Well, you do make a good point there, though in terms of economic effect it is but a minor influence on the issues you cited.
Our period of greatest economic expansion, and greatest expansion of home ownership, occurred in the 1950s, after WWII. The pent up economic demand after the dislocations of the war years combined with many other factors including; the manufacturing and economic primacy of the United States in a world devastated by war; the social mobility created by the mobilization of millions of young men into the military and their subsequent mass reentry into civilian life after the war and the attendant mass creation of millions of new families, all in need of homes; government programs such as the GI Bill and Vetran's benefits which included mortgage guarantees; - all combined to create explosions in economic growth and home ownership that have not been matched since.
Social Security probably did contribute indirectly to it as you said. However, it seems clear that, even without it, the expansion would have proceeded in the same way.
georgeob1 wrote:Well, you do make a good point there, though in terms of economic effect it is but a minor influence on the issues you cited.
Our period of greatest economic expansion, and greatest expansion of home ownership, occurred in the 1950s, after WWII. The pent up economic demand after the dislocations of the war years combined with many other factors including; the manufacturing and economic primacy of the United States in a world devastated by war; the social mobility created by the mobilization of millions of young men into the military and their subsequent mass reentry into civilian life after the war and the attendant mass creation of millions of new families, all in need of homes; government programs such as the GI Bill and Vetran's benefits which included mortgage guarantees; - all combined to create explosions in economic growth and home ownership that have not been matched since.
Social Security probably did contribute indirectly to it as you said. However, it seems clear that, even without it, the expansion would have proceeded in the same way.
In the same way, but with a much greater drag upon those same youth who were creating those families. If you have to stay home to take care of Mom and Dad, you don't go buy a new home. This is the model in pretty much the rest of the known world, where single-generation housing was quite rare.
Heck, it's helping me out, and my brothers; it is allowing us to focus on improving our lives and social situations without having to worry about the financial security of our parents. I have a hard time believing that I would be enjoying my current status in life if that were not the case. Multiply that by about 100 million people and you can see what a liberating effect it has on the lives of the younger generations.
Cycloptichorn
I'll concede your point there. (hard for me to do ... but I did it !). However, by the same logic you should also favor the Republican position with regard to reducing the inheritance tax -- a powerful incentive for the creation of stable families that can accumulate some wealth over generations, and a way to prevent the forced sale or dismemberment of small family business on the death of a parent.
georgeob1 wrote:I'll concede your point there. (hard for me to do ... but I did it !). However, by the same logic you should also favor the Republican position with regard to reducing the inheritance tax -- a powerful incentive for the creation of stable families that can accumulate some wealth over generations, and a way to prevent the forced sale or dismemberment of small family business on the death of a parent.
I'm pretty sure that the 'break up farm/business' aspect of the inheritance tax accounts for less then 1% or so of cases in which it applies, so I'm not sure that should be the basis for our policy in that area.
I am open to the idea of reducing/changing the inheritance tax; though it seems as if the other side of the argument (present company happily excepted) generally focuses on removing it altogether, a position which I do not agree with.
I think it would be fair to say that these taxes have both positive and negative effects upon our society, and that it is not always easy to see which one is more prevalent. Therefore incremental change in any direction is the preferred course of action, over drastic changes, such as eliminating the taxes altogether.
Cheers
Cycloptichorn
There are provisions in the Code that protect small farms and business relative the inheritance tax. The estate would have to be quite large before the tax kicks in.
Absent the tax, there would be even more concentration of wealth and income than now exists in our plutocratic system. But conservatives seem to like to suck up to the super rich.
Loss of farms several decades ago had very little to do with inheritance tax; the small farmers couldn't compete with the big conglomerates on price. The cost of farm equipment was prohibitive for many small farmers, and when they had several bad years of draught or over-supply of corn/wheat or what have you, they went broke.
The Best Thing Not to Have Happened During the Bush Administration
With the stock market sinking and no end to our current economic woes in sight, aren't we glad we didn't privatize Social Security?
Robert B. Reich | April 29, 2008 | web only
The best thing not to have happened during the Bush administration is that we did not privatize Social Security, as Bush wanted.
Had we done so, baby boomers facing retirement over the next few years would be even worse off than they are now. Now they're struggling with pension plans worth less than they counted on, and home values that are tanking.
At least they can rely on a monthly Social Security check.
But if we had privatized, prospective retirees would be totally reliant on the stock market. And look what's happened to the market. Comparing stock values now to what they were ten years ago adjusted for inflation, the S&P 500 has risen a little over 1 percent a year. Treasury bonds have done better. Go back nine years, and there's been no gain at all. Go back eight years and market has been off an average of 1.4 percent a year.
Yes, I know, it's been a rough time. First the tech bubble bursting, then 9/11, then Enron, then the housing bubble bursting, then the credit crunch. But that's my point. We can't necessarily rely on the stock market.
And anyone who thinks the market will shortly regain all the ground it's lost has been drinking Wall Street cool-aid. The Fed can only do so much. It's reluctant to cut rates much further because of inflationary forces. Meanwhile, the stimulus package is far too little. A few hundred dollars won't cause consumers to buy more. They're paying far more for fuel and food and health insurance, their paychecks are shrinking, they're deep in debt, and their home values are sinking. Consumer confidence is plummeting.
So imagine if boomer retirees didn't have Social Security.
Sure, the stock market has done well over the past half century. But there have been decades like the 1970s and this one so far, where it's been a disaster. That's why we have Social Security -- so that if your timing is bad and you get caught in a downdraft, you still have something to fall back on in retirement. If we had privatized, you'd have nothing to fall back on. You'd crash.
Cycloptichorn wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Well, you do make a good point there, though in terms of economic effect it is but a minor influence on the issues you cited.
Our period of greatest economic expansion, and greatest expansion of home ownership, occurred in the 1950s, after WWII. The pent up economic demand after the dislocations of the war years combined with many other factors including; the manufacturing and economic primacy of the United States in a world devastated by war; the social mobility created by the mobilization of millions of young men into the military and their subsequent mass reentry into civilian life after the war and the attendant mass creation of millions of new families, all in need of homes; government programs such as the GI Bill and Vetran's benefits which included mortgage guarantees; - all combined to create explosions in economic growth and home ownership that have not been matched since.
Social Security probably did contribute indirectly to it as you said. However, it seems clear that, even without it, the expansion would have proceeded in the same way.
In the same way, but with a much greater drag upon those same youth who were creating those families. If you have to stay home to take care of Mom and Dad, you don't go buy a new home. This is the model in pretty much the rest of the known world, where single-generation housing was quite rare.
Heck, it's helping me out, and my brothers; it is allowing us to focus on improving our lives and social situations without having to worry about the financial security of our parents. I have a hard time believing that I would be enjoying my current status in life if that were not the case. Multiply that by about 100 million people and you can see what a liberating effect it has on the lives of the younger generations.
Cycloptichorn
You forget the 12% of earnings for every working person in this country that has been siphoned off into a fund that has in turn been confiscated by the government and spent, while paying a measly and non-competitive interest rate. If those same dollars had been left in the hands of the people to invest and grow, how many more trillions would those same people have today in their retirement years? Just asking a question.
cicerone imposter wrote:Loss of farms several decades ago had very little to do with inheritance tax; the small farmers couldn't compete with the big conglomerates on price. The cost of farm equipment was prohibitive for many small farmers, and when they had several bad years of draught or over-supply of corn/wheat or what have you, they went broke.
Fairly correct, ci. Its economy of scale, which applies to farming as it has to virtually every other industry. Get bigger or die. However, thanks to oil and gas, the farms of this country are not as consolidated into big business as they would have been.
Perhaps the economy is not as bad as portrayed, which is not a surprise to me. The media tends to take a little bad news and run it to the extreme.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353506,00.html
okie wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Well, you do make a good point there, though in terms of economic effect it is but a minor influence on the issues you cited.
Our period of greatest economic expansion, and greatest expansion of home ownership, occurred in the 1950s, after WWII. The pent up economic demand after the dislocations of the war years combined with many other factors including; the manufacturing and economic primacy of the United States in a world devastated by war; the social mobility created by the mobilization of millions of young men into the military and their subsequent mass reentry into civilian life after the war and the attendant mass creation of millions of new families, all in need of homes; government programs such as the GI Bill and Vetran's benefits which included mortgage guarantees; - all combined to create explosions in economic growth and home ownership that have not been matched since.
Social Security probably did contribute indirectly to it as you said. However, it seems clear that, even without it, the expansion would have proceeded in the same way.
In the same way, but with a much greater drag upon those same youth who were creating those families. If you have to stay home to take care of Mom and Dad, you don't go buy a new home. This is the model in pretty much the rest of the known world, where single-generation housing was quite rare.
Heck, it's helping me out, and my brothers; it is allowing us to focus on improving our lives and social situations without having to worry about the financial security of our parents. I have a hard time believing that I would be enjoying my current status in life if that were not the case. Multiply that by about 100 million people and you can see what a liberating effect it has on the lives of the younger generations.
Cycloptichorn
You forget the 12% of earnings for every working person in this country that has been siphoned off into a fund that has in turn been confiscated by the government and spent, while paying a measly and non-competitive interest rate. If those same dollars had been left in the hands of the people to invest and grow, how many more trillions would those same people have today in their retirement years? Just asking a question.
No, I didn't forget that 12%.
You seem to think that people invest wisely; on average, the truth is that they do not. Now, you can say what you wish about this, but the fact is that the people remain whether the investments appreciate or not.
Or injury; or loss of job; or death of major bread-winner in family; or disaster. SS sticks around, investments can go up or down and are fleeting in nature.
As many lose money, when investing themselves, as make it. That's not how SS is supposed to work.
Cycloptichorn
so okie, just what do you have in your investment portfolio?
To begin with, alot of money has been given to Social Security, that if it had been invested instead, it would probably provide a far higher retirement check, dys. My point about Social Security is that if a company retirement fund had been managed like it has been, the managers would be fired a long time ago for mismanagement, or worse, fraud.
And cyclops, I understand your point, the people are so used to being taken care of, they will now spend every dime of every paycheck, so I understand that Social Security is a forced retirement insurance fund, whereby the government confiscates the money and mismanages it for all the citizens in this country. So the people receive a base of income from it, but it could have been a whole lot better if people would have saved it themselves, or if the government would be managing the money properly.
P.S. In regard to your question, dys, I am not independantly wealthy as you might be, but I am not starving, not bad for starting with nothing, and paying for every dime that it cost to go to college, etc.
Okie you just posted a MAJOR error, social security is not a retirement fund it is "Social Security" if you want a retirement fund, start investing in such.
I have, dys, but the point is that a large majority of people consider it their retirement fund, and if anyone threatens the program, the Democrats always accuse the Republicans of destroying the peoples retirement. So you need to tell your favorite politicians to inform the people.
okie wrote:To begin with, alot of money has been given to Social Security, that if it had been invested instead, it would probably provide a far higher retirement check, dys. My point about Social Security is that if a company retirement fund had been managed like it has been, the managers would be fired a long time ago for mismanagement, or worse, fraud.
And cyclops, I understand your point, the people are so used to being taken care of, they will now spend every dime of every paycheck, so I understand that Social Security is a forced retirement insurance fund, whereby the government confiscates the money and mismanages it for all the citizens in this country. So the people receive a base of income from it, but it could have been a whole lot better if people would have saved it themselves, or if the government would be managing the money properly.
P.S. In regard to your question, dys, I am not independantly wealthy as you might be, but I am not starving, not bad for starting with nothing, and paying for every dime that it cost to go to college, etc.
In fact, Social Security is not mismanaged in the slightest. The fund has continued to turn a profit for pretty much the entirety of it's history. Very few other investments can say that.
It isn't intended to get the highest returns; it's intended to get GUARANTEED returns. You don't seem to grasp that people many times fall prey to problems or ill fortune, which can wipe out the biggest and best-managed portfolios. It isn't about being 'used to being taken care of.' It's about knowing that you aren't going to starve, no matter what.
And it's about helping others eat as well. The shared nature of the fund is important to understanding the whole point of SS.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:
In fact, Social Security is not mismanaged in the slightest. The fund has continued to turn a profit for pretty much the entirety of it's history. Very few other investments can say that.
Cycloptichorn
If I understand it correctly, the fund is broke because the money has been diverted into other government spending. There is no money in the fund, so it is entirely dependant upon the future payments into the fund by future wage earnings. I guess you can argue that if the money was invested into a bank, that money would also be loaned out and is being used, however there is at least in that case some kind of litmus test or collateral. And the interest rate paid on the money borrowed from social security is pretty dismal, cyclops. I think it is a well established fact that if the same money had been invested privately, such as in the stock market from its inception, there would be untold additional trillions more than we have now. So I think it has been mismanaged, and it is very much like a Ponzi scheme, which I think is illegal if a private citizen does it.
okie wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
In fact, Social Security is not mismanaged in the slightest. The fund has continued to turn a profit for pretty much the entirety of it's history. Very few other investments can say that.
Cycloptichorn
If I understand it correctly, the fund is broke because the money has been diverted into other government spending. There is no money in the fund, so it is entirely dependant upon the future payments into the fund by future wage earnings. I guess you can argue that if the money was invested into a bank, that money would also be loaned out and is being used, however there is at least in that case some kind of litmus test or collateral. And the interest rate paid on the money borrowed from social security is pretty dismal, cyclops. I think it is a well established fact that if the same money had been invested privately, such as in the stock market from its inception, there would be untold additional trillions more than we have now. So I think it has been mismanaged, and it is very much like a Ponzi scheme, which I think is illegal if a private citizen does it.
I challenge your assertion that SS monies would be greater if privately invested. I don't believe you have any evidence to back up that position; and what more, you are completely ignoring the fact that many investments
lose money. SS does not lose money, even if the growth rate is smaller then other investments.
The fact that our governments have been stealing money from SS to help make the deficit look smaller has nothing at all to do with the SS program; it is merely a trick of accounting. There IS money in the fund; in the form of gov't loans, which will have to be paid off by other parts of the US gov't sooner or later.
Cycloptichorn
okie wrote:I have, dys, but the point is that a large majority of people consider it their retirement fund, and if anyone threatens the program, the Democrats always accuse the Republicans of destroying the peoples retirement. So you need to tell your favorite politicians to inform the people.
Well, for the sake of discussion, let's say Social Security disappears overnight. How do you think that would improve the overall retirement situation?
