5 ms·

Ostracized by who? People in the media or regular working class folk who pay plenty but get little? My parents both work and make money and the only real bene

Ostracized by who? People in the media or regular working class folk who pay plenty but get little? My parents both work and make money and the only real benefits that they have gotten as a result of trillions spent on war is that they'll continue to pay taxes for the rehabilitation of the soldiers whose bodies and lives have been destroyed. They MIGHT collect on social security, etc but given that they're still at least 10 years from retirement, it's certainly nothing they can count on.

wavefunction 13y ago
And given that there's been talk about raising the general Soc Sec boundary from 65 to 70, it's even more of a question if they will benefit... Both my parents have "retired" in the past year though they continue to work for money, and they were both a little bitter about how low the benefits are. I had to point out that at least they will probably get what they get. For those of us younger?
grogenaut 13y ago
They get sub $5 gas. That's what the money is being spent on.
- msandford 13y ago
  The average car is driven say 10k miles per year. At 20mpg that's 500 gallons of gas. At $4 per gallon, it's $2k. At $8 per gallon, that's $4k. A difference of only $2k. I'm not sure that the money on wars is well spent (even in a callous, dollars only sense) if it's saving the average household $4k a year in gas money (two cars).
  - throwawayDC21 13y ago
    The pump is not the only place that you pay for gas.
    - snowwrestler 13y ago
      Yup, there used to be an old ad campaign--"If you have it, a truck brought it." And it's true--although with modern supply chains today we probably should also throw in ships, trains, and airplanes. Transportation costs are embedded in the cost of every physical good.
      - msandford 13y ago
        Trains are much less sensitive to fuel prices than trucks are. The capital investment necessary to make trains work at all is really big. But after that the marginal cost of an additional car is very low. In terms of energy efficiency, trains are much better than trucks. What they lack is convenience, at least right now. In terms of cost, trucks often win because the trucking company doesn't bear the burden of building/maintaining the highway system. Yes they pay fuel taxes, but trucks make basically all the wear on roads. Wear seems to be based on the fourth power of weight. Check this: http://facweb.knowlton.ohio-state.edu/pviton/courses2/crp776/776-roads-handout.pdf http://facweb.knowlton.ohio-state.edu/pviton/courses2/crp776... This is a common theme for basically everything having to do with energy efficiency. You can have low up-front cost and larger ongoing costs, or larger up-front costs and lower ongoing costs. In the case of trains the ongoing costs are similar at current fuel prices but once they double again you'll see more train cargo and less truck cargo.
        throwawayDC21 13y ago
        The problem with trains is that the capital investment and up-front work that is needed becomes a political issue[1]. How do you decide on the route of a new train line? Who pays for the line to be built? Building railway infrastructure was simpler when there was a lot of open country to build long straight lines through, but building a new line today is much harder with compulsory purchase of land and groups lobbying against it. The process takes a long time too, so elected officials won't see the benefits of backing it at the next election. I think it is unlikely that US freight will move from road to rail without a significant amount of political and financial pressure. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    $2,000 is a lot of money to a lot of Americans.
zeckalpha 13y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Social_Security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Pau...
- msandford 13y ago
  Okay, I read the link. What's the point you're trying to make?
  - zeckalpha 13y ago
    Ron Paul would have gotten rid of the one thing they think the government does do for them, as well as a number of things they don't notice.
    - msandford 13y ago
      Okay, but he also believes that the income tax is unconstitutional. If he's able to get social security to go away it's likely he'd also eliminate the income tax. Losing social security AND the income tax would likely be a net win for middle aged working folk like my parents. If two people are making a combined $120k/year their tax burden is around $27k. With 10-15 years to go til retirement that's another $270-$405k in gross savings, neglecting any ability to earn interest (which right now is effectively 0%). I don't know what the social security pay-out rates are these days but $300k today versus a decreasing probability of future benefit payments from the SSA seems like a reasonable risk to take, given the choice. Not that we'll ever have the choice, mind you.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Okay, but he also believes that the income tax is unconstitutional. If he's able to get social security to go away it's likely he'd also eliminate the income tax. X wants A. X also wants B. Therefore, if X gets A, X will also get B. That doesn't work. > Losing social security AND the income tax would likely be a net win for middle aged working folk like my parents. Your analysis seems to be pretty shallow on this, particularly, it seems presume that the income tax can go away with everything else operating as is with no effect except taxpayers not paying the tax.

wavefunction 13y ago

And given that there's been talk about raising the general Soc Sec boundary from 65 to 70, it's even more of a question if they will benefit... Both my parents have "retired" in the past year though they continue to work for money, and they were both a little bitter about how low the benefits are. I had to point out that at least they will probably get what they get. For those of us younger?

grogenaut 13y ago

They get sub $5 gas. That's what the money is being spent on.

msandford 13y ago
The average car is driven say 10k miles per year. At 20mpg that's 500 gallons of gas. At $4 per gallon, it's $2k. At $8 per gallon, that's $4k. A difference of only $2k. I'm not sure that the money on wars is well spent (even in a callous, dollars only sense) if it's saving the average household $4k a year in gas money (two cars).
- throwawayDC21 13y ago
  The pump is not the only place that you pay for gas.
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    Yup, there used to be an old ad campaign--"If you have it, a truck brought it." And it's true--although with modern supply chains today we probably should also throw in ships, trains, and airplanes. Transportation costs are embedded in the cost of every physical good.
    - msandford 13y ago
      Trains are much less sensitive to fuel prices than trucks are. The capital investment necessary to make trains work at all is really big. But after that the marginal cost of an additional car is very low. In terms of energy efficiency, trains are much better than trucks. What they lack is convenience, at least right now. In terms of cost, trucks often win because the trucking company doesn't bear the burden of building/maintaining the highway system. Yes they pay fuel taxes, but trucks make basically all the wear on roads. Wear seems to be based on the fourth power of weight. Check this: http://facweb.knowlton.ohio-state.edu/pviton/courses2/crp776/776-roads-handout.pdf http://facweb.knowlton.ohio-state.edu/pviton/courses2/crp776... This is a common theme for basically everything having to do with energy efficiency. You can have low up-front cost and larger ongoing costs, or larger up-front costs and lower ongoing costs. In the case of trains the ongoing costs are similar at current fuel prices but once they double again you'll see more train cargo and less truck cargo.
      - throwawayDC21 13y ago
        The problem with trains is that the capital investment and up-front work that is needed becomes a political issue[1]. How do you decide on the route of a new train line? Who pays for the line to be built? Building railway infrastructure was simpler when there was a lot of open country to build long straight lines through, but building a new line today is much harder with compulsory purchase of land and groups lobbying against it. The process takes a long time too, so elected officials won't see the benefits of backing it at the next election. I think it is unlikely that US freight will move from road to rail without a significant amount of political and financial pressure. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  $2,000 is a lot of money to a lot of Americans.

zeckalpha 13y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Social_Security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Pau...

msandford 13y ago
Okay, I read the link. What's the point you're trying to make?
- zeckalpha 13y ago
  Ron Paul would have gotten rid of the one thing they think the government does do for them, as well as a number of things they don't notice.
  - msandford 13y ago
    Okay, but he also believes that the income tax is unconstitutional. If he's able to get social security to go away it's likely he'd also eliminate the income tax. Losing social security AND the income tax would likely be a net win for middle aged working folk like my parents. If two people are making a combined $120k/year their tax burden is around $27k. With 10-15 years to go til retirement that's another $270-$405k in gross savings, neglecting any ability to earn interest (which right now is effectively 0%). I don't know what the social security pay-out rates are these days but $300k today versus a decreasing probability of future benefit payments from the SSA seems like a reasonable risk to take, given the choice. Not that we'll ever have the choice, mind you.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Okay, but he also believes that the income tax is unconstitutional. If he's able to get social security to go away it's likely he'd also eliminate the income tax. X wants A. X also wants B. Therefore, if X gets A, X will also get B. That doesn't work. > Losing social security AND the income tax would likely be a net win for middle aged working folk like my parents. Your analysis seems to be pretty shallow on this, particularly, it seems presume that the income tax can go away with everything else operating as is with no effect except taxpayers not paying the tax.