Jump to content

Explaining Socialism to a Republican


Go Skins

Recommended Posts

Can you cut the pill in half?

 

No, because I said tablet, but it's actually a capsule.  Besides my point is not the pill itself, it's the idea that the Insurance company, through my wallet, is basically telling me and my doctor how my health care should be provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not because it is probably time-release and cutting them in half would essentially release all of the medicine at one time.  Not a good idea.

 

Pills or capsules?  If pills, are they enteric-coated or not?

 

Pills are enteric-coated due to the rapid degradation of the drig in the acidic conditions of the stomach.  Delaying the degradation is achieved by coating the pills, by coating granules within capsules.

 

If you are taking coated pills, then cutting in half would expose the medicine and render it useless as you've surmised.  If encapsulated, bust one open to see if it's full of lots of baby pills or simply a powdered forumulation of your medicine.  If powdered, then you PROBABLY can take it one-half at a time... your pharmacist can advise you on that.  If not, and if it's full of individual pills, you MIGHT be able to take one-half of them at a time but will need some way to ensure that all of the little buggers make it to your stomach, like sticking that opened half-pill in a wad of bread.  Either way, your pharmacist is your friend.

 

And don't rely on me for medical advice.  Either do what you're already doing OR talk to an expert before changing what you're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I know exactly what I am talking about.  

 

1.  I was born and raised in the US.  Now I live in Canada.  I would take (and do) the Canadian health care system over the vaunted US system any day and twice on Sunday.

 

2.  Greece is a whole other barrel of monkeys.  Greece's problem wasn't the democratic socialism that you state it was.  Greece's problem is that no one pays their taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes it so confounding is the fact that we have "Social Security". "Socialism" is right fucking there in the word to describe it, folks, let alone the "socialistic" nature of it to begin with. 

 

Is Social Security that program that I am going to be paying into for about 50 years of my life, and have been told that it will have no money left in by the time I retire? Not to be a smartass (too much :) ) but not sure that is going to sell me on social economics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is Social Security that program that I am going to be paying into for about 50 years of my life, and have been told that it will have no money left in by the time I retire? Not to be a smartass (too much :) ) but not sure that is going to sell me on social economics. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/budget-baloney-why-social_b_824331.html

 
Budget Baloney: Why Social Security Isn't a Problem for 26 Years, and the Best Way to Fix It Permanently

 

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican presidential hopeful, says in order to "save" Social Security the retirement age should be raised. The media are congratulating him for his putative "courage." Deficit hawks are proclaiming Social Security one of the big entitlements that has to be cut in order to reduce the budget deficit.

 

This is all baloney.

 

In a former life I was a trustee of the Social Security trust fund. So let me set the record straight.

 

Social Security isn't responsible for the federal deficit. Just the opposite. Until last year Social Security took in more payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. It lent the surpluses to the rest of the government.

 

Now that Social Security has started to pay out more than it takes in, Social Security can simply collect what the rest of the government owes it. This will keep it fully solvent for the next 26 years.

 

But why should there even be a problem 26 years from now? Back in 1983, Alan Greenspan's Social Security commission was supposed to have fixed the system for good - by gradually increasing payroll taxes and raising the retirement age. (Early boomers like me can start collecting full benefits at age 66; late boomers born after 1960 will have to wait until they're 67.)

 

Greenspan's commission must have failed to predict something. But what? It fairly accurately predicted how quickly the boomers would age. It had a pretty good idea of how fast the US economy would grow. While it underestimated how many immigrants would be coming into the United States, that's no problem. To the contrary, most new immigrants are young and their payroll-tax contributions will far exceed what they draw from Social Security for decades.

 

So what did Greenspan's commission fail to see coming?

 

Inequality.

 

Remember, the Social Security payroll tax applies only to earnings up to a certain ceiling. (That ceiling is now $106,800.) The ceiling rises every year according to a formula roughly matching inflation.

 

Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission's fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income.

 

Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.

 

It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent.

 

If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.

Presto. Social Security's long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved.

 

So there's no reason even to consider reducing Social Security benefits or raising the age of eligibility. The logical response to the increasing concentration of income at the top is simply to raise the ceiling.

 

Not incidentally, several months ago the White House considered proposing that the ceiling be lifted to $180,000. Somehow, though, that proposal didn't make it into the President's budget.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh good news!!! I am going to cancel my 401k now!! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:ph34r:

 

I have been told for the last 15 years to not count on SS. It is going insolvent according to almost any study you can find. The last I saw it was around 2045 or so. I will be retiring around then so I think I will keep my retirement just in case ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh good news!!! I am going to cancel my 401k now!! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
:ph34r:
 
I have been told for the last 15 years to not count on SS. It is going insolvent according to almost any study you can find. The last I saw it was around 2045 or so. I will be retiring around then so I think I will keep my retirement just in case ;)


you've been told that because they want to get rid of it not because it's true further did you read why in the next 26 years right around the time when you and I retire and how we can fix that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is Social Security that program that I am going to be paying into for about 50 years of my life, and have been told that it will have no money left in by the time I retire? Not to be a smartass (too much :) ) but not sure that is going to sell me on social economics. 

I am pretty sure Social Security is doing fine...its the borrowing from the money there that is going to make it insolvent....could be wrong. I don't even pay into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really believe that there should be some type of retirement net worth assessment whereby if you're worth say, 2 million dollars or more by the time you hit the age where you can collect SS, you simply aren't entitled to it, because you clearly don't need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really believe that there should be some type of retirement net worth assessment whereby if you're worth say, 2 million dollars or more by the time you hit the age where you can collect SS, you simply aren't entitled to it, because you clearly don't need it.

 

agreed. instead they have a maximum mark of how much each person has to put in a year, So any money made after 113,700 is not taxed for social security. Therefore if you are a millionaire, you are paying much less than the 13% (or 26% for self employed people) the rest of us are paying.

 

If you make 130,000 a year, you pay 14,099 a year (10.85%)

If you make 10,000,000 a year, you pay..... 14,099 a year (0.0014%)

 

http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/self-employment-tax-calculator?skn=#top

 

I wonder what is wrong with SS and a good way to fix it... ?  :39:

 

Fuck it, lets raise the retirement age, cut benefits ... right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure Social Security is doing fine...its the borrowing from the money there that is going to make it insolvent....could be wrong. I don't even pay into it.

 

You are pretty much right. "Social Security" is doing fine, except all the borrowing out of it, which will eventually lead to much tougher decisions to be made. This kind of highlights my point though that the gov't couldn't run a bakery efficiently imo.


you've been told that because they want to get rid of it not because it's true further did you read why in the next 26 years right around the time when you and I retire and how we can fix that?

 

I will read tonight and reply back. Hard to read longer posts and articles from work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

agreed. instead they have a maximum mark of how much each person has to put in a year, So any money made after 113,700 is not taxed for social security. Therefore if you are a millionaire, you are paying much less than the 13% (or 26% for self employed people) the rest of us are paying.

 

If you make 130,000 a year, you pay 14,099 a year (10.85%)

If you make 10,000,000 a year, you pay..... 14,099 a year (0.0014%)

 

http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/self-employment-tax-calculator?skn=#top

 

I wonder what is wrong with SS and a good way to fix it... ?  :39:

 

Fuck it, lets raise the retirement age, cut benefits ... right?

Yeah, and that shouldn't be the case either. Under my "plan", not only would the very rich not receive SS benefits upon retirement (upon some type of financial vetting process to determine actual wealth), they'd pay more into the system based on their non-retirement income as well. Someone that makes $1,000,000 a year shouldn't be paying the same into the system as some that makes 100k a year, which isn't really "rich" by modern American standards, more like "comfortable".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah they won't treat if you are too advanced in a disease..for instance, stage 5 cancer not even worth treating just give pain pills..so yeah they are cheaper

 

If I had that, i'd probly want a few morphine tablets and call it  a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is Social Security that program that I am going to be paying into for about 50 years of my life, and have been told that it will have no money left in by the time I retire? Not to be a smartass (too much :) ) but not sure that is going to sell me on social economics. 

 

That's the cost of living in a society.  I am paying for shit loads of public schools which my kids will never use (cause I have a narrrow urethra).

 

PS:  Social security will be there.  You may not get as much, but you will get something.

 

PS again:  Thank you for understanding the wage cap.  I think it's garbage too.  They could lower the rate if everyone paid into it, instead of capping the contribution limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and that shouldn't be the case either. Under my "plan", not only would the very rich not receive SS benefits upon retirement (upon some type of financial vetting process to determine actual wealth), they'd pay more into the system based on their non-retirement income as well. Someone that makes $1,000,000 a year shouldn't be paying the same into the system as some that makes 100k a year, which isn't really "rich" by modern American standards, more like "comfortable".

 

I agree on both fronts. Although I could see the argument that they should still get social security regardless  They are paying in. Obviously this is assuming that they pay their equal share, which they are not currently. I want to say that I can't understand how this works this way, but lets face it, the rich make the laws so they are going to make them in their own favor. And the way they get away with it? They bring up other things that pisses us off and keeps us focused on so the real problems don't get fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's the cost of living in a society.  I am paying for shit loads of public schools which my kids will never use (cause I have a narrrow urethra).

 

PS:  Social security will be there.  You may not get as much, but you will get something.

 

PS again:  Thank you for understanding the wage cap.  I think it's garbage too.  They could lower the rate if everyone paid into it, instead of capping the contribution limit.

 

I understand that they can make some changes, cut benefits, raise the retirement age, even doing something that makes sense and not cap the limit. But the point is that this was intended as something that we all pay in and we should be able to retire with... Not live in a mansion after we retire, but allow us to retire comfortably. The system is failing to the point that we are not going to be able to do that. Will it completely fail = no. Not without someone killing the program which probably won't happen. But do I expect to be able to get by using my SS around 2050?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just don't understand why there is a limit at all. They say to raise the cap to 190,000. Why is there a cap at all? Is there anyone here that can explain that to me. 

 

I basically agree with the article. But it is one thing to have the program still around but its quite another for it to do what is intended by then. I am not confident that will be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just don't understand why there is a limit at all. They say to raise the cap to 190,000. Why is there a cap at all? Is there anyone here that can explain that to me. 

 

I basically agree with the article. But it is one thing to have the program still around but its quite another for it to do what is intended by then. I am not confident that will be the case.

 

I'm guessing a bunch of rich people paid off "our" representatives to make that happen some years back... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I understand that they can make some changes, cut benefits, raise the retirement age, even doing something that makes sense and not cap the limit. But the point is that this was intended as something that we all pay in and we should be able to retire with... Not live in a mansion after we retire, but allow us to retire comfortably. The system is failing to the point that we are not going to be able to do that. Will it completely fail = no. Not without someone killing the program which probably won't happen. But do I expect to be able to get by using my SS around 2050?


Where in the definition of the words "social" and "security" do you see retirement? That program was designed as a safety net for the elderly poor.

Open a retirement account your future. If you need social security, you had some bad breaks in life.

Yes there should be means testing, no earnings cap, raised age limit and a much lower contribution rate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where in the definition of the words "social" and "security" do you see retirement? That program was designed as a safety net for the elderly poor.

Open a retirement account your future. If you need social security, you had some bad breaks in life.

Yes there should be means testing, no earnings cap, raised age limit and a much lower contribution rate.

 

From wikipedia:

Social security may also refer to the action programs of government intended to promote the welfare of the population through assistance measures guaranteeing access to sufficient resources for food and shelter and to promote health and wellbeing for the population at large and potentially vulnerable segments such as children, the elderly, the sick and the unemployed. Services providing social security are often called social services.

 

Again it should be sufficient be able to give you enough for food and shelter. Not to buy a flat on the beach but enough for you and your spouse to be able to retire, pay your rent and go to the grocery store without having to create a retirement account 40 years in the past. 

 

Lets say that I took 10% of all my money and started when I was 18. If I were able to save that in a personal savings account at a modest 5% interest for 50 years (retire at 68) assuming around 50k a year. All of these are modest numbers imo. I would have around $1,200,000 saved at retirement. So basically I am supposed to think that its fair that the gov't takes more money than that, for a longer time period and an average of more than 50k a year, and I should still be looking to have to save for my retirement? I can't even get enough to get by?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...