Maru Dubshinki contributed:
Last I heard, SS was not a pension; so apparently they have
no problem living off charity.
It was you, not me, who suggested giving the excess crops to retirees.
~Maru
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:54:35 +0100, God [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maru spoketh:
What, precisely, is the true difference between giving retirees
crops/foodstuffs and money (aside from the sheer versatility of money
of course.)? They are both charity as far as I can see.
~Maru
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:18:05 +0100, God [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maru Dubshinki contributed:
Maru spoketh:
whether it is in money or other financial instruments. I
hear that farmers are paid really large sums to deliberately
curtail crop production; why not take that wasted money, use
it to buy the excess crops and give it to those retirees in
some way or other (so they don't
Last I heard, SS was not a pension; so apparently they have no problem
living off charity.
~Maru
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:54:35 +0100, God [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maru spoketh:
whether it is in money or other financial instruments. I
hear that farmers are paid really large sums to
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 12:47:27AM -0500, maru wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong Trent, but isn't the whole point of modern
society, technology, science, and liberal democracy to reduce the
amount of physical misery, mental anguish and sheer drudgery/work a
person has to go through
I wouldn't
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 12:47:27AM -0500, maru wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong Trent, but isn't the whole point of modern
society, technology, science, and liberal democracy to reduce the
amount of physical misery, mental anguish and sheer drudgery/work a
person has to go
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 11:58:11AM -0500, maru wrote:
And Erik, I don't think 120 trillion dollars over 70 years is all that
much.
That's good. Then you'll have no trouble saving $1 million for your own
retirment, since that is about your share of the $120 trillion.
By the way, would you mind
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 11:58:11AM -0500, maru wrote:
And Erik, I don't think 120 trillion dollars over 70 years is all that
much.
That's good. Then you'll have no trouble saving $1 million for your own
retirment, since that is about your share
Less probably, since they'd share the same shelter.
~Maru
Julia Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 11:58:11AM -0500, maru wrote:
And Erik, I don't think 120 trillion dollars over 70 years is all that
much.
That's good. Then you'll have no
Correct me if I'm wrong Trent, but isn't the whole point of modern
society, technology, science, and liberal democracy to reduce the
amount of physical misery, mental anguish and sheer drudgery/work a
person has to go through (as opposed to points such as 'for the further
glorification of
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:59:00AM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote:
Of course, with ever increasing (and expensive) life qualities and
life spans there will be people born in 1976 still collecting their
retirement social security in 2075.
Andtheir PIA will already have been calculated years
On Wednesday 2005-01-05 23:17, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Erik wrote:
Apparently you don't understand the difference between 2005 and 2075 and
70 years of 1.5% increases.
Probably not. What has been the average increase 1935-2005?
I agree that Social Security _should be_ a safety net for low
12 matches
Mail list logo
