If you want to get all melodramatic, sure. But we are talking about retirement here.

How is that being melodramatic?  I did not comment on the "unable" just the unwilling.  Since when do I have to be your mother just because you wont grow up? (you as in third person - not Cacto).

Dont forget, that is the way it was not very long time ago. The progressive tax, labor laws and ss systems are the rules that made it possible for almost all of us to be living the way we are now. I hate to think that anyone will use the society and others then turn their back on the system that made it possible for them to achieve their "Haves" status. That system includes those same taxes that we hate and condemn. it is natural, but it is love-to-hate thing.

Wow. I mean, WOW. 

So the answer is socialism.  By your reasoning, the Soviet Union should have gone great. But..wait no, it didn't did it. Maybe it's because your rationale is bogus.

The things you mention are, in effect, the brakes on our civilization in order to allow the parasite class to stay in the game.  Feel free to write a blog explaining how social security helped create the things we have today. I'd love to hear your reasoning in full.

People don't succeed on their own. But it's not because "the guvment" is there to help. People are helped by other individuals for lots of different reasons.   I am certainly supportive of programs that help people help themselves.  But simply providing money to others based on need while getting nothing in return is insane.

There's an interesting new book called "Who really cares" which describes a disturbing trend -- people substituting political belief for tangible action.  I wonder how much people like ThinkAloud and others actually do for other people each year. Perhaps he has a website that lists the foundation he started or something. It's easy for someone to argue that OTHER people should carry the burden. 

Having just paid hundreds of thousands in taxes and the maximum amount into social security, I can't help but be a little offended when someone argues that I have a "moral" obligation to do more. I gave more the charity last year than most people earn in a year. I'm doing my part.  But social security and medicare are not charities. They are not moral. They're stupid, corrupt programs that damage our society and weaken our civilization.  I think more people would be up in arms about the principle of today's social security system if they felt the consequences of their beliefs.  Medicare is even worse.

People need to be responsible to themselves and their families. Why should my wife and children go without simply because we live responsibily so that someone else who didn't save for retirement and whose family is either too incompotent or too greedy to help support them can live better? 

I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned the effect that abortion-on-demand has had on our tax base. There are tens of millions of missing tax payers. The pyramid scheme that is Social Security is going to fail because the tax base isn't large enough. Back in the earlier half of the 1900s when the average couple had more children, SS "worked" alright. But now that the "Most Selfish Generation" has killed off nearly 50 million Americans in their quest for personal liberation, the number of workers supporting each SS retiree is shrinking, and it's shrinking fast. Demographically speaking, the baby-boomers have aborted and family planned Social Security into insolvency. And in my opinion, it serves them right. Furthermore, I will be DAMNED if my kids are going to work to provide retirement for people who kill their own progeny. Be assured that my voice is one of the many calling for the end of the Social Security system.

I consider myself pretty moral, thinkaloud.

I have no doubt that you are Draginol, "Moral" in the question (and the reply) was meant for the society at large. and i said "not many of us will do much". i didnt say non of us.the problem is that not everyone is like you. or like Bill Gate . If that was the case, i am very sure that we will not even need Flat income tax. I really believe that. but that is a pipe dream for any of us to wait for it to happen.

the haves contribute to society by creating the jobs people work, inventing new things we enjoy, and being the backbone of charitable donations. Why is it up to the compotent to be "moral" while allowing the incompotent off the hook.

let's be realistic here, this is not charity my friend. this is business, and it is good. you and the people you hire benefit. that is not charity. Investing and creating jobs is a business. I am sure you agree with that.

We are talking about giving for the sake of giving. not giving and recieving a benefit for it.

And i never suggested that we let anyone off the hook. Even people who recieve benefits should be accountable and they should contribute something in return. In my first reply i said we first owe them "education, regulations, restrictions, ...etc.). No one in a Moral society should be off the hook.

Wow. I mean, WOW. So the answer is socialism. By your reasoning, the Soviet Union should have gone great. But..wait no, it didn't did it. Maybe it's because your rationale is bogus.

OOOH Boy, How did you get from SS to USSR? the tax bite must be very stinging this year ..... but please dont take it on me

The things you mention are, in effect, the brakes on our civilization in order to allow the parasite class to stay in the game. Feel free to write a blog explaining how social security helped create the things we have today. I'd love to hear your reasoning in full.

No matter what any societ does, there will be parasites. and thieves. and crooks ....etc. That is not what we talking about. There are people who, due to many circumstances, work hard all their lives and never able to live decently during their working years and will go hungry if they they retire. these are the majority of the poor. parasites are not poor they are thieves and criminals. We owe the real poor a system that minimizes the number of those parasites and also the number of the poor.

I will post something about how SS and the progressive tax helped create the society we live in today.

Having just paid hundreds of thousands in taxes and the maximum amount into social security, I can't help but be a little offended when someone argues that I have a "moral" obligation to do more. I gave more the charity last year than most people earn in a year. I'm doing my part

Who said that you have to do more. You did your part and more. the problem is if you didnt pay your taxes, and your SS, would there be extra contribution from you and others to compensate for that? May be your contributions will, but how many is like that?

Comon, Draginol, you know how most humans are. not very charitable. Giving a lot is not easy for the average person.

I wonder how much people like ThinkAloud and others actually do for other people each year. Perhaps he has a website that lists the foundation he started or something. It's easy for someone to argue that OTHER people should carry the burden

I didnt mean to get personal Draginol. And i really hate to say anything about what i do. just let me say this: my wife is mad at me, the IRS complains that it doesnt make sense to claim that amount of contribution (relative to income), and they demanded more proof than i provided. and i provided it. The following year the IRS came back and said you can't claim that even with the proof because you have too much forwarded from previous years. I gave up. and sent them amount they said I owe them. Guess how much: $8.oo. The amount of paperwork and postage the IRS and I spent on this is worth no less that $800.00.

ooh, btw. i am not very good at starting foundations and cant afford that either . the existing ones are more than enough. What do you think I am, You or Bill Gate?

Please forget about what YOU or I or any other person does, we talking about the society in general here. I dont think a sufficient number will contribute enough to do what is needed. That is the problem in a nut-shell. i wish it was possible, but wsihful thinking doesnt solve problems, good government policies do.

So what you are saying is that for it to be "good" it has to be pointless and inefficient?

If I take a dollar and use it to create $5 that isn't good because I may benefit. But if the government takes my dollar and gives it to someone who squanders it that is good because I didn't receive benefit?

You say that the people who receive benefits should be accountable. How about having them be accountable in the first place and save for their own retirements???

Since your argument is basically that we should take from the capable to give to the incapable I don't see any reason not to take your position to its logical conclusion.

The point is: History shows that when the government takes over the responsibility of its citizens that it corrupts and perverts the society.

You don't create a moral society by having the government forcibly take from its citizens. That is the lesson I thought we had learned from the Soviet Union.

A moral and just society is one in which we take responsibility for our lives and voluntarily help our fellow man. You will find that the successful in this country are, by and large, very moral people who help their fellow man -- because successful people are fully aware of how interconnected we all are.

I do take it personally when people argue that my earnings should be looted from me to be handed to strangers who did nothing in return. I don't see that as moral. I see it as despicable and corrupt.  I see it not because I am going without something I would want but because I see how much more I could do with my money than a corrupt and incompotent government can do.  And I am very representative of people in my income bracket.

People need to be responsible to themselves and their families. Why should my wife and children go without simply because we live responsibily so that someone else who didn't save for retirement and whose family is either too incompotent or too greedy to help support them can live better?

I dont know where did you get the idea that this is what anyone is saying? we talking about The Haves not about people who just have enough for their own. These families shouldnt pay anything in my opinion. at most they should pay very little in ss and none in income tax. It is enough that they can take care of themselves. All i am saying is this: people should pay in proportion to what they have MORE than they wish or can spend.

As i said before many times: it is a common load and each should carry in proportion to their ability. no more no less.

Since your argument is basically that we should take from the capable to give to the incapable I don't see any reason not to take your position to its logical conclusion.

Isnt that what we call extreme? there is always a good-for-all middle grounds.

So what you are saying is that for it to be "good" it has to be pointless and inefficient?

did i say that? is what i said mean that? you taking things tooo far and toooo short-sighted. bad corrupt ineffiecient government will never do anything right if you give it all the money in the universe. also no such thing as perfect exist in this universe. it is our responsibility to have good decently effecient and honest system. that is part of what we Owe the society and the Others who helped us achieve what we have.

I see it not because I am going without something I would want but because I see how much more I could do with my money than a corrupt and incompotent government can do. And I am very representative of people in my income bracket

if it is corrupt and incompetent, then there is really no need to pay anything to it. they will not do anything anyway.

That is not what we really talking about here. I think

If you have lost all hope that we can get a decent honest government , then i dont blame you. but i am still hopeful and think we can fix waht is wrong with our system.

How to get the type of government that would be decent and effecient is another topic. may be we can talk about it in another posting.

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need." -Karl Marx

By definition, when you take forcibly from a person they are going without something.  I agree that people should be compassionate and charitable. But forcibly taking money from people at the point of a gun is neither compassionate or charitable.

No. What I am doing is pointing out the falacy of your position. It is like saying someone is just a little bit dead or a little bit pregnant. I am pointing out that being a little bit dead is still dead. There's nothing extreme or short-sighted about that.

You say people should be responsible to have a good and honest system. I agree. And that responsibility starts with the individual. And I'd say a basic element of personal responsibility is providing for their own retirement.

This argument isn't about letting people starve on the street because they are too sick to help themselves. It's about people who lived irresponsibly for their lives and now require those who live responsibly to sacrifice for them.

I believe that unearned wealth is corrupting.  A smaller government is one that is less prone to corruption.  I think we can have a decent, honest government and the first step is to eliminate programs that take from one citizen to give to another.

Our government was set up as a way for citizens to pool resources to take care of things that individuals could not -- provide for a common defense (domestic police and a military) and promote the general welfare (like building the erie canal or the space program or the highway system).

It was not set up so that those who have been successful "the haves" are looted in order to pay for a parasite class of non-producers.  It is poisonous to a moral and ethical society.

Ok, Brad, but how can the poor, who typically came from poor families support themselves and their aging parents, and save for retirment?

I came from a poor family - my dad was sick for most of my life. He could not have taken care of his parents and his wife and kids. Likewise, his parents couldn't afford to help him. And the government didn't help - friends kept the house payments flowing so we wouldn't be homeless.

By the way, it's through consumption that businesses like yours do so well. How about you ask for a persons W-2s before you agree to sell them your product - if they don't make enough tell them to save their money instead of buying your software. Want to do that?

ThinkAloud, it appears that this argument could go on an on. There's obviously a bias against the poor here. All poor people are lazy, no good, thieves. There's just now way to get them beyond this stereotype. It's only if they lost all they had that they might finally understand.

Arquonzo, I'm not for abortion, but have you considered how much the government will pay to help support these children because someone has to be home to care for them and they can't pay $5/hr for care if they're only making $8? On top of this if the parents aren't working there's not health care so we have to cover that too. I'm sure it's far more than the benefits that you suggest.

First of all, Question of the Day. Yea, most poor people are lazy. That's not bias, that's my interpretation of people who are able boddied but don't work.  Average preson in the bottom 10%tile in the United States works less than 20 hours per week and is has no listed disabilities. 

Secondly, consumption is not the path to economic prosperity.  If you have two people, one of whom can take $1 and turn it into $5 through smart choices and a second person who takes that same $1 and simply consumes it, then who is really helping the economy more? 

Or more to the point, if people buying my software are doing so from welfare then that's not a good thing as, last time I checked, our software didn't generate food, clothing, or shelter.

Thirdly:

Funny you should ask. I wrote exactly how to do it here:

https://forums.joeuser.com/?aid=146184

Unless being poor is now a "disease", there's little excuse for generational poverty in this country. Just generational stupidity. You would be hard pressed to find an American who grew up poorer than I did on this forum.

And let's be honest here, we're not talking about welfare for the poor. We're talking about social security in which a significant chunk of the population will be getting far far more out of it than they ever put in.  So let's not turn this into the "poor".  We're talking about the fools who just couldn't be bothered to save twenty bucks per week (but always had enough for cigarettes).

As I pointed out in that article - if you save twenty bucks per week starting when you're 25 you will have over $305,000 waiting for you when you turn 65.  There's no excuse for not saving for retirement.

 

You still missing the point that you agree with. "people should" doesnt make it happen. i said not enough of us are willing to do that on their own. what do you do if that is the case, which is the existing reality?



no it is not. If anything it is like you are saying it is dead and i am sayin it is sick. i believe we can get it healthy and working properly. not perfect but properly.



yes it is about the first not the latter. those parasites will exist anywhere no matter what. even if there is no taxes, no ss, no programs, they will still find ways to cling to others and just suck whatever they can. I said we should minimize their number. you will never be able to eliminate them. it is not a perfect world.



you really are something. You believe that creating a good and honest system is everyone's responsibility? technically you are correct. however, the leaders and the Haves of any society bear the main responsibility for doing that. not everyone is capable of thinking on that level. the educated, the rich, and the leaders are the ones who can and should do that.




"general welfare" is more than canals, Armed Forces, and highways. I am sure that you know full well what i mean. Don't let the tax bite cloud your judgement.

I can assure you this: somewhere there is someone, may be many, who are in college, not sick, not hungry, not shivering from cold, and may be even smiling because of what all of us love-to-hate. I am also sure there are many who are stealing and taking what they dont desrve.

We should try to eliminate the latter ones not stop what we paying. all of that because of the first group. it is worth it. and YOU know it.

Knowing that some of what you pay is being abused and wasted is an owful feeling. but it is less owful than knowing that there are people who are from the first group and there is no help for them.

That is life Draginol, dont think of the bad that is happening to waht you pay. Think of the Good that it is doing. lets do our part, that is all we can do. we can't correct everything. we just keep trying. but we shouldnt stop because not all of it is doing good.

I hate to admit that QOD, but i am afraid you may be right.

Saving $20 a week, i.e. about $80 per month seems very easy to most. I wish it was for people who make $1200/month 600 of it for rent, 100 for utilities (is that really enough? !!!!!), 100 for gas to go to work (assuming they dont live too far from work). and 400 for everything else. food, clothing, insurance, medicine, school supplies, and all other life's necessities. how about people who make $800/ month?

the reason is simple. not everyone is a genius like Draginol.

Comon, Draginol, there cant be 35 million lazy bums among us. we are not that bad.

I have seen less lazy bums and thieves and corrupt among the poor than among all other groups. the real poor dont really know how to steal or how to be corrupt.

Brad,

Let’s just say that I’m one of those lazy, good-for-nothing schmucks that finally gets off my butt and goes to work at 25. But I’m not as smart as you are. I’m making $8/hr with hopes of a 2% raise each year (I have high hopes).

Let's see $8x40 hrs/week = $320 or $16,640 a year except I’ll have to work two jobs w/o benefits and hope that I don’t get sick.

I’m single and going to live frugally on this amount

Monthly income: $1,387

Monthly expenses are: 1326

Housing is probably at least $300 assuming you live in a dumpy mobile home park and have no insurance
Utilities $150 (heating, elect, phone)
Food $300
Clothing/misc. $25 (I’ll shop at Good Will for clothing but must by new shoes – they have a crappy selection and I know this from personal experience – I’ve also got a bunion and wide feet so they cost $30 a pair)
Transportation $100 I’ll drive a clunker (which will need lots of repairs)
Gas $175+ (remember I’m driving a clunker so its mileage stinks)
SS taxes 86
Fed tax 70
Medicare 20
Personal allowance $40
Prescriptions $60 (remember I have no insurance but I do have high blood pressure and take antidepressants)

So after all these expenses I have a whopping $61 per month for anything else, doctor’s visits, charity, emergencies and savings. I think I’ll be doing good if I can put half of this away in retirement savings.

From your article:

“So let's work this out in real life. If you start at the age of 25 saving $20 each week, then by the time you hit 65 you will have $305,000. And that's assuming a return of only 8% each year. And most investors expect at least a 10% return over long term. The average "diversified stock portfolio" has averaged a 12.9% in the past few decades. So an 8% return would be a pretty conservative return.”

Making the same assumptions with my $30 per month will earn me 109,952 (WWW Link) according to this planner even with social security my money runs out at age 72. I’m assuming that I’ll still need 100% of my income in retirement because my pay is so low to begin with and I’m barely making by as it is. I can expect increased medical costs with age and at some point I'll have to replace my clunker.

You also wrote:

“Now, imagine if you can manage to save on average $200 per week instead of $20. That's quite a bit for most people I concede. That's around $10,000 per year in investment. But if you can manage to do that, now you have over $3 million saved up by the time you're 65. “

200 a month? Where on earth would I get that from?


"With the current tax code, you can put in up to $4,000 per year into an IRA and it's tax deductible. Your spouse can do the same thing. That's up to $8,000 per year -- pretty close to the multi-millionaire result (around $2.5 million by the time you retire)."

Were would I get this 4000?

So what would you suggest I do now that I'm no longer lazy, but still not as smart as you?