December 2004 Archives
So I'm on record as telling my siblings and Dad to put money into
investments, and to put it into some riskier stock-based funds like the
Vanguard 500 for longterm money (5+ years). So maybe you might think
I'd be in support of privatizing Social Security.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html
There's been pressure for a while to "do something" about SS. It's
certain to run dry by 2030 or so. But realize this: whichever
company/companies get access to "managing" the SS funds will get a HUGE
windfall in *fees*. Even 0.5% a year (like many mutual funds) the
trillions in SS would put a huge bonus on any bank's bottom line. The
politicians get credit for "doing something" - again any big problems
don't show up for many years - and the corps get big bucks. Everybody's
happy - except the actual employees, who again have paperwork hassles,
an even more complex tax system, yet another thing to keep track of, and
ultimately less money in their account.
My cynicism comes from trying to use the "Flexible Savings Account",
which I'm sure was passed by Congress under the name of giving a tax
benefit to the middle class. You put in up to $4000 a year, tax-free,
and then you can withdraw it to pay for medical costs that insurance
doesn't cover. If you don't use the money by the end of the year, they
keep the money. Great eh? But the catch is this: you have to file a
form for each and every receipt. Every little parking receipt. And
they deny almost every claim. Even if it has the letterhead of your
doctor or dentist. I put in $2000, so the tax benefit is theoretically
about $600. But it's going to be hard to get even $1000 back from them,
for things that are explicitly covered, and the extreme hassle has made
it not worth it at all.
SS is insurance for the poor and elderly and handicapped. We pay
it so that we don't have to see our grandmothers begging on the street
for spare change. Getting retirement benefits out of it as well is a
nice treat, and if we want to keep it there are several easy ways to do
it : for example, just remove the cap - you only pay SS tax on the first
$87,000 of income. Just change the rules so they pay SS on all their
income, same as the rest of us do who don't make six figures.
I find it ironic that some people resist the idea of taxes that only go
to welfare or SS, calling them "entitlements" and thinking of that money
as being wasted on people who don't want to work. The (admittedly
despicable) fraud by a few bugs them so much they want to destroy the
system keeping many other needy people afloat. I used to feel that way,
and here's how I changed my mind : I started realizing I DO get a
benefit out of those taxes : it keeps me from having to deal with the
poor and homeless every day - it keeps my streets safe(r) and clean(er)
of criminals. As a metaphor, when I see a fakir with nice shoes
begging for change on a street corner, I don't suddenly stop giving
money to the church to provide free sandwiches to the truly homeless.
Anyway - don't sign up for FSA. It suxor. :)
investments, and to put it into some riskier stock-based funds like the
Vanguard 500 for longterm money (5+ years). So maybe you might think
I'd be in support of privatizing Social Security.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html
There's been pressure for a while to "do something" about SS. It's
certain to run dry by 2030 or so. But realize this: whichever
company/companies get access to "managing" the SS funds will get a HUGE
windfall in *fees*. Even 0.5% a year (like many mutual funds) the
trillions in SS would put a huge bonus on any bank's bottom line. The
politicians get credit for "doing something" - again any big problems
don't show up for many years - and the corps get big bucks. Everybody's
happy - except the actual employees, who again have paperwork hassles,
an even more complex tax system, yet another thing to keep track of, and
ultimately less money in their account.
My cynicism comes from trying to use the "Flexible Savings Account",
which I'm sure was passed by Congress under the name of giving a tax
benefit to the middle class. You put in up to $4000 a year, tax-free,
and then you can withdraw it to pay for medical costs that insurance
doesn't cover. If you don't use the money by the end of the year, they
keep the money. Great eh? But the catch is this: you have to file a
form for each and every receipt. Every little parking receipt. And
they deny almost every claim. Even if it has the letterhead of your
doctor or dentist. I put in $2000, so the tax benefit is theoretically
about $600. But it's going to be hard to get even $1000 back from them,
for things that are explicitly covered, and the extreme hassle has made
it not worth it at all.
SS is insurance for the poor and elderly and handicapped. We pay
it so that we don't have to see our grandmothers begging on the street
for spare change. Getting retirement benefits out of it as well is a
nice treat, and if we want to keep it there are several easy ways to do
it : for example, just remove the cap - you only pay SS tax on the first
$87,000 of income. Just change the rules so they pay SS on all their
income, same as the rest of us do who don't make six figures.
I find it ironic that some people resist the idea of taxes that only go
to welfare or SS, calling them "entitlements" and thinking of that money
as being wasted on people who don't want to work. The (admittedly
despicable) fraud by a few bugs them so much they want to destroy the
system keeping many other needy people afloat. I used to feel that way,
and here's how I changed my mind : I started realizing I DO get a
benefit out of those taxes : it keeps me from having to deal with the
poor and homeless every day - it keeps my streets safe(r) and clean(er)
of criminals. As a metaphor, when I see a fakir with nice shoes
begging for change on a street corner, I don't suddenly stop giving
money to the church to provide free sandwiches to the truly homeless.
Anyway - don't sign up for FSA. It suxor. :)
http://slate.com/id/2111390/
it turns out that Post story didn't have the statistics right. By
classifying everyone who had miscarriages, abortions, actual
pregnancies, and babies less than a year old as "pregnant" the murder
rate looks a lot higher than it actually is. Less than 9 percent of the
247 people used for the stats were actually pregnant; when you consider
that, the murder rate is actually less if you are pregnant. Better, the
murder rate for all women has dropped about 30% since 1995.
Anyway Nancy is safe :)
it turns out that Post story didn't have the statistics right. By
classifying everyone who had miscarriages, abortions, actual
pregnancies, and babies less than a year old as "pregnant" the murder
rate looks a lot higher than it actually is. Less than 9 percent of the
247 people used for the stats were actually pregnant; when you consider
that, the murder rate is actually less if you are pregnant. Better, the
murder rate for all women has dropped about 30% since 1995.
Anyway Nancy is safe :)
If we all hate consumerism, how come we can't stop shopping?
http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2002/11/rebelsell.php
I'm especially struck by the idea of "positional goods". Those that
you can only have if many other people do not. Rare art; desirable
real estate; access to the hip clubs; the best restaurants. A
growing economy (well, whether we have one or not) doesn't increase
the amount of these goods; it only makes them more expensive.
Sometimes they shift into regular goods; once the corps figures out
people will pay a lot for designer purses, there's suddenly a thousand
knock-off. As they start to be mass-produced they are suddenly less
desirable; this drives the cycles of waste and obsolescence. But the
point is that those who thought themselves "above" consumerism by
buying only the distinctive designer purses are just as much to blame,
by creating the market, as those who exploited it. I guess the
reason the idea hits me so hard is it forces me to reconsider my plan
to just accumulate "enough" and then live on that. The article posits
perhaps it is not possible to "opt out" of consumerism at all.
http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2002/11/rebelsell.php
I'm especially struck by the idea of "positional goods". Those that
you can only have if many other people do not. Rare art; desirable
real estate; access to the hip clubs; the best restaurants. A
growing economy (well, whether we have one or not) doesn't increase
the amount of these goods; it only makes them more expensive.
Sometimes they shift into regular goods; once the corps figures out
people will pay a lot for designer purses, there's suddenly a thousand
knock-off. As they start to be mass-produced they are suddenly less
desirable; this drives the cycles of waste and obsolescence. But the
point is that those who thought themselves "above" consumerism by
buying only the distinctive designer purses are just as much to blame,
by creating the market, as those who exploited it. I guess the
reason the idea hits me so hard is it forces me to reconsider my plan
to just accumulate "enough" and then live on that. The article posits
perhaps it is not possible to "opt out" of consumerism at all.
American soldier in Iraq is shot point-blank in the face with a 9mm
pistol, and survives, literally, by the skin of his teeth. Not only
survives, he takes the guy who shot him prisoner!
http://ahawkins.org/2004/12/09.html
"Can you imagine what the enemy thought when he shot you point blank in
the face, and you just kept coming at him! Americans are invincible. No
wonder he surrendered so fast!"
pistol, and survives, literally, by the skin of his teeth. Not only
survives, he takes the guy who shot him prisoner!
http://ahawkins.org/2004/12/09.html
"Can you imagine what the enemy thought when he shot you point blank in
the face, and you just kept coming at him! Americans are invincible. No
wonder he surrendered so fast!"
Nancy wasn't able to get flu vaccine while she was pregnant (even though
pregnant women are the priority to get the vaccine, due to the risk of
birth defects). Dick Cheney said "The problem we have run into,
producing vaccine is not a very profitable business." Hmm.
The space station is now asking the astronauts to live off half-rations,
and if they can't get a flight up by Christmas, they'll have to come
down for lack of food. American spaceflight can't get to the space
station and we have to depend on Russian craft to supply it; even the
American astronauts there now ride on Soviet Soyez rockets. The Soyuz
can hold 3, which has traditionally been the crew size on the station.
Until shuttle flights resume, the crew size will be limited to 2, since
the Russians can't crank out enough Soyuz and Progress (supply) missions
to support a crew of 3.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/12/09/iss.ap/index.html
That science fiction future where America makes nothing but lawyers and
hospitals is not so far away...
pregnant women are the priority to get the vaccine, due to the risk of
birth defects). Dick Cheney said "The problem we have run into,
producing vaccine is not a very profitable business." Hmm.
The space station is now asking the astronauts to live off half-rations,
and if they can't get a flight up by Christmas, they'll have to come
down for lack of food. American spaceflight can't get to the space
station and we have to depend on Russian craft to supply it; even the
American astronauts there now ride on Soviet Soyez rockets. The Soyuz
can hold 3, which has traditionally been the crew size on the station.
Until shuttle flights resume, the crew size will be limited to 2, since
the Russians can't crank out enough Soyuz and Progress (supply) missions
to support a crew of 3.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/12/09/iss.ap/index.html
That science fiction future where America makes nothing but lawyers and
hospitals is not so far away...
