Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

They just opened a huge can of worms..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Explain Social Security? I've been trying to figure it out myself for several years now, it has yet to make much sense. Be that as it may, I will attempt to describe it.

    Basically, the idea is this. Out of ever pay check, on top of normal taxes, the government takes out SS taxes. This money is then invested by the government, usually into low instrest bonds and such. The overall average rate of return ends up being approx 2%. Then, once you are over the age of 60(?), you start collecting SS. Every month the government sends you your SS check. In theory it's a good idea. The trouble is, in 10-20 years as the 'Baby Boomer' generation begins to retire there is suddenly going to be a HUGE increase in the number of people collecting SS, versus the number of people putting money into it. The trouble is that the 2% returns isn't enough to cover everyone who will have the right to recieve money from SS.

    Anyway, I geuss I got a little overboard there. As to the other various things, we do have unenemployment system, we do have a welfare system. Pensions are largely run through individual companies and companies are not required to have them. I suppose it can also be argued that Social Security is a government run pension plan though.

    The other retirement options we have are IRA's and 401k plans and the like. I am part of a 401k plan through my employer. Every month a small portion of my salary is taken out, and invested through a firm, in various bonds and mutual funds of my choice. The average rate of return fluctuates wildly with the fluctations of the stock market, but the potential returns are as high as 20%, and rarely go lower than 5%. Plus, all of that money that I invest, is subject to different tax rules than the remainder of my pay, such that usually you pay less taxes on that money. Further still, I am garaunteed to get whatever money I invested back plus returns (unless I suffer losses through my investments). Whereas the with the SS system, there is a good chance that it will collapse before I am able to collect (I'm 21, got 40 years before I can start collecting).

    As for public health care insurance, we have the beginnings of such a system in Medicare. Most buisnesses, amd I'm talking about real companies here, not McDonalds, or your corner shoe store, real corporations, have a health insurance plan available through the company. For example, my company offers a plan through "Keystone", which is a health insurance company based in Pennsylvania. I don't remember how much exaclty I pay, I think it's about 80$ USD a month, the total payment required though is about 240$ per month. My employer picks up the rest of the cost.

    If you don't have that option, then you can go to those same companies as a private citizen and get insurance, although you have to come up with the entire cost yourself.

    Thist of course is where the public health insurance system comes in, or where it is supposed to come in. I'm sure you already undertand how that works in theory.

    So, to sum it up, public systems have much varied support or lack thereof in this country. Approx 50% of the people are opposed to public systems and support privatization of some or all of it (myself included). And the other 50% steadfastly support a public system (Al Gore, Bill Clintion).

    On a completely separate note, did any of you read that Discover article I posted a link to? It's a VERY interesting article and worth the read if for no other reason than the methematical theory it contains (if you like mathematics that is). Here it is again, please read it guys.
    http://www.discover.com/nov_00/gther...atbestman.html

    Ian
    Primary System:
    MSI 745 Ultra, AMD 2400+ XP, 1024 MB Crucial PC2100 DDR SDRAM, Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro, 3Com 3c905C NIC,
    120GB Seagate UDMA 100 HD, 60 GB Seagate UDMA 100 HD, Pioneer DVD 105S, BenQ 12x24x40 CDRW, SB Audigy OEM,
    Win XP, MS Intellimouse Optical, 17" Mag 720v2
    Seccondary System:
    Epox 7KXA BIOS 5/22, Athlon 650, 512 MB Crucial 7E PC133 SDRAM, Hercules Prophet 4500 Kyro II, SBLive Value,
    3Com 3c905B-TX NIC, 40 GB IBM UDMA 100 HD, 45X Acer CD-ROM,
    Win XP, MS Wheel Mouse Optical, 15" POS Monitor
    Tertiary system
    Offbrand PII Mobo, PII 350, 256MB PC100 SDRAM, 15GB UDMA66 7200RPM Maxtor HD, USRobotics 10/100 NIC, RedHat Linux 8.0
    Camera: Canon 10D DSLR, Canon 100-400L f4.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon 100 Macro USM Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon Speedlite 200E, tripod, bag, etc.

    "Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic." --Arthur C. Clarke

    Comment


    • #47
      Let's see health care, it's a big issue in out current election, not because they have any different policies, but because they are fear mongering that one has/will implement two tier billing. Fact is, two tier health care exists, if you have bucks you can get health care, somewhere, that's just a fact of life, people with cash have more options, arguing with that is stupid. Allowing doctors in Canada to set up private services wouldn't be a tragedy, it's the amount of funding that goes into public health that makes it good, not forcing doctors to go to the US to make money. One good point made by the current government over health care is that it's an incentive to business to have a good public health care system, they don't have to provide their own. Of course insane taxes kind of make the point moot.

      Emploment insurance, welfare, bail outs, Canada is too generous in this regard in my opinion. It's not about solving problems and helping people, just throwing money at them as bribes.

      As for theories on better government, I think there is a fundamental problem with regional representation by population, it is in effect giving regions unequal votes or at least influence on issues that affect regions. Most policy in Canada is done on a regional basis, not an individual basis. In my off the cuff analysis, I would be in favour of a system where each region got equal representation, you know people from regions that are more populated are going to have more clout anyway, you don't need as much as 10 times the representation, it's overkill. It's all about what you want, if you want a few super regions and dying smaller regions or equal opportunity for regions to achieve parity. Each region joined confederation as equals, it should be reflected in the system of government, not one region is more equal than another.

      This is the Soap Box, right? Just checking.

      Comment


      • #48
        Back "on topic"

        Hot news night tonight...Wednesday 8 days after the election.

        Item 1. Gore calls a special news conference from Washington blathering about "dialogue" and "the process" and suddenly offering to adhere to a "full recount" of ALL Florida counties. (heh!)

        Item 2. The Official in charge of Elections in Florida (a Bush supporter, ok) cites the law, and in accordance with the law refuses the strategy of "selective recounts" of demographically heavy Gore pockets of support.

        (I welcome a dialogue with some of you statistical gurus with SETI to weigh in on the idea of recounting votes in ONLY areas where 1's predominate over 0's, where all counts rise, but only proportionately)

        Item 3. Bush (shrub as he is derisively called by liberals within his state) Drives 2 hours from his ranch to the nearest TV camera and stuffs it back in Gore's face.
        In essence: We've counted...we've counted again...we've counted a third time in some cases...I'm ahead, and the rules are that I win these electoral votes...Thank you, and GBA.


        Greebe's juiced up Athlon @750 on an MSI Irongate Based M/B Marvel G200 TV with HW/DVD Daughtercard,
        CDBurner, Creative DVD, two big WD Hdds, Outboard 56K modem
        Parallel Port Scanner, Creative S/B AWE 64 (ISA), and a new Logitech WebCam (My first USB device)

        Comment


        • #49
          Anyone remember the Orwellian principle of "The Big Lie"? It states that if you repeat a lie over and over people will come to believe it as truth. Just thinking about that while I was watching several of the Democrat's legal hitmen use the term "fair and accurate recount" (those exact words) over and over and OVER again (probably 8-10 times within the span of one minute)

          ------------------
          Kind Regards,

          KvH

          Comment


          • #50
            <H1>WAR IS PEACE! SLAVERY IS FREEDOM! IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!</H1>

            I think Huxley's Brave New World applies more than 1984.

            Comment


            • #51
              KV:

              Orwell may have used the "Big Lie" but wasn't that method perfected by Hitler's mouthpiece Hermann Goebbles?

              A minor nitpick...you are absolutely correct on the methodology. The frightening thing is to watch this insidious technique spread like a cancer throughout the media and take on it's own life.

              Fascinating!
              Greebe's juiced up Athlon @750 on an MSI Irongate Based M/B Marvel G200 TV with HW/DVD Daughtercard,
              CDBurner, Creative DVD, two big WD Hdds, Outboard 56K modem
              Parallel Port Scanner, Creative S/B AWE 64 (ISA), and a new Logitech WebCam (My first USB device)

              Comment


              • #52
                What is fascinating is that they won't relent, and the media is playing right along.

                Comment

                Working...
                X