“The expansion of our trade-in program reaffirms our commitment to consistently pursue new ways to bring a better gaming experience to consumers,” said Chris Homeister, senior vice president and general manager for the home entertainment group at Best Buy. “Fall marks the launch of several highly-anticipated gaming titles and new technology, and we’re thrilled to provide gamers with innovative ways to connect with the games they love.”
Consumers can now bring their previously played video games into Best Buy and trade them for an instant Best Buy gift card to use for purchasing anything in the store, including any game or gaming accessory. Soon, they will be able to purchase a pre-owned game as well.
Those who take advantage of the new Trade-In program in store can visit the Customer Service desk, or in select locations a dedicated Trade-In desk within the gaming department, to turn in their games. Best Buy will continue to offer a similar program online at BestBuy.com that enables customers to get estimates for their games, mail them in for free and receive a Best Buy gift card 7-14 days later. Trade-In prices in-store will match the prices shown online.
For more information on Trade-In at Best Buy and to locate a store currently participating in the program, visit www.bestbuy.com/gametradein. Stay connected to Best Buy Gaming via Twitter and Facebook at Twitter.com/RZGamersClub and Facebook.com/BestBuyGaming.
Ezra Klein:
Making Social Security less generous isn't the answer, by Ezra Klein,
Commentary, Washington Post: ...Raising the Social Security retirement age
has become as close to a consensus position as exists in American politics. ...
And for a while, I agreed... People live longer today, and so they should work
later into life. But as I've looked at the issue, I've decided that I was wrong.
... We should leave the retirement age alone. In fact, we should leave Social
Security alone...
Start with the basic rationale for raising the retirement age. As Rep. Paul D.
Ryan (R-Wis.) has argued, when Social Security was signed into law, the
retirement age was 65 and life expectancy was 63. "The numbers added up pretty
well back then," he said on Fox News. But that's misleading. That figure was
driven by high infant mortality. ...
Moreover,... averages conceal a lot of inequality. In 1972, a 60-year-old male
worker who made less than the median income had a life expectancy of 78 years.
By 2001, he had a life expectancy of 80 years. Meanwhile, workers in the top
half of the income distribution shot to 85 years from 79. ...
Lurking beneath this conversation is an unquestioned assumption: We live longer,
so we should work longer. That's pretty intuitive to members of Congress, who
seem to like their jobs and don't seem to like the idea of retiring. It's also
pretty intuitive to blogger/columnists, who spend their time in air-conditioned
rooms opining about pension programs. But most people don't work in Congress or
in the media. They work on their feet. They strain their backs. They're bored
silly at the end of the day. By the time they're in their 60s, they want to
retire.
You see that reflected in Social Security. Age 66 is when you get full benefits.
But most people begin taking Social Security at age 62. They get less, but they
can retire earlier. To them, the trade-off is worth it. ...
An August survey ... tested reactions to a variety of Social Security fixes. One
of the options was raising the retirement age to 70. Two-thirds of respondents
opposed it. Another option was eliminating the cap on payroll taxes so that
well-off workers pay the tax on their full income, just as middle-income workers
do now. A solid 61 percent supported it.
That's almost the reverse of the conversation in Washington, where affluent
people who like their jobs propose cutting benefits for the poor (which is,
after all, what raising the retirement age would do) rather than lowering
benefits or increasing the payroll tax on, well, themselves. ...
The universally unpleasant options for reform are a testament to Social
Security's efficiency. It's a simple transfer program, with administrative costs
that amount to less than 0.9 percent of total spending. There's not much fat to
cut.
That can't be said for much else in American public policy. Our health-care
system costs twice as much as the German system and doesn't deliver better
results. Our defense sector is wasteful and bloated. Our tax code could raise
more money and do less to harm growth if we cleaned it out. Our home prices are
driven upward by the mortgage interest tax deduction. Our health insurance
premiums are goosed by the exclusion of employer-sponsored insurance from
taxable income.
Reforming any of those sectors ... would be politically difficult, but would
mean better policy. Reforming Social Security will be politically difficult and
result in worse policy. ...
Here's what I
argued in May of 2005:
1. An increase in life expectancy does not necessarily imply that people are
healthier at age 65 or 70 than before. Suppose, for example, that medical
advances are discovered that extend the end of life by several years, but have
no effect on health prior to the last few years of life. In such a case there
would be an increase in life expectancy, but no increase in the health of
workers at the age of retirement. If people aren’t healthier, then increasing
the retirement age imposes a hardship over and above that faced by current
retirees.
2. It’s already difficult for elderly workers to find employment, and when
they do they are often underemployed relative to their skill levels. Raising the
retirement age will make this worse.
3. What about workers employed in physically demanding occupations? Is it
reasonable to ask them to work until, say, age 72? If not, how equitable is it
to have some workers work until 72, and others allowed to retire at a younger
age depending on their occupation?
4. Will this distort occupational choice decisions? ... How will we decide
when a worker is unable to work due to reasons associated with age?
5. The life expectancy of some groups of workers is lower than for others. If
poorer workers die younger than richer workers on average, then raising the
retirement age will have a larger impact on low income workers and thus, in
essence, be regressive.
eric seiger
<b>News</b> - Spencer Pratt Arrested in Costa Rica - Celebrity <b>News</b> <b>...</b>
The reality star is busted for felony possession of a firearm Saturday.
<b>News</b> - Mario Lopez Welcomes a Baby Girl, Gia Francesca - Moms <b>...</b>
The Extra host's girlfriend gives birth Saturday in Burbank, Calif.
AMERICAblog <b>News</b>: Microsoft helping Russians stifle progressive <b>...</b>
News and opinion about US politics from a liberal perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment