Food Price Riots Popping Up Around The World

[Calliso]

So what if we all pay social security taxes? We don’t get any of our other taxes back. As I think we now all know, there is no “fund” out there. Current taxes pay current beneficiaries, with a bit extra for the Congress to spend on whatever it wants. It’s a tax on current workers to support former workers.

Your objective is to remove any tax incentives to have children by eliminating the child tax deduction. Since peoples’ children (not you) pay for your social security then why should you be subsidized NOT to have children by getting paid by those other peoples’ children when you contributed no workers to the pool of people that pays the tax? If we’re going to get rid of all tax benefits for having children, then fairness dictates that we should get rid of all tax benefits for not having them.

People who do not have sufficient children to, in effect, pay their portion of social security should be grateful for all immigrants, legal and illegal, because they aid in paying your social security. In reality, I suspect that those with few or no children are greater utilizers of the labor of illegals than are those who have a number of children. People with a number of children cannot afford, e.g., domestics nearly as well as the childless can. If illegals take more out of the system, considered as a whole, than they pay in, then that’s another subsidy for childlessness.

Surely you are aware that the subsidies current workers pay for former workers is a ponzi scheme that is unsustainable in the future, aren’t you? How is it supposed to work when each of my grandchildren is expected to support one retired worker, or even two? It’s not right to expect them to do that, but those who advocate population reduction are advocating just that.

I donlt see how I get any benefits for not having children. I certainly donlt get any tax benefits…and social security is something that everyone gets or got at least, not a just for the childfree thing. Besides donlt worry I plan to do what everyone should do and make sure I have enough money to live on when I can;t work anymore. As it is though the days of beng able to officially retire for the average person are more or less over. Your average worker will likely have to work and save up until the day they cannot work anymore. So donlt worry My husband and I will be supporting ourselves you kids wonlt have to do that…
Really though what is the replacement rate of kids and what about those that donlt want or can;t have a large family? Also being that illegal immigrants don;t pay taxes and social security how are they contributing to social security again?

 

[Calliso]

You bet you won’t see more than a fraction of it!

If you make below minimum wage for 40 years – say, $5.00 an hour, you pay 6.5% as the Social Securty share of the Fica tax. That’s $13 a week. Add the “employer’s contribution” (which is your money – you earned it.) and it’s $26 a week.

Invest that in a good mutual fund, and average 11% (which is a standard deviation below average) and at the end of 40 years, you would have about $900,000. (Note that we assume you always make $5.00 an hour – no raises except to match inflation. So we over-compensate for inflation.)

If you annuitize that $900,000 at 5% a year, over 40 years, you’d draw $52,000 a year for the rest of your life – not bad for a guy who never earned as much as $11,000 a year during his working life!!

Yeah you are probably right…heck if I see a dime I will likely have to count myself lucky!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yeah you are probably right…heck if I see a dime I will likely have to count myself lucky!

If we were allowed to keep our Social Security “contributions” and invest them, we’d all be millionaires at retirement.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I donlt see how I get any benefits for not having children. I certainly donlt get any tax benefits…and social security is something that everyone gets or got at least, not a just for the childfree thing. Besides donlt worry I plan to do what everyone should do and make sure I have enough money to live on when I can;t work anymore. As it is though the days of beng able to officially retire for the average person are more or less over. Your average worker will likely have to work and save up until the day they cannot work anymore. So donlt worry My husband and I will be supporting ourselves you kids wonlt have to do that…
Really though what is the replacement rate of kids and what about those that donlt want or can;t have a large family? Also being that illegal immigrants don;t pay taxes and social security how are they contributing to social security again?

Lots of illegals pay social security taxes. They don’t all work for cash as domestics for the well to do. Every illegal I have ever known but one worked for an employer who deducted SS from the worker’s check and paid the employer’s part as well.

I’m not the one who proposed changing tax benefits. You did. You want to eliminate deductions for people who exceed the ZPG goal. I told you I would be fine with that, as long as my children don’t have to pay for your social security. The “Social Security Trust Fund” is a lie. There is no fund. You paid it in for your parents. So who is going to pay it in for you? My children?

I credit you and your husband for being prudent, saving your money, etc. But I bet you won’t turn your social security down. No way you will. You’ll be happy to take the money my children are paying in while you try your best to make it harder than ever for them to do it, because you somehow think it makes you a better person to discourage people from having children. And all the while, you have no reason at all to think the U.S. (which is where you and the deducters and the payers live, after all) is overpopulated, and every reason to think it isn’t. That’s as wrong as wrong gets.

Give up your social security when the time comes, and then you’ll have some credibility. If you don’t, you wont’.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Agreed. It seems that many of these folks seem to be confusing issues of world population with the US population. Just because the birth rate is down in the US doesn’t mean we are in the clear as to overpopulation it just means there are fewer Americans. That means we should be able to allow more immigrants from areas of the world where folks are literally starving to death (this includes infants and the unborn who die due to malnutrition - so you “pro-life” folks should welcome this opportunity to help them). Or maybe non-Americans don’t count. Wouldn’t surprise me since I’ve seen so many posts by folks who seem convinced that God is an American.

No, Swan. Not all “prolifers” oppose immigration. I, for one prolifer, think we don’t allow nearly enough immigration, and not from the right places. If I had my way, immigration would all be on the basis of treaties with countries that are truly friendly to the U.S. We could start with the “coalition of the willing” countries. Also, since the Philippines were once an American colony, I would favor virtually unrestricted immigration from there. I would, however, require them all to take English lessons, paid for by employers. If it was up to me, I would take immigration out of the political realm and put it under control of a subsidiary of the Federal Reserve, an agency that would raise or lower immigration based on the need for workers. No point in them coming if there sometimes aren’t jobs for them.

Since Christians in Islamic countries are all persecuted, they would have a priority similar to that of Filipinos.

Does that work for you?

 

[Calliso]

Lots of illegals pay social security taxes. They don’t all work for cash as domestics for the well to do. Every illegal I have ever known but one worked for an employer who deducted SS from the worker’s check and paid the employer’s part as well.

I’m not the one who proposed changing tax benefits. You did. You want to eliminate deductions for people who exceed the ZPG goal. I told you I would be fine with that, as long as my children don’t have to pay for your social security. The “Social Security Trust Fund” is a lie. There is no fund. You paid it in for your parents. So who is going to pay it in for you? My children?

I credit you and your husband for being prudent, saving your money, etc. But I bet you won’t turn your social security down. No way you will. You’ll be happy to take the money my children are paying in while you try your best to make it harder than ever for them to do it, because you somehow think it makes you a better person to discourage people from having children. And all the while, you have no reason at all to think the U.S. (which is where you and the deducters and the payers live, after all) is overpopulated, and every reason to think it isn’t. That’s as wrong as wrong gets.

Give up your social security when the time comes, and then you’ll have some credibility. If you don’t, you wont’.

Well first of all I while I would support the idea of everyone being taxed the same to be fair…it really isn;t a huge deal to me if we aren;t. I know being how I have been in this thread it doesn;t seem that way…but it is the truth in real life I am not getting that worked up this. Also no your children shouldn;t have to pay for me. Also I probably wonlt be getting much if any social security. My generation will be working until the day we can;t anymore to support ourselves more then likely. Also I am not trying my best to make it harder for your children. I donlt vote or anything so it;s not like I am passing my evil childfree influence around on anything other then messageboards. How am I personally doing that? I have done NOTHING to make your childrens life harder! Also no I donlt think I am a better person because I donlt have children or because everyone once in a bluemoon I suggest that people have less children. But maybe you should ask yourself do you feel superior to those that donlt have kids to can;t have kids? Also I donlt think the USA is overpopulated yet you are right perhaps I shouldn;t be so focused on changing things here as things need to be changed in other countries like the third world countries. I do think that over all though less people helps.

 

[Swan]

No, Swan. Not all “prolifers” oppose immigration. I, for one prolifer, think we don’t allow nearly enough immigration, and not from the right places. If I had my way, immigration would all be on the basis of treaties with countries that are truly friendly to the U.S. We could start with the “coalition of the willing” countries. Also, since the Philippines were once an American colony, I would favor virtually unrestricted immigration from there. I would, however, require them all to take English lessons, paid for by employers. If it was up to me, I would take immigration out of the political realm and put it under control of a subsidiary of the Federal Reserve, an agency that would raise or lower immigration based on the need for workers. No point in them coming if there sometimes aren’t jobs for them.

Since Christians in Islamic countries are all persecuted, they would have a priority similar to that of Filipinos.

Does that work for you?

I said “most” not “all”, just for the record. I hate gross generalities and try not to make them (though, at times, I probably do).

And, yes, that sound good by me. Glad to see someone who actually walks the walk. Good for you.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well first of all I while I would support the idea of everyone being taxed the same to be fair…it really isn;t a huge deal to me if we aren;t. I know being how I have been in this thread it doesn;t seem that way…but it is the truth in real life I am not getting that worked up this. Also no your children shouldn;t have to pay for me. Also I probably wonlt be getting much if any social security. My generation will be working until the day we can;t anymore to support ourselves more then likely. Also I am not trying my best to make it harder for your children. I donlt vote or anything so it;s not like I am passing my evil childfree influence around on anything other then messageboards. How am I personally doing that? I have done NOTHING to make your childrens life harder! Also no I donlt think I am a better person because I donlt have children or because everyone once in a bluemoon I suggest that people have less children. But maybe you should ask yourself do you feel superior to those that donlt have kids to can;t have kids? Also I donlt think the USA is overpopulated yet you are right perhaps I shouldn;t be so focused on changing things here as things need to be changed in other countries like the third world countries. I do think that over all though less people helps.

I don’t think you are inferior to anyone because you have no children. Nor do I think anyone should be penalized for having children, particularly when it is plain that our social security system will break down because our birth rate is too low to support it. I was only arguing with your proposal that child tax deductions should be reduced in order to discourage population growth.

The SS system should be reformed. I would support “means-testing” it. But that’s unlikely to happen.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The SS system should be reformed. I would support “means-testing” it. But that’s unlikely to happen.

How about this:

FIXING SOCIAL SECURITY
A MODEL

The Basic Concept:

This model is based on applying all FICA tax surpluses (the income above current outlays) to individually-controlled Personal Retirement Accounts (PRAs). In other words, each person would pay the standard FICA tax, but the government would retain only enough to cover its outlays for that year. The remaining FICA payment would go into the individual’s PRA.

Each individual is guaranteed his Social Security entitlement, no matter what. On retirement, the individual’s Social Security entitlement would be calculated as it is now, and the funds in the individual’s PRA would be used to pay the first dollars of that entitlement. Public funds would make up the difference.

As time goes on, more and more people would retire with more and more of their Social Security entitlement funded by their PRAs. This would reduce Social Security outlays, resulting in those still working being left with more and more of their FICA payments. Ultimately – between the 33rd and 34th year of the plan – most people’s retirement would be fully funded by their PRA, and Social Security would only be responsible for those unable to work or build a retirement fund.

How the Model Works:

1. Wages. The model assumes everyone in the country makes $1,000 a month, and never receives a promotion or an economic raise – that is, the $1,000 is in constant dollars, and a worker’s last pay check buys exactly what his first pay check would buy. The reasons for this are:

 By choosing a low wage scale, the model is a worst-case scenario. Social Security replaces a percentage of the worker’s high-three income on a sliding scale. The less you make the higher the replacement percentage. For example, the worker who makes only $1,000 a month would get more than half his wages replaced by Social Security. But people who make more get a lower percentage of their wages replaced. A worker making over $5,000 a month would get only about 25% of his wages replaced. The model therefore is based on low pay-in, high payout.

 Some will always raise the issue that “it won’t work for the poor.” This model is based on the poor. More affluent workers will do even better, of course, but as the model shows the poor will do very well indeed.

 The model automatically adjusts for inflation. We are using constant dollars by assuming no raises beyond the level of inflation.

1. Raising the FICA Tax. Because the model assumes no current surplus, the surplus must be generated by raising the FICA Tax. The tax is raised from 7.65% to 8%. Of course, if we are smart enough to start while Social Security is still running a surplus, we don’t need to raise the FICA tax. In addition, Medicare is replaced with Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs), discussed below.

1. Rate of return. The rate of return in this model is based on an evaluation of Fidelity equity (stock) mutual funds. Funds with over ten years existence were averaged, and the rate of return selected was one standard deviation below the mean. Again, this was designed to present a worst-case scenario.

1. Rate of retirement. The model apportions one third of the surplus generated by a retiring worker’s self-funded portion of the entitlement per active worker. In other words, if the average retiring worker in any given year has $1.00 a month from his PRA, active workers are credited with $0.33 per month in additional surplus.

1. Time. The model assumes each worker will work for 40 years, and will be retired for 20 years – an average life span of 80 years.

1. Retirement Income. Retirement income is calculated using the standard annuity formula. The assumptions are:

 The individual will live 20 years after retirement (to approximately age 80).

 The rate of return for the annuity will be the same as for the PRA (one standard deviation below the mean of annual return for established stock mutual funds.)

1. Medical Care. The model assumes Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) for each worker. In this model, the worker generates monthly savings of $25.00 (which represents the unspent portion of his contributions to his MSA), which is held in a mutual fund account similar to the PRA and rolled over annually. The medical care assumptions are:

 The individual will require nursing home care immediately upon retirement (again, a worst-case scenario.)

 The individual will live 20 years after retirement (to approximately age 80).

 The rate of return will be the same as for the PRA.

 The PRA annuity will also be available for nursing home or medical care.

1. Caring for those who cannot work. The model cuts off the contributions to the PRA at 8% of wages. That is, when the system is fully mature, the worker puts 8% of his wages into his PRA, but the employer’s contribution (another 8%) is used to fund retirement and other benefits for those who cannot work.

The Bottom Line:

 The system becomes fully mature between 33 and 34 years. Workers who have been fully employed during that time will be fully self-funded in their retirement from their PRAs.

 After 40 years, the worker will receive more in retirement than his actual wages.

 Retired workers who require nursing home care will be fully self-funded.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I said “most” not “all”, just for the record. I hate gross generalities and try not to make them (though, at times, I probably do).

And, yes, that sound good by me. Glad to see someone who actually walks the walk. Good for you.

Thank you for the thumbs-up. I do wonder, though, whether even most prolifers are anti-immigration. If one judges by the posts one reads in here, I doubt it. I do think a lot of people don’t like the way it’s being handled, though. I think most prolifers want border enforcement and would like to see better assimilation, but my sense is that prolifers as a group don’t have a problem with having more people at the table, wherever they’re born. But it needs to be a rational system.

I’m going to say something that will probably result in my being considered a tinfoil hat person. I believe Bush is aware of our population and labor needs. I believe he favors immigration by Hispanics over others. But since the courts would never allow discrimination based on culture or religion, and since Congress would never allow “coalition of the willing” preference, chaos is the only way to favor Hispanics who, after all, are Christian and western. Europe gets hostile Muslims. But because Hispanics can walk across the border in the chaos, we get Hispanics, whose culture is already partially blended with ours; whose religion is almost 100% Christian, mostly Catholic, and who, despite all the “Aztlan” talk, turn awfully American awfully fast.
The day might come when people look back and, despite the problems it also causes, are grateful for the Hispanic influx; even the illegals. I would a LOT rather see my grandchildren celebrate Cinco de Mayo voluntarily than observe Sharia involuntarily.

Here’s where my thinking gets even weirder. Look at Bush’s last two Supreme Court appointments. Catholic prolifers both, an absolutely unprecedented situation. I think Bush trusts Catholics more than just about anybody else, to do the right things. I think someday Catholics are going to look back and marvel at the way he has honored Catholics in this country. Keep in mind, in reading this, that I am not a Republican. But the truth is the truth.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Part of my job, Swan, includes doing real estate closings. Last week I closed a deal in which the buyers were Hispanic; buying low-end housing (a benefit to the economy right now, without question). The translator was Hispanic. I must have said something that triggered the following.

At a point, the translator asked me what my religion is. I responded “Catholic”. She smiled, turned to the buyers and doubtless told them. The only word I understood was “Catolico”. The buyers beamed. One turned to me and extended his hand to shake it, right in the middle of the closing, and asked the translator “San Lorenzo”? The translator asked if I attended St. Lawrence parish, to which I replied affirmatively. Again, the buyers smiled and nodded. At the end of the closing, again the buyers shook my hand. Couldn’t speak English, but obviously very friendly. I glanced at their loan application, and both of them had low-end industrial line jobs at local factories. One worked in a poultry plant and the other worked in a window-fabrication plant. Not the best-paying jobs. But they sure had a 20% down payment in cash and wanted to be sure they could make prepayments without penalty.

I don’t know, Swan. I can’t find a single thing in that scenario with which to complain or object. So, okay, they couldn’t speak English. But I would bet dollars to donuts their kids do. And I’ll bet anyone would be hard put to find prolifers who would have a problem with those people.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How about this:

Somebody will surely argue with you on this Vern, but it won’t be me. It sure looks to me like something more in line with Rerum Novarum than what we have now. JPII, reflecting on Rerum Novarum and later social encyclicals, endorsed the concept, but said that Leo XIII’s agricultural assumption would have to be updated. Again, this plan has the appearance of such an adaptation. Of course, those who want government dependency will fight this like tigers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Somebody will surely argue with you on this Vern, but it won’t be me. It sure looks to me like something more in line with Rerum Novarum than what we have now. JPII, reflecting on Rerum Novarum and later social encyclicals, endorsed the concept, but said that Leo XIII’s agricultural assumption would have to be updated. Again, this plan has the appearance of such an adaptation. Of course, those who want government dependency will fight this like tigers.

As will those members of congress who want to keep using Social Security as a slush fund.

 

[drpmjhess]

I am afraid, I think peak oil will exacerbate this problem. I also found this article about Malthusianism in the WSJ:online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120613138379155707.html

SÃO PAULO, BRAZIL—During a visit to the teeming slums of São Paulo Monday, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua warned the city’s starving masses against the evils of contraception, urging them to “be fruitful and multiply” and do “everything in [their] power” to resist the mortal sin of birth control.

“In Genesis, God commands us to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the Earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish and birds and every other living thing,” said Bevilacqua, speaking before more than 200,000 malnourished São Paulo slum dwellers. “It is not for man to decide whether the world should have more babies than it can reasonably support. God will decide whose seed shall find purchase and when.”

The gathering, which took place on a muddy hillside crowded with tin-and-tarpaper shacks, was one of many to take place around the world Monday.

“No wonder we are plagued by disease and high infant mortality,” said São Paulo father of eight Oranjinho Cruz, speaking from his dilapidated one-room home, which lacks electricity or potable water. “God has been punishing us for trying to prevent the miraculous gift of conception.”

In Calcutta, a city where 53 percent of residents are under 18, Catholic missionaries delivered a similar message of love and procreation.

“In this life, there is a right path and a wrong path, and which you take is entirely up to you,” said missionary Christopher Halloran, addressing a group of 4,500 villagers crammed into a schoolhouse. “Will you deny God’s wisdom by using condoms, or will you shine in the divine light of unprotected sex? The choice is clear.”

“God does not want you to choke the rivers of fertile bounty with immoral birth-control pills,” continued Halloran, framed by a backdrop of brown, withered crops and skeletal, half-living farm animals. “He wants you to continue expanding your families. If your babies starve, Jesus will forgive them.”

The words of Halloran and his fellow missionaries have struck a chord with the impoverished masses of the world.

“We were told we should not use condoms to prevent the spread of HIV,” said Luis Ortiz of Bogotá, Colombia. “The man from the Church assured us that the Lord will protect us from disease, provided we are true to His wish that we produce more children than we can possibly care for.”

Added Ortiz: “Life in this shantytown is difficult, but our troubles are nothing compared to what we will face in the Lake Of Fire if we try to live within our means and regulate the number of offspring we produce, as Satan teaches.”"

Responding to critics, Cardinal Bevilacqua said the Catholic Church is not oblivious to the plight of the impoverished, noting that it offers a sanctioned way to postpone the inevitable fruit of God’s will.

Bevilacqua also noted that, in cases in which natural family planning fails, unwanted children can be sent to Catholic orphanages, where they will be cared for and groomed to spread word of the punishment awaiting those who impede God’s grand biological destiny.

 

[ribozyme]

SÃO PAULO, BRAZIL—During a visit to the teeming slums of São Paulo Monday, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua warned the city’s starving masses against the evils of contraception, urging them to “be fruitful and multiply” and do “everything in [their] power” to resist the mortal sin of birth control.

“In Genesis, God commands us to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the Earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish and birds and every other living thing,” said Bevilacqua, speaking before more than 200,000 malnourished São Paulo slum dwellers. “It is not for man to decide whether the world should have more babies than it can reasonably support. God will decide whose seed shall find purchase and when.”

The gathering, which took place on a muddy hillside crowded with tin-and-tarpaper shacks, was one of many to take place around the world Monday.

“No wonder we are plagued by disease and high infant mortality,” said São Paulo father of eight Oranjinho Cruz, speaking from his dilapidated one-room home, which lacks electricity or potable water. “God has been punishing us for trying to prevent the miraculous gift of conception.”

In Calcutta, a city where 53 percent of residents are under 18, Catholic missionaries delivered a similar message of love and procreation.

“In this life, there is a right path and a wrong path, and which you take is entirely up to you,” said missionary Christopher Halloran, addressing a group of 4,500 villagers crammed into a schoolhouse. “Will you deny God’s wisdom by using condoms, or will you shine in the divine light of unprotected sex? The choice is clear.”

“God does not want you to choke the rivers of fertile bounty with immoral birth-control pills,” continued Halloran, framed by a backdrop of brown, withered crops and skeletal, half-living farm animals. “He wants you to continue expanding your families. If your babies starve, Jesus will forgive them.”

The words of Halloran and his fellow missionaries have struck a chord with the impoverished masses of the world.

“We were told we should not use condoms to prevent the spread of HIV,” said Luis Ortiz of Bogotá, Colombia. “The man from the Church assured us that the Lord will protect us from disease, provided we are true to His wish that we produce more children than we can possibly care for.”

Added Ortiz: “Life in this shantytown is difficult, but our troubles are nothing compared to what we will face in the Lake Of Fire if we try to live within our means and regulate the number of offspring we produce, as Satan teaches.”"

Responding to critics, Cardinal Bevilacqua said the Catholic Church is not oblivious to the plight of the impoverished, noting that it offers a sanctioned way to postpone the inevitable fruit of God’s will.

Bevilacqua also noted that, in cases in which natural family planning fails, unwanted children can be sent to Catholic orphanages, where they will be cared for and groomed to spread word of the punishment awaiting those who impede God’s grand biological destiny.

Thought it was a real article… but I looked at the source. And is this a parody on the people who want population control or the Catholic teaching?

 

[Calliso]

Thought it was a real article… but I looked at the source. And is this a parody on the people who want population control or the Catholic teaching?

I saw this on the Onion it;s a parody of Catholic teaching I am pretty sure. However the link he posted appeared to be a link to the wall street journal.

 

[drpmjhess]

I saw this on the Onion it;s a parody of Catholic teaching I am pretty sure. However the link he posted appeared to be a link to the wall street journal.

Are you suggesting that the starving masses should not do “everything in their power” to resist the mortal sin of birth control?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Are you suggesting that the starving masses should not do “everything in their power” to resist the mortal sin of birth control?

Oh my goodness, are you posting fake news articles meant to calumniate an archbishop and the Catholic Faith? Please think about what you’re doing: this is a very serious and grave matter.

 

[drpmjhess]

Oh my goodness, are you posting fake news articles meant to calumniate an archbishop and the Catholic Faith? Please think about what you’re doing: this is a very serious and grave matter.

Does not God rejoice as much over children conceived and born into the squalid slums of Sao Paolo as He does over children born into the luxury of the Hamptons or Barrington or Hillsborough or Kensington?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Does not God rejoice as much over children conceived and born into the squalid slums of Sao Paolo as He does over children born into the luxury of the Hamptons or Barrington or Hillsborough or Kensington?

Yes, I agree God does rejoice over every birth including people born into poverty. I suspect He feels more pity for those born in the Hamptons since it is so difficult for a rich man to enter heaven.

But my point is that your post attributed false quotes to a archbishop and you shouldn’t slander anyone, especially a bishop.