|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2007 : 19:19:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Impossible. In 1948, people could only have paid into SS for 13 years, so the average person had paid in a total of $622.97. |
And here is the Ponzi scheme. Those that get in early have an advantage over the system and receive more than payed. |
No, only those who live a long time, or who are disabled, or who are married to a dead or disabled person, can receive more than they pay. And in this case, "getting in early" means getting in and growing old and retiring and then dying before the system goes bankrupt in 2048 or so. It's only if you don't die by the date of insolvency that you'll be getting screwed.Can you not see that things have changed?| What ever information about which ever year will show that those that began the scheme did O.K. (not well), and those on the back end are screwed. This is what a ponzi scheme is. |
No, the numbers from the start of the program would have worked as intended. Only now, with all the bloat in the beneficiaries and the pay-outs has it become so Ponzi-like that people are predicting its demise (some 113 years after it began - the longest running Ponzi scheme ever). Really, Jerome, you need to stop seeing things as black-or-white.| Running numbers (Lottery) is illegal unless the government does it. |
All gambling is illegal unless permitted by the state. Busting Friday-night poker games or office football pools is too small-time for the cops to invest a lot of time in catching those crooks. At least with state-run lotteries, the proceeds go towards public works or services, and not simply to line the pockets of mobsters. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Penyprity
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 22:48:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Penyprity
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If I were a dishonest salesman, I would be rich beyond comparison.
|
Or in jail
|
If I were running a ponzi scheme, yes.
|
Well, on this I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe for a second that social security is a ponzi scheme in any way. I get what you are saying, I just dont agree with your figures and your point of view. You completely ignored my last post so I can only think that you have nothing to say on the subject matter I provided.
The government hates competition.
Think of the lottery.
The lottery has the worst odds of any gamble one can reasonably make; worse than one armed bandits.
|
As for the rest of this...ummmmm...I dont know what the lottery has to do with this discussion. I am sure you are not suggesting that it too is a ponzi scheme.
[/quote] |
Make your vote count. Become a supreme court justice......Peny |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/10/2007 : 20:30:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Penyprity
I dont. But, your figures are incorrect. Your life expectancy figues are an average from birth. This includes a large portion of individuals who never reach social security age (or pay in for that matter. Mortality at birth was quite high back then). Try these numbers on for size: in 1940 53.9% of males lived from age 21 to 65,and were expected to live 12.7 years beyond 65. And 60.6% of females,to live 14.7 years beyond 65. In 1940 9.0 million people lived beyond 65. Social Security was enacted in 1935 but did not actually start until January 1936.[quote]
|
Based on your figures; approximatively 42% that payed in would never touch a penny of the money collected from their labor.
This still requires a person to live 69+ years to break even.
If the average is 14.7 years of life after the age of 65, this means that approximatively 25% that lived to start collecting would not reach the age of 69 in which they break even.
25% of 58% (those that lived beyond 65 and payed into the system) leaves us with 43.5% that break even in this system.
56.5% of the people that payed received less than they put in.
It is just math. I do not think the people who came up with the plan did not understand the math. I think that they fully understood the Ponzi scheme they were devising.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 09/10/2007 20:34:14 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2007 : 20:03:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You and I would get to KEEP what the government does not take in taxes. You and I would have total control over the monies that were not taken. |
Average cost of non-religious private schooling for grades 1-6 in the 1999-2000 school year was nearly $11,000. Now, 2.4% of my Federal taxes last year plus all of my Virginia taxes don't add up to $11,000. So I would have control of all those monies with which I would be forced to give my kid an education I don't want him to have (a private religious school).
|
You must understand that these schools are competing against a monopoly. If there was a free market with competition the price would drop dramatically and the value of your education dollar would increase dramatically.
|
The first thing to occur to me when I read this, and it may have occurred and already been discussed since page one, but I didn't feel like catching up with Jerome's blather.
Would a price of $6000 per year per child be considered a dramatic drop from $11,000 per year per child? How would a single mother of three making $30,000 afford an education for her children? Seems like the beginning of a poor - ignorant cycle.
Sorry, Jerome your idea may have holes in it. Holes big enough for poor children to fall through. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2007 : 21:08:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
The first thing to occur to me when I read this, and it may have occurred and already been discussed since page one, but I didn't feel like catching up with Jerome's blather.
Would a price of $6000 per year per child be considered a dramatic drop from $11,000 per year per child? How would a single mother of three making $30,000 afford an education for her children? Seems like the beginning of a poor - ignorant cycle.
Sorry, Jerome your idea may have holes in it. Holes big enough for poor children to fall through.
|
OK, lets take the taxes payed just by the state for education in Maryland, this does not include the taxes payed by the Fed.
The state of MD pays $4,041,830,516 for education. There are about 5,615,727 people in MD. This is a spending of $720 per person. Which in your example would equate to $2880 in taxes collected.
Let us now look at the counties. Anne Arudle in MD has a school budget of $920,050,136 and a population of 509,300. This is a spending of $1806 per person in Anne Arundel county for public education. Again in your example this is a collection of $7224 in taxes.
Thus far we have found that the state of Maryland and the county of Anne Arundel collects and spends $10,104 in taxes on behalf of your example of a single mother of three.
This does not include the taxes collected and spent by the Fed. There is plenty of money currently being spent on behalf of your example that would be better spent with the mother making the choices.
Let me ask you:
Do you choose what food to buy?
Do you think some people choose incorrectly?
Does a single mother of three have a hard time feeding her children?
Should the government tax all people and feed most citizens because some people make bad choices or some people have a hard circumstances?
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2007 : 22:19:35 [Permalink]
|
JEROME DA GNOME, I strongly encourage you to read your sources prior to jumping to potentially erroneous conclusions. | Let us now look at the counties. Anne Arudle in MD has a school budget of $920,050,136 and a population of 509,300. This is a spending of $1806 per person in Anne Arundel county for public education. Again in your example this is a collection of $7224 in taxes. |
The link you provided has stated a few things that are contrary to your statement above: - The $920 million figure you posted is not their budget yet. It is the "Superintendent's Recommended FY2008 Operating Budget." This may be a minor point, but minor points add up when you continue to come up with these fabrications
- More significantly, your math doesn't work because you didn't bother to check where your numbers really come from (here's a hint: it's spelled out in the document you linked, above)
- The state government provides $272,806,427 (29.7%)
- The federal government provides $32,159,900 (3.5%)
- The schools themselves provide $5,870,000 (0.6%)
- This leaves the following price tag for the county: $609,213,809 (66.2%)
- Because of the above, you cannot add the numbers you found for state and county, since the recommended county budget includes state and federal funding. (Not to mention the fact that, according to your source, the budget hasn't been approved.)
Keeping all this in mind, your statement here: | This does not include the taxes collected and spent by the Fed. |
Is blatantly wrong. What are we to assume about your conclusions if you can't even get your data right, even if it's clearly layed out for you?
I won't bother to check the rest of your data until you can convince us that you might know what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2007 : 22:31:59 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I counted twice the smaller contributions unintentionally.
This would be the correct accounting:
| Anne Arudle in MD has a school budget of $920,050,136 and a population of 509,300. This is a spending of $1806 per person in Anne Arundel county for public education. Again in your example this is a collection of $7224 in taxes from all sources on behalf of the single mother of three. |
Still a great deal of money.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/13/2007 : 22:40:57 [Permalink]
|
Boron:
Let me ask you:
Do you choose what food to buy?
Do you think some people choose incorrectly?
Does a single mother of three have a hard time feeding her children?
Should the government tax all people and feed most citizens because some people make bad choices or some people have a hard circumstances?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 05:26:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by moakley
The first thing to occur to me when I read this, and it may have occurred and already been discussed since page one, but I didn't feel like catching up with Jerome's blather.
Would a price of $6000 per year per child be considered a dramatic drop from $11,000 per year per child? How would a single mother of three making $30,000 afford an education for her children? Seems like the beginning of a poor - ignorant cycle.
Sorry, Jerome your idea may have holes in it. Holes big enough for poor children to fall through.
|
OK, lets take the taxes payed just by the state for education in Maryland, this does not include the taxes payed by the Fed.
The state of MD pays $4,041,830,516 for education. There are about 5,615,727 people in MD. This is a spending of $720 per person. Which in your example would equate to $2880 in taxes collected.
Let us now look at the counties. Anne Arudle in MD has a school budget of $920,050,136 and a population of 509,300. This is a spending of $1806 per person in Anne Arundel county for public education. Again in your example this is a collection of $7224 in taxes.
Thus far we have found that the state of Maryland and the county of Anne Arundel collects and spends $10,104 in taxes on behalf of your example of a single mother of three.
|
Your OP includes the following:
You and I would get to KEEP what the government does not take in taxes. You and I would have total control over the monies that were not taken.
|
By this I assumed that what you meant was that instead of the government collecting taxes to spend on education, that the tax payer would keep the money to spend on education. Even if it is just $10,104 or $7,224 that my single mother of three would have to pay, I doubt that she could. That amount of money would still exceed her entire tax obligation for the year.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This does not include the taxes collected and spent by the Fed. There is plenty of money currently being spent on behalf of your example that would be better spent with the mother making the choices.
|
Ok. And it looks like you would require this mother to go out of pocket to do so.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Let me ask you:
Do you choose what food to buy?
Do you think some people choose incorrectly?
Does a single mother of three have a hard time feeding her children?
Should the government tax all people and feed most citizens because some people make bad choices or some people have a hard circumstances?
|
Poor decisions have to be paid for by someone I guess.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 05:51:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Your OP includes the following:
You and I would get to KEEP what the government does not take in taxes. You and I would have total control over the monies that were not taken.
|
By this I assumed that what you meant was that instead of the government collecting taxes to spend on education, that the tax payer would keep the money to spend on education. Even if it is just $10,104 or $7,224 that my single mother of three would have to pay, I doubt that she could. That amount of money would still exceed her entire tax obligation for the year. |
I am sure you understand the cost of all goods purchased contains the taxes payed by the business providing those goods. Lower taxes would decrease the cost of most everything purchased.
In fact lower payroll taxes would put 12.4% from social security and 2.9% in Medicare tax directly into the pocket of this mother. This is $4,590 per year.
I find it unconscionable that the government would take this money from this single mother of three.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 18:54:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I am sure you understand the cost of all goods purchased contains the taxes payed by the business providing those goods. Lower taxes would decrease the cost of most everything purchased.
In fact lower payroll taxes would put 12.4% from social security and 2.9% in Medicare tax directly into the pocket of this mother. This is $4,590 per year.
|
Must be pandering to the same folks who bought "W's" fuzzy math.
It appears that your plan is no longer limited to just the taxes collected to support public education that you are now extended it to income taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 20:05:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
In fact lower payroll taxes would put 12.4% from social security and 2.9% in Medicare tax directly into the pocket of this mother. This is $4,590 per year. |
If, and only if, this mother's company decided to pay her the company's half. You claim that you would, but I see no reason to believe that any other employer would.| I find it unconscionable that the government would take this money from this single mother of three. |
As if she and her kids would never see it again.Originally posted by moakley
It appears that your plan is no longer limited to just the taxes collected to support public education that you are now extended it to income taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes. |
I don't think Jerome's ideas could possibly work without the elimination of all taxes. And even then, with his numbers, a married couple with ten kids would need to have a family income of $60,200 just to keep their education spending at the "mortgage limit" of 40%. Of course, without taxes, government will be limited to those functions that are supportable through user fees and fines, so that couple won't have much of anyplace to turn when the schools decide to take their $24,080 and teach the kids nothing but how to make knock-off designer handbags. This family of twelve will be forced to move to a town where the schools aren't corrupt, but at what cost? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2007 : 18:12:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
If, and only if, this mother's company decided to pay her the company's half. You claim that you would, but I see no reason to believe that any other employer would. |
As an employer I pay my employees based on the cost of their employment. Not their take home pay. I am already paying this for their labor. Do you not see how the scam works. The government makes it seem as if the employee is not paying the tax.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2007 : 18:15:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I don't think Jerome's ideas could possibly work without the elimination of all taxes. And even then, with his numbers, a married couple with ten kids would need to have a family income of $60,200 just to keep their education spending at the "mortgage limit" of 40%. Of course, without taxes, government will be limited to those functions that are supportable through user fees and fines, so that couple won't have much of anyplace to turn when the schools decide to take their $24,080 and teach the kids nothing but how to make knock-off designer handbags. This family of twelve will be forced to move to a town where the schools aren't corrupt, but at what cost?
|
Your entire argument here is a straw man.
Yet, based on your straw man argument the solution would be the government taking all the labor and make distribution based on need.
This has been tried and it does not work.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2007 : 19:53:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Your entire argument here is a straw man. |
And yet you didn't say why. This is how accusations of logical fallacies are used to simply dismiss arguments. And we should all ignore my extreme tentativeness on what I put forth back then. I was, of course, thinking that you would respond with an explanation of how everything could actually work out properly in real life, but apparently my expectations were too high.
I understand, Jerome, that you're here for your own amusement and you really don't care what other people think, but if you're trying to be thought-provoking, then why not really provoke some thoughts, instead of pontificating until you get bored and dismissive?
Oh, you also said:| As an employer I pay my employees based on the cost of their employment. Not their take home pay. I am already paying this for their labor. Do you not see how the scam works. The government makes it seem as if the employee is not paying the tax. |
Yes, I understand. And I also understand that plenty of employers would use the opportunity to effectively cut the cost of their employees to the company by somewhat less than 6% of their salaries. I understand, Jerome, that you're a prince among employers, looking out for your people regardless of what your competition might do. My point was and is that you cannot assume that the elimination of Social Security and Medicare would increase any worker's pay by 15.3% except for your own employees, Jerome. Yes, everyone will get the 7.65% bump, but only you have pledged to make sure that your employees get the other 7.65%, too. I am quite sure that other employers would see it as a chance to cut costs, increase profits, and provide the stockholders with a temporary bump in dividends. Or, they'd cut costs, and thus cut their prices, and by so doing try to get an increase in market share to provide the stockholders with longer-term benefits. Either way, I'm sure from your point-of-view they'd be robbing their employees of that 7.65%, and yes, over the long term they would be. But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't do it, does it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Penyprity and Thoughts of Scholl Taxes
