This will be a good decade for bicycling!

On Jan 5, 7:24 pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:08 am, Tom Sherman °_°



wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:

Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.

Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of
course, removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the
funding problem.

You're right to the extent that we're already raising the retirement
age. A 1980s era bipartisan political deal allowed higher social
security payments to current beneficiaries than they had earned via
the taxes they paid, by raising normal retirement age from 65 to 67
over a period of years after 2000. (We're at 66 right now with
further increases coming.) Politically it's working like a charm; no
one who was about to be shafted 30 years later noticed enough to put
up a fuss, and now it's a fiat accompli. But it was ethically
bankrupt: pure robbery of the present generation to the benefit of the
last generation. Now that card has been played and where to you go
from here? Increase it to 70?? 75?? The "savings" from increaseing
the eligibility age have already been spent and the system will still
bankrupt - though a sustained replacement level birthrate will help.

Social security may (or may not) be justified as a species of
compulsory savings program. But in the Liberals hands (with in
fairness, more than a few conservative fellow travelers - even Reagan
signed off on the 1980s deal noted above), it's not that. Liberals
now want to decide how much to take and from whom, and to whom to
give it, as if the entire national income is theirs to distribute, and
real earners keep only as much as the gov't deigns to let them keep.
Nothing illustrates this better than the comment above about taxing
all income for social security purposes, not just an amount sufficient
to justify benefits received. This is about government control -
nothing more or less. And it's wrong, wrong, wrong!

**** you.

On Jan 5, 8:39 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jan 5, 7:24 pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote:



On Jan 5, 1:08 am, Tom Sherman °_°

wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:

Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.

Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of
course, removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the
funding problem.

You're right to the extent that we're already raising the retirement
age. A 1980s era bipartisan political deal allowed higher social
security payments to current beneficiaries than they had earned via
the taxes they paid, by raising normal retirement age from 65 to 67
over a period of years after 2000. (We're at 66 right now with
further increases coming.) Politically it's working like a charm; no
one who was about to be shafted 30 years later noticed enough to put
up a fuss, and now it's a fiat accompli. But it was ethically
bankrupt: pure robbery of the present generation to the benefit of the
last generation. Now that card has been played and where to you go
from here? Increase it to 70?? 75?? The "savings" from increaseing
the eligibility age have already been spent and the system will still
bankrupt - though a sustained replacement level birthrate will help.

Social security may (or may not) be justified as a species of
compulsory savings program. But in the Liberals hands (with in
fairness, more than a few conservative fellow travelers - even Reagan
signed off on the 1980s deal noted above), it's not that. Liberals
now want to decide how much to take and from whom, and to whom to
give it, as if the entire national income is theirs to distribute, and
real earners keep only as much as the gov't deigns to let them keep.
Nothing illustrates this better than the comment above about taxing
all income for social security purposes, not just an amount sufficient
to justify benefits received. This is about government control -
nothing more or less. And it's wrong, wrong, wrong!

**** you.

Sorry 'bout that.

Jay Beattie wrote:
Exploiting the labor of others? Isn't that called creating jobs?
Here is a prescription for you: (1) quit your job, (2) go in to
business for yourself, (3) employ six or more employees

That's where your argument falls down.

(4) report
back in ten years with your views on taxes and "unearned wealth." --
Jay Beattie.

Cheers,

Jim
--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 5, 7:31 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:08 am, Tom Sherman _
wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.
Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of
course, removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the
funding problem.
You're right to the extent that we're already raising the retirement
age. A 1980s era bipartisan political deal allowed higher social
security payments to current beneficiaries than they had earned via
the taxes they paid, by raising normal retirement age from 65 to 67
over a period of years after 2000. (We're at 66 right now with
further increases coming.) Politically it's working like a charm; no
one who was about to be shafted 30 years later noticed enough to put
up a fuss, and now it's a fiat accompli. But it was ethically
bankrupt: pure robbery of the present generation to the benefit of the
last generation. Now that card has been played and where to you go
from here? Increase it to 70?? 75?? The "savings" from increaseing
the eligibility age have already been spent and the system will still
bankrupt - though a sustained replacement level birthrate will help.
I will not get full Social Security benefits unless I wait to 70 to
retire, and none at all before 65.

Social security may (or may not) be justified as a species of
compulsory savings program. But in the Liberals hands (with in
fairness, more than a few conservative fellow travelers - even Reagan
signed off on the 1980s deal noted above), it's not that. Liberals
now want to decide how much to take and from whom, and to whom to
give it, as if the entire national income is theirs to distribute, and
real earners keep only as much as the gov't deigns to let them keep.
Nothing illustrates this better than the comment above about taxing
all income for social security purposes, not just an amount sufficient
to justify benefits received. This is about government control -
nothing more or less. And it's wrong, wrong, wrong!
Nonsense. No one makes money in a vacuum, and no one becomes rich
without exploiting the labors of others. Taxes are just recouping some
of the unearned wealth for the benefit of society.

Exploiting the labor of others? Isn't that called creating jobs?
Here is a prescription for you: (1) quit your job, (2) go in to
business for yourself, (3) employ six or more employees (4) report
back in ten years with your views on taxes and "unearned wealth." --
Jay Beattie.

butbutbut, you are not going to get into the theoretical upper tax
brackets doing that, unless you are involved in suing people and taking
the lion's share of the settlements.

Here is more realistic scenario - go to a $50K/year prep school, get a
legacy admission to an Ivy League school, get the best internships from
friends of the family, go from graduation into a management career
track, do well because you know all the right people, get paid millions
for doing a mediocre job of upper management.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

"To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
It's not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts
who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security
and Medicare. The elites made it. They are rich and powerful.
They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves
(even if they inherited the money or position). If you didn't,
then that means you don't deserve it." - Ian Welsh

Dan Overman wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:39 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jan 5, 7:24 pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote:



On Jan 5, 1:08 am, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.
Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of
course, removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the
funding problem.
You're right to the extent that we're already raising the retirement
age. A 1980s era bipartisan political deal allowed higher social
security payments to current beneficiaries than they had earned via
the taxes they paid, by raising normal retirement age from 65 to 67
over a period of years after 2000. (We're at 66 right now with
further increases coming.) Politically it's working like a charm; no
one who was about to be shafted 30 years later noticed enough to put
up a fuss, and now it's a fiat accompli. But it was ethically
bankrupt: pure robbery of the present generation to the benefit of the
last generation. Now that card has been played and where to you go
from here? Increase it to 70?? 75?? The "savings" from increaseing
the eligibility age have already been spent and the system will still
bankrupt - though a sustained replacement level birthrate will help.
Social security may (or may not) be justified as a species of
compulsory savings program. But in the Liberals hands (with in
fairness, more than a few conservative fellow travelers - even Reagan
signed off on the 1980s deal noted above), it's not that. Liberals
now want to decide how much to take and from whom, and to whom to
give it, as if the entire national income is theirs to distribute, and
real earners keep only as much as the gov't deigns to let them keep.
Nothing illustrates this better than the comment above about taxing
all income for social security purposes, not just an amount sufficient
to justify benefits received. This is about government control -
nothing more or less. And it's wrong, wrong, wrong!
**** you.

Sorry 'bout that.

I was hoping you would expand on your original thought.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

"To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
It's not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts
who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security
and Medicare. The elites made it. They are rich and powerful.
They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves
(even if they inherited the money or position). If you didn't,
then that means you don't deserve it." - Ian Welsh

"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
[...]
Here is more realistic scenario - go to a $50K/year prep school, get a
legacy admission to an Ivy League school, get the best internships from
friends of the family, go from graduation into a management career track,
do well because you know all the right people, get paid millions for doing
a mediocre job of upper management.

Mr. Sherman reminds me of the poor little boy (a la Charles Dickens) looking
from the cold outside into a warm room at the well off and dying of envy.
But why? They are few in number and have their own crosses to bear. Does
anyone here envy the life of Jack Kennedy for instance?

It is a full time job for the rich to hang onto their wealth since others
are always trying to take it away from them. They must invest their wealth
and put it to work in the society at large. If they don't do that, they will
not be wealthy for very long.

The richest possessions any person can have are good health and an active
mind. If you have that, you have everything. Mr. Sherman seems not to
realize how wealthy he is.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Jan 6, 12:18*am, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jan 5, 7:31 pm, Tom Sherman _
wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:08 am, Tom Sherman _
wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. *The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. *Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.
Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of
course, removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the
funding problem.
You're right to the extent that we're already raising the retirement
age. *A 1980s era bipartisan political deal allowed higher social
security payments to current beneficiaries than they had earned via
the taxes they paid, *by raising normal retirement age from 65 to 67
over a period of years after 2000. *(We're at 66 right now with
further increases coming.) *Politically it's working like a charm; *no
one who was about to be shafted 30 years later noticed enough to put
up a fuss, and now it's a fiat accompli. *But it was ethically
bankrupt: pure robbery of the present generation to the benefit of the
last generation. *Now that card has been played and where to you go
from here? *Increase it to 70?? *75?? *The "savings" from increaseing
the eligibility age have already been spent and the system will still
bankrupt - though a sustained replacement level birthrate will help.
I will not get full Social Security benefits unless I wait to 70 to
retire, and none at all before 65.

Social security may (or may not) be justified as a species of
compulsory savings program. *But in the Liberals hands (with in
fairness, more than a few conservative fellow travelers - even Reagan
signed off on the 1980s deal noted above), it's not that. *Liberals
now want to decide how much to take and from whom, *and to whom to
give it, as if the entire national income is theirs to distribute, and
real earners keep only as much as the gov't deigns to let them keep.
Nothing illustrates this better than the comment above about taxing
all income for social security purposes, not just an amount sufficient
to justify benefits received. *This is about government control -
nothing more or less. *And it's wrong, wrong, wrong!
Nonsense. No one makes money in a vacuum, and no one becomes rich
without exploiting the labors of others. Taxes are just recouping some
of the unearned wealth for the benefit of society.

Exploiting the labor of others? *Isn't that called creating jobs?
Here is a prescription for you: (1) quit your job, (2) go in to
business for yourself, (3) employ six or more employees (4) report
back in ten years with your views on taxes and "unearned wealth." *--
Jay Beattie.

butbutbut, you are not going to get into the theoretical upper tax
brackets doing that, unless you are involved in suing people and taking
the lion's share of the settlements.

I do defense work (and not contingent fee work), so I don't get a
percentage of any settlements -- but I could. I could have made that
choice -- trying crappy fender bender cases until a good case came
along, hoping to make enough so my secretary, paralegal and bookkeeper
all get their paychecks like clockwork. There are plaintiff's
attorneys out there who make gross sums of money, but those attorneys
made a choice, paid the price, and it paid off for them big time. We
cannot whine about their choices.

Here is more realistic scenario - go to a $50K/year prep school, get a
legacy admission to an Ivy League school, get the best internships from
friends of the family, go from graduation into a management career
track, do well because you know all the right people, get paid millions
for doing a mediocre job of upper management.

Or a more realistic scenario: come from a middle class (albeit
academic) family. Go to a good West Coast college, start at the
bottom doing route sales, work up through various divisions and then
become CEO/chairman of the company. That is the story of my uncle,
who was CEO/chairman of Pfizer. My other uncle has a similar story,
although he went out on his own and started a chain of stores called
Trader Joe's (actually it started as Pronto Markets and became Trader
Joe's). In the meantime, my father made the choice to open his own
small business -- a drug store. It paid the bills, gave his children
a place to work and made him happy, if not rich. Some of our long term
employees were like family, and many kids in town got their first jobs
at the store. It was hardly a situation of getting rich off the labor
of others.-- Jay Beattie.

On Jan 5, 7:24*pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote:

It is also the overconsumption of resources by the "first world" that
are the cause of the ongoing ecological disasters. Of course, the elites
will likely be able to buy their way out of the crisis, while the
"worthless eaters" (thank you Henry Kissinger) will pay the price with
their lives.

I disagree but I've used up my quota of bile for the day. *The worst
ecological problems are away from the first world - polluted rivers
and air, lack of sanitary facilities, rampant *communicable diseases,
undrinkable water - the list of real problems can go on forever. * Oh,
and unsafe bicycling conditions.

I thought we enjoyed UNSAFE BICYCLE CONDITIONS in the First World as
well.

But the Third World only does what they see on American TV and what
their elites see when they travel to the First World, and probably
they have a high concentration of SUVs going up and down their broken
roads.

On Jan 5, 7:31*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:

The worst
ecological problems are away from the first world - polluted rivers
and air, lack of sanitary facilities, rampant *communicable diseases,
undrinkable water - the list of real problems can go on forever. * Oh,
and unsafe bicycling conditions.

Overconsumption of fossil fuels, minerals, potable water, etc are
primarily first world sins, with only a small elite minority doing the
same in developing countries. These are the one that will lead to
ecosystem collapse.


Thank you. That's what I said before. And China and India are catching
up with this pattern as they work toward "progress."

"Jay Beattie" wrote in message
...
On Jan 6, 12:18 am, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
[...]
Here is more realistic scenario - go to a $50K/year prep school, get a
legacy admission to an Ivy League school, get the best internships from
friends of the family, go from graduation into a management career
track, do well because you know all the right people, get paid millions
for doing a mediocre job of upper management.

Or a more realistic scenario: come from a middle class (albeit
academic) family. Go to a good West Coast college, start at the
bottom doing route sales, work up through various divisions and then
become CEO/chairman of the company. That is the story of my uncle,
who was CEO/chairman of Pfizer. My other uncle has a similar story,
although he went out on his own and started a chain of stores called
Trader Joe's (actually it started as Pronto Markets and became Trader
Joe's). In the meantime, my father made the choice to open his own
small business -- a drug store. It paid the bills, gave his children
a place to work and made him happy, if not rich. Some of our long term
employees were like family, and many kids in town got their first jobs
at the store. It was hardly a situation of getting rich off the labor
of others.-- Jay Beattie.

Mr. Sherman's group are investors and Mr. Beattie's group are entrepreneurs.
A capitalist society needs both types. I reserve a certain amount of disdain
for both types. But they make my life style possible (that of a dilettante
who abhors anything approaching the world of work) so I can't complain too
much. What amuses me the most is all the pleasure that these investor types
and entrepreneur types take in their rather trivial accomplishments. Well,
not everyone can be an aristocrat like me. Like God, I simply am!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota