way out and millions of uneducated American youth and immigrants would love to see them gone, and taxes kept low. Besides, there are so many new government hand out programs for all of those young people and immigrants that would probably cost less than the health care would.

As for your other points: that is why we should have privatized Social Security decades ago. What should have replaced it as the main retirement programs was a series of IRA type instruments and annuities that would be exempt from taxation and only count as income what was taken out of them after retirement. In that way the accounts could possibly continue to grow if the holder didn't take all of the money interest generated by it.

Corporate and government pensions could have all been rolled into these programs too. American Businesses could have saved a fortune by contributing to these private accounts and not having to worry about managing in house pensions. They would also be totally portable between jobs if a person moved since the account would be owned by them and not by the company or government. We would also save a fortune from government as well because all of those pensions are paid out of taxpayer money now. Under the private system I'm talking about, once the useless bureaucrat or politician retired, they would no longer be a burden on society.

Granted this system would have vulnerability to market forces like the recent downturn. However, because every single worker would be invested in some way, many people would be paying more attention to what the monied classes and elites were up to. Many would surely have been swept up in the bubble hysteria when returns were high, but I think that had this system been in place since the 1960's, a few stings would have made the people far more observant. Of course, if we had a real education system that taught a real fiscal education, then this current crisis could not have happened in the first place, and certainly the politicians that caused it would not have been re-elected.

It is possible that a lot of people will be killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea. The amount of savings from pensions and medical would be moot compared to the economic damage such a loss of power and prestige would cause us. If the Middle East blows up and gas prices soar, then such costs would not even be a concern. Of course, the deaths of so many soldiers and economy collapse leads to some very disturbing thoughts on the home front.

In a message dated 5/29/2009 5:30:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

If Obama kills off alot of people in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and North Korea, we might have more veteran's benefits, but fewer people taxing all the national systems in the future.

Administrator Discover the variety of Bisquick® mix. Get Recipes Savings Now.

[Guest guest]

Key federal obligations:

"Social Security. It will grow by 1 million to 2 million beneficiaries a year from 2008 through 2032, up from 500,000 a year in the 1990s, its actuaries say. Average benefit: $12,089 in 2008."

While the rate will certainly go up, it is true also that the baby-boomer generation mistreated themselves throughout the years they were growing up. Even though they had better foods to eat, they ate too much of it. They also did a lot of drugs, and they tapered off on keeping physically fit.

I don't think they will tax the system for long, and as they - the wealthiest living individuals in the US- die, their children will inherit their estates and use that money to pay off personal debts. This means that even though taxpayers will be on the hook for more taxes, they will have fewer personal debts.

"Medicare. More than 1 million a year will enroll starting in 2011 when the first Baby Boomer turns 65. Average 2008 benefit: $11,018."

And this is why Obama wants to revamp health care. If you get negotiated rates for everyone, and free healthcare for standard illnesses, you can get rid of the current system. The problem is that the new healthcare system will be more expensive than anything which exists now.

"Retirement programs. Congress has not set aside money to pay military and civil servant pensions or health care for retirees. These unfunded obligations have increased an average of $300 billion a year since 2003 and now stand at $5.3 trillion."

If Obama kills off alot of people in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and North Korea, we might have more veteran's benefits, but fewer people taxing all the national systems in the future.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

I usually forget to mention that a safety net for the most destitute and unlucky should exist. However, the majority of people should not need it. A moderately well run fund like I am talking about into which someone invest their own money should be quite adequate to see them through retirement.

One of the problems is that our tax system has been rigged against savings for a long time. Gains through investment and holding assets are taxed via capital gains. Indeed they may be double taxed through corporate income taxes as well, meaning some investments return much less than they otherwise would. Time was people held stocks because they paid dividends. The tax laws changed and dividends have largely vanished which put all the onus of a stock in its paper value on the stock market, not it true value as a producer of goods and services. I believe that is one reason we have seen so much industry go overseas: lower jobs costs means and artificial inflation of the profit margin and thus the paper value of a stock increases.

On the other hand, debt was favored. For a long time people have been able to write off mortgage payments and certain other non-business related debts. I have always seen this as a trap because people came to see their debt not as something to get out from under but as a protection of a sort against the tax man. I know when I was looking at a property, the agent was telling me about how much I could write off of my taxes. They looked totally baffled when I told them I was going to pay off the debt as fast as I could because the payments on the debt would cost me far more than I would save on my taxes. You'd have thought I grew another head the way he was looking at me.

They way I see it, a small tax of maybe 2% on wages could fund the system for those who really need it. If everyone else was made to put at least 5% of their income into a private account, that would be a start. However, I think was they started to see their monthly statements with numbers in black, meaning money they are earning and the future projections of what they will have down the road, most would save more. If they didn't with all that information there for them, then that is their fault. Like I said, changing tax law to favor savings would go a long way too. Allowing savings up to maybe 15% of income to be written off taxes like mortgages are now, with those savings going into tax free accounts, combined with projections showing a range of future values, the savings rate in this country would shoot up.

The article showed that the average payout from Social Security is about $12,000 per year. That's far from the Golden Retirement government has lead people to expect. However, if through the private system they could be making $40,000 plus per year, that is a major step up. I know people, middle class school teachers actually, who saved in a private annuity for decades. They are making just about 4 times from that one annuity than what they are getting from Social Security, and that was just one of their investments. So they system can work.

In a message dated 5/30/2009 12:23:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Social Security ought to be ended for everyone except those is poor health, or those who have never managed to exceed a certain income level. A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

[Guest guest]

" As for your other points: that is why we should have privatized Social Security

decades ago. What should have replaced it as the main retirement programs was a

series of IRA type instruments and annuities that would be exempt from taxation

and only count as income what was taken out of them after retirement. In that

way the accounts could possibly continue to grow if the holder didn't take all

of the money interest generated by it. "

Social Security ought to be ended for everyone except those is poor health, or

those who have never managed to exceed a certain income level.

If a person works all their lives and earns above a certain threshhold, that is

all they need to make it through their lives with a comfortable living and a

modest retirement provided their health stays intact and they do not do anything

foolish with their money in the mneantime, like lose it in a bad loan.

Most people would have more than enough for their retirements if they did not

fritter their money away on things they do not need, have more kids than they

can afford, and make dumb mistakes, like having too many car accidents or taking

out bigger mortgages than they can pay back.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

An interesting viewpoint, and my observation is that despite best efforts, some

people just seem to attract the weird bad things to them, through no fault of

their own, such as being caught in a traffic accident when you're exactly

following the law, and even a string of them: believe it or not, it happens!

I've known people that repeatedly get hit by deer in a single season (not hit

them with their car, but rather, the deer hitting them: trying to remove all

predator animals for the " safety " of man is a fool's choice). The last traffic

accident I got mired in, my car was completely visible, completely legally

placed on the street, the driver could clearly see my car, and they STILL

managed to bash into me, and I was at a dead stop: no, I did not have any option

of getting out of the way, or I would have taken it. I also have weird things

like people spinning their cars out in my yard unintentionally, direct lightning

strikes on one end of the house while I'm on the other one, 210 foot tall

construction cranes falling directly over my head (only stopped by the main

steel frame of the apartment building, the ceiling of the Microsoft patent

attorney on the top floor, and the patent attorney himself) and then there are

the other things I haven't mentioned that cause problems that can't be computed

or avoided.

Social security is a good concept in general, and what makes it most troublesome

is the weird thought that it can be used as a piggy bank for other things, and

stuffing IOU's into their coffers instead. It also has the weakness that it

requires, at least with past taxing levels, that there are more people working

than not working and contributing to it than those that are using it. The

logical choice, since you can't hope to legislate increasing birthrates (though

there are several countries trying to encourage such growth) is to raise the tax

as needed, which would tend to make it more of a forced way to ensure that

people retiring won't be completely destitute due to their own stupidity or bad

luck, but, once again: the problem is that other stupid, greedy people

(politicians and all those that vote for them to do this) raiding the cookie

jar.

>

> " As for your other points: that is why we should have privatized Social

Security decades ago. What should have replaced it as the main retirement

programs was a series of IRA type instruments and annuities that would be exempt

from taxation and only count as income what was taken out of them after

retirement. In that way the accounts could possibly continue to grow if the

holder didn't take all of the money interest generated by it. "

>

> Social Security ought to be ended for everyone except those is poor health, or

those who have never managed to exceed a certain income level.

>

> If a person works all their lives and earns above a certain threshhold, that

is all they need to make it through their lives with a comfortable living and a

modest retirement provided their health stays intact and they do not do anything

foolish with their money in the mneantime, like lose it in a bad loan.

>

> Most people would have more than enough for their retirements if they did not

fritter their money away on things they do not need, have more kids than they

can afford, and make dumb mistakes, like having too many car accidents or taking

out bigger mortgages than they can pay back.

>

>

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

The best way to reduce the number of children people have is to increase education. Better educated people have fewer children. Less educated and poorer families tend to have more kids. There are exceptions of course, but this is the way it is in the main.

So, by improving the quality of education and allowing the economy to grow, people will have fewer kids.

Conversely, if the number of people who drop out of high school (its as high as 50%) and the economy gets worse making more people poor, then the number of children will increase.

Still, more children would not be a bad thing since we are going to need more of them to balance the population. The US technically should be in a negative growth position just like Japan and Europe, but we aren't largely due to immigration and the immigrants having lots of kids. Demographically this is an issue and is influencing politics as can be seen now with both major parties pandering and offering all kinds of programs to the immigrants, which is not good for the long term health of the nation. They should be getting the fiscal house in order so the nation won't go bankrupt and ruin it for everyone.

In a message dated 5/30/2009 4:25:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Another thing to do would be to raise taxes so high that people would not be inclined to have too many children due to their unaffordablity. I've always felt that the way to prevent people from having kids is to make them a liability rather than a credit on people's tax forms. Administrator A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

[Guest guest]

" The logical choice, since you can't hope to legislate increasing birthrates

(though there are several countries trying to encourage such growth) is to raise

the tax as needed, which would tend to make it more of a forced way to ensure

that people retiring won't be completely destitute due to their own stupidity or

bad luck, but, once again: the problem is that other stupid, greedy people

(politicians and all those that vote for them to do this) raiding the cookie

jar. "

Another thing to do would be to raise taxes so high that people would not be

inclined to have too many children due to their unaffordablity.

I've always felt that the way to prevent people from having kids is to make them

a liability rather than a credit on people's tax forms.

Administrator