Of Dirty Jokes, Sexual Harrassment, Gubmint Handouts, and Privilege

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

He got a scholarship to Illinois in Champaign

Originally Posted by Warhammer

he went to UT Knoxville on the GI Bill (or variation thereof).

Originally Posted by Warhammer

My point with these stories, and the latter two the subject of the stories were both black, this is from my experience, I have seen more success from people with broken homes pulling themselves up and not relying on handouts.

Those are, quite literally, hand-outs. Without them they would not have been able to go to school. Someone had to install the social programs to make that possible, and without them their paths would have been that much harder (if not impossible).

It's just a matter of how hard do you have to work before you are deemed worthy of being provided that opportunity. In their cases, significantly hard. Is it fair that they had to work harder than most? The fact that not all have to - that's privilege. And darn right you should be mad at your SIL for skating by on hers while putting in no effort.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Those are, quite literally, hand-outs. Without them they would not have been able to go to school. Someone had to install the social programs to make that possible, and without them their paths would have been that much harder (if not impossible).

It's just a matter of how hard do you have to work before you are deemed worthy of being provided that opportunity. In their cases, significantly hard. Is it fair that they had to work harder than most? The fact that not all have to - that's privilege. And darn right you should be mad at your SIL for skating by on hers while putting in no effort.

You're saying the GI Bill is a fucking hand out!?!?!

I call it a compensation for those who serve the country.

[cuervo72]

The GI Bill is/was a social program. It has stipulations, but it is at heart a social program.

It's just not called a "handout" because its recipients are deemed worthy of assistance.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

The GI Bill is/was a social program. It has stipulations, but it is at heart a social program.

It's just not called a "handout" because its recipients are deemed worthy of assistance.

Yeah, something earned is not called a handout.

Is your paycheck a "handout"?

That you seem to think the GI Bill is a handout is quite simply insulting.

[cuervo72]

Hey, I'm not saying it isn't earned. But it's a government-funded benefit (and one that in its current form wasn't without opposition). No benefit, no education.

Insulting to call it a handout? Yeah, maybe. But maybe recipients of other "handouts" are similarly insulted.

By 1956, roughly 7.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program.[4]

Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America's stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth.

If education is that much of a boon, why do we require people to risk life and limb for it?

Looping back to the privilege question, this is pretty damned depressing:

Although the G.I. Bill did not specifically advocate discrimination, it was interpreted differently for blacks than for whites. Historian Ira Katznelson argued that "the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow".[28] Because the programs were directed by local, white officials, many veterans did not benefit. In the New York and northern New Jersey suburbs 67,000 mortgages were insured by the G.I. Bill, but fewer than 100 were taken out by non-whites.[29][30]

By 1946, only one-fifth of the 100,000 blacks who had applied for educational benefits had registered in college.[31] Furthermore, historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) came under increased pressure as rising enrollments and strained resources forced them to turn away an estimated 20,000 veterans. HBCUs were already the poorest colleges and served, to most whites, only to keep blacks out of white colleges. HBCU resources were stretched even thinner when veterans' demands necessitated a shift in the curriculum away from the traditional "preach and teach" course of study offered by the HBCUs.[32] Banks and mortgage agencies refused loans to blacks, making the G.I. Bill even less effective for blacks.[32]

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Hey, I'm not saying it isn't earned. But it's a government-funded benefit (and one that in its current form wasn't without opposition). No benefit, no education.

Insulting to call it a handout? Yeah, maybe. But maybe recipients of other "handouts" are similarly insulted.

Work in return for compensation is not charity, its wages.
This isnt a debate this is a literal defining.


What other handouts are you thinking of that require someone to produce good for society?


Im not talking about walking to the mailbox, or applying for other jobs. What other "handouts" require a measure of production to achieve?


Ive long advocated that we should make employment insurance easier to get, but in order to receive it you should be required to benefit society. This could be picking up litter along the highway, washing the county vehicles (so a 3rd party company doesn't have to be paid) hell just add a few more folks to the DMV to expedite that efficient process.


It is a horrible precedent and a destruction of spirit to teach someone that their well being and survival is ensured by others.


It is literally destructive to a creature's (man or animal) pyschological well being.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Ive long advocated that we should make employment insurance easier to get, but in order to receive it you should be required to benefit society. This could be picking up litter along the highway, washing the county vehicles (so a 3rd party company doesn't have to be paid) hell just add a few more folks to the DMV to expedite that efficient process.

Hopefully you consider growing hemp to be beneficial to society

I'm using UI to more or less tide me over and supplement my savings until I can get this new business into money making mode.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

It is a horrible precedent and a destruction of spirit to teach someone that their well being and survival is ensured by others.


It is literally destructive to a creature's (man or animal) pyschological well being.

No wonder you think quarterbacks are soft.

At some point you either buy the concept that we're all in this together or you don't, and those different viewpoints seem to be driving this discussion.

[albionmoonlight]

I got to go to college because the government subsidized my loans which let me borrow at below market rates and because I got a Pell Grant.

I got those benefits because I existed and because my parents made under a certain amount of money. That's all that was required. It was a handout.

[Edward64]

Reading the above thread, I realized I'm not sure how to define a "handout". Here's one definition

No Matter The Assertions Of The Punditry, Social Security Is NOT A Handout

A “handout” is a government payment unrelated to work based largely on one’s demographic status. In some cases, the handout is partially social engineering so there may also be some behavioral conditions of eligibility—strings—attached. But generally, all one has to do to receive a government handout is satisfy a list of government eligibility requirements, usually related to who you are, not what you do. Are you a child, with child or in possession of one? Are you a student or a farmer or a banker? Is your “income” (as defined by the government) below a specified amount? Do you have this or that disease or disability? Here’s your check.

Any other better definitions?

[Ben E Lou]

Splitting this out into its own thread.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by lungs

Hopefully you consider growing hemp to be beneficial to society

I'm using UI to more or less tide me over and supplement my savings until I can get this new business into money making mode.

I don't have any hard feeling or ill thoughts towards you doing so,I personally would not. But that's me. When we were just married and starving and the company I worked for folded I was eligible for UI, but I refused to take it on principle. Even working a second job 3rd shift while starting my business and forgoing sleep (many very times chemically aided - not proud of that but being honest all the same)

Originally Posted by digamma

No wonder you think quarterbacks are soft.

At some point you either buy the concept that we're all in this together or you don't, and those different viewpoints seem to be driving this discussion.

I do believe we are all in this together, but much like football its every man for himself and doing his job. If 11 players win a play the play is successful. When the LT starts trying to figure out which WR is open the DE runs by.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I got to go to college because the government subsidized my loans which let me borrow at below market rates and because I got a Pell Grant.

I got those benefits because I existed and because my parents made under a certain amount of money. That's all that was required. It was a handout.

As did I. But you earned that degree. I believe education is the key to class mobility. I strongly believe in education assistance for lower income situations. Now I think there needs to be reform, and there needs to be requirements - say a meaningful degree (separate thread) and progress towards graduation...and there needs to be consequences for not holding your end of the bargain up.


You are a perfect example, you were given a hand up and took advantage of it. (Same here)...at some point it transitions from a hand up to a hand out.


It will never happen but in my mind's eye utopian society in exchange for a pell grant and subsidized loans you would be required to work a small amount (say 10-15 hours per week) or do an internship during an off semester to "pay back" the grant. Maybe even with the understanding that when you graduate the earned money is paid to you...but if you never graduate then its forfeited.


There are countless examples throughout history, but when something is given away for free human perception tends to see it as having no value. When there is a cost (currency/time/effort)associated there is a conscious decision that must be made and tends to instill perceived value in the gift.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I don't have any hard feeling or ill thoughts towards you doing so,I personally would not. But that's me. When we were just married and starving and the company I worked for folded I was eligible for UI, but I refused to take it on principle. Even working a second job 3rd shift while starting my business and forgoing sleep (many very times chemically aided - not proud of that but being honest all the same)

The way I look at it, unemployment insurance is exactly that. Insurance. Not taking it it when circumstances open up that allow me to take it would be as foolish as handing back the check the insurance company wrote to me when my house burned down. I pay the premium for the insurance, so I may as well collect it.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

It is a horrible precedent and a destruction of spirit to teach someone that their well being and survival is ensured by others.


It is literally destructive to a creature's (man or animal) pyschological well being.

I just had my cat at the feline psychologist and was assured she is very mentally strong, and her well being has never been better. And she is an indoor cat.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I just had my cat at the feline psychologist and was assured she is very mentally strong, and her well being has never been better. And she is an indoor cat.

You joke, its funny..but let me give you a better example.



My daughter raised 6 ducks from 2 days old. We kept them in the house, and fed them and heat lamps and all that until they were ~2 months old and then turned them outside. (We have acreage and a large pond on our property just below the house) The ducks stay in the pond, and despite the fact that they can fly now 2 years later have never flow away.


My wife started going out on the deck and feeding the ducks grapes and bread. (She tried lots of stuff but they really liked grapes and of course bread) it got to the point where they'd come up to the deck 3x daily and raise hell for some grapes or bread. Then they started shitting all over our porch and trying to come inside everytime we opened the door. The mail and UPS drivers think its cool they pull up and the ducks fly to them and escort them to the house quacking all the way.


Eventually it got to be too much. Duck shit makes a huge mess and when they get excited they shit.


So we decided no more feeding the ducks. Make them learn there are no handouts. By day 3 4 of the 6 had learned and no longer came up to the house everytime. We can still call them and lure them with treats but they no longer attack us. The other two ducks DIED within a week. They forgot how to feed themselves and scavenge for food. They died within 6 hours of each other both laying on our porch when we returned home from being gone.


This isnt meant as a parable, this i a 100% true story. I still have the other 4 ducks and will be glad for you to come see them or Ill send you pics if needed to prove it.


Humans are just like those ducks. Feed them long enough and then put them outside and they will forget how to find food.

[CU Tiger]

oooops...I type all that and realize my damn tablet apparently autcorrected

physiological to psychological


lol


Well you got a funny duck story

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

. I still have the other 4 ducks and will be glad for you to come see them or Ill send you pics if needed to prove it.


.

Sure.

I'll bring my cat to debunk your theory that feeding an animal removes its basic instincts to forage for itself.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Reading the above thread, I realized I'm not sure how to define a "handout". Here's one definition

No Matter The Assertions Of The Punditry, Social Security Is NOT A Handout


Any other better definitions?

If you live an average life span you'll get much more in SS than you paid in. You'll also get much more in Medicare benefits, and if you live long enough to end up in a nursing home, you'll get Medicaid to help cover the costs.

And that's not even touching the myriad tax breaks and business handouts that benefit most Americans. We all get handouts.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you live an average life span you'll get much more in SS than you paid in. You'll also get much more in Medicare benefits, and if you live long enough to end up in a nursing home, you'll get Medicaid to help cover the costs.

And that's not even touching the myriad tax breaks and business handouts that benefit most Americans. We all get handouts.

And what is your definition of a handout?

Is it a handout if everyone gets the benefit? (assuming you don't die before)

I don't disagree with businesses getting freebies but not sure I would call them handouts as the definition I linked to was talking about individuals. I'm not arguing they don't get handouts, I'm saying we need to establish an acceptable definition because everyone's got their own definition and we'll talk past each other (as we are often apt to do on this board).

[JPhillips]

The first part of the above definition is fine:

A “handout” is a government payment unrelated to work

It's just that a lot of people don't want to acknowledge how much they will get from the government over the course of their lives that is over and above what they worked for.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The first part of the above definition is fine:



It's just that a lot of people don't want to acknowledge how much they will get from the government over the course of their lives that is over and above what they worked for.

Except any "tax break" is just allowing you to keep your money.


I can promise you I personally wont receive more from SS than Ive paid in, nor will I ever end up in a nursing home or with medicade benefits.


The government can not create wealth it can only re-distribute it. For every winner there had to be losers under our current arrangement.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

You joke, its funny..but let me give you a better example.



My daughter raised 6 ducks from 2 days old. We kept them in the house, and fed them and heat lamps and all that until they were ~2 months old and then turned them outside. (We have acreage and a large pond on our property just below the house) The ducks stay in the pond, and despite the fact that they can fly now 2 years later have never flow away.


My wife started going out on the deck and feeding the ducks grapes and bread. (She tried lots of stuff but they really liked grapes and of course bread) it got to the point where they'd come up to the deck 3x daily and raise hell for some grapes or bread. Then they started shitting all over our porch and trying to come inside everytime we opened the door. The mail and UPS drivers think its cool they pull up and the ducks fly to them and escort them to the house quacking all the way.


Eventually it got to be too much. Duck shit makes a huge mess and when they get excited they shit.


So we decided no more feeding the ducks. Make them learn there are no handouts. By day 3 4 of the 6 had learned and no longer came up to the house everytime. We can still call them and lure them with treats but they no longer attack us. The other two ducks DIED within a week. They forgot how to feed themselves and scavenge for food. They died within 6 hours of each other both laying on our porch when we returned home from being gone.


This isnt meant as a parable, this i a 100% true story. I still have the other 4 ducks and will be glad for you to come see them or Ill send you pics if needed to prove it.


Humans are just like those ducks. Feed them long enough and then put them outside and they will forget how to find food.

Were those ducks or squirrels?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Were those ducks or squirrels?

That is hilarious.
Despite listening to Clower in the past, I'd never heard that.


But no...100% true story.
Still got her 4 ducks here now.
Named: Ace, Blue, Drake, Francine (Clarise and Elmo died)....yes my daughter insisted she had ABCDEF names

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I can promise you I personally wont receive more from SS than Ive paid in, nor will I ever end up in a nursing home or with medicade benefits.

If you live past 80 you're almost assured to have gotten more out of social security than you paid in.

And you're almost guaranteed to surpass the Medicare amount you paid in. Most middle class families get back 3 times what they paid in over a lifetime.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I don't have any hard feeling or ill thoughts towards you doing so,I personally would not. But that's me. When we were just married and starving and the company I worked for folded I was eligible for UI, but I refused to take it on principle.

Why would you refuse an insurance payout? You literally pay in every year for this. Unemployment insurance is a premium that is taken out of your check at the beginning of the year.

Would you refuse a check from the insurance company if you totaled your car on principle? Because that is the same thing.

[JPhillips]

Don't be so quick to say you'll never be on Medicaid. If you end up in a nursing home, especially if you live a long time while in the nursing home, you'll probably run out of money and end up on Medicaid. If you have a good financial planner you'll put your assets in your kids' names so that you can get to Medicaid without going bankrupt first.

Something like 2/3 of the people in nursing homes are on Medicaid.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

That you seem to think the GI Bill is a handout is quite simply insulting.

It literally was created as a handout for white military veterans returning from WW2. It was not considered part of their compensation at the time.

Also they revamped it a few years back that retroactively counted anyone who served post-9/11.

You're right though that if someone signs up with the understanding that this is part of their compensation, its not a handout. But don't forget a lot of these benefits are handouts to corporations. Private for-profit college benefit a lot from the GI Bill and lobby heavily for it. Same goes for mortgage benefits which is an inadvertent handout to banks and the real estate industry.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Except any "tax break" is just allowing you to keep your money.

On rates, sure, I won't fight that, but on credits and deductions, some people get breaks that others don't. That isn't simply keeping your own money.

And the government can't make money means sales can't make money. The government provides lots of things, military, courts, education, infrastructure... that you're buying with your taxes and that increase and secure the value of your business.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Except any "tax break" is just allowing you to keep your money.

Not if someone else's taxes have to cover the bill.

[thesloppy]

If you drive a car or truck, some non-driving hippie is forded to pay for your safety. If you eat meat, some vegan is forced to pay for that meat to be quality graded. If you served in the military, some pacifist is forced to pay for your benefits. If you have children, single people are paying a significant amount to assure your child is kept, safe, fed and educated. If you own a house, impoverished renters and even some homeless folks may have contributed to your loan and/or its security. If you enjoy drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes, there are teetotallers and recovering addicts paying to assure the quality of your vices. If you own a gun, there are victims of gun violence paying to assure that your gun operates safely and effectively. If you own a television or a radio there are deaf and blind folks paying to assure the quality of your broadcasts. Yet you never hear any of those groups complaining about fractions of their paychecks. Go figure. It's called society.

[NobodyHere]

By they way, since this country is running a trillion dollar deficit, let's not pretend that we're fully paying for anything right now.

[RainMaker]

I will tell my credit card I'm not making a payment next month and instead of being delinquent will explain that I'm just keeping my money.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The first part of the above definition is fine:

It's just that a lot of people don't want to acknowledge how much they will get from the government over the course of their lives that is over and above what they worked for.

Not sure I agree with that definition but let's try some use cases ...

GI Bill - is not a handout because it is related to work?

SS - is not a handout because we pay SS taxes from our work paycheck. Because we will likely get more SS than we put in, at best its a partial handout?

Unemployment benefits - is a handout because its not paid by the employee but the employer?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you live past 80 you're almost assured to have gotten more out of social security than you paid in.

I do think this is true for regular employees. CU may be thinking of his company paying the ER portion also for all his employees.

As a small business owner, I can see his argument that he put in that money.

But don't let me speak for him ...

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do think this is true for regular employees. CU may be thinking of his company paying the ER portion also for all his employees.

As a small business owner, I can see his argument that he put in that money.

But don't let me speak for him ...

The employer portion is a tax the employee is paying. Just being withheld by the company.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why would you refuse an insurance payout? You literally pay in every year for this. Unemployment insurance is a premium that is taken out of your check at the beginning of the year.

Would you refuse a check from the insurance company if you totaled your car on principle? Because that is the same thing.

I choose to pay for auto insurance as a business decision. (Yes in SC you are allowed to personally insure and not have insurance if you pay a one time bond fee) I choose to enter into that business relationship.

Employment insurance is, in my world view, unethical, amoral, unjust and harmful. And mandated not optionally entered.
I chose not to participate. I may be a dumbass but I'm a highly principled dumbass

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Don't be so quick to say you'll never be on Medicaid. If you end up in a nursing home, especially if you live a long time while in the nursing home, you'll probably run out of money and end up on Medicaid. If you have a good financial planner you'll put your assets in your kids' names so that you can get to Medicaid without going bankrupt first.

Something like 2/3 of the people in nursing homes are on Medicaid.

I have purchased long term care insurance, and pre paid the premiums through my life and my wife's. I will not end up on Medicaid in a nursing home, I took steps to ensure that.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The employer portion is a tax the employee is paying. Just being withheld by the company.

I see you've never owned a company. You think the withheld amount is the full amount. It isn't even half, and if you file a claim your former employer then pays more for that claim.

[Lathum]

I have to say I am fascinated where this thread has gone considering it started in a random thoughts thread about an idiot 17 year old (no offense Warhammer, all 17 year olds are idiots) telling a slightly dirty joke.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I choose to pay for auto insurance as a business decision. (Yes in SC you are allowed to personally insure and not have insurance if you pay a one time bond fee) I choose to enter into that business relationship.

Employment insurance is, in my world view, unethical, amoral, unjust and harmful. And mandated not optionally entered.
I chose not to participate. I may be a dumbass but I'm a highly principled dumbass

To each their own. Not sure I'd pass on something I paid a premium on.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I see you've never owned a company. You think the withheld amount is the full amount. It isn't even half, and if you file a claim your former employer then pays more for that claim.

I do own one and understand how payroll taxes work. The 6.2% you cover is part of the employee's overall compensation. Just like the employer part of the health insurance, 401K match, etc.

That's why a self-employed person has to pay the 12.4%. If this wasn't the case, an employed person would have to make twice as much as a self-employed person to receive the same retirement benefits. But the government treats the employer contribution as if it were the employee themselves paying for it.

Target isn't paying sales tax when they mail a fat check to the state government. That sales tax is a tax on the consumer.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not sure I agree with that definition but let's try some use cases ...

GI Bill - is not a handout because it is related to work?

SS - is not a handout because we pay SS taxes from our work paycheck. Because we will likely get more SS than we put in, at best its a partial handout?

Unemployment benefits - is a handout because its not paid by the employee but the employer?

GI Bill is tricky because if we want to say service members are employees, why do they get benefits that other government employees don't get?

SS- Ends up being a handout for the average person. The average person gets way more than they paid in.

Unemployment is also tricky because it's a part of payroll tax, but a lot of people never see the benefit.

Individual programs, though, don't really matter to me, overall, most of us get things from the government that we didn't "earn". What frustrates me is that too many people want to draw a line between those that get handouts and those that don't when the reality is most of us get handouts.

[RainMaker]

Arguing about benefits is silly because everyone benefits in different ways.

Take the richest people who pay the most taxes. They benefit immensely from us having a stable government. If the government collapsed and the country was sent into complete anarchy, they would have the most to lose monetarily. So it makes sense that they would pay more since the government is an insurance policy of sorts to them.

Being able to deduct your mortgage interest is a handout that renters don't have. Having a tax-advantaged retirement account is a handout from the government. Heck, if you own stock in a pharmaceutical company, aren't you getting a handout of sorts since the government gave them a monopoly and can't negotiate prices?

CU Tiger mentioned his long term care insurance and how he won't need a handout from the government. But that insurance company is part of his states Guaranty Association. If they go insolvent, the government steps in and helps cover the liabilities. So is it a handout if his investment is backed by other taxpayers?

I just think people have narrow definitions of what a "handout" is. People seem to believe a handout is the person on food stamps. Not the company who can make risky investment because if they go sour the government will step in and give them unlimited interest-free cash they never have to pay back.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

GI Bill is tricky because if we want to say service members are employees, why do they get benefits that other government employees don't get?

I think its because they are willing to put their lives in danger for the country, temporarily pause their civilian vs military rights, etc. All-in-all, I think it can be argued either way but I'm actually okay classifying it a non-handout

Originally Posted by JPhillips

SS- Ends up being a handout for the average person. The average person gets way more than they paid in.

I've always heard this but maybe not, note below article is from 2013

Social Security: Many pay more in taxes than they'll get in benefits

Up until now, Social Security has been a windfall for many retirees: They collected far more in benefits than they shelled out in taxes.
That's changing. Many of those retiring will have paid more into the coveted entitlement program than they will get back.

Here are the numbers:

A couple who each earned the average wage during their careers and retired in 1990 would have paid $316,000 in Social Security taxes, but collected $436,000 in benefits, according to data crunched by Eugene Steuerle, an economist at the Urban Institute.

Had that couple turned 65 in 2010, however, they would have paid $600,000 in taxes, but could expect to collect just $579,000. This is the first time in the program's history that taxes outweighed benefits for this group, a couple with average earnings.

The imbalance will get more pronounced for future generations of retirees. Couples now in their early 40s will have forked over $808,000 in Social Security taxes by the time they retire, but get back only $703,000 in benefits.

And for articles I've read that supports takeout more than put it, many say inflation adjusted but is that fair? Should it be an average of 7-8% annual returns and will that change the numbers?

Don't know, still looking for an article that factors in market returns vs just inflation.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Unemployment is also tricky because it's a part of payroll tax, but a lot of people never see the benefit.

Individual programs, though, don't really matter to me, overall, most of us get things from the government that we didn't "earn". What frustrates me is that too many people want to draw a line between those that get handouts and those that don't when the reality is most of us get handouts.

I do struggle with this because I've yet to see a clear definition of what is a handout.

I can buy that everyone gets some sort/level of handout/subsidy/break but is the distinction ...

1) Those that do that are "producing" or "have produced" vs those that are perceived as "not/minimal producing" or "have not produced"?

2) Is the government getting back or will get back "something substantial or commensurate" for what they are handing out?


Company bailouts have been mentioned above as handouts. Insurance companies, Banks during the GR, they got bailed out (except for a couple investment banks). Are those handouts? Arguably they "produced", they have helped the economy grow, they employ many people etc. I'm all for bailing them out but honestly don't see that as a handout.

Let's go to another extreme with the stereotypical welfare queen. Benefits that a welfare queen gets (I hypothesize) many will say, exceeds what the welfare queen will produce or return to the government/country.

Retirees that collect SS and Medicare for the most part have produced something for the country in the past 20-30-40 years. In the article link above, even if someone gets approx 30-35% more than what they put in, you can still see the amount of $316K of what they paid is still pretty substantial.


Let me say again that I'm not really sure what a "handout" means and am trying (but struggling) to define it clearly.

[Edward64]

Here's an example of what I read regarding inflation adjusted vs market returns.

Consider a single man who earns the average wage throughout his career ($43,100 in 2010 dollars), works every year from age 22 to 64, and then retires at age 65 in 2010. Over his lifetime he has paid $345,000 into the system. But he is likely to get back $72,000 more than that, or $417,000 in Social Security and Medicare payouts, according to recent Urban Institute calculations. A single women with the same work and tax history will come out even further ahead due to her longer life expectancy, likely netting $464,000 in lifetime benefits, which is $192,000 more than she paid into the system. These amounts are in constant 2010 dollars and assume a 2 percent real interest rate.

I haven't crunched the nos, but I'm willing to bet if you use 7-8% historical long term market returns vs the 2% mentioned in the article ... "one will have paid more including average market returns of 7-8% than will take out".

Which would mean SS is not a hand-out.

Medicare is a different point, I think the gap there is too large to fill using market returns.

[RainMaker]

Give me $500 million in interest free loans and cover my risky decisions and I will produce a lot of jobs too.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Give me $500 million in interest free loans and cover my risky decisions and I will produce a lot of jobs too.

Unfortunately you are not currently producing enough, submitted a great business plan, sold me on your vision etc. for me to be willing to loan you $500M (unlike the others)

[RainMaker]

Those investment banks were producing nothing but pain for the economy, business plan was using cheap money from the fed, and vision was using that cheap money to create instruments that I guarantee no one in Congress understood.

But my plan is simple. I need $75 million to make an MMORPG. Will give you guys 450 jobs.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I haven't crunched the nos, but I'm willing to bet if you use 7-8% historical long term market returns vs the 2% mentioned in the article ... "one will have paid more including average market returns of 7-8% than will take out".

Which would mean SS is not a hand-out.

Without taking a stand on the central issue, I'll just point out that there's a term of art being used here that you are not employing properly.

"Real interest rate" (or real rate of return) is a specific term designed to mean interest afforded to an investor in excess of the general rate of inflation. So, your contrast of 2% and 7% has an apples-to-oranges problem.

The 7% "historical" rate of return is a nominal rate, just the flat returns, without any such adjustment. Over a long period when those are the expected returns on equity investments (and 7% used to be a pretty good working number), there is probably also something like a 4% overall rate of inflation embedded in that kind of economy. So, to complete that example, the real interest rate there is only the 3% difference.

When comparing pension systems or the like, it's the real rate of return that matters -- because benefits are generally rising along with overall prices (inflation), so the only gains from investment are that real differential.

Whether a 2% long term real return is an ideal assumption, I'm agnostic. But it's not patently ridiculous like your 2-vs-7 illustration would suggest.

[Edward64]

Thanks for your point but I'm not sure I agree.

Historical stock market return adjusted for inflation is approx 7%.

What is the average annual return for the S&P 500?

One of the major problems for an investor looking at that 10% average return figure and mistakenly expecting to realize a nice yearly profit from investing in the S&P 500 is inflation. Adjusted for inflation, the historical average annual return is only around 7%..

The 2% I quoted is inflation adjusted to 2%.

The 7% is inflation adjusted from 10% down to 7%.

So isn't the comparison valid 7% vs 2%? This is a delta of approx 5% which is the point I'm trying to make.

I'll concede the averages of inflation and stock market returns may differ +/- 2% maybe in any "stretch of time".

[digamma]

***Head explodes***

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Those investment banks were producing nothing but pain for the economy, business plan was using cheap money from the fed, and vision was using that cheap money to create instruments that I guarantee no one in Congress understood.

But my plan is simple. I need $75 million to make an MMORPG. Will give you guys 450 jobs.

If you really don't think those IB was producing something "significant" for the economy then you and I differ quite a bit.

But okay, if it was up to me, I'll bet on you for $75M vs $500M.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If you really don't think those IB was producing something "significant" for the economy then you and I differ quite a bit.

But okay, if it was up to me, I'll bet on you for $75M vs $500M.

Those investment banks were insolvent when we invested. The free market decided they were a terrible investment at that point.