Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 07:17pm PT
|
Didn't see a response to this:
What download speed do you have? Better or worse than Romania (which is pretty good as it turns out)?
Monthly cost Uplink (Mbps) Downlink (Mbps)
Stockholm $11 100 100
Seoul $24 100 100
Hong Kong $35 100 100
Tokyo $61 100 100
Amsterdam $127 100 100
Lafayette, LA, Cox Cable $140 5 50
US, where available, Verizon $145 20 50
I'm on 20mbps on Comcast. Qwest tops out at 3mbps in my inner Portland neighborhood - those are my only options and the 20mbps costs the same as 100mbps in Tokyo, six times what it cost in Stockholm.
It's like there is a telcom 'Death Panel' rationing and stalling broadband, in this case - as it has been for the last twenty years - while they attempt to control content over their networks. You have been keeping up since you sold out of your last venture haven't you?
The bottomline is the telco, wireless, cable, and insurance companies all work the same schtick relative to their view of their 'customers' - sheep to be sheered. Little interest in competition, coordinating in an anti-competitive fashion by the top players, jack rates up continuously, cancel customers at will, cherry-pick the good markets, etc.
You claim to be smart guy - is that how you ran your businesses?
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 07:20pm PT
|
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Middle Class
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 07:36pm PT
|
Let's talk about the "unfunded liabilities" of SS and Medicare:
Fatty's "The Sky Is Falling": NOT
The notion of "unfunded liabilities" in certain programs is based on the arbitrary assumption that certain designated revenue sources should pay for certain classes of government expenditures. The story that Social Security and Medicare should be paid for out of payroll taxes and their trust funds is not a recent creation of critics of those systems. It has been around for decades. But why? Revenues and expenditures are "fungible," meaning that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. In fact, today's Social Security surplus flows right into the pot with other revenues, while a significant portion of Medicare costs already are paid for out of general revenue. The real question is not "will the designated revenues be enough to pay for the designated programs" but "will we have enough income to afford to keep the promises we have made?"
There is no question that the nation's gross domestic product will be sufficient to meet all of our Social Security promises forever, leaving lots of income for increasing the prosperity of the young. In general, the outlook for economic growth is good. Our average income per person in 100 years is likely to be much, much higher than it is today (more than four times as high). Social Security benefits are predicted to rise from about 4.5 percent of our GDP to about 6.6 percent over the next century. Even though such long predictions are very uncertain, this one should leave us sanguine: if incomes in 100 years are only twice their present level, and incomes of the old rise from 4.5 to 6.6 percent of income, that still leaves us with $1.96 for every dollar we have today, after Social Security obligations are taken care of. We can continue to keep our modest Social Security promises, and young families still will be much better off than families are today.
There also is no question that, if health care costs continue to rise as rapidly into the indefinite future as they have in recent years, medical expenditures will soak up a much, much larger share of our overall income than they do now, leaving a smaller and smaller share for other uses. Unlike Social Security, this could indeed become a grave problem.
What's Generational Accounting Got to Do With It?
Although the notion that we are headed for a fiscal train wreck is stated in the language of scientific prediction, there is a moral element as well. Building on the idea of "generational accounting," those who foresee a catastrophe are implicitly using the ethical standard that people should take care of themselves over their lifetimes-not rely on government transfers from others (including from other generations). The idea is that it is unfair for old people as a group to get back more than they paid into the public trough (using appropriate interest rates).
This is a very odd notion. Why is it that young people in general will be better off than their parents? Fundamentally, it is because of the information and technology that earlier generations produced, the engine of modern economic growth. If the older generation levied fees on all the intellectual property they created, that could amount to an enormous claim by older people on their children: "We invented the transistor and financial derivatives, which is what makes you so productive. Pay up."
There is no need to charge rent on the intellectual property the young inherit from earlier generations. Instead, we can use our common sense. If the old are a growing proportion of the population, and the pie we all have to share is much bigger than it was, we should give a larger slice to the elderly.
Don't Worry, Be Happy
Imagine if in 1950, someone had calculated the costs of educating the baby boomers in public institutions through their college years. What an immense, unmanageable burden! And nothing-not a penny-had been set aside by 1950 to cover the costs of public universities in the 1960s and 1970s! Using the logic of unfunded liabilities that has fueled alarmist media stories, public universities should have been closed; education should have been left to the private sector.
Yet nobody ever claimed in the 1950s and 1960s that the education of the Baby Boomers was an excessive burden our society, or that our public institutions could not afford to accept the challenge. When we needed more schools, we built them. Why should the Boomers' retirement be unmanageable? We need to strengthen social insurance for old people, and we will be able to afford it.
http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=496
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 08:05pm PT
|
pillowfight!!
|
|
Binks
Social climber
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 08:16pm PT
|
healyje, i strongly suspect you of harboring anti american anticompetitive socialist tendencies for bringing up the the commie euros and asians are kicking our ass to the curb in yet another category. even though we max at 20mbps and it costs way more than other places, it is the HIGHEST QUALITY. No on has as high a quality 20mpbs as us. I bet we have the lowest packet loss in the world.. our growing national advantages will of course insure our continued number 1 spot in the world, regardless of the socialist threats we face. never mind that man behind the curtain.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 08:20pm PT
|
"I said I would like to see SS and Medicare replaced by "something other than a ponzi scheme.""
Skip, you are right- I believe both Medicare and SS should continue, and receive the proper attention and funding that they both need to make them viable again. Once they can be made viable, I'd like to see strict regulations that place them off limits to any future politicians who would rob SS for other projects, and cut funding to Medicare. Amongst many other disappointments and frustrations in the Dem's current healthcare 'reform' bill were the Medicare cuts that will be supposedly funded elsewhere via savings or cost 'bending'. Yeah, right.
Both services are based on sound principles: provide a reasonable source of income and security for all citizens, so that they are less subject to the up and down whims of the capitalist system. Just think where the baby boomers would be right now under Shrub's preferred SS 'reform' (privatizing it into stock investments)...not a pretty picture.
I don't know how to fix them, aside from making them the economic priority that they should be. Not to beat an obviously well-dead horse, but taking 1/10 the funding of the Iraq war would go a long way towards fixing both.
OK, your turn- you obviously don't like either program...got any suggestions for replacements?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 08:27pm PT
|
By the way, in all the countries you mention those speeds are subsidized by taxpayers.
Skip, they sure are, and that could be because those countries see real broadband as a national infrastructure component essential to their future competitive and comparative advantage as a nation. Just like they view having a healthy populace and workforce without weighing down their corporations with the boat anchor of endless healthcare obligations which have sunk one American industry after another and still is.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 08:30pm PT
|
"I'm sorry but I agree, I would love to see SS and medicare be phased
out over time and replaced by something other than a ponzi scheme."
Lest anyone forget, remember the great Republican plan to have part of Social Security be invested in the Stock Market?? That would have taken place about 2 years ago, and I shudder to think how that would have worked out (other than for the brokerage houses, that would have made billions----oh wait---they DID make billions, even without their political friends helping them along.)
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 08:41pm PT
|
ken, you just got p0wned!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Middle Class
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 08:51pm PT
|
The US Government does not collect income tax from "poor people".
Yes, depending on their income, "some" federal tax may be paycheck withheld.
But, if any was withheld, they get it all back at tax time.
People making less than the "poverty level" of $22,000 family of four do not
pay federal income tax.
If the typical family of four had twice that income to $44,000 they would
in fact end up paying very little in Federal Income tax.
Also, "poor" people actually get more money back than they pay in taxes
because of the EIA, and most states anti poverty tax credits.
This all assumes we are talking about poor people who actually have
jobs and some income, as the "real" poor people live on food stamps,
section 8 housing, and General Welfare Assistance, SS, SSI, etc.
and so obviously don't pay any income taxes, zero.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Middle Class
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 09:11pm PT
|
Tax distribution
Tax concentration coefficient (a variant of the Gini coefficient) is a measure of tax inequality. The higher the number, the more progressive the tax.
As of 2007, there are about 138 million taxpayers in the United States.[5] The Treasury Department in 2006 reported, based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, the share of federal income taxes paid by taxpayers of various income levels. The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes - the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).[6][7] If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).[8]
wiki
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 09:15pm PT
|
No, it's the middle classes who pay most income (and other) taxes. People between the 10th and 90th percentiles.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 09:16pm PT
|
Skip, did you see my post & question to you at the end of the last 'page'?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 09:34pm PT
|
Just wondering what you would prefer to see replace Medicare & SS, as opposed to the 'Ponzi Scheme' you believe exists currently under the gov't.
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 09:56pm PT
|
On the surface, American tax policy is designed to appear progressive. In reality it is not. The people who come off worst are the 9 to 5 working stiffs. As anyone who has owned their own business knows, there is a smorgesboard of perfectly legitimate ways to shelter income.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 11:42pm PT
|
fascinating.
|
|
rotten johnny
Social climber
mammoth lakes, ca
|
|
Dec 31, 2009 - 11:48pm PT
|
that pussy will get carpet burns!
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Happy New Year to all my fellow ST politards!
May we all have a prosperous and politically charged new year!
signed, apogee
(LongHairedSocialistCommieLeftyPinkoHippy)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Just got back and read to catch up. The drift is impressive. Now we're really onto Medi"care" and SS.
I find it downright hilarious to see proponents of nationalized health care talking up the merits of, and defending, SS as an exemplar of a good "social program!" If this is (and it IS) an example of a government-run "social program," then we have all the evidence we citizens should EVER need to run screaming from ANY form of government-run nationalized health care!
Apogee wrote: "Medicare & SS are not 'wealth redistribution'- they are social programs that the citizens support, and the leadership created."
What does "support" mean here? "Support" in the sense that we keep paying into the program? Well, that's because we are FORCED to. Not much of a positive point there! I personally know thousands and thousands of people that would quit paying into this thing tomorrow if we weren't FORCED to keep paying into it!
"Support" in the sense that we actually think this nightmare is a good thing? Wow, I'd love to see some hard data on that one. I know NOBODY in my generation or the younger generation that thinks that SS is a good thing! I have even asked the question in my college classes, and NOT ONE of my (thousands and thousands) of students has ever said anything positive about SS. Like me, they all realize that this is a FORCED system that takes money out of our pockets NOW to pay present people and then offer us FAR fewer real dollars later! MOST (like 80+%) of my students express that they are CERTAIN that they will not see one DIME of their money back from this system!
Where is this "support" you are talking about? Well, sure, older folks that are in a position to get their benefits want to see this nightmare continue, at least until they die. Of course they do! But that's hardly "support!"
Apogee continues: "These are functions that most citizens do not have enough personal resources to create entirely for themselves, but by pooling together a modest contribution, those services are possible for the masses."
I'll stick with SS here. What "resources" are you talking about? A "modest contribution" can never amount to more than a modest contribution! This scheme does not multiply wealth! This is not an interest-paying INVESTMENT! This is a sort of twisted anti-savings account into which you are FORCED to pay while knowing you will get a subset of your money back, and THAT in dollars deflated in real value!
This program does nothing but TAKE from me, and much, much later it throws me back a deflated bone for a relatively short period of time and says, "Good boy," as I'm supposed to happily wag my tail and lick Massah's hand.
Give me a gigantic break! I'll take my OWN money in real time, thank you!
And ANYBODY can in principle do much better investing their OWN money towards retirement if they did nothing more than take the same amount that they are forced to pay to SS and put it in a bank instead! If you are talking about the fact that some people lack that level of discipline, or that some make bad investment decisions, so a system like SS is necessary for them, then I say that you've just made my case for me! Because now you are clearly saying that this IS a system that strips money away from the many in order to redistribute it (at deflated value) to the UNWORTHY FEW that would otherwise do even worse on their own. So, again, this is wealth redistribution, and it is another example of FORCING me to pay to protect irresponsible people from the natural consequences of their decisions.
Apogee continues: "Yes, they benefit individuals, and when individuals benefit, societies and countries benefit."
No, sorry, MOST individuals do not enjoy a NET BENEFIT from SS. Our society has NOT benefited from SS. A relative FEW have benefited, but the majority would have done better to just collect a mere 3% compounded interest on their money over the decades. We get paid back fewer total dollars than we paid in, and those dollars are deflated in value. Individuals have not benefited, society has not benefited, and I have no clue what you mean by claiming that "countries benefit."
If SS is not wealth redistribution, then explain how it is that I'll never see all or even most of the money I've already contributed, much less all of that PLUS what I'll pay over the next 20 years, MUCH less what I would have seen to just take all that money and put it in the bank at cd rates during all these years to earn a measly 3% compounded on it!
This is a program that I was signed up for at birth (HOW can I be contractually obligated at birth?), and was stripping money from me before I was even an adult. It's been raping me for about 35 years so far, and I've got about another 20 years of being raped still to come! This program made promises it can't keep, and it keeps changing the rules (as just one example, they keep raising the age at which one can collect "full benefits" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one)).
I'll never see even the "principle" I was FORCED to put into this perpetually bankrupt "investment," and, worse, I NEVER get the chance to escape it. How is SS not the most nefarious Ponzi scheme in human history?
So, the solution? Here it is in three points:
1) KEEP all the present promises made to people that are already drawing benefits. They paid in good faith and are entitled to what was promised to them.
2) Offer current payers the option to quit paying NOW and have their future benefits fixed at whatever rate they would thereby draw when their time would come to draw benefits, given what they have paid in to date. This would be a one-time window to get out with fixed future benefits. Anybody that doesn't get out during the (brief) window has thereby agreed to keep playing under the existing rules, they keep paying under the current model, and they ultimately get paid off at the promised rate when their retirement time comes.
3) Finally, and MOST importantly, NO NEW PAYERS (which would have later become beneficiaries) get joined to the system. Thus, the system has a fixed end point, and therefore a determined worst-case ultimate pay-out amount.
This is simple and fair, and it will never be done.
If you say that something like this approach would instantly bankrupt the system, then you've made the point that it's a Ponzi scheme. This program doesn't MAKE money; it merely redistributes money, and it does this so inefficiently that MOST people NECESSARILY get less out than they put in.
So, to avoid instantly bankrupting the thing, let's just bite that nomenclature bullet. Let's call this heapum crapum what it really is and acknowledge that we're all going to pay once and for all to put an end to it. We ensure its solvency until it ends, but we will know almost EXACTLY and in advance how much it's going to take to make that happen. So, we allocate the needed amount and then close off the entrance to the tunnel of death!
On this model, the nightmare comes to an end. People that have paid in get what's coming to them under the current rules. And while the government is throwing trillions around, it can throw the sub-trillion it would take to make this social abortion solvent until the plan plays itself out within a single generation.
Anyone who says that the current SS is NOT wealth redistribution (and a failed one at that!) has not looked at MY books (and millions will concur with me on this): I'll NEVER see CLOSE to the value of what I've paid in. SS should be considered a striking empirical example of an economic axiom:
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
So, in the face of what we already KNOW about government-run social programs, we are now going to "multiply by dividing" again for nationalized health care?...
...and the lemmings seek the sea.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
"So Dr. Ken,
Are you saying that you don't have an investment/retirement plan?
Why do you support taking money from the paychecks of poor people and then deny them that which you take advantage of?
Skip
No, Skip, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if we followed your prescribption to get rid of ss and medicare, with "something", I say, lets look at what your side has proposed for the "something".
I'm reminding you that instead of the paltry return on ss money currently obtained, the entire SS system would have sustained catastrophic losses of principal in the last two years, under the Republican "free enterprise" scheme, and in spite of that, there would have been a huge transfer of money to the same money people on Wall Street that brought the market down.
To deal with your personal question, I would NOT deny anyone the ability to do what I have done. I didn't do it through social security.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|