"The FCC voted unanimously yesterday to move forward in an effort to formalize net neutrality guidelines."
I mean, net neutrality? Who wouldn't be against that, right? It's like "PATRIOT Act!" Hooah! God Bless America. It sounds all free and righteous, right? Well, it isn't. And like the PATRIOT Act, or the radio Fairness Doctrine that Ronaldus Magnus shot down as being unconstitutional in the 80s, the internet version of the Fairness Doctrine is on the way, and it's very un-American... be prepared.
Proponents of net neutrality, such as the writer of this PCWorld article, like to make us think net neutrality, just the very threat of it, has already had success in "keeping the private sector in line":
"Comcast tried to throttle peer-to-peer networking traffic and only changed policy after the threat of FCC net neutrality rules. AT&T sought to block customers from using VoIP services from its wireless network, but changed policy out of fear of the net neutrality rules. The trend seems to be that these providers only do the 'right thing' when the net neutrality gun is pointing at their head."
Wow, so chock full of factual information. How does he do it? Those greedy capitalist pig organizations! It's good that the government is here to keep them straight. And everything the author wrote in that article would make perfect sense... if only it were true. Unfortunately it's false... or only half false. Yes, "the threat of net neutrality" was in the air at the time, but so was "fear" in downtown Manhattan on 9/11. Does that mean "fear" brought down the WTC towers? The real reason providers backed down from bandwidth caps and throttling is because their customers voted with their voices and their wallets if necessary. When Comcast was blocking P2P traffic, customers shifted to their local DSL companies, to other cable competitors like Cox and TimeWarner, or to, God help them, satellite. TimeWarner was going to do the very same thing with bandwidth caps here in NC. Funny enough, their bandwidth caps were only going to be implemented in areas where TW has complete control of the cable market; they weren't going to implement bandwidth caps in any of their service areas that had competing cable companies... food for thought.
They're ridiculous bandwidth caps, too. Something like 5GB of bandwidth @ 7mbps for $40, and then some hellacious charge for every 1GB above that. But those bandwidth caps were never implemented. Why? Because TW customers voted with their voices and their wallets, and due to public outcry, TW backed down.
The proponents of net neutrality say it is to make sure providers aren't discriminating against people, and to ensure "people who pay more or have more power aren't getting faster service."
Now I know all the little Marxists on here are jumping with joy at the sound of that. After all, why should I only be limited to 3mbps internet because it's all I can afford to pay for. I think I truly deserve 6mbps internet, I just can't afford it... and while we're at it, why should I be driving a Bronco because it's all I can afford to drive? I see all these people on the road driving 5-series BMWs and Infiniti QX56s, I think I deserve one of those, too.
On the surface net neutrality seems "fair and free market," but what it does is it gives the FCC authority to monitor and dictate internet bandwidth and usage. It also violates the very simple rule that "government can not create free markets. A government free market is an oxymoron, it doesn't even make sense. The government currently wastes billions of dollars giving big line companies like AT&T funds to subsidize internet expansion into rural and higher risk areas, putting smaller localized line and provider companies at a tactical disadvantage to compete with the el-humongo datatel company AT&T. Net Neutrality will only expand this ridiculous program of putting smaller companies at a disadvantage against the mega-companies. Free market my ass.
Once the federal government has control of the bandwidth and the oversight, they have control of the access to information. After all, with so many billions of federal dollars invested in our internet infrastructure, it would be silly for the federal government to allow "just any old information" to be sent through those lines, right? After all, it is the government's job to be impartial and unbiased, and if there is a disproportionate amount of info crossing the government's lines that is one-sided, it makes the government look bad, so it is the FCC's responsibility to regulate that information to balance it out. Sound ridiculous? It may be ridiculous, but it's also true.
State and local governments oft give line companies and utility providers de jure monopolies in most areas. So, if you are unhappy with the current system, but you also don't want the federal government stepping in to, for lack of a better term, take it over, the course of action is to vote and write your local representatives encouraging them to allow more competition in your area. No one said democracy was a cakewalk.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
It Looks Like Social Security is Going to be Bankrupt Sooner Than We Thought... Shocker.
The media is in a ruckus over the new numbers released regarding the prognosis of Social Security. It's not looking good. So, as I was sitting down today, rather than doing what I was supposed to be doing, my mind began to wander...
Here are some quick calculations I ran that piss me off to no end: Our take-home pay is decreased by 12.4% due to our "contributions" to the Social Security system. That money of course, like any other ponzi scheme, is immediately sent from the Treasury to the mailbox of some geriatric in West Palm Beach. It seems like a logical system to politicians, but the reason it's called a ponzi scheme is because current investors, who have an effective basis of $0, are kept afloat by new investors. When the new investors dry up, the current investors' bases of $0 are fully realized, and the system collapses. Madoff went to jail for this exact same thing; the only difference being Madoff's investors were voluntary, whereas we are forced to pay into this scheme at gunpoint. The very politicians who favor expanding and taxing even more the social security contributions of individuals, are the same ones who were lambasting Madoff for running the very same operation they are running! Hypocrites! Idiots! If I had my way they'd all be drawn and quartered on the Capitol lawn, and their limbs thrown to the rabid ducks in the scum-infested reflecting pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
The average American takes home a little over $40,000 per year. Without a Social Security tax, our incomes would be closer to $45,000. If we all used that extra $5,000 to invest in our Roth IRAs every year from our 20s onward, we could retire at 65-70 as MULTI-MILLIONAIRES. Instead... we give that $5,000 to the federal government, which, of course, immediately disappears. But when we reach age for withdrawal, the average American receives $1,153 per month from Social Security. $13,836 per year. Assuming we live a very liberally estimated 25 years from the day we withdrawal benefits, that is a total of $345,900 nominal dollars over 25 years. Annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs) are made to the benefits, but the real purchasing power of those checks will remain about equivalent to what $345,900 would buy today.
On the flipside, those of us who opted to manage our own retirement, would wisely begin withdrawing (tax free, of course) funds from our Roth IRAs as soon as we hit 59.5 years old, ratably with the timing of the market at that time, and placing the withdrawals in safer investments like money markets, CDs, and low yield bonds. That way when we reach 65 or 70, or whatever age we decide we want to cruise around the world, we will have several hundred thousand dollars more than the social security folks. Oh, and the best part? We won't be paying income taxes on the adjusted principle of our withdrawals, the social security folks may be.
That being said, is our method of retirement a little riskier than social security which is "backed by the full faith and credit of the US government?" Yes it is, but high risk, high reward. And it's worth it to me to have hundreds of thousands more disposable dollars upon retirement. Some people may not be willing to go through with that, and may opt for something safe and low yield like social security, and that's fine. If we want to be socialists and give them that option (rather than simply allow individuals to invest that same money in equally safe investments via the private sector...), they can have that opportunity, but my argument is, why do we all have to be forced to pay for it!? It all boils down to my gripe with the public option. If we want to be little leftists and have a public option, OK, but why will we all be forced to pay for it!?
So now, I will have paid God-knows-how-much into Social Security, and by time I reach the federally mandated retirement age (which at that time will probably be 80+), I will be means tested and denied compensation at worst, or receive compensation less than the principle I paid in over the remainder of my shorter life at best. Either way, this is a very long-term investment that we are all going to take a loss on, and it angers me. It should anger all of us. There's no magic to the social security system. They can only pay out what they bring in, and when there isn't enough coming in to cover what's going out, they either reduce the benefits of the recipients (means testing), or reduce the number of recipients altogether (increasing retirement age).
None of this is complicated, and it angers me that I am having to pay for all this, and tens of millions of people in America are going through the same thing and don't even realize it. Worse yet, a lot of those who do realize it are OK with it! And why shouldn't they be? After all, "we're from the government, and we're here to help."
Here are some quick calculations I ran that piss me off to no end: Our take-home pay is decreased by 12.4% due to our "contributions" to the Social Security system. That money of course, like any other ponzi scheme, is immediately sent from the Treasury to the mailbox of some geriatric in West Palm Beach. It seems like a logical system to politicians, but the reason it's called a ponzi scheme is because current investors, who have an effective basis of $0, are kept afloat by new investors. When the new investors dry up, the current investors' bases of $0 are fully realized, and the system collapses. Madoff went to jail for this exact same thing; the only difference being Madoff's investors were voluntary, whereas we are forced to pay into this scheme at gunpoint. The very politicians who favor expanding and taxing even more the social security contributions of individuals, are the same ones who were lambasting Madoff for running the very same operation they are running! Hypocrites! Idiots! If I had my way they'd all be drawn and quartered on the Capitol lawn, and their limbs thrown to the rabid ducks in the scum-infested reflecting pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
The average American takes home a little over $40,000 per year. Without a Social Security tax, our incomes would be closer to $45,000. If we all used that extra $5,000 to invest in our Roth IRAs every year from our 20s onward, we could retire at 65-70 as MULTI-MILLIONAIRES. Instead... we give that $5,000 to the federal government, which, of course, immediately disappears. But when we reach age for withdrawal, the average American receives $1,153 per month from Social Security. $13,836 per year. Assuming we live a very liberally estimated 25 years from the day we withdrawal benefits, that is a total of $345,900 nominal dollars over 25 years. Annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs) are made to the benefits, but the real purchasing power of those checks will remain about equivalent to what $345,900 would buy today.
On the flipside, those of us who opted to manage our own retirement, would wisely begin withdrawing (tax free, of course) funds from our Roth IRAs as soon as we hit 59.5 years old, ratably with the timing of the market at that time, and placing the withdrawals in safer investments like money markets, CDs, and low yield bonds. That way when we reach 65 or 70, or whatever age we decide we want to cruise around the world, we will have several hundred thousand dollars more than the social security folks. Oh, and the best part? We won't be paying income taxes on the adjusted principle of our withdrawals, the social security folks may be.
That being said, is our method of retirement a little riskier than social security which is "backed by the full faith and credit of the US government?" Yes it is, but high risk, high reward. And it's worth it to me to have hundreds of thousands more disposable dollars upon retirement. Some people may not be willing to go through with that, and may opt for something safe and low yield like social security, and that's fine. If we want to be socialists and give them that option (rather than simply allow individuals to invest that same money in equally safe investments via the private sector...), they can have that opportunity, but my argument is, why do we all have to be forced to pay for it!? It all boils down to my gripe with the public option. If we want to be little leftists and have a public option, OK, but why will we all be forced to pay for it!?
So now, I will have paid God-knows-how-much into Social Security, and by time I reach the federally mandated retirement age (which at that time will probably be 80+), I will be means tested and denied compensation at worst, or receive compensation less than the principle I paid in over the remainder of my shorter life at best. Either way, this is a very long-term investment that we are all going to take a loss on, and it angers me. It should anger all of us. There's no magic to the social security system. They can only pay out what they bring in, and when there isn't enough coming in to cover what's going out, they either reduce the benefits of the recipients (means testing), or reduce the number of recipients altogether (increasing retirement age).
None of this is complicated, and it angers me that I am having to pay for all this, and tens of millions of people in America are going through the same thing and don't even realize it. Worse yet, a lot of those who do realize it are OK with it! And why shouldn't they be? After all, "we're from the government, and we're here to help."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)