Who are the deserving poor?

[Trader]

No – we have and take advantage of many opportunities to witness for Christ without sinking into platitudes and washing our hands of the harm we do with ill-conceived “programs.”

Exactly. Isn’t prudence part of that Christian witness? Do feelings of sympathy negate the obligation to also require what we know is in the best interest of the person being helped?

Demanding that someone else write a check for a person who will not change his own destructive behavior can be truly hateful in its consequences.

Really good programs like Alcoholics Anonymous and Habitat for Humanity demand “victim” participation, and work very well because of that, not in spite of that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly. Isn’t prudence part of that Christian witness? Do feelings of sympathy negate the obligation to also require what we know is in the best interest of the person being helped?

Demanding that someone else write a check for a person who will not change his own destructive behavior can be truly hateful in its consequences.

That’s the best thumbnail description of modern liberalism I’ve ever seen.

Really good programs like Alcoholics Anonymous and Habitat for Humanity demand “victim” participation, and work very well because of that, not in spite of that.

You know, it’s a funny thing – this is the Social Justice forum. And again and again I have challenged people to provide and example of a true social justice program (as opposed to charity.)

You are the first person to do that – Alcoholics Anonymous and Habitat for Humanity are true social justice programs, because they attack the underlying problems, not simply put a bandaid on them.

And note that both AA and HFH are private concerns, not government programs.

 

[Amolibri]

That’s the best thumbnail description of modern liberalism I’ve ever seen.

You know, it’s a funny thing – this is the Social Justice forum. And again and again I have challenged people to provide and example of a true social justice program (as opposed to charity.)

You are the first person to do that – Alcoholics Anonymous and Habitat for Humanity are true social justice programs, because they attack the underlying problems, not simply put a bandaid on them.

And note that both AA and HFH are private concerns, not government programs.

Very true!
btw…the “I have been there” refers to being a teacher…funny how you chose to see the negative part further up…
congrats on your superior ability to save… pray that you never have some catastrophic event that puts you into deep debt, sir.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Very true!
btw…the “I have been there” refers to being a teacher…funny how you chose to see the negative part further up…

What negative part are you talking about?

congrats on your superior ability to save… pray that you never have some catastrophic event that puts you into deep debt, sir.

The catestrophic event has already happened – both my parents had long illnesses. My brother and sister and I lost a 3,500 acre ranch and home.

 

[Amolibri]

What negative part are you talking about?

The catestrophic event has already happened – both my parents had long illnesses. My brother and sister and I lost a 3,500 acre ranch and home.

I am sorry for your loss.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am sorry for your loss.

Thank you – it was a long time ago.

 

[josephdavid]

Let’s institute Personal Retirement Accounts, funded with the Social Security surplus. Instead of ripping off the surplus and squandering it, let’s return it to the people who paid FICA taxes and let them manage it in their PRAs.

Although an idea with merit its too dangerous. although on average you have a greater return from the stockmarket than any other savings you have to worry about what if. Also too dependend on the markets and some could stand losing all by either poorly investing their money OR victim of predetory and fraudulant financial advisors.

Why not prevent the government from touching the Social Security as seems to be the case with our government regardless who is President. By passing laws. haha that whole “lock box” idea was not a bad one.

That money just like pensions offered by the business community should never be touched.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Although an idea with merit its too dangerous. although on average you have a greater return from the stockmarket than any other savings you have to worry about what if. Also too dependend on the markets and some could stand losing all by either poorly investing their money OR victim of predetory and fraudulant financial advisors.

Let me explain – we guarentee each worker his Social Security entitlement, but the first dollars come out of his PRA.

Now, let’s suppose you retire with a Social Security entitlement of $1,000 a month. We do an annunity calculation on your PRA (which we already do for IRAs, so no new procedures or expenses are required) and find your PRA would provide you with $1 a month for the rest of your life. So you draw $1 a month from your PRA, and the government kicks in $999 a month.

Now suppose I’m still working. I notice I’m getting a little more put in my PRA – that’s my share of the $1 the government doesn’t have to pay you.

As time goes on, people get more and more put in their PRAs – I developed a computer model that shows at around 32 years a person who worked steadily would have 100% of his Social Security entitlement from his PRA. At 40 years, a person who worked steadily would have enough in his PRA to completely replace his working wages (up to the Social Security maximum.) After that, people would begin to retire with true wealth.

Now what’s the worst that could happen under this system? That you’d lose everything in your PRA – which would be exactly the same as now, when you have nothing in your PRA, because the government rips off and spends the surplus!!

Why not prevent the government from touching the Social Security as seems to be the case with our government regardless who is President. By passing laws. haha that whole “lock box” idea was not a bad one.

That’s how Social Security was supposed to work in the first place – and look what happened!

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that grinds the grain, and thou canst not lock out the people who make the laws!! If Congress passed a “lockbox” law, Congress can (and will and has) circuvent it.

That money just like pensions offered by the business community should never be touched.

But pension fund fraud is not uncommon – nor is ruling pension funds an “asset” when a company goes bankrupt.

The best private sector pension would be a 401(k), where the money is yours from day one, and no one can touch it but you. And the best public system would be identical to a 401(k) – a Personal Retirement Account.

 

[Trader]

Although an idea with merit its too dangerous. although on average you have a greater return from the stockmarket than any other savings you have to worry about what if. Also too dependend on the markets and some could stand losing all by either poorly investing their money OR victim of predetory and fraudulant financial advisors.

Why not prevent the government from touching the Social Security as seems to be the case with our government regardless who is President. By passing laws. haha that whole “lock box” idea was not a bad one.

That money just like pensions offered by the business community should never be touched.

This argument has been made in the past, but the motives are very suspect. Yes, the stock market will return more in the long run than the current system. So will corporate bonds, government bonds, and probably baseball cards. A properly diversified mix of investments has almost no chance of doing worse than the current system. Why to you think all those insurance companies earn so much for their stockholders? They have to invest a lot more conservatively than I do.

That “lock box” will always be in peril as long as the government owns it. Personal ownership of retirement savings is working very well in other countries like Argentina. The unsolved problem is the transitional cost from the current system and it gets worse every day that action is delayed. I don’t have a painless solution for that. Benefits will have to be cut at some point under the current system. Only a sustained rise in productivity could prevent that, and no one knows how to forecast productivity.

There are some interesting social justice issues to our current system. In the US many minorities have shorter life spans than average. That means less benefits are paid out to them although they are taxed on an equal basis. High payroll taxes also mean that the poor are not able to pass on the fruits of their work to their children. It also means that there are no funds to be seized leagally by children or other just claimants, when the Deadbeat Parent eventually dies.

 

[josephdavid]

For the most part I agree. I just feel very leery about a PRA because of there is a large ignorance in the general public what to do with their money. Now if our investment in education would be teaching kids how to manage their money and how the stock market works, etc. then I could see in future. But right now to deal with the baby boomers retiring (yourself included yes?) I worry. I feel bad saying that in general most Americans are very ignorant in how the market works and how to save and invest their money for the future. But not entirely their fault but just the American culture and lack of education available in schools and universities.

With regards to pensions I agree perhaps until we have laws which make corporations to keep their hands off pensions and keep them funded then I am all for 401K. Toyota which is becoming a very large employer here in the U.S. every year does not offer a traditional pension but a 401K with in most cases 100% matching and more. The employees love it. I believe Honda does same thing for their Ohio workers.

One reason Chrysler (before purchase by Diamler) kicked out Iacocca. Iacocca wanted one thing! Their pensions. Chyrsler had (and still has) the best funded pensions. This is because they left it alone.

 

[josephdavid]

my above post was for Vernon. sorry forgot to put Vernon’s quote in there and I was babbling on and some one else posted before i finished haha.

You know we talk about healtcare and 46 million uninsured if anything that should be taken care of now with SOLID laws put into place is for the children. I would say a good percentage of the 46 million who are adults choose not to be insured for what ever reason but a child never asks to live in poverty and a child never asked to go with out the necessary healthcare.

I also liked the farm bill that is being passed because they are charging foreign companies food products to fund more for food stamps for the poor.

 

[vern_humphrey]

For the most part I agree. I just feel very leery about a PRA because of there is a large ignorance in the general public what to do with their money.

Not as great as you’d think – we’ve had IRAs for a quarter of a century, and 401(k)s almost that long. And they work so well that at one point Congress decided to put a special tax on people who were “too successful” in their investing (a law since replaled, thank God.)

Now if our investment in education would be teaching kids how to manage their money and how the stock market works, etc. then I could see in future.

We can teach adults, too. In fact, there are plenty of good investment counciling computer programs – you put in your goals, current situation, risk tolernace and so on, and they will give you a good solution. In addition we could design a simple report to allow investors to track their investments and compare them with other investments.

But right now to deal with the baby boomers retiring (yourself included yes?) I worry. I feel bad saying that in general most Americans are very ignorant in how the market works and how to save and invest their money for the future. But not entirely their fault but just the American culture and lack of education available in schools and universities.

What you say is only partly true – many Americans have done what everyone said was impossible a few years back – become millionaires via their IRAs and 401(k)s.

With regards to pensions I agree perhaps until we have laws which make corporations to keep their hands off pensions and keep them funded then I am all for 401K. Toyota which is becoming a very large employer here in the U.S. every year does not offer a traditional pension but a 401K with in most cases 100% matching and more. The employees love it. I believe Honda does same thing for their Ohio workers.

And the employees do very well with it. Why shouldn’t the US government do the same – and back it with a guarentee that you will always get at least your Social Security entitlement?

It’s a no-lose situation – except for Congress, of course, who wouldn’t have that slush fund to dip into anymore.

One reason Chrysler (before purchase by Diamler) kicked out Iacocca. Iacocca wanted one thing! Their pensions. Chyrsler had (and still has) the best funded pensions. This is because they left it alone.

But as you point out, that’s personality-dependent. Management can change, and someone else could dip into the pension fund.

 

[josephdavid]

We can teach adults, too. In fact, there are plenty of good investment counciling computer programs – you put in your goals, current situation, risk tolernace and so on, and they will give you a good solution. In addition we could design a simple report to allow investors to track their investments and compare them with other investments.

 

[Trader]

One of the best things about a problem caused by ignorance is that ignorance can be fixed. Teachers (and parents, the primary educators of children) do that every day. Problems caused by the lack of good will and the desire for power over others are a lot tougher to overcome.

As to the history of how it was supposed to be in the beginning, there are a lot of myths out there. I am sure FDR would be amazed how long it lasted and how big it has become. It was a plan devised when the unemployment rate was 25%. One of its aims was to entice older workers to retire so that younger workers could have their jobs. In an era when the physical content of most jobs was much higher that even made some sense. Younger workers could be more productive and the basic system could support itself for a while. The maximum tax was $30 per year into the 1950’s.

Then came the changes.

Antibiotics and other medical advances meant that benefits would have to be paid a lot longer than the 3 years envisioned in 1938. It was a good thing, but expensive and the extra money to pay for this was never collected.

Benefits were raised almost every election year but tax increases to pay for the increased benefits lagged. Coincidence? I think not.

The trust fund was never enough to pay future benefits, even in the beginning. It was only a little more than the amount needed to pay current benefits. The “surplus” of taxes to current benefits was spent on other government needs(and wants) and the trust fund got special non-negotiable government bonds in return. Congress just never got around to figuring out how those bonds could be redeemed to pay future benefits. A private company that patterned its retirement fund on SS would be committing fraud. The only way it could ever work was that Congress has the power to raise taxes to make up the difference, and private companies don’t. The current unfunded liability in SS and Medicare is so large the the tax increase needed to make up the difference would likely destroy the economy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But not the poorest of the poor. Especially most single mothers.

Why not?

Some people are poor because of unchangeable problems – mental, drugs, and so on. But a lot of other people can be taught. First we give them the skills to get jobs so they can support themselves. Then we teach them how to save and invest.

Let me point out that even if you make minimum wage, you pay the FICA tax – which amounts to 15.3% of your earmings (7.65% comes out of your check, and your employer “pays” another 7.65%.) Now a person making a mere $10,000 a year would be contributing $1,530.00 a year – over 40 years, that ain’t exactly chickenfeed!

They can not even balance the budget let alone pass common sense laws such as LEAVING SOCIAL SECURITY ALONE AND NOT USING IT TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. (not shouting at you haha)

If you look deeply into most of our problems, you will find government is the cause, not the solution.

Problem is most companies are not changing. Their should be laws protecting them. If a company goes out of business they do not have to pay those pensions.

That’s why we should encourage a shift to 401(k)s – let each employee control his own pension fund. Add a Personal Retirement Account, funded through the Social Security surplus, and a lot of our problems would be well on the road to solution.

They should be protected especially if a company goes out of business. The first people who should be paid are those employees. There was a company in Chicagoland (name of company has left my memory) that closed it’s plant and shipped everything off to China. They filed bankruptcy here in U.S. and so the people who lost their jobs to China lost their pensions except what is insured by the state which I believe is no better than 20 cents on the dollar. In other words the taxpayers such as myself have to pay for corporate greed and mismanagement.

My position is don’t let the company – or the government – get its hands on your retirement pay. Handle it yourself – and pass laws so you can do that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The trust fund was never enough to pay future benefits, even in the beginning. It was only a little more than the amount needed to pay current benefits. The “surplus” of taxes to current benefits was spent on other government needs(and wants) and the trust fund got special non-negotiable government bonds in return. Congress just never got around to figuring out how those bonds could be redeemed to pay future benefits. A private company that patterned its retirement fund on SS would be committing fraud. The only way it could ever work was that Congress has the power to raise taxes to make up the difference, and private companies don’t. The current unfunded liability in SS and Medicare is so large the the tax increase needed to make up the difference would likely destroy the economy.

All true – but go to the Social Security administration website and look up the “Trust Fund” (they recently decided to start calling it that, although there are no funds in the “trust fund.”)

Here’s an interesting exercise – When Bush was proposing to let people “privatize” their Social Security, a cry went up that it would cost $3 Billion. Start adding up the surplus (or “trust fund” and see how far you have to go back for it to add up to $3 Billion.

 

[cynic]

That’s why we should encourage a shift to 401(k)s – let each employee control his own pension fund. Add a Personal Retirement Account, funded through the Social Security surplus, and a lot of our problems would be well on the road to solution.

.

and for the elderly who are currently pulling a pention? Those about to retire? Those who earn very little and who’s savings will run out very quickly?

 

[Trader]

All true – but go to the Social Security administration website and look up the “Trust Fund” (they recently decided to start calling it that, although there are no funds in the “trust fund.”)

Here’s an interesting exercise – When Bush was proposing to let people “privatize” their Social Security, a cry went up that it would cost $3 Billion. Start adding up the surplus (or “trust fund” and see how far you have to go back for it to add up to $3 Billion.

I think you are missing 3 zeros on that cost figure. It takes a lot of irresponsible politicians to run up a deficit like that. Three billion is a rounding error in Washington.

 

[vern_humphrey]

and for the elderly who are currently pulling a pention? Those about to retire? Those who earn very little and who’s savings will run out very quickly?

You haven’t been reading the thread, have you?

Here’s what I said. The answer to your question is in the first sentence below:

Let me explain – we guarentee each worker his Social Security entitlement, but the first dollars come out of his PRA.

Now, let’s suppose you retire with a Social Security entitlement of $1,000 a month. We do an annunity calculation on your PRA (which we already do for IRAs, so no new procedures or expenses are required) and find your PRA would provide you with $1 a month for the rest of your life. So you draw $1 a month from your PRA, and the government kicks in $999 a month.

Now suppose I’m still working. I notice I’m getting a little more put in my PRA – that’s my share of the $1 the government doesn’t have to pay you.

As time goes on, people get more and more put in their PRAs – I developed a computer model that shows at around 32 years a person who worked steadily would have 100% of his Social Security entitlement from his PRA. At 40 years, a person who worked steadily would have enough in his PRA to completely replace his working wages (up to the Social Security maximum.) After that, people would begin to retire with true wealth.

Now what’s the worst that could happen under this system? That you’d lose everything in your PRA – which would be exactly the same as now, when you have nothing in your PRA, because the government rips off and spends the surplus!!

 

[Sixtus]

It depends on whether you are talking about ‘relative-poverty’ or ‘absolute-poverty’.

In the former, absence of a TV, automobile or washing machine are considered ‘poverty’. In the latter, absence of food, shelter and clothing is considered poverty