Any comments about Mr Madoff?

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

I agree. The most pressing issue will be as the baby boomers come of age.

All that is predictable and easily planned for by actuarials. SS problems are trivial. Solutions include increasing income levels of contributions (to compensate for inflation), reduce benefits, or simply do what Reagan did. He hyped tax cuts while raising SS contributions percentages.

Difference between investment scams (ponzi schemes) and insurance? Insurance problems are easily predicted in advance and easily corrected. Investments scams, (Enron, LTCM, AIG, Bear Stearns, Madoff, etc) are not easily found until major damage occurs too late. Why was AIG careful to keep risky investments away from insurance regulator oversight? In today's America, investment scams became easy by something that politicians called deregulation.

Just another reason why investment finance needs heavy oversight by an SEC not subverted by a White House. SS was never going to deplete both the Federal Reserve and Treasury. Investment scams have almost done that in only a year AND may have put insurance companies even at risk.

Discussing insurance is nonsense when people such as AIG and Madoff are a far greater threat to the American economy.

[Kaliayev]

The thing that annoys me most about Madoff is that he ruined it all before I could get in on the game.

I could have been rich, rich I tell you!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Zhuge Liang

The thing that annoys me most about Madoff is that he ruined it all before I could get in on the game.

Steven Greenspan, a psychiatry professor at the U of CO wrote a book about the factors and psychology of a scam. After his book (Annals of Gullibility)was published, "with supreme irony", he lost half his retirement investments with Madoff.

Greenspan wrote:
The basic mechanism explaining the success of Ponzi schemes is the tendency of humans to model their actions, especially when dealing with matters they don't fully understand, on the behavior of other humans."

Greenspan explains the Madoff ponzi scheme AND Saddam's WMDs.

Greenspan also noted the scam is particularly powerful within an ethnic or religious group as Ponzi demonstrated in 1920 Italy. Religious people particularly because: if another believes your religion, then he must be trustworthy. Nonsense. Rarely are the most religious also the most trustworthy. Just another example of why religion justifies so much of what those same people would otherwise call 'evil'.

How to identify the greatest ‘evils’? Let religion be a basis of any decision. Madoff was particularly influential – could promote his lies easiest - among other older Jews.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Because they are not diverting wealth to those that never came up with the idea.

You completely misinterpret (or misunderstand) my outrage, and at whom it is aimed.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The best thing they can do for it is raise the ceiling for contribution limits from around 95k or what ever that is, up to 110k.

I don't get why they even HAVE a ceiling...

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It only has to be raised if life expectancy increases. Solvency is not a problem unless there are too many retired people for the working population to support. And, as TheMercenary pointed out, there are much easier (both politically and practically) ways of increasing funding than raising the retirement age. Of the three methods I mentioned (rates/retirement ages/upper tax limits), the retirement age is the one I would expect to, politically, need a life expectancy justification.

Raising the retirement age to 80 simply could not happen, politically, unless people were regularly living well past it. Raising the maximum yearly limit would, comparatively, be a cinch.

I still don't get why it needs to be raised. Just make people pay in based on what they actually make.

[classicman]

That discussion you quoted was on paying OUT not IN.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I don't get why they even HAVE a ceiling...

It's the law. I guess if you never make enough money to reach it you really could not give a shit about anyone who does pay into it.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It's the law. I guess if you never make enough money to reach it you really could not give a shit about anyone who does pay into it.

Class warfare? Give me a friggin' break. IF they are going to tax people's income for SS, they should tax the WHOLE income.

[sugarpop]

And laws are not always right. If they were, we would still have slavery, and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Kaliayev]

Originally Posted by tw

Steven Greenspan, a psychiatry professor at the U of CO wrote a book about the factors and psychology of a scam. After his book (Annals of Gullibility)was published, "with supreme irony", he lost half his retirement investments with Madoff. Greenspan explains the Madoff ponzi scheme AND Saddam's WMDs.

Greenspan also noted the scam is particularly powerful within an ethnic or religious group as Ponzi demonstrated in 1920 Italy. Religious people particularly because: if another believes your religion, then he must be trustworthy. Nonsense. Rarely are the most religious also the most trustworthy. Just another example of why religion justifies so much of what those same people would otherwise call 'evil'.

How to identify the greatest ‘evils’? Let religion be a basis of any decision. Madoff was particularly influential – could promote his lies easiest - among other older Jews.

Good stuff. I've often taken an interest in the work of con artists and the mechanisms behind the process. Its amazing how much of an effect the right image can have on someone.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I still don't get why it needs to be raised. Just make people pay in based on what they actually make.

That's my point. It really doesn't need to be raised, though it does make some sense to keep it in line with life expectancy. Life expectancy for those reaching 65 increased 2-5 years between 1940 and 1990. and the retirement age is going up 2 years.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Zhuge Liang

Its amazing how much of an effect the right image can have on someone.

Even on the expert who wrote the book.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That's my point. It really doesn't need to be raised, though it does make some sense to keep it in line with life expectancy. Life expectancy for those reaching 65 increased 2-5 years between 1940 and 1990. and the retirement age is going up 2 years.

And it's been raised since 1940, no? Wasn't it raised just a few years ago? Or in the past 15 years or so? (My memory is faulty on this...)

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Class warfare? Give me a friggin' break. IF they are going to tax people's income for SS, they should tax the WHOLE income.

And everyone should get taxed the same regardless of how much or little you make. When the minority of income earners pay income taxes there is a huge problem.