The Entirely Made Up Claim That Corporations Pay No Taxes
- Thread starter m.knox
- Start date
The current situation could have been predicted right from the beginning when they set it up as a ponzi scheme. Then again after each time they added benefits with no way to pay for them.
Considering America's welfare program started in 1939, congrats on your impressive longevity. You must be 100+ by now, having "grown up" before then.
They make it up. Doesn't matter what reality is. They will simply makeup another reality.
on the military thing, deadly serious....the military provides training for just about any profession you want. Aircraft engine repair, auto repair, cooking, you name it...no hedge funds but finance, logistics, supply chain management, ..just about everything. And most of the jobs are not directly combat related (if being in combat is a concern)
Just think, a lot of your concerns are covered, you get a place to live, food, free medical and dental, free clothing, 30 days vacation a year, a salary....if you retire you get Tricare healthcare....
GI bill if you want to go to college
Most of the people who serve their commitments can come out and get jobs in their profession right away...plenty of opportunity.
Now with the new blended retirement system, you don't even have to serve 20yrs to leave with a government $$ in a retirement account. It works more like a corporate plan where the gov't provides a match to your contributions so if you leave before 20yrs you can take it with you.
edit: The Army paid for several years of my college education. I had loas, did work study, and worked construction jobs in the summer to help pay but it was not enough and my parents were taking out loans to cover the rest of my bill and I didn't like it. I wanted to do more and pay my own way. The Army was the ticket. . Interest on my student loans was deferred for 4 years (i think) so I paid those loans off interest free.
Last edited:
Somebody building a company that becomes worth a $billion is a Ponzi Scheme? How about somebody who starts a business that becomes worth a $million? Is that a Ponzi Scheme too?
You're the one claiming that social security is a Ponzi scheme. Please explain how ordinary people are rigging the system but billionaires like Musk aren't?
And, once again, you are off the mark. Wildly. YOU don't tell the plumber what you're going to pay them...THEY tell you. I'm 100% in favor of giving workers (your "plumber") the ability to collectively bargain and make demands. From your posts, it appears you are as well.
Try to focus
I never claimed that ordinary people were rigging the system. I claimed that the government set up SS as a Ponzi Scheme. It paid returns to early beneficiaries who contributed nothing or very little by using money provided by new people instead of investing it for their future retirement. Ordinary people didn't rig anything, the government created an unsustainable plan.
How did Musk rig the system? He took advantage of the system that government created. That included $7,500 per vehicle tax credits and carbon credit programs. Do you take tax deductions? Are you rigging the system or are you simply taking advantage of what the government offered him.
I don't think so. SNAP dates back to the 1930's and became a permanent program in 1964. You did not "grow up" in an era when it wasn't available.
When you say stupid sh*t like this, it makes it hard to take anything else seriously. Unless you think insurance in general is a ponzi scheme? Do you think the folks insuring your car are investing your premiums for the day you need to file a claim?
I have no concerns. I have no problem with people enlisting in the military. I do have a problem with your idea that everyone can leave the bottom 50%. I'm not sure you yet see your problem.
- Car insurance isn't a retirement savings program.
- Insurers definitely make money by investing premiums. It's called the float.
No. 1: Social Security is not fraudulent.
No. 2: Social Security’s operators do not take a cut.
No. 3: Social Security is operated in the open.
No. 5: Social Security offers realistic returns.
No. 6: If financially stressed, Social Security is able to adjust its funding or benefit streams.
Your claim is rated
No, it's an insurance program. So is social security. They even call it an insurance program. You can look it up.
Social Security Insurance is a federal program designed to provide financial protection for workers and their families. It offers various benefits, including retirement income, disability support, and survivor benefits for families of deceased workers. Approximately 68 million people benefit from Social Security, which includes retirees, individuals with disabilities, and eligible family members.
What do you think the federal govt does with excess $$ in the SSI program? Your private insurers are making billions on your premiums so they can pay themselves hundreds of millions of dollars/year. And then they'll look for ANY possible avenue to deny your claim. SSI is looking to have an input that closely matches the output. They aren't paying executives hundreds of millions every year. In FY 2024, total outlays were about $1.47 trillion, with administrative costs at $7.45 billion — just 0.5% of total costs.
Do you know what a Ponzi scheme is? It's a bunch of ordinary people pooling all their money and sending it up to just a few people under the promise that they too can get rich.
That's the exact opposite of SS. It sends all the money back to the people. There's no promises of getting rich. It's merely a bare bones safety net to keep people from being homeless.
But you know what does sound like a Ponzi scheme? Billionaires.
ok, let me try again, you have a leak...you call a plumber and ask for an estimate...he tells you $50..he does the work and gives you an invoice for $50. Do you pay him $50 or $75?
same when you apply for a job...company makes you an offer...$15/hour for 40 hour week. You accept...company pays him $15/hour...everybody is fulfilling their part of the bargain...what should company pay you more..you accepted the offer.
on military point again...if point you're trying to make is that there will always be a bottom 50%, I get it.
Last edited:
Define Fraud. Some might think that spending money we don't have is a form of fraud that our government has perpetuated on young Americans. But OK, call it what you want.No. 1: Social Security is not fraudulent.
No. 2: Social Security’s operators do not take a cut.
No. 3: Social Security is operated in the open.
No. 5: Social Security offers realistic returns.
No. 6: If financially stressed, Social Security is able to adjust its funding or benefit streams.
Your claim is rated
Nobody said that people working for the SS Administration were taking a cut or that annual trustee reports don't exist. You're jut making those things up.
Social Security returns were good for the early beneficiaries because they didn't put much into the system. Overall the returns have been horrible. Stock market returns have averaged close to 10%. Social Security returns have averaged 2-3% and that's only because the government has been subsidizing it for the past 16 years. Since 2010 Social Security has been running an annual deficit, meaning it has been collecting less in revenue than it pays out in benefits.
I would have supported Social Security in 1935 if it would have been set up as a forced savings plan. Personal contributions could have been saved and invested for future retirement but the government used current taxes to pay people that never contributed. That's typical of government because that's how they win votes. Give stuff away now and worry about how to pay for it later. That also seems to be the approach you prefer.
P.S. Insurance companies don't pay claims today and figure out how they're going to pay for them in the future.
You still haven't told us how billionaires made their wealth using Ponzi schemes.
You are confusing Ponzi scheme with pyramid scheme.
A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Organizers promise high returns with little or no risk, but instead of engaging in legitimate business activities, they use incoming money to pay off earlier participants. The scheme collapses when new investments dry up.
SS does have Ponzi scheme vibes. It requires new people paying into the system in order to pay existing retirees. The scheme is at risk of collapse because there aren’t enough new contributors to pay off existing participants.
SS is a really stupid system. We should have created mandatory individual retirement accounts instead. Force the 6.2% into a retirement account, require an employer to match it and watch it grow. Even low wage earners would be much better off at retirement. And their kids would inherit whatever is left over.
wow, you're right.. I grew up in a family of 7 kids, we weren't dirt poor, but money was tight...My grandmother was dirt poor. I don't think she ever knew that food assistance was available.
thanks for correcting me.
I grew up poor by today's standards but not by the standards at the time. Our family of 4 lived in a 900 sq fit house, gravel driveway, no garage, no a/c, no microwave, no clothes dryer, etc. My dad worked 2 jobs to make ends meet. One car, so we went to the bank on Friday after work to cash his check then out to buy groceries. I remember my dad getting a bicycle from the junk yard and buying tubes, spokes, etc so I could fix it up and ride it. Usually one gift at Christmas. The only vacations were to drive somewhere and camp/fish. I suspect that was pretty common back in the day.
Back then families tended to stay and work in the same area so we would often visit grandparents after church on Sunday. I remember one of my uncle's talking about his struggles after losing his job. My other uncles told him to sign up for unemployment benefits and he refused. He said that's for people who are really hurting. There was a lot of pride back then. I don't remember any talk about food stamps. I suspect he would eat fish that he caught and family would help him out by sharing some things from their gardens.
Different times.
Last edited:
sure were. Some don't know that back in the "old days" there weren't all these benefits programs as they exist today. Families supported each other. We've gotten "fat" with our expectations of additional government handouts.
A lot of today's schools provide free breakfast and lunch for all students. That wasn't even the case when my kids went to school but I do think low income kids got reduced prices.
You're almost there...keep plodding. In your first example - who sets the compensation?
Now take a look at your second example and tell me who sets the compensation.
And the plumber can come back in the middle of the job, tell you your pipes are rusted out and the job is now $500. You can certainly call in another plumber. The price won't change.
As for your last comment... finally.
Yeah...that's why it's not a ponzi scheme, dimwit.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect neither do you.
By every definition, paying existing investors by using the contributions of new investors is a Ponzi scheme. It was designed that way. No need to act like it isn't.
Only a severely unhinged leftwing lunatic compares a ponzi scheme to someone genuinely earning money. How did you get there? Huffing?
LOL yeah tell us dumocrats more about how the left is all about division and hate. Demagoguery.... I can't believe you brought that up. That's Trump's technique. Better play up the fear of the boogeyman more so people don't vote left!
Your entire definition describes billionaires. They all promise high returns, little to no risk, and investors making out like bandits if they continue to fork over their money to keep it going. You know what system doesn't promise this? Social security. All it promises is not being homeless if you invest. Way to self own yourself here.
Last edited:
Show me one billionaire who got there without an endless flow of investors and an endless flow of screwed over workers to get this rich.
This is the lack of self-awareness I'm referring to. Well, more a lack of Trump awareness but that's your TDS.
demagoguery
/ˈdeməˌɡäɡ(ə)rē/
Demagoguery is a manipulative style of political or public rhetoric that seeks to gain power by playing on the emotions, prejudices, and fears of ordinary people, rather than relying on rational debate, facts, or sound policy. [1, 2]
Practitioners, known as demagogues, often utilize a recognizable set of tactics to persuade and control their audience: [1]
- Us vs. Them Mentality (Trump): Framing complex societal issues as a simple, zero-sum war between the "pure, virtuous masses" and a "corrupt, malicious elite" (or scapegoated minority).
- Appeal to Emotion (Trump): Prioritizing passion, anger, and prejudice to bypass logical reasoning.
- Oversimplification (LOL Trump): Offering easy, one-size-fits-all solutions to deeply complicated structural problems.
- Demonization of Compromise (Trump): Portraying any disagreement or willingness to negotiate as a betrayal or a sign of weakness
Us vs Them
Donald Trump frequently uses "us vs. them" rhetoric to frame his political movements, often contrasting his supporters with political opponents, the media, or globalists. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Several of his notable quotes and recurring themes include:
- On political opponents: "They're vicious people that we have to fight, just like you have to fight vicious people. Mine are a different kind of vicious".
- On his base vs. critics: "They hate me. They hate you. They hate rallies and it's all because they hate the idea of MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
- On America vs. the establishment: "The corrupt globalist establishment is responsible for the destruction of our country"
Donald Trump’s appeal to emotion relies on a sophisticated mix of anger, fear, and empowerment. Rather than focusing on policy white papers, his rhetoric channels working-class grievances into powerful, unifying narratives that validate the frustrations of his supporters and position him as the only figure capable of fighting on their behalf. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Oversimplification
Donald Trump’s communication style heavily relies on oversimplification, using black-and-white rhetoric, hyperbole, and zero-sum framing to reduce complex geopolitical, economic, and social issues into easily digestible, emotionally resonant talking points. This strategy allows him to connect directly with his base but frequently omits crucial context
Demonization of Compromise
Donald Trump’s political strategy often frames political compromise as a sign of weakness and betrayal, rather than a standard legislative tool. By adopting an uncompromising, "all-or-nothing" approach, he rallies his base, controls media narratives, and frames his opponents as fundamental threats to the country
The Rhetorical Signature
Trump’s communication style is inherently Manichean—dividing the world strictly into "winners" and "losers," or "patriots" and the "enemy within". Key elements of this strategy include: [1, 2]
- Zero-Sum Bargaining: Trump frequently applies business negotiation tactics to government, asserting that giving ground in negotiations means losing leverage rather than finding mutual benefit.
- Aggressive Labeling: When opponents push back, his messaging goes beyond criticizing their policies to heavily demonizing them personally as "scum," "traitors," or threats to the nation. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
This doesn’t make any sense, like many of your posts. Probably not worth spending any more of my time on you.