Communist California to require Solar Panels on all new homes

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

The solution is to allow each person to have a personal account with his own personal funds. Of course, the swamp crocodiles are firmly against that because it would remove them from having control.

You can do that right now, anyone can.

Yes they can, but we would be way ahead of the game if we had all that SS money under our control instead of the government.

Not really, you could end up retiring right before a great recession hits, maybe you invested in the wrong crypto currency, perhaps your brother in law convinced you that Block Buster Video was making a come back. The point is SS is supposed to be low risk, guaranteed, that's the whole point of it. Blow your IRA up if you want.

So you never head of a conservative growth fund? You don't day trade a retirement account.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

The solution is to allow each person to have a personal account with his own personal funds. Of course, the swamp crocodiles are firmly against that because it would remove them from having control.

You can do that right now, anyone can.

Yes they can, but we would be way ahead of the game if we had all that SS money under our control instead of the government.

Until the GOP has another corrupt bubble bust meltdown and you lose all your money just like 2008 and 1929-which is why we have social security and not 65% poverty among the elderly. But thanks for the offer super duper dupe.

My IRA was fine with my investment company in 2008. In fact it was better. The investment company withheld putting our contributions into the market during the crash. When it showed life of a rebound, they dumped all that money they were saving into the market. It was like getting a three for one sale. After the stock price returned to where it was before the crash, I had a ton of new stock that I would have never had before.

 

[eagle1462010]

Most of the rest of the world also willingly, or unwillingly gave up their legally owned guns, and embraced Socialism. Most Americans, especially Republicans aren't sheep like much of the world. The reasons we are Americans. We're different, and don't go along with every government power, and money grab.

A nonsensical response. More like your party tends to attract those who either have a financial stake in fossil fuels or are simply not smart enough to grasp the actual science.

your party tends to attract those who either have a financial stake in fossil fuels

Cheap, energy dense, convenient.
The entire country has a financial stake in fossil fuels.

Investments, dope.

Savings, moron.

Don't try to tell me what I meant to say, asshole.

I meant what I said. Agree, disagree or go away.

 

[Markle]

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

1. There is no "trust fund". Never has been, never will be.

2. NO ONE has ever suggested that all the money I paid into SS over all these decades be invested in the stock market. Stop lying. The proposal was to ALLOW people the choice of investing 2% of what they contributed to Social Security to go into one of a number of very safe mutual type funds for the holder's future retirement. Is that so difficult for you or again, was it too good that government would NOT have control of at least a part of your money?


3. At one point in time, communities were able to opt out of Social Security. Galveston Texas and several surrounding counties did just that. Today, those workers are far, far better off than any Social Security recipient.

 

[Markle]

There are costs that government absorbs in distributing benefits, processing benefit claims, ect. that are not charged to fund.

True. The government is also avoiding paying the market rate of interest they would otherwise have to pay for the nearly free use of the money.

 

[Markle]

Solar windows could enable California to export energy.

Photovoltaic windows not only provide a clear view and illuminate rooms, but also convert sunlight to electricity for the building.[25] In most cases, translucent photovoltaic cells are used.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window#Solar_window

 

[Flopper]

You can

I will have broken even on my system in about 4-6 years. Without the tax rebate I'd be looking at 7-8 years. I have also increased the value of my home.

I'm happy that you believe that.

It's not a belief, it's reality. I've compared my utility bills before my system was set up and I've seen my monthly savings and done the math. You're kind of the one coming from a place of ignorance, not me.

OK, great. I live in south Louisiana where we have lots of sunshine most of the year. Several of my neighbors have solar systems and not one of them has had that kind of result. Now, to be fair, with the federal and state subsidies they were almost free, but someone paid the entire bill ------------------guess who? you and me, and every other American taxpayer.

If solar was financially viable, there would be no need for subsidies, because the profit motive would put them on the market at competitive prices. That's my only point here

The purpose of these subsidies are to increase the volume of sales such that the private sector will sink more money into RD, developing lower cost more efficient panels so at some point the product becomes financially viable without subsidies. It certainly seems to be happening with solar panels. We are seeing dramatic drops in price and increased efficiency. In some places solar panels are financial viable right now but in others it will be a number of years due to the fact electricity rates are very low.

What I see as a problem is reducing subsidies since viability is dependent on local power rates.

Would solar become viable without subsidies? Maybe, maybe not. It sure didn't happen with light bulbs. For over 50 years, lighting manufactures made no improvements in the life of bulbs or their efficiency until government mandated improvements and provided subsidies.

And now we're stuck with toxic lightbulbs. It's just like when they mandated 1.5 gallon toilets. You had to flush the damn thing 5 times to do the job of a 2 gallon toilet. It created a black market toilet underground from Canada. They flush a little better now, but you still have to be careful with them.

You are required to recycle CFL's just like florescent tubes as both contain mercury. I put my CFL's in the same bag I put florescent tubes and drop them off at Home Depot about once a year.

LED's contain metals that have been proven to increase the risk of cancer, the same ones they are finding in baby food but they are not considered toxic. Unlike florescent bulbs, most communities don't require you to recycle them so you can just throw them in the garbage in most places.

Considering a CFL's average live is 6 times as long as an incandescence bulb and the average life of an LED is 14 times longer than an incandescence, disposal should not be an issue for most people. In our condo, I replace all the bulbs with LED's about 4 years ago. So far I have not had one burn out.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

1. There is no "trust fund". Never has been, never will be.

2. NO ONE has ever suggested that all the money I paid into SS over all these decades be invested in the stock market. Stop lying. The proposal was to ALLOW people the choice of investing 2% of what they contributed to Social Security to go into one of a number of very safe mutual type funds for the holder's future retirement. Is that so difficult for you or again, was it too good that government would NOT have control of at least a part of your money?


3. At one point in time, communities were able to opt out of Social Security. Galveston Texas and several surrounding counties did just that. Today, those workers are far, far better off than any Social Security recipient.

If there is no trust fund where do you think your social security contributions go?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can

I'm happy that you believe that.

It's not a belief, it's reality. I've compared my utility bills before my system was set up and I've seen my monthly savings and done the math. You're kind of the one coming from a place of ignorance, not me.

OK, great. I live in south Louisiana where we have lots of sunshine most of the year. Several of my neighbors have solar systems and not one of them has had that kind of result. Now, to be fair, with the federal and state subsidies they were almost free, but someone paid the entire bill ------------------guess who? you and me, and every other American taxpayer.

If solar was financially viable, there would be no need for subsidies, because the profit motive would put them on the market at competitive prices. That's my only point here

The purpose of these subsidies are to increase the volume of sales such that the private sector will sink more money into RD, developing lower cost more efficient panels so at some point the product becomes financially viable without subsidies. It certainly seems to be happening with solar panels. We are seeing dramatic drops in price and increased efficiency. In some places solar panels are financial viable right now but in others it will be a number of years due to the fact electricity rates are very low.

What I see as a problem is reducing subsidies since viability is dependent on local power rates.

Would solar become viable without subsidies? Maybe, maybe not. It sure didn't happen with light bulbs. For over 50 years, lighting manufactures made no improvements in the life of bulbs or their efficiency until government mandated improvements and provided subsidies.

And now we're stuck with toxic lightbulbs. It's just like when they mandated 1.5 gallon toilets. You had to flush the damn thing 5 times to do the job of a 2 gallon toilet. It created a black market toilet underground from Canada. They flush a little better now, but you still have to be careful with them.

You are required to recycle CFL's just like florescent tubes as both contain mercury. I put my CFL's in the same bag I put florescent tubes and drop them off at Home Depot about once a year.

LED's contain metals that have been proven to increase the risk of cancer, the same ones they are finding in baby food but they are not considered toxic. Unlike florescent bulbs, most communities don't require you to recycle them so you can just throw them in the garbage in most places.

Considering a CFL's average live is 6 times as long as an incandescence bulb and the average life of an LED is 14 times longer than an incandescence, disposal should not be an issue for most people. In our condo, I replace all the bulbs with LED's about 4 years ago. So far I have not had one burn out.

I have an LED motion detector on the garage. It took me months to get used to it. It always looked like a flying saucer was going to land there or something. As for the interior of my home, I like the old fashioned light bulb tint it gives to the room. I stocked up when I heard about them doing away with them. I assumed I can always get them on the internet somewhere, but that's a hassle. Now I have boxes and boxes of incandescent bulbs in my spare room.

 

[Pilot1]

I don't particularly like the light of LED's, but they are better than CFL's, and they last a lot longer, and use less electricity, so I've been replacing by incandescents as they burn out.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

1. There is no "trust fund". Never has been, never will be.

2. NO ONE has ever suggested that all the money I paid into SS over all these decades be invested in the stock market. Stop lying. The proposal was to ALLOW people the choice of investing 2% of what they contributed to Social Security to go into one of a number of very safe mutual type funds for the holder's future retirement. Is that so difficult for you or again, was it too good that government would NOT have control of at least a part of your money?


3. At one point in time, communities were able to opt out of Social Security. Galveston Texas and several surrounding counties did just that. Today, those workers are far, far better off than any Social Security recipient.

If there is no trust fund where do you think your social security contributions go?

They go straight into the general fund and are spent immediately.

 

[Flopper]

There are costs that government absorbs in distributing benefits, processing benefit claims, ect. that are not charged to fund.

True. The government is also avoiding paying the market rate of interest they would otherwise have to pay for the nearly free use of the money.

The interest rate is determined by formula, based on the average yield of certain marketable securities. The current formula is in the link below. The treasury can not pay the market rate because special issues treasuries can be redeemed early at the purchase price under certain conditions. In other words there is no interest rate risk as with regular issue treasury bills. The effective interest rate for the portfolio in 2017 was about 3%. The peak rate was just under 12% which occurred in the mid 1980's.
Social Security Interest Rates
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40767.pdf

 

[HenryBHough]

Show me a California home with solar panels and I'll show you a queue of driveway sealing scammers waiting to each get a bite for themselves. A solar panel on a roof is today's equivalent of a depression era hobo's chalkmark on the front door of a perpetual victim's door.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are costs that government absorbs in distributing benefits, processing benefit claims, ect. that are not charged to fund.

True. The government is also avoiding paying the market rate of interest they would otherwise have to pay for the nearly free use of the money.

The government is also avoiding paying the market rate of interest they would otherwise have to pay for the nearly free use of the money

They pay the same blended rate to the Trust Funds that they pay on all their debt.

 

[bripat9643]

There are costs that government absorbs in distributing benefits, processing benefit claims, ect. that are not charged to fund.

True. The government is also avoiding paying the market rate of interest they would otherwise have to pay for the nearly free use of the money.

The government is also avoiding paying the market rate of interest they would otherwise have to pay for the nearly free use of the money

They pay the same blended rate to the Trust Funds that they pay on all their debt.

You can't pay interest to yourself. They pay nothing.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Social Security....at the time.....was probably one of the better options available to the government trying to deal with a society in transition.

The sad thing is that it really never did much for the elderly who had made super low incomes (relative to what it paid to people who made more money). In that sense it was something of retirement program.

But, while I don't like it, the fact is that the elderly were being marginalized as the country was going through the I.R. and G.D. The unemployment rate was over 50%. But it should not have been a permanent thing.

Politicians have so screwed it up and put so many people on the rolls that were not supposed to be there...that they are going to screw it up for the people who need it the most.

I am not a fan either and wish I had that money back too.

But, I can see why it was done at the time.

The one bad thing (I shouldn't say just one) about social programs is once they're in place, it's impossible to get rid of them. I call this my raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can. So you go in the house and get that nice meaty hambone you were going to throw away at the end of the week. The animal dines in delight. Now give it a few seconds and try to take that hambone back and see what happens.

This is exactly how government handouts work. Once you give it to people, they believe it rightfully belongs to them no matter who provided it. And politicians from both sides are afraid of getting their hand chewed off in an attempt to take it away.

What started off as benevolence turned into over 80 federal welfare programs in less than a century, and the Democrats only want to see more.

Now that we see the problems these programs are causing, it's certainly a good enough reason to never support a candidate or party that wants more of them.

Contrary to popular opinion, social security benefits do not contain any government handouts. All of the funds in the Social Security Trust fund come from three sources, contributions from employees, employers, and interest earned on treasury bills. The fund balance as on 12/31/2017 was 2.8 trillion dollars. In 2017 the fund grew by 44.1 million. The fund has increased in value 49 of the last 60 years. The 11 years the fund decreased in value was due to contributions and interest earned falling below benefits paid. These were all during periods of economic slowdown. The last time this occurred was 1981.

During these times the treasury redeemed the treasury bills owned by the fund sufficient to cover the shortfall. These transfers were assets of the fund and at no time did the treasury transfer taxpayers funds to the Social Security Trust Fund.
Trust Fund Data

There are no funds in the Social Security Trust Fund. There's only a file drawer full of worthless I.O.U.s

The fact that the government records the special issue treasury bills issued to the fund as a liability and the Fund records them as an asset should be proof to any reasonable person that they are not worthless. You do not record worthless items as assets and loans with no obligation to pay as liabilities.

I think his point is that are only repaid by collecting taxes.

Hence, the government simply used the S.S. trust fund to pay for things they didn't have the money for.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are costs that government absorbs in distributing benefits, processing benefit claims, ect. that are not charged to fund.

True. The government is also avoiding paying the market rate of interest they would otherwise have to pay for the nearly free use of the money.

The government is also avoiding paying the market rate of interest they would otherwise have to pay for the nearly free use of the money

They pay the same blended rate to the Trust Funds that they pay on all their debt.

You can't pay interest to yourself. They pay nothing.

You can't pay interest to yourself.

Why not?

They pay nothing.

In 2016, OASI was paid $87 billion.

 

[bripat9643]

There are costs that government absorbs in distributing benefits, processing benefit claims, ect. that are not charged to fund.

True. The government is also avoiding paying the market rate of interest they would otherwise have to pay for the nearly free use of the money.

The government is also avoiding paying the market rate of interest they would otherwise have to pay for the nearly free use of the money

They pay the same blended rate to the Trust Funds that they pay on all their debt.

You can't pay interest to yourself. They pay nothing.

You can't pay interest to yourself.

Why not?

They pay nothing.

In 2016, OASI was paid $87 billion.

Write yourself an interest bearing note. Set the interest rate at 10000000000000000000000%. Wait 10 years. Now, how much money do you have?

 

[OnePercenter]

They have for decades by keeping wages artificially low.

Really, do explain. What policies have the Republicans administered that had anything to do with what a private business pays their employees.

You worked multiple jobs because your employer didn't pay you a livable wage.

At times yes, at other times, no, I just got a second job to get ahead. This is the horse and carrot theory. If you feed a horse carrots, you're not going to get the work out of him as you can dangling a carrot in front of a horse.

As liberalism progressed, less and less people wanted to pull the cart. They just went to government for their daily allowance of carrots. Then complain that they aren't getting enough.

I'm only left in I feel that employees are a businesses greatest asset. The fact is that business owners and investors are grossly over-paid.

No, business people and investors don't get paid. They create their own money.

Of course, non-rich people can do the same, it's just they'd rater work for somebody else and bitch instead. But anybody not happy with the wage they make are welcome to open their own business and pay their workers whatever they like.

Businesses produce products or services. To sell their products or service, price is the main factor. Ss if you and I had widget factories, and I paid my employees what they were worth, and you overpaid all your employees, I'm going to steal all of your customers and put you out of business, because I can sell my widgets two dollars less than you can.

No, business people and investors don't get paid. They create their own money.

They both get paid money because of the effort and sweat of others.

Of course, non-rich people can do the same, it's just they'd rater work for somebody else and bitch instead. But anybody not happy with the wage they make are welcome to open their own business and pay their workers whatever they like.

So your answer to employees making a living wage is they should open their own business?

Businesses produce products or services. To sell their products or service, price is the main factor. Ss if you and I had widget factories, and I paid my employees what they were worth, and you overpaid all your employees, I'm going to steal all of your customers and put you out of business, because I can sell my widgets two dollars less than you can.

I do pay my employees at least twice as much as my competitors AND I don't rob them by making them pay for part of their benefits package.

How can I do this?

1) I own my suppliers and pay substantially less than they do for the same product.
2) I don't have investors.
3) Business make much more money than they tell you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are costs that government absorbs in distributing benefits, processing benefit claims, ect. that are not charged to fund.

True. The government is also avoiding paying the market rate of interest they would otherwise have to pay for the nearly free use of the money.

The government is also avoiding paying the market rate of interest they would otherwise have to pay for the nearly free use of the money

They pay the same blended rate to the Trust Funds that they pay on all their debt.

You can't pay interest to yourself. They pay nothing.

You can't pay interest to yourself.

Why not?

They pay nothing.

In 2016, OASI was paid $87 billion.

Write yourself an interest bearing note. Set the interest rate at 10000000000000000000000%. Wait 10 years. Now, how much money do you have?

I need $20. My kid has $20.
I can borrow from my bank and pay them 5% or I can borrow from my kid and pay them 5%.
Their $20 was just sitting there, earning no interest.
Next year, how much does my kid have?