Thread: Any work is good work

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

As far as Social security is concerned it's problems are easy to solve. People simply pay more. When you take out private insurance as costs go up you either pay more or get less. Why is SS any different?

So the choice is between charging the current workers more and giving the retirees less. Of course when everybody only cares for their own the retirees would prefer the first approach, while the workers the second.
So, may be instead of measuring who has the biggest lobby (we know the answer) we could consider what is fair and responsible.

Here are the historical tax rates: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa...historical.pdf
The taxable limit has been going up (inflation), but the tax rate has been going up as well.

That second part is plain wrong. Why should somebody put in the system during their working life 10% of their income and when it's time to get retirement ask that the current workers pay 15% to support their pension? The current workers should have to put exactly the same rate, the taxable limit should be going up with inflation and retirees get as much money that translates into. Anything else is one generation mooching off another and/or fiscally irresponsible.

Originally Posted by gugi

So the choice is between charging the current workers more and giving the retirees less. Of course when everybody only cares for their own the retirees would prefer the first approach, while the workers the second.
So, may be instead of measuring who has the biggest lobby (we know the answer) we could consider what is fair and responsible.

Here are the historical tax rates: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa...historical.pdf
The taxable limit has been going up (inflation), but the tax rate has been going up as well.

That second part is plain wrong. Why should somebody put in the system during their working life 10% of their income and when it's time to get retirement ask that the current workers pay 15% to support their pension? The current workers should have to put exactly the same rate, the taxable limit should be going up with inflation and retirees get as much money that translates into. Anything else is one generation mooching off another and/or fiscally irresponsible.

The bottom line is if you cut the benefits there are just too many folks who are totally dependent on SS. Yes, it wasn't designed for that but it's a fact. So if you cut their benefits what are they going to do? T.V shows of 90+ people gainfully employed look great but is doesn't reflect reality. These people will just show up at the states door looking for welfare and foodstamps.

No matter what you pay into SS when it's your turn to retire you know you will be taken care of. it's not an investment scheme where you figure what you put in and what you take out. No matter what you put in whether is 5%, 7% 10% you will get way more than you put in. The attitude that I ain't supporting those old people is just a breakdown of our system.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

The bottom line is if you cut the benefits there are just too many folks who are totally dependent on SS. Yes, it wasn't designed for that but it's a fact. So if you cut their benefits what are they going to do? T.V shows of 90+ people gainfully employed look great but is doesn't reflect reality. These people will just show up at the states door looking for welfare and foodstamps.

That's why you cut them from the top, those who aren't totally dependent on it get a little less - I think that's what they call means testing. And increase the retirement age (people are healthier and live longer, so they could work longer too), as well as fix the inflation indexing to reflect inflation. I don't think anybody is living in luxury on social security, but 1200/month is median wage and working people with kids do live on that, so a retiree with no dependents and a ton of free time should be able to make do with less.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

No matter what you pay into SS when it's your turn to retire you know you will be taken care of. it's not an investment scheme where you figure what you put in and what you take out. No matter what you put in whether is 5%, 7% 10% you will get way more than you put in.

There is getting more than what you put and there is getting disproportionally and unfairly more than you should be getting.
You work 45 years and contribute 10% of your median salary, then for the 15 years you live in retirement you could get 30% of the current median salary. It's fair to get the current median salary because the economy has grown in the meanwhile, it is even fair to get a little more to account for the population growth. However it is unfair to get 60% of the median salary over 30 years (because of the increased life expectancy), and to support that you make the current workers pay 30% of their income, and it is unfair to charge it to the nation's credit card and make it a problem of whoever future generation gets the credit card canceled.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

The attitude that I ain't supporting those old people is just a breakdown of our system.

There is a big difference between supporting old people to have a decent living and supporting a higher standard of living for them than I have myself (statistically speaking). When the country suffers as a whole one age group shouldn't be exempt from the sacrifices that the rest have to make (well children probably should suffer least).
The thing is that social security is currently a small problem - it is a matter of small changes (a couple of extra working years, or 1150/month instead of 1200/month), but if you take the attitude that retirees could just get more and more and the working people can be taxed higher and higher rate, this is a fundamental problem, unsustainable system that is destined to crash in a horrible way.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

No matter what you put in whether is 5%, 7% 10% you will get way more than you put in.

That's pretty much the definition of 'unsustainable'.

it was written: Far, far too many people still have the idea that unions are in actuality as strong as they think they are. I have watched automation slowly taking over and all the union I was a member of could do was to negotiate various ways of easing the inevitable job losses but automation kept going.

It is worth noting that high wages motivate increased automation. I would assume that automation increases productivity or the owners would not do it.

I remember that someone posted a video on this forum of some workers operating a grinding wheel with straps (no motor - one man making the wheel turn, one man grinding the steel). That does not look productive to me - but then, I do not know what their wages were.

Originally Posted by jjsrp

it was written: Far, far too many people still have the idea that unions are in actuality as strong as they think they are. I have watched automation slowly taking over and all the union I was a member of could do was to negotiate various ways of easing the inevitable job losses but automation kept going.

It is worth noting that high wages motivate increased automation. I would assume that automation increases productivity or the owners would not do it.

I remember that someone posted a video on this forum of some workers operating a grinding wheel with straps (no motor - one man making the wheel turn, one man grinding the steel). That does not look productive to me - but then, I do not know what their wages were.

For sure it can increase production "if" all the automation is working properly. The other thing is automation/machines do not require wages, benefits or a pension. Even if automation did not increase production it will increase profit especially if the retail price remains the same and it usually does.

Unemployed workers buy very little and are a drain on whatever government assistance they are entitled to. There is a cost to the economy and the tax payer and none to the company, only increased profits. I think that is well illustrated in the documentary film Roger and Me Roger & Me - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

For sure it can increase production "if" all the automation is working properly. The other thing is automation/machines do not require wages, benefits or a pension. Even if automation did not increase production it will increase profit especially if the retail price remains the same and it usually does.

Unemployed workers buy very little and are a drain on whatever government assistance they are entitled to. There is a cost to the economy and the tax payer and none to the company, only increased profits. I think that is well illustrated in the documentary film Roger and Me Roger & Me - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

Bob

Don't forget also when these outfits pay little and scrimp on benefits it's the taxpayers who are directly subsidizing these rich corporations. The employees wind up on food stamps and have their medical costs paid by everyone else just for starters.