Sois's US Budget Idea

[sois]

So, next year I will have to do my taxes. I don't know who is in charge of allocating the tax funds in the USA, but this would eliminate their job. Let's say hypothetically my final tax due is $10,000. Each taxpayer should have the right to allocate their taxes into whatever buckets they want. Maybe the government can give us 10-20 buckets. So an allocation could look like this:

Defense - 10%
Environment - 30%
Education - 5%
Paying off Debt - 50%
Welfare Services - 5%

etc. That is not necessarily how mine would look. I'll think about it and post my allocation.

1. What buckets would you create?
2. What would your allocations look like?
3. Is this a cool idea or dumb idea?

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='sois' post='701557' date='Sep 15 2008, 05:36 PM']So, next year I will have to do my taxes. I[b] don't know who is in charge of allocating the tax funds[/b] in the USA, but this would eliminate their job. Let's say hypothetically my final tax due is $10,000. Each taxpayer should have the right to allocate their taxes into whatever buckets they want. Maybe the government can give us 10-20 buckets. So an allocation could look like this:

Defense - 10%
Environment - 30%
Education - 5%
Paying off Debt - 50%
Welfare Services - 5%

etc. That is not necessarily how mine would look. I'll think about it and post my allocation.

1. What buckets would you create?
2. What would your allocations look like?
3. Is this a cool idea or dumb idea?[/quote]

That would be your magnanimous Congress and administration... they decide what to piss money away on and what not to.

I could see something like that but it'll never happen. Hell, they'll not let you even have any say where money that is pulled from you paycheck and goes to Social Security can be invested... you could very easily be extra cautious and still get a better return than what the SS department is seeing historically.

They damn sure aren't going to let you have a say where your tax dollars are to be spent.

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='702518' date='Sep 18 2008, 10:42 PM']Hell, they'll not let you even have any say where money that is pulled from you paycheck and goes to Social Security can be invested... you could very easily be extra cautious and still get a better return than what the SS department is seeing historically.[/quote]

What would happen if SS had been privatized, and people had their accounts in Bear Stearns, IndyMac, Lehman Brothers, etc? The government would have to pay it anyway... only this time with tax dollars. Not defending the gross misspending of SS dollars, just not sure privatizing it is really an answer.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='702533' date='Sep 19 2008, 12:28 AM']What would happen if SS had been privatized, and people had their accounts in Bear Stearns, IndyMac, Lehman Brothers, etc? The government would have to pay it anyway... only this time with tax dollars. Not defending the gross misspending of SS dollars, just not sure privatizing it is really an answer.[/quote]
I'm not saying privatize 100% of it or letting the citizen control 100%... 10-15% would be better than nothing. I understand the argument for not privatizing any of it. Just don't understand why we don't see a better return on the investment... 2% flat out sucks... you can go buy CD's with a better return than that.

And, if the person elected to control a portion of it - the results would directly affect that person's retirement funds. Lose money and you'd see less monthly payment. Make money and your monthly would increase, etc.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='702813' date='Sep 19 2008, 11:32 PM']I'm not saying privatize 100% of it or letting the citizen control 100%... 10-15% would be better than nothing. I understand the argument for not privatizing any of it. Just don't understand why we don't see a better return on the investment... 2% flat out sucks... you can go buy CD's with a better return than that.

And, if the person elected to control a portion of it - the results would directly affect that person's retirement funds. Lose money and you'd see less monthly payment. Make money and your monthly would increase, etc.[/quote]
SS is not an investment in the sense you are thinking of the term. It's a contribution to a trust fund, from which you will receive a stipend upon eligibility.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='702827' date='Sep 20 2008, 02:56 AM']SS is not an investment in the sense you are thinking of the term. It's a contribution to a trust fund, from which you will receive a stipend upon eligibility.[/quote]


Assuming it is still viable... at the time I'm eligible with me being only 32...

[CincyInDC]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='702932' date='Sep 21 2008, 03:19 AM']Assuming it is still viable... at the time I'm eligible with me being only 32...[/quote]

it wasn't supposed to be a retirement account. It was supposed to be a safety net. It will keep you out of destitution and that's it. Nothing more. That is all it is meant to do.

[sois]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='703016' date='Sep 21 2008, 10:19 AM']it wasn't supposed to be a retirement account. It was supposed to be a safety net. It will keep you out of destitution and that's it. Nothing more. That is all it is meant to do.[/quote]

I don't care what anyone says, THIS is 100% the correct way to view SOCIAL SECURITY.

I HATE when I hear that stupid Obama add that has a guy saying "I am voting for Change so I can have Social Security when I retire." I guess he is planning on retiring at the poor house.

[CincyInDC]

[quote name='sois' post='704026' date='Sep 22 2008, 12:46 AM']I don't care what anyone says, THIS is 100% the correct way to view SOCIAL SECURITY.

I HATE when I hear that stupid Obama add that has a guy saying "I am voting for Change so I can have Social Security when I retire." I guess he is planning on retiring at the poor house.[/quote]

What does it mean [i]to have[/i]? Does it mean to possess, or does it mean to rely upon exclusively? Why would you think he plans to retire in the poor house? He, like everyone, should have a Plan A when it comes to retirement (social security is more like plan D). Also, is [i]having[/i] social security better than [i]not having[/i] social security? My grandma gets what, like $300 per month from them? Nice supplement to her CD's and that is all.

When reality doesn't live up to your ideals, you tend to be disappointed a lot.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='703016' date='Sep 21 2008, 11:19 AM']it wasn't supposed to be a retirement account. It was supposed to be a safety net. It will keep you out of destitution and that's it. Nothing more. That is all it is meant to do.[/quote]

We can get into semantics all you'd like... safety net, retirement, whatever. Any way you cut it, when you "retire" it was supposed to be a means of some income. As it stands right now, when I retire I'll see jack shit. That is why I'm putting away into my 401k... the only way I see any form of "safety net" is of the current system is modified. Either better return on the monies that are there now, less payout to the current crop of participants (which is continuing to increase), later eligibility age, etc....

My 401k is my Plan A. I don't even look at SS as a Plan B. If I actually see something from it - it'll be like a bonus, nothing more.

[rudi32]

Thank God I dont have to pay ss

I have my personal retirement plan

[sois]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='704139' date='Sep 22 2008, 12:39 AM']What does it mean [i]to have[/i]? Does it mean to possess, or does it mean to rely upon exclusively? Why would you think he plans to retire in the poor house? He, like everyone, should have a Plan A when it comes to retirement (social security is more like plan D). Also, is [i]having[/i] social security better than [i]not having[/i] social security? My grandma gets what, like $300 per month from them? Nice supplement to her CD's and that is all.

When reality doesn't live up to your ideals, you tend to be disappointed a lot.[/quote]


Man, next time I hear that ad, I will try to get a direct quote. The way the guy say it is so stupid. It sounds like he is going to rely on SS as his plan A. I think if you heard it you would agree that guy is a moron. Maybe its only a local ad here in Vegas. Anyway...

I equate social security to welfare. Yeah I don't need food stamps, but they would be a nice supplement to my income, that is all.

Does it make sense for me to receive food stamps? My household income is in six figures. Is it fair for me to receive food stamps? I pay into the system, I don't see why I am not entitled. That doesn't make sense does it?

I 100% do not intend for my argument to be a personal attack on you or your family. I really do not wish to offend. I know I will never know anyone's family situation but I really feel, from working as a financial planner, that too many people are taking from the pot that don't need to. They are the equivalent of me taking food stamps. I just want to throw that info out there.

[sois]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='704157' date='Sep 22 2008, 07:20 AM']We can get into semantics all you'd like... safety net, retirement, whatever. Any way you cut it, when you "retire" it was supposed to be a means of some income.[/quote]

1. Yes, it was supposed to be there when you retire.
2. Average lifespan was only three years beyond SS eligibility. This means the benefit didn't have to be paid for long.
3. People now are living 30+ years beyond eligibility.


Therefore, something must change. You better start taking more out of people pay checks (yeah right!), raising eligibility age (AARP voters will never let this happen), change the paradigm from a retirement system to a welfare system (I choose this) or let the money run out and have everyone fend for themselves (happening now).

[CincyInDC]

[quote name='sois' post='704214' date='Sep 22 2008, 03:56 PM']Man, next time I hear that ad, I will try to get a direct quote. The way the guy say it is so stupid. It sounds like he is going to rely on SS as his plan A. I think if you heard it you would agree that guy is a moron. Maybe its only a local ad here in Vegas. Anyway...

I equate social security to welfare. Yeah I don't need food stamps, but they would be a nice supplement to my income, that is all.

Does it make sense for me to receive food stamps? My household income is in six figures. Is it fair for me to receive food stamps? I pay into the system, I don't see why I am not entitled. That doesn't make sense does it?

I 100% do not intend for my argument to be a personal attack on you or your family. I really do not wish to offend. I know I will never know anyone's family situation but I really feel, from working as a financial planner, that too many people are taking from the pot that don't need to. They are the equivalent of me taking food stamps. I just want to throw that info out there.[/quote]

sorry...don't know if it was the beer or something else...I thought your 100% comment was stating you are disappointed that ss is not a retirement account. This is why I normally keep my posts short...trying to avoid confusion. The bottom line is that I agree with you that something needs to be done about ss, and we should consider raising and/or lowering our collective expectations from ss.

Definitely get a quote from the Obama commercial, or find it on youtube. I don't get much US TV here, and when I do, I skip the commercials.

As I understand things...Greenspan fixed ss in the early 80's, but the system needed another "tweak" more recently, and that's when bush tried to privatize. Fortunately (imo), that failed as it would have been another cash giveaway to Wall St., and look at what they like to do with money. The bottom line is something still needs to be done. If that means only giving ss to people under a certain criteria (net worth, $ in the bank...something fair), then I could live with that. Millionaires don't need that ss check.


Well, most millionaires don't need that check...

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Inflation-1923.jpg[/img]

[CincyInDC]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='704157' date='Sep 22 2008, 01:20 PM']We can get into semantics all you'd like... safety net, retirement, whatever. Any way you cut it, when you "retire" it was supposed to be a means of some income. As it stands right now, when I retire I'll see jack shit. That is why I'm putting away into my 401k... the only way I see any form of "safety net" is of the current system is modified. Either better return on the monies that are there now, less payout to the current crop of participants (which is continuing to increase), later eligibility age, etc....

My 401k is my Plan A. I don't even look at SS as a Plan B. If I actually see something from it - it'll be like a bonus, nothing more.[/quote]


I throw money into untouchable (til retirement) savings as well. As I just stated above, something needs to be done. I just hope next year the republicans leftover in the Senate aren't so polarized that they stop any kind of progress on this issue...or that the Dems have a filibuster-proof majority.

[BengalBacker]

[s]When[/s][b] IF[/b] the economy collapses, none of that matters. None of our investments mean shit. Wealth will be measured in ammunition.










[img]http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3929/noninjamd4.gif[/img]

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='704384' date='Sep 22 2008, 04:37 PM']I throw money into untouchable (til retirement) savings as well. As I just stated above, something needs to be done. I just hope next year the republicans leftover in the Senate aren't so polarized that they stop any kind of progress on this issue...or that the Dems have a filibuster-proof majority. [/quote]

You're living on the premise that Dems will fix it... I don't share your confidence. We'll see.


I'd be all for a wealth-based limit that if you have X stored away then you get nothing, or you get reduced payouts. Make it a sliding scale.

[CincyInDC]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='704487' date='Sep 23 2008, 12:54 PM']You're living on the premise that Dems will fix it... I don't share your confidence. We'll see.

...[/quote]

True. However, if things are truly in shambles as many of us believe, how can they not? Reminds me of Actium talking about bush's squandered chance for "greatness." The next prez, whoever it is, should have the same opportunity for greatness...albeit without as much chance for the unspeakable greatness (my words, not Actium's) he saw the potential in for bush.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='704514' date='Sep 23 2008, 10:17 AM']True. However, if things are truly in shambles as many of us believe, how can they not? Reminds me of Actium talking about bush's squandered chance for "greatness." The next prez, whoever it is, should have the same opportunity for greatness...albeit without as much chance for the unspeakable greatness (my words, not Actium's) he saw the potential in for bush.[/quote]

I agree with that. But, the next guy could be acquiring the keys to the car that is about to blow up... and that person (and in connection that person's party) will be the fall guy for it.

Could go either way. I guess it all depends on whether once it does bottom out how the next prez "brings it around" or improves it and to what extent.

[Homer_Rice]

Check your email lately?

***
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

DEAR AMERICAN:

I NEED TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AN URGENT SECRET BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH A TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE.

I AM MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA. MY COUNTRY HAS HAD CRISIS THAT HAS CAUSED THE NEED FOR LARGE TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF 800 BILLION DOLLARS US. IF YOU WOULD ASSIST ME IN THIS TRANSFER, IT WOULD BE MOST PROFITABLE TO YOU.

I AM WORKING WITH MR. PHIL GRAM, LOBBYIST FOR UBS, WHO WILL BE MY REPLACEMENT AS MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY IN JANUARY. AS A SENATOR, YOU MAY KNOW HIM AS THE LEADER OF THE AMERICAN BANKING DEREGULATION MOVEMENT IN THE 1990S. THIS TRANSACTIN IS 100% SAFE.

THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY. WE NEED A BLANK CHECK. WE NEED THE FUNDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE CANNOT DIRECTLY TRANSFER THESE FUNDS IN THE NAMES OF OUR CLOSE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER SURVEILLANCE. MY FAMILY LAWYER ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON WHO WILL ACT AS A NEXT OF KIN SO THE FUNDS CAN BE TRANSFERRED.

PLEASE REPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, IRA AND COLLEGE FUND ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THOSE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO WALLSTREETBAILOUT@TREASURY.GOV SO THAT WE MAY TRANSFER YOUR COMMISSION FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AFTER I RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION, I WILL RESPOND WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SAFEGUARDS THAT WILL BE USED TO PROTECT THE FUNDS.

YOURS FAITHFULLY MINISTER OF TREASURY PAULSON
***

[url="http://bigpicture.typepad.com/"]h/t Big Picture[/url]

[sois]

Can we bring back debtors prison?

[CTBengalsFan]

Why would paying to detain people who would otherwise be paying taxes a good idea again?

[sois]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='704546' date='Sep 23 2008, 12:22 PM']Why would paying to detain people who would otherwise be paying taxes a good idea again?[/quote]

That is a silly POV. Everyone currently in jail could potentially be paying taxes. According to your logic, everyone should be free just because they generate revenue for the government.

[Homer_Rice]

Why was Solon a solon?

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='sois' post='704548' date='Sep 23 2008, 12:39 PM']That is a silly POV. Everyone currently in jail could potentially be paying taxes. According to your logic, everyone should be free just because they generate revenue for the government.[/quote]

K, let's put everyone in debt in prison. Great idea! Let's further fill our already full prisons! Let's add to our lead as the country that incarcerates the largest percentage of our population! Hey, prison building is a growth industry isn't it!

I was assuming you were joking? Cmon, man.