Don’t be silly. I import all my oil, and it’s refined here in CA.
From which country?
if you make a bunch of simplifying assumptions and then result in a z score of 396 maybe you should check your simplifying assumptions
I think the solution to this criticism is no social security, not we all get social security. And honestly I don’t think the incentive change is as big a problem as simply giving everyone money, really we should only be doing it so grandma isn’t living on the street, not so grandma can world travel, so the incentive change would be pretty small, not to mention you can have a smooth transition from support to no support.
Anywho, back to “fraud” topic…
Now, 75% of GOP members do not trust the results.
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/09/944385798/poll-just-a-quarter-of-republicans-accept-election-outcome
Media calling the election doesn’t count, but apparently bookies calling it does?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1336733602902659075?s=20
Though, I don’t remember a lot of discussion of Trump having it in the bag on election night. Be curious to know how many bookies were saying this vs. how many were pretty sure Biden had it.
1 Like
Why would you get rid of a program that provides Americans that kind of security in their old age? It is one of the best things about being an American citizen. We are guaranteed a safe and secure retirement. Also what in the heck would we gain by getting rid of it?
You mean, you think he’s lying?
on twitter?
About the election results?
I mean, if I could have gotten 30-1 for a Biden win, I’d have $300 by now.
Liberty
Freedom
a step back from the idea that the Federal Government will take care of you from cradle to grave
and what part of the social security program guarantees you a safe and secure retirement?
Predictit “closed” at 60% for Trump on 11/3. Though it’s hardly a liquid or rational market. Don’t know about betfair, which should be a little more realistic.
I actually did randomly bet $300 on Biden because I was bored and didn’t know where you guys went.
Yep, that’s why Twig’s suggestion of a flat benefit is the best we can do.
A flat benefit means that gramma can live indoors and buy groceries. Avoiding means testing also avoids “punishing the savers”. But, reducing the benefit for high earners means that fewer of the tax dollars paid by today’s workers go to provide luxuries for retired workers.
1 Like
I’m fine with the federal gov’t providing the basic necessities for people born in the US who can’t do that for themselves.
I don’t know what you mean by “take care of you from cradle to grave”. Since I’ve been lucky enough to mostly earn my own way, I expect that I’ll pay taxes to the gov’t and cover my own personal needs.
First, no former AOer should ever be alone.
Second, what part of that is the random part? I mean, actuaries here, so: the amount? choosing Biden? the actual decision to bet at all?
I used rand() to decide what to do everyday.
That’s an interesting thought. If we can do those things for our citizens though, why wouldn’t we? I guess I don’t understand why not? I don’t think Social Security impinges on anyone’s liberty or freedom and often it helps people enjoy both of those more in their old age.
Such a Sheldon.
“Taxation is an impingement on liberty and/or freedom.”
– the alt-right, when a marxist socialist communist (oh, pick one!) is in charge.
Taxes are a burden. Always.
You do understand if you weren’t currently paying for someone else’s current retirement, you (and your employer) wouldn’t be paying those taxes. You would be enjoying more of the benefits of your labor. And who better to determine how to spend/invest those benefits than you, the earner of those benefits.
1 Like
which alt-right group/person said this about which Marxist/socialist/communist during the Boston Tea Party?
I think the social costs of not paying for those retirements would eventually feed through to your wallet. If the government didn’t pay, someone would have to. This would be passed onto you via lower wages or more expensive goods and services.
1 Like