Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"N2EY" wrote:
It's important to remember that the Social Security system doesn't just support retirees. Also, there is no "means test" - folks over a certain age get their SS retirement benefits no matter how much income they have, whether it be from investment or employment. (snip) Many have wrestled with that for years. Some argue the wealthy don't need the benefits. Others argue if everyone pays into the system, everyone should collect later in life. In the end, if the goal is to provide a solid parachute, the current system is not that bad. Another factor is that as our life expectancies increase, more and more people outlive their SS contributions. (snip) Another serious problem. It wouldn't have been so bad had the government invested that money over the years so it could bring in a healthy return, but they didn't. So what do we do now? First of all, money is available without raising taxes. The government collects billions of dollars in taxes each year. The question is where that money is spent. Do we buy new military hardware and finance art shows, or do we provide for the elderly? If we want to do all of that, we have to raise taxes. If we only want to do some of it, and cut some, we don't need to raise taxes. Some say cut the benefits for the elderly and keep the other stuff. I think we should cut some of the other stuff and keep the benefits for the elderly. You might want to look up where the military budget actually goes. A big percentage of it is spent on pay and benefits to military personnel, retirees and dependents. That is less so today. Even though the military budget has continued to climb, the number of active duty personnel has decreased(less than half what is was twenty-five years ago). Likewise, benefits for dependents have also decreased. For example, dependents used to receive free medical care. Today, they pay fees for any medical treatment, with that treatment additionally subsidized by a medical plan paid for by the active duty spouse. There is also a built-in inefficency in the military system today. For whatever reason, many of the jobs once done by active duty personnel (cooks, clerks, admin, maintenance, recreation, and medical) are now done by civilian employees, many earning much higher wages, benefits, and retirement. Likewise, many technical jobs are now handled by contract companies, whose employees also often earn much higher wages, benefits, and retirement. As a result, it is now much more expensive to staff those jobs. Some of the less skill oriented civilian jobs were once open to dependents. Sadly, even this is rarely the case anymore. In many places overseas, for example, dependents can no longer find work simply because most of the jobs (especially the ones that pay fairly well) are reserved for civilians (often local nationals). As a result, dependents are usually left with the part-time jobs at the BX/PX, snack bars, fast food joints, or they can bag groceries at the commissary. And people vote for those politicians because they're "pro-business". People vote for those "pro-business" candidates because they're mislead about what "pro-business" really means. If any candidate actually told the truth and said he supports immigration because that would drive down wages for everybody and employers like low wages, that candidate probably wouldn't get more than a handful of votes (and most of those from business owners). Instead, candidates talk about supporting business to help stimulate the economy and create jobs. What is never said is that the only "economy" being stimulated is the profits of big business and the only jobs being created are low paying ones. Of course, since both political parties support big business, voters don't have an alternative choice anyway. You might want to check into what the average person's standard of living is like in many of those countries - particularly when it comes to how much a house or car costs. Dave, K8MN has lived in many foreign countries... Homes are expensive because there are a lot of people living in a relatively small area. This happens anytime there are large numbers of people living in fairly crowded conditions (New York, for example). Apartment prices are not any higher. We pay more for our apartment now than we did in Germany (and this one is smaller). As for the cost of automobiles, I have no idea what Dave is talking about. Where I lived, car prices were nearly the same as here. If anything, there is a greater selection of lower priced models (our car prices are getting pretty darn high). It's not impossible - the question is, what do you want to give up? Or should I Say - what are *we* willing to give up? I've already answer that - "immigration" and "decent (not astronomical) profits for business." For example, tonight on NBC there is a popular half hour TV comedy whose 6 main characters are paid 1 million dollars each - per episode! Are we willing to give up the free market that makes such salaries possible? If it takes that to insure decent wages for all Americans, I'm certainly willing. But I don't think it is going to take that. Instead, we can cut immigration and take steps to prevent factories from moving overseas (one way might be to require American companies that move factories overseas to pay import tariffs and duties just like any other foreign business). We could also put caps on corporate profits without much damage to the overall free market system (Bill Gates, as an extreme example, can survive on a little less money). Increasing the minimum wage to more realistic levels might help. And, if companies don't get the hint and try to pass that on to consumers while keeping profits extraordinarily high instead, we can start regulating major consumer goods (with the idea in the beginning of driving prices down). All this has been done, to some degree, in Europe and Asia with no ill effects. By the way, taxes in Europe have nothing to do with this discussion. If we continue to insist on no national health care system and few government aid programs like those seen in Europe, taxes won't have to be raised. Are we willing to give up low prices on imported goods and pay a lot more for American made things? Drive a smaller car, live in a smaller house, walk more, fly less, own fewer things, make things last and last because we can't afford new ones? That is a gross exaggeration and you know it, Dave. Nothing that drastic will be required. I've already outlined some of the far less intrusive steps we can take in the previous paragraph. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dwight Stewart wrote:
Another serious problem. It wouldn't have been so bad had the government invested that money over the years so it could bring in a healthy return, but they didn't. So what do we do now? First of all, money is available without raising taxes. The government collects billions of dollars in taxes each year. The question is where that money is spent. Do we buy new military hardware and finance art shows, or do we provide for the elderly? If we want to do all of that, we have to raise taxes. If we only want to do some of it, and cut some, we don't need to raise taxes. Some say cut the benefits for the elderly and keep the other stuff. I think we should cut some of the other stuff and keep the benefits for the elderly. If the government would stop the foreign aid to those countries where that aid mainly supports little 2-bit dictators we would have enough money to take care of the elderly. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS Large Lot of NEW NOS Tubes | Homebrew | |||
FS Large LOT Of NEW Tubes | Boatanchors | |||
FS Large Lot of NEW NOS Tubes | Homebrew | |||
FS Large Lot of NEW NOS Tubes | Homebrew | |||
FS Large Lot of NEW NOS Tubes | Homebrew |