Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth.



Kubez wrote:
Wrong. An exchange is just that: I trade my money for something I value
or need, whether it's a steak or a DVD.

Well, if it did not redistribute the wealth in some degree, then profit
would be impossible.

I realize that this is a difficult concept for one who thinks 'Economics
In One Lesson' is the pinnacle of knowledge, but think about it a while,
let it percolate.


... Redistribution means that my
money is taken from me and nothing given in return

Really? In that case, Social Security is NOT redistribution, because
something is very definitely given in return.

... and the money is then
given to someone else without them deserve it by providing a good or
service.

Really? Other people who have paid into Social Security should not be
given benefits? That means your concept is basically to steal money from
those who have already paid.


If you tried working for free for a couple of months, you might understand
what we've been talking about.

If you tried to actually understand some basic economic principles,
instead of deciding you already know everything, maybe you wouldn't
sound like a nutcase.

DSK

John H wrote:
You are almost totally correct. The public does not 'like' the plan because
they've been fed a bunch of crap by a bunch of 'progressives'.


Really? You mean President Bush is now a 'progressive'? He seems to have
done by far the most talking about his plan, and he has certainly been
less than truthful (as I have already proved to the previous contestants).

And now for a treat (this one took me by surprise)-

The plan the government gets now is called the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)
allows government employees to contribute, but the money is not reduced from
their FICA. If the employees are under the old Civil Service Retirement System
they don't pay FICA, but they can't draw Social Security. Under the Federal
Employees Retirement System, the new plan, they do pay in to Social Security.
But, they don't get a reduction in FICA for money paid to the TSP. On the other
hand, FERS employees get a matching contribution (like a 401K) up to some small
percent of their pay.

DING DING DING we have a winner! Excellent post, John H, thanks for your
clear & accurate explanation!

DSK

... Redistribution means that my
money is taken from me and nothing given in return

Really? In that case, Social Security is NOT redistribution, because
something is very definitely given in return.


Kubez wrote:
I don't consider generational warfare, fiscal shell games at the national
level and loss of the control of my own destiny to be "something given in
return".


How about if they give you MONEY in return? You know, that green stuff?



... and the money is then
given to someone else without them deserve it by providing a good or
service.

Really? Other people who have paid into Social Security should not be
given benefits? That means your concept is basically to steal money
from those who have already paid.


Paid what? Taxes? You think the government is just going to give people
TAX MONEY BACK?

News flash, Cubey, they DO give money back. You say so yourself.

Political & economic theories should be based on observed fact. If you
are just spinning out fantasy, go talk to some of the other
dwellers-on-distant-planets here in this newsgroup. I'm not interested.

DSK

How about if they give you MONEY in return? You know, that green
stuff?


Kubez wrote:
1. Trading money for money illustrates the absurdity of SS.


Really? That's what banks do all day long. Maybe you should tell them
they're being absurd... or does your political agenda include wiping out
banks?


2. 30 years later? What was that MLK said about delayed=denied?


He was talking about social justice, and it had already been denied 30
years & more. Can we stick to one subject at a time?

3. If you die the day after you retire, you DON'T get ANY money.


True. But if you live to be 100, you collect a lot more than you paid
in, more than you'd have if you invested that same money wisely... looks
like Social Security gives you incentive to keep up your health & live
long... is this a bad thing IYHO?


4. I can do a damn better job of managing that money from today 'til the
day I retire than the politicians can.


Maybe, maybe not. I'd agree that it should be your right to do so
(pretending you haven't made a lot of silly & stupid statements about
shooting people). But that's not the way things work in the here &
now... do you want to join reality?

DSK

1. Trading money for money illustrates the absurdity of SS.


Really? That's what banks do all day long.


Kubez wrote:
That's right... without waiting 30 years for repayment or risking losing
it all if one of their shareholders dies.

Huh?

Never heard of a 30 year mortgage? Did they not mention that in
'Economics in 1 Lesson"?




3. If you die the day after you retire, you DON'T get ANY money.


True. But if you live to be 100, you collect a lot more than you paid
in, more than you'd have if you invested that same money wisely...


Proven incontestably wrong by every study conducted.

Really? How about a few references on that? Or can you truly not find
your way back to the real world?

And what if you retire the day after a stock market crash?


looks like Social Security gives you incentive to keep up your health
& live long... is this a bad thing IYHO?


Yeah, that's why obesity and heart disease rates have risen at the same
rate as Social Security taxes.

Are you suggesting that the two are related?


Damn, you're stupid.


I'm not the one saying so many ridiculous things, talking about shooting
gov't officials, eradicating standard banking practices, woefully
ignorant of basic economics, etc etc.

Are you related to JAXAshby?

DSK

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:59:08 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
You are almost totally correct. The public does not 'like' the plan because
they've been fed a bunch of crap by a bunch of 'progressives'.


Really? You mean President Bush is now a 'progressive'? He seems to have
done by far the most talking about his plan, and he has certainly been
less than truthful (as I have already proved to the previous contestants).

And now for a treat (this one took me by surprise)-

The plan the government gets now is called the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)
allows government employees to contribute, but the money is not reduced from
their FICA. If the employees are under the old Civil Service Retirement System
they don't pay FICA, but they can't draw Social Security. Under the Federal
Employees Retirement System, the new plan, they do pay in to Social Security.
But, they don't get a reduction in FICA for money paid to the TSP. On the other
hand, FERS employees get a matching contribution (like a 401K) up to some small
percent of their pay.

DING DING DING we have a winner! Excellent post, John H, thanks for your
clear & accurate explanation!

DSK

And I wasn't even being a wise ass.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"DSK" wrote in message
...
1. Trading money for money illustrates the absurdity of SS.


Really? That's what banks do all day long.


Kubez wrote:
That's right... without waiting 30 years for repayment or risking losing
it all if one of their shareholders dies.

Huh?

Never heard of a 30 year mortgage? Did they not mention that in 'Economics
in 1 Lesson"?




3. If you die the day after you retire, you DON'T get ANY money.


True. But if you live to be 100, you collect a lot more than you paid in,
more than you'd have if you invested that same money wisely...


Proven incontestably wrong by every study conducted.

Really? How about a few references on that? Or can you truly not find your
way back to the real world?

And what if you retire the day after a stock market crash?


looks like Social Security gives you incentive to keep up your health
& live long... is this a bad thing IYHO?


Yeah, that's why obesity and heart disease rates have risen at the same
rate as Social Security taxes.

Are you suggesting that the two are related?


Damn, you're stupid.


I'm not the one saying so many ridiculous things, talking about shooting
gov't officials, eradicating standard banking practices, woefully ignorant
of basic economics, etc etc.

Are you related to JAXAshby?

DSK


What about that 10-20% down?

John H wrote:
And I wasn't even being a wise ass.

I wasn't either. Your explanation of the Thrift Savings Plan was
excellent... clearly worded & accurate. Well done.

Regards
Doug King

Bill McKee wrote:
What about that 10-20% down?


On what?

DSK

You cut the 30 year home loan. The bank does not worry about you paying.
They have inflation and points and at least 10% up front.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
What about that 10-20% down?

On what?

DSK