paying to the wealthy for what the wealthy paid in. No disadvantage
that I can see at all. It should be based on geography. If I live in
Missouri then my COL expenses would be about 75% of the national average
while if I lived in NYC the COL expenses would be about 150% of the
national average. So should those living in NYC get the same amount as
those who live in Missouri? Going by your standards they should not
because then you are disadvantaging those who live in NYC and giving an
advantage to those living in Missouri and that would not be fair. Your
rules.
In other words you stipulations make no sense at all. No matter how you
try to game the system someone ends up getting skrewed. You start out
skrewing the wealthy, the ones who are creating all the jobs that allow
people to make a living. Then you go on and skrew the ones who live in
the high cost of living areas and who probably earned more over the
years so paid more into the pot. Then if you allow for that then you
are skrewing the ones who don't live in the high cost of living areas
because you are taking away from the ones who didn't live there and so
did not make the higher wages. Any way you play the game you are
skrewing a large part of the population while you are trying to
redistribute the bucks so everyone gets treated fairly. End result is
you are just trying to game the system to suit your politics and thus
pat yourself on the back for being so fair and unbiased to anyone but
those filthy rich people who should not be allowed to earn that much
money. In other words you are trampling all over the whole concept of
the American Dream just so you can feel good about yourself and thus you
are skrewing the country.
On 05/23/2011 04:08 PM, studio wrote:
> On May 23, 3:46 pm, dick thompson<rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> So how do you determine when the person is wealthy enough that they
>> don't get that which they paid for over 50 years or so - and how do you
>> keep it current. Where do you draw the
>> line and do you adjust it for geographic differences.
> It's not based on geography, it's based on earnings.
>
> Yes the old conservative phony question; "what is wealthy and how do
> you determine it"?
>
> Wealth, as a currently accepted economic definition is; how much
> someone has in assets.
> It is NOT a philosophical question as defined by Republican'ts.
>
>> You still have not justified the
>> redistribution aspects of what you are envisioning.
> The justification is no different than it's ever been in your life.
>
>> Why would someone
>> pay into a ponzi scheme like this if there were no way to get any of it
>> back - and yet you are forcing everyone to pay into it without regard
>> for whether there is any payoff at the end of the line.
> Their choice is simple; pay in to get it back, or become wealthy so
> they don't have to be concerned about it.
> Not both.
>
>> Even the lottery has better odds than that.
> Then play the lottery.
> Just remember, the lottery benefits the public schools you despise so
> much.
>
>> If you are prudent you get skrewed and if you are imprudent then you get
>> the big payoff. That mkes no sense at all.
> What makes less sense is SS being just another benefit the wealthy can
> look forward to while the poor and middle class are asked to sacrifice
> yet again for the wealthy benefit.
>
> The fact is; poor people are as a percentage are not living longer
> (the average age the poor die went down for the first time ever under
> Bush Jr.)...
> meanwhile the average age a wealthy person dies has remained going up.
>
> Hence SS has become a benefit for the wealthy more-so than the poor.
>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment