29 comments to Oh, to be able to make this stuff up

• Skippy-san

  July 8, 2006 at 2:24 pm

  The devil here is in the details as the New York Times points out. The main rise in tax revenues came from increased corporate revenues and at the same time the deficit is still significant which makes the government raid the Social Security Trust fund. So all it would take is a significant shock to the market, continued high oil prices and that revenue would go the other way.

  Lets not forget to the big whacks the federal budget is taking this year which distorts the view too. Top lines for all categories are being pushed down because of the war and the deficit pressures. Otherwise why is not the amount of things we are buying (like ships and aircraft) going up to an acceptable level?

  Finally the gap between the top 10% and the real people who do the working, sweating, living and dying in the US, is growing. I agree with Lou Dobbs when he says there is an “assault on the Middle Class in America.” Most of the tax breaks cited in the article don’t benefit middle class Americans, just rich folks who are already making plenty of money. AND as quoted in the article from a Republican source, “The long-term outlook is such a deep well of sorrow that I can’t get much happiness out of this year.”

  So to me, the top 10% will still be bastards. They get richer and the rest of the heard gets to swim harder to keep their head above water…..They deserve to pay 65% of the taxes. I don’t. Maybe I will when I get that rich. Not going to happen anytime soon.

• lex

  July 8, 2006 at 2:45 pm

  The politics of envy and class warfare then, Skip? Shall the most productive 1% carry the load for all the rest of us?

  Is that really your idea of citizenship? Soak the rich?

  It\’s simple economics: What you tax you diminish, what you subsidize you increase. Don\’t be surprised then, when you tax wealth into poverty, and create ubiquitous poverty. Government does know best, after all. Why should all those individuals in the market have such a disproportionate say over what has value, and what does not?
  Or else skip a step, and take a hop over to North Korea. It\’s all very equal over there, apart from the very few who get to decide who wins, and who loses.

• Rellag

  July 8, 2006 at 3:05 pm

  Lex,

  Probably belongs lower in the page, but lets look at your transition problem from (yet again) a Bayesian perspective.

  We at the Elvish Technology Center (ETC) have come up with a tool.

  This tool, when waved in front of a business plan, or job offer, will glow, telling you with 95% certainty whether than was going to be a successful business, or a good situation.

  To keep this interesting, lets say this tool looks like a matchbook with Kelly McGillis’ phone number inside (yup, number underlined + “call me” + smiley face)

  There are still a few flaws in the technology, so about ten percent of the time it runs over a bad situation, it will still glow. We think this behavior is because the future is somewhat unknowable, and plans that look rational today might not look so good in light of changing events. Rest assured, we’ve got some of our best elves working on it.

  So you wave the matchbook across all the offers you get, pick any offer from the ones it glows over and you’re set, no?

  Well, no.

  What are the odds that you picked a good offer?

  Depends on how many proposals in the pile are actually good ones. I tend to think that good plans are pretty rare. Lets say its as high as 10%.

  Turns out, odds you picked a good offer are just 51%, a little better than breakeven.

  Unfortunately, we’ve been doing a lot of outsourcing to Mordor and we also think some of our elf technical writers may be hitting the sauce a bit, so we’re not sure that the tool actually glows 95% of time, and we think the false positives might actually be higher than 10%.
  To make things worse, yesterday, a gnome from our statistics department came in with a study showing the success rate of new businesses is down around 1/200, or 0.5%, vs the 10% we discussed above.

  So I think, for your first foray into the world of for-profit, you’re going to want to get yourself a better mathematical edge before you start investing time & money.

  Specifically, hit a single in the new league. Don’t try for a homerun at your first at bat.

  Were I in San Diego, I would take a very very very hard look at SAIC.

  Yes, they do a lot of military work, but they’re horribly entrepreneurial and innovative and seem committed to training their people. My perception is, after 2 years, you’ll know:
  1) a lot more about yourself
  2) how you might fit in on the outside
  3) what people actually get paid for on the outside
  4) what you might want to do that results in getting paid
  5) and how you deal with financial stress and the generally higher levels of uncertainty in the civilian world vs. the Navy.

  If you want to push the odds after a tour there, feel free.

  I know you feel the clock is winding down, but this is one of those situations where less haste results in more speed.

  And no, I don’t work for them. Best company in San Diego I know of, though.

• Skippy-san

  July 8, 2006 at 5:12 pm

  Lex,

  Not the politics of class warfare, its the politics of fairness. Its is not so important what the tax rate is so long as the budget is balanced and what the government spends equals what it takes in. So its not the final amounts its the disparity between the rich and the not so rich that bothers me.

  Plus look at it another way to quote Ben Stein:

  “It’s just not pretty that we civilians should be getting our taxes cut, get rich (on paper) from real estate, watch the stock market zoom, while those who signed up to defend us get killed and maimed for us. Can’t we at least have a small tax increase for the very rich? There are so many very rich and they have money to burn. (I know. I live among them.) They can spare a few thousand more each month.

  Shared sacrifice is a major way to bind the nation. Maybe I’m wrong though. Maybe poor Dr. Dean would make hay with that.”

  Stein, who is no liberal by the way, is the same guy who advocated a 75% tax on income over 1 million dollars, and using the money to properly pay and resources the armed serivices since ,”they are getting the freedom to earn that amount of money by the exertions of those in uniform”.

  If you want to fight 5 wars around the globe and cut taxes there is a price to be paid. I submit to youo a balanced federal budget will do more to stimulate the overall improvement of all the people than tax cuts do. And I believe there are things the government should do. I don’t mind paying taxes, (although in a fair world I would be able to exempt income earned overseas the way civilian contractors do) I just want to see the money properly spent. Like on something more than the insulting 2.2% pay raise this next year.

• lex

  July 8, 2006 at 6:11 pm

  It’s not fair, you say? How is it “not fair” when the richest 1% – which neither you nor I will ever be – carry 1/3 of the tax burden? When the richest 10% carry over two-thirds? When the poorest quintile gets a refund on money they never earned, and the middle next lower and middle fifth combined pay less than 10%?

  Seems pretty derned progressive to me.

  And anyone who slavishly sticks to the idea of balanced budgets in the face of an imploded tech market and exploded World Trade Center might as well advocate to go back on the gold standard. There are times to run deficits, and pay them off in the future. The size of these we can certainly quibble about, but the fact that we’re collecting more revenues now than we did before the tax cuts is not malleable.

  Get government out of the market, to the extent that you can, and then watch what happens next. “Surprisingly,” your tax revenues increase.

• lex

  July 8, 2006 at 9:09 pm

  BTW, thanks for the advice, Rellag. Definitely worth thinking about.

• Skippy-san

  July 9, 2006 at 3:45 am

  I think the word “carry the other 2/3″ is something of a misnomer. They are not carrying anyone, they are paying in proportion to the benefits received.

  Plus it gets back to the old argument of capitalism, “How much is enough?”. That’s where the big difference between now and yesteryear kick in. The differences between the layers are greater now.

  Plus when it comes to deficits, I’m in pretty good company with plenty of Republicans who feel that the adminstration has betrayed its conservative principles. I think that 9-11 had nothing to do with the deficit, and the market took a long time to rebound and now its up and down at best. A war means you have to spend more. So you have to increase revenue somehow. Trickel down econmics says tax cuts do it. However Tax cuts are supposed to be accompanied by reduced government spending. The war places the burden for reduced spending on the things a government should be doing for its people. With reduced taxes and increased spending the equation gets scewed.

  Finally I’d be curious to see how much those increased corporate revenues came from the fact that higher energy prices are here so some companies in the energy business are making Much larger profits.

• badbob

  July 9, 2006 at 4:17 am

  Skippy,

  Please quit playing the devil’s advocate for the H.S. debating team and just arguing for the sake of arguing.

  You can’t possibly believe this:

  “…?

• badbob

  July 9, 2006 at 4:17 am

  Skippy,

  Please quit playing the devil’s advocate for the H.S. debating team and just arguing for the sake of arguing.

  You can’t possibly believe this:

  “……..They deserve to pay 65% of the taxes. I don’t.”

  On the one hand you argue the failed (evidence in article..) liberal social justice view of taxes, while constantly, here and in your other writings, you pine for $$$$ and the ability to make it yourself!

  Maybe it is time you retire from the “welfare program” you’re on (and rarely appreciate) and get out there and join the top 10%. BTW, you and Lex aren’t that far from it despite your 2.2% “pittance” proposed raise.
  It is a matter of public record but I shan’t link.

  For civilians reading this, that 2.2% is not based on performance or merit, they also get bumps every 2 years or so, and special pays, quarters, food, exemptions from taxation, etc. Additionally, since 9-11 in particular, military pay, or really pays’ have gone up significantly as they should have.

  One enters the military for a career in an avocation. Renumeration is more than reasonable and the benefits are very good. Not too many 50k a year teachers or cops live in Del Mar. On the other hand knowledge that your ex-wife will get 1/2 of your pension someday is also part of the variable. As examples, both are economic choices not offered in conscripted service or European style socialism…

  B2

• lex

  July 9, 2006 at 7:24 am

  Well, once you say “how much is enough,” then now you are entering the playing grounds of government’s dead hand, interfering with the market.

  Look, it’s not like wealthy people play Scrooge McDuck, and keep their ill-gotten lucre in a vault somewhere, in gold preferably, the better to run their fingers through: The generate wealth, and then spend and invest it. All of these things are are good for the broader economy, and much better – in my view anyway – than allowing some starry eyed poly-sci grad to apportion it where he thinks “people are hurting because of that one story on 60 Minutes” or where it might get whichever party he belongs to more votes.

  The deficit is much higher than I would like to see it, and I’ve made clear my differences with the House – who after all disposes of what the President proposes – many times before. But no one seriously believes that it’s a good thing during a recession, burdened by a grossly expensive terrorist act to choose the hard line on spending. That’s the way you get depressions and that’s the way you lose wars. Look back on the headline – deficits down. Good news!

  And B2, for the record, Carmel Valley is not Del Mar. They – sniff – wouldn’t have us – we’re across the highway, don’t you see?

• Phil Andrilla

  July 9, 2006 at 7:51 am

  Skippy-san,
  I respect your opinions as you always seem a well informed reader. I’m not an intellectual giant, but I do have an opinion about this topic. Remember, the glass is half full. Some of us are drinking from the top half, some of you are drinking from the bottom half…we’re both drinking! While we all whine from time to time (even about taxes), it’s hard to listen to some one gripe about those Rich Bastards and then call your financial advisor on your cell phone, driving your SUV. I’m having trouble deciding if your arguement is they (RBs) aren’t paying their fair share, or they should be paying more because they have more (than you). Or is it that those that have more should pay more because…here’s where I get lost.

• Murphy

  July 9, 2006 at 10:04 am

  Skippy,

  You keep harping over how you are not rich and you deserve more. What do you do for a living? What is holding you back?

• Skippy-san

  July 9, 2006 at 12:29 pm

  What’s holding me back is the requirement to remain employed and my desire to live overseas.
  My alimony, a result of America’s unenlightend divorce laws coupled with a loss of a significant percentage of my retirement keeps me from being rich. The second is a personal choice, but because I continue to work for the federal government I have to pay US taxes and am unable to take advantage of the tax laws as I should.

  Sure I want more, who doesn’t. But am I getting by? Yes and because I’m in a location I like its OK.

  Nonetheless, its is frustrating to see the excesses of some and then see them defend the right to live well while others don’t.

  The point I guess I am making is that not everybody can just go out and make more and become rich. Life’s circumstances play a lot in the equation. So the arguement what is stopping you from becoming one of those guys is specious IMHO. Give me back all of my retirement and I’ll shut up, move to Thailand, and not bother you again…..

  Till then, I’ll stick up for social justice and the rights of the little guy. Because based on the census data I’ve seen, I’m far away from the top 10%. So is Lex, but he has a house in SOCAL something I could never hope to get into either now or back in my previous life………..

• seawitch

  July 9, 2006 at 12:35 pm

  The rich are already taxed at almost half of their income. The federal tax rate for those whose income is over $336,000 is 35% on federal income taxes. This does not factor in any state income tax nor the alternative minimum tax factored. Plus there is the social security tax, capital gains taxes, etc, etc, etc.

  The estate tax laws are the ones that hurt the middle class more so than the very rich. When a person creates a sucessful business, even if it’s incorporated, the taxes family members face after death are tremendous and in many cases cause that sucessful business to close.

  Estate tax laws should be abolished. It is taxing income that has been taxed previously. Also, by lowering the capital gains taxes, it encourages economic growth. Those that have the wealth to create jobs will be more apt to do so when the taxes on the income generated aren’t so high.

  Some good examples would be states such as California and New York. The taxes faced by individuals and businesses cause them to seek states that are more tax friendly such as those in the Sun Belt.

• CDR Salamander

  July 9, 2006 at 1:20 pm

  Skippy,
  Everything isn’t about your d@mn ex-wife and your ali-money. Shipmate, you are starting to remind me of the Russian in the Joke:
  – An American farmer sees his neighbor’s great, large herd of cattle and goes to his local USDA agent and sees how to get a low interest loan to improve his herd and purchase more land and better feed.
  – The European farmer sees his neighbor’s great, large herd of cattle and goes to his local MP and pushes for a tax increase on large herds of cattle and an increased subsidy to small holders.
  – The Russian farmer sees his neighbor?

• CDR Salamander

  July 9, 2006 at 1:20 pm

  Skippy,
  Everything isn’t about your d@mn ex-wife and your ali-money. Shipmate, you are starting to remind me of the Russian in the Joke:
  – An American farmer sees his neighbor’s great, large herd of cattle and goes to his local USDA agent and sees how to get a low interest loan to improve his herd and purchase more land and better feed.
  – The European farmer sees his neighbor’s great, large herd of cattle and goes to his local MP and pushes for a tax increase on large herds of cattle and an increased subsidy to small holders.
  – The Russian farmer sees his neighbor’s great, large herd of cattle and goes to his local retired KGB agent and gives him a case of vodka to sneak over to his neighbor’s farm in the middle of the night and shoot all the cattle.

  Fairness? You want fairness? Let’s follow the Estonians…flat tax – no deductions. CPA, tax lawyers, and the mortgage (and I have a nice one) interest deduction…lump it. That is fair. The rich I know up close and personally are that way by working their @55 off with their own money, their own ideas, without a net, risking everything to be a success – and they employ a lot of people in the process, making more rich people in the process. I know people who were once worth millions of dollars and zigged when they should have zagged when the economy changed and are now bankrupt. All those that they helped make money do nothing for them. Who do they blame? Themselves. What do they do? Get on with life. Is life fair? Yes, and no.

  Why punish those who have enjoyed so much success just to make yourself feel better? Soak the rich? You’re better than that Skippy.

  BTW, “The little guy?” Back home, tell one of the people you might consider “the little guy” that he is one, and you probably just started a fight.

• FbL

  July 9, 2006 at 4:16 pm

  Skippy, this is starting to sound like simple jealousy on your part…

  And that statement comes from somebody who’s currently unemployed and has recently moved in with her mother in order to pay her student loans while doing temp work and looking for longterm employment… so that she can get back on her feet and start all over again at age 30+.

• Skippy-san

  July 9, 2006 at 4:50 pm

  For you maybe everything is about something other than my alimony, for me its everything. I’m bitter about that and will be for the rest of my life. Lets just say I understand OJ a lot better now.

  However to get to your point, I guess its about what is important to me. I’ve got the things I need and for the first time in my life I’m saving money. Because of my circumstances “the welfare state” B2(and I) decries helps me do that. Since Uncle gets a fair days work for his money and then some, its a fair trade and your tax dollars are well spent. (So yes, I’m in favor of hiking B2′s taxes….:-) ).

  I could go back to the states, take a job with _______ and make a lot more money than I am making now. I could have the house, the yard, and commute every day to work. I could in turn go slowly, but surely, crazy thinking about what I’m missing on Luard Road, or in Toah Payoh or on Friday night in Takadanobaba. So this is better for me. Its a choice and I acknowledge that.

  So shoot me, I’m jealous of people who are making all kinds of money. Yea I want them to fork over some to me. Warren Buffet’s giving away 34 billion. He can give me 1 Million and still have 33, 999,000,000.00 dollars to give to others. (Spike came up with that idea not me, but its still a good one…….). I don’t hate the Europeans I envy them, why can’t I get 7 weeks vacation each year?

  Anyway. The older I get the more liberal I get though. And the more I am bothered by the fact that there are things like the huge disparties living standards in a world with as many technological advances as there are. That Chinese in Malaysia can treat their Indonesian maids like crap and make them work like dogs for 400(if that much) a month. That AIDS is still around after 25+ years, the list goes on. Yea thats life and its not fair, but I don’t have to simply accept that.

  Plus lets get back to the original point of the post. Revenues have increased. The deficit is smaller this year. I can’t prove it but I think its a spike. The deficit will be back as soon as the election year pork is through. With the war on , the tax cuts should have been put on hodl for the good of the war effort and the nation.

  Oh and for what its worth, my taxable income last year was in the lower 50% of taxpayers. So I am one of the little guys………….

• Eric

  July 9, 2006 at 4:52 pm

  I would like to point out that despite the unexpected revenue, we still spent $300,000,000,000.00 more this year than we took in. (seeing it written out is a good cure for number numbness) Counting on “surprising jumps” in revenue is not a stable way to run an economy. . .

• lex

  July 9, 2006 at 5:51 pm

  That’s a thousand dollars per person, and yes it’s probably time for some fiscal discipline. Which some of us would describe as reduced spending, especially on discretionary spending and what have come to be known as “entitlements,” and others would like to see in the form of increased taxation.

  And finally, we have a political discussion worth actually having – higher taxes: Good or otherwise?

  No fair to say we’ll only raise taxes on the rich – every one of us is rich compared to someone we know. Well, grad students perhaps excepted

  And once again, it’s not all that surprising when in fact the folks who cut the taxes predicted the result from the outset.

• Eric

  July 9, 2006 at 6:54 pm

  Yeah, I agree, cutting spending is going to have to be the name of the game. Interestingly, I saw some statistics that showed that single mothers are by far the largest group of recipients of welfare. Which, as terrible as it sounds, makes me wonder if a more enlightened birth control policy than “keep your legs closed” might have real economic benefits.

  Military spending is the big target of course, but after looking at graduate programs last fall, I have seen first hand a lot of really good research paid for by military money. It would be a huge loss for it to dry up.

  Re. poor grad students – Well, I’m have a few more months of working in industry ahead of me, and while I do so I’ll continue to make more than the average American household! So there!

• Skippy-san

  July 9, 2006 at 11:39 pm

  If the US were to go to a flat tax I would be in favor of a national sales tax. That would make paying taxes a function of consumption. In Japan they have both. That would make paying taxes a function of consumption. Save money, pay less tax.

• Kris, in New England

  July 10, 2006 at 5:11 am

  I don’t have much to say about the country’s economy, the deficit or raising/lowering taxes. But I can say this: My husband and I pay 45% of our annual income in taxes (state, fed, social security, etc), we both put more than 10% of our income into our 401(k)s, plus a few post tax investments. We aren’t wealthy, but we have enough for the extras – nice car, vacations, modest but lovely home – and we work very hard for what we have, slogging away in corporate america. We have no children, so our deductions are few. We claim “single/zero” as we know the guvmint will get it in the end, and we don’t care for a ballooned tax hit in April of every year.

  We take home about 53% of what we earn – and we aren’t in the top 10% by any stretch. Never will be, in our wildest dreams. And while I understand about paying one’s fair share of the burden of the country’s expenses…it does seem a bit unfair that we only get to keep a little over half of what we earn every year.

  And while the super-rich DO pair their fair share, let’s face it, they have SO much left over that saving for retirement isn’t an issue, is it.

  I’m not looking for deep tax cuts or anything like that – but perhaps a fairer distribution of the tax burden. Don’t know how…but it’s nice for a daydream, right?

• larry

  July 10, 2006 at 10:13 am

  From each according to his means, to each according to his needs? While we’re at it, let’s adjust all prices according to one’s 1040. Why shouldn’t Bill Gates pay $40,000 per gallon for gas? He can afford it. Especially if that means I’d only have to pay $1.00 per. Why, it’d only be fair. /sarcasm

• Murphy

  July 10, 2006 at 6:13 pm

  Skippy-san

  There are some things in this world I am still very very mad at, so I can relate. I asked those personal questions because you seem very smart and able. I wish to inform you that you will not become rich working on some one else?

• Murphy

  July 10, 2006 at 6:13 pm

  Skippy-san

  There are some things in this world I am still very very mad at, so I can relate. I asked those personal questions because you seem very smart and able. I wish to inform you that you will not become rich working on some one else’s payroll unless you invest very well over many years or, are a credentialed professional (e.g. physician, architect, etc.). Your state will not change through changes in public policy.

  I have had the good fortune of starting my own business and a wife who has a very very good job herself. Our household is in the top 50%. Perhaps the top 5%. We are or will become rich, depending on your perspective. I wish you all the best and my you find peace with what troubles you.

• MissBirdlegs in AL

  July 10, 2006 at 7:04 pm

  Fbl, I can relate, except I started over with nothing, not even a job, at age 51. Before that, I was married and had the problem Kris, in NE, has. I lived well, but paid almost half the combined income in taxes. I don’t envy the RB’s, I say “More power to them”. Most of them, like me, have worked all their lives to try to make things better for their families and usually their employees. Some just do it better and are luckier than others. It’s the overspending that’s the problem, not the tax cuts. Skippy-san, I have NO retirement, can’t even have a good party on the Social Security I draw (which I also pay taxes on, BTW), so will have to work until I die, but I sure as heck don’t want taxes raised for anyone unless it’s a matter of National Security.

  I’m not quite 5′ tall, but I don’t consider myself in any way one of the “little people”!!!

• Skippy-san

  July 10, 2006 at 8:42 pm

  Ye God’s people sure can be touchy…….
  Was a time when being one of the “little people” was something to be proud of …as in underdog wins one.

  Here is the thing. Exactly how does one get spending back under control. The war is a huge on going expense and will be for the next 20 years. Domestic spending is being cut, even for things that every one believes are necessary and vital for the nation like homeland security and transportation infrastructure improvements. Then you run into entitlement spending ( a term I hate, because all “entitlement” spending that is done for me is EARNED benefits that I worked for and am owed by Uncle S.

  Here’s the difference bewteen us’ns and the RB’s. They have the means to move iincome around (e.g. hide) and reduce their tax burden. The only real deduction most middle class families have is in their house.

  As for retirement, I guess I see it as why should you have no retirement. You paid into Social Security, you worked hard, the government has a responsibility to make good on its obligation to you to make sure its there. However its not. And both parties are to blame for that as are the changes in the worforce environment and retirement plans ( which more companies are walking out on like United Airlines).

  There are things the government needs to do. Personally I’ve always admired what they do in Singapore with the CPF ( Central Provident fund) which is essentially a forced savings plan close to 33% of your gross income) from the day you graduate from school. Americans would never put up with that kind of thing, but Singapore can get away with it because its a One- party state and a democracy in name only. Also since their population is primarily Chinese and Malay they have culture that focues on the needs of the group over that of the individual.

  Bottom line for me is that the cuts are there (except for the need to cut congressional salaries.) In the end revenue has to increase…..

• MissBirdlegs in AL

  July 11, 2006 at 2:39 pm

  Skippy – Yeah, I noticed that the Congress thought we could afford a raise for them, so they got it. I tend the money where I work & didn’t think we could afford one for me, so didn’t ask for one. When I’m sure we can afford it, I’ll get it, but not before.

  I have a small Social Security check because although I’ve worked for over 50 years, it’s always been in a bookkeeping/clerical/administrative position – not much money involved. No retirement due to changing jobs to have babies or accommodate each location change my then husband made…and I didn’t have your wife’s lawyer when I was 51 years old

• Kris, in New England

  July 12, 2006 at 3:53 am

  My hubby and I are assuming we won’t get a single penny from the guvmint when it’s time for us to retire – if we ever do or can. We save for our own futures and I am concerned it won’t be enough.

  I do resent the fact that I’ll work for probably close to 50 years (I’m almost halfway there now) and likely won’t get anything back that I’ve put in. And while I accept that, I don’t have to like it very much. At. All.

  And taking the chance of inflaming some folks – why can’t I just keep that money and invest it myself? Since it’s pretty certain I’ll never see any of it, why do I have to fund anyone else’s retirement? No one will be funding mine and I’m OK with that, provided I have the means to do it myself.

• Skippy-san

  July 12, 2006 at 6:07 am

  Because for every person like you who saves, there is a spendthrift out there like someone who will not be named. And either way they become a burden on society. Through social security, crime, or the emergency room.

  Again I’ll point to Asia. There are things the government underwrites because it benefits the whole. Good public transportation is one, health care is another, finally there is a scheme that allows the majority to have better housing than they had under the colonial masters……..e.g the HDB scheme in Singapore or the public apartments in Japan, in Singapore 90% of which is privately owned; finaced by leveraging the CPF accounts as collateral…then again a 5 room flat in Pasir Ris will never compare to a 2700 square foot house with a zero lot line in Va Beach……But its all about needs versus wants. And it has benfits: no yard to mow, great parks nearby, and in some cases you can sublet and move to something bigger.

  You would not have to work 50 years if the Congress, aided and abetted by Presidents from both parties, had kept revenues equal to expenditures. But where would we get the pork projects listed here: http://porkbusters.org/.

  Oh yes, probably would be better if houses were not so obscenely priced. Can’t believe that building materials are so much more expensive in CA than in S.C……of course the land is much more scarce.

  So in summary the better question is why should you have to work for 50 years? You paid into the system…the system owes you. Its time for it to shut up and pay the bill. Keep Social Security solvent!

• Kris, in New England

  July 12, 2006 at 6:31 am

  Skippy: I understand your last point, but I like to consider myself a realist and I know that it just won’t be there for us.

  I know that what we are paying into Social Security now is funding, in part, the retirement benefits of CURRENT retirees. Which means that the generation behind me is supposed to be paying into it to fund MY retirement. But as I said before, that won’t be happening in all likelihood so…to my original point. I’d rather NOT pay into now and keep that money to invest on my own.

  And Skippy – no use crying over the spilled milk of mismanaged money by the politicians. Social Security is broken and likely won’t ever be fixed enough to make it viable for our generation. It’s over and we need to make a mental break with it and start planning for a life without it.

Copyright © 2012 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved
Powered by WordPress & the Atahualpa Theme by BytesForAll. Discuss on our WP Forum