Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
A little relevent to this discussion is a company I am debating sending a resume out to. http://www.pertmaster.com/riskEducation/QuickRisk.htm They use Monte Carlo analysis or Latin Hypercube sampling.in their risk management software. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:02:57 -0600, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] In short, Gary, while I agree with you that Erik can be more tactful in expressing his viewpoint, I also see some things from Erik's point of view (or at least I think I do...Erik is obviously free to correct me here). Both Erik and I are very interested in what the facts are. I think he has done more legwork than me, but I've done at least some analysis to try to understand things. I try hard to lay out my assumptions, so someone can correct them, when I was questioning the 80%+ marginal net tax rate. I'd bet a beer that this figure involves some funny math, that in a practical sense the marginal tax rate is not close to this high between 20k/year and 40k/year, but I am more interested in seeing the actual facts than winning this bet. So, I am grateful to Erik for the work he promises to do. I have avoided this part of the discussion as it starts with the wrong assumptions. You get the high marginal tax rates by assuming SS is something it is not. Does the lesser earning person in a marriage get less out of SS. Of course. Can you correct this? Sure, reduce benefits 25% or raise taxes 25% if you thought that was the plan you want. Do you want this? Should males who support their families be penalized? Should those women who raised kids be penalized? Perhaps you can kick those freeloading wives who never worked off of SS and cut that to a 10% reduction in benefits. You are changing SS into something it isn't - a defined benefit retirement plan that only benefits those who fully contribute to it - not a social welfare program for old age. I think you could help too. I interpret Erik's post as criticism that you are not adding to our basis for understanding...that your posts contain more partisan rhetoric and reference to partisan websites than analysis that advances our common understanding. I cannot quite agree with this. Erik references to websites I would have to linked to Marxist economists to find a comparable extreme positions and you seem to be blaming me for linking to partisan sites. Your reference to your work indicates that you can provide useful thought on this issue. I would find that helpful. Obviously this is a YMMV issue, not everyone wishes to take a busman's holiday and do analysis on a mailing list. You could even quote Erik to make your point, I think. :-) Erik continues to confuse time frames in his rhetoric, has replies to every post of mine by only addressing portions of my posts, selected quotes that I am selectedly parroting him and is seems to be mostly parroting some economists that were too extreme for a previous GOP administration. Now, is this rhetoric - yes, is it factually accurate - yes. Finally, Erik and I don't need to like your posts any more than you need to like mine. I appreciate the fact that you haven't been rude in replying to my posts...so they don't really upset me. I guess I'm just greedy and want more. I occasionally like Erik posts, ROTF, has not only been rhetoric. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
At 01:53 PM 1/14/2005 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: FAIR-L Fairness Accuracy In Reporting Media analysis, critiques and activism http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-socialsecurity.html Does it really contribute to the debate here to repost propaganda talking points? I mean, I can understand reposting arguments from partisan sources, but outright propaganda? On World News Tonight, anchor Peter Jennings started off the distortions in the show's A Closer Look segment. Having allowed that there is some argument about whether Social Security would, as Bush argued recently, go bankrupt without congressional intervention, Jennings continued: But there's no question that baby boomers will place great strain on Social Security as they retire. And by 2042, by some measures, the system may not have enough cash to pay full benefits. Actually, there's plenty of question about the notion that baby boomers will strain the system; If you don't understand that when baby boomers retire that the average number of workers per retiree will decrease dramatically, then you simply aren't trying to be an honest participant in the debate. Even if the system does need more cash four or five decades from now, it's not clear that this should be characterized as a great strain. The amount of money necessary to keep paying full benefits could be raised by a tax increase that was about one-fourth the size of the Bush tax cuts (Washington Post, 1/12/05). I snipped quotes attribute to mysterious sources like The Political Animal.The above quote seems *highly* suspicious. That is not the sort of analysis The Washington Post would publish unattributed, I don't think The IOU argument is a favorite of pro-privatizers, but it has little basis in reality. Those trust fund IOUs exist in the form of U.S. government bonds, just like those held by private investors and foreign countries like Japan and China. There is a lot of question as to whether or not those bonds have economic meaning.Since they aren't traded, it isn't clear if they really have value.In this sense, they are much more akin to an IOU than a bond. At any rate, one sure way to find out is to have the SSA suddenly start cashing all of those bonds all at once. that would certainly put strain on the system. Not only would it effectively cause revenues available to fund general US expenses to go down, but if the SSA starts flooding the market with bonds, the value of US bonds will go down as well, making it even harder for the US government to borrow money. ACTION: Please write to ABC and urge them to include a full range of snip ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l I guess we're all liberals now on brin-l, so we can forward leftist action items to all of us, right? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:13:16 -0600, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:20:38 -0500, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:53 PM 1/14/2005 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: Should I point you to the Constitution or federal law about how real these obligations are? Or should I simply point out so far there have been a total of over a dozen years in the past when Social Security was taking in less than it was paying out. Or maybe you could just go talk to Federal employees who have to do all the bookkeeping for these bonds that have varying interest rates and payout rates. ^dates. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
At 04:13 PM 1/15/2005 -0600 Gary Denton wrote: That is a fairly ignorant talking point. The point is not the number of workers per retirees Shirley, you can't be serious. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:17:21 -0500, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 04:13 PM 1/15/2005 -0600 Gary Denton wrote: That is a fairly ignorant talking point. The point is not the number of workers per retirees Shirley, you can't be serious. ... and my name is not Shirley, but if it was just the number of workers that mattered the reduction from 35 to 3 would have killed the system instead of simply adjustments being made. There is an argument to be made for raising the retirement age. I normally disagree with Netter but he laid out the false claims of Bush here: http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/archivedStory.asp?archive=truedist=ArchiveSplashsiteid=mktwguid=%7B6D56656B%2DD357%2D4082%2DBD70%2D35F6E6D0AA71%7DreturnURL=%2Fnews%2Fstory%2Easp%3Fguid%3D%7B6D56656B%2DD357%2D4082%2DBD70%2D35F6E6D0AA71%7D%26siteid%3Dmktw%26dist%3D%26archive%3Dtrue%26param%3Darchive%26garden%3D%26minisite%3D . way too long, try this http://tinyurl.com/3vb2q Gary Airplane Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:26:51 -0600, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:17:21 -0500, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 04:13 PM 1/15/2005 -0600 Gary Denton wrote: I normally disagree with Netter but he laid out the false claims of Bush here: http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/archivedStory.asp?archive=truedist=ArchiveSplashsiteid=mktwguid=%7B6D56656B%2DD357%2D4082%2DBD70%2D35F6E6D0AA71%7DreturnURL=%2Fnews%2Fstory%2Easp%3Fguid%3D%7B6D56656B%2DD357%2D4082%2DBD70%2D35F6E6D0AA71%7D%26siteid%3Dmktw%26dist%3D%26archive%3Dtrue%26param%3Darchive%26garden%3D%26minisite%3D . way too long, try this http://tinyurl.com/3vb2q If you don't want to register at CBS Market Watch or go to a liberal blog the google cache is here http://tinyurl.com/52grn ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate] On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:17:21 -0500, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 04:13 PM 1/15/2005 -0600 Gary Denton wrote: That is a fairly ignorant talking point. The point is not the number of workers per retirees Shirley, you can't be serious. ... and my name is not Shirley, but if it was just the number of workers that mattered the reduction from 35 to 3 would have killed the system instead of simply adjustments being made. The adjustments were not _that_ simple. The rate for employees/employers went from 2% until '50 to 14.4 percent after '90. And, the maximum income covered went from $3000 in '50 to $9 in '05. (The $3000 in '50 is about $2 in 2005 dollars.) That is not a minor change...especially since part of social security went to disability pay...and I'd bet that the the percentage of Americans unable to work due to disability has not gone up. There is an argument to be made for raising the retirement age. Sure, but the ratio of workers to retirees was given as the basis for raising taxes in the '80s in order to have a cushion for the baby boomers. From 1950 to 2002, the life expectancy at 65 changed from 13.9 to 18.2 years. From 1980 to 2002, it only changed from 16.4 to 18.2 years. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04trend.pdf#027 page 77 according to Acrobat. The aging of the population has been modest and matching the increase in life expectancy so far (the ratio of 65/(20-65) has risen from about 14% to about 22%. But, by ~2033, when the baby boomers hit the hardest, it will be near 40%. http://dallasfedreview.org/pdfs/v01_n04_a01.pdf Dan M. Thus, the baby boomer population bulge does matter. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:40:31 -0600, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Sure, but the ratio of workers to retirees was given as the basis for raising taxes in the '80s in order to have a cushion for the baby boomers. From 1950 to 2002, the life expectancy at 65 changed from 13.9 to 18.2 years. From 1980 to 2002, it only changed from 16.4 to 18.2 years. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04trend.pdf#027 page 77 according to Acrobat. The aging of the population has been modest and matching the increase in life expectancy so far (the ratio of 65/(20-65) has risen from about 14% to about 22%. But, by ~2033, when the baby boomers hit the hardest, it will be near 40%. http://dallasfedreview.org/pdfs/v01_n04_a01.pdf Dan M. Thus, the baby boomer population bulge does matter. Yes, but is suspect the real nature of the crisis is the GOP not being able to even consider more upper-income tax cuts soon and even requiring those cuts to be rolled back and the SS wage cap raised. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 7:24 PM Subject: Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate] Thus, the baby boomer population bulge does matter. Yes, but is suspect the real nature of the crisis is the GOP not being able to even consider more upper-income tax cuts soon and even requiring those cuts to be rolled back and the SS wage cap raised. While I am suspect of the figures coming out of the White House, I'm also very keen on obtaining my own good understanding. It's important to know that the demographic shift is a world wide problem that needs addressing. As Gautam said a couple of years ago, the US is one of the few countries (with GB and Australia) that is in decent position to address this. I have written that this can be addressed with fairly modest cuts in the increase in the real social security. Erik has argued that a floor needs to be provided by SS. In short, Gary, while I agree with you that Erik can be more tactful in expressing his viewpoint, I also see some things from Erik's point of view (or at least I think I do...Erik is obviously free to correct me here). Both Erik and I are very interested in what the facts are. I think he has done more legwork than me, but I've done at least some analysis to try to understand things. I try hard to lay out my assumptions, so someone can correct them, when I was questioning the 80%+ marginal net tax rate. I'd bet a beer that this figure involves some funny math, that in a practical sense the marginal tax rate is not close to this high between 20k/year and 40k/year, but I am more interested in seeing the actual facts than winning this bet. So, I am grateful to Erik for the work he promises to do. In short, I see this discussion as an opportunity for a group effort at self-education between a number of folks. I appreciate Erik's work in helping me develop my understanding. I'm pretty sure he also appreciate my desire to get at what's really going on...and the bit of leg work that I've done. Even though we may end up with different opinions on what the best course of action is, I feel that we can help each other learn. I think you could help too. I interpret Erik's post as criticism that you are not adding to our basis for understanding...that your posts contain more partisan rhetoric and reference to partisan websites than analysis that advances our common understanding. I'll have to say that I think there may be some basis for thiseven when I tend to agree with you on a point, I don't see your posts advancing those points in an analytical sense. Your reference to your work indicates that you can provide useful thought on this issue. I would find that helpful. Obviously this is a YMMV issue, not everyone wishes to take a busman's holiday and do analysis on a mailing list. If you just enjoy making rhetorical points, then that's OKI just, from a selfish perspective, want to learn things from you. I'm guessing that Erik would actually be very happy if, by reading your posts, he learned something. So, as a result, Erik may bluntly tell you he sees no use in your posts and I may try to push you into giving me some information. For example, I think that, by running just a few numbers, you could have strengthened this post so that it had a good deal of meat on it. You could even quote Erik to make your point, I think. :-) Finally, Erik and I don't need to like your posts any more than you need to like mine. I appreciate the fact that you haven't been rude in replying to my posts...so they don't really upset me. I guess I'm just greedy and want more. Dan M. I hope this post is more informative than rude soundingthat it gives you a bit more information which you can either choose to ignore or apply. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If you just enjoy making rhetorical points, then that's OK Here's one: We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system. We have a great opportunity now to be able to tell all these young people who are shadowing their Cabinet and administration leaders that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. We have a great opportunity, those of us in the baby boom generation, to tell our own children that when we retire and start drawing Social Security, it isn't going to bankrupt them to take care of us and undermine their ability to take care of their own children. We need to do this. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:22:37 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If you just enjoy making rhetorical points, then that's OK Here's one: We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system. We have a great opportunity now to be able to tell all these young people who are shadowing their Cabinet and administration leaders that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. We have a great opportunity, those of us in the baby boom generation, to tell our own children that when we retire and start drawing Social Security, it isn't going to bankrupt them to take care of us and undermine their ability to take care of their own children. We need to do this. Interesting quote from Clinton as he presented a balanced budget in 98. Should I insert a rhetorical point here about the GOP? Gary D. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Interesting quote from Clinton as he presented a balanced budget in 98. Should I insert a rhetorical point here about the GOP? If you like, but I probably won't be reading it. My post was just testing a hypothesis about whether you would make a cogent reply to Dan's excellent post, or if you would choose to play with sound bites. Since the theory just got some confirmation, I will probably be skipping most of your stuff in the future. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
