Concerning Invincible Ignorance | Accounting Job

Question:

This should be interesting. From what I hear this new carrier will go head to head with Jet Blue, and concentrate on the NE corridor and Florida market. Delta Express will eventually be dissolved into the new LCC (low cost carrier). I also hear B757’s will be used. I’m curious how they will make money if the pilots are still on their Delta mainline contract (which they will be).

I heard about this yesterday. Continental tried this in the 1990s and it was a flop. This is also gonna be a flop.

Response:

cost carrier). I also hear B757’s will be used. I’m curious how they will make money if the pilots are still on their Delta mainline contract (which they will be).

The same way Air Canada pretends that its Tango can profitable compared to its mainline operations when the crews, equipment etc are all the same. (only difference is Tango doesn’t interline, no paper tickets). Accountants can be just as good at justifying low fares as they are justifying high fares.

Response:

This should be interesting. From what I hear this new carrier will go head to head with Jet Blue, and concentrate on the NE corridor and Florida market. Delta Express will eventually be dissolved into the new LCC (low cost carrier). I also hear B757’s will be used. I’m curious how they will make money if the pilots are still on their Delta mainline contract (which they will be). Ernie Delta to discuss low-cost carrier details on Wed. Tuesday November 19, 5:15 pm ET NEW YORK, Nov 19 (Reuters) – Delta Air Lines (NYSE:DAL – News) said it would discuss details on Wednesday of its new low-cost air carrier created to compete with successful discount airlines Southwest Airlines, JetBlue Airways and AirTran Airways. Delta said in a statement on Tuesday that its president, Frederick Reid, would broadcast a product announcement over the Internet starting at 10 a.m. John Selvaggio, a former Delta senior vice president picked in August to lead the low-cost strategy, will also address investors and the media. Analysts and investors have awaited word on Delta’s low-fare "airline within an airline" since its development was revealed this summer. Delta’s business in its biggest markets has been poached by low-cost carriers, and Delta Chief Executive Leo Mullin has said discount airlines are now the biggest competitive force facing the industry’s stalwarts. The Atlanta-based airline, the third largest in the United States, has lost a steady stream of customers to AirTran (NYSE:AAI – News) at its Atlanta hub and to JetBlue (NasdaqNM:JBLU – News), whose business slightly overlaps Delta’s. Highly emulated Southwest (NYSE:LUV – News) is not only the low-cost market leader but the financially strongest airline. Higher fixed costs at Delta as well as at other major airlines have kept the carriers from being more competitive as air fares stay persistently low.

Response:

Question:

I often talk to myself. So I’ll answer my own question in case anybody else is interested in the subject. Denver Tax Software got interested in the Bardahl formula and researched it sufficiently to write a program that applies it and watches over your shoulder for possible troubles. It will be on sale at their Web site shortly: http://www.denvertax.com In short, the Bardahl formula is for calculating necessary amounts of working capital and such in order to argue against, for example, the IRS claiming a corp. has excess earned income on the books (and related kinds of balance sheet entries). Franklynn Peterson, Editor CPA Computer Report newsletter http://www.cpacomputerreport.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We’re looking for software or text that explains how to properly execute the Bardahl formula (named after a corporation that argued, successfully, that it did not have excess undistributed earnings). We’ve searched the Inet, book sites, accounting software and research services…. Thanks! Franklynn Peterson, Editor CPA Computer Report newsletter http://www.cpacomputerreport.com

Response:

We’re looking for software or text that explains how to properly execute the Bardahl formula (named after a corporation that argued, successfully, that it did not have excess undistributed earnings). We’ve searched the Inet, book sites, accounting software and research services…. Thanks! Franklynn Peterson, Editor CPA Computer Report newsletter http://www.cpacomputerreport.com

Response:

Question:

I’m getting alot of November 2001 posts coming through on this newsgroup. Anyone else experiencing this? This seems to be the only group it is happening on. "It’s God’s job to sort out what to do with terrorists. It’s our job to deliver them to God. " I’m allergic to spam. Remove "No Spam" from my e-mail address to respond. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

I’m getting alot of November 2001 posts coming through on this newsgroup. Anyone else experiencing this?

Not at the moment. But the reason for it, if it happens usually is that some rogue site gets its newsgroup messages’ expirys wrong, and/or tampers with them, and repushes those postings forward into the system. It is annoying. This seems to be the only group it is happening on.

This is not necessarily an affliction of a particular newsgroup. Such things happen and have happened on several newsgroups. I’m allergic to spam. Remove "No Spam" from my e-mail address to respond.

What "No Spam"? Incidentally, I do not need to remove it (even if it appeared) to respond. I would need it were I to email you. All the best, Timo — Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5 Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa Acc. Journals Links http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/opas/jott/jottjour.html

Response:

Our news server was doing the same thing on all groups for about a week. Then it was down for a day. When it came back up it had expired all history except the last two weeks on all newsgroups. We are trying to reach someone there to have the expiry pushed back at least 90 days but have not been able to find anyone aware of the problem. ……. John.-

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m getting alot of November 2001 posts coming through on this newsgroup. Anyone else experiencing this? This seems to be the only group it is happening on. "It’s God’s job to sort out what to do with terrorists. It’s our job to deliver them to God. " I’m allergic to spam. Remove "No Spam" from my e-mail address to respond. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

Question:

Hi All I had my hard drive crash over the weekend and lost my payroll and accounting files. :-( You may be aware that Sage software was required by a Y2K related lawsuit to offer an upgrade to version 9 of both products via a download from their website. The downloads are no longer there. They tell me that the were only required to offer them until March, 2000. Geez Of course, the files I downloaded went away with my drive. I have recent backups but I have no way to restore them since I own version 7 of payroll and version 5 of accounting. Do any of you have these files? Help please!

Response:

Question:

Alan, Point taken, but as the guardians of the profession it seems foolish to generate ill will by being unnecessarily disparaging of just the sort of people whom many of you (us?) represent and work for. That was my point. Matt Swainson – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, but once you go computerized those packages are about as easy as it gets. Also why would "CPA" have anything do do with how "harsh" a post is. Last time I checked CPA stood for certified public accountant not that you had passed the Ms. Manners course on etiquette. —— I find your post a little harsh. Especially, from someone with "CPA" in their address? Surely you would have to agree that to someone with NO EXPERIENCE OR TRAINING, even Quickbooks would be difficult? Gina Dent SmartBooks St. Louis, MO |Simpler than Quickbooks? You might try stuffing your money in a |mattress. | |(If you have any money, if you have a mattress.) | | |Can anybody recommend a good and EASY software package for small business |accounting?? | |I operate a small computer retail business and I can’t seem to find an EASY |package. I know the basics of accounting and that’s it. I’ve tried Simply |Accounting V5 and Quick Books V4, but even those seem complicated for my |use. | |Regards, | |Ray | | | | |

Response:

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Thomas Edison had a double entry bookkeeping system: two nails on the wall – one labeled "I owe" and the other labeled "owes me". Before he took accounting in high school, my son used coffee cans. In my opinion, none of the current accounting software is truly easy. As the consuming public demands more features and the vendors comply, the programs get more complex. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Simpler than Quickbooks? You might try stuffing your money in a mattress. Can anybody recommend a good and EASY software package for small business accounting?? I operate a small computer retail business and I can’t seem to find an EASY package. I know the basics of accounting and that’s it. I’ve tried Simply Accounting V5 and Quick Books V4, but even those seem complicated for my use. Regards, Ray

Response:

I’ll try to clarify it for you. In my opinion, a CPA should have seen enough fubar’d books to know that when a person with no background or training in accounting tries to do their own books, even with a program WE consider to be as simple as using the old adding machine, the results are generally not good. In light of the original post, the reply should have been a simple "You’re not really going to find anything easier than Quickbooks." Instead, this person degraded the original poster as unintelligent and indigent. I have to agree with Matt that, considering many people feel that the CPA is right up there with the lawyers, we should try to present a presence other than this "someone-peed-in-my-Wheaties-this-morning" attitude. — Gina M. Dent BookSmart St. Louis, MO – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, but once you go computerized those packages are about as easy as it gets. Also why would "CPA" have anything do do with how "harsh" a post is. Last time I checked CPA stood for certified public accountant not that you had passed the Ms. Manners course on etiquette. —— I find your post a little harsh. Especially, from someone with "CPA" in their address? Surely you would have to agree that to someone with NO EXPERIENCE OR TRAINING, even Quickbooks would be difficult? Gina Dent SmartBooks St. Louis, MO |Simpler than Quickbooks? You might try stuffing your money in a |mattress. | |(If you have any money, if you have a mattress.) | | |Can anybody recommend a good and EASY software package for small business |accounting?? | |I operate a small computer retail business and I can’t seem to find an EASY |package. I know the basics of accounting and that’s it. I’ve tried Simply |Accounting V5 and Quick Books V4, but even those seem complicated for my |use. | |Regards, | |Ray | | | | |

Response:

Check out this website at http://www.timedepot.com Can anybody recommend a good and EASY software package for small business accounting?? I operate a small computer retail business and I can’t seem to find an EASY package. I know the basics of accounting and that’s it. I’ve tried Simply Accounting V5 and Quick Books V4, but even those seem complicated for my use. Regards, Ray

Response:

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Thomas Edison had a double entry bookkeeping system: two nails on the wall – one labeled "I owe" and the other labeled "owes me".

I heard Edison used 2 letter spikes. And remember, nobody had to upgrade their abacus due to the impending Year 1200 problem. (And it was digital.) - Carl

Response:

I second Gina’s objection, I don’t think it helps the profession’s public image to make comments like this even allowing for the fact that it was probably made in jest. (we are, after all, not supposed to have senses of humour!) While Quickbooks may indeed be simple, packages like SAGEs Instant Accounting are equally easy, but only if you know where to start. An elementary accounting course may well pay dividends in this case. I am sufficiently close to the bottom of the profession as yet to remember what knowing nothing feels like which may be difficult from the giddy heights of CPAdom, but one ought to try don’t you think? regards Matt Swainson

I find your post a little harsh. Especially, from someone with "CPA" in their address? Surely you would have to agree that to someone with NO EXPERIENCE OR TRAINING, even Quickbooks would be difficult? Gina Dent SmartBooks St. Louis, MO

Response:

I couldn’t agree more! Of course, I’m a bookkeeper who does exactly that! :O) What area are you in, Ray? — Gina M. Dent BookSmart St. Louis, Missouri | Perhaps you should consider having a bookkeeper or accountant come in once a | month and totally releive you of the task of keeping your own bookkeeping | records while you get on with what you know how to do. | Try it, you’ll like it! | | | Peter | | |

Response:

Simpler than Quickbooks? You might try stuffing your money in a mattress. (If you have any money, if you have a mattress.) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Can anybody recommend a good and EASY software package for small business accounting?? I operate a small computer retail business and I can’t seem to find an EASY package. I know the basics of accounting and that’s it. I’ve tried Simply Accounting V5 and Quick Books V4, but even those seem complicated for my use. Regards, Ray

Response:

I find your post a little harsh. Especially, from someone with "CPA" in their address? Surely you would have to agree that to someone with NO EXPERIENCE OR TRAINING, even Quickbooks would be difficult? Gina Dent SmartBooks St. Louis, MO

Response:

Yes, but once you go computerized those packages are about as easy as it gets. Also why would "CPA" have anything do do with how "harsh" a post is. Last time I checked CPA stood for certified public accountant not that you had passed the Ms. Manners course on etiquette. ——

I find your post a little harsh. Especially, from someone with "CPA" in their address? Surely you would have to agree that to someone with NO EXPERIENCE OR TRAINING, even Quickbooks would be difficult? Gina Dent SmartBooks St. Louis, MO

Response:

Perhaps you should consider having a bookkeeper or accountant come in once a month and totally releive you of the task of keeping your own bookkeeping records while you get on with what you know how to do. Try it, you’ll like it! Peter

Response:

Our software can be taylored to your business if you like. Custom changes are available. See our website for details. http://www.pbyc.com 32 bit software. Single user or Network Ready! No user license fee. Y2K compliant! General Ledger, Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable, Order Entry, Inventory/Purchasing Multiple entities and cost centers. Setup as many companies as you like (datasets). Demo installs with two datasets, one with demo info to play with and another for your company (real data). Batch Processing. Thanks!

Response:

Can anybody recommend a good and EASY software package for small business accounting?? I operate a small computer retail business and I can’t seem to find an EASY package. I know the basics of accounting and that’s it. I’ve tried Simply Accounting V5 and Quick Books V4, but even those seem complicated for my use. Regards, Ray

Response:

Hi Ray, EASY in the accounting world is a relative term. Easier than making toast – No, Easier than getting to the moon – Definitely. My suggestion would be to look up an accounting advisor to assist you with either the Simply Accounting or QuickBooks software to get over the learning curve. You can locate an advisor at either of the program’s websites QuickBooks Canada: http://www.intuit.com/canada/quickbooks/advisors/index.html Simply Accounting: http://www.accpac.com/products/finance/simply/finding_consultant.asp There may be easier programs available but, they have many limitations which would hinder your business operations (eg. they don’t track Accounts Receivable or they don’t print a General Ledger Report). Invest a couple of hundred dollars in some one-to-one training and you will reduce your frustration level immensely. If I can be of further help send me an email at spenceco-at-cnnet.com. Regards, David Spence SPENCE & COMPANY – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Can anybody recommend a good and EASY software package for small business accounting?? I operate a small computer retail business and I can’t seem to find an EASY package. I know the basics of accounting and that’s it. I’ve tried Simply Accounting V5 and Quick Books V4, but even those seem complicated for my use. Regards, Ray

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As I said in my previous post, this is BEGINNING to make sense (my viewpoint). You are way ahead of me on this. However, I have been around long enough to remember when a person who is now a respected local stockbrokers went bankrupt as a "service bureau" provider. He had teamed up with a guy who later became an office supply vendor (and one of my clients for a time), bought what was then a large computer, and sold processing to the locals. As far as I know, they did an OK job, both in terms of marketing and service, however the market changed and they couldn’t. I also had my own "experience" in the early 80s. I got involved with a former radio shack guy in a deal involving a "Zenix" system (Radio Shack’s version of unix). I needed a general ledger system for client accounting, and he wanted to resell excess capacity at retail. He was to provide computer expertice and marketing. I was to provide office space and money. At the "end of the day", he blew his terminal away with a 12 guage, and I found myself the sole owner of a system I did not know how to run. Let’s talk some more. Jim

## … and I also remember when it was shoved down our throats that if we didn’t accept the paperless office concept in the form of microfiche for all record retention, that we would be left behind in the race … and I also remember winding up and administering the Bankruptcy of some who did and others who were the first with the latest … so always remember the tortoise and the hare … From one who knows Peter French Australia – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

At the "end of the day", he blew his terminal away with a 12 guage, and I found myself the sole owner of a system I did not know how to run. Let’s talk some more. Jim

Great post! And I know exactly what you mean. How foolish it would be to conceptualize webserver-based accounting dialtone as a "capital investment" to sell excess capacity in a server-to-customer connection… The history of the last two decades proves it doesn’t matter how much money is spent on a central installation. It isn’t the raw horsepower or even the quality of the application (Which have been crappy anyway, on big iron) There are many reasons users will come to webserver based accounting systems… the biggest reason is that nobody is designing LAN-based client-server systems anymore. Webserver-Browser just works better and is better techonology. More webserver GLs will be installed on LANs than on public ASPs or ISPs.. come on guys get the picture! It’s not even that clear to the market yet, that there will be ANY role for public GL dialtone. (It is clear to me, for one, but most will not agree …) The venture I propose, open to anybody who wishes to participate, was to pool our money, research time and other resources to get this technology under control and stop drifting helplessly in the currents. The basic picture I see is that powerful and energetic software companies like Great Plains, SAP, Oracle, and Microsoft are working overtime (both on technology and ideology) producing crossbreeds of their existing products and elements of XML, browser front ends, or whatever suits their fancy and protects their existing base. CPAs and accountants perform a serious role in the economy and we know our users needs and the needs of society. It is pathetic to see them naively waiting for "the invisible hand" of the market to provide tomorrows’ software environment for CPAs. We’ve come so far down this road that we are on the eve of losing our franchise entirely, as the orderly, manual assembly of financial statements is set to be replaced by a drill-down XML financial reporting envirnoment hosted by online brokers and computer companies. Look at the large number of mediocre FS writeup products, and the last 15 years evolution in the income tax prep. software market. We haven’t got time to repeat that mistake in internetworked accounting and e-commerce environment. I again call for members to buck up $50 or $100 and start funding some research, to identify the XML DTDs, electronic banking protocols, online commerce standards we want to use. This is primarily an act of perception not an act of creation or of politically influencing other actors in the software market. We should articulate the goals and objectives we wish to achieve, identify the questions that need answers, and each member should perform research under rigorous standards and deadlines or contribute in cash to pay for somebody to perform those tests. We need to quickly and effectively identify the software products and repositories of open source software code that can be picked up and used by our clients and staff to get the following, long denied functions that NONE of todays accounting software vendors is providing to us or our clients at prices below $50,000 * send invoices electronically to our customers * send electronic po’s to our suppliers * purchase items electronically and have them automatically integrated into inventory * make an electronic payment without paying 5 bucks in fees, * import and export transactions in standard format usable by other accounting software (don’t tell me about comma delimited and other unreliable "placebo" technologies) * accessible remotely by off-site employees and service providers like CPA firms * open software interface. Now that there are 10 million people who know VBA or other programming languages this is long overdue. All of these things should be available in shrinkwrap products below $500, and certainly will be available in the next two years. But don’t expect them to come from MS, Intuit or other currently dominant software companies with a pattern of selling millions of copies with annual upgrades, closed and proprietary databases, standalone one-copy-per-customer business models. * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.rosehill.net/EcommAcctg.htm * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3107

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (I never tire of discussing this topic. It is going to be a new era, for sure.) Todd, This is beginning to make sense. Is this something we (accountants) should be offering? Jim Hudspeth, CPA Since there’s only 5 or 10 CPAs in the country who understand or care about webserver based accounting services, why don’t we form a company, a business plan and establish a franchise?

Todd, As I said in my previous post, this is BEGINNING to make sense (my viewpoint). You are way ahead of me on this. However, I have been around long enough to remember when a person who is now a respected local stockbrokers went bankrupt as a "service bureau" provider. He had teamed up with a guy who later became an office supply vendor (and one of my clients for a time), bought what was then a large computer, and sold processing to the locals. As far as I know, they did an OK job, both in terms of marketing and service, however the market changed and they couldn’t. I also had my own "experience" in the early 80s. I got involved with a former radio shack guy in a deal involving a "Zenix" system (Radio Shack’s version of unix). I needed a general ledger system for client accounting, and he wanted to resell excess capacity at retail. He was to provide computer expertice and marketing. I was to provide office space and money. At the "end of the day", he blew his terminal away with a 12 guage, and I found myself the sole owner of a system I did not know how to run. Let’s talk some more. Jim

Response:

(I never tire of discussing this topic. It is going to be a new era, for sure.) Todd, This is beginning to make sense. Is this something we (accountants) should be offering? Jim Hudspeth, CPA

Since there’s only 5 or 10 CPAs in the country who understand or care about webserver based accounting services, why don’t we form a company, a business plan and establish a franchise? I am totally serious about this and ready to work full time, 80 hours a week on it if you and any other CPAs are interested in this. There are numerous other highly visible and competent individuals on usenet and webforums. Why do I need or care about you other CPAs? Because * your opinion on this is a reality check for me, * your talents and resources would increase the odds of success, and * because working with others in standard ways is essential to succeed in internetworked accounting The business plan I have in mind, would be to leverage our visibility and names to start a company. First we would discuss and agree on a single, clear message and strategy, then we would execute it. Perhaps something along these lines: 1. design a business model which provides technology and knowledge to CPAs and other service providers in exchange for money (such as down payment plus recurring franchise fees). It is going to take a lot of work to identify emerging standards for e-payments, XML DTDs for accounting, EDI interfaces, and other hard problems of interoperating with existing systems. 2. whatever our business model is, we should continually research and adjust our model to ensure the model is workable. for example I described a company in #1 above which is basically a knowledge and standards clearing- house. To be successful it would have to have hardheaded management, and the employees or partners would have to be highly productive. The business model would have to identify problems, people to solve them, deadlines, and success criteria, and pay the workers real money. 3. obviously the venture would have to design a website to present its idea, inform potential franchisees and win their enrollment, and yes, collect payments from them. The venture would also need a website as infrastructure for communication and collaboration among its members, for both the management and software technoloogy discussions. 4. I presume the venture would build, buy, or lease the powerful webserver-based accounting software that we all know is possible and just over the horizon. I honestly believe that we might be able to build it ourselves, given the programming talent available in this country and our above-average ability to define the specs and priorities. If so, the venture might establish a network presence for development of GL Dialtone software, or deployment of the webserver-based GL itself, if it is licensed from an existing vendor. But even if we don’t write software we and our members might do very well as front ends, for one or more service providers like BizTone, Great Plains, IBM, or Oracle. The thing to do might be wait for somebody (Biztone, NetLedger, GPS, etc) to light up a competently run GL Dialtone server in town, and go sell it as an Agent, employee, franchisee or whatever. THAT will be a real good niche for us, as relatively unskilled programmers without big capital needed for such a startup. Personally, I have been wishing that Great Plains or Solomon would wake up and roll out a strategy for this, just as SAP, Oracle etc. have done. All they need to do is change their thinking on licensing. GP’s product is a GL Dialtone server right out of the box, almost. I went out 4Q98 for bids and couldn’t get a website up with 10 users for less than $45,000 here, between the NT and Citrix and GP licenses. 80% of the capital costs was the licensing costs. Basically, that stopped it. Perhaps the venture would not lock ourselves into a single network or software infrastructure. Why not organize as purely an industry standards body, or a trade union, to prevent monopolists in the banking, software and telecomms industries from stealing money from us? The question is, who shall make billions of dollars from the next generation of network-centric accounting software and services? Software companies and telcos? Or accountants? Why shouldn’t we succeed in this? One principle of business is that the party who owns the customer, usually comes out on top. And no matter what the Telcos or ERP vendors’ wishes may be, CPAs and accounting software VARs own the clients right now. In my view the SME (Small/medium enterprise) is a reasonably attractive market: According to Computer Reseller News, Dec 7, 1998 * Account for 98 percent of businesses in the United States * Represent about 50 percent of the gross national product * Spend approximately $445 billion annually on IT products and services Big Opportunity * There are four resellers selling to every large business * There is one reseller selling to every three midsize businesses * There is one reseller selling to every 145 small businesses Big Employers * 7,500 businesses with 1,000+ employees * 163,100 businesses with 100-999 employees * 800,000 businesses with 20-99 employees * 9.2 million businesses with less than 20 employees Let’s move these longsuffering users out of their unconnected, single-user and LAN-based platforms. * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.rosehill.net/EcommAcctg.htm * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3107

Response:

Sounds like a good idea to me. Myron Joy CPA Joy & Associates P.C. Phoenix Az Accountants and Information Technology Consultants. Developers of ClientLink E-Accounting Software. Visual AccountMate Business Partner. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (I never tire of discussing this topic. It is going to be a new era, for sure.) Todd, This is beginning to make sense. Is this something we (accountants) should be offering? Jim Hudspeth, CPA Since there’s only 5 or 10 CPAs in the country who understand or care about webserver based accounting services, why don’t we form a company, a business plan and establish a franchise?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes but that also leads you with the possibility that it can be accessed by anyone also. Todd Boyle wrote The core idea is that the accounting data will reside someplace where it can be serviced by anybody other than its owner. Shall we just wait for security to improve? Keep writing paper checks, keypunching inventory into the computer? Shall we keep driving to the computer every day, in order to use it? A large percentage of the cars on the road are people driving to offices and other information pursuits. There is been no compromise ever detected, in SSL-encoded data in transit across the web. Servers themselves have not been so lucky, but I seem to note almost every bank in the country now operates a web site offering transaction execution as well as access to data. There are many indicators that the "security thing" is solved, for those companies able to put up something like $10,000 plus $5,000/ year for a proper firewall. Webserver based accounting is going to happen. It will be running on reasonably secure web hosts. Breakins will be no more of a problem for GL Dialtone providers than they are for other e-commerce websites, and probably much less of a problem due to the fact they will not be highly visible or advertised. My bet is that GL Dialtone will usually be deployed on private networks, that perform better than the internet as well as being more secure. It isn’t the kind of thing that needs to be on the global internet….. It just needs to provide a capability for service providers to service the accounting system. That is the real essence of it. Settlements vendors will come and harvest the payment and collection data and follow instructions. Suppliers will harvest the inventory data and replenish stock. Customers will push their orders into the system, given half a chance. Accountants and bookkeepers will come in and service the general ledger. And owners will come in and harvest data for reports. All of these things could be designed as a class hierarchy. There is a great deal of similarity in the functions needed to control, direct, and utilize the service providers. (I never tire of discussing this topic. It is going to be a new era, for sure.) * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.rosehill.net/EcommAcctg.htm * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3107

Todd, This is beginning to make sense. Is this something we (accountants) should be offering? Jim Hudspeth, CPA

Response:

Yes but that also leads you with the possibility that it can be accessed by anyone also. Todd Boyle wrote The core idea is that the accounting data will reside someplace where it can be serviced by anybody other than its owner.

Shall we just wait for security to improve? Keep writing paper checks, keypunching inventory into the computer? Shall we keep driving to the computer every day, in order to use it? A large percentage of the cars on the road are people driving to offices and other information pursuits. There is been no compromise ever detected, in SSL-encoded data in transit across the web. Servers themselves have not been so lucky, but I seem to note almost every bank in the country now operates a web site offering transaction execution as well as access to data. There are many indicators that the "security thing" is solved, for those companies able to put up something like $10,000 plus $5,000/ year for a proper firewall. Webserver based accounting is going to happen. It will be running on reasonably secure web hosts. Breakins will be no more of a problem for GL Dialtone providers than they are for other e-commerce websites, and probably much less of a problem due to the fact they will not be highly visible or advertised. My bet is that GL Dialtone will usually be deployed on private networks, that perform better than the internet as well as being more secure. It isn’t the kind of thing that needs to be on the global internet….. It just needs to provide a capability for service providers to service the accounting system. That is the real essence of it. Settlements vendors will come and harvest the payment and collection data and follow instructions. Suppliers will harvest the inventory data and replenish stock. Customers will push their orders into the system, given half a chance. Accountants and bookkeepers will come in and service the general ledger. And owners will come in and harvest data for reports. All of these things could be designed as a class hierarchy. There is a great deal of similarity in the functions needed to control, direct, and utilize the service providers. (I never tire of discussing this topic. It is going to be a new era, for sure.) * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.rosehill.net/EcommAcctg.htm * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3107

Response:

Yes but that also leads you with the possibility that it can be accessed by anyone also. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The core idea is that the accounting data will reside someplace where it can be serviced by anybody other than its owner. * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.rosehill.net/EcommAcctg.htm * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3107

Response:

The core idea is that the accounting data will reside someplace where it can be serviced by anybody other than its owner. * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.rosehill.net/EcommAcctg.htm * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3107

Response:

Question:

Umm…no offence intended here Badger, but if it weren’t for ‘farmyard engineers’ as you put it, we would not have the level of technology in the world that we have right now. A lot of inventions and improvements were done in the field, in ‘need to have it, now’, or ‘there’s got to be a better way of doing this’ types of situations, and then refined in the laboratory or workshop. Without these engineering advancements, we would be considerably further behind in our technology. (Side note: Some experts on the advancement of civilizations, suggest that we actually have advanced much faster than we should have in the last century or two, and that maybe there is some outside influencing going on.) My point is that I don’t think you should ridicule or criticize ’sbest’ for his suggestions since it was that kind of ingenuity that got the world to the technological level it is at today. -Stephen- Besides which, he even stated that he agrees that purchasing proven needles is the best way to go, he was just posing an alternate possibility.

Response:

SU needles are indeed finished to an accuracy of 0.0001 thou, eg a needle code BAK at position 6 is 0.0852".

No, SU needles are finished to a PRECISION of 0.0001 (or whatever), not an ACCURACY. If I actually need 0.0852, then I’m OK. however If I really wanted 0.0848 instead, then this mega precision to an inaccurate value doesn’t help me in the slightest. SU don’t offer enough increments in the needle shapes for 0.0001 to be relevant. BTW – What’s wrong with "farmyard accuracy" on a Landie ? They’re for use in farmyards — I’d hate to have aLandie with a high lift long duration cam that made it fussy about fuelling accuracy or power band. — Smert’ Spamionam

Response:

Whether it be a Precision or an Accuracy is a matter for another debate, the point is that a response was made to this newsgroup thread to try and help answer the original question. I have been there myself with needles after a non-standard engine rebuild, been extremely hacked off after myself modifying an old set of needles in an attempt to reach a correct fuelling curve across all operating conditions, mainly due to the fact that SU needles are designed and produced to meet a requirement from a manufacturer/company and not to cater for individuals changing the parameters on their own engines. I am not saying that it is impossible to do, what I am saying is that it’s not worth the time and hassle for the sake of a few pounds (relatively speaking). One small further point of info for sbest, SU needles are not graded in any logical sequence, there is no such thing as the "next size up". A needle giving a slight enrichment in the midrange might weaken off the top end excessively for a given application. Yes, I was brought up in a farm environment and still have the attitude that if a man made it then a man can take it apart and fix it – but where do you stop and say this is no longer cost effective? Badger, Aircraft Propulsion Systems Engineering Technician.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Whether it be a Precision or an Accuracy is a matter for another debate, the point is that a response was made to this newsgroup thread to try and help answer the original question. I have been there myself with needles after a non-standard engine rebuild, been extremely hacked off after myself modifying an old set of needles in an attempt to reach a correct fuelling curve across all operating conditions, mainly due to the fact that SU needles are designed and produced to meet a requirement from a manufacturer/company and not to cater for individuals changing the parameters on their own engines. I am not saying that it is impossible to do, what I am saying is that it’s not worth the time and hassle for the sake of a few pounds (relatively speaking). One small further point of info for sbest, SU needles are not graded in any logical sequence, there is no such thing as the "next size up". A needle giving a slight enrichment in the midrange might weaken off the top end excessively for a given application. Yes, I was brought up in a farm environment and still have the attitude that if a man made it then a man can take it apart and fix it – but where do you stop and say this is no longer cost effective? Badger, Aircraft Propulsion Systems Engineering Technician.

Your information was the exact information the original poster needed. Sorry for the sharp response to the personal attack. I am surprised you did not know the difference between accuracy and "required precision", being an engineering tech, or are you just using that term for "mechanic"? <GRIN Actually, the system for Carter carbs that I am used to is not nearly so mysterious. It is the same story, a variety of standard tapers are available, with no appearant logical sequence. You look for the needle that meets your requirements at the lengths (position) you require. Actually since we are dealing with tapers, the needle diameter would usually vary slightly at one given position on every needle so I can see you mistaking that small difference as being important. Did you notice I asked for the next size up at position 6? If there is a widely know and expedient jetting solution to a common engine set up, by all means use it! But if I just need a little enrichment at my WOT or other position, it is just as expedient to give the needle a brush with the paper if you know what you are doing. Simple farmyard engineering! SBest, honourary farmyard engineer, and a bunch of other stuff (that gets on yer boots!) too. <GRIN Steve Best, Nova Scotia, 4×4 van website: http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest

Response:

Thanks for everyone who helped, but I ended up going to a specialist V8 engine builder who compression tested it, finally settled on BAF needles and set it up properly including advancing the ignition a touch. Before this setting up I also had a Rimmer Bros 90 V8 Stainless steel full sports exhaust system with headers fitted. It now flies and sounds rather nice. To top it all I appear to be getting more miles per gallon. If anyone is interested it was done by Dave Ellis of DJE Motors in Nuneaton. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Whether it be a Precision or an Accuracy is a matter for another debate, the point is that a response was made to this newsgroup thread to try and help answer the original question. I have been there myself with needles after a non-standard engine rebuild, been extremely hacked off after myself modifying an old set of needles in an attempt to reach a correct fuelling curve across all operating conditions, mainly due to the fact that SU needles are designed and produced to meet a requirement from a manufacturer/company and not to cater for individuals changing the parameters on their own engines. I am not saying that it is impossible to do, what I am saying is that it’s not worth the time and hassle for the sake of a few pounds (relatively speaking). One small further point of info for sbest, SU needles are not graded in any logical sequence, there is no such thing as the "next size up". A needle giving a slight enrichment in the midrange might weaken off the top end excessively for a given application. Yes, I was brought up in a farm environment and still have the attitude that if a man made it then a man can take it apart and fix it – but where do you stop and say this is no longer cost effective? Badger, Aircraft Propulsion Systems Engineering Technician. Your information was the exact information the original poster needed. Sorry for the sharp response to the personal attack. I am surprised you did not know the difference between accuracy and "required precision", being an engineering tech, or are you just using that term for "mechanic"? <GRIN Actually, the system for Carter carbs that I am used to is not nearly so mysterious. It is the same story, a variety of standard tapers are available, with no appearant logical sequence. You look for the needle that meets your requirements at the lengths (position) you require. Actually since we are dealing with tapers, the needle diameter would usually vary slightly at one given position on every needle so I can see you mistaking that small difference as being important. Did you notice I asked for the next size up at position 6? If there is a widely know and expedient jetting solution to a common engine set up, by all means use it! But if I just need a little enrichment at my WOT or other position, it is just as expedient to give the needle a brush with the paper if you know what you are doing. Simple farmyard engineering! SBest, honourary farmyard engineer, and a bunch of other stuff (that gets on yer boots!) too. <GRIN Steve Best, Nova Scotia, 4×4 van website: http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest

Response:

SU needles are NOT adjustable via grooves, and I fail to see how anyone, even using a micrometer, can "machine" the taper to an accuracy of 0.0001" by hand. It would be a very hit and miss process and what it would ultimately cost you in wasted fuel by going even 0.001" too rich at a few points would pay, over a few months, for a pair of the correct needles. The fitting of K&N’s to an otherwise std V8 is a very well documented task, the chosen needles in 95% of cases being BBW’s, regardless of exhaust type! Have fun, Badger.

The accuracy required is more in the range of 0.005" not anywhere near 0.0001", and is easily attainable with abrasive cloth. This is the thickness of a sheet of paper if you are not familiar with this sort measuring spec, and is readily measurable with a vernier, let alone a micrometer. Getting it correct at the correct length is the trick, not hard to do with some experience and a couple spare scrapyard needless to learn on if this is your first time. Of course you need the skill and experience to be able to judge rich or lean conditions so I can understand how you can "fail to see how anyone, even using a micrometer, can "machine" the taper". If you have no experience at machining or carb adjustment it is likely to seem like "weird science" to you. As I mentioned, generic info only, I am not familiar with LRs but am familiar with hard to obtain carb needles. I did not realize the LR had such a plugged stock filter design. If this is the case, polishing the needle would be even easier, since it is likely only in the WOT range that an improvement is needed, unless this bit of advice is just popular LR lore or the BBW needle is an improvement over stock in any case (likely). My post was meant to inform of possibilities based on my experience. I agree with you that purchasing proven needles is the best way to go. My experience doesn’t come out of a catalog or from hearsay. Badger sounds like a very appropriate name for you. <GRIN Steve Best, Nova Scotia, 4×4 van website: http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest

Response:

Thanks for everyone who helped, but I ended up going to a specialist V8 engine builder who compression tested it, finally settled on BAF needles and set it up properly including advancing the ignition a touch.

FWIW Here are the dimensions in thou at each of the 16 stations. BBH 990 950 920 890 860 827 799 780 767 753 740 727 713 700 687 675 BAF 990 950 930 905 875 832 800 768 738 709 677 646 616 584 554 523 Regards — Paul ’54 V8 Series 1 & V8 90 | | http://www.greenrover.demon.co.uk | |

Response:

Burlen Fuel Systems Ltd, 01722 412500.

Seconded. Burlen have _everything_ you could want for SUs or Strombergs. While you’re there, get a copy of their servicing manuals too. I fail to see how anyone, even using a micrometer, can "machine" the taper to an accuracy of 0.0001" by hand.

You do it with metal polish and a CO meter. It’s possible (it used to be my after-school job) but it’s a very long slog. — Smert’ Spamionam

Response:

As Andy so rightly stated, the needles can be machined using metal polish and a CO meter, but you’d be checking CO at all operating conditions to get the job right. Enter the rolling road, which is how the pro’s do it properly. If sbest wishes, he should consult a set of SU needle charts, whereupon he will learn that SU needles are indeed finished to an accuracy of 0.0001 thou, eg a needle code BAK at position 6 is 0.0852". My suggestion to you, sbest, is to keep your farmyard engineering accuracies where they belong – in the farmyard!

Response:

As Andy so rightly stated, the needles can be machined using metal polish and a CO meter, but you’d be checking CO at all operating conditions to get the job right. Enter the rolling road, which is how the pro’s do it properly. If sbest wishes, he should consult a set of SU needle charts, whereupon he will learn that SU needles are indeed finished to an accuracy of 0.0001 thou, eg a needle code BAK at position 6 is 0.0852". My suggestion to you, sbest, is to keep your farmyard engineering accuracies where they belong – in the farmyard!

Ha! And you keep letting someone do life for you, Badger! My hobby is "doing", not buying. The only way to build a car right is to let a bunch of engineers and accountants do it for you, but some poor bluecollar fools seem to thing they can do it in their own back shop. Can you imagine? And what, pray tell, was the next calibration on the next size up SU needle at position 6"? Please, Badger on… Steve Best, Nova Scotia, 4×4 van website: http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest

Response:

I have a 30,000mile Land Rover 90 V8 CSW. I have just fitted K&N filters in place of the big air-box and a free flow sports exhaust with headers. It is running really weak mainly due to the K&N’s and the guy who tuned it said I need richer needles in the carbs. Anyone know which ones and where to get them from in the UK? Much appreciated!

Response:

You really need to get it on a rolling road (dynometer) and select for the best performance. You have changed the exhaust, and the carbs, ie the breathing has been changed completely. Hence different needles, which will have a different response are now needed. You would need a selection, and some time and patience on the R-Road, and tune up as you go, using the data from the RRoad to tailor the decision on which needles you need. Do you want , economy, or Low down power/ torque, or High end performance, or just sheer acceleration?… All will require different set ups and different needles. It aint that simple. It depends on what you want. I would start with some richer needles, as you have weaken’d the mixture. That is if you want to get it exactly right. There are so many variables and options. Sorry if its not what you wanted to hear. GeoffW.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have a 30,000mile Land Rover 90 V8 CSW. I have just fitted K&N filters in place of the big air-box and a free flow sports exhaust with headers. It is running really weak mainly due to the K&N’s and the guy who tuned it said I need richer needles in the carbs. Anyone know which ones and where to get them from in the UK? Much appreciated!

Response:

Use needles "BBW", available from stock from Burlen Fuel Systems Ltd, 01722 412500. If you want any more tech info or a chat to see that you are doing the right things, ask to speak to Andy. I found him to be very helpfull. I think you’ll find that the needles are roughly

Question:

You do not need to have actual business revenue (income) to take business deductions against your other income sources. You need to be merely seeking to make money. However, you won’t get away with it forever with the IRS since a true business would never choose to loose money forever.

IIRC, you have to at least turn a profit one year in five on a side business in order to keep the IRS off your back. (But that’s IIRC! Accountants are cheaper than doin’ time for tax evasion.)

Response:

is it true i can deduct my guitar stuff from my taxes as long as I spend at least 2% of my yearly income on it and i dont make money from any of it? I heard this is possible because of some "hobby" tax law..whats this all about???

Huh??? If you make no income, you can’t deduct. Hobby deductions, who gave you that load of b.s.??? — Brian Rost 3Com Corp. 978-264-1550 Playing the bass is like dancing the limbo: how low can you go?

Response:

is it true i can deduct my guitar stuff from my taxes as long as I spend at least 2% of my yearly income on it and i dont make money from any of it? I heard this is possible because of some "hobby" tax law..whats this all about???

My guess is that you could deduct the supplies as expenses and the equipment (assets) you could depreciate. This would mean that $1.00 spent on strings would end up reducing your taxable income by $1.00 resulting in a $0.15-$0.36 "larger tax refund." (depending on you tax bracket) This is because strings, etc. last "less than a year." Deducting for depreciation requires that you take the value of your equipment (lasts longer than a year) at the time of the "start up." Then you divide by a certain number of years (depending on the class of asset) and deduct the result from your income. Any new equipment purchases during the business’ life would be subject to this division also. Any equipment sales would require capitol gains taxes on the sale price less the depreciated value at the time of the sale. Technically speaking, if you play your guitar 1/2 of the time for fun and 1/2 at gigs / practices you can only deduct half of the expenses but must declare all of the gig money as income. If you have a net positive business income (profit) you will also have to pay "self employment tax" which is 2 x Social Security Tax. This is over 15%. All of this assumes you are seeking to make money (have a "business.") You do not need to have actual business revenue (income) to take business deductions against your other income sources. You need to be merely seeking to make money. However, you won’t get away with it forever with the IRS since a true business would never choose to loose money forever. JJman She slips, she slides, she slops, she bops, she bumps she grinds. B, Springsteen

Response:

is it true i can deduct my guitar stuff from my taxes as long as I spend at least 2% of my yearly income on it and i dont make money from any of it? I heard this is possible because of some "hobby" tax law..whats this all about???

Sounds like an IRS Auditor magnet to me. You can deduct the expense of instruments if you DO make money from playing. They become a business expense. You’ll get all sorts of tax advice here, and it’ll be worth every penny you’ve spent for it. The best advice I can give you is talk to a GOOD tax accountant.

Response:

is it true i can deduct my guitar stuff from my taxes as long as I spend at least 2% of my yearly income on it and i dont make money from any of it? I heard this is possible because of some "hobby" tax law..whats this all about???

I’m not an accountant, I just pay one. I was told to watch out for `hobby loss,’ as too much of it is a flag for audits. That having been said, if you’re claiming income, you can write expenses off. And while we’re at it, most homeowner/renter policies won’t cover gear used professionally without a rider or separate policy. Mine didn’t.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – is it true i can deduct my guitar stuff from my taxes as long as I spend at least 2% of my yearly income on it and i dont make money from any of it? I heard this is possible because of some "hobby" tax law..whats this all about??? I’m not an accountant, I just pay one. I was told to watch out for `hobby loss,’ as too much of it is a flag for audits. That having been said, if you’re claiming income, you can write expenses off. And while we’re at it, most homeowner/renter policies won’t cover gear used professionally without a rider or separate policy. Mine didn’t.

Good point Jeff. Do yerselves a favor, take pictures, write down serial numbers, give them to the insurance folks for a separate rider. You’ll thank yourself if you ever need it. — rct The opinions above are mine and mine alone.

Response:

is it true i can deduct my guitar stuff from my taxes as long as I spend at least 2% of my yearly income on it and i dont make money from any of it? I heard this is possible because of some "hobby" tax law..whats this all about???

Response:

is it true i can deduct my guitar stuff from my taxes as long as I spend at least 2% of my yearly income on it and i dont make money from any of it? I heard this is possible because of some "hobby" tax law..whats this all

about??? I think that if you teach, or play, as a source of income that you can deduct a certain percentage as a buisiness expense or somehow use a certain percentage to offset earned income. Anyway, it sounds good to me, but you better consult with a tax accountant and not rely on NG hearsay. We are an opinionated lot…..

Response:

Question:

In the last exchange of this thread, excerpted below, Chris Fischer defended the Cato "Social Security calculator" in reply to my first criticism of four initial ones (there are many more applicable). I said it omitted the retirement benefit to spouses who do not qualify for any in their own right or for only a small one. After a previous post which seemed to betray an unawareness of this feature of the OASDI system, he now claims that the calculator allows adjustment for the spouse’s benefit. That is untrue. To show the value of the benefits that I gained from my contributions, the Cato calculator’s spinner would have to go to 150% of the SocSec monthly benefit for myself alone. It doesn’t go above 100%. The calculator is even more misleading if we think of a case different from mine where my wife and I pool all our resources. Consider the unthinkable, that my wife had had the good sense to divorce me nine years ago and used a calculator designed as Cato’s is to figure her benefits. Whatever positive value she might put in as current income, the calculator assumes a work history of upwardly progressive work income going back to Age 22. That would be nonsensical. If the entry for current income is zero, all layout amounts go to zero, also nonsense. If you want to know what your Social Security income is likely to be, you’re likely to get an honest answer from the government, but not from a zealous ideological propaganda outfit like Cato. I’ll add some further posts about other nutty aspects of the calculator Cato paid KPMG Peat – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <SNIP <SNIP <SNIP (1) the omission of the spousal benefit, The two replies my last post elicited betray ignorance of Social Security. They confuse survivors benefits to which I referred with another feature of SocSec that I listed as not considered by the calculator–the spouse’s retirement benefit. A spouse whose own work history qualifies him or her for a small retirement benefit, if any, gets a retirement benefit equal to half the amount of the retiree who is getting Social Security. The spouse would inherit the 401(k)-like investment that replaces SS. As would the (grown) children. In most cases, a better deal than they are getting now. The calculator lets you adjust your projected returns to numbers you like. You don’t seem to have grasped this yet. <SNIP <SNIP

Response:

In the last exchange of this thread, excerpted below, Chris Fischer

defended the Cato "Social Security calculator" in reply to my first criticism of four initial ones

(there are many more applicable). I said it omitted the retirement benefit to spouses who do not qualify for any in their own right or for only a small one. After a previous post which seemed to betray an unawareness of this feature of the OASDI system, he now claims that the calculator allows adjustment for the spouse’s benefit. That is untrue.

I never said that it allows adjustment for the spouses benefit. I said: The calculator lets you adjust your projected returns to numbers you like. You don’t seem to have grasped this yet.

If you are going to lie about what I said, you shouldn’t quote it at the bottom of your message. And I have always been aware of the retirement benefit for spouses. My grandmother is collecting on my Grandfather’s, whom she is divorced from. To show the value of the benefits that I gained from my contributions, the Cato calculator’s spinner would have to go to 150% of the SocSec monthly benefit for myself alone. It doesn’t go above 100%. The calculator is even more misleading if we think of a case different from mine where my wife and I pool all our resources. Consider the unthinkable, that my wife had had the good sense to divorce me nine years ago and used a calculator designed as Cato’s is to figure her benefits. Whatever positive value she might put in as current income, the calculator assumes a work history of upwardly progressive work income going back to Age 22. That would be

nonsensical. If the entry for current income is zero, all layout amounts go to zero, also nonsense. If you want to know what your Social Security income is likely to be,

you’re likely to get an honest answer from the government, but not from a zealous ideological

propaganda outfit like Cato.

The governments own numbers tell of my generation getting a negative return on my contributions. So even if we assume a 0% return, I’ll do better on my own. And why you think that the government is not a "zealous ideological propaganda outfit" is beyond me. They’ve got their agenda, and they push it daily. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’ll add some further posts about other nutty aspects of the calculator Cato paid KPMG Peat <SNIP <SNIP <SNIP (1) the omission of the spousal benefit, The two replies my last post elicited betray ignorance of Social Security. They confuse survivors benefits to which I referred with another feature of SocSec that I listed as not considered by the calculator–the spouse’s retirement benefit. A spouse whose own work history qualifies him or her for a small retirement benefit, if any, gets a retirement benefit equal to half the amount of the retiree who is getting Social Security. The spouse would inherit the 401(k)-like investment that replaces SS. As would the (grown) children. In most cases, a better deal than they are getting now. <SNIP The calculator lets you adjust your projected returns to numbers you like. You don’t seem to have grasped this yet. <SNIP

Response:

Look at the 1998 Annual Trustees Report at their web site ssa.gov. The "2032" backruptcy comes from an extremely conservative economic forecast of productivity over the next 75 years. Even their optimistic forecast ("low cost") is conservative compared to the US economy of the past 20 years and predicts a surplus over the entire next 75 years.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am pleased that your reply wasn’t a pique at my using "peak" where I meant "peek." E-e-eek! The first of a host of things wrong with the calculator is that it has little comparability to the accounting applicable to the OASDI package–Old Age, Survivor’s and Disability Insurance. Social insurance is conceptually different from annuity purchase. It is designed to keep folks, come what may, from ending up destitute or as charity cases. SocSec involves not only one’s retirement annuity–insurance against outliving one’s means. It includes also annuity for a spouse who stayed home and took care of the kids and then worked mostly for free until retirement age (1/3 of my pension in our case). It is throughout one’s working life a minimal income protection plan in case one’s skills became obsolete and one’s industry left town when it was pretty late to start over in entry levels. That dumb calculator assumes that the user is not going to end up like anthracite miners or linotype men or the many neighborhood pharmacy owners wo now must work for a chain at a bit more than minimum wage. The table notes that it excludes the Survivors Insurance

That critics of the SS system ignore the "survivor" benefits doen’t help prove that SS is a good deal. Widows and kids who get survivor’s benefits next year will need these benefits for 10 + years. If a portion of the SS tax isn’t set aside in some kind of money making fund then next year’s widows and orphans will be paid by next year’s workers. In a true insurance scheme the money put aside each year when properly invested will pay the benefits people become entitled to in that year for as long as necessary. The amount needed to be set aside each year is determined by actuaries who make educated guesses on how long widows and orphans will need the money and how much money can be earned from the money set aside. I got my first good job in 1972 (I was 29) and the SS tax rate was 1/2 of what it is today. Moreover, most of the people I worked with (and myself) didn’t have to pay the tax the entire year. Once you reached the SS maximum, your SS tax was no longer taken from your paycheck. This year end tax break for the middle class is a thing of the past. The original purpose of SS was to get the middle class to expect the government to take care of them. It that regard it has been successful. There is a minor weakness in plans to have people fund their own retirements. When you have a large number of people stop saving and start cashing their investments during a 4 or 5 year time span, the free market price of these investiments may fall. (More people sell, less people buying means lower prices!) What will save the private scheme, IMO, is that once people get used to taking care of themselves they may choose to remain productive during their last years and pass on their retirement savings to their children and grandchildren. If the democrats don’t get more greedy, more old folks will choose to pass on their wealth rather than spend it while they are alive. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -There are so many other things wrongs with CATO’s calculator that it would take several messages even to begin to detail them. I would start with the reasons for SocSec being an issue at all at this time and why it’s an issue that gets the CATO Institute in a lather. Don’t tell me the Baby Boom generation. That’s been with us for a half Century and baby boomers made for a bigger distortion of "the normal population" at every other stage of their existence than they will as retirees. I say a bigger distortion because the bulge has been progressively levelled out by effects of immigration and by the migrants’ high birth rates. The dependency "burdens" of the baby boomers was far greater when they were babies and when they were school kids and when they getting unprecedented levels of higher education. Currently, the population bulge gives us an unprecedentedly high proportion of the population in their peak years of earnings and productivity and it represents the largest investment in "human capital" anywhere ever. How does all that history figure in actuaries’ reckonings? Just a few years ago, those with a hatchet out for SocSec were agitating the Generation X’ers about those fat old folks who were reaping so much more from Social Security than they put in and about the swarm of boomers who would soon be riding that gravy train at their expense. Now the chorus is that SocSec is a swindle. I took a peak at that Cato Inst. calculator and the assumptions it uses. It should have a sign on it flashing "TILT!" Just exactly which assumptions are wrong and why should it read "TILT!"? I’m sure KPMG Peat Marwick would like to know. Please also keep in mind that you can adjust the default assumptions for inflation, stocks, bonds, social security percent you expect to receive, retirement age, and salary scale. Chuck Wright http://www.cato.org/

Response:

I’m not about to put up with the charge that anything I wrote was a lie; here or anywhere else. The full thread is in the references for anyone to judge the accuracy of my posts. I’ll continue to expose fallacies that figure in the debate on "saving (savaging?) Social Security" but not in any interchange with this petulant person. It is good to hear, however, that his divorced grandmother is receiving entitled benefits. Albert Biderman – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In the last exchange of this thread, excerpted below, Chris Fischer defended the Cato "Social Security calculator" in reply to my first criticism of four initial ones (there are many more applicable). I said it omitted the retirement benefit to spouses who do not qualify for any in their own right or for only a small one. After a previous post which seemed to betray an unawareness of this feature of the OASDI system, he now claims that the calculator allows adjustment for the spouse’s benefit. That is untrue. I never said that it allows adjustment for the spouses benefit. I said: The calculator lets you adjust your projected returns to numbers you like. You don’t seem to have grasped this yet. If you are going to lie about what I said, you shouldn’t quote it at the bottom of your message. And I have always been aware of the retirement benefit for spouses. My grandmother is collecting on my Grandfather’s, whom she is divorced from. To show the value of the benefits that I gained from my contributions, the Cato calculator’s spinner would have to go to 150% of the SocSec monthly benefit for myself alone. It doesn’t go above 100%. The calculator is even more misleading if we think of a case different from mine where my wife and I pool all our resources. Consider the unthinkable, that my wife had had the good sense to divorce me nine years ago and used a calculator designed as Cato’s is to figure her benefits. Whatever positive value she might put in as current income, the calculator assumes a work history of upwardly progressive work income going back to Age 22. That would be nonsensical. If the entry for current income is zero, all layout amounts go to zero, also nonsense. If you want to know what your Social Security income is likely to be, you’re likely to get an honest answer from the government, but not from a zealous ideological propaganda outfit like Cato. The governments own numbers tell of my generation getting a negative return on my contributions. So even if we assume a 0% return, I’ll do better on my own. And why you think that the government is not a "zealous ideological propaganda outfit" is beyond me. They’ve got their agenda, and they push it daily. I’ll add some further posts about other nutty aspects of the calculator Cato paid KPMG Peat <SNIP <SNIP <SNIP (1) the omission of the spousal benefit, The two replies my last post elicited betray ignorance of Social Security. They confuse survivors benefits to which I referred with another feature of SocSec that I listed as not considered by the calculator–the spouse’s retirement benefit. A spouse whose own work history qualifies him or her for a small retirement benefit, if any, gets a retirement benefit equal to half the amount of the retiree who is getting Social Security. The spouse would inherit the 401(k)-like investment that replaces SS. As would the (grown) children. In most cases, a better deal than they are getting now. <SNIP The calculator lets you adjust your projected returns to numbers you like. You don’t seem to have grasped this yet. <SNIP

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [Housekeeping note: In the future. I am going to strip most cross posting groups from my replies to this thread. I see no reason to clutter va.general, for instance, with them. Anyone who wishes to follow my replies can look future ones on the relevant groups: ab. politics and alt.politics.democrats.d. Or use DejaNews.] <SNIP an inability to count up to four, the number of discrete points in my previous reply. These were: (1) the omission of the spousal benefit, The two replies my last post elicited betray ignorance of Social Security. They confuse survivors benefits to which I referred with another feature of SocSec that I listed as not considered by the calculator–the spouse’s retirement benefit. A spouse whose own work history qualifies him or her for a small retirement benefit, if any, gets a retirement benefit equal to half the amount of the retiree who is getting Social Security. Even a divorced spouse is eligible if she was married to the retiree for at least 10 years. SocSec, you see, dates back to a time when terribly old-fashioned liberal ideas prevailed like maybe it’s a good idea if mothers stayed home and took care of the kids. Maximizing the supply of labor, and thereby minimizing its cost, has always been an objective of employer-supported lobbying, but underlying Social Security until recently was quite the opposite aim. The idea was to keep wages up and , as does the military and other well-run institutions, and to encourage old farts like me to get out of the way and give younger ones a better shot at the better jobs in the system. The spouse would inherit the 401(k)-like investment that replaces SS. As would the (grown) children. In most cases, a better deal than they are getting now. Let’s not get all befuddled here over the different kinds of benefits in OADSI: the benefits for dependents of workers who die or become disabled at any time in their working life before retirement and the survivorship benefits of retiree’s spouse, kids and even some grandma’s. Since about 38 percent of the current beneficiaries are not themselves retired workers, stripping out all these other benefits from the calculations is a way of making SocSec appear much less valuable than it really is (even though it is a far stingier system than Europeans enjoy). Remember also that our subject is amounts yielded by a calculator that annuitizes accumulations at Age 65. Annuities with rights of survivorship pay out much less than I believe the calculator assumes. As average lengths of life creep up, we can expect the cost of annuity to be far greater say 30 years hence than one based upon past history.

The calculator lets you adjust your projected returns to numbers you like. You don’t seem to have grasped this yet. And the survivors will get to keep the 401(k) like investment of the wage-earner, which will (assuming the couple is older) we far exceed the benefits SS would have offered. (2) the neglect of insurance of at least some sustenance in retirement without begging even if one’s earning capacity prematurely nosedives or never even gets very far off the ground Most studies show that a minimum wage earner would have a far more comfortable retirement via privatized systems then they have now. Here you go missing the point of the drill again. The point is that the calculator tells users to count on an ever onward and upward course of their incomes, not the worth of some insurance against its flattening or even a nosedive..

In general, peoples wages do increase over the course of their careers, in both absolute and real terms. So a realistic plan would account for that. And again, you CAN ADJUST THOSE NUMBERS!!! <SNIP Too much already for one post. Albert Biderman

– Coda Software, Limited

Response:

[Housekeeping note: In the future. I am going to strip most cross posting groups from my replies to this thread. I see no reason to clutter va.general, for instance, with them. Anyone who wishes to follow my replies can look future ones on the relevant groups: ab. politics and alt.politics.democrats.d. Or use DejaNews.] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <SNIP an inability to count up to four, the number of discrete points in my previous reply. These were: (1) the omission of the spousal benefit, The two replies my last post elicited betray ignorance of Social Security. They confuse survivors benefits to which I referred with another feature of SocSec that I listed as not considered by the calculator–the spouse’s retirement benefit. A spouse whose own work history qualifies him or her for a small retirement benefit, if any, gets a retirement benefit equal to half the amount of the retiree who is getting Social Security. Even a divorced spouse is eligible if she was married to the retiree for at least 10 years. SocSec, you see, dates back to a time when terribly old-fashioned liberal ideas prevailed like maybe it’s a good idea if mothers stayed home and took care of the kids. Maximizing the supply of labor, and thereby minimizing its cost, has always been an objective of employer-supported lobbying, but underlying Social Security until recently was quite the opposite aim. The idea was to keep wages up and , as does the military and other well-run institutions, and to encourage old farts like me to get out of the way and give younger ones a better shot at the better jobs in the system. The spouse would inherit the 401(k)-like investment that replaces SS. As would the (grown) children. In most cases, a better deal than they are getting now.

Let’s not get all befuddled here over the different kinds of benefits in OADSI: the benefits for dependents of workers who die or become disabled at any time in their working life before retirement and the survivorship benefits of retiree’s spouse, kids and even some grandma’s. Since about 38 percent of the current beneficiaries are not themselves retired workers, stripping out all these other benefits from the calculations is a way of making SocSec appear much less valuable than it really is (even though it is a far stingier system than Europeans enjoy). Remember also that our subject is amounts yielded by a calculator that annuitizes accumulations at Age 65. Annuities with rights of survivorship pay out much less than I believe the calculator assumes. As average lengths of life creep up, we can expect the cost of annuity to be far greater say 30 years hence than one based upon past history. (2) the neglect of insurance of at least some sustenance in retirement without begging even if one’s earning capacity prematurely nosedives or never even gets very far off the ground Most studies show that a minimum wage earner would have a far more comfortable retirement via privatized systems then they have now.

Here you go missing the point of the drill again. The point is that the calculator tells users to count on an ever onward and upward course of their incomes, not the worth of some insurance against its flattening or even a nosedive.. <SNIP Too much already for one post. Albert Biderman

Response:

: You might want to read up about SS. Most of the money extracted from : me is going to current beneficaries. Which is exactly like Ponzi : ran his scheme. Ah but Ponzi extracted money in the deal. In the SS system it all? goes to current benficiaries.

This is not true. Right now Social Security is taking in quite a bit more money than what it is spending on benefits. The Social Security surplus is being lent to Federal government. I am not exactly sure why people get so upset about this.

Because the ponzi scheme will eventually collapse. Keeping a load of money locked up in the bank or wherever for 40 years doesn’t make much sense.

It doesn’t make sense to lock up a load of money in low intrest government IOUs either. If we could keep the money we earn and invest it, most Americans would be rich by the time we retire. To see how much the current SS system is costing you versus a private system, go to the Social Security calculator at http://www.socialsecurity.org/calc/calculator.html In a continuous stable system it would be a lot more efficient to just colect the money from the working population and distribute it back to the retired.

Social Security is a stable system? Hahahahahaha! When I started paying into the SS system, the rule was that I could retire with full benefits at age 65. Back in the mid ’80s, congress changed the rules, and now I can’t get full benefits until age 67. Since Social security is on the threshold of going belly up, I’m sure congress will change the rules a couple of more times before I retire. Chuck Wright http://www.cato.org/

Response:

In the dim regoins of the remote past, I seem to remember monies from the SSF being "borrowed" by other departments, never to be seen again. But I have no references for this and don’t know whether it was true or just alarmist nonsense. Does anyone know anything about this?

The Social Security surplus is by law invested in United States government securities. The present Federal budget surplus is due to the Social Security trust fund surplus. When President Clinton talks about using the budget surplus to save Social Security, he’s effectively saying we should use the Social Security surplus to save Social Security. There is something wrong with the President’s accounting practices. Chuck Wright http://www.lp.org/

Response:

: You might want to read up about SS. Most of the money extracted from : me is going to current beneficaries. Which is exactly like Ponzi : ran his scheme. Ah but Ponzi extracted money in the deal. In the SS system it all? goes to current benficiaries.

I would assume that, like the Ponzi scheme masqueraded as the Canada Pension Plan, the benefits would increase with inflation, so same net result. — Lars P. Ormberg ICQ#:8827066 "Paving paradise and putting up parking lots since 1978" Oh you didn’t know? Your ass better caaaaall somebody! Miss the Royal Rumble? http://www.bji.net/pages/petrie/ppv1999.html PGP Signature available – http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/science/compsci.htm

Response:

I am pleased that your reply wasn’t a pique at my using "peak" where I meant "peek." E-e-eek! The first of a host of things wrong with the calculator is that it has little comparability to the accounting applicable to the OASDI package–Old Age, Survivor’s and Disability Insurance. Social insurance is conceptually different from annuity purchase. It is designed to keep folks, come what may, from ending up destitute or as charity cases. SocSec involves not only one’s retirement annuity–insurance against outliving one’s means. It includes also annuity for a spouse who stayed home and took care of the kids and then worked mostly for free until retirement age (1/3 of my pension in our case). It is throughout one’s working life a minimal income protection plan in case one’s skills became obsolete and one’s industry left town when it was pretty late to start over in entry levels. That dumb calculator assumes that the user is not going to end up like anthracite miners or linotype men or the many neighborhood pharmacy owners wo now must work for a chain at a bit more than minimum wage. The table notes that it excludes the Survivors Insurance There are so many other things wrongs with CATO’s calculator that it would take several messages even to begin to detail them. I would start with the reasons for SocSec being an issue at all at this time and why it’s an issue that gets the CATO Institute in a lather. Don’t tell me the Baby Boom generation. That’s been with us for a half Century and baby boomers made for a bigger distortion of "the normal population" at every other stage of their existence than they will as retirees. I say a bigger distortion because the bulge has been progressively levelled out by effects of immigration and by the migrants’ high birth rates. The dependency "burdens" of the baby boomers was far greater when they were babies and when they were school kids and when they getting unprecedented levels of higher education. Currently, the population bulge gives us an unprecedentedly high proportion of the population in their peak years of earnings and productivity and it represents the largest investment in "human capital" anywhere ever. How does all that history figure in actuaries’ reckonings? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just a few years ago, those with a hatchet out for SocSec were agitating the Generation X’ers about those fat old folks who were reaping so much more from Social Security than they put in and about the swarm of boomers who would soon be riding that gravy train at their expense. Now the chorus is that SocSec is a swindle. I took a peak at that Cato Inst. calculator and the assumptions it uses. It should have a sign on it flashing "TILT!" Just exactly which assumptions are wrong and why should it read "TILT!"? I’m sure KPMG Peat Marwick would like to know. Please also keep in mind that you can adjust the default assumptions for inflation, stocks, bonds, social security percent you expect to receive, retirement age, and salary scale. Chuck Wright http://www.cato.org/

Response:

<snip There are so many other things wrongs with CATO’s calculator that it would take several messages even to begin to detail them. I

So you are graciously willing to impart one alleged problem with the calculator, and we should trust you on the rest? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – would start with the reasons for SocSec being an issue at all at this time and why it’s an issue that gets the CATO Institute in a lather. Don’t tell me the Baby Boom generation. That’s been with us for a half Century and baby boomers made for a bigger distortion of "the normal population" at every other stage of their existence than they will as retirees. I say a bigger distortion because the bulge has been progressively levelled out by effects of immigration and by the migrants’ high birth rates. The dependency "burdens" of the baby boomers was far greater when they were babies and when they were school kids and when they getting unprecedented levels of higher education. Currently, the population bulge gives us an unprecedentedly high proportion of the population in their peak years of earnings and productivity and it represents the largest investment in "human capital" anywhere ever. How does all that history figure in actuaries’ reckonings? Just a few years ago, those with a hatchet out for SocSec were agitating the Generation X’ers about those fat old folks who were reaping so much more from Social Security than they put in and about the swarm of boomers who would soon be riding that gravy train at their expense. Now the chorus is that SocSec is a swindle. I took a peak at that Cato Inst. calculator and the assumptions it uses. It should have a sign on it flashing "TILT!" Just exactly which assumptions are wrong and why should it read "TILT!"? I’m sure KPMG Peat Marwick would like to know. Please also keep in mind that you can adjust the default assumptions for inflation, stocks, bonds, social security percent you expect to receive, retirement age, and salary scale. Chuck Wright http://www.cato.org/

– Coda Software, Limited

Response:

I should have resisted being goaded into even this reply which, particularly given the elaborate cross posting of the thread, makes me too akin to the bandwidth hogging True Believers in Me-Me-Me-ism whose asocial rudeness has all but ruined the newsgroups we once knew. I can understand how this trait might be associated with an inability to fathom the social character of social insurance. It is puzzling, however, why, in a discussion of a calculator, it should make for an inability to count up to four, the number of discrete points in my previous reply. These were: (1) the omission of the spousal benefit, (2) the neglect of insurance of at least some sustenance in retirement without begging even if one’s earning capacity prematurely nosedives or never even gets very far off the ground , (3) the integral nature of the OASDI package, (4) the suspect motives for the calculator as of a piece with the phoniness of a supposed Social Security crisis. I will grant a certain unfairness in my asking for trust in my promise to detail in future posts of seemly length many more charges against a case that has been placed on the table quite elaborately. Nobody has ever paid me to know or talk about Social Security so I unfortunately cannot use a reference or a link for my arguments. As for the suggestion that I trust the accounting firm which devised the calculator, I place some trust also in the principle, "who pays the piper calls the tune." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip There are so many other things wrongs with CATO’s calculator that it would take several messages even to begin to detail them. I So you are graciously willing to impart one alleged problem with the calculator, and we should trust you on the rest? Chuck Wright http://www.cato.org/ <GREAT BIG SNIP

Response:

I should have resisted being goaded into even this reply which, particularly given the elaborate cross posting of the thread, makes me too akin to the bandwidth hogging True Believers in Me-Me-Me-ism whose asocial rudeness has all but ruined the newsgroups we once knew. I can understand how this trait might be associated with an inability to fathom the social character of social insurance. It is puzzling, however, why, in a discussion of a calculator, it should make for an inability to count up to four, the number of discrete points in my previous reply. These were: (1) the omission of the spousal benefit,

The spouse would inherit the 401(k)-like investment that replaces SS. As would the (grown) children. In most cases, a better deal than they are getting now. (2) the neglect of insurance of at least some sustenance in retirement without begging even if one’s earning capacity prematurely nosedives or never even gets very far off the ground

Most studies show that a minimum wage earner would have a far more comfortable retirement via privatized systems then they have now. Of course, most liberals are aware of this, but want to guarantee a dependence of the government. , (3) the integral nature of the OASDI package,

I have no idea what you mean by that. Integral to what? As I understand it, a certain percentage is earmarked to retirement benefits, and another percentage to OASDI. No reason we can’t separate the two. (4) the suspect motives for the calculator as of a piece with the phoniness of a supposed Social Security crisis.

Most Democrats and Republicans agree that there will be a crisis (and whenever they agree, something bad happens). There will be a multi-trillion dollar deficit, that my generation will have to make up. I’ll get a negative return on my contributions. What’s suspect about the motives. Virtually everyone will be better off. And we’ll have something we can pass on to our children or our favorite charity on our death. I heard a great quote awhile back: "The left-wing has decided that the poor are their constituency, and they will do anything to expand their constituency." That would of course include stopping the poor and the middle class from building their own millions via privatizing SS. I will grant a certain unfairness in my asking for trust in my promise to detail in future posts of seemly length many more charges against a case that has been placed on the table quite elaborately. Nobody has ever paid me to know or talk about Social Security so I unfortunately cannot use a reference or a link for my arguments. As for the suggestion that I trust the accounting firm which devised the calculator, I place some trust also in the principle, "who pays the piper calls the tune."

Agreed. Same applies to studies by the government and liberal groups proving that we need SS. <snip There are so many other things wrongs with CATO’s calculator that it would take several messages even to begin to detail them. I So you are graciously willing to impart one alleged problem with the calculator, and we should trust you on the rest? Chuck Wright http://www.cato.org/ <GREAT BIG SNIP

– Coda Software, Limited

Response:

: You might want to read up about SS. Most of the money extracted from : me is going to current beneficaries. Which is exactly like Ponzi : ran his scheme. Ah but Ponzi extracted money in the deal. In the SS system it all? goes to current benficiaries.

So. Ponzi kept some for himself, but gave most of it out to current benficiries. So does the government. There is some overhead involved. I am not exactly sure why people get so upset about this. Keeping a load of money locked up in the bank or wherever for 40 years doesn’t make much sense. In a continuous stable system it would be a lot more efficient to just colect the money from the working population and distribute it back to the retired.

But the population is not continously stable. And my return on my social security taxes will be negative. I’d much rather keep my money in my pocket. — Coda Software, Limited

Response:

Just a few years ago, those with a hatchet out for SocSec were agitating the Generation X’ers about those fat old folks who were reaping so much more from Social Security than they put in and about the swarm of boomers who would soon be riding that gravy train at their expense. Now the chorus is that SocSec is a swindle. I took a peak at that Cato Inst. calculator and the assumptions it uses. It should have a sign on it flashing "TILT!"

Please be so kind to tell us which assumptions you think are incorrect. BTW – they are all configurable, you can use your own. Albert Find out what you stand to gain under a privatized Social Security system by going to the Social Security Calculator at http://www.socialsecurity.org/calc/calculator.html Chuck Wright http://www.cato.org/

– Coda Software, Limited

Response:

Just a few years ago, those with a hatchet out for SocSec were agitating the Generation X’ers about those fat old folks who were reaping so much more from Social Security than they put in and about the swarm of boomers who would soon be riding that gravy train at their expense. Now the chorus is that SocSec is a swindle. I took a peak at that Cato Inst. calculator and the assumptions it uses. It should have a sign on it flashing "TILT!"

Just exactly which assumptions are wrong and why should it read "TILT!"? I’m sure KPMG Peat Marwick would like to know. Please also keep in mind that you can adjust the default assumptions for inflation, stocks, bonds, social security percent you expect to receive, retirement age, and salary scale. Chuck Wright http://www.cato.org/

Response:

Forum messages in a major eastern newspaper describe S.S. retirement contributions that go into a trust fund as overcharges. Where do these dilly-dum-dums, as my wife would describe them, get these strange ideas. Such S.S. monies go into a reserve fund as do premiums of any life insurance program.

Just a small part of the Social Security monies go into this "reserve fund" The rest goes out to pay current beneficiaries. Less than $100B goes into the "reserve fund" a year. About $500B go to current beneficaries. And for the record, just because FICA has the word insurance in it, doesn’t mean that it behaves in any way like a normal insurance program. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The proceeds from federal reserve notes and bonds that are sold to banks as their reserves, to mutual funds, to insurance companies. to corporate retirement programs and to individuals go into general revenues for disbursement to the federal budget just as the proceeds of fed securities sold to the S.S. retirement reserve fund go into general revenues. This is the way our central banking system works. There is nothing illegal, immoral or illused by such procedures. We also see this forum proclaiming that current workers are paying the benefits for retirees. In a like bit of misinformation ,a reader’s letter in the current issue of the "Smithsonian" calls the S.S. retirement program a "Ponzi" scheme in which money invested by current workers is channeled to retirees. We are aghast that the Smithsonian printed such balderdash. A letter to the editor in today’s Rocky Mountain News crows much the same thing as the squib that appeared in the Smithsonian. Factually, the retirees have already paid into the S.S. reserve fund for their benefits. One pays his money, and one gets his benefits. The prevalence of this idea that the S.S. retirement contributions of current workers are paying for the benefits of retirees, taking money from one to pay another,

You might want to read up about SS. Most of the money extracted from me is going to current beneficaries. Which is exactly like Ponzi ran his scheme. strongly suggests that this is a ploy being floated by Republican legislators and their Republican constituents who simply wish to destroy the retirement system and Social Security in general. Accuso! Repudio! Contemno!

– Coda Software, Limited

Response:

Find out what you stand to gain under a privatized Social Security system by going to the Social Security Calculator at http://www.socialsecurity.org/calc/calculator.html Chuck Wright http://www.cato.org/

Response:

Just a few years ago, those with a hatchet out for SocSec were agitating the Generation X’ers about those fat old folks who were reaping so much more from Social Security than they put in and about the swarm of boomers who would soon be riding that gravy train at their expense. Now the chorus is that SocSec is a swindle. I took a peak at that Cato Inst. calculator and the assumptions it uses. It should have a sign on it flashing "TILT!" Albert – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Find out what you stand to gain under a privatized Social Security system by going to the Social Security Calculator at http://www.socialsecurity.org/calc/calculator.html Chuck Wright http://www.cato.org/

Response:

: You might want to read up about SS. Most of the money extracted from : me is going to current beneficaries. Which is exactly like Ponzi : ran his scheme. Ah but Ponzi extracted money in the deal. In the SS system it all? goes to current benficiaries. I am not exactly sure why people get so upset about this. Keeping a load of money locked up in the bank or wherever for 40 years doesn’t make much sense. In a continuous stable system it would be a lot more efficient to just colect the money from the working population and distribute it back to the retired.

Response:

: You might want to read up about SS. Most of the money extracted from : me is going to current beneficaries. Which is exactly like Ponzi : ran his scheme. Ah but Ponzi extracted money in the deal. In the SS system it all? goes to current benficiaries. I am not exactly sure why people get so upset about this. Keeping a load of money locked up in the bank or wherever for 40 years doesn’t make much sense. In a continuous stable system it would be a lot more efficient to just colect the money from the working population and distribute it back to the retired.

In the dim regoins of the remote past, I seem to remember monies from the SSF being "borrowed" by other departments, never to be seen again. But I have no references for this and don’t know whether it was true or just alarmist nonsense. Does anyone know anything about this? — Serf tomb nor stone nor grave for me (andy sims) just a bier up in a tree

Response:

The SS "backrupcy" predictions (25% shortfall between 2030-2060) are based on SS "medium" case economic scenerio of real economical growth of 1.5% a year over the next 75 years. The US economy since WWII has followed the "high" growth trend of 2% per year, which predicts no bankrupcy under SS projections. (ssa.gov) Is all this worry a red-herring?

Response:

In the dim regoins of the remote past, I seem to remember monies from the SSF being "borrowed" by other departments, never to be seen again. But I have no references for this and

The US government "borrows" this money, current about $800 billion, or about 14% of the national debt. SS will own nearly $3000 billion at its surplus peak around 2020 but then draw that down quickly. There are other trust funds and government bonds than Social Security and the main national debt. The Clinton administration plays loose with these to make the "on-the-books" budget look balanced. One scandal is the airport trust fund- the tax all airline passengers pay to upgrade airports and air-control- but frozen during the Clinton administration to help balance the budget. If you look at the official public debt at www.publicdebt.trea.gov you see the debt is still increasing, but rather slowly, so the total US budget including off-the-books items still has a small deficit.

Response:

Forum messages in a major eastern newspaper describe S.S. retirement contributions that go into a trust fund as overcharges. Where do these dilly-dum-dums, as my wife would describe them, get these strange ideas. Such S.S. monies go into a reserve fund as do premiums of any life insurance program. The proceeds from federal reserve notes and bonds that are sold to banks as their reserves, to mutual funds, to insurance companies. to corporate retirement programs and to individuals go into general revenues for disbursement to the federal budget just as the proceeds of fed securities sold to the S.S. retirement reserve fund go into general revenues. This is the way our central banking system works. There is nothing illegal, immoral or illused by such procedures. We also see this forum proclaiming that current workers are paying the benefits for retirees. In a like bit of misinformation ,a reader’s letter in the current issue of the "Smithsonian" calls the S.S. retirement program a "Ponzi" scheme in which money invested by current workers is channeled to retirees. We are aghast that the Smithsonian printed such balderdash. A letter to the editor in today’s Rocky Mountain News crows much the same thing as the squib that appeared in the Smithsonian. Factually, the retirees have already paid into the S.S. reserve fund for their benefits. One pays his money, and one gets his benefits. The prevalence of this idea that the S.S. retirement contributions of current workers are paying for the benefits of retirees, taking money from one to pay another, strongly suggests that this is a ploy being floated by Republican legislators and their Republican constituents who simply wish to destroy the retirement system and Social Security in general. Accuso! Repudio! Contemno!

Response:

Question:

LOL….I must be an artist at heart. The first thing I noticed about my lap photos is that everything seemed to be color coded!!!! sabby

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Five surgeons are discussing who makes the best patients to operate on. The first surgeon says, "I like to see accountants on my operating table,because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered." The second responds, "Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded." The third surgeon says, "No, I really think librarians are the best; everything inside them is in alphabetical order." The fourth surgeon chimes in: "You know, I like construction workers…those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over at the end and when the job takes longer than you said it would." But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed: "You’re all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There’s no guts, no heart, no spine and their head and butt are interchangeable."

Accounting Talk

Details of Delta's LCC to be announced at 10am.

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Bardahl Formula software or book?

Question:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

November posts

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

DacEasy

Question:

Response:

Related Posts

Software Recommendation??

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

What webserver GLs are all about

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Help with SU's on a LR 90 V8!

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Guitar stuff = tax deductable????

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

ocial Security dum-dums

Question:

Response: