11 days until your SS checks might be interrupted

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Quantum Nerd, May 20, 2023.

  1. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,373
    Likes Received:
    9,807
    Trophy Points:
    113


    No. The difference is I AM reforming the system by my actions. You created the problem with your actions. You took compensation from those workers. I have chose not to intentionally and actively take compensation from those workers.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2023
  2. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,263
    Likes Received:
    25,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Our Big Bad Governments seem to have have infected some of our citizens with Stockholm Syndrome.
    Reject thought control, stop the graft, double the pensions, and put $500K in vested healthcare accounts. There would still be plenty of loot left over for reduced more efficient bureaucracy and its crony capitalist pilot fish.
    Your Pension Is a Lie: There's $210 Trillion Of Liabilities Our Government Can't Fulfill, Oct 10, 2017.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnma...-our-government-cant-fulfill/?sh=f7d6eac65b1f
     
  3. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,263
    Likes Received:
    25,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Our federal, state and most local governments collect far more than enough revenue to easily enact the reforms you suggest.
     
  4. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    :weed: :weed: :weed: :roflol: :roflol:
    Please, stop. My sides are beginning to hurt.
     
  5. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,373
    Likes Received:
    9,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think it’s important for people willing to learn the truth about investments and what the productivity pay gap represents to have access to accurate information, so I won’t stop posting facts.

    And you will continue to post fallacy in response. Appeal to the stone fallacy in the above response.
     
  6. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some food for thought. People want lower prices. Business responds by outsourcing manufacturing to countries with lower costs and standards of living. That puts American workers in competition with the workers in those countries.

    So to follow your desire to the letter businesses would have to outsource everything else, or risk losing their business because American workers are overpaid. Or people could accept the higher prices of American made products. Or government could get serious about import duties to help level the price playing field. But to ask for and get higher salaries and wages isn't a solution. Something else has to give first.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2023
  7. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ABC reports, "The debt ceiling deal brokered by President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy cleared a major procedural hurdle on Tuesday night, just days before a potential default by the U.S. government.

    "The House Rules Committee gave the green light for the Fiscal Responsibility Act to advance to the full House so members can hold a planned vote on Wednesday night before sending the legislation to the Senate ahead of Monday’s default deadline.

    "The panel advanced the bill to the floor for debate in a narrow 7-6 vote.

    "A deal to raise the nation's debt ceiling is heading to a crucial vote in the House on Wednesday night, the next step in averting a potential default now just days away.

    "A subsequent vote to begin debate on the bill, on Wednesday afternoon, was approved by the House 241-187 when about three dozen Democrats joined a majority of Republicans in voting yes.

    "A full floor vote is scheduled to start at 8:30 p.m. Eastern and the legislation is expected to pass then as well, but frustration in both parties has seen leaders working around the clock to shore up enough support among their members. The Treasury Department has estimated that the government will run out of cash to pay all of its bills by Monday."
     
  8. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Poor senile old Biden played the Republicans and specifically Kevin McKraken like a cheap fiddle today. He got most of what he wanted, protected Social Security, protected Medicare, protected Medicaid, and got a reprieve from any debt ceiling hostage-taking for 2 years! Republicans were last seen licking their wounds. Poor old Biden. LOL!!!!
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2023
  9. Green Man

    Green Man Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2023
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yup, the democrats demand the Sun and the republicans fold and give them the Moon.

    Happens as regular as springtime.
     
  10. 2ndclass289

    2ndclass289 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,130
    Likes Received:
    1,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your quote is pretty insulting, but considering it’s coming coming from you, it became an afterthought rather quickly.
     
  11. 2ndclass289

    2ndclass289 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,130
    Likes Received:
    1,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please present something to explain this quote.
     
  12. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,406
    Likes Received:
    26,535
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Save This Clip For Next Time They Pretend They Don’t Wanna Cut Soc Security, Medicare

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is seemingly trying to get a handful of far-right members of the Freedom Caucus to chill out and stop threatening to redo the speakership election. They’re not likely to successfully depose him, but no one is eager for a redo of the January spectacle as a few loud members seek to reassert their authority. And, so, in what is seemingly a half-hearted effort to throw them a bone, McCarthy went on Fox News and promised to create some vague “commission” that’ll review further cuts to next year’s budget.

    The speaker then took it a step further. Instead of just promising that “this isn’t the end” and proposing some sort of additional amorphous cuts to quell a hardliner uprising, McCarthy doubled down, raising the possibility that this next step commission could look into gutting Social Security and Medicare. Music, in theory, to the ears of a salivating Freedom Caucus.

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblo...end-they-dont-wanna-cut-soc-security-medicare

    I suppose if Repubs want to commit political suicide, more than they already have, we should let them.
     
  13. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL, I have explained it to you. SS is a tax, period. If it is a tax, then it is not an investment, financially speaking. I know people want to make SS more like an IRA or 401k type account, but it is not and never has been.

    An investment is something that is voluntary by nature, a tax is not. And that is why SS is not a Ponzi scheme. I have heard this type of argument since the 1990s and it has been pretty much debunked by any and every major investment guru who has scruples and no political play or ploy to begin with. And when it comes to a Ponzi scheme, I gave you Title 18 of the United States Code which codifies a Ponzi scheme. All requirements must be met and SS does not meet all of those requirements under the law. A definition does not explain everything in detail and you are taking liberties on what the definition is.

    https://www.diffen.com/difference/P...solvent; Social,there are no investments made.
     
  14. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You should know that nothing in life is guaranteed, even private pensions. If you want to do a really interesting analysis, look at both the SS and the Railroad Retirement Fund system. Care to guess which one is more sustainable even though both are paid for by taxes?
     
  15. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understood what you were arguing and read your post. The problem you had originally was you linked investing into lending. I merely explained that investing is not congruent to lending but can be other methods as well. Gave you an example of investing in your kids because every parent knows in this country tha the kid cannot repay what the parents invested their kids in, either monetary value or intrinsic value on what they should believe in. I even explained that one does not lend money to the SS system because it is a tax under the law.



    That was not the original intent. When it was set up, it used the general funds to pay SS payments. But in those days, most people rarely lived past 70, and most people did not reach past 65. But the whole intent was to give some reprieve to seniors, anyone who was 60 at that time in the 1930s so that they would not have to work until they died. But SS has gone through various changes and it was not until the 1950s that our current system was set up. That was also the first time W2s were introduced even though we had tax returns since 1913. Since then, we have advanced and due to the evolution of our health care, our living standards, and so forth, this is what it is. In addition, SS was never intended to be the primary source for retirement, and that is evident by the FICA and SECA laws that were passed, which made funding the SS system a tax. It was modified in the 1960s when Medicare was introduced and passed as well.


    Well, for starters, it is not 600% that needs to be raised. We either need to put more workers into the system, control the cost of living increases more prudently, which includes inflation, and a few other things. We can also allow SS Trust funds to invest into the stock market using life cycle funds through the TSP. But that will take political will and most people are hestiant to allow the government to invest like some wealth fund that most other countries have with their SS systems.



    But lending is voluntary. But the government does not technically "print" more money. If you look at the liquid M1 supply, this is basically cash and currency. It has been relatively constant for the past 4 decades. We print money through the Department of Treasury Bureau of Engraving and printing. What you are mistaken is thinking M1 is printing money and generally that is not the case. We have liquid M1, M1 which includes all demand deposits, etc. However, when it comes to lending, then you are looking at the M2 supply which is M1 plus all the lending of financial instruments through the M1 supply. So, when you are looking at "printing money" you are actually referring to the M2 supply and that is where we get the balance between aggregate money supply and aggregate money demanded.



    [/QUOTE]Ponzi didn’t sell annuities. He practiced legal arbitrage until the IRCs he was using were suspended. Then he transitioned to full Ponzi. But we can’t call his scheme a Ponzi because the laws you are citing (18 U.S. Code § 1341) didn’t exist prior to his scheme. You are claiming a Ponzi is only a Ponzi if it is addressed by the above code. Clearly Ponzi’s scheme in 1920 was not actually a Ponzi because the US code you claim is the definitive definition of Ponzi did not exist. You are also claiming a scheme using later investments to pay initial investors practiced in Siberia is not a Ponzi because it doesn’t violate US code.[/QUOTE]
    Ponzi schemes can pretty much sell anything from annuities to life insurance policies to even real estate. But that is not important, it is the rate of return, among other things, in which the Ponzi scheme exists.

    In the 1920s, there were very, very few regulations. We practically had no regulations on child labor laws, pay laws, environmental laws, and so forth. But given the unscrupulous nature of mankind, we had to create regulations to prevent harmful. Now it appears we are going back because some republican states are moving back child labor laws, among other things.




    No it does not .


    557, you have both a perverted and simplistic view of what you think an investment is.


    You are explaining the political process of how we create taxation in this country. But that is not what taxation is. Taxation is the revenue for the government to pay its obligations. How we do it is based on the governing document called the US Constitution.


    [/QUOTE]Now it’s time for you all to invest in the ultimate investment—education. After all, higher education has a return on investment of about 85%. But your ROI here can beat that because I’m not charging you tuition. :)[/QUOTE]
    LOL, I have done that already. Spend 20-plus years in what I did for a living and something that I loved to do. If you love something and get paid for, you cannot put a price tag or ROI on that type of benefit IMO. But we as a country invest poorly in our primary and secondary education. We don't pay teachers enough with many who have to get second jobs in order to live, among all the BS they have to put up with in parents, administrators, politicians, etc.


    It is what we go by, not by the Von Mises Institute of word semantics. This is what you are arguing, figuratively speaking: you are explaining to the officer that you are not driving, but traveling while operating a motor vehicle, which is a car, and thinking there is a difference between the words you are using. That pretty much sums up your explanation of the "SS is a Ponzi scheme" argument.


    Taxation is not investing. It never has been and never will be. In my professional experience, some 20 plus years, no one likes to pay taxes whether it is a sales, property, income, or tariff. That is the universal truth. Some go to great lengths, by violating the law, in order to not pay taxes. If they get caught, arrested, and tried for those crimes, they still make up excuses ranging from the Dirty Dozen Tax Scams to what you are arguing now. But in reality, a tax is not an investment because you and I really have no say so in how it is to be used. We elect people to make those decisions for us, and most people will reelect them if that politician makes the wrong decision, but the government can have all the taxation and chose not to spend it. Again, you are obfuscating our government and how it operates to what the true nature of a tax is.


    Most government services are labor intensive. If you did a labor-intensive job, you know it is hard work, it is not easy, and it is at times time consuming if you want to do it right. And the reason why the government does these services because the private sector does not see a profit in them nor a demand, but it is something that has to be done. The government today now uses some private sector initiatives and that has been the case since the 1970s, but most of this is towards managing the workforce, not the mission statement set forth by Congress and/or the Executive Branch.
     
  16. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,373
    Likes Received:
    9,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh boy. First off, I’m not opposed to SS. At all. As a social safety net it’s the cat’s meow.

    Next, you guys always operate from false premises. Social security tax is not mandatory. It’s voluntary. You can not force anyone to work. Employment is voluntary. There is one exception, that being involuntary servitude practiced by the government. Ironically any compensation from that slave labor is exempt from taxation including SS tax. There are also choices employed/working folks can make that exempt them from SS taxation. Paying SS tax is a choice many make, but it’s a choice.

    The US code you supplied concerns mail and interstate carrier fraud. You are welcome to try again but your link does not define a ponzi. I supplied the SEC definition. I’ve not taken any liberties at all.

    You probably didn’t read your link, but it simply lays out some “facts” on Ponzis and SS. It doesn’t debunk anything. It does make some false claims. One being SS is partially funded by income taxes. Only income tax revenue from taxation of SS benefits is returned to SS. So no, SS is NOT funded by income tax at all. Also the cite claims SS is solvent but Ponzis are not. Of course that all depends on what point in time one tests for solvency. At certain points a Ponzi can be solvent. It depends on how many are “investing” and what the promised returns are and over what period of time. Social security is the same. It is solvent today but only because we have increased contribution rates 600% and raised the cap. In the future if nothing changes SS will be insolvent. I don’t think your cite that sets up comparisons on consumer items etc. is authoritative especially considering some of the information is false.

    Finally, financially speaking, all taxes are investments. You may be referring to investments regulated by the SEC or something I don’t know. But that’s not the discussion here as you have referred to investing in children by foregoing immediate consumption to gain a more advantageous outcome in the future.

    Ya’ll are fine with statements like “our taxes are vital investments in education” or “taxation ensures necessary investments in infrastructure”. But when someone points out SS tax is an investment in societal stability there is visceral disgust for such an idea. It’s very odd.
     
  17. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For starters, I would beg to differ. It is mandatory if you have earned income of some sort, generally. But it is mandatory. Now, it is your choice whether to have earned income or not, but once you have earned income, then you must pay a tax. For Self Employment tax, that amount must be greater than $400 for the tax to be imposed. That is clearly stated in the Tax Code, 26 USC 3101 and 3102. It is automatic with dependent income or wages, but you must calculate your net self-employment income for SECA to be applied.

    Because SS is a tax, that means it is not an investment, not in a traditional, financial sense. But the basic premise of investment is that investment is voluntary. You much choose whether to invest or not or how you finance the investment. But that is not the case with tax. It must be paid. If not, you may have penalties or interest, or if egregious enough, may be criminal in nature by Title 26 and Title 18. But you get to calculate using your tax return and all the rules therein, to determine how much you are taxed given your exact circumstances.
     
  18. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,373
    Likes Received:
    9,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No you are not reading what I post. I factually stated lending is by definition investing. In the same paragraph I said annuities are investments etc. I never said lending was the only form of investing. You are making that all up out of whole cloth.

    It’s funny you use children as as example since minimum investment in children is just as mandatory by law as SS tax. :)

    Thanks for supporting my argument!

    The idea SS tax is a loan to government was not introduced to the thread by me. Of course you would know this if you actually read my posts.


    Oh dear. Common set of misinformation there from you. You are using raw data on life expectancy at birth which has little relevance to SS. The SS administration vehemently disagrees with you on this one! Decreased infant mortality (that accounts for your “figures” actually helps fund SS over time because it keeps the supply of new contributors growing.

    The metric that matters to SS in the context of longevity is life expectancy after reaching adulthood and beginning contributions to SS. In 1940, 54% of men who reached age 21 reached age 65. For women who reached age 21, 60% reached 65. Furthermore, of those men who DID reach 65, they on average lived to be 77.7 years old. Women who reached age 65 lived to be 79.7 years old on average.

    Here is what the SSA themselves concludes from this information.

    https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

    If you remember I already pointed this out to you. Probably didn’t read it…

    Social security was ALWAYS intended to depend on a growing set of contributors/investors. It ALWAYS was intended to have current investors pay off older investors. It ALWAYS had this in common with the classic Ponzi.

    This may come as news to folks who supposedly spent careers in “investing”, but our whole economy is set up this way. We MUST have a growing population to support it. Why do you think both parties support immigration regardless of documentation? Why do you think immigrants with high fertility rates are prioritized?

    Well, for starters I never said anything about needing to raise SS tax. I pointed out SS is solvent TODAY because we ALREADY raised it 600%. And raised the cap. And included more classes of workers who must pay if they CHOOSE those jobs/careers.

    Yes, more workers in the system. Again, why do you think we need immigrants?

    In principle I’m not at all opposed to investing SS funds for better returns. I do shutter to think of the games politicians would play in their personal investments when they had even more power to move markets at will. Yikes.

    Sigh. I’ve already told you I used “printing money” as a colloquialism. I said we can use whatever term YOU like for increasing the monetary supply. That is what I’m referring to, not inking cotton and linen or minting coinage.

    I’ve never even referred to M1. My comments have been about M2 and also MZM. I hope that helps.

    My point is SS’s solvency is partially a function of the government’s ability to affect the monetary supply (and not dimes and $20 bills).

    Yes Ponzis can use all kinds of vehicles. But you claimed Charles Ponzi sold insurance and then claimed he sold annuities. It’s just amusing to me when people claim expertise in a subject they demonstrate over and over they know little or nothing about.

    If there had been no regulations we wouldn’t have nailed Ponzi and imprisoned him and deported him. If you had read the US code you supplied earlier you would have found we have the same basic mail fraud laws today.

    But remember, your claim is founded on legality. So in 1920, the actual Ponzi was not illegal. It follows then the Ponzi perpetrated by Ponzi wasn’t a Ponzi. That’s one of your “reasons” SS isn’t a Ponzi—because it doesn’t meet a certain set of frauds prohibited by law. Neither did Ponzi’s Ponzi scheme. So it wasn’t really a Ponzi. See how silly that argument sounds? I suppose you heard it from someone who’s authority you appeal to so just accepted it….


    Yep. Meets the requirements set by the SEC.

    Certainly not! Anything you forego immediate consumption to obtain with the expectation of that thing providing more value in the future than the foregone immediate consumption is an investment. By definition. That’s just the definition of investment, not my opinion. You invoked parents investing in children yourself. Investing in the infirm and aged is NO different. Both are choices. Both have legal consequences if you choose the investment but don’t follow through funding it.

    Taxation is a function of the majority approving of the practice. That’s it. If the people (our government is the people) didn’t approve of taxation we wouldn’t have it. If taxation wasn’t seen as a good investment we wouldn’t approve if it and it would cease to exist. This is not a dictatorship my friend. LOL.

    Well I certainly agree with the loving your job part. I’ve been involved in my occupation for over 30 years and I’ll never quit.

    Also agree our ROI on public education is not improving. But that doesn’t mean education is a bad investment.

    Sorry, no. It’s not semantics. Investments are not limited to vehicles regulated directly by the SEC. I understand you probably had a personal financial interest in limiting your personal definition to that. There is little to no money to be made by traders, advisers and managers who don’t focus primarily on SEC regulated investment vehicles.

    My initial post you responded to I believe contained my lament that education today doesn’t promote the best investments.

    It most certainly is investing. No, folks like you can’t make a buck promoting or selling or trading it. Social security isn’t run by or managed by the SEC. But taxes are likely one of the highest ROI investments known to mankind. I see no reason to deny that when it comes to SS especially when we commonly refer to taxes for education or healthcare or infrastructure as investments.


    LOL. Yep. I always see those feds out picking up traffic cones and cutting concrete and rebar on interstate highway projects. Lots of feds building federal buildings, too. And I don’t know what I’d do without the feds who come out and pull newborn calves out of snowbanks when it blizzards. :)

    Ummm, but I digress. That wasn’t my point. My point is many things government offers have good things about them. But becoming dependent on government services leaves one vulnerable to manipulation and even physical harm. When you started responding to my posts I was explaining how dependence on SS as the sole retirement plan is not good. I believe you inadvertently made the same point somewhere in our exchange. We should invest in social security as a last resort safety net, not as our full retirement plan. When one becomes dependent on SS they are vulnerable to manipulation by both political parties and they are also possibly living a life less fulfilling than if more immediate consumption had been foregone early in life.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2023
  19. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This has nothing to do with anything.
    It was a tax that projected a revenue increase as the economy and wages grew. It could be used to provide a benefit to retirees. Simple as that.
    The government can change the benefits as it sees fit, or raise the tax rate.
    :roll: :roll:
    Should I be amused by your "lesson?"
     
  20. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You said you had no idea.
     
  21. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are things we can do to promote productivity besides get into a trade war. Education, job training, improving the operation of regulations...
     
  22. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Two things I mentioned here--ousting an extreme rightwing school board in a very conservative community snd replacing them with normal conservatives. Preventing the creation of two square mile garbage dump in a suburban community.
     
  23. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some investments are guaranteed by third parties, risk is reduced by restricting investment choices, etc. There is nothing guaranteeing Social Security benefit levels.
     
  24. 2ndclass289

    2ndclass289 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,130
    Likes Received:
    1,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your response makes no sense. If you want to debate, please present facts. If you want to be “one of those who just hates tRump”, find someone else for that ridiculous bs.
     
  25. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,373
    Likes Received:
    9,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But at least 30% of people who have the option of investing in SS are not doing so. I don’t see them being arrested or anything. Yes, it’s definitely a choice to have earned income. So it’s definitely a choice to invest in SS. Nobody can force you to pay SS tax. Nobody. That means SS tax IS NOT mandatory, it’s a choice.

    Furthermore, at the societal level we have CHOSEN to have a SS tax. If paying that tax was not a good investment we would change the laws concerning SS taxation. Do you pay taxes expecting a return of less value in public goods and services to yourself directly and society indirectly than the value of the tax amount you pay? If so it’s time for you to take a king hard look at why you are paying taxes. If not, you are definitely investing your tax dollars in government and services it provides.

    If taxes are not investments by traditional definition of investing you are tacitly stating government itself is a fraud. If you don’t expect more out of government than you put in as taxes you are intentionally being defrauded. You are saying the roads you drive on are not worth the taxes you pay. You are saying national security is not worth the taxes you pay. You are saying the SS tax you pay isn’t worth the societal stability it provides. If you REALLY believed taxation is not an investment, and a good one, you would be on PF every day railing against taxation and the government you believe is bilking you out of your hard earned money. I’m not seeing that. :)
     

Share This Page