Re: Bush and O'Reilly, in denial.


"Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote

> No. I never intend to sell any of that CREF stock. I'll collect only the
> dividends when I retire.


Jim, if you have a large enough portfolio that you can live off the
_dividends_, I am very glad for you, because you're a nice guy. But if you
think your portfolio is _typical_, then you're nuts.


> ???
> If there are not more workers in each generation, the retired cannot
receive
> expanding benefits except by FICA collecting more from each worker.
> And just living longer means receiving more in SS payments.


More what? More nominal dollars? You can't be that disingenuous. So you
must mean more "constant dollars". Now, if you stop grinding your axe for a
minute and think about it, you might realize that the _real_ question can be
posed in _real_ terms: what fraction of GDP (that which is produced by
"workers") do retirees get? The GDP is all there is to divvy up, no matter
how you define "constant dollars". And GDP, however you measure it, tends
to go up in real terms: the goods and services we produce are not only
"more" but "better" every generation. If you can postulate an
ever-increasing ratio of retirees to workers because of longevity increases,
how can you deny the possibility of ever-increasing productivity among the
workers?

I have to suppose that what you think is this: as workers get more
productive, their standard of living should go up compared to that of their
parents, grandparents, and (increasingly) great-grandparents. It is not
fair for government to siphon off some of their increased output to support
those pesky, lingering ancestors. What you don't get is that "workers" are
not interested in taking the old folks in to live with them. They would
rather pay the taxes which allow grandma to maintain her own home.


> But with a retirement based on investment in the global economy, you can
> work 40 years and then retire on the same income you had while working,
even
> if you live "forever".


Back to your old claim that _everybody_ can get 7% real returns, eh? Have
you figured out yet why that does _not_ lead, rigorously and mathematically,
to a world where every baby is born a millionaire and nobody ever has to
work again?


> A- Even Bush did not propose that workers put ALL of their FICA into
private
> investments, only a fraction of it. SS would continue to exist; and with
> means testing it would remain as a "back up" for the impoverished elderly.


Maybe we can reach consensus after all. How about this: raise the FICA
cap, and impose means testing on SS benefits. We don't really know (because
we postulate income mobility) whether today's $500K/yr lawyer will in fact
retire with a comfortable nest egg, any more than we can really know whether
today's taxi-driving aspiring novelist might retire with royalties still
flowing from his 7 best-sellers. So we tax current income, without a cap,
and pay decent benefits, _with_ a means test, at retirement. The lucky ones
get "less than they paid in", the unlucky ones get "more than they paid in".
Just like ... (wait for it) ... insurance!


> B- Keeping the same current SS system, the FICA will provide the retired
> with benefits which are ever lower relative to wages.


"Same current" means, I presume, same rates, caps, and benefit formulas.
But guess what: we've got a democracy going here. We can change those
things if "we" want to. "We" may not be able to convince you, personally,
but them's the breaks, in a democracy.


> > The only politicians who want to restrict your medical options are the
> > Bible-thumpers who value embryos more than human beings.
>
> Unfortunately they seem to be a majority.


They are only a majority (temporarily) because they have conned people like
you into an alliance with people much, much dumber than yourself. The
people I'm talking about are those "family values Christians" who show their
contempt for Hollywood sleaze by voting for the party which promises bigger
tax cuts to Paris Hilton. They will never wake up. You, I still have hope
for.


> Again, the details. Hillary wanted patients to have ONLY the medical care
> that the government provides. To avoid a 2 tier treatment system where
the
> rich get the best and the poor get the leftovers.


Details are negotiable, Jim. But if you see it as a question of dogma
("libruls are eeevil" or something) then we can never get to the
negotiations, can we?

--TP




.

Relevant Pages