You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #50: I said ALL. For the third time, nothing you quoted supports your assertion about insufficiency. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-11 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #32
50. I said ALL. For the third time, nothing you quoted supports your assertion about insufficiency.
Edited on Sun Dec-04-11 05:08 AM by No Elephants
Let's say I bought an annuity 40 years ago from a private insurance company at a price that the company deemed adequate to pay me, given all actuarial information, plus give the company a profit.

However, the company misspent the money and/or invested it poorly; plus life expectancies rose considerably since since I bought the policy. Plus, the company was counting on other income to pay out my benefits that has dried up or been reduced(in the case of cities and towns, that would be federal money and real estate taxes calculated on the basis of property values, now deflated).

Long story short, now there is a shortfall, even though I paid in more than enough to pay my annuity (by insurance standards, which includes such things as life expectancies).

IOW, the mere presence of a shortfall does not, ipso facto, mean I did not contribute enough, or even more than enough.

You been insisting that the mere existence of a shortfall now roves they did not contribute enough. You cannot reason backward from the mere existence of a shortfall, having zero information about the contributions or anything else. ou and not recognizing that you simply do not have enough information about anything to reach a sound conclusion. And, as this my third attempt, I respectfully decline to make a fourth response on this point.


As for San Fransisco, public employees in other places contributed the full amount. In both cases, so what? The only facts before us, are about San Jose and we do not even have enough information about San Jose. So, bringing in other areas seems pointless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC