A partial good reason to raise taxes: you expect the government will do more of what you want done with the money than you think the people who own the money now will do with it.


But, since the money is not just free floating to be directed to either the people or the government, you have to decide if what you want done with the money is an aim that justifies taking the money from the people.

The alternative in the good old days was that you had to support your parents and your in-laws. They probably lived in your house. And you paid the doctor when they needed help.

All of the people who whine about SS would be tearing their hair out of they lived with their inlaws and had to pay for dialysis for 20 years or multiple bypass operations. And then the alzheimers years hit.

A ponzi scheme is supposed to make you rich and it doesn't work.

Social Security is an insurance program that makes sure you aren't poor. And it does work. Always has. Without it, 40% of senior citizens would be living in poverty. 40% in the world's wealthiest nation.

There is still room for improvement, of course. Nothing's perfect. But to do away with it would be amoral IMO.

Anonymous wrote:

The private sector has Bernie Madoff. The government has Social Security. Both are Ponzi schemes, as even Krugman admitted. Which is worse?

No, Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme, that's just right-wing ranting, and Krugman never admitted anything of the kind. If you think you don't like government, maybe you should read the news from Somalia. Places with ineffective government are not good for children and families.

takoma wrote:Ponzi or not?

A Ponzi scheme uses new investors to pay off the old ones, and if there is to be profit, the number of investors must rise exponentially, which is obviously unsustainable.

Social Security has the similarity that money from today's workers is used to pay today's retirees. But just as in families where some members support others, this is sustainable if there are enough earners compared to the non-earners.

So the issue is how many retirees can be supported at what level, and not one of Ponzi unsustainability.

I just heard an expert from the Heritage Foundation dismiss that comparison as ridiculous. How fringe are the Rep candidates going to get?

Ponzi or not?

A Ponzi scheme uses new investors to pay off the old ones, and if there is to be profit, the number of investors must rise exponentially, which is obviously unsustainable.

Social Security has the similarity that money from today's workers is used to pay today's retirees. But just as in families where some members support others, this is sustainable if there are enough earners compared to the non-earners.

So the issue is how many retirees can be supported at what level, and not one of Ponzi unsustainability.

Anonymous wrote:Government takes your money by coercion, and politicians give that money away to curry favor and get re-elected. Its done in the light of day. Its all considered legal. No one goes to jail.

Private companies which commit fraud are punished when caught.

The private sector has Bernie Madoff. The government has Social Security. Both are Ponzi schemes, as even Krugman admitted. Which is worse?

Your citizenship and residency is entirely optional. If you know of a country that espouses your values, by all means please let us know what it is. If you can't find one among your 196 choices, then I guess you will have to admit that you actually want some of what this government gives you in exchange for your money.

As for your statement that social security is a ponzi scheme, I guess there is a candidate for you. Hope you like his immigration policy.

Government takes your money by coercion, and politicians give that money away to curry favor and get re-elected. Its done in the light of day. Its all considered legal. No one goes to jail.

Private companies which commit fraud are punished when caught.

The private sector has Bernie Madoff. The government has Social Security. Both are Ponzi schemes, as even Krugman admitted. Which is worse?

Anonymous wrote:And now I will patiently await the free market to correct these abuses on its own. Because that's what smart people do. Wait for self-correcting market mechanisms to kick in. Rock on, hidden hand.

As Alan Greenspan will (finally) tell you, it will always work perfectly, until it doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Wall Street's answer:

http://www.finra.org/Industry/Enforcement/DisciplinaryActions/MonthlyActions/2011/

http://www.aboutbrokerfraud.com/2007/07/largest-settlem.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandal

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/00/100900.asp#axzz1ZJIKDcct

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/02/140155542/federal-government-sues-big-banks-over-risky-mortgage-securities

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/405/inside-job

And of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

YOu are an idiot. You are confusing the government stealing my money with a private individual stealing my money. That's the problem with socialists they forget that there IS a difference between the government and the private sector.

I'm sorry you must have confused me with someone who thinks that stealing is acceptable anywhere. I merely pointed out that ripoff artists exist wherever your money is kept. But as long as we are making comparisons, I bet your retirement savings weren't wiped out by this government employee. I'd like you to tell the Madoff victims that his crime was less important because he is a private individual.

And now I will patiently await the free market to correct these abuses on its own. Because that's what smart people do. Wait for self-correcting market mechanisms to kick in. Rock on, hidden hand.

Anonymous wrote:YOu are an idiot. You are confusing the government stealing my money with a private individual stealing my money. That's the problem with socialists they forget that there IS a difference between the government and the private sector.

PP made a valid point that wherever there are people, there will be scams. There may be a valid response, but calling PP an idiot and a socialist is a rant, not a response.

Anonymous wrote:And Wall Street's answer:

http://www.finra.org/Industry/Enforcement/DisciplinaryActions/MonthlyActions/2011/

http://www.aboutbrokerfraud.com/2007/07/largest-settlem.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandal

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/00/100900.asp#axzz1ZJIKDcct

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/02/140155542/federal-government-sues-big-banks-over-risky-mortgage-securities

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/405/inside-job

And of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

YOu are an idiot. You are confusing the government stealing my money with a private individual stealing my money. That's the problem with socialists they forget that there IS a difference between the government and the private sector.

Raise taxes to support the local economy! We obviously need more money out here in the DC suburbs...

Unemployment in the suburbs of DC is 4% while in the rest of the country it is over 9%. The three wealthiest counties in the US are the City of Falls Church, Loudoun and Fairfax.

And Wall Street's answer:

http://www.finra.org/Industry/Enforcement/DisciplinaryActions/MonthlyActions/2011/

http://www.aboutbrokerfraud.com/2007/07/largest-settlem.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandal

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/00/100900.asp#axzz1ZJIKDcct

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/02/140155542/federal-government-sues-big-banks-over-risky-mortgage-securities

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/405/inside-job

And of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/dc/dc-employee-accused-of-stealing-400000-from-tax-office-092811

The government is so very efficient with spending.