The Right Side of the News

Thanks for your time.--Percy

If you're asking why should Social Security deductions should be capped, it's because Social Security benefits are capped.--Percy

I would have liked to think that she be persuaded, if nothing else, to at least tone down her fervor. I'm not looking to change her political or religious beliefs, but just to heal her from her feral suspicion of anything outside of that narrow view. Completely agree. I just meant to say that I don't believe she's a troll... if she is, wow, masterful catfish. But I think these are sincere beliefs she has. I suppose so... I don't know if its a complimentary or if its deleterious, but she has remained remarkably consistent throughout the years. From the outside looking in it looks like intransigent egoism to be that stubborn. She probably views it as an asset to prove her unshakeable faith.

I think you're right... Having been mystified by it I looked into it a little more and found an old lecture by Milton Friedman. He mentioned this and I'm pretty sure I saw the same video years ago, although I think I misunderstood it at the time to mean it was always designed to be an opt-in program versus a compulsory tax when in reality it was simply to include people previously not included.

I tried multiple times to explain in a way that was straightforward and I thought reasonable. I am not sure where the disconnect is. Your previous post showed a complete lack of understanding of my argument.I am unsure how to explain the economics in a way you an understand.

Because it's name shows it's purpose. Social Security not Individual Security. The wealthy are much more able and have much more opportunity to invest for retirement. Options and abilities that the vast majority of US citizens do not. Thus, Social Security, not Individual Security.

So pumping money into offshore accounts ... It suffers unless there are other transactions (barter) Not so cut and dry, as this is GOP talking point against minimum wages. What happens is that workers have more to spend so demand increases, increasing demand for workers to meet production needs. If late the problem has been overproduction and stalled demand because people were not spending. Maybe, I am a Democratic Socialist, but my basic position can be stated simply:First - those who benefit most from the economy that is supported by the government should (happily) pay more in taxes to support that government.Second - all people should get equal care for stochastic events/diseases, etc and nobody should make a profit off the misery of another. Thus insurance and healthcare should be non-profit.Third - basic living needs of all people should be met. The measure of a civilization is not how many millionaires exist, but how few starving children exist.Abe ... & education for all through community college or trade schools. /Abe How many friends are from outside work, and isn’t that a narrow spectrum of people? van Gogh The purpose of unchecked capitalism is to make few people rich and many people poor.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : Per Jar

And education!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So? The intent was to provide a living income to retired people. Logically that should be available to all, regardless of how much they make. One amount applicable to all retired workers, spouses of retired workers (esp those who never worked in the $$ economy), disabled etc. Wrap all social assistance into one package.For instance Faith says she gets $464/mo iirc. I get over $1000 (less than the maximum due to years worked in Canada). But I also have a comfortable income from investments I have made, so I use the SS to pay off a debt.That doesn’t seem like the intent is fulfilled.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : Stupid spell check picking wrong words

Considered adding that, but went for brevity.

When did "once" become multiple times? Maybe you just haven't found the right insult yet. Insults hint that being right may have taken priority over discussion and developing a mutual understanding.I'm a fiscal conservative, so it makes sense we disagree. We exchanged messages (me: Message 4800, you: Message 4810, me: Message 4869), I thought we would just hash through the issue to reach a mutual understanding, then you went another way (Message 4872 followed by Message 4901). It feels like further discussion is unlikely to be constructive.--Percy

Not sure how this is relevant to what you quoted from me. Unless a corporation is illegally hiding money, the ultimate destination of any cash is unrelated to its exposure to tax laws. True of much in economics. I wasn't referring to the minimum wage. Wages increasing generally across the board as in an overheated economy is much more impactful on inflation than minimum wage increases.We need to increase minimum wages because they've fallen behind inflation. The minimum wage in 1968 was $1.50/hour, which in today's dollars is $11.08. Teenage workers still in high school have largely fallen off the map, so there's a strong argument that the minimum wage should be higher than it was in 1968. Somewhere in the general neighborhood of $15/hour seems reasonable. But you can't leave inflation out of the equation. Increased worker salaries mean that businesses must raise prices. We agree on all this. For the sake of discussion let's say my circle of friends is work dominated and very homogenous. How is that a bad thing? Doesn't that still reinforce my point that there is a richness to work in the people you work with that goes way beyond just the work itself? I meant among people I know. Yeah, sure, when I said "capitalism" I really meant "unchecked capitalism."--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Doesn't explain why you are unable to understand the concept that lower taxes do not promote corporate reinvestment, while in fact they tend to promote less corporate investment. Actually, higher taxes on corporations and individuals promote corporate reinvestment in order to keep excess profits from being payed in taxes. This is born out by looking at historical tax levels and comparing them to growth in the post war years and comparing the same to the post Reagan years. Your posts have shown a total lack of understanding of the basic concept. It is not just that you don't agree, but your posts show that you don't even understand the concept of what I have stated, yes, multiple times.

If you mean the original intent back in 1934, no, that wasn't the intent then. If you mean what the intent should be today, I think that's an admirable goal, and I hope it's something we can figure out how to achieve. Agreed. There are significant regional differences in cost of living and of healthcare. If it can be done then that would be great, but personally I don't think this kind of simplicity is possible.--Percy

Thank you for your time.--Percy