Healthcare -- which candidate would you vote for?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Just because you're not a liberal, doesn't mean you are a conservative. He's a self-proclaimed Libertarian. They do exist...

W/R/T economic policy, Libertarians are about as far right as anyone can be, often due to a lack of understanding of economics.

On topic, Sen. Clinton offered the best healthcare plan. Hopefully whatever plan is eventually passed by Congress will bear a close resemblance to it.

The best healthcare plan? Talk about a "lack of understanding of economics"!!!

See my quote above from Marko, or Lawrocket's posts....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

W/R/T economic policy, Libertarians are about as far right as anyone can be, often due to a lack of understanding of economics.

I disagree. Most libertarians understand enough about economics to know that certain promises cannot be kept. Thus, we are viewed as cold-hearted for saying the promises shouldn't be made.

For example, Social Security is contrary to the libertarian perspective. Most on the left say SS shouldn't be abolished. Most of them also say that the payments are way too low. Most of them also say that SS is about to go bankrupt unless it is fixed.

Libertarians say, "A program that doesn't do much, is about to go bankrupt, and super expensive should be abolished." for that they are cold-hearted. But, it's an understanding of the economic realities - you can try to polish a turd, but it's difficult and in the end still a turd.

Calling a turd a turd might hurt some feelings, but it's indicative of a fundamental grasp on reality.

Quote

Sen. Clinton offered the best healthcare plan.

Hmmm. That's a subjective thing. "The best." Frankly, I think I've got the best kids on earth. I can't prove it, of course, because what is "best" for you is not "best" for me.

Inherently, you have put your subjective feelings forth as something objective. Rather than saying, "I think Sen. Clinton offered the best healthcare plan" you wrote, "Sen. Clinton offered the best healthcare plan."

Let's be honest. what you think is "best" is not "best." Nor is what I or what anybody else thinks, because what's best for you is not what's best for me.

More importantly - what you think is best for others also may not best for them. Your statement belies my issue with liberals - they know the answers. They know what is best. At leats, they think they do.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

See my quote above from Marko, or Lawrocket's posts....

I've read your insights on economics. They reinforce my point by way of example.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

For example, Social Security is contrary to the libertarian perspective. …

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

See my quote above from Marko, or Lawrocket's posts....

I've read your insights on economics. They reinforce my point by way of example.

Not being able to understand the meaning of "record income tax receipts" doesn't show up YOUR knowledge of economics in a very favorable light, either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I disagree. Most libertarians understand enough about economics to know that certain promises cannot be kept. Thus, we are viewed as cold-hearted for saying the promises shouldn't be made.

That they advocate the elimination of public education casts doubt on their knowledge of economics.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I disagree. Most libertarians understand enough about economics to know that certain promises cannot be kept. Thus, we are viewed as cold-hearted for saying the promises shouldn't be made.

That they advocate the elimination of public education casts doubt on their knowledge of economics.

Elimination of public education? Where has that been advocated?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

you're going to have to support that claim.

A person that saves 10% of their income from their 20s to retirement will live quite well. SS forces them to save 12.4%, yet it is only good for about a third of their retirement needs. Explain.

If half the SS tax (and it is a tax) went to private accounts, people would do immensely better. The remaining half could be used for the transfer to the lowest quintile, those who actually gain from SS.

SS is insurance. It's just not very good insurance. And it definitely isn't a retirement plan.

[kelpdiver 2]

The LP has long advocated that education is not something that the government should be taxing for and funding. And the LP is usually the opposition opinion on any CA ballot initiatives involving school bonds. The below is quite clear on the subject.

http://www.lp.org/platform

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

you're going to have to support that claim.

I'm out of town at the moment, and don't have access to my hard copy data.

Quote

If half the SS tax (and it is a tax) went to private accounts, people would do immensely better. The remaining half could be used for the transfer to the lowest quintile, those who actually gain from SS.

Actuarial analysis has shown that there would be no real benefit from a private account. Some downsides would be that people would treat it as a retirement account instead of a safety net. It is not a 401k or IRA, and should not be treated as such.

Quote

SS is insurance. It's just not very good insurance. And it definitely isn't a retirement plan.

What other forms of insurance are you comparing it with?

You're right. It is not a retirement plan. It's not intended to be a retirement plan.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Ok - so it's a difference in HOW the schools are funded, not whether the schools exist - I misunderstood you, my apologies.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Sounds like they are saying a couple of things:
1) Keep the feds out of it an keep it local; and
2) Allow parent choice.

In a sense - vouchers. Instead of our present system, that directs additional funds to schools that underperform.'

It doesn't mean "no government involvement." It means that parents have the choice of where to send their kids to school.

Of course, this is blasphemy to some. "How can a parent send their kids to a school where I wouldn't send mine?! This should not be allowed because I know better what is best."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You're right. It is not a retirement plan. It's not intended to be a retirement plan.

The problem is that it became one a long time ago. Every year you get a report from them detailing how much you've contributed and what you can expect to get in retirement. It is a bad pension plan, with an insurance component for disability or the death of a parent/spouse. And the majority of Americans are relying on it.

The problem with private accounts is that this money is needed to maintain the current pyramid scheme. But there's no doubt that one's gross retirement benefits would be better. Tax rate might be scary however, for the couple generations to square away the Boomers.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And the majority of Americans are relying on it.

IIRC, the figure is around fifty percent. However, most of them rely on it as an income supplement, not their entire income, which is what it was intended to be.

Quote

The problem with private accounts is that this money is needed to maintain the current pyramid scheme. But there's no doubt that one's gross retirement benefits would be better.

That's one of the problems. Another problem is that not everyone understands investing well enough to achieve a positive return. These are all too often the same people who most need the safety net due to poor decisions with their primary investment plans. Those who make good investment decisions could likely obtain better returns than current Social Security returns, but if the inevitable poor returns are also taken into account, it's not clear that the annual return for the average taxpayer would exceed current returns.

As US retirement plans shift from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans, the problem of poor investment decisions in retirement plans will be exacerbated. Unfortunately, it's not reasonable to expect the majority of people to be informed investors, informed voters, and competent in their profession/vocation.

There are some excellent tax credits available via EGTRRA (and the repeal of its sunset clauses via the Pension Protection Act of 2006), in addition to other applicable tax deductions, up to 50% credit, to lower income taxpayers (i.e. < $25,001 per year for individuals) for 401k/IRA contributions up to $2000 annually. I personally believe that this provides a better option than privatizing social security.

Quote

Tax rate might be scary however, for the couple generations to square away the Boomers.

The retirement of the Boomers poses the greatest challenge to Social Security, far greater than the investment practices.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That's one of the problems. Another problem is that not everyone understands investing well enough to achieve a positive return. These are all too often the same people who most need the safety net due to poor decisions with their primary investment plans.

That tired dog was never valid. When the tech market crashed, the privitization talks died with it, but not for valid reasons. This was used by those who opposed the concept of private accounts entirely, since it puts the power back in the hands of those paying the tax.

If people foolishly put all their money in treasuries, they'd still do better with private accounts.

This decade we've seen this MAGICAL investment vehicle called the retirement date fund. You make everyone use it and this bullshit excuse goes away immediately.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

That's one of the problems. Another problem is that not everyone understands investing well enough to achieve a positive return. These are all too often the same people who most need the safety net due to poor decisions with their primary investment plans.

That tired dog was never valid.

It's still valid. SS is a safety net, not a retirement plan. It has to work for everybody, especially those less likely to make sound investment decisions.

When the tech market crashed, the privitization talks died with it, but not for valid reasons. This was used by those who opposed the concept of private accounts entirely, since it puts the power back in the hands of those paying the tax.

If people foolishly put all their money in treasuries, they'd still do better with private accounts.

Quote

This decade we've seen this MAGICAL investment vehicle called the retirement date fund.

If everybody made smart investment decisions, such a vehicle would be unnecessary. Reducing investment portfolio risk as retirement approaches is among the most basic investment strategies, yet I would be surprised if the majority of working Americans understood the hows and whys of the strategy.

Incidentally, target date funds do not always follow that basic rule consistently.

Quote

You make everyone use it and this bullshit excuse goes away immediately.

What is the point of letting people control their own accounts if they are mandated to invest in a particular manner?

As I said, actuarial analysis has found no real benefit to private accounts in social security, but there are real accompanying risks that are undesirable for a safety net account.

There are significant tax incentives for people to establish their own retirement accounts, IRA or 401k (or similar), Roth or traditional. There is not a shortage of opportunities for retirement plans controlled by the individual. Those play a different role than Social Security. It would be a mistake to treat Social Security like them.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What is the point of letting people control their own accounts if they are mandated to invest in a particular manner?

Because it is now their money, not a vague promise from the government that can be taken away.

For different reasons, companies have switched from a defined benefit plan (pension) to a defined contribution plan. They put 6% of your salary in a named account. This relieves them of the obligation to fund it adequetely, a problem plaguing older large companies and municipalities. It also relieves the employee of the risk that the company will fold and not pay up. It also gives portability, since the pension plans only worked in the era where you stayed at the place for 20 years till retirement.

Quote

There are significant tax incentives for people to establish their own retirement accounts, IRA or 401k (or similar), Roth or traditional. There is not a shortage of opportunities for retirement plans controlled by the individual.

Yes, but that lost 12.4% sure would work well there. Most people can't contribute that much to their 401k. If SS actually worked, maybe that loss would seem more acceptable. But we know it's a slow moving ponzi scheme, moving in the wrong direction.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Because it is now their money, not a vague promise from the government that can be taken away.

It would leave them more vulnerable to the very problems Social Security is intended to mitigate. That makes it an ill advised change to Social Security.

Quote

For different reasons, companies have switched from a defined benefit plan (pension) to a defined contribution plan. They put 6% of your salary in a named account. This relieves them of the obligation to fund it adequetely, a problem plaguing older large companies and municipalities.

One of many reasons. Switching from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans shifts the risk from the employer to the employee. With DC plans, the employee takes the market risks and longevity risks, among others.

Quote

It also relieves the employee of the risk that the company will fold and not pay up.

ERISA largely eliminated that risk before the shift from DB to DC plans became commonplace.

Quote

It also gives portability, since the pension plans only worked in the era where you stayed at the place for 20 years till retirement.

Yes, DC plans are more portable.

Quote

There are significant tax incentives for people to establish their own retirement accounts, IRA or 401k (or similar), Roth or traditional. There is not a shortage of opportunities for retirement plans controlled by the individual.

Quote

Yes, but that lost 12.4% sure would work well there. Most people can't contribute that much to their 401k.

Employees don't pay all that. It is, at best, unlikely that employees would see their employers' contributions added to their salary if the tax were repealed. Additionally, not all of the tax goes towards Social Security "retirement" checks. The tax also covers Medicare & Medicaid, unemployment insurance, SCHIP, and other benefits. Furthermore, lower income workers can get up to $1000 tax credit for contributing to their own retirement plans (something Social Security is not intended to be) and higher income workers do not have to pay Social Security taxes on their entire income.

Quote

If SS actually worked, maybe that loss would seem more acceptable.

Social Security does work. It has some problems, but they are primarily due to the Baby Boomers retiring, not because there are no private accounts.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Medicare is a separate 1.65% X 2 from the 6.2% X 2. Avoid the sloppiness.

ERISA did not eliminate the pension risk, and companies continue to underfund using questionable projections. In this day, one would be insane to prefer a DB over the 'risk' the DC plan involves.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Medicare is a separate 1.65% X 2 from the 6.2% X 2. Avoid the sloppiness.

Sorry, as I said, my data is at home, where I'm not. Despite that, it is disingenuous to claim that employees pay 12.4% SS tax.

Quote

ERISA did not eliminate the pension risk, and companies continue to underfund using questionable projections.

There are strict rules regarding the funding and funding status of pension funds, as well as what qualifications are required of those that determine the funding status (actuaries with additional licensing requirements IIRC).

Quote

In this day, one would be insane to prefer a DB over the 'risk' the DC plan involves.

Not necessarily. It all depends on the particular employee and their individual situation. Some people are better off with DB plans, and some people are better off with DC plans. They both have their benefits and detriments, which is one of the reasons "hybrid" DB plans were created.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Medicare is a separate 1.65% X 2 from the 6.2% X 2. Avoid the sloppiness.

Sorry, as I said, my data is at home, where I'm not. Despite that, it is disingenuous to claim that employees pay 12.4% SS tax.

Not really - the SS collects 12.4% of my salary. I directly pay half of that. You're right to question if the employer would choose to give the other half to me, though since mine kicks in 6% to a DC plan and 6% in 401k match, I'm not going to sweat it. But I view that 12.4% as a tax with no return, esp given the likely means testing and taxation by our retirement age - the only people who will benefit from SS are the ones who act irresponsibly now.

Quote

There are strict rules regarding the funding and funding status of pension funds, as well as what qualifications are required of those that determine the funding status (actuaries with additional licensing requirements IIRC).

Not strict enough to observers like John Bogle.

[pirana 0]

Quote

At leats, they think they do.

I once worked for a lady named Leats. Leats Tomlyanovich. Of pizzeria fame. Where I came from anyway. End of obtuse thought.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

you're going to have to support that claim.

A person that saves 10% of their income from their 20s to retirement will live quite well. SS forces them to save 12.4%, yet it is only good for about a third of their retirement needs. Explain.

If half the SS tax (and it is a tax) went to private accounts, people would do immensely better. The remaining half could be used for the transfer to the lowest quintile, those who actually gain from SS.

SS is insurance. It's just not very good insurance. And it definitely isn't a retirement plan.

Agreed. A 7% average annual rate of return on a long term investment is pathetic.

It sucks as insurance. It sucks as a savings vehicle. It's only value is that it forces savings on people who wouldn't save otherwise. And if you are going to do that you ought to do it properly.

People who fight against privatizing a long-term program like SS are people you should never want managing your money.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

The LP has long advocated that education is not something that the government should be taxing for and funding. And the LP is usually the opposition opinion on any CA ballot initiatives involving school bonds. The below is quite clear on the subject.

http://www.lp.org/platform

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

In theory, very good. In practice, lousy idea. (Though I think many Libertarian ideals do have some merit.

The problem is there are too many ignorant parents. And too many that would rather buy a cfew cases of Bud than a semesters worth of school books and supplies.

Tempting to say let them fuck up their own kids, but that presents too much of a future burden on society.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley