Auburn85 438 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...T01041120090114 WASHINGTON, Jan 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to expand a popular children's health program and increase cigarette taxes to pay for it, giving President-elect Barack Obama a jump start on a campaign promise to insure more Americans.A majority in the Democratic-led House voted for the bill. The measure is similar to legislation twice vetoed by President George W. Bush, who opposed raising tobacco taxes and argued that expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Plan would push children into government-run health care instead of private plans. The bill passed by the House bill aims to enroll 11 million children into the program, compared to about 6.7 million currently, and pay for it by raising the cigarette tax to $1 a pack from 39 cents. Taxes on cigars and other tobacco products also would rise. The Senate is expected to move swiftly on its version of the legislation and Obama, who takes office on Tuesday, backs expanding the program. The legislation would be an early victory on his promise to make health insurance more available to all Americans. (Reporting by Donna Smith, editing by David Alexander) Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,883 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 It starts. How do you fund a program on the very freaking vices that you would want your people to give up? Ignorant bastages. Look at the UK. If their people quit drinking and smoking, the government would fold within the first year. Bad bill. Good thought. Bad bill. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-572959 Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 19,665 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Paying for more health care for children by taxing a vice that makes its consumers (and those subjected to their habit) sick. I have no problem with this. Sounds like protecting the most helpless in our society by discouraging a behavior that we know does us all harm. Check one off for the good guys. Of note: Marshall (GA) and Bright (AL) were the only two Democrat no votes. Now, let's add one more measures -- a smoking ban in all public places. Hoover finally stepped up to the plate on this but the rest of the State needs to step up and quick. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-572979 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuntsvilleTiger 0 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Paying for more health care for children by taxing a vice that makes its consumers (and those subjected to their habit) sick. I have no problem with this. Sounds like protecting the most helpless in our society by discouraging a behavior that we know does us all harm. Check one off for the good guys. Now, let's add one more measures -- a smoking ban in all public places. Hoover finally stepped up to the plate on this but the rest of the State needs to step up and quick. You have no problem with it? Governmental agencies across the nation are banning smoking left and right, yet they all are reliant on the very thing that they are trying to ban. Makes perfect sense. What happens when everyone gives up that vice because the cost is too great and the ability to do act on the vice is prohibited in so many places you can't exercise the vice? How then, does these governments pay for these programs? It's illogical to rely on something that you are actively trying to rid yourself of. It'd be like me trying to get fired but going out and buying a new house and two new cars... Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-572990 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin5 20 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Paying for more health care for children by taxing a vice that makes its consumers (and those subjected to their habit) sick. I have no problem with this. Sounds like protecting the most helpless in our society by discouraging a behavior that we know does us all harm. Check one off for the good guys. Now, let's add one more measures -- a smoking ban in all public places. Hoover finally stepped up to the plate on this but the rest of the State needs to step up and quick. It'd be like me trying to get fired but going out and buying a new house and two new cars... How is it ANYTHING like that? If anything it's like going out and agreeing to help with payments on electric cars for the country, by paying for it with taxes generated from gasoline sales. Granted, this is NOT a fix all for children's health care, BUT this is a real short term fix that will cover many low income children. Without a doubt, we will have to revisit this issue in the future. For now, its a good - not great - plan. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573002 Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 19,665 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 You have no problem with it? Governmental agencies across the nation are banning smoking left and right, yet they all are reliant on the very thing that they are trying to ban. Makes perfect sense. What happens when everyone gives up that vice because the cost is too great and the ability to do act on the vice is prohibited in so many places you can't exercise the vice? How then, does these governments pay for these programs? It's illogical to rely on something that you are actively trying to rid yourself of. It'd be like me trying to get fired but going out and buying a new house and two new cars... In theory and from a macro perspective, the Government would love for everyone to give up smoking because it would reduce the enormous financial strains on the modern healthcare system. This would be the ultimate, "mission accomplished." But in all practicality, your scenario and the Government's wish won't come to fruition because 1) even with a smoking ban in all public places, there are still plenty of places to puff and 2) a $0.61/pack increase is not going to eliminate smoking or probably not even significantly alter habits (see other sin taxes on alcohol, etc.) My point was, I think this is good legislation because if your habits put more burdens on the healthcare system, it makes sense that you should have to pay more. Call it a "usage tax" if you will. So the legislation is both logical from a financial standpoint and good for all from a health stand point. Win win. And as Justin pointed out, your analogy is way out of whack. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573006 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerHeat 9 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 You have no problem with it? Governmental agencies across the nation are banning smoking left and right, yet they all are reliant on the very thing that they are trying to ban. Makes perfect sense. What happens when everyone gives up that vice because the cost is too great and the ability to do act on the vice is prohibited in so many places you can't exercise the vice? How then, does these governments pay for these programs? It's illogical to rely on something that you are actively trying to rid yourself of. It'd be like me trying to get fired but going out and buying a new house and two new cars... In theory and from a macro perspective, the Government would love for everyone to give up smoking because it would reduce the enormous financial strains on the modern healthcare system. This would be the ultimate, "mission accomplished." But in all practicality, your scenario and the Government's wish won't come to fruition because 1) even with a smoking ban in all public places, there are still plenty of places to puff and 2) a $0.61/pack increase is not going to eliminate smoking or probably not even significantly alter habits (see other sin taxes on alcohol, etc.) My point was, I think this is good legislation because if your habits put more burdens on the healthcare system, it makes sense that you should have to pay more. Call it a "usage tax" if you will. So the legislation is both logical from a financial standpoint and good for all from a health stand point. Win win. And as Justin pointed out, your analogy is way out of whack. I hope we tax the hell out of skateboards soon. "Usage tax" if you will. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573060 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUTiger1 0 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Democrats: Never met a tax they didn't like. The logic behind this is very flawed. Real life example. I smoke cigars, nothing like a nice cigar and a nip of Tennessee's finest in my book. I am not a heavy cigar smoker. I may smoke 4 a week. I don't smoke swisher sweets either. The cigars I smoke tend to be a lot more expensive than that. Now I generally tend to pay somewhere between $65 and $80 a box (25 cigars). They are high, but I enjoy them and I can afford them so why not? Now if you tax them and make them much more expensive, I will simply quit buying them. I don't have to have them, I have gone weeks w/o them. The taxes from me are now gone. No revenue what so ever. If you tax a vice to a point where it is a burden to buy them, then people will quit and you will lose all revenue form it. Then where are you going to get the money for funding? (I know, they will tax the piss out of my salary) Burden on the healthcare system? Really? It seems to me that is only a burden on me. I am the one that is paying the higher premiums b/c I am a smoker, I am the one that will be paying for any treatments that my insurance, that I am paying higher premiums for mind you, will not cover. Not you, not the government, not "the system". If there is something that I can't pay or my wife is not capable of paying back I am sure that since we are hard working people and own a nice home, I am sure they would come after our estate and take the home to help cover it. Hmm, once again not a burden in this case on anyone other than my wife. I think what HT is trying to say is that the logic behind this is stupid and that it's as stupid as him trying to go out and get fired while buying a new house and two new cars. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573064 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUTiger1 0 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 You have no problem with it? Governmental agencies across the nation are banning smoking left and right, yet they all are reliant on the very thing that they are trying to ban. Makes perfect sense. What happens when everyone gives up that vice because the cost is too great and the ability to do act on the vice is prohibited in so many places you can't exercise the vice? How then, does these governments pay for these programs? It's illogical to rely on something that you are actively trying to rid yourself of. It'd be like me trying to get fired but going out and buying a new house and two new cars... In theory and from a macro perspective, the Government would love for everyone to give up smoking because it would reduce the enormous financial strains on the modern healthcare system. This would be the ultimate, "mission accomplished." But in all practicality, your scenario and the Government's wish won't come to fruition because 1) even with a smoking ban in all public places, there are still plenty of places to puff and 2) a $0.61/pack increase is not going to eliminate smoking or probably not even significantly alter habits (see other sin taxes on alcohol, etc.) My point was, I think this is good legislation because if your habits put more burdens on the healthcare system, it makes sense that you should have to pay more. Call it a "usage tax" if you will. So the legislation is both logical from a financial standpoint and good for all from a health stand point. Win win. And as Justin pointed out, your analogy is way out of whack. I hope we tax the hell out of skateboards soon. "Usage tax" if you will. We should tax the hell out of food at resturants, and public toliets. That could also be a usage tax, you eat food which makes you fat and puts more strain on the health care system. You never know what you could catch from a public toilet that would burden the system. Ooo, we should place a usage tax on the highways as well, people cut you off in traffic, which causes stress levels to rise, which in turn makes you less healthy or you could have a wreck and that would definitely burden the system................we could going with this all night. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573065 Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 19,665 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Are you trying to argue that the smoking population does not increase healthcare costs for us all? Really? Do we need to have a healthcare 101 crash course on how premiums are derived, the effects of second hand smoke and on and on? Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573066 Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 7,551 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Personal Responsibility! DYING BY THE DAY! Next will be obesity, which has a FAR GREATER impact on the healthcare system than cigs. Will the government tax people who are over a certain weight threshold? Will they monitor individuals intake each day? Where does it end? We see Physical Education being stripped from schools because it "takes away from institutional instruction".......the very people who represent the majority in our government. Example of what America will look like in 4-6 years or less.....CALIFORNIA. Taxed to death, people leaving, and no reason for hope in the near future. Dems..........you have what you want. The destruction of the United States. Freedom is being replaced by the dependence on Federal Government, not foriegn oil. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573077 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 438 Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 alot of states are now looking to pass cigarette taxes too mississippi http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/...tte_tax_011409/ Following nearly two hours of debate, the House of Representatives passed a bill this afternoon that would raise Mississippi’s cigarette tax from 18 cents to $1 per pack. illinois http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-...0,7897830.story Proponents of the tax increase say the current economic crisis will give a boost to their tax proposal. They estimate increasing the cigarette tax by $1 from the current 98 cents would bring Illinois an extra $320 million a year. rhode island http://www.blockislandtimes.com/articles/2...d0151579734.txt Gov. Donald Carcieri proposed a $1 hike on the cigarette tax of $2.46 a pack... kansas http://www.kansasliberty.com/liberty-updat...009/12jan/khpa/ Just one week away from announcing the budget plans, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said she is not supporting any tax raises to offset the budget shortfall, with one exception: a cigarette tax promoted by the Kansas Health Policy Authority.Peter Hancock, spokesperson for the Kansas Health Policy Authority, said the cigarette tax would mean an additional 75-cent tax for a pack of cigarettes, almost doubling the tax, currently at 79 cents per pack. Other tobacco-related products would also experience increases in taxes. utah http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11386769 Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. endorsed a $2.30 tax increase on a pack of cigarettes this morning, giving Utah the highest state cigarette tax in the country with a goal of wiping out the remaining state sales tax on food. florida http://www.theledger.com/article/20090112/...e_Cigarette_Tax My mind is open," Peaden said about proposal to increase the 33.9 cents per pack cigarette tax by $1. south carolina None of the legislators at the event Thursday committed to an amount for a tax increase. South Carolina now has the lowest cigarette tax in the nation, 7 cents per pack.Cobb-Hunter would be willing to compromise on a 50-cent tax increase, she said. “We’ll never pass a $1 increase in the cigarette tax,†she said. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573084 Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 19,665 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Speaking of self responsibility...why should I have to pickup the tab (via higher premiums) for those who engage in self-destructing behavior? See the flaw/double standard in your argument? Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573086 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 4,305 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Speaking of self responsibility...why should I have to pickup the tab (via higher premiums) for those who engage in self-destructing behavior? See the flaw/double standard in your argument? But we should be happy to pay for those who don't want to work. We should be happy for tax money to be used for abortions. But we should be happy with the way SS is set up because you dims love it the way it is. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573102 Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Democrats: Never met a tax they didn't like. The logic behind this is very flawed. Real life example. I smoke cigars, nothing like a nice cigar and a nip of Tennessee's finest in my book. I am not a heavy cigar smoker. I may smoke 4 a week. I don't smoke swisher sweets either. The cigars I smoke tend to be a lot more expensive than that. Now I generally tend to pay somewhere between $65 and $80 a box (25 cigars). They are high, but I enjoy them and I can afford them so why not? Now if you tax them and make them much more expensive, I will simply quit buying them. I don't have to have them, I have gone weeks w/o them. The taxes from me are now gone. No revenue what so ever. If you tax a vice to a point where it is a burden to buy them, then people will quit and you will lose all revenue form it. Then where are you going to get the money for funding? (I know, they will tax the piss out of my salary) Burden on the healthcare system? Really? It seems to me that is only a burden on me. I am the one that is paying the higher premiums b/c I am a smoker, I am the one that will be paying for any treatments that my insurance, that I am paying higher premiums for mind you, will not cover. Not you, not the government, not "the system". If there is something that I can't pay or my wife is not capable of paying back I am sure that since we are hard working people and own a nice home, I am sure they would come after our estate and take the home to help cover it. Hmm, once again not a burden in this case on anyone other than my wife. I think what HT is trying to say is that the logic behind this is stupid and that it's as stupid as him trying to go out and get fired while buying a new house and two new cars. I would pay a higher tax if we could get some good Cubans Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573115 Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,883 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Speaking of self responsibility...why should I have to pickup the tab (via higher premiums) for those who engage in self-destructing behavior? See the flaw/double standard in your argument? But we should be happy to pay for those who don't want to work. We should be happy for tax money to be used for abortions. But we should be happy with the way SS is set up because you dims love it the way it is. Man, They totally miss the point. Its the same argument they have for taxing the rich. It has less to do with helping the children than it does with punishing those that they don't like. Look at the UK. Their tax system is such that they NEED young people to smoke and drink early. If not, their revenue goes in the toilet. But yet here we are falling into the same trap. Complete idiocy. You cannot be for and against something at the same time.... Oh. Unless it's the troops. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573128 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuntsvilleTiger 0 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 You have no problem with it? Governmental agencies across the nation are banning smoking left and right, yet they all are reliant on the very thing that they are trying to ban. Makes perfect sense. What happens when everyone gives up that vice because the cost is too great and the ability to do act on the vice is prohibited in so many places you can't exercise the vice? How then, does these governments pay for these programs? It's illogical to rely on something that you are actively trying to rid yourself of. It'd be like me trying to get fired but going out and buying a new house and two new cars... And as Justin pointed out, your analogy is way out of whack. It's not out of whack. The analogy is that I would be "buying" things that I am going to need my job to pay for while at the same time trying to get fired. The government is "buying" the health care by taxes on the very thing that all over the U.S. they are trying to ban. Cigs = My job Health Care = The house and car In the analogy I'd be trying to do away with my job, just like the government is trying to do away with cigs. Health care is paid for by the taxes on the cigs, while the house and car is paid for by my job. Completely correct analogy and you Dems can't see it because the vast majority of you have never ever met a tax that you were against. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573135 Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 19,665 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Speaking of self responsibility...why should I have to pickup the tab (via higher premiums) for those who engage in self-destructing behavior? See the flaw/double standard in your argument? But we should be happy to pay for those who don't want to work. We should be happy for tax money to be used for abortions. But we should be happy with the way SS is set up because you dims love it the way it is. I don't want to pay for any one who doesn't want to work. It was the Clinton administratoin after all who passed work to welfare. You can't just stay on welfare, that isn't how the system works. Tax money used for abortions? Are you diving into a stem cell discussion or what? I agree, SS needs to be restructured for solvency. But privatizing SS? No thanks...what would all those people be doing in today's market? Some safety net. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573151 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 438 Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 Speaking of self responsibility...why should I have to pickup the tab (via higher premiums) for those who engage in self-destructing behavior? See the flaw/double standard in your argument? But we should be happy to pay for those who don't want to work. We should be happy for tax money to be used for abortions. But we should be happy with the way SS is set up because you dims love it the way it is. I don't want to pay for any one who doesn't want to work. It was the Clinton administratoin after all who passed work to welfare. You can't just stay on welfare, that isn't how the system works. Tax money used for abortions? Are you diving into a stem cell discussion or what? I agree, SS needs to be restructured for solvency. But privatizing SS? No thanks...what would all those people be doing in today's market? Some safety net. would you be ok with me putting 12.4% of my salary into a CD rather than giving up 6.2% and my employer matching it and have a higher risk of me never seeing it? or better yet, if you're self-employed, it's 12.4% The goverment costs were going to be enormous to (partially) privatize SS. However, the amount of a person's SS was going to be in the neighborhood of 2%. Meaning your other 98% would be secure(ha) in the government. If I work from age 18-61 and die, I see absolutely nothing. Not even enough to cover funeral costs. How fair is that? restructured for solvency. raise the cap right? Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573163 Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 19,665 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 would you be ok with me putting 12.4% of my salary into a CD rather than giving up 6.2% and my employer matching it and have a higher risk of me never seeing it? or better yet, if you're self-employed, it's 12.4% Maybe, but I would rather leverage the pool power of the system to chase more aggressive yields, if that's what you're getting at. The problem with privatizing is that for every reasoned investor, you have those that will fall on their face. And if their SS pot is empty at the end of the day, all of us are going to end up picking up the tab. So let's restructure in a way that makes sense for all stakeholders. At the end of the day, I'm not planning on SS. But the truth is, a lot of people exclusively depend on it for survival. Also, at the end of the day, I have a political bent that most on this board don't seem to carry, i.e., I subscribe to the notion that "I am my brothers keeper, I am my sisters keeper" --- I don't view this world solely through the lense of "what's in it for me?" Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573170 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuntsvilleTiger 0 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 would you be ok with me putting 12.4% of my salary into a CD rather than giving up 6.2% and my employer matching it and have a higher risk of me never seeing it? or better yet, if you're self-employed, it's 12.4% Maybe, but I would rather leverage the pool power of the system to chase more aggressive yields, if that's what you're getting at. The problem with privatizing is that for every reasoned investor, you have those that will fall on their face. And if their SS pot is empty at the end of the day, all of us are going to end up picking up the tab. So let's restructure in a way that makes sense for all stakeholders. At the end of the day, I'm not planning on SS. But the truth is, a lot of people exclusively depend on it for survival. Also, at the end of the day, I have a political bent that most on this board don't seem to carry, i.e., I subscribe to the notion that "I am my brothers keeper, I am my sisters keeper" --- I don't view this world solely through the lense of "what's in it for me?" I think where most of us differ with your notion of "I am my brothers keeper, I am my sisters keeper" is that we believe that it's the family, friend, and churches (i.e. individuals) responsibilities to care for our own. Not the government's responsibility. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573204 Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 19,665 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I think where most of us differ with your notion of "I am my brothers keeper, I am my sisters keeper" is that we believe that it's the family, friend, and churches (i.e. individuals) responsibilities to care for our own. Not the government's responsibility. Good point. But it gets back to my assertion that there are some things the private sector either can't or won't do. So I don't want my Church (Synogogue---especially if it's headed by Madoff, ok that was a joke ) running a retirement safety net system nor providing national defense. Now, saying there is a role for the Government does not mean I'm advocating against self responsibility. To the contrary, the Government can only help people who want to help themselves (minus the fully uncapable of course). Also, just for clarification, I do believe the family/friend/church structure has a very important role in our society and with the right restrictions/some tweaking, I'm very supported of Obama's plan to carry on Bush's faith-based initiatives programs. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573231 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 438 Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 would you be ok with me putting 12.4% of my salary into a CD rather than giving up 6.2% and my employer matching it and have a higher risk of me never seeing it? or better yet, if you're self-employed, it's 12.4% Maybe, but I would rather leverage the pool power of the system to chase more aggressive yields, if that's what you're getting at. The problem with privatizing is that for every reasoned investor, you have those that will fall on their face. And if their SS pot is empty at the end of the day, all of us are going to end up picking up the tab. So let's restructure in a way that makes sense for all stakeholders. At the end of the day, I'm not planning on SS. But the truth is, a lot of people exclusively depend on it for survival. Also, at the end of the day, I have a political bent that most on this board don't seem to carry, i.e., I subscribe to the notion that "I am my brothers keeper, I am my sisters keeper" --- I don't view this world solely through the lense of "what's in it for me?" yeah, that's right because i am not by brothers keeper, i am not my sister's keeper. it's tough for me to defend myself when the foundation of your argument paints in such a way. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573260 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 438 Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 would you be ok with me putting 12.4% of my salary into a CD rather than giving up 6.2% and my employer matching it and have a higher risk of me never seeing it? or better yet, if you're self-employed, it's 12.4% Maybe, but I would rather leverage the pool power of the system to chase more aggressive yields, if that's what you're getting at. The problem with privatizing is that for every reasoned investor, you have those that will fall on their face. And if their SS pot is empty at the end of the day, all of us are going to end up picking up the tab. So let's restructure in a way that makes sense for all stakeholders. At the end of the day, I'm not planning on SS. But the truth is, a lot of people exclusively depend on it for survival. Also, at the end of the day, I have a political bent that most on this board don't seem to carry, i.e., I subscribe to the notion that "I am my brothers keeper, I am my sisters keeper" --- I don't view this world solely through the lense of "what's in it for me?" i don't want a pool scenerio at all. if you want a pool or anyone else wants one, then so be it. i want to go to my place of banking, start a CD and injecting a percentage of my income. it makes it alot harder to have a retirement when 6% of my income goes into a pool that pays for current beneficiaries. and years later i wouldn't have those funds. my investment would become one of faith that the system is still sustainable by the time i'm eligible. again, if someone works from age 18-61 and dies, all they get is a slap in the face. if i put my money into a CD and i die unexpectedly at age 61 or before, i can leave that money to my family. life isurance is important people! Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573268 Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 7,551 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I want the freedom to CHOOSE where my money goes for retirement. If I want the government to hold onto it (YEAH RIGHT), then I'll do that. If I want to save it in a money market account, savings, etc., then let me! We are LOANING the government our money for a return that's, well........nothing. At that point the "loan" is now a crime. Stolen..... Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55442-us-house-approves-childrens-health-bill/#findComment-573270 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.