 |
|
12-25-2018, 08:20 PM
|
#1
|
|
Smarty Pants
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Every Vote Counts
Posts: 3,160
|
Unfunded Liabilities
There are no such things, it's a non-sequitur.
Those who claim otherwise are just making stuff up.
I've read the USA has 200 plus Trillion of them.
The missing key word here is 'future' (Unfunded Liabilities) and my question is so what?
If we fund them now they are current.
|
|
|
|
12-25-2018, 08:45 PM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye
The missing key word here is 'future' (Unfunded Liabilities) and my question is so what?
If we fund them now they are current.
|
You can't fund them now if you are already spending more than you are taking in now. Which means that you are going deeper in debt now, and will go even deeper in debt to meet the unfunded liabilities when they come due.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
|
|
12-25-2018, 08:50 PM
|
#3
|
|
Smarty Pants
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Every Vote Counts
Posts: 3,160
|
I totally agree Clocker and am just sick of hearing about so-called unfunded liabilities from libertarians among others.
|
|
|
|
|
12-25-2018, 08:56 PM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,655
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
You can't fund them now if you are already spending more than you are taking in now. Which means that you are going deeper in debt now, and will go even deeper in debt to meet the unfunded liabilities when they come due.
|
The government will be able to make that up with more volume.
|
|
|
|
12-25-2018, 09:13 PM
|
#5
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye
I totally agree Clocker and am just sick of hearing about so-called unfunded liabilities from libertarians among others.
|
"So-called"? Okay, it's a fancy name for running up big debts and passing them on to future generations without having to worry about paying them. It's real, and it's great if you can get away with it. Screw the next generation!
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
|
|
12-25-2018, 09:33 PM
|
#6
|
|
Smarty Pants
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Every Vote Counts
Posts: 3,160
|
So you refuse to agree with me even when we do? That's rich.
There are no 'unfunded liabilities' that's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
|
12-25-2018, 09:47 PM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: central fla.
Posts: 4,874
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye
So you refuse to agree with me even when we do? That's rich.
There are no 'unfunded liabilities' that's all I'm saying.
|
I'll disagree on THIS topic...and this will explain it better than I
https://www.thebalance.com/unfunded-...amples-4159564
__________________
got handed a lemon...make lemonade....add sugar or brown sugar or stevia or my personal favorite....miracle fruit....google it...thank me later...
|
|
|
|
|
12-25-2018, 10:24 PM
|
#8
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye
So you refuse to agree with me even when we do? That's rich.
There are no 'unfunded liabilities' that's all I'm saying.
|
I don't agree with you, and you don't understand the concept.
A typical pension fund has a contribution, i.e., deduction, from the wage earner and a similar contribution from the employer. If the employer, such as a state government, does not make the contribution into the fund, essentially putting an I.O.U. into the fund, then the pension is unfunded, or at least under-funded.
If the state did not have the money to fund the pension when it should have, it sure as hail ain't gonna have the money to pay the pension when it comes due. So it will go further into debt.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
|
|
12-25-2018, 10:41 PM
|
#9
|
|
Smarty Pants
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Every Vote Counts
Posts: 3,160
|
So basically we're talking about the future.
|
|
|
|
|
12-25-2018, 10:45 PM
|
#10
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,655
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
I don't agree with you, and you don't understand the concept.
A typical pension fund has a contribution, i.e., deduction, from the wage earner and a similar contribution from the employer. If the employer, such as a state government, does not make the contribution into the fund, essentially putting an I.O.U. into the fund, then the pension is unfunded, or at least under-funded.
If the state did not have the money to fund the pension when it should have, it sure as hail ain't gonna have the money to pay the pension when it comes due. So it will go further into debt.
|
what about when the state uses the employee contribution to help pay current retirees? a typical Ponzi?
|
|
|
|
|
12-25-2018, 11:29 PM
|
#11
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by davew
The government will be able to make that up with more volume.
|
Certainly. But they need to encourage more people to have kids to increase the number of tax payers down the road. 
|
|
|
|
|
12-25-2018, 11:32 PM
|
#12
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2014
Location: st louis
Posts: 2,987
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
Certainly. But they need to encourage more people to have kids to increase the number of tax payers down the road. |
Or outlaw abortion.
__________________
You will never achieve 100% if 99% is okay!
|
|
|
|
|
12-25-2018, 11:54 PM
|
#13
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by davew
what about when the state uses the employee contribution to help pay current retirees? a typical Ponzi?
|
It's not a Ponzi scheme if the government does it. The perpetrators are not making direct personal gain from the scam, they are only gaining political power which may lead to other personal gain.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
|
|
12-26-2018, 06:26 AM
|
#14
|
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by davew
what about when the state uses the employee contribution to help pay current retirees? a typical Ponzi?
|
In Flemming v. Nestor(1960) SCOTUS ruled that the Social Security withholding from workers' paychecks is a tax which the government my do with as it sees fit, and that the government is not obligated to pay Social Security benefits. This decision severs the nexus between the SS tax and SS payments, ergo, SS is not a Ponzi scheme. Persons receiving SS checks are on welfare.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
|
|
12-26-2018, 09:30 AM
|
#15
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Diez meses en Port St. Lucie, FL; two months in the Dominican Republic
Posts: 4,355
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Persons receiving SS checks are on welfare.
|
I wouldn't walk into an AARP convention and say that.They'll beat you within an inch of your life with their walkers and colostomy bags.  
__________________
"But don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. "
Fleetwood Mac, Oh Well, Part 1 (1969)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
