quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well that's the point you replied to -- that those caps should be lifted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well that's the point you replied to -- that those caps should be lifted.

Right, i am saying that if you remove the caps then you are creating a type of welfare social security system unless you are going to pay out a significantly higher amount when it comes time for them to collect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

Do you know most people do not know the difference between the deficit and national debt...Didnt we rename one, the other, or both in the UK....you will love this one let me look it up


The UK national debt is often confused (even by politicians) with the government budget deficit (officially known as the Public Sector Net Cash Requirement (PSNCR)), which is the rate at which the government borrows money. The former Prime Minister David Cameron was reprimanded in February 2013 by the UK Statistics Authority for creating confusion between the two, by stating in a political broadcast that his administration was "paying down Britain's debts". In fact, his administration has been attempting to reduce the deficit, not the overall debt. The latter will continue to rise even if the deficit shrinks.[6]

Due to the Government's significant budget deficit, the national debt is increasing by approximately £73.5 billion per annum, or around £1.4 billion each week.[2] As a result of its efforts to balance the budget, the Government forecast in 2014 that the structural deficit would be eliminated in the financial year 2017/18.[3] However, it changed the year to 2018/19 in March 2015 and to 2019/20 in July 2015.[4] The Government's target to return the public finances to surplus by 2019/2020 was abandoned by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne in July 2016.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt


Englanders vote for these muppets - not all of them perhaps 38% ish

Actually i admired how the one called Obama dealt with it- polar opposite of how the Uk nazi ( do we call you Tories, or conservatives, thatchers minions, or utter fucking idiots - un-confuse me) party dealt with it - how are we getting along with that now fuking idiots :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well that's the point you replied to -- that those caps should be lifted.

Right, i am saying that if you remove the caps then you are creating a type of welfare social security system unless you are going to pay out a significantly higher amount when it comes time for them to collect.

And again, social security DOES pay based on income. You make more, you put more in, you get more out.

It's how it works.

* shrug *

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It's like talking to a wall, but in circles.

That's why the poster said lift the caps. Then, there wouldn't be that limit.

That's the last time I'm going to repeat it. If you aren't going to understand it, you just aren't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Makes no difference.

Same reason as my 401k -- much more comes out of it than I put in. Return on investment.

The US government has the benefit of the cash flow for zero interest until paid out. That's the mutual return on investment.

Little numbers, big numbers, it's the same principle.

But if you think there should be a cap, fine. But you seem to want it both ways.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You're just playing games. Clearly, outside spending and covering SS are two different things.

Play with someone else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I see.

There's an old GOP argument that people would make more investing their own money. And technically, it's true -- but, that's

1) IF they actually saved and invested (most people have negative savings, and only a fraction are on track for retirement), and

2) only true if they invest wisely, as they would also be subject to greater risk.

Before SS, there was widespread elderly poverty. Now there isn't.

That's a good thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It's like talking to a wall, but in circles.

That's why the poster said lift the caps. Then, there wouldn't be that limit.

That's the last time I'm going to repeat it. If you aren't going to understand it, you just aren't.

I understand. Lift the caps... so pay a percentage to ss every year no matter what you make. My point is this... what happens when the person retires and it's time for them to collect social security? Now we have to pay them back.