A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Coins
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Are we falling down on the job of collecting?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 7th 09, 06:15 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Bruce Remick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,391
Default Are we falling down on the job of collecting?


"oly" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 10:42 am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:

snips

If you've gotten back far more than your contributions and any

possible earnings over the years, call your current checks what you
may. And yes, you are being intellectually dishonest - the money has
to come from somebody else (even if it is only from those in your
pension system that died prematurely - before recieving their monies
back in full).

____________

When I signed up, the possibility of getting back more than I put in was
trumped at the time by some private companies where employees didn't have to
contribute at all to their retirement or health care. It still was meant as
an incentive to encourage federal employees to stay on, unlike today where
few people will ever stay their career with the same employer.

All money we receive basically comes from somebody else, like the GM
employees' generous retirement which comes from the inflated price GM
charges us taxpayers for its cars.
____________

As for negativity (or pessimism), let us remember what Voltaire said:

"Optimism is the mania for declaring that all is well, when all is
going very badly".


Being fortunate, Voltaire managed to live under many of the best years

of the Ancien Regime and still got "checked out" well before the
Revolution.

___________

You're burying yourself in those scholarly books again. Look out the window
occasionally.





oly


Ads
  #12  
Old February 7th 09, 06:20 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
oly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,111
Default Are we falling down on the job of collecting?

On Feb 7, 11:15*am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message

...
On Feb 7, 10:42 am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:

snips

If you've gotten back far more than your contributions and any


possible earnings over the years, call your current checks what you
may. *And yes, you are being intellectually dishonest - the money has
to come from somebody else (even if it is only from those in your
pension system that died prematurely - before recieving their monies back in full).

____________

When I signed up, the possibility of getting back more than I put in was
trumped at the time by some private companies where employees didn't have to
contribute at all to their retirement or health care. *It still was meant as
an incentive to encourage federal employees to stay on, unlike today where
few people will ever stay their career with the same employer.

All money we receive basically comes from somebody else, like the GM
employees' generous retirement which comes from the inflated price GM
charges us taxpayers for its cars.
____________

As for negativity (or pessimism), let us remember what Voltaire said:


"Optimism is the mania for declaring that all is well, when all is

going very badly".
Being fortunate, Voltaire managed to live under many of the best years


of the Ancien Regime and still got "checked out" well before the Revolution.

___________

You're burying yourself in those scholarly books again. *Look out the window
occasionally.

oly


I've spent more than one full work day out of the last five driving
across east central Illinois. I read tons of course, but I see a lot
of what's "out the window" too.

oly

  #13  
Old February 7th 09, 07:52 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Bruce Remick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,391
Default Are we falling down on the job of collecting?


"oly" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 11:15 am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message

...
On Feb 7, 10:42 am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:

snips

If you've gotten back far more than your contributions and any


possible earnings over the years, call your current checks what you
may. And yes, you are being intellectually dishonest - the money has
to come from somebody else (even if it is only from those in your
pension system that died prematurely - before recieving their monies back
in full).

____________

When I signed up, the possibility of getting back more than I put in was
trumped at the time by some private companies where employees didn't have
to
contribute at all to their retirement or health care. It still was meant
as
an incentive to encourage federal employees to stay on, unlike today where
few people will ever stay their career with the same employer.

All money we receive basically comes from somebody else, like the GM
employees' generous retirement which comes from the inflated price GM
charges us taxpayers for its cars.
____________

As for negativity (or pessimism), let us remember what Voltaire said:


"Optimism is the mania for declaring that all is well, when all is

going very badly".
Being fortunate, Voltaire managed to live under many of the best years


of the Ancien Regime and still got "checked out" well before the
Revolution.

___________

You're burying yourself in those scholarly books again. Look out the
window
occasionally.

oly


I've spent more than one full work day out of the last five driving
across east central Illinois. I read tons of course, but I see a lot
of what's "out the window" too.
______________

You know it helps to stop the car once in a while and get out. I've never
been able to make it all the way across southern Illinois in one day from
here in VA enroute to Colorado using Rte 64. I usually end up staying in
Mt. Vernon about an hour out of St. Louis. I'll admit to reading very
little or the type of stuff that theoretically would make me economically
smarter. I do always favor non-fiction, though.


  #14  
Old February 8th 09, 12:33 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
mazorj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,169
Default Are we falling down on the job of collecting?


"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
oly wrote:


....
Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the government
(including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that after
you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you have
recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have
possibly amounted to? At that point, your pension just becomes
part
of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you are
adding to the burden of present and future generations.

Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all
a
lie from the get-go. Senior Welfare. If you don't see that, you
are
intellectually dishonest.


I don't think it was a lie "from the get-go". Initially, benefits
levels were very low and of limited eligibility. Life expectancies
were such that upon retiring at 60, on average you would collect only
a few years before the Grim Reaper cut you out of the betting pool.
SS probably was on a decent actuarial footing at first. It was only
in later years that mission creep from the politicians (see James'
remarks) kept expanding the SS pie.

Even with that, the Ponzi scheme worked very well because the bubble
kept expanding. It still is working - we're looking well into the
future before it will really blow up in our faces. If we made the
necessary changes for continued viability just by reducing benfits and
not raising FICA, we still could be receiving benefits well above the
original levels.

You can criticize the basic unsoundness of a "Ponzi scheme," but much
of economic theory implicity or explicitly assumes, and relies on,
continued growth of economic activity and systems. The difference
between SS and typical unsustainable bubbles is that we have the
opportunity now to make corrections that will keep it going under
well-managed conditions. You can look back on other bubbles, say like
housing, and say "Gee, if we had just known the limits of sustainable
expansion and done something to keep the system from exceeding them,
we'd have stimulated home building and generated some nice increases
in home equity values without driving the car over a cliff." The
problem for SS is the political "third rail" of telling all those
current and about-to-be retirees that in order for SS to be around for
them, they're going to have to accept a lowering of the pay-outs to
them. Given the history of human nature in responding to future
threats, I think we're going to have to start falling over the SS
cliff before anything meaningful is done. As with threats like global
warming, it then becomes a question of whether the sysytem still can
be rescued at that point.

Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this, and
have,
in fact, now drawn out more than I put in.

But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I am
jumping
in here) for being part of the problem. These pension plans were
not our idea. They were forced upon us by law. Your beef, then, is
with the government, not with Bruce or me. Write your Congressmen.
Make sure you pick Congressmen who are not in line for pensions or
lifetime health benefits themselves. Ditto for ex-Flatlander
Governors.

The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of
contempt. You may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your
station if that should abruptly change? Is it time to decide that
seniors are expendable? "Let 'em die, and if in agony and poverty,
all the better" has already been used, I believe back in the 30th
century B.C.E. At least that's as far back as I was able to trace
it.


We stilll have time to save SS by putting in motion the old SF plot of
killing everyone when they reach 30. Ten years of that and FICA will
become a profit center for Uncle Sam.

Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at 60
you get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming suit and
a pair of sunglasses.

Dagnabbit, oly, you'd better be nice to us, because Bruce, Jud, and
I were thinking of inviting you to join us on that park bench. I'd
even let you use my binoculars (they're image-stabilizing, in case
you shake a bit) from time to time and share part of my liquid
allotment.

James the Burden


But in a few years the young joggers and nannies pushing baby trams
are all going to be replaced by old farts shuffling along with walkers
and medical care workers pushing wheelchairs. Where's the fun in
ogling them?


  #15  
Old February 8th 09, 12:59 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
oly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,111
Default Are we falling down on the job of collecting?

On Feb 7, 5:33*pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message

...

oly wrote:


...

Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the government
(including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that after
you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you have
recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have
possibly amounted to? *At that point, your pension just becomes
part
of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you are
adding to the burden of present and future generations.


Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all
a
lie from the get-go. *Senior Welfare. *If you don't see that, you
are
intellectually dishonest.


I don't think it was a lie "from the get-go". *Initially, benefits
levels were very low and of limited eligibility. *Life expectancies
were such that upon retiring at 60, on average you would collect only
a few years before the Grim Reaper cut you out of the betting pool.
SS probably was on a decent actuarial footing at first. *It was only
in later years that mission creep from the politicians (see James'
remarks) kept expanding the SS pie.

Even with that, the Ponzi scheme worked very well because the bubble
kept expanding. *It still is working - we're looking well into the
future before it will really blow up in our faces. *If we made the
necessary changes for continued viability just by reducing benfits and
not raising FICA, we still could be receiving benefits well above the
original levels.

You can criticize the basic unsoundness of a "Ponzi scheme," but much
of economic theory implicity or explicitly assumes, and relies on,
continued growth of economic activity and systems. *The difference
between SS and typical unsustainable bubbles is that we have the
opportunity now to make corrections that will keep it going under
well-managed conditions. *You can look back on other bubbles, say like
housing, and say "Gee, if we had just known the limits of sustainable
expansion and done something to keep the system from exceeding them,
we'd have stimulated home building and generated some nice increases
in home equity values without driving the car over a cliff." * The
problem for SS is the political "third rail" of telling all those
current and about-to-be retirees that in order for SS to be around for
them, they're going to have to accept a lowering of the pay-outs to
them. *Given the history of human nature in responding to future
threats, I think we're going to have to start falling over the SS
cliff before anything meaningful is done. *As with threats like global
warming, it then becomes a question of whether the sysytem still can
be rescued at that point.





Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this, and
have,
in fact, now drawn out more than I put in.


But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I am
jumping
in here) for being part of the problem. *These pension plans were
not our idea. *They were forced upon us by law. *Your beef, then, is
with the government, not with Bruce or me. *Write your Congressmen.
Make sure you pick Congressmen who are not in line for pensions or
lifetime health benefits themselves. *Ditto for ex-Flatlander
Governors.


The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of
contempt. *You may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your
station if that should abruptly change? *Is it time to decide that
seniors are expendable? *"Let 'em die, and if in agony and poverty,
all the better" has already been used, I believe back in the 30th
century B.C.E. *At least that's as far back as I was able to trace
it.


We stilll have time to save SS by putting in motion the old SF plot of
killing everyone when they reach 30. *Ten years of that and FICA will
become a profit center for Uncle Sam.

Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at 60
you get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming suit and
a pair of sunglasses.

Dagnabbit, oly, you'd better be nice to us, because Bruce, Jud, and
I were thinking of inviting you to join us on that park bench. *I'd
even let you use my binoculars (they're image-stabilizing, in case
you shake a bit) from time to time and share part of my liquid
allotment.


James the Burden


But in a few years the young joggers and nannies pushing baby trams
are all going to be replaced by old farts shuffling along with walkers
and medical care workers pushing wheelchairs. *Where's the fun in
ogling them?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I am in basic agreement with your line(s) of thought, but Social
Security was very unsound from the "get go". FDR was politically
scared to death of Huey Long and Dr. Townsend. He had to co-opt their
ideas about old-age pensions. Many of the first recipients made zero
contributions. Even my own grandpa, a farmer, only paid in two or
three years before starting to draw "Social Security" (most farmers
wren't finally forced to make a decision to get in or permanently stay
out until the mid 1960s!!!).

The future of Social Security may not ever have to be addressed given
the financial crisis we now are in the early stages of...

oly
  #16  
Old February 8th 09, 01:54 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Bruce Remick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,391
Default Are we falling down on the job of collecting?


"mazorj" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
oly wrote:


...
Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the government
(including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that after
you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you have
recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have
possibly amounted to? At that point, your pension just becomes part
of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you are
adding to the burden of present and future generations.

Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all a
lie from the get-go. Senior Welfare. If you don't see that, you are
intellectually dishonest.


I don't think it was a lie "from the get-go". Initially, benefits levels
were very low and of limited eligibility. Life expectancies were such
that upon retiring at 60, on average you would collect only a few years
before the Grim Reaper cut you out of the betting pool. SS probably was on
a decent actuarial footing at first. It was only in later years that
mission creep from the politicians (see James' remarks) kept expanding the
SS pie.

Even with that, the Ponzi scheme worked very well because the bubble kept
expanding. It still is working - we're looking well into the future
before it will really blow up in our faces. If we made the necessary
changes for continued viability just by reducing benfits and not raising
FICA, we still could be receiving benefits well above the original levels.

You can criticize the basic unsoundness of a "Ponzi scheme," but much of
economic theory implicity or explicitly assumes, and relies on, continued
growth of economic activity and systems. The difference between SS and
typical unsustainable bubbles is that we have the opportunity now to make
corrections that will keep it going under well-managed conditions. You
can look back on other bubbles, say like housing, and say "Gee, if we had
just known the limits of sustainable expansion and done something to keep
the system from exceeding them, we'd have stimulated home building and
generated some nice increases in home equity values without driving the
car over a cliff." The problem for SS is the political "third rail" of
telling all those current and about-to-be retirees that in order for SS to
be around for them, they're going to have to accept a lowering of the
pay-outs to them. Given the history of human nature in responding to
future threats, I think we're going to have to start falling over the SS
cliff before anything meaningful is done. As with threats like global
warming, it then becomes a question of whether the sysytem still can be
rescued at that point.

Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this, and
have,
in fact, now drawn out more than I put in.

But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I am
jumping
in here) for being part of the problem. These pension plans were not our
idea. They were forced upon us by law. Your beef, then, is with the
government, not with Bruce or me. Write your Congressmen. Make sure you
pick Congressmen who are not in line for pensions or lifetime health
benefits themselves. Ditto for ex-Flatlander Governors.

The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of contempt.
You may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your station if that
should abruptly change? Is it time to decide that seniors are
expendable? "Let 'em die, and if in agony and poverty, all the better"
has already been used, I believe back in the 30th century B.C.E. At
least that's as far back as I was able to trace it.


We stilll have time to save SS by putting in motion the old SF plot of
killing everyone when they reach 30. Ten years of that and FICA will
become a profit center for Uncle Sam.

Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at 60 you
get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming suit and a pair
of sunglasses.


Don't forget to think outside the box here. For the younger worker, that
soon may amount to a free vacation, according to Al Gore.





  #17  
Old February 8th 09, 02:02 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
oly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,111
Default Are we falling down on the job of collecting?

On Feb 7, 6:54*pm, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"mazorj" wrote in message

...







"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
oly wrote:


...
Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the government
(including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that after
you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you have
recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have
possibly amounted to? *At that point, your pension just becomes part
of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you are
adding to the burden of present and future generations.


Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all a
lie from the get-go. *Senior Welfare. *If you don't see that, you are
intellectually dishonest.


I don't think it was a lie "from the get-go". *Initially, benefits levels
were very low and of limited eligibility. *Life expectancies were such
that upon retiring at 60, on average you would collect only a few years
before the Grim Reaper cut you out of the betting pool. SS probably was on
a decent actuarial footing at first. *It was only in later years that
mission creep from the politicians (see James' remarks) kept expanding the
SS pie.


Even with that, the Ponzi scheme worked very well because the bubble kept
expanding. *It still is working - we're looking well into the future
before it will really blow up in our faces. *If we made the necessary
changes for continued viability just by reducing benfits and not raising
FICA, we still could be receiving benefits well above the original levels.


You can criticize the basic unsoundness of a "Ponzi scheme," but much of
economic theory implicity or explicitly assumes, and relies on, continued
growth of economic activity and systems. *The difference between SS and
typical unsustainable bubbles is that we have the opportunity now to make
corrections that will keep it going under well-managed conditions. *You
can look back on other bubbles, say like housing, and say "Gee, if we had
just known the limits of sustainable expansion and done something to keep
the system from exceeding them, we'd have stimulated home building and
generated some nice increases in home equity values without driving the
car over a cliff." * The problem for SS is the political "third rail" of
telling all those current and about-to-be retirees that in order for SS to
be around for them, they're going to have to accept a lowering of the
pay-outs to them. *Given the history of human nature in responding to
future threats, I think we're going to have to start falling over the SS
cliff before anything meaningful is done. *As with threats like global
warming, it then becomes a question of whether the sysytem still can be
rescued at that point.


Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this, and
have,
in fact, now drawn out more than I put in.


But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I am
jumping
in here) for being part of the problem. *These pension plans were not our
idea. *They were forced upon us by law. *Your beef, then, is with the
government, not with Bruce or me. *Write your Congressmen. Make sure you
pick Congressmen who are not in line for pensions or lifetime health
benefits themselves. *Ditto for ex-Flatlander Governors.


The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of contempt.
You may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your station if that
should abruptly change? *Is it time to decide that seniors are
expendable? *"Let 'em die, and if in agony and poverty, all the better"
has already been used, I believe back in the 30th century B.C.E. *At
least that's as far back as I was able to trace it.


We stilll have time to save SS by putting in motion the old SF plot of
killing everyone when they reach 30. *Ten years of that and FICA will
become a profit center for Uncle Sam.


Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at 60 you
get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming suit and a pair
of sunglasses.


Don't forget to think outside the box here. *For the younger worker, that
soon may amount to a free vacation, according to Al Gore.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Yes, free vacation is happening already. State workers in California
are being forced to take every other Friday off, without pay. Free
vacation!!!

oly
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Al Gore is a f***tard.
  #18  
Old February 8th 09, 03:09 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Bruce Remick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,391
Default Are we falling down on the job of collecting?


"oly" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 6:54 pm, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"mazorj" wrote in message

...







"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
oly wrote:


...
Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the government
(including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that after
you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you have
recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have
possibly amounted to? At that point, your pension just becomes part
of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you are
adding to the burden of present and future generations.


Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all a
lie from the get-go. Senior Welfare. If you don't see that, you are
intellectually dishonest.


I don't think it was a lie "from the get-go". Initially, benefits levels
were very low and of limited eligibility. Life expectancies were such
that upon retiring at 60, on average you would collect only a few years
before the Grim Reaper cut you out of the betting pool. SS probably was
on
a decent actuarial footing at first. It was only in later years that
mission creep from the politicians (see James' remarks) kept expanding
the
SS pie.


Even with that, the Ponzi scheme worked very well because the bubble
kept
expanding. It still is working - we're looking well into the future
before it will really blow up in our faces. If we made the necessary
changes for continued viability just by reducing benfits and not raising
FICA, we still could be receiving benefits well above the original
levels.


You can criticize the basic unsoundness of a "Ponzi scheme," but much of
economic theory implicity or explicitly assumes, and relies on,
continued
growth of economic activity and systems. The difference between SS and
typical unsustainable bubbles is that we have the opportunity now to
make
corrections that will keep it going under well-managed conditions. You
can look back on other bubbles, say like housing, and say "Gee, if we
had
just known the limits of sustainable expansion and done something to
keep
the system from exceeding them, we'd have stimulated home building and
generated some nice increases in home equity values without driving the
car over a cliff." The problem for SS is the political "third rail" of
telling all those current and about-to-be retirees that in order for SS
to
be around for them, they're going to have to accept a lowering of the
pay-outs to them. Given the history of human nature in responding to
future threats, I think we're going to have to start falling over the SS
cliff before anything meaningful is done. As with threats like global
warming, it then becomes a question of whether the sysytem still can be
rescued at that point.


Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this, and
have,
in fact, now drawn out more than I put in.


But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I am
jumping
in here) for being part of the problem. These pension plans were not
our
idea. They were forced upon us by law. Your beef, then, is with the
government, not with Bruce or me. Write your Congressmen. Make sure you
pick Congressmen who are not in line for pensions or lifetime health
benefits themselves. Ditto for ex-Flatlander Governors.


The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of contempt.
You may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your station if that
should abruptly change? Is it time to decide that seniors are
expendable? "Let 'em die, and if in agony and poverty, all the better"
has already been used, I believe back in the 30th century B.C.E. At
least that's as far back as I was able to trace it.


We stilll have time to save SS by putting in motion the old SF plot of
killing everyone when they reach 30. Ten years of that and FICA will
become a profit center for Uncle Sam.


Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at 60 you
get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming suit and a
pair
of sunglasses.


Don't forget to think outside the box here. For the younger worker, that
soon may amount to a free vacation, according to Al Gore.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -


Yes, free vacation is happening already. State workers in California
are being forced to take every other Friday off, without pay. Free
vacation!!!

oly
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Al Gore is a f***tard.


Hey! We agree on something! I think.

And if mail delivery drops to five days a week to save money, a unionized
postal worker currently making $1200 a week will effectively get a 20%
raise.





  #19  
Old February 8th 09, 05:51 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
mazorj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,169
Default Are we falling down on the job of collecting?


"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"oly" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 10:42 am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:

snips

If you've gotten back far more than your contributions and any

possible earnings over the years, call your current checks what you
may. And yes, you are being intellectually dishonest - the money
has
to come from somebody else (even if it is only from those in your
pension system that died prematurely - before recieving their monies
back in full).

____________

When I signed up, the possibility of getting back more than I put in
was trumped at the time by some private companies where employees
didn't have to contribute at all to their retirement or health care.
It still was meant as an incentive to encourage federal employees to
stay on, unlike today where few people will ever stay their career
with the same employer.

All money we receive basically comes from somebody else, like the GM
employees' generous retirement which comes from the inflated price
GM charges us taxpayers for its cars.


Worker health care and pensions have to come from somewhere. Here
we've done it by collective bargaining for those benefits, so the cost
is passed directly to the buyer. Many foreign governments subsidize
the manufacturing cost of their cars and other goods by providing
universal pensions and health care paid for by all their taxpayers.
As the old motor oil commercial once put it, "You pays me now, or you
pays me later." Neither method is inherently good or evil, it's a
question of which works best in a given economy and culture. The only
way to not pay sooner or later is to eliminate the pensions and health
care. Is that what we really want?



  #20  
Old February 8th 09, 06:21 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
mazorj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,169
Default Are we falling down on the job of collecting?


"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
news

"mazorj" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
oly wrote:


...
Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the
government
(including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that
after
you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you
have
recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have
possibly amounted to? At that point, your pension just becomes
part
of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you
are
adding to the burden of present and future generations.

Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was
all a
lie from the get-go. Senior Welfare. If you don't see that, you
are
intellectually dishonest.


I don't think it was a lie "from the get-go". Initially, benefits
levels were very low and of limited eligibility. Life expectancies
were such that upon retiring at 60, on average you would collect
only a few years before the Grim Reaper cut you out of the betting
pool. SS probably was on a decent actuarial footing at first. It
was only in later years that mission creep from the politicians
(see James' remarks) kept expanding the SS pie.

Even with that, the Ponzi scheme worked very well because the
bubble kept expanding. It still is working - we're looking well
into the future before it will really blow up in our faces. If we
made the necessary changes for continued viability just by reducing
benfits and not raising FICA, we still could be receiving benefits
well above the original levels.

You can criticize the basic unsoundness of a "Ponzi scheme," but
much of economic theory implicity or explicitly assumes, and relies
on, continued growth of economic activity and systems. The
difference between SS and typical unsustainable bubbles is that we
have the opportunity now to make corrections that will keep it
going under well-managed conditions. You can look back on other
bubbles, say like housing, and say "Gee, if we had just known the
limits of sustainable expansion and done something to keep the
system from exceeding them, we'd have stimulated home building and
generated some nice increases in home equity values without driving
the car over a cliff." The problem for SS is the political "third
rail" of telling all those current and about-to-be retirees that in
order for SS to be around for them, they're going to have to accept
a lowering of the pay-outs to them. Given the history of human
nature in responding to future threats, I think we're going to have
to start falling over the SS cliff before anything meaningful is
done. As with threats like global warming, it then becomes a
question of whether the sysytem still can be rescued at that point.

Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this,
and have,
in fact, now drawn out more than I put in.

But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I
am jumping
in here) for being part of the problem. These pension plans were
not our idea. They were forced upon us by law. Your beef, then,
is with the government, not with Bruce or me. Write your
Congressmen. Make sure you pick Congressmen who are not in line
for pensions or lifetime health benefits themselves. Ditto for
ex-Flatlander Governors.

The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of
contempt. You may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your
station if that should abruptly change? Is it time to decide that
seniors are expendable? "Let 'em die, and if in agony and
poverty, all the better" has already been used, I believe back in
the 30th century B.C.E. At least that's as far back as I was able
to trace it.


We stilll have time to save SS by putting in motion the old SF plot
of killing everyone when they reach 30.



"Logan's Run" for those not familiar with that dystopian novel and
movie.


Ten years of that and FICA will become a profit center for Uncle
Sam.

Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at
60 you get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming
suit and a pair of sunglasses.


Don't forget to think outside the box here. For the younger worker,
that soon may amount to a free vacation, according to Al Gore.


Doh! Okay, then we have to go with the "Logan's Run" scenario. We'll
have to revise the old Sixties slogan, though: "You can't trust
anyone over 30 - they're all dead now."


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are we falling down on the job of collecting? oly Coins 2 February 9th 09 09:24 PM
Are we falling down on the job of collecting? Mr. Jaggers Coins 1 February 6th 09 09:40 PM
rec.collecting.phonecards, rec.collecting.pins, rec.collecting.postal-history, rec.collecting.villages, rec.collecting.vinyl YourTrafficBoost.com Paper Money 0 August 26th 06 05:00 AM
97% and still falling. note.boy Paper Money 0 May 25th 05 02:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.