I Urge you to call your Senator

[Bob78164]

This quote explains a lot to me -- about you, not social security. If you truly believe that reasonably intelligent people don't understand how social security taxes work and who pays them, you underestimate a great many people, including most of the folks on this board.

Folks on the Bored -- maybe -- although the number of people here who wonder about tax treatment of their winnings, and the amount of simply inaccurate advice given on the subject (not, I hasten to add, by any of the professionals) leads me to stick to my guns even here. After all, I suspect most people here have a whole lot of things they'd prefer to think about other than taxes. Hell, I don't mind admitting that before I had to deal with self-employment taxes for the first time about eight years ago, I didn't have a clear understanding of the employer portion of payroll taxes. As further evidence specific to social security, during the debate on privatization, many people here didn't seem to realize that because social security is pay-as-you-go, it's simply not possible to divert even a portion of the payment to "private savings accounts" without reducing current benefits.

As for "reasonably intelligent people" more generally -- I spend a fair amount of time on the Tax Strategies Board at the Motley Fool. Based on my experience with that audience (which generally is motivated to understand tax issues), I'm certainly sticking to my guns on the more general point. --Bob

I'm would be really surprised that even a sizable minority of people would be unaware of this. I'm pretty sure I learned this in school, so it couldn't have been any later than the 10th grade (and I think it was 9th).

Shortly after Dan Blonsky's million-dollar win, I took a poll in my office to see how many of my colleagues would have been able to select the correct distance from the Earth to the Sun. You'd be astonished by how few of them got it right.

You were apparently well educated. I know that my own formal schooling was completely devoid of financial education of any sort, including but not limited to taxes. --Bob

[MarleysGh0st]

Show of hands, please -- how many people here with private employers realized before this story broke that their employers actually pay FICA taxes on their behalf? I'm not talking about the FICA withholding that shows up on your pay stub. I'm talking about the other half, which the taxpayer normally is only responsible for if self-employed.

Marley <----- Raising hand





Is it gratutious to respond to posts when the conversation has progressed pages beyond this already?

[wintergreen48]

Actually, there's an easier solution to avoid the "heckler's veto"- don't make bold promises like "This will be the most...administration in history".

Don't say anything stupid and patronizing like that, when everybody who understands the political game understands that that's an impossible standard to set, and you'll be just fine in my book.

But if you're going to set the impossible standard, I'm going to hold you to it.

It seems like you're translating the phrase in quotes, which actually means, "I'll do it better than any previous Administration," as "My Administration will do it perfectly." The former standard is feasible. The latter is not.

Obama has already taken one step that goes a long way to keeping this promise. By forbidding members of his Administration from lobbying the federal government during his Administration, President Obama has taken an unprecedented step that removes a significant incentive toward corruption. No one thinks this Administration will be perfect, on ethics or anything else. Time will tell, though, whether he will be able to keep the promise he actually made. --Bob

Actually, I don't think that any President would allow a member of his Administration to lobby the Federal government during his Administration-- what Obama did was, he pledged that he would not appoint any current or recent lobbyists to serve in his Administration, and that would be a big change.

Except that I just saw a report that Obama has nominated some guy for Deputy Defense Secretary and has given him a waiver from the 'no lobbyist' pledge. Jeez, you'd think he'd wait until he's been in office a full week before backtracking on a firm pledge...

[Bob78164]

Actually, there's an easier solution to avoid the "heckler's veto"- don't make bold promises like "This will be the most...administration in history".

Don't say anything stupid and patronizing like that, when everybody who understands the political game understands that that's an impossible standard to set, and you'll be just fine in my book.

But if you're going to set the impossible standard, I'm going to hold you to it.

It seems like you're translating the phrase in quotes, which actually means, "I'll do it better than any previous Administration," as "My Administration will do it perfectly." The former standard is feasible. The latter is not.

Obama has already taken one step that goes a long way to keeping this promise. By forbidding members of his Administration from lobbying the federal government during his Administration, President Obama has taken an unprecedented step that removes a significant incentive toward corruption. No one thinks this Administration will be perfect, on ethics or anything else. Time will tell, though, whether he will be able to keep the promise he actually made. --Bob

Actually, I don't think that any President would allow a member of his Administration to lobby the Federal government during his Administration-- what Obama did was, he pledged that he would not appoint any current or recent lobbyists to serve in his Administration, and that would be a big change.

Except that I just saw a report that Obama has nominated some guy for Deputy Defense Secretary and has given him a waiver from the 'no lobbyist' pledge. Jeez, you'd think he'd wait until he's been in office a full week before backtracking on a firm pledge...

I wrote carelessly. President Obama forbade members of his Administration from lobbying the federal government for the duration of his Administration even after they leave government employment. I believe that Bush, for example, used a one-year rule, and I'm not aware of any prior Administration that has banned post-employment lobbying as broadly.

As for the nominee (whose name escapes me), the waiver was not for post-employment lobbying, but for pre-employment lobbying. This sets up a different set of concerns -- the possibility that he will be too sympathetic to the interests of his former employers. This is certainly something to keep an eye on, but to me it doesn't seem nearly as problematic to leave the revolving door open in that direction. --Bob

[WheresFanny]

I'm would be really surprised that even a sizable minority of people would be unaware of this. I'm pretty sure I learned this in school, so it couldn't have been any later than the 10th grade (and I think it was 9th).

Shortly after Dan Blonsky's million-dollar win, I took a poll in my office to see how many of my colleagues would have been able to select the correct distance from the Earth to the Sun. You'd be astonished by how few of them got it right.

You were apparently well educated. I know that my own formal schooling was completely devoid of financial education of any sort, including but not limited to taxes. --Bob

Now that wouldn't surprise me nearly as much. But I didn't have any idea, or even a rough guesstimate, of the answer.

As for being well educated, I guess that depends a lot on what you define as 'well educated'. We had to take a business block and two of the classes I had were Business Math and Shorthand. The Business Math class was basically stuff you should know, like balancing a checkbook, gross pay v. take home, etc.

I personally think it's way more important to teach practical things in school. Knowing where your money's going and how FICA works is much more relevant to most people's lives than some abstract thing like the distance from the Sun to the Earth.

Then again, I don't suppose shorthand is in real great demand these days......ha!

[Bob78164]

As for being well educated, I guess that depends a lot on what you define as 'well educated'. We had to take a business block and two of the classes I had were Business Math and Shorthand. The Business Math class was basically stuff you should know, like balancing a checkbook, gross pay v. take home, etc.

Yours is the only school I've ever heard of with such a requirement. I agree with you that all schools should require it, but I've never heard of another one that actually did. --Bob

[Beebs52]

As for being well educated, I guess that depends a lot on what you define as 'well educated'. We had to take a business block and two of the classes I had were Business Math and Shorthand. The Business Math class was basically stuff you should know, like balancing a checkbook, gross pay v. take home, etc.

Yours is the only school I've ever heard of with such a requirement. I agree with you that all schools should require it, but I've never heard of another one that actually did. --Bob

I had no idea that your vision was so wide that it included every single school district in the US during the last, well, 100 years (I can't remember when public education in its decrepitude became so pervasive.)

Some of these things were actually requirements at some point WAY back in the past.

[Jeemie]

It seems like you're translating the phrase in quotes, which actually means, "I'll do it better than any previous Administration," as "My Administration will do it perfectly." The former standard is feasible. The latter is not.

Obama has already taken one step that goes a long way to keeping this promise. By forbidding members of his Administration from lobbying the federal government during his Administration, President Obama has taken an unprecedented step that removes a significant incentive toward corruption. No one thinks this Administration will be perfect, on ethics or anything else. Time will tell, though, whether he will be able to keep the promise he actually made. --Bob

Actually, I don't think that any President would allow a member of his Administration to lobby the Federal government during his Administration-- what Obama did was, he pledged that he would not appoint any current or recent lobbyists to serve in his Administration, and that would be a big change.

Except that I just saw a report that Obama has nominated some guy for Deputy Defense Secretary and has given him a waiver from the 'no lobbyist' pledge. Jeez, you'd think he'd wait until he's been in office a full week before backtracking on a firm pledge...

I wrote carelessly. President Obama forbade members of his Administration from lobbying the federal government for the duration of his Administration even after they leave government employment. I believe that Bush, for example, used a one-year rule, and I'm not aware of any prior Administration that has banned post-employment lobbying as broadly.

As for the nominee (whose name escapes me), the waiver was not for post-employment lobbying, but for pre-employment lobbying. This sets up a different set of concerns -- the possibility that he will be too sympathetic to the interests of his former employers. This is certainly something to keep an eye on, but to me it doesn't seem nearly as problematic to leave the revolving door open in that direction. --Bob

It wasn't just that- it was as wintergreen said- he pledged not to appoint any current or recent lobbyists to his administration, as well as expand the "no lobby" pledge.

The Obama Administration has already gone back on this pledge at least twice.

It's not that they've gone back on the pledge that bothers me so much that they made it in the first place...knowing they'd probably have to break it.

And the fact that HE set the high standard, yet so many of you who were his supporters seem to be willing to give him a pass when he doesn't keep it.
...usually with the standard apology of "Well, that's not TOO bad" or "here's what he REALLY meant when he made that pledge".

You should be able to support a politician without having to create a whole set of apologetics for him/her.

Especially after only one week.

[WheresFanny]

As for being well educated, I guess that depends a lot on what you define as 'well educated'. We had to take a business block and two of the classes I had were Business Math and Shorthand. The Business Math class was basically stuff you should know, like balancing a checkbook, gross pay v. take home, etc.

Yours is the only school I've ever heard of with such a requirement. I agree with you that all schools should require it, but I've never heard of another one that actually did. --Bob

I had no idea that your vision was so wide that it included every single school district in the US during the last, well, 100 years (I can't remember when public education in its decrepitude became so pervasive.)

Some of these things were actually requirements at some point WAY back in the past.

I thought that Bob was of an age with me and perhaps a few years older, so he would have gone to school when there were actually requirements, although I was in school during the "I'm okay, you're okay" era when school requirements were cut down.

Although, maybe it's just that he was well educated and taught high brow stuff like geometry and science while I had a crap education full of practical stuff, because this class was pretty much geared toward the Future Cashiers and Waitresses of America.

Plus, as I said, school requirements were really eased up in the late 70s/early 80s. We only needed 1 year of math and 1 year of science from grades 9-12. I guess that freed up class blocks for stuff like Business Math. Besides shorthand, another now useless skill I have is the ability to justify columns on a manual typewriter. Push the spacebar, but don't let it up until you type.... Ha!

[Jeemie]

Yours is the only school I've ever heard of with such a requirement. I agree with you that all schools should require it, but I've never heard of another one that actually did. --Bob

I had no idea that your vision was so wide that it included every single school district in the US during the last, well, 100 years (I can't remember when public education in its decrepitude became so pervasive.)

Some of these things were actually requirements at some point WAY back in the past.

I thought that Bob was of an age with me and perhaps a few years older, so he would have gone to school when there were actually requirements, although I was in school during the "I'm okay, you're okay" era when school requirements were cut down.

Although, maybe it's just that he was well educated and taught high brow stuff like geometry and science while I had a crap education full of practical stuff, because this class was pretty much geared toward the Future Cashiers and Waitresses of America.

Plus, as I said, school requirements were really eased up in the late 70s/early 80s. We only needed 1 year of math and 1 year of science from grades 9-12. I guess that freed up class blocks for stuff like Business Math. Besides shorthand, another now useless skill I have is the ability to justify columns on a manual typewriter. Push the spacebar, but don't let it up until you type.... Ha!

Sounds like I went to school about the same time you did.

Our school taught Business Math, but it was an elective, not a requirement.

[WheresFanny]

I had no idea that your vision was so wide that it included every single school district in the US during the last, well, 100 years (I can't remember when public education in its decrepitude became so pervasive.)

Some of these things were actually requirements at some point WAY back in the past.

I thought that Bob was of an age with me and perhaps a few years older, so he would have gone to school when there were actually requirements, although I was in school during the "I'm okay, you're okay" era when school requirements were cut down.

Although, maybe it's just that he was well educated and taught high brow stuff like geometry and science while I had a crap education full of practical stuff, because this class was pretty much geared toward the Future Cashiers and Waitresses of America.

Plus, as I said, school requirements were really eased up in the late 70s/early 80s. We only needed 1 year of math and 1 year of science from grades 9-12. I guess that freed up class blocks for stuff like Business Math. Besides shorthand, another now useless skill I have is the ability to justify columns on a manual typewriter. Push the spacebar, but don't let it up until you type.... Ha!

Sounds like I went to school about the same time you did.

Our school taught Business Math, but it was an elective, not a requirement.

I think we are within a year or two agewise, so you're probably right. Business Math was sort of a required elective. We had "blocks" and you had to take so many classes in that category, but you could pick which ones you wanted. Although I think that Business Math might have been required in that block, because I can't imagine that I would willingly take a math class. I got my one math credit out of the way in 9th grade by taking Introduction to High School Math aka "Stoner Math". I think by the end of the year we were up to fractions. Ha!

[TheCalvinator24]

In my high school, Business Math was pushed on the kids on a "vocational track" and discouraged for those on a "college prep track."

Many of my college prep classmates would have been better served with Business Math than Geometry.

[tlynn78]

Looks like he's been confirmed.




t.

[gotribego26]

Looks like he's been confirmed.




t.

I can feel the world coming to an end.