Sonic Youth Gossip - View Single Post

!@#$%! · 01.05.2013, 01:34 PM

yes yes but you're talking about bridges and schools and all manner of things that make it all completely unfocused and impossible to examine. sure if we want everything we should pay for everything, but we can't.

the question with money is it isn't infinite and we have to make choices: "i want 1,000,000 nukes and 10,000,000 bycicles" "sorry little boy you can only have 1,000 nukes and 5,000 bycicles" "but i want 1,000,000 nukes" "i can give you more nukes if you give up some bycicles, but it's not going to be as many as you want" etc.

the question with taxes is what do you want the government to provide and what do you want to buy yourself. wingnuts want to poice themseves with guns and homeschool themselves in their compounds and travel through toll roads. moonbats want everything free without having to work for it. somewhere in between there's a reasonable compromise.

the question to ask bytor is not if he wants to pay for the army. the question is much smaler: "isn't your $50/month aka $600/year worth it so that we can keep social security strong and not in danger of going broke and leaving retired people and the disabled completely destitute?"

to which he might answer

a) yeah, i guess it's worth it, so we don't have old people dying in the streets!

or

b) i'd rather invest my own money and not have the government take it away so they can dip their grubby hands into the social security trust fund and never pay back

then you can have a real discussion between clear alternatives or maybe something else.

note: we've had these 6.2% FICA rates since the days of Emperor Bush I, btw. so to blame obama is fallacious and ridonculous.

but also note-- it's also fallacious to call them "6.2%" since employers have to pay an additional 6.2%. so that's 12.4% of payroll-- the split is an accounting gimmick--just for social security. when you add medicare is slightly north of 15% for mandatory savings that you can't control.

that's a fuckload of money before any federal, state, local, sales, and other taxes are harvested.

and i would have no problem with it if we could indeed guarantee old folks a safe and dignified retirement with that money. problem is, the scheme is a bit iffy it seems when the government can borrow from the trust fund and pay back by printing devalued money AND when the people are collecting more than they are contributing. with our demographics, and current rates, it looks a bit of a ponzi scheme (albeit an involuntary one).

01.05.2013, 01:34 PM	#56
!@#$%! invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: mars attacks Posts: 42,457	yes yes but you're talking about bridges and schools and all manner of things that make it all completely unfocused and impossible to examine. sure if we want everything we should pay for everything, but we can't. the question with money is it isn't infinite and we have to make choices: "i want 1,000,000 nukes and 10,000,000 bycicles" "sorry little boy you can only have 1,000 nukes and 5,000 bycicles" "but i want 1,000,000 nukes" "i can give you more nukes if you give up some bycicles, but it's not going to be as many as you want" etc. the question with taxes is what do you want the government to provide and what do you want to buy yourself. wingnuts want to poice themseves with guns and homeschool themselves in their compounds and travel through toll roads. moonbats want everything free without having to work for it. somewhere in between there's a reasonable compromise. the question to ask bytor is not if he wants to pay for the army. the question is much smaler: "isn't your $50/month aka $600/year worth it so that we can keep social security strong and not in danger of going broke and leaving retired people and the disabled completely destitute?" to which he might answer a) yeah, i guess it's worth it, so we don't have old people dying in the streets! or b) i'd rather invest my own money and not have the government take it away so they can dip their grubby hands into the social security trust fund and never pay back then you can have a real discussion between clear alternatives or maybe something else. note: we've had these 6.2% FICA rates since the days of Emperor Bush I, btw. so to blame obama is fallacious and ridonculous. but also note-- it's also fallacious to call them "6.2%" since employers have to pay an additional 6.2%. so that's 12.4% of payroll-- the split is an accounting gimmick--just for social security. when you add medicare is slightly north of 15% for mandatory savings that you can't control. that's a fuckload of money before any federal, state, local, sales, and other taxes are harvested. and i would have no problem with it if we could indeed guarantee old folks a safe and dignified retirement with that money. problem is, the scheme is a bit iffy it seems when the government can borrow from the trust fund and pay back by printing devalued money AND when the people are collecting more than they are contributing. with our demographics, and current rates, it looks a bit of a ponzi scheme (albeit an involuntary one).
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|