In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 691
Online now 915 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
yeah there are a lot of taxes I'd like to opt out of.
Btw, it's somewhat means tested. Social Security is 85% taxable to any retiree with over $44,000 of income. In that math a good chunk of social security gets paid back to the federal till on retirees who are considered to have means.
generally the demographic to have a lot of taxable income...
Being able to opt out of taxes would force us to cut spending on the things we don't need pretty effing quick
I won't have you disparaging Wall Street like that, sir.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
Henry David Thoreau agenda alert
it's a good idea in principal but you have a country full of dumb fucks who think buying big screen TV's and video games for their children vs. saving for retirement or kids education.
It's certainly an interesting premise.
School bond issues don't do well in my neighborhood of zipper walleted old fogies*
*which I'm not one of, believe it or not
it's like that in a lot of areas (which I never understand since it affects property values), but in this case it's not one man one vote. It's one taxable income dollar one vote.
What if you invest poorly?
"It's just so hard," Greivis said. "It's my heart, my love. Maryland made me who I am."
What if he invests wisely? That's clearly "unfair"
Go away, KA!
That's fine, they should live with those decisions.
Then I have no money and I have to work until I die. Such is life.
again, social security is a tax. You are paying for other people's retirement. Just like any other tax.
Plenty of state and local pension funds invest their capital very aggressively and those are in way worse shape than social security. Bush ran in 2000 on the premise of privatizing social security, funny how the repubs didn't pick up that issue in 2008.
No! You must be protected from yourself! What do you think this is, a free country?
it's not about protecting yourself. our generation won's see 75% of what we pay into the system.
Privatizing social security is tailor made for fear mongering.
That is the argument against privatization - if you let people invest their Social Security taxes themselves, many will make poor decisions and will be left destitute, and we can't have that.
The absolute worse investor probably does better than -75%
No it's not. The arguement is that social security is funded by today's workers. We have X amount of SS obligations on the books for today's retirees and need the taxes from current workers to pay for it. If you disagree with this you don't know how SS is financed.
If you want current workers to be able to invest their own social security contributions and still keep the SS fund solvent I would love to hear your suggestions?
This post was edited by goterpss 16 months ago
it's not the result of investment decisions, it's the result of having too many retirees for too few workers.
I know. MisterNiceGuy was arguing that point.
That is a secondary argument against privatization, but it's really just a dollars problem - you have a dollars gap during the transition from the old system to the new. But even if you solve that problem many people would still opposed privatization on policy reasons due to the reason I'm talking about.
I actually agree. Social security is a program to provide bare basic means to elderly people (who have paid into the system). It's welfare for old people. It's actually a very good system but just needs some tweaks.
There's no reason to turn it into a pension fund (we all know how well those are doing at the state and local level). The current tax system allows for a lot of very good tax deferral retirement plans for people to invest into and control on their own. We don't need any more.
Are pension funds at the state and local level doing so bad because they are achieving horrific returns (i.e. below the return earned on Social Security contributions) or merely because they are not growing fast enough to meet pension obligations that are way larger than they should be?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports