StrangeSox

what round?

Google Maps added the Grand Canyon to their Street Views. You can "hike" down every trail in the Grand Canyon with full 360 deg. views. Apparently they've also had a bunch of ski slopes on there already, too.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2013 -> 04:27 PM) They are up against the luxury tax which they are refusing to go over. Unless Rodriquez's contract gets voided, they don't have money to spend for years. Oh, well that's different from an actual hard cap. They can spend as much money as they want, they're just choosing not to spend that much.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2013 -> 03:51 PM) The Yankees are cap f***ed unless Arod gets voided. huh?

Agenda 21!!!!

I didn't realize there was so much crazy opposition to "smart" meters (see the comments section) http://naperville.patch.com/articles/naper...member-arrested

It's gotta be hard to break out of that type of cult.

You could also argue over the definition of "middle class" and whether that includes individuals earning over $105k or twice the national median and right at the top 10% of income and at what point raising the cap would actually meaningfully affect someone's discretionary income. e.g. someone making $110k who now has to pay 5% payroll tax on that $5k above the cap isn't really going to be impacted much. One article I posted argued for an expansion of SS by 20%, another argued for "doubling" it. To double it, yeah, you'd have to take away the tax breaks that currently go towards subsidizing retirement accounts and direct that money to SS instead. To get a 20% expansion, though, you don't necessarily have to do that.

going used private party is always something to consider, too. That's how I've bought my cars.

That quid-pro-quo stuff related to business transactions can still be counted as income I think. I'll run it by my dad this weekend and see what he says.

that's also why pascal's wager ultimately fails.

I'm pretty sure my dad gets businesses to cave by boring them to death with long stories that don't ever seem to go anywhere edit: actually, I had a situation like jenks a couple of years back. I forgot my TD-A stuff, so they came back and said I owed a couple hundred dollars. Well, I had actually lost money that year, so I filed an amended return and pointed out that they, in fact, owed me money. But if I had owed them money, "oops, I forgot this account!" wasn't going to get me out of my penalties.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:38 PM) The point I was making is that I don't see any significant difference between losing my money in a bank over the social security system going to s***. Even when banks fail, the gov't finds other banks to buy the failed banks, and you don't lose your money. Of course, Balta brings up the guy with more than $250k in the bank...as if this person isn't sophisticated enough to invest their money in other vehicles. However, if what you're ultimately saying is that we need to raise the social security tax because lower income folks are unable to save enough money, that is quite a different issue than saying should we increase the social security tax because private investment is too risky. I would be willing to chip in more to support lower income folks. However, I don't want to replace or reduce the ability I have to invest my own discretionary income because private investment is too risky. SS isn't a personal savings account managed by the government. The payroll taxes you pay every two weeks (or w/e) turn around and go right back out to current benefits recipients. If you wanted to privatize the system as personal savings accounts in a for-profit bank for some reason (where it'd be public risk backing up the accounts), you'd be fundamentally changing the system and would need some way to cover current beneficiaries. You'd also need those accounts to have a mandatory COL interest rate and not the 0.1% you'd get now in a typical savings account. It's not only about lower-income people who can't save enough because they don't have much if any discretionary income after living expenses. It's also that, with any investment, there are going to be winners and losers. People who did save and invest but still didn't end up with all that much, like those who have managed to sack away and average of $120k by retirement, are still going to be living a pretty meager retirement. Or people who lost most of their retirement accounts when the companies they worked for went under. As a society, we have more than enough wealth for this to not be the case, to provide for a modest retirement for every American. If we want to increase SS benefits, it'd mean increasing payroll taxes in one form or another, which means you'd have slightly less discretionary income to invest as you see fit, but you'd also see higher SS benefits yourself as well. The current payroll tax, which is capped at ~$105k and applies only to wage income, is a regressive tax anyway. I think this article from The Atlantic does a much better job of explaining the case than I ever could: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...uble-it/266095/ This is really the core of the philosophy:

gawker has a pretty depressing series "Unemployment Stories" right now http://gawker.com/5936244/unemployment-sto...-the-underclass

get your financing lined up elsewhere so the dealership can't play the "hide the costs in talking about "monthly payments"" game. edit: unless they're offering 0% financing, then go with that obviously, but make sure you stick to the price and not the payments. and be willing and ready to walk out the door

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:10 PM) One would have thought that too, even at lower levels, until indymacbank went down in 2008 and a lot of people got hit by that limit. You'd need a lot more than $250k to retire at 65.

Yes, essentially. would you accept a .5% increase if it meant 1 million more retirees would be able to have a modest retirement instead of a harsh one or none at all?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:02 PM) Are we really worried about those who are exceeding this amount? Aren't they usually going to be sophisticated enough to find better investment vehicles? I thought this was about the guy who can't save any money? It is about every American having a guaranteed retirement income.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:04 PM) But you told me this was money they could not afford to save...so how can they afford to have it taken out of their paycheck? I don't know what you're talking about anymore. Everyone with wage income currently pays the regressive payroll tax. Their employers also pay this. If you want to increase benefits, you can do it without raising taxes on the $50k level. Eliminate the regressive cap is one way. It is nothing like a private savings account at a bank.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:02 PM) Are we really worried about those who are exceeding this amount? Aren't they usually going to be sophisticated enough to find better investment vehicles? I thought this was about the guy who can't save any money? Why introduce unnecessary inefficiencies and risk for the sake of private (the banks) profit? I don't really know where you're going with this.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 07:48 PM) I'm not disputing that...but if the monies are going to current beneficiaries or into special treasuries, what is the real difference between my money going there or into a bank, where it is federally insured by that same US Gov't? Additionally, if the problem is the person who makes $50k and cannot afford to save, how is taking more money out of that person's paycheck going to help them? You aren't a current beneficiary relying on that income is the difference, your money isn't being loaned out for private profit with public risk, and you have a guaranteed income for your eventual retirement. Ss benefits could be raised in a variety of ways that wouldn't affect the median income earner, such as raising the cap.

Are you a sovereign nation that prints it's own currency and collects taxes? They're special treasuries created solely as somewhere to place the excess tax revenues. It's the government "investing" in its own treasuries, not sticking it in someone else's bank.

Not really. They are SS treasuries that can't be sold. They exist solely to hold the intentional overpayments to the system since the 1980's reform in anticipation of payroll tax shortfalls as the baby boomers retire. Remember Gore's "lockbox"? http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 05:19 PM) Funny thing is, it's probably a lower return and higher fees than something like Vanguard's S&P 500 market fund (this is totally just a guess, Vanguard's fees are ridiculously low.). It's not really an investment, it doesn't have a rate-of-return.