Surreal State of the State Speech

[Anonymous]

[quote=EconProf]Good points Allan, and I’d add another: short-termism. We all want current benefits from government, whether lower taxes or government spending, and we ignor to long-term costs.
Our pension tsunami is the result of politicians promising mind-numbing increases that would all take effect years later. The savvy unions that extracted these committments knew they just hugely raised the lifetime income of their members. The complacent public and asleep media let it happen, and are now waking up to the cost that now must be paid.
The same can be said about social security, the recent “bailouts”, and impossible math of Obamacare.[/quote]

Social Security is not an entitlement, it is a right. It’s not the same as section 8 housing or welfare, or food stamps. If you have been paying into the system for 40 years or so, like I have, then you deserve to receive what was promised for your investment. Otherwise, just eliminate SS entirely and stop taxing me and everyone else for it.

To receive welfare, you need pay NOTHING into the system. It is a handout, kind of like giving money to a beggar. Handouts should be left to charitable organizations, not the government.

Lower taxes is also a right, because we have a constitution which protects us from unreasonable seizure of assets. Unfortunately, many leftists feel that one does not have the right to one’s time or life: the hours and effort one gives up to make money. To take a person’s money is to take a bit of their life (at least for working people which is most people).
Keep your hands off my life.

[EconProf]

Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.

[EconProf]

Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.

[EconProf]

Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.

[EconProf]

Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.

[EconProf]

Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.[/quote]

Social Security was never a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme, with absolute opaqueness, primary investors are paid off by secondary investors. The only reason they can temporarily flourish is that lack of transparency. Nobody would knowingly invest. Social Security is transparent. And as a result of that transparency, both contribution rates and benefit rates have been adjusted over the years in order to maintain its integrity.

If you look back 40 years, you won’t find a social security tax of under 2%. You’ll actually have to look back almost 60 years for that. The contribution rate, (which was raised during the Reagan adminstration from 5.05% to 5.7%), along with the wage base, rose steadily for the first 40 years. The contribution rate has remained unchanged now since 1990.

I’m curious, what exactly is “confiscatory levels”? It seems that for many who now support a shrinking government and oppose all tax increases, “confiscatory levels” is whatever current levels are, without regards to any historical context. 6.2% is confiscatory, but 5.7% signed into law by Ronald Reagan wasn’t. 50% top marginal income tax rates were not confiscatory in 1982, but now 39% is. 35% is acceptable, but 39% is socialism and redistribution of wealth, without regards to any historical context, without regards to the current budget crisis (which, by the way, is not adversely affected by Social Security, nor would it be fixed by the very minor adjustments needed to extend the solvency of Social Security indefinitely.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.[/quote]

Social Security was never a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme, with absolute opaqueness, primary investors are paid off by secondary investors. The only reason they can temporarily flourish is that lack of transparency. Nobody would knowingly invest. Social Security is transparent. And as a result of that transparency, both contribution rates and benefit rates have been adjusted over the years in order to maintain its integrity.

If you look back 40 years, you won’t find a social security tax of under 2%. You’ll actually have to look back almost 60 years for that. The contribution rate, (which was raised during the Reagan adminstration from 5.05% to 5.7%), along with the wage base, rose steadily for the first 40 years. The contribution rate has remained unchanged now since 1990.

I’m curious, what exactly is “confiscatory levels”? It seems that for many who now support a shrinking government and oppose all tax increases, “confiscatory levels” is whatever current levels are, without regards to any historical context. 6.2% is confiscatory, but 5.7% signed into law by Ronald Reagan wasn’t. 50% top marginal income tax rates were not confiscatory in 1982, but now 39% is. 35% is acceptable, but 39% is socialism and redistribution of wealth, without regards to any historical context, without regards to the current budget crisis (which, by the way, is not adversely affected by Social Security, nor would it be fixed by the very minor adjustments needed to extend the solvency of Social Security indefinitely.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.[/quote]

Social Security was never a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme, with absolute opaqueness, primary investors are paid off by secondary investors. The only reason they can temporarily flourish is that lack of transparency. Nobody would knowingly invest. Social Security is transparent. And as a result of that transparency, both contribution rates and benefit rates have been adjusted over the years in order to maintain its integrity.

If you look back 40 years, you won’t find a social security tax of under 2%. You’ll actually have to look back almost 60 years for that. The contribution rate, (which was raised during the Reagan adminstration from 5.05% to 5.7%), along with the wage base, rose steadily for the first 40 years. The contribution rate has remained unchanged now since 1990.

I’m curious, what exactly is “confiscatory levels”? It seems that for many who now support a shrinking government and oppose all tax increases, “confiscatory levels” is whatever current levels are, without regards to any historical context. 6.2% is confiscatory, but 5.7% signed into law by Ronald Reagan wasn’t. 50% top marginal income tax rates were not confiscatory in 1982, but now 39% is. 35% is acceptable, but 39% is socialism and redistribution of wealth, without regards to any historical context, without regards to the current budget crisis (which, by the way, is not adversely affected by Social Security, nor would it be fixed by the very minor adjustments needed to extend the solvency of Social Security indefinitely.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.[/quote]

Social Security was never a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme, with absolute opaqueness, primary investors are paid off by secondary investors. The only reason they can temporarily flourish is that lack of transparency. Nobody would knowingly invest. Social Security is transparent. And as a result of that transparency, both contribution rates and benefit rates have been adjusted over the years in order to maintain its integrity.

If you look back 40 years, you won’t find a social security tax of under 2%. You’ll actually have to look back almost 60 years for that. The contribution rate, (which was raised during the Reagan adminstration from 5.05% to 5.7%), along with the wage base, rose steadily for the first 40 years. The contribution rate has remained unchanged now since 1990.

I’m curious, what exactly is “confiscatory levels”? It seems that for many who now support a shrinking government and oppose all tax increases, “confiscatory levels” is whatever current levels are, without regards to any historical context. 6.2% is confiscatory, but 5.7% signed into law by Ronald Reagan wasn’t. 50% top marginal income tax rates were not confiscatory in 1982, but now 39% is. 35% is acceptable, but 39% is socialism and redistribution of wealth, without regards to any historical context, without regards to the current budget crisis (which, by the way, is not adversely affected by Social Security, nor would it be fixed by the very minor adjustments needed to extend the solvency of Social Security indefinitely.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.[/quote]

Social Security was never a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme, with absolute opaqueness, primary investors are paid off by secondary investors. The only reason they can temporarily flourish is that lack of transparency. Nobody would knowingly invest. Social Security is transparent. And as a result of that transparency, both contribution rates and benefit rates have been adjusted over the years in order to maintain its integrity.

If you look back 40 years, you won’t find a social security tax of under 2%. You’ll actually have to look back almost 60 years for that. The contribution rate, (which was raised during the Reagan adminstration from 5.05% to 5.7%), along with the wage base, rose steadily for the first 40 years. The contribution rate has remained unchanged now since 1990.

I’m curious, what exactly is “confiscatory levels”? It seems that for many who now support a shrinking government and oppose all tax increases, “confiscatory levels” is whatever current levels are, without regards to any historical context. 6.2% is confiscatory, but 5.7% signed into law by Ronald Reagan wasn’t. 50% top marginal income tax rates were not confiscatory in 1982, but now 39% is. 35% is acceptable, but 39% is socialism and redistribution of wealth, without regards to any historical context, without regards to the current budget crisis (which, by the way, is not adversely affected by Social Security, nor would it be fixed by the very minor adjustments needed to extend the solvency of Social Security indefinitely.)

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]Okay, let’s say we want to determine how much doctors make (or engineers, or…pick your occupation). I would consider the “average” earnings for workers who had the “standard” qualifications, and worked the “standard” schedule. Anything in addition to this (overtime, bonuses, additional compensation for qualifications above those required for the job, etc.) would be “potential” extra income.

They would have to go above and beyond their normal duties in order to earn this extra income; therefore, I would not include it when discussing earnings for certain occupations UNLESS these extra jobs/qualifications (and income) were addressed as separate from the “standard” earnings.[/quote]

To me, that would be Entry Level. Not average. It’s also the big lie of the union pay scales, IMHO. Particularly when dealing with the likes of the Fire Fighters where EMT, heavy duty operator, etc, are really, the basics of the job.

What you describe is like businesses having five different job descriptions: Employee 1, Employee II, Employee III, Supervisor, Director and then arguing that the low Employee III pay is the real pay when the real job position is Employee III with name your favorite criteria.

As for picking up extra pay as a ‘Coach’ or working summer school, that’s extra. But 15% for a teaching credential, that’s pretty basic. EMT bonus pay when 1/3rd of the FF’s have them and are needed for the job, that’s the same.

So I’m with you if the Union’s will actually list out the real job positions with the real requirements and show the real base pay.

If you make 200% of you published base salary, there’s a problem. Either you work way to much, of you are on the clock way too much for not really working (on call), and that’s a management problem and a Union problem.

Let me be honest, I do not mind if teacher’s average $80,000 and they are effective and work as an effective school. I also don’t mind if Elementary teachers ‘average’ $55K.

I do mind the chronic union paint of poverty to see many school districts having ‘averages’ in the $70K+ range.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]Okay, let’s say we want to determine how much doctors make (or engineers, or…pick your occupation). I would consider the “average” earnings for workers who had the “standard” qualifications, and worked the “standard” schedule. Anything in addition to this (overtime, bonuses, additional compensation for qualifications above those required for the job, etc.) would be “potential” extra income.

They would have to go above and beyond their normal duties in order to earn this extra income; therefore, I would not include it when discussing earnings for certain occupations UNLESS these extra jobs/qualifications (and income) were addressed as separate from the “standard” earnings.[/quote]

To me, that would be Entry Level. Not average. It’s also the big lie of the union pay scales, IMHO. Particularly when dealing with the likes of the Fire Fighters where EMT, heavy duty operator, etc, are really, the basics of the job.

What you describe is like businesses having five different job descriptions: Employee 1, Employee II, Employee III, Supervisor, Director and then arguing that the low Employee III pay is the real pay when the real job position is Employee III with name your favorite criteria.

As for picking up extra pay as a ‘Coach’ or working summer school, that’s extra. But 15% for a teaching credential, that’s pretty basic. EMT bonus pay when 1/3rd of the FF’s have them and are needed for the job, that’s the same.

So I’m with you if the Union’s will actually list out the real job positions with the real requirements and show the real base pay.

If you make 200% of you published base salary, there’s a problem. Either you work way to much, of you are on the clock way too much for not really working (on call), and that’s a management problem and a Union problem.

Let me be honest, I do not mind if teacher’s average $80,000 and they are effective and work as an effective school. I also don’t mind if Elementary teachers ‘average’ $55K.

I do mind the chronic union paint of poverty to see many school districts having ‘averages’ in the $70K+ range.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]Okay, let’s say we want to determine how much doctors make (or engineers, or…pick your occupation). I would consider the “average” earnings for workers who had the “standard” qualifications, and worked the “standard” schedule. Anything in addition to this (overtime, bonuses, additional compensation for qualifications above those required for the job, etc.) would be “potential” extra income.

They would have to go above and beyond their normal duties in order to earn this extra income; therefore, I would not include it when discussing earnings for certain occupations UNLESS these extra jobs/qualifications (and income) were addressed as separate from the “standard” earnings.[/quote]

To me, that would be Entry Level. Not average. It’s also the big lie of the union pay scales, IMHO. Particularly when dealing with the likes of the Fire Fighters where EMT, heavy duty operator, etc, are really, the basics of the job.

What you describe is like businesses having five different job descriptions: Employee 1, Employee II, Employee III, Supervisor, Director and then arguing that the low Employee III pay is the real pay when the real job position is Employee III with name your favorite criteria.

As for picking up extra pay as a ‘Coach’ or working summer school, that’s extra. But 15% for a teaching credential, that’s pretty basic. EMT bonus pay when 1/3rd of the FF’s have them and are needed for the job, that’s the same.

So I’m with you if the Union’s will actually list out the real job positions with the real requirements and show the real base pay.

If you make 200% of you published base salary, there’s a problem. Either you work way to much, of you are on the clock way too much for not really working (on call), and that’s a management problem and a Union problem.

Let me be honest, I do not mind if teacher’s average $80,000 and they are effective and work as an effective school. I also don’t mind if Elementary teachers ‘average’ $55K.

I do mind the chronic union paint of poverty to see many school districts having ‘averages’ in the $70K+ range.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]Okay, let’s say we want to determine how much doctors make (or engineers, or…pick your occupation). I would consider the “average” earnings for workers who had the “standard” qualifications, and worked the “standard” schedule. Anything in addition to this (overtime, bonuses, additional compensation for qualifications above those required for the job, etc.) would be “potential” extra income.

They would have to go above and beyond their normal duties in order to earn this extra income; therefore, I would not include it when discussing earnings for certain occupations UNLESS these extra jobs/qualifications (and income) were addressed as separate from the “standard” earnings.[/quote]

To me, that would be Entry Level. Not average. It’s also the big lie of the union pay scales, IMHO. Particularly when dealing with the likes of the Fire Fighters where EMT, heavy duty operator, etc, are really, the basics of the job.

What you describe is like businesses having five different job descriptions: Employee 1, Employee II, Employee III, Supervisor, Director and then arguing that the low Employee III pay is the real pay when the real job position is Employee III with name your favorite criteria.

As for picking up extra pay as a ‘Coach’ or working summer school, that’s extra. But 15% for a teaching credential, that’s pretty basic. EMT bonus pay when 1/3rd of the FF’s have them and are needed for the job, that’s the same.

So I’m with you if the Union’s will actually list out the real job positions with the real requirements and show the real base pay.

If you make 200% of you published base salary, there’s a problem. Either you work way to much, of you are on the clock way too much for not really working (on call), and that’s a management problem and a Union problem.

Let me be honest, I do not mind if teacher’s average $80,000 and they are effective and work as an effective school. I also don’t mind if Elementary teachers ‘average’ $55K.

I do mind the chronic union paint of poverty to see many school districts having ‘averages’ in the $70K+ range.

[Author]

Posts