Time for a mass redistribution of wealth

reply to post by spiritualzombie


reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan


You both seem to equate greed with a mental disorder.

greed (grēd)
n.
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth


What the sticking point becomes. . . is WHO determines what one needs

LOL lent government!

People lent government 6% and get 100% back.

This is what I am talking about getting more back than they ever paid in.

And that interest doesn't generate the funds needed to pay for that 100% benefit.

Actually, it does...or, I should say, it would have.

The difference is made up by ?

Taking money from other people.

Technically they are taking it from the children of the people they currently owe.

The rape and pillage of Western SS, by our very own representatives, should be listed as one of the most heinous crimes of our era...the fallout from that hasn't even begun.

reply to post by spiritualzombie


1% is not the problem. The problem is the .00001% and they run the government. So government is the problem.

reply to post by totallackey


Can't relate your reply to my post. I didn't refer to levelling eveyone's income to the same.

I made the point that poor people should not start paying tax on income less that the principle of the minimum wage and that tax should start to be applied once one had earned more than the minimum wage.

I also pointed out that for the super rich they would never be able to count all their income even if they started today. As obviously much of their income is stashed purely because this elite bunch never seem to keep their money in one country alone thereby dodging tax, it would be better to have tax applied to money held all around the world rather than under one tax country which would then reduce their stashes and put that money back into circulation where it could stimulate economies which would provide a better standard of living for all.

defcon5

Charity is a voluntary act of good will towards their neighbor.
Welfare is a mandatory sadist act against their neighbor.

And Social Security is money you lent the government that they have to pay back with interest...

Oh, and Medicare is an insurance policy that you pay into your entire working career that you can drawn on after retirement. The same as any other medical insurance policy.

Now I'm done discussing it.

People pay even less 2% since that doesn't fund the program other people come up with bright ideas to come up with the cash to cover the deficits:

www.forbes.com...

The cash has been gone for decades.

New people are currently paying for both.

Because once a person goes on Social Security their medicare 'payments' are automatically deducted from the first program that isn't paying for itself.

beezzer
reply to post by spiritualzombie

 

reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan

 

You both seem to equate greed with a mental disorder.

greed (grēd)
n.
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth


What the sticking point becomes. . . is WHO determines what one needs

If we got rid of the need for money, and all had access to the abundance in this world, "needs" would be moot. And yes, taking more and more to have more than others at the expense of others IS an illness.

peck420

LOL lent government!

People lent government 6% and get 100% back.

This is what I am talking about getting more back than they ever paid in.

And that interest doesn't generate the funds needed to pay for that 100% benefit.

Actually, it does...or, I should say, it would have.

The difference is made up by ?

Taking money from other people.

Technically they are taking it from the children of the people they currently owe.

The rape and pillage of Western SS, by our very own representatives, should be listed as one of the most heinous crimes of our era...the fallout from that hasn't even begun.

edit on 30-1-2014 by peck420 because: (no reason given)

Technically speaking Government is robbing from Peter to pay Paul because Paul never paid 100% of the contributions needed to fund his so called retirement.

And at last count we have way too many Pauls.

talk about reality check? when has to the federal reserve ever had a audit. I mean like ever? who can police them? I'm thinkin even if someone comes out in said something that is so intense it shattered the universe the people that have to change it is the 1 percent! how can you force them to do that? They have ultimate control & looking to make slavery less transparent... I mean... even if they do get expose.. umm nobody's above them right?

we need another 2 pac, Martin Luther King ,Malcolm X, JFK type of breed to wake everyone up... everybody's afraid to loose their life but never strategically move to change the world...you should not be afraid of fear.
Fear is a creation. Conquer your fears .

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

neo96
Technically speaking Government is robbing from Peter to pay Paul because Paul never paid 100% of the contributions needed to fund his so called retirement.

Incorrect.

Had the government never borrowed from that fund in the first place, the interest gains would have covered the current shortfalls...by a substantial margin.

And at last count we have way too many Pauls.

A situation that will continue to increase as long as governments insist on taking from Peter's to pay Paul's.

Which is why 'wealth distribution' will not work. If anything, it will exaggerate the current situation.

reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan


You didn't answer my question.

Who then determines what someone "needs"?

Who determines what someone "wants"?

beezzer
reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan

 

You didn't answer my question.

Who then determines what someone "needs"?

Who determines what someone "wants"?

If we all can get what we ask for, who needs to define "needs?" That was my point. And clearly the one wanting something is the one who gets to define wants for himself (herself).

reply to post by peck420

Incorrect. Had the government never borrowed from that fund in the first place, the interest gains would have covered the current shortfalls...by a substantial margin.

Incorrect ?

No, because there were never designed to fund themselves hell people pay 6% someone else has to match that contribution is enough right there to see that.

Any government so called 'interest' is miniscule.

Interest is suppose to pay for over 80% of the benefit a person receives ?

Really ?

Not even Wall Street pays that.

reply to post by Shiloh7


You close your post with this statement:

"…which would provide a better standard of living for all.

....and you say you cannot relate my statement to your line of thinking? Uh?

AlwaysIdeaMan

beezzer
reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan

 

You didn't answer my question.

Who then determines what someone "needs"?

Who determines what someone "wants"?

If we all can get what we ask for, who needs to define "needs?" That was my point. And clearly the one wanting something is the one who gets to define wants for himself (herself).

So if an individual wanted more than someone else, that would be okay?

neo96
People lent government 6% and get 100% back.

Its hardly 6%, its 6%/check/lifetime working.
As a matter of fact you get a quarterly report from SS as to how much you paid in and how much you're benefits will be at each retirement age. Go look at one. I am paying more then 6% out of every check into SS and SSI, since I will most likely die before I get any of it, I guess that I get -100% of the tens of thousands of what I've paid into it so far. HM???

Us life average expectancy is 79.
Retirement age to get full benefits is 67.
If I start working at 20 I've paid into that for 47 years.
So lets say I make 40K/year (national average) * 6.2 = $2480/year
Matched by your employer = $4960/year
4960 * 47 years = $233,120/lifetime
Life expectancy from retirement to death is 12 years.
I should get about $19426/year or $1618/month.

...And that's if they don't even invest the money, but just hold it...

So where are all these supposed other tax payer contributions in that?
How are you only pay 6% OVERALL? You're paying 6.2%/Check for 47 years....

What happened with SS is that the first generation that received it got it at a young age, and drew all the money out of the system within the first 5 years of retirement. The baby boomers then paid into it, and the government spent all that money on the first generation, as well as other stuff. Now the baby boomers are hitting, and there are not enough of us out there making enough money to support them on our payments alone. Its not that people didn't pay fairly into the system, the fault is with the governments handling of the money they received. Either way though, as they forcibly removed that from peoples paychecks they have to repay it.

Its no different then me, who has no kids, having to pay for your kids to go to public schools. I don't use that service, or a thousand others, but I still have to pay for it. So just pay it, and stop griping about it.

beezzer

AlwaysIdeaMan

beezzer
reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan

 

You didn't answer my question.

Who then determines what someone "needs"?

Who determines what someone "wants"?

If we all can get what we ask for, who needs to define "needs?" That was my point. And clearly the one wanting something is the one who gets to define wants for himself (herself).

So if an individual wanted more than someone else, that would be okay?

Sure. Why would it be a problem in a world that has much more than we all could use? It would not take from others, so...I figure we all could have as much as we want. Some will want more, and others less. Who would care and, if any, why?

reply to post by defcon5

Its hardly 6%, its 6%/check/lifetime working. As a matter of fact you get a quarterly report from SS as to how much you paid in and how much you're benefits will be at each retirement age. Go look at one. I am paying more then 6% out of every check into SS and SSI, since I will most likely die before I get any of it, I guess that I get -100% of the tens of thousands of what I've paid into it so far. HM???

And ?

People are only paying 1/3 in a 3/3 situtation.

And well excuse me 6.2 %

Says so here:

www.bizfilings.com...

Triple tax on SS, and quadruple tax on medicare.

Employee/Employer/ the rest of us because once again PEOPLE GET MORE OUT THAN they ever paid in-SS

Employee/Employer/the rest of us plus a 'medicare surtax', and then that medicare capital gains tax- for medicare.

Now if PEOPLE were paying for what they take out.

WHAT IS WITH ALL THEM other people paying for that so called 'benefit' ?

AlwaysIdeaMan

beezzer

AlwaysIdeaMan

beezzer
reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan

 

You didn't answer my question.

Who then determines what someone "needs"?

Who determines what someone "wants"?

If we all can get what we ask for, who needs to define "needs?" That was my point. And clearly the one wanting something is the one who gets to define wants for himself (herself).

So if an individual wanted more than someone else, that would be okay?

Sure. Why would it be a problem in a world that has much more than we all could use? It would not take from others, so...I figure we all could have as much as we want. Some will want more, and others less. Who would care and, if any, why?

Because right now we have people that want more, create a system that provides for them, so they can obtain what they want.

You call that greed.

We also have people who have less, yet want more, but they call that "wealth redistribution".

(this is my confused bunny face)

beezzer
reply to post by spiritualzombie

 

reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan

 

You both seem to equate greed with a mental disorder.

greed (grēd)
n.
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth


What the sticking point becomes. . . is WHO determines what one needs

Beezzer, I think you skip over the main point. Greed is an illness. It is like a cancer that eats away at a nation and destroys it.

This 1% buying government, controlling everything, creating laws to benefit only the powerful, is an abomination of democracy

AlwaysIdeaMan

beezzer

AlwaysIdeaMan

beezzer
reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan

 

You didn't answer my question.

Who then determines what someone "needs"?

Who determines what someone "wants"?

If we all can get what we ask for, who needs to define "needs?" That was my point. And clearly the one wanting something is the one who gets to define wants for himself (herself).

So if an individual wanted more than someone else, that would be okay?

Sure. Why would it be a problem in a world that has much more than we all could use? It would not take from others, so...I figure we all could have as much as we want. Some will want more, and others less. Who would care and, if any, why?

Won't that just bring us back to square one?