Invite Friends

Topic: US Economy

Results in this view: Y-abusing System 55% - Convince Me 9% - N-blame Tax Code 18% - N-deserve Breaks 18%
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
  • 3
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman They're obviously doing something right if they made $11B. Taxes are supposed to run the government (which needs to be put on a starvation diet) not punish success.
Picture?type=square
  • 118
Anonymous-user
  • 1
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Paying your fair share of taxes isn't a "punishment".
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Yeah, it's extortion
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman OK, so what's your idea of an alternative?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Return to the form of taxation that was originally mandated in the constitution. Apportion taxes equally to each congressional district as each district with one representative has equal responsibility for levels of taxation. Maintaining the link between taxation and representation will prevent representatives from irresponsibly spending money they tell the taxpayers comes from "somebody else". If your representative voted for it you'll pay for it and will know who to hold responsible. How each congressional district's share of expenditures can be left to that district with residents voting with their feet for the system of taxation they favor most. If enough people move out of a district it will cease having the number of people to qualify as a district and will lose its representative for that district as it gets incorporated into a new district representing the required number of voters. The same would apply to districts that grow too large in population for one representative. They would be split into two or more districts having one representative each. Of course the population of each district would be determined in the census. This system will thus take care of congressional redistricting which is such a very contentious issue for politicians. I suspect this system of transparent responsibility for expenditure and subsequent taxation will result in more responsible spending and reduced taxation on the part of the elected representatives. Again, I would leave to each congressional district the means by which they would raise their required share of taxation but I would recommend one dollar, one vote. By this means those who paid the piper would call the tune as to who would represent their district in the House of Representatives.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman OK, make it happen.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman I'm so glad you approve but the current system allows politicians to buy votes by promising all kinds of loot to their voters and then saying "someone else" will pay for it. Until the voters realize they're the "someone else" they will continue to elect politicians who promise to loot "someone else's" pockets. "The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.
Frederic Bastiat
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman the rich should be both punished and extorted
they punish us and extort us so we pay them back i kind
we should kill them
i am certain they wont be missed
the nazis and i am not praising them they were bad
killed alll the eleites in poland trying to cripple the poles all the aristocrats chuch heads scientist
to make poles a dicile slave race

today poland thrives
we dont need the ruling class we should just kill them
kil htem all, and see how that works
make an example of them to future rich people
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman The "ruling class" tends to consist of parasitic politicians and the looters that use them to facilitate their looting of the productive class who earn their wealth by being indispensable to the looters and parasites. The parasite that kills it's host kills itself.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman we kill them first but the list is long
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman the looters are the poor who merely wish to live they want food and shelter they have every right to loot if the system does not provide for them
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman "The system" is not capable of providing as it does not produce. Only productive people produce and looting hinders, if it does not destroy, production leading to a bare subsistence level of existence, if not extinction, for the looters.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman capitalsim is the best method of production
i will conceed that
socialsim is the best method of redistribution
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman There is no need for redistribution in capitalism. Productivity reduces cost which increases wealth for everyone.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman sure there is look at the new deal, or are you gong to say that was Socialism too?
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Much of it was socialism but a simpler name for much of it is Ponzi Scheme.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman do you even know what a ponzi scheme is? i doubt you do, its just some phrase you were fed, by 'elites' you see socialsim is the people rising up against the elites, you seem to like being a slave and drining cool aid
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman a succesful crack dealer needs to be punished all business is ornagized crime
all businesses cheat lie and steal from others
i would say they are a necessarry evil
capitalsim is a great way to prodice stuff
socialsim is the mechanism by whch you distribute wealth properly
no one needs or deserve 100 bilion dollars we should kill bezos and give his money to the poor
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Capitalism is freedom to choose and accepting responsibility for your freely made choices. Socialism is looting of the productive to grow the unproductive.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Capitalism is out of control stealing of the Earth's natural resources and reckless pollution of the environment, for personal gain. Unlimited greed cannot be sustained. Show me a company that is "accepting responsibility for their freely made choices". Only Federal regulations hold them responsible. It's an evil concept that puts every human against each other with no winners.

Socialism is a fair and balanced way to distribute resources and vital services. Humans are SOCIAL beings and it's natural for them to want to help each other to survive.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Capitalism is controlled by the "invisible hand" of the market which works better than any government ever dreamed of working.

Socialism is wishful thinking applied to human nature. The same greedy people that you think run capitalism will run socialism for their benefit with no market to control them.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman The greedy people that run capitalism are CEOs and stockholders. The people who control socialism is the democratically elected government. They aren't "the same greedy people". At least you can vote out a government official.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman You evidently are ignorant of how socialism is practiced in this earth.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman ANYTHING controlled by a dictator doesn't work.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman And socialism requires dictators to unnaturally control what the market controls naturally and with impartiality.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman do you call succesful bank robbers winners
success does need to be punished in the same way al capone was punised most big business is much more harmful that dope peddlers or capone types they do need to be punished
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Capitalism is freedom to engage in mutually beneficial and voluntary transactions. Socialism is the coercive robbery of wealth resulting in the equal distribution of poverty.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman capitalism and socailsim are abstract terms almost all economies are mixed economies a bit of both
and thats fine with me

i would neither like to live in a totally socialist place or a totally captialsit place both would be equally onerous
its like chosing between stalins russia and thunderdome(somalia, beruit bosnia in the 90s..) why make that choice? its not a real choice we dont have to go there
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Capitalism is the freedom to exploit hard workers by paying them far less than what their work is worth so that they are forced to come back and work more in order to survive. It's modern slavery. Traditional slaves get just enough food and shelter to survive so they can continue to work. Modern Capitalistic slavery is for the "worker" (the real productive people) to get just enough money to survive. The ones making the real money don't work, they just rake in the profits from the hard work of others, stock dividends and tax loopholes. That's not "mutually beneficial" for the ones who are most productive. If you think the rich are the most productive, you are fooled.

It's CAPITALISM that is looting of the productive to grow the unproductive. You think cigar smoking fatsos who don't even drive themselves to "work" and sit behind a desk doing nothing but figure out how to screw the workers over that they employ and make profits from is a good thing?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman "Capitalism is freedom to engage in mutually beneficial and voluntary transactions."

Um, it's not voluntary when your whole survival counts on doing it. What's the alternative; starve to death?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Mr. Freeman: How is it possible for somebody like Warren Buffet to have a net worth of $84.6 Billion?
Because people who are productive don't get paid even close to what their work is really worth.
Think about this: The Average Baseball Salary went up 20,700% Since the first Collective Bargaining Agreement took place in 1968.
So with a strong union, professional baseball players do make pretty much what they are worth. BUT...how about the TV crew that expands the amount of people who can watch the game live from thousands of viewers to millions of viewers? How much money do they bring in for MLB compared to what they get paid?
If a baseball player who used to get paid $19,000 in 1967 can now get paid $3.95 million, we can clearly see how underpaid they used to be.
I'm not saying everyone deserves a 20,700% raise, but to be against a $15/hour minimum wage is outrageous.
The rich are rich off the hard work of the productive members of society. If everyone got paid what their work was really worth, like baseball players do, we'd all be better off (except the 1%ers). We need strong unions now, more than ever before.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman The alternative is to use one's freedom to put one's skill set to more rewarding use.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Worth is determined by the market. Nobody forces people to value athletes so highly for playing games.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman LOL!!! Tell that to Doctors, air trafic controllers, lawyers, etc. Like there are better places to use those skills.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman "The Market" is controlled by the rich. Actually UNIONS are forcing the MLB to value athletes so highly for playing games. Without unions, they got paid20,700% less.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman capitalism is organized crime literally
capitalism is to me a necessarry evil the only people free under capitalsim are those with all the money the rest of us are slaves
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Air traffic controllers are employed by the government which is the most monopolistic organization of all. Remember when they tried to use their union to coerce their employer and Reagan fired them? Doctors and lawyers also have a "special" relationship with the government which protects their monopoly through the practice of licensing which has nothing to do with competence but everything to do with the government charging for its "services" of coercion that are used to maintain monopolies.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Though everyone tries, no one can control the market very well for very long and that includes unions, the government and monopolies because where there is no free market there is a black market. Unions can demand whatever they want but what the get will be controlled by the market. When professional sports franchises don't make big money owners of those franchises won't pay the players big money no matter how noisy the players union. Remember the World Football League?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman My point is Air trafiic contollers work in control towers...nowhere else to go. Doctors work in hospitals, nowhere else to go. Lawyers work in practices, nowhere else to go...government or privite. What place can they go for a "more rewarding use" of their skils?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman Unions aren'r designed to control "markets". They are designed to fight for worker's rights.

Wow, so you think the difference of 20,700% pay had nothing to do with unions?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Unions attempt to monopolize the labor market so they can deny labor to businesses that refuse to meet their demands. Government often colludes with unions when the unions wield enough political power to intimidate or bribe government officials.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Andrew Herzman It’s called fighting fire with fire. Unions do what guant corporations do.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman It's part of the free market IF the government allows it to be truly free but when the government takes a side and does not allow the market to operate freely, later economic difficulty will result.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman you always side with the p*mp and the drug dealer
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman P*mps and drug dealers insofar as they are honest merchants offering their products and services to willing adults without resort to coercion are far more respectable than politicians and their fellow looters who can only exist as coercive parasites on the productive.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman few are honest merchants and an honest merchant pays his taxes as the bible says to do
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman And who has the right to determine the level of taxation or even the authority to tax but the taxpayer who places a market value on the service a government may provide? If taxation without consent is robbery, the United States government has never had, has not now, and is never likely to have, a single honest dollar in its treasury. If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized. Lysander Spooner
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman ELITES LIKE ME
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Elites like you for what, an hors d'oeuvre?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman i live a simple life i have no car i live in one room i share my house, my life is dedicated to the better ment of humanity
i have a spuperior intellect a superior ability to make money and survie
my desire is to help my felow man
i can do that from above much better than below
that is the truth
so help me goddess
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Good for you. Now if you could just break yourself of your desire to loot you might be a better person.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman i do not loot
andwhat you have isnt yours
all wealth is created collectively and should be distributed by the state
again most of what you have? you dont deserve
we wwill take it from you
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman loot·er
Dictionary result for looter
/ˈlo͞odər/
noun
noun: looter; plural noun: looters

a person who steals goods, typically during a war or riot.
"last summer's riots saw thousands of businesses ransacked by looters"
"The lazy looters construct a government to do the looting for them."
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman you can read and own a dictionary

wow i'm impressed all those big words you know
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman what do you call people who take things that were taken from them? what do you call a person who steals beck from a thief?
if you come to my house steal my house and take everything in my house and i break back in and take it all back who is the theif? and who is the right owner
you call it looting i simply call it redistribution and justice

those things were never yours

you never owed them

they were never yours
you stole them

we simply took them back

what do you call that?
i call it socialism not looting

you cant steal from a thief
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Don't worry, they're free on the internet. You can have one too.
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman That was OJ Simpon's rationale. He went to prison.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman we still praise robin hood
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman what do you care, no one wants to take your double wide
i doubt you have anything worth taking
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman social security is not a ponzi scheme your not very bright but thank
this is an easy on to refute and taxes are not extortion it even says that in the bible they are a social duty
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that is so bad it requires government coercion to insure participation.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman the government is co ersion taxes are co ersion , ad so what? you have to stop at the light when it turns red, you cant rob banks or beat babies, in this life there is some coersion, for most thngs co esrion is bad no one likes to be forced to do things, but some things have to be forced
you have to wear clothing you cant marry your momm
and you have to pay social security tax
it is not a ponzi schem for two main reasons

1) it has tangible assets trillions of dollars of assets ponzi schemes by defintion do not have assets
2) it is the mst tranparent aspect of government
if you want to know how you money is invested or spent any of that go to the social security website every year they must disclose what they are up to
3) all that nees to be done to make social security solvent is to remove the cap and tax the rich some more
you probably do pay too much in tax, you dont sound rich

if we tax the rich more was balance social security
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Government is crime.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman well yes it is it really is its a crime we need to have government but we do
government is a NECESSARY EVIL evil yes maybe
but Necessary? yes definetely absolutely 100% you have to have a government name an example of no government name one
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman it is sort of like saying kiling in self defense is a crime
it is a crime but an acceptable one
you are alowed to commit a crime to stop a worse one
and so there is no crime in the end
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman a crime committed to avoid a greater crime , the lesser of evils by far
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Self defense is a task that can be accomplished without government which as shown today is more often ineffectual if not an impediment to the efforts of the people to ensure their safety.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman What is a Ponzi scheme?

Charles Ponzi was a Boston investment broker who in 1920 developed an investment plan offering bonds which would pay 50 percent interest in 45 days and 100 percent if held for 90 days. Although the initial clients’ money was invested in foreign postal coupons, as promised, the returns on the investment were miniscule compared to the promised return. To make good on his promise, Mr. Ponzi paid his initial investors with funds raised from his second round of clients, rather than investing these funds. As word spread about the unbelievable return on investment, clients flocked to Mr. Ponzi and he continued to use new clients’ money to pay off existing clients. The investment scheme’s “assets” were completely phantom – there were no investments made.

The problem with this type of scheme is that the number of new investors has to increase geometrically to pay old investors. In other words, to pay a 100 percent profit to the first 1,000 clients within 90 days, 1,000 new investors are needed within 90 days; then, 4,000 new investors are needed to pay the original 1,000 clients plus the 1,000 used in the first round of payouts. To pay these 4,000, you need 8,000 new investors, then 16,000. The scheme collapses when there are not enough new investors to pay the existing ones – the number of new investors is eventually exhausted, and the scheme becomes unsustainable. Mr. Ponzi’s scheme lasted barely 200 days.

A more recent example of a Ponzi scheme is that of former stock broker and investment advisor Bernie Madoff. His Ponzi scheme, considered the largest financial fraud in U.S. history, defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme
October 17th, 2018|Social Security Policy Papers
Lawmakers, candidates and columnists who support cutting Social Security benefits and/or privatizing the program often claim that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme.” The history and facts about Ponzi schemes demonstrate that the accusation is absurd.

What is a Ponzi scheme?

Charles Ponzi was a Boston investment broker who in 1920 developed an investment plan offering bonds which would pay 50 percent interest in 45 days and 100 percent if held for 90 days. Although the initial clients’ money was invested in foreign postal coupons, as promised, the returns on the investment were miniscule compared to the promised return. To make good on his promise, Mr. Ponzi paid his initial investors with funds raised from his second round of clients, rather than investing these funds. As word spread about the unbelievable return on investment, clients flocked to Mr. Ponzi and he continued to use new clients’ money to pay off existing clients. The investment scheme’s “assets” were completely phantom – there were no investments made.

The problem with this type of scheme is that the number of new investors has to increase geometrically to pay old investors. In other words, to pay a 100 percent profit to the first 1,000 clients within 90 days, 1,000 new investors are needed within 90 days; then, 4,000 new investors are needed to pay the original 1,000 clients plus the 1,000 used in the first round of payouts. To pay these 4,000, you need 8,000 new investors, then 16,000. The scheme collapses when there are not enough new investors to pay the existing ones – the number of new investors is eventually exhausted, and the scheme becomes unsustainable. Mr. Ponzi’s scheme lasted barely 200 days.

A more recent example of a Ponzi scheme is that of former stock broker and investment advisor Bernie Madoff. His Ponzi scheme, considered the largest financial fraud in U.S. history, defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars.

Why Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme

Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. Current contributors pay for current beneficiaries. It transfers income from the current generation of workers to the current generation of retirees, with the promise that there will be another generation of workers to pay for the current generation of workers’ retirement. It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary or a geometric increase in the number of participants. In its essence, Social Security is a contract between generations, binding together the interests of both young and old in a system that provides protection to all.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Some of the interest on these securities is now being used to cover the gap between what is collected in FICA taxes and the cost of benefits for current retirees.

Finally, Social Security is a mandatory program. Given that workers are required by law to pay FICA taxes, the program has a guaranteed and dedicated source of revenue in perpetuity.

Social Security remains strong and will be able to pay full benefits for many years to come – until 2034. Thereafter, there will still be enough payroll tax revenue coming into the program to pay 79 percent of all benefits owed. Congress has adjusted and revised the program many times since its inception over eighty years ago and there is every reason to believe it will do so again before trust fund reserves are depleted in 16 years.

Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman And the fact that government coercion is required to insure participation is proof of its failure when compared to other investments that are available.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman i talked to a social worker about this
if people would just be allowed to take their money and invest it would they do better?
could the rest just get a payment like ssi and save the government time and money
he replied over 90% of the people who apply for social security have no savings

none they are broke
they bought big house or boat
blew it vegas or on drugs
they saved nothing and if you gav them back their money theyd waste that too and you have starving angry old people and even angrier people that have to put them up

social security is a huge success and essential

you are coerced to do lots of neccessarry thngs in life you have to go to school you have to pay taxes, you have to wear clothng in public

grow up and stop being such a whiny little butch
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman not at all people are basically selfish, and would not pay in and nsit on help when they squandered their money
people are weak feeble minded and flawed
they need to be herded like cattle you included
social secuirty works if you lok at history at what life was like for old people before
before social security 90% f old people were poor had to live with family or were put i por houses or lived in abject conditions
talk to old people most old people love social security and medicare
most people have no other savings

do you?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman sometimes people have to be coerced for their own good , i have absolutely zero problem with that
i love coercing people like you
you deserve to be coerced
you are not a good person
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman From what Olympus are the people in government found? Why they're the same people who waste money on drugs, boats and gambling only with government they get to waste EVERYBODY'S money and coerce everybody for more. Government is crime.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman you can have a society without a government it is impossible give me an example
government is a crime, well maybe it is maybe taxes are a crime

maybe
maybe government is a necessary evil

emphasis on the word NECESSARRY
if government was not necessary i would be against it
i used to be an anrchist
till i rleaized how impractical that is
despite al the bad govt does and it does
you need it
the evil that was before we have government was insane
whole cultures would be wiped out
disease starvation war
at the very least government is needed to
maintain public order
lets not forget the constitution gives government the power to promote the general welfare
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman “I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
― Ronald Reagan
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman “Deregulation is a transfer of power from the trodden to the treading. It is unsurprising that all conservative parties claim to hate big government.”
― George Monbiot
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. Bertrand Russell
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman It's all very well to run around saying regulation is bad, get the government off our backs, etc. Of course our lives are regulated. When you come to a stop sign, you stop; if you want to go fishing, you get a license; if you want to shoot ducks, you can shoot only three ducks. The alternative is dead bodies at the intersection, no fish, and no ducks. OK?

(Getting Control of the Frontier, Gainsville Sun, March 22, 1995)”
― Molly Ivins
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman You present a false choice, The alternative to self defeating behavior is voluntary self control. Without voluntary self control even the most tyrannical police state is doomed to failure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bHkfMG8VUw
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman The opposite is actually true. Regulations are written to the advantage of the supposedly regulated as they are the ones in the best position to dictate the regulations to the ones creating them. Don't believe it? Just look at the title of this thread.
Amazon to pay $0 in fed tax on $11B profit.
Do you think Amazon is not following the regulations as written by the regulators?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman they can be it doesnt mean they always are
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman yes but people dont control themselves all you have to do is study human nature to see the reality
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman but people not voluntarily control themselves live in the real world
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Social Security vs. Ponzi Scheme Made Clear

The following chart illustrates the differences between the Social Security program and Charles Ponzi’s scheme:

Social Security

Ponzi Scheme

Origin

Law passed in 1935

Bonds offered by criminals to investors

Contributions

Mandatory

Voluntary (Facilitated by deception)

Assets

U.S. Treasuries which have never defaulted

None – assets used to pay prior investors

Transparency

Yearly report by Social Security Administration Actuaries

No public accounting

Payout

Available to anyone meeting eligibility requirements

Exorbitant for early investors, only losses for later investors

Length of Operation

Has paid full benefits for 80+ years

Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Less than 200 days
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Less that 200 days for what, your English lessons?
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Is English not your native language?

Pon·zi scheme
Dictionary result for Ponzi scheme
/ˈpänzē ˌskēm/
noun
noun: Ponzi scheme; plural noun: Ponzi schemes

a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
"a classic Ponzi scheme built on treachery and lies"
See: social security
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman the social security system is the most transparent aspect of our government, it is reported in detail year by year, how is that fraud?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman What sets Social Security apart?
First and foremost, Social Security's Trust Fund is invested in real-life assets: special-issue U.S. Treasury bonds. It's not the world's greatest investment, but those bonds carry with them real obligations of the U.S. Treasury to hand over cash for Social Security to pay its beneficiaries. Contrast that with a typical Ponzi scheme, where the scheme's assets are completely phantom, and you can see that those real investments make Social Security far superior to a Ponzi scheme.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Can you not read english? or understand basic logic, you are simply wrong and refuse my correct definitions because you are a simpleton like retard ed
Sure, Social Security is pay-as-you-go, and yes, it's not currently in a perpetually sustainable state. But, most assuredly, it is not a Ponzi scheme.
When Social Security's trustees issued their recent report on the financial health of the program, they said the trust funds that support Social Security were on track to run out of money by 2033.

Absent a change in the law, when those trust funds empty, benefits will be cut by about 23%. That fact, combined with the reality that Social Security operates largely on a model whereby today's workers pay the costs of today's retirees, leads many people to call it a Ponzi scheme.

Such an accusation is tempting to make: Yes, Social Security is pay-as-you-go, and yes, it's not currently in a perpetually sustainable state. But, rest assured, Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme.

Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman You point out how Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and then conclude by claiming Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. That is not at all logical.

Here in Texas written communication is generally made in complete sentences. If you don't know what those are I suggest you Google the subject.
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman A US Treasury bond is not an asset. It is merely a promissory note, an IOU. To call it an asset is akin to saying I'm wealthy because I wrote myself a million dollars worth of IOUs and put them in my pocket. Furthermore, as US currency is fiat currency backed by nothing tangible, the currency used to pay back bonds is worth less than the currency used to buy the bonds due to inflation.
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Were Social Security as good as alternative investments that are available the government wouldn't have to rely on coercion to insure participation.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman sure it is explain how it isnt
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman How Social Security Funds Are Invested. When excess funds accumulate, they do not sit idly by. Instead, they are invested into special government bonds and made payable in the future to the trust fund. ... In the past, the Social Security trust fund actually held standard, public-issue Treasury securities in its accounts.Aug 22, 2018
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman my family started out very modest
the thng you aviod mentioning is
you can invest what you have
have you no savings?
my prents had four kids put all of us through college
and managed to save about 2 to 3 thousand a year for 40 years and invested it
that money is at least on aper wort about 3 million
but even so everyone in my family agrees tht socil security is a good thng to have just in case
and things go wrong even for good people
we dont drink gamble take drugs or visit prostitutes
we have saved every extra penny ad i mean every penny
and like you said that money made us money
lots and lots of money
boatloads
like a said my mom was a wizard with investment
never finished business college but even so
jews are good with money, thats an accurate stereotype
she made more moeny on accident that most gentiles do with life of toil, it ws jut in here blood, like a gift
like esp or somethng she knew which stocks would go up and she paid atention to when they went down and told my dad to sell, she didnt like dealing with the broker so she had my dad do it
god was she a strange bird, but she knew her stocks

and she always adi socials security was a good just in case because no matter ho careful you are and we all were
things go wrong

you know you can invest on your own

and you should you can get a tax rebate for investments
some are tax free

if you have money you shoud invest now no one stops you

but it isnt a panecea
we are very succesful and even with all that sucees we realize how important it is to have a fall back for security
social security is essential

it has to be mandatory
and it is agood system
they just ned to take the cap off
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman let me explain why social security is absolutely vital
as i said talk to people who work at social security
over 90% of the people who apply have nothng saved or invested nothng
my dad and mom paid into socal security but invested what little saving they could
by the ime they were sixty their investments were worth bout 1 million plus the value of a 200 k house
today that investment is worth about 3 million
we were lucky my mom said it went up and down like a casino but they did homework and picked solid stocks
my mom was good at it, we mss her
she would open the paper watch the investment channe and pick winners
must have been the jew blood bcause she would never miss
she like to play th lottery too she was good at that too

most people dont do so well they lose on their investments or never invest they squander on boats or durgs or vacations
i asked my mom once if she thought social security was
unfair
i mean she had to pay into it for others but obviously did not need it

boy did she get angry

and remember she was a republican not a socialist so i was shocked
she told me some depresion ear stories about how old people used to literally freeze and starve when they got old

she said we were lucky we worked hard invested smart
but nothng is certain many times it looked like everythg might have gone south

evne for us who never drink or smoke gamgle or take drugs rarly go on vacation drive around with the same car for ten years till they rust
boy are we cheap we invested every extra penny
that the way calvinists behave

but evn so both my parents were ademet

social security is a good thing

because you never know

they did not mind paying in for selfish reasons they did not care about others they would agree with you people should look about for themeselves
but as they got older they realized how risky life is even for people who are very careful

social security even for rich people (like us)
is a just in case
you dont like paying in?

to bad, life is unfair scooter

in singapore they have mandatory private savings programs through theprovident trust and temsek that basically own the singapre economy, well about 25%
25% of your income would be put in a government saving scheme or scems under singapore policy its your oney and you get back every penny and you can inest it basically as you wish as long as the risk is apporved by government investment bureacrats
its a prvate system in that the money stays in your account till you retire or get sick or need to send your kid to school

but its mandatory

you are coerced

so grow up and stop being a baby

you dont live on an island all alone you live in a society with others
you have to follow the rules

and social security is a very god system

my parents have savings and investents that started out by putting pnnys in a bottle that pot is niow worht 3.2 million so you can invest like that no one is stoping you
or are you just too lazy and undisciplined?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman if you knew the least bit about economics i might be able to explain thngs again a ponzi scheme is not tranparent social security is
a ponzi scheme has no assets social security has trilions in assets
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman yes it is an asset
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Romans 13:6 ►
SUM PIC XRF DEV STU
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Who said the criminals running the cartel that's called government are any more authoritative than any other collection of criminals?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman incorrect analogy, there are good governments and bad governments i come from a country that has a very good government people trust, in the netherlands also canada, your government is garbage because you dont even try to make it work, you cant abolish government there always has to be one silly boy
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Thomas Jefferson might disagree with you to the extent that all government is corrosive of liberty and the best government is that which governs least.

“A leader is best
When people barely know he exists
Of a good leader, who talks little,
When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,
They will say, “We did this ourselves.”
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman he owned slaves
he raped 14 year old black girls
he lived in very different times
i have no desire or respect for his beliefs
thats not my culture or time
he is dead and so are his values
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman What is a Ponzi scheme?

Charles Ponzi was a Boston investment broker who in 1920 developed an investment plan offering bonds which would pay 50 percent interest in 45 days and 100 percent if held for 90 days. Although the initial clients’ money was invested in foreign postal coupons, as promised, the returns on the investment were miniscule compared to the promised return. To make good on his promise, Mr. Ponzi paid his initial investors with funds raised from his second round of clients, rather than investing these funds. As word spread about the unbelievable return on investment, clients flocked to Mr. Ponzi and he continued to use new clients’ money to pay off existing clients. The investment scheme’s “assets” were completely phantom – there were no investments made.

The problem with this type of scheme is that the number of new investors has to increase geometrically to pay old investors. In other words, to pay a 100 percent profit to the first 1,000 clients within 90 days, 1,000 new investors are needed within 90 days; then, 4,000 new investors are needed to pay the original 1,000 clients plus the 1,000 used in the first round of payouts. To pay these 4,000, you need 8,000 new investors, then 16,000. The scheme collapses when there are not enough new investors to pay the existing ones – the number of new investors is eventually exhausted, and the scheme becomes unsustainable. Mr. Ponzi’s scheme lasted barely 200 days.

A more recent example of a Ponzi scheme is that of former stock broker and investment advisor Bernie Madoff. His Ponzi scheme, considered the largest financial fraud in U.S. history, defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Unlike a fraudulent secretive Ponzi scheme, Social Security’s finances are transparent to the public, as required by law. Each year Social Security’s actuaries release a detailed report on the system’s finances. Its dedicated funding source – Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) payroll taxes of current workers – are used to pay benefits for current beneficiaries. For years, these taxes more than covered the cost of the benefits, with the surplus (currently, $2.9 trillion) invested in U.S. Treasury securities, widely considered by finance industry professionals and foreign governments as the world’s best and safest investment. The U.S. government has never defaulted on its Treasury security obligations.

According to Francis X. Cavanaugh, the first Executive Director of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board and a former Department of the Treasury official: