Re: Does nobody at this retirement site ever talk about retirement issues???

rg wrote:

"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:rJydnc4ahomFlFTZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx

rg wrote:

"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:cNKdndPS1_neLlXZnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx


rg wrote:
( previous post snipped-follow thread )



Hi Harry,
I understand what you are saying but I am not really scared of not getting SS. My father is 87 and without SS would not have enough income to support himself.
So I am only critical of SS because of it's structure.

It is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that it is a pyramid. There needs to be several workers paying into it, to support even one recipient. Another problem with it is that most people receive much more in benefits from it than they ever have put into it. That doesn't exactly seem right to me that younger workers should be robbed from in order to pay Paul, if you know what I mean.

A Ponzi Scheme is a deliberate attempt to defraud. Social Security is hardly a deliberate attempt to defraud. A better choice of words is that it functions in a similar manner to a Ponzi Scheme.


And your idea of payroll tax deductions over a lifetime and then when early death occurs those earnings that YOU worked for and were forced to put into the SS system are now lost to you and your family is not a deliberate attempt to defraud? Let me refer you to the US Consitution...remember the terms .....life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (originally property).

I suggest that you access the Social Security web site and review the survivor benefits. Might go far towards curing your erroneous assumptions with respect to the above.


I will certainly do so.


Good. And perhaps then you will retract and otherwise modify your erroneous assertions.

With regard to your last assertion (which you also use inappropriately), that phrase emanates from Amendment V, which deals with Criminal prosecutions, and has nothing to do with the issue under discussing. I quote the entire Amendment in view of your erroneous reference to it:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Actually, I was referring to Article I.

Then your knowledge of the Constitution is deficient. Article I deals with the scope and limits of judicial power, i.e., Congress. Nowhere in Article I was i able to find the the phrase you cited in your assertion. it is, however, quite present and in the form and context that you cited it in Amendment V. I suggest that you review your sources before you continue to stick your foot in your mouth.

A good course in high school American Government ought to be a satisfactory remedy for your apparent incorrect assertions.

Now, even if your interpretation of the application of the Amendment were correct( which of course, it isn't ), the operative phrase would be 'without due process of law.' Social Security was duly enacted into Law by the appropriate legislative body( Congress ), and has withstood scrutiny by the courts. Accordingly, you have erred in once again, attempting to apply an emotional context about a phrase which you clearly do not also understand.


And you are absolutley certain that when it was formulated, there was no intent to defraud?

There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. In the absence of evidence, rational and reasonable people know and understand that there is no basis for holding beliefs for which there is no evidence to support.

Have you evidence to support your implication in your question? And be reminded; your suspicious, jealous and otherwise selfish frame of reference does not qualify as such.

Perhaps I should have referred to it as a Ponzi-like scheme, as you have said. While SSI is perhaps not a Ponzi scheme, it's downstream effect is going to be the same. Agreed?

I did say that, didn't I?

Which part of that do YOU not understand?

I understand EVERY part of it. Sadly it is YOU who has demonstrated a lack of understanding.


Perhaps. I do not understand many things.

It is evident that you do not understand this.

Instead of lecturing others in their ignorance, perhaps you should practice what you preach.

ROTFLMAO. I do not lecture anyone about ignorance. I merely cite what is factually evident. You do not fully understand or know substantively about that which you are inclined to issue quite specific assertions.


You don't realize that you do it.

I know exactly what I mean when I say something. It is evident that you lack knowledge and understanding of things which you assert. Your posts , which have been properly refuted by others including myself demonstrate that. Ignorance is when one lacks such knowledge and understanding. Merely identifying something as such is hardly lecturing. It is merely identifying it as such.

Then I shall refrain from specific and be more general.

I would better suggest that you make the effort to be more precise and accurate in what you say.

You next assertion, that people paying into it receive more benefits than they have ever put into it demonstrates a gross understanding of where the income comes from to fund ANY retirement plan. ANY retirement plan should pay the recipient more than he/she puts into it. That's what the power of investment return does for ANYONE.


Should and do are two different things....as you OUGHT to know but perhaps you are ignorant of such things.

I am not aware of any legitimate retirement plan which does not do what I asserted. Perhaps you are? And Social Security, while never intended to be a complete retirement plan, rather, a safety net of income to preclude going on welfare( as welfare is far more expensive ) but even still does indeed pay ALL more than they pay in, over their actuarial lives. Since most people outlive those expectancies, they collect FAR more than they put in to Social Security.

Yes, I have a gross understanding of it.

Well, we agree.


You obviously are not familiar with the definition of gross as I used it.

You confuse and misuse definitions and terminology with such abandon, it may be difficult to know how you use it, since you are inclined to invent definitions to suit yourself. I instead, use the commonly accepted definitions.

Nevertheless, I will concede your point. You know more specifics of SSI than I do.

Indeed.

So let's play a little game. You have payroll deductions on your income through your employer. Your employer does not match your contributions but assures you that the full faith and credit of the business will make sure you get a defined benefit upon retirement. Of course, it may increase in value over time, but then it might also decrease in value or the amount of defined benefit may be reduced if the business should not do well and they have to "borrow" from the fund. And let's see, let's make that fund available to the business for other purposes as long as they write an IOU and place it in the kitty.

In your simplistic manner, you indicate a crude understanding of how a defined benefit works. With the obvious exception, of course, that since the benefit is defined, it cannot be reduced( except through mutual agreement ). And you have displayed a somewhat crude understanding of ONE of the problems Social Security faces with your final analogy.


If what you are saying is true, which it is not, then why push for privatization of SS. Perhaps you could seek a little education yourself into why some of the S. American countries have gone to the privatization plan and have done much better than the US SS has done and will do.

I almost was going to give you credit for understanding at least part of the problem, but your last phrase clearly indicates that you do not. Let me educate you. Unlike a true defined benefit plan, which invests the money deducted from all parties to fund the benefits, Social Security fails to invest it for money growth. The bulk of any annuity( which Social Security behaves like ) is funded from reserves built up through investment over time. Social Security does not fund its reserves( in fact it doesn't operate on the concept of a reserve, which is based on further interest rate assumptions and actuarial factors, another shortcoming, which you clearly do not understand ), but rather on an arbitrary setting of the dollar value of an annuity.


I do understand that.

Praise the Lord!

However, let us return to your errors. Continuing, your analogy is correct in that since the fund contained a surplus, government 'borrowed' from it so that greedy, ignorant individuals, like yourself could be given tax cuts, but still receive the services that those taxes which were cut paid for. You never stopped to think that the Government has to pay for what it provides either, did you? never got beyond the words 'tax cut, did you?' This is why I suggest that you spend a little time educating yourself and thinking about ALL the consequences.


And here is where you go wrong. You call me greedy, and yet I do not support tax cuts. Apparently, you think I support the current administration, which I have never done. You make the mistake of assuming too much.

I call you greedy because by your own hand, your views which you asserted reveal that. George Z first used the term selfish. Selfishness is based on greed.

And I never said you supported the current Administration. Only used an example to demonstrate the folly of shallow thinking.

And the Government, does no work, nor creates no income. It simply takes from its subjects to pay back what it borrowed from them in the first place. The Paper Shuffle.

Wrong. Because Government spends money, particularly in the area of military spending, it does indeed cause income to be created. However, that interpretation is for another discussion. let's restrict the concept of Government providing programs and benefits for the population at large at a lower individual cost then they could duplicate on their own.

But apparently, you support the circular shuffle as somehow productive and defensible.

In the sense that it provides programs which promote the general welfare, indeed.

You should do more explaining, you are good at that, and do less pontificating.

What would you like explained?

However, I digress. This inappropriate 'borrowing' compounded the problem, because now, not only do we see the Ponzi effect of declining population, but the fund doesn't have those surplus dollars, because they have been 'borrowed.' This now causes the Government two problems:
1) creating sufficient funds to pay benefits
2) paying back that which it owes


And it will do so through higher taxes, and lower benefits and later entry points until the point is reached in which the system will essentially fail because of convergence of those factors.

Not necessarily. There are other options. The simplistic ones are to raise revenue through increased taxation, or to reduce benefits to match current revenue. You see only the simplistic ones.

So what else is new with Ponzi (like) schemes and Pyramids?

Nothing. What's your point?

Privatization does not solve either of these problems; it only transfers the problem from the Government to the individual. And if you knew enough to do the math, you would understand that, but you don't. That has been demonstrated many, many times, using the discredited Bush plan as an example.


And why you don't understand that that is essentially my arguement and position I will never know. Perhaps you were just too blinded by your righteousness to either see or ask.

Really? You could have fooled me. You did not say in an earlier post in this thread that privatization is desirable? I have since deleted it, however, if you deny it, I will search the archives to post your actual response.

The key, and the only key which comes close to solving the problem is to change the funding mechanism of Social Security. You do that by establishing a reserve system based on actuarial factors and money growth. And money growth means investing. IOW, what you do is form a large trust, like the large pension systems of most states. They invest as a group, insuring that there are sufficient reserves to pay the defined benefits. THAT, my friend is how you solve the problem. And before you say no, just peruse the number of jealous comments cast to those who HAVE such plans by those who DON'T. If the holders of those defined benefit plans were doing so poorly, do you think that those who didn't have them, holding their 'private' plans, and who were doing far worse would be so jealous? Obviously, the answer is no.


Perhaps you could get an appointment with GM and explain that to them and their retirees.

GM knows what their problems are; they are simply not producing the cars that are desired by potential customers, and they still have the burden of their contractual obligations( which BTW, GM did not contribute to adequately during the boom years ). IOW, if you don't pay in, you don't get.

The system you propose certainly CAN work, but essentially and eventually becomes a field to be harvested by the crooks and gypsies.

The system I propose DOES work. It is used by virtually EVERY state public employee system pension fund.

I still believe that for many people, let them do their own, and take care of their own retirement. It seems to work for everything else, including education.

Large programs where the required expertise is beyond most people( even those who think they have it like you ), always outperform the individual. And do you know WHY? Because they can employ armies of professional managers for each sector and sub-sector, have tremendously larger resources to buy and sell, this creating greater diversification and close to market returns.

To carry this a little further, you see what is happening with Government defined education. Same thing.

I do indeed. It is providing a service that is beyond the ability of most individuals to purchase on their own.

Limited Government is the best government, in my opinion. Intrusive government becomes tyranny.

You are entitled to your limited opinion. However, as society evolves and becomes more complex, people require different things. When the cost of those things is beyond the ability of individuals to provide, that is the role of government. And it is meeting that role quite well.
sorry you don't care to pay your share of the cost of society, but if you choose to remain here, that's the price you pay.

So, again, you demonstrate your ignorance, because you know nothing about annuities, how they are funded, and how defined benefit plans have fared in this country. If you did, you wouldn't make such comments as you do and you wouldn't be forced to now take your foot out of your mouth.


Again, the pontificating. Yes, O Lord. I know absolutely nothing about annuities. I know absolutely nothing about anything. That is why we have you here. To explain all this to us.

Well you don't. I call a spade a spade.

ps. I administrate the annuity for my business.

I feel sorry for those employees who have to receive it. You obviously don't know much about how it is supposed to function. simply because you have the responsibility doesn't mean you have the expertise. And if your posts are any indication, I strongly suggest that you employ competent management, for your employees' sakes.

I mean no offense to seniors that are on SS now. I am most supportive of our nation supporting our seniors in every way possible.

Your comments hardly reveal that sympathy, critical as they are of what is the only safety net of income many of them have.


And as I indicated, that should not change.




Re-read my comments. You missed something.

Hardly. Your message comes through loud and clear. You want to replace their security with your selfishness. George Z got your number right.


I am really tiring of your comments about me.

Tough. If you don't like them, then don't post. Usenet is a public discussion board. If you have such a thin skin, then either be more precise, or just lurk.

My concerns with SS and other socialistic practices goes much deeper than we can really discuss here but suffice it to say that my arguement with SS does not involve taking anything away from the seniors that already depend on it for some or all of their livelihood.

Characterizing defined benefit plans and annuity income as Socialism reveals that you are substituting loaded and emotionally laden terms for reasoned thought and knowledge. I suggest that you educate yourself before making comments which only reveal ignorance and prejudice. In point of fact, supporting the elimination of the estate tax( which I imagine you support ) smacks far more of Socialism than these plans which you deride.


Oh? Perhaps you, the enlightened one would like to explain to me what Socialism is then!

Socialism is where the basic means of production are owned for the benefit of the population with no private profit. Of course, that is a general description, however there are degrees. Defined benefit plans are no more Socialism than the collective responsibility of each individual to pay taxes to support an army. Perhaps you can explain why the collective tax obligation of each United States Citizen to support an army is not socialistic, yet the collective responsibility of each United States Citizen to support a safety net retirement income is.


Those are two entirely different things. Your analogy is false. And I will refrain from saying what a selfish, ignorant *** you are.

Really? Explain how. I am interested in your rationally. Denial does not suffice. Are you unable to?

I would be most interested in how you can say that two things that function in the same manner are different. You see, it is function which describes something; not some arbitrary ignorant label you assign to it.



What? My gosh, your nuts.

Hardly. I just think I'm going over your head.

I don't find calling a spade a spade emotionalism or unreasoned.

You need to have background information to call a spade a spade. I do, which is why I can call you ignorant, which I did above, but you can't because you don't.


That's enough.

Others have already said that of you. I appear the last who think there is hope in educating you.

But then that is your approach to argumentation. Just try to tell the other guy that he is uneducated and uninformed. Let's see; isn't there a term for that in argumentation?

No, my approach to discussion is exactly the one you cited above: I call a spade a spade. And you have clearly demonstrated ignorance and the reliance on the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion( that's what they call it when you use negative labels to reply to substantive issues, which I correctly criticized you for doing ).


Thanks for your comments though, and I hope we can have some interesting discussions about retirement as that is my main reason for being here. I want to learn from you and others as much as I can.

You need to be open about things which you lack knowledge of to learn. A good first step is to stop using prejudicial and emotionally laden terms as rationale for your positions. Never worked and never will replace knowledge and understanding.




I am open to anything and everything. But, I don't find that you are.

I am. From those who know more about a topic than I. But you don't, and therefore cannot make that claim.


A good first step for you would be to learn to argue your counterpoints with facts, and not from your emotionally laden position of character assasination. But then, perhaps you consider that to be the moral high ground for you.

Indeed I have. You just do not have sufficient background understanding to comprehend them. I trust this explanation has been somewhat helpful. Of course, I can provide a more in depth explanation, however, as i asserted, your first step to becoming a recipient is to admit your lack of knowledge. You have yet to do that.


The only thing that I have seen so far is that you know a good bit about the system. Most of what you have explained, I already knew.

You knew none of it. Because if you did, you would not have made the simplistic and emotionally laden comments you did.

I am always open to those that know more and are willing to share that knowledge, but only in a manner in which they do so without character assasinations.

I see. You object to my characterization of you as ignorant? I suggest you peruse the dictionary to learn what ignorant means. Clearly you will see that the description of you has been accurate.

You haven't learned how to do that, and perhaps this has been a problem for you in the past.

I deal with people on the level at which they present themselves. Which is exactly the level I have been dealing with you. Regrettably, you eschew the direct approach.

Are you ready to do that? Then and only then, can we have fruitful discussions.


The only fruitful discussion anyone is ever going to have with you is if they agree to agree with whatever you say. You get to be the alpha male.

Regrettably, you do not have to agree with what I say. You have only to cite information which demonstrates that you are right and I am wrong. In order to do that, with respect with this topic, you first need to understand how these things work. As I said, you don't, and until you obtain that knowledge, you cannot have any fruitful discussions on this topic. My suggestion is that you restrict your discussions on this topic with those whose knowledge base is as shallow as yours.


And perhaps you should restrict your discussions with those that enjoy pissing contests as you do.

This has not been a pissing contest. You don't know what a pissing contest is.

Of course, my offer to educate you on this topic stands, as per the qualification above.



I think I'll pass. Thanks though.

It is indeed your choice to remain obdurate in your ignorance. It's in the Constitution( G ).

.