"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

Oh, now I see. Your argument is with FDR. Ok. Thanks anyway.

It's prolly too complicated for here but I'll try. "Capitalists" buy
machines that allow workers to create more goods that workers and others buy
with their wages creating profit that encourages capitalists to buy machines
.... in a never ending cycle. That's capitalism. However advancing technology
creates ever more efficient machines that need fewer workers to make more
and better goods until, eventually, we can envision machines that make
everything without human labor. This doesn't happen smoothly. An economy
adjusts to one level of technology and enjoys a boom, but then a new level
come and people get laid off and there is a bust until the economy adapt ...
etc. But with every advance, fewer workers are needed to produce goods, so
there are fewer wages to buy these goods and everybody suffers until the new
unemployed find jobs outside the factories (sounding familiar).

Social security was intended to take older people out of the work force to
make room for those who needed jobs the most - the young folks raising
families - yet at the same time give them enough money to buy products and
keep the system working. Similarly, eduction is used to delay kids entering
the work force by keeping them in school longer. My grandmother had learned
math thru Calc 101 when she finished the 8th grade, ready to teach high
school herself. It's no accident that a HS math teacher now needs 9 more
years to qualify.

And who pays for all this? Why the beneficiaries of course: the people with
jobs and the employers making the profits.

That's great, so long as the employers and workers far outnumber the school
kids and retirees but that ratio has been steadily shrinking. So far the
gummymint has kept it working by bandaids but those won't last forever and
encouraging geezers to work longer defeats the very purpose of social
security - to get us out of the workforce to make room for the young.

Now, the end looms. What to do when somebody invents factories that make
everything without any workers, 'cuz without workers there's no real wages
and without wages there's no sales and without sales there's no profits and
capitalism collapses! Yes, that's oversimplistic, but we do need to think
about alternative ways to finance these factories and distribute goods.
Communism was to be one answer. It has proven a sorry one not only in terms
of the kinds of government it yielded but in the poor quality and
distribution of goods it provided. So, y'all young-un's out there otto
start thinking about the big picture, not just Social Security.

That's obviously beyond our current president ....

Dave wrote:
$2,500 saved each year isn't going to go very far toward retirement.

True, but it's a heck of a lot better than nothing.



Larger employer have a dizzying variety of plan types

True, but that's not a personal concern of mine & I don't know much
about it.

.... including those
providing matching contributions in company stock (very bad policy as it
increases the employee's risk of losing both a good chunk of his pension and
his matching contributions if the employer fails).

Well, it can be good or bad, depending. It's always better for the
company than handing out cash; and one might assume that the employees
also benefit in the long run from the company's increased profitability
& stability. OTOH it also adds another possibility for corporate
skulduggery & kleptocracy.


... The cost of jumping
through the tax hoops for these plans is major league, and they are all
circumscribed by complex rules designed to insure that the people who could
save a lot under them won't be able to. In short, the system is nuts.

Agreed. We need Congress to scrap all tax laws, and add an amendment to
the Constitution that all tax laws shall henceforth be limited to what
can be printed in large type on an index card.

DSK

So you like FDR? What dumb things did he do?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 21 Oct 2004 18:08:42 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

So, another FDR hater. Wow, that's a shocker.

Hardly. FDR did some great things. He also did some dumb things. I'm
simply
pointing out that invoking the name of a father-figure is a poor
substitute
for clear-headed thinking.

Well, it's not bad... $2500 each year for 40 years at 5% is $340K approx.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:21:54 -0400, DSK said:
??? AFAIK everybody can save the same amount, $2500 (or did it go up
again already?).

$2,500 saved each year isn't going to go very far toward retirement.
However, the universe of tax deferred retirement savings is considerably
broader and more diverse than that. For example, a self-employed person
with
no employees could save up to 25% of his income through a combination of a
10% money purchase plan and a 15% profit-sharing plan. The percentage
could
go higher if he's older and sets up a target benefit plan. Add an employee
or two, however, and the numbers go down significantly and you need a
lawyer
and an accountant to sort it out.

Larger employer have a dizzying variety of plan types, including those
providing matching contributions in company stock (very bad policy as it
increases the employee's risk of losing both a good chunk of his pension
and
his matching contributions if the employer fails). The cost of jumping
through the tax hoops for these plans is major league, and they are all
circumscribed by complex rules designed to insure that the people who
could
save a lot under them won't be able to. In short, the system is nuts.

If only those darn old people didn't get Alzheimer's and need
professional care... or any of those other geriatric conditions
requiring care that the average person cannot provide. If only people
didn't live so darn long... that'd help the Social Security problem too.

How dare poor and middle-class people live past 65! What gall! Too bad
there isn't a centralized area or state where poor old people live, we
could invade and end this threat!

Hey, careful. I'm getting mighty close to point where I'll be part of the
problem.

Yes. those are valid concerns. But part of the problem is that we've
allowed
programs designed to care for those who truly can't afford care to become
a
universal entitlement available even to a Donald Trump, provided he pays a
lawyer to get the folks' money into his hands three years before he dumps
the folks into the nursing home. The system's sick.

That's it? For four terms, that's all there is?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:37:15 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

So you like FDR? What dumb things did he do?

Trying to pack the Court, further distortions of an economy already
distorted by price controls by exempting pension plans from the controls,
the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the NRA, for starters.

See also http://www.americasfuture.org/viewBr...h.cfm?pubid=18

Well, that's certainly a good question, but it's still going to be a
significant value,
and that's at only 5%.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:41:14 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Well, it's not bad... $2500 each year for 40 years at 5% is $340K approx.

And what's $340K going to be worth in today's dollars 40 years from now?

Wow, for starters? Did you bury the lead?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Ya gotta read, Jonathan. See the last two words of the paragraph.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:00:29 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

That's it? For four terms, that's all there is?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:37:15 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

So you like FDR? What dumb things did he do?

Trying to pack the Court, further distortions of an economy already
distorted by price controls by exempting pension plans from the
controls,
the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the NRA, for starters.

OzOne wrote in message

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:41:55 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

That's news to me. The company is Aventis, or something like that, and
it's
French-owned, to my knowledge.

So what's the problem, aren't all 'patriots' boycotting all things
French?

Perhaps so, but I've been buying some mighty fine French wines for pennies
on the dollar. Some wine stores can't give 'em away.

Lets see how strong their conviction is as winter approaches!

The whole flu shot biz is a scam. The attenuated strains used each year are
those from the previous year. Each year shows generally a new and quite
different strain, serologically.

The biggest fear that the serum manufacturers have is that we'll actually
discover there really is no need for flu shots, ie--that the same number of
folks perish from influenza with or without the shot.

Max

I strongly suggest you don't get yours, even if you're in the high risk
group.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

OzOne wrote in message

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:41:55 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

That's news to me. The company is Aventis, or something like that, and
it's
French-owned, to my knowledge.

So what's the problem, aren't all 'patriots' boycotting all things
French?

Perhaps so, but I've been buying some mighty fine French wines for pennies
on the dollar. Some wine stores can't give 'em away.

Lets see how strong their conviction is as winter approaches!

The whole flu shot biz is a scam. The attenuated strains used each year
are
those from the previous year. Each year shows generally a new and quite
different strain, serologically.

The biggest fear that the serum manufacturers have is that we'll actually
discover there really is no need for flu shots, ie--that the same number
of
folks perish from influenza with or without the shot.

Max

we get Bill again for free,

And the "Oval Office" is again the "Oral Office' Ho Boy.

Ole Thom