What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

@Foxfyre,

Correction of previous post:

The first sentence of the second paragraph should read: ". . . .provide some disability and survivor benefits, something the system wa snever originally designed to provide. . . . "

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is akin to trying to break even on insurance premiums; it's not the point.

Amazing to me how 'me-centered' so many of you Republicans are... everything in terms of how you're not gettin' yours, because of the evil government.

Cycloptichorn

If so, it is a very poor insurance policy - not one I would voluntarily buy.

Your subjective, and rather whining, judgements were unwarranted. I haven't (and didn't) complain about the result. I was, instead, correcting the misinformation Cicerone had published earlier. You should note that, unlike him, I provided specifics that make the conclusion very easy to understand. These results are what befalls the majority of SS participants.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is akin to trying to break even on insurance premiums; it's not the point.

Amazing to me how 'me-centered' so many of you Republicans are... everything in terms of how you're not gettin' yours, because of the evil government.

Cycloptichorn

If so, it is a very poor insurance policy - not one I would voluntarily buy.

Yeah, it is. It does suck. But it's there, because long experience has told us that two things are true:

1, that a certain percentage of people will experience financial ruin, either through actions which are their fault or through no fault of their own, and

2, that these people don't just wander off and die after said ruin, but instead drag everyone else down. Big time.

SS isn't about you getting a good return on investment personally, it's about society avoiding the problems associated with old age. And it has liberated several generations of Americans from the responsibilities of looking after their elderly parents; it has encouraged our extremely high level of wealth and home-ownership. It isn't about getting a good return on your investment personally. My guess is this is the primary reason you guys are against it.

Quote:

Your subjective, and rather whining, judgments were unwarranted. I haven't (and didn't) complain about the result. I was, instead, correcting the misinformation Cicerone had published earlier. You should note that, unlike him, I provided specifics that make the conclusion very easy to understand. These results are what befalls the majority of SS participants.

Yes, that is what befalls them - and what SHOULD befall them. Sorry if I mistook it as a complaint; you were presenting the result as if it were a bad thing, instead of an extremely positive thing.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, that is what befalls them - and what SHOULD befall them. Sorry if I mistook it as a complaint; you were presenting the result as if it were a bad thing, instead of an extremely positive thing.

Cycloptichorn

I presented the result as it is. You interpreted it as a bad thing all by yourself; then blamed me for that; and finally reconstructed the result to fit your prejudices.

Social Security taxes drag every working person down all his/her working life. The con here is that the employer pays one-half of the tax and folks are thereby persuaded that the cost to them is reduced. In fact the cost (to the employer) is raised by the full amount of the tax paid by both parties - and that limits both employment and compensation proportionally.

I agree that it can be a safety net for unfortunate people or for those who don't plan ahead. I wouldn't say that "liberating" people from the "chore" of looking after the parents who raised them is a particularly valuable net social good.

All things considered; - small good, large cost.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I agree that it can be a safety net for unfortunate people or for those who don't plan ahead. I wouldn't say that "liberating" people from the "chore" of looking after the parents who raised them is a particularly valuable net social good.

All things considered; - small good, large cost.

Oh, I don't know. Do your parents live with you? Did Social Security help them keep their own homes, while you moved on with your life? For millions of Americans, SS has provided a huge economic boost: it has freed them from supporting their parents in their old age.

When you look at all the different ramifications of the policy, I don't think 'small good' adequately describes SS. Not at all. But, we digress from the main topic, so...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I wouldn't say that "liberating" people from the "chore" of looking after the parents who raised them is a particularly valuable net social good.

I would. What does anyone owe their parents Goerge? It's very easy becoming a parent as you no doubt know. You should listen to Dylan sing It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding sometime. Parents owe their kids bigtime.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
This is akin to trying to break even on insurance premiums; it's not the point.

If so, it is a very poor insurance policy - not one I would voluntarily buy.

But isn't that the very basic premise of any insurance company - trying to pay out less than what you're making in insurance premiums? Insurance companies couldn't exist in a free market if nobody wouldn't buy policies unless they were able to break even on them.

Your expectations towards a government-run system seem to be unrealistically high, compared to what you're entirely willing to accept in the free market.

2 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Your expectations towards a government-run system seem to be unrealistically high, compared to what you're entirely willing to accept in the free market.

Oh ! really ?? Even after the recent market debacle my return on accumulated savings & investments is far greater than that on my social security taxes: they're not even close.

If your comparison to the free market is in reference to health care, then I don't think such a comparison (i.e. pensions & savings compared to health insurance) is apt. The two are very different. Our company provides health insurance, however, calling it insurance - at least from the company's perspective - is an illusion. Our premiums are simply our recent claims plus an administration fee. We are in effect, self-insured. So is nearly everyone in this information age.

Perhaps I should apologize for this now extended diversion from the chosen topic of this thread. On the other hand, perhaps I am doing some a favor.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Perhaps I should apologize for this now extended diversion from the chosen topic of this thread. On the other hand, perhaps I am doing some a favor.

Still waiting for your definition of left vs right, as perceived by you in today's world. I think it would be interesting. I don't think we need to define it according to some historical context in another country, as I think the pertinence applies to today, in particular here in the United States, but perhaps also in how it is applied by you around the world today.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie, That's been explained ad nauseam, but you fail to comprehend what's been said already. You're just jerking off on a2k, and you should be ashamed of yourself!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I did not ask you. I asked George.

1 Reply

@okie,

You asked georgeob, but he already answered that question some posts ago. It's not his problem you have a memory problem.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Your expectations towards a government-run system seem to be unrealistically high, compared to what you're entirely willing to accept in the free market.

Oh ! really ?? Even after the recent market debacle my return on accumulated savings & investments is far greater than that on my social security taxes: they're not even close.

With the major difference being, you don't have to worry about losing your SS benefits, period. A variety of different things could go wrong with your savings and investments. This is why it's best to think of SS as insurance... that's what it is there for, a backstop against life and it's unpredictability.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

...........
But isn't that the very basic premise of any insurance company - trying to pay out less than what you're making in insurance premiums? Insurance companies couldn't exist in a free market if nobody wouldn't buy policies unless they were able to break even on them.....

The first part here, a question, can easily be shown to be answerable by "no" by using a continuous-time Markov model with constant forces of transition, which calculates probabilities regardless of the number of states in multistate processes. If you don't know what that means, perhaps you should stay away from pricing insurance products. The second part shows even more fundamental ignorance in assuming that "breakeven" is the optimal outcome for buyers of insurance.

1 Reply

@okie,

Okie - with respect, and while I think I understand your underlying concepts here, sweeping historical generalizations won't always work. I already pointed out to you many pages back that Hitler wasn't exactly a leftist. But you neither was Bismarck, and it was he who passed (late 19th century) a law called "Sozialistengesetz". You can't go by superficial similarities, period.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Perhaps I should apologize for this now extended diversion from the chosen topic of this thread. On the other hand, perhaps I am doing some a favor.

Still waiting for your definition of left vs right, as perceived by you in today's world. I think it would be interesting. I don't think we need to define it according to some historical context in another country, as I think the pertinence applies to today, in particular here in the United States, but perhaps also in how it is applied by you around the world today.

And I'm still waiting for your response to the two coordinate mapping of political/economic systems (i.e. authoritarian - democratic and socialist-capitalist) that I have proposed to you at least three times on this thread.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

The first part here, a question, can easily be shown to be answerable by "no" by using a continuous-time Markov model with constant forces of transition, which calculates probabilities regardless of the number of states in multistate processes.

I'm glad this can be easily shown. Please go ahead and do so. Please elaborate on how the business model of an insurance company works that is not based on the premise that it will pay out less money for claims than it is making money in premiums.

High Seas wrote:

The second part shows even more fundamental ignorance in assuming that "breakeven" is the optimal outcome for buyers of insurance.

That was exactly the point I was making. Here, take it up with georgeob1:

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
This is akin to trying to break even on insurance premiums; it's not the point.

If so, it is a very poor insurance policy - not one I would voluntarily buy.

1 Reply

@old europe,

I'm so glad to see your eagerness to learn the answers to your questions that I hasten to post elementary definitions of terms required for such an explanation. This is a good introduction to what I just wrote >
http://www.soa.org/library/research/transactions-of-society-of-actuaries/1990-95/1994/january/tsa94v469.pdf
> and as soon as you can assure me you have mastered all terms mentioned in it you'll get a complete answer.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas, I'm not sure where you are coming from, but no business can survive without profit - or excess revenue over expenses - for very long.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I'm afraid that doesn't explain your original assertion that an insurance company should pay out more money than it is taking in.

2 Replies

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know