Re: Social Security vs Pensions

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. Remember when $100K was fantastically wealthy and set
you up for life and now it is just middle class. Where do you draw the
line and do you adjust it for geographic differences. After all where I
live $1000 is enough for a studio apartment in a half way decent
neighborhood and if you want to buy an apartment look to start at around
$150K. Where I grew up $150K would buy you a really nice home in a
great neighborhood and in other areas if you are looking for a livable
home you can start around $50K. You still have not justified the
redistribution aspects of what you are envisioning. 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. That should be
by definition illegal. Even the lottery has better odds than that.
If you are prudent you get skrewed and if you are imprudent then you get
the big payoff. That mkes no sense at all.

On 05/23/2011 03:33 PM, studio wrote:
> On May 20, 8:16 pm, frankg<fran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Like I said, contorted and tortured logic. Can you name me ONE
>> insurance YOU pay into where you KNOW you CAN'T ever make a claim or
>> receive a benefit from?
> I never said they couldn't collect on a claim... they first have to
> meet the requirements of proof they need it.
>
>> You don't buy car insurance if you don't drive.
>> You don't buy homeowner insurance if you don't own a home.
> You don't pay into SS if you don't work either.
>
>> You buy insurance to ensure that, should a certain condition occur, you
>> can receive compensation for it.
> Exactly.
> Thanks for making my point, and glad your seeing it my way.
>
>> Under your system the conditions
>> under which one would receive compensation from this 'insurance' can
>> not exist if that individual is wealthy.
> Because they have no basis to make a claim.
>
>> What it is, once you take off
>> the blue glasses, is redistribution of wealth poorly disguised as
>> 'insurance'.
> It has nothing to do with redistribution, that's the nature of
> insurance whether private or otherwise.
>

--
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.