Eh, I disagree with his reasoning. He asserts that some of us have more to lose than others in the event of an invasion by a foreign power. I'd say we all have the same amount to lose, our life. No one can lose more than another when that is at stake. Therefore, we should all pay the same.

You can lose your assets too. And the ability to pass them on to your heirs. Is that not worth something? For the overwhelming vast majority of the population, their life will not be at stake if our military vanishes overnight

But corporations - and those who own them - would certainly lose a lot

The assets mean nothing when life is involved. Say person 1 has a net worth of $100,000. Person 2 has a net worth of $1,000,000. They both die, they lose the same amount, life itself. They both have the same to lose. If death wasn't a factor, the assets would matter, but it is. I would dispute that last statement, I believe everyone would be in mortal danger if the military was completely gone. Many crazy fanatics in the world who would do terrible things.

Lol, you have some distorted view of the world if you think we'd all die without a military​.

Also, from your point of view life insurance is worthless then? The whole industry doesn't need to exist? Because if you acknowledge that life insurance is a valid product, you invalidate your entire statement above

Over 28,000 people died from terrorism in 2015 despite the trillions of dollars spent on defense budgets around the world and the tens of millions serving in the armed forces. What that number would look like with countries having no military to protect them, I don't want to think about. And then if you were to assume some nations would keep their military while others would not, you have to take into account the genocide that would occur if one decided to attack another (which is human nature).

I dislike life insurance just about as much as I dislike annuities.

1. insurance is always bad, until something bad happens. now perhaps less risk makes investors more likely to look at a company, though i thoroughly imagine those benefits are offset by taxes.

2. the stop 1% pay nearly half of the taxes in our country, so at ANY point calling them "freeloaders" is simply using the word flippantly and irresponsibly

3. just as you say 20% of someone who makes 20k a year is more important to someone than 20% of someone who makes millions, i fail to believe the direct money transfers, free services, and other public goods (all in a greater proportion provided to the 99%) are in fact less valuable to them, than they are when handed out to a lesser extent, among millionaires. the value they hold is much greater among the 99%

the logic is NOT fine.

the top*

Oh, good thing you made that correction. I truly thought you were talking about the stop 1%.

Don't they realize that red lights shouldn't be a thing. Can't wait until we have the go 100%

Alright, well clearly I'm not going anywhere in this argument since I appear to be arguing with children. When you grow up and learn the value of insurance, do let me know. And Manwe, annuities are a payment structure. What on earth is wrong with that.

JY, I don't disagree with point 3. But fail to see the connection to the other points.

@gold

he's calling them freeloaders, when they're paying for nearly half of all taxes. i mean... even if you think they should pay more, "freeloader" is an entirely unfair term

it's not a connection of the points, it's individual things that slypups said that i disagree with.

and yes i understand insurance is important, though it's a gamble to neutralize something bad, AND it allows for greater security.

i'm just arguing about the total value of that, compared to what the lower 99% receive

Children is plural, but I know you weren't referring to me.

What's wrong with annuities is that they involve you surrendering control of your finances so that someone else can earn a return on your money giving you absolutely no benefit with all of the costs. There's no reason you should put your money into an annuity instead of your own self-managed investment account unless you don't have the self-control to keep your money there or are too lazy to learn the bare minimum required to choose a half-decent mutual/index fund. Disclaimer: This is not a solicitation to buy, sell, or hold any security. All information that has been said is my own personal opinion and for informational purposes only.

Of course the government will seize half the money in annuities and savings accounts to pay for social programs because you are 'rich' if you have either and we cannot have that at all. We must spread the pain and punish the successful who have acquired this wealth!

I think we need to punish Brad specifically.

Manwe - there is not much of any difference, in principle, between an annuity and a bond. So you're saying bond investments are dumb?

Hahaha, I don't know if you intended that pun or not, but it was hilarious. There is a huge difference in principle between an annuity and a bond. In fact, the difference is one of complete opposites. In an annuity, you get 0% of the principle back. In a bond, you get 100% of the principle back (assuming you pay par for it). The difference is night and day. One is a fool's tool while the other is a genuine investment. Disclaimer: This is not a solicitation to buy, sell, or hold any security. My own opinions have been expressed and everything said is for informational purposes only.

Well, you should look up annuities a bit more.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/annuity.asp

Annuities are simply another fixed-investment vehicle and are remarkably stable. Bonds are not guaranteed to get 100% of the principal back either. Bondholders can take haircuts when the underlying institution doesn't do well.

Seriously, I work in finance. You're trying to make apples and oranges out of two different types of apples.

I'm in finance too, and methinks the lady doth protest too much. Do you sell annuities and life insurance or something? If you work in finance, then you should know everything I said is 100% true, but you are trying to make it sound otherwise for some reason.

@over 28,000 people died of terrorism.

Really depends on who you count as a terrorist. Nevermind the adage 'one man's terrorist is another man's terrorist' But you also have state sponsored terrorism, and state terrorism. So Saudi Arabia (US ally) spent some time sponsoring IS, and Russia terrorised Eastern Ukraine, sending weapons and troops to destablise their biggest European neighbour.

Of course i would consider all US military actions to blow up people in foreign countries to be state terrorism. So WAAY more people have dies, because the US (in particular) uses force as an extention of diplomatic power (in the service of economic power).

orathaic you need to get out of that cabin more. Next thing you know you will be sending hand typed letters and funny packages to politicians in the mail

The 10-year U.S. treasury bond and an Apple bond are two different apples. A t-bill and a natural gas bond are even two different apples. But one security classification and another are definitely apples and oranges. You wouldn't say equities and options and apples to apples. Likewise, bonds to annuities are not apples to apples.

Oh, yeah, annuities are real stable all right. They guarantee you sit on a negative NPV (read loss) for many years until you just break even. Super consistent.

And depending on the type of bond, you are guaranteed to get your principle back. They call the rate on the treasuries the risk free rate for a reason. And some of those pay a higher rate than the payout rate on annuities! With guaranteed repayment of principle instead of guaranteed loss of principle!

US driven terror acts? https://theintercept.com/2017/03/17/pentagon-denies-bombing-syrian-mosque-but-its-own-photo-may-prove-that-it-did/