Bottom left?

[murkrow]

Why do so many of you support social security?

Shouldn't your embracing of the individual's freedoms apply to their earning as well?

Why do you draw the line on money?

[outmywindow]

Shut up.

[Lurker]

Shut up.


Seconded.

[msg_v2]

Because we want to mooch off of your hard work. We're too busy procrastinating to find a job, so we'd rather live off the government. I'd much rather successful people support my lazy habits instead of doing something useful. I secretly resent and hate such people for being better than me, and I don't care if I make them poor as long as I have money to buy beer and pot.

[Corbin]

I'm bottom middle.

[nittanylion302]

Friedman and I are *TIGHT*

[mgb]

Shut up.


Seconded.

Can we have a trial?

It's been a while.

[Hexapodia]

Can we have a trial?

It's been a while.

I missed a trial? Damn.

[Oso Mocoso]

Why do so many of you support social security?

I don't support social security.

[joeb0b]

I don't support social security.

I do, but the goverment forces me to by taking it right out of my paycheck :)

[murkrow]

I don't support social security.

That's great.

Anything to say that isn't dismissive, malicious and absolutely irrelevant?

[outmywindow]

That's great.

Anything to say that isn't dismissive, malicious and absolutely irrelevant?
Wait, are you asking yourself, or Oso?

[Night]

That's great.

Anything to say that isn't dismissive, malicious and absolutely irrelevant?

You seem strangely confused with the summary displeasure being passed your way.

Given your recent threads, I can't imagine why.

[Oso Mocoso]

That's great.

Anything to say that isn't dismissive, malicious and absolutely irrelevant?

You see, this is why no one likes you. You jumped into this thread by making the assumption that the crowd you were addressing supports social security. You didn't think that one through very well, now did you? You were making a logical fallacy known as a straw man argument. My response to your post was to point out that you were basically just full of shit. If you choose to believe that pointing out your bad logic is "dismissive, malicious, and absolutely irrelevant" than you go do that.

My advice to you? Go to a local college and take a course on logic. Seriously, it might help.

[garak]

This philosophical crap about individual rights, property, freedom, whatever -- haven't you grown out of that yet? Yeah it sounds nice in theory, but I think history has shown that it's a joke. Life is about powerful, corrupt people sticking it up the ass of everyone else, and about how to keep them from doing that too much. The rest is just a bunch of quaint dogma to keep naive people busy going nowhere.

[murkrow]

You see, this is why no one likes you. You jumped into this thread by making the assumption that the crowd you were addressing supports social security. You didn't think that one through very well, now did you? You were making a logical fallacy known as a straw man argument. My response to your post was to point out that you were basically just full of shit. If you choose to believe that pointing out your bad logic is "dismissive, malicious, and absolutely irrelevant" than you go do that.

My advice to you? Go to a local college and take a course on logic. Seriously, it might help.

There is a thread with a poll where more than 50% of the members of the forum have shown as left wing liberals.

I didn't assume anything.

[MadamI'madaM]

Lots of social security goes to people who literally cannot generate income.

What becomes of them? Are you sociopathic in addition to being republican?


Where does one draw the line between "literally cannot" and "basically cannot"? Should a person be expected to move away from his or her family with only a knapsack in search of the next shitty service job in the next run down slum?

EDIT: I love how the bourgeosie honestly believe that if we stop giving them money and feeding them, all the world's poor will just simply crawl into their crevices and wither away in silence. Or that if we simply exterminated every last one of the unwashed, it would prove to have been a fluke and never happen again.

RE-EDIT: In fact, if you take into account the homelessness associated with mass displacement of the poor, the possible resulting civil unrest, and the even scarier prospects of an entirely revamped socialist system, the current model of basic maintenance may actually be the cheapest way to immediately deal with our problems.

[garak]

Lots of social security goes to people who literally cannot generate income.

What becomes of them? Are you sociopathic in addition to being republican?

We're all pretty sociopathic since we generally leave our crippled and elderly family members to be cared for by strangers. Paying them cash, and even then generally only because we're looking forward to getting some of that cash ourselves later on, is hardly a warm gesture.

Western society (and well, the human race) is pretty cold and heartless in a lot of ways and you're probably as guilty as anyone.

[BrianBear]

It's a good system to take care of the elderly....too bad it'll be gone before I get old enough to use it though.



We're all pretty sociopathic since we generally leave our crippled and elderly family members to be cared for by strangers. Paying them cash, and even then generally only because we're looking forward to getting some of that cash ourselves later on, is hardly a warm gesture.

Western society (and well, the human race) is pretty cold and heartless in a lot of ways and you're probably as guilty as anyone.
I don't think it's so much cold and heartless as it is selfish. People are motivated by self interest, if an action does not benefit the person in some way they won't do it. Even pure acts of kindness are motivated by the feeling of joy they get from helping another person not the actual act of them being helped.

[MadamI'madaM]

We're all pretty sociopathic since we generally leave our crippled and elderly family members to be cared for by strangers. Paying them cash, and even then generally only because we're looking forward to getting some of that cash ourselves later on, is hardly a warm gesture.

Western society (and well, the human race) is pretty cold and heartless in a lot of ways and you're probably as guilty as anyone.

Sure, but I refuse to even jokingly bitch about the measly little tax taken out of my check. And what is and is not "heartless" is largely a psychological construct of society over time. I was alluding to the end of the day dollars to watts/calories. They must come from somewhere. To insinuate that social programs are essentially money wasted on lazy freeriders is childish and uninformed before it's sociopathic. I was just making a republican joke.

[garak]

Sure, but I refuse to even jokingly bitch about the measly little tax taken out of my check. And what is and is not "heartless" is largely a psychological construct of society over time. I was alluding to the end of the day dollars to watts/calories. They must come from somewhere. To insinuate that social programs are essentially money wasted on lazy freeriders is childish and uninformed before it's sociopathic. I was just making a republican joke.

I thought the OP was asking a somewhat deeper question about the government using violence and oppression to force people into collectivizing their welfare to some extent, and the implications of this on personal freedoms and rights and whether or not it's worth it. A question about personal freedoms and mere "bitching" about your paycheck seem somewhat disparate.

[MadamI'madaM]

I thought the OP was asking a somewhat deeper question about the government using violence and oppression to force people into collectivizing their welfare to some extent, and the implications of this on personal freedoms and rights and whether or not it's worth it. A question about personal freedoms and mere "bitching" about your paycheck seem somewhat disparate.

I guess where you gleaned an ages old debate about individuals v. the state (which a person is expected to grow out of young, you say), I just read a load of played out republican horse shit.

You were probably closer to the original intent, but it's basically founded on being a young or uninformed republican, the way I see it.

I understand the big picture, but I think more kids would go hungry in the "free market" than militias have been annihilated for tax evasion.

[F35Ace]

I think the point that needs to be made is politics is all a bunch of BS and we will always be screwed by the government in one way or the other.

Just my 2 pennies :gm:

[rawr]

I'm the resident asshole capitalist. Quit trying to move in on my territory.

[murkrow]

I guess where you gleaned an ages old debate about individuals v. the state (which a person is expected to grow out of young, you say), I just read a load of played out republican horse shit.

You were probably closer to the original intent, but it's basically founded on being a young or uninformed republican, the way I see it.

I understand the big picture, but I think more kids would go hungry in the "free market" than militias have been annihilated for tax evasion.

I'm a Canadian.


Do you really think that there would be no privately organized charities to support the poor and elderly?

I love how every single topic I bring up on this forum is greeted with attacks on my personality and a general ignoring of the questions asked on basis of their immaturity/trollishness/republicanism.

The way you see it is prejudiced and ignorant.

If you care so much about kids going hungry then start a charity and dedicate your life to feeding them. That is your prerogative. I don't understand what it is about your charitable ideas that should force me to succumb to them.

[MadamI'madaM]

I'm a Canadian.

whoops, forgot (wonder how that happened?)



Do you really think that there would be no privately organized charities to support the poor and elderly?

I would turn that around and ask you if you really think people apply for SSI and welfare just for fun. There isn't enough charity for the dregs and the destitute to sustainably benefit from. In the absence of their meager sustainence from the state, do you really think self interested individuals such as yourself would actually step in to pick up the slack? Is that not essentially the same thing as before, assuming lots of people didn't actually die or become homeless from reduced aid? But, of course, nothing matters except your forfeiture of chump change. Chump change that wouldn't mean jack shit without the governmental bodies taking it from you. If your survival is riding on said chump change, then you should make sure you aren't legally entitled to any money before knocking the whole idea.

privatization in this realm equates to little more than monetary NIMBY. Like it or not, it's all our problem to deal with in one way or another. I personally don't care for riots.


If you care so much about kids going hungry then start a charity and dedicate your life to feeding them. That is your prerogative. I don't understand what it is about your charitable ideas that should force me to succumb to them.

If you care so much about the infringed rights of the middle class and the wealthy, then start a blog about the Fed and NWO stealing your precious chump change, and leave us alone.

[murkrow]

I would turn that around and ask you if you really think people apply for SSI and welfare just for fun. There isn't enough charity for the dregs and the destitute to sustainably benefit from. In the absence of their meager sustainence from the state, do you really think self interested individuals such as yourself would actually step in to pick up the slack? Is that not essentially the same thing as before, assuming lots of people didn't actually die or become homeless from reduced aid? But, of course, nothing matters except your forfeiture of chump change. Chump change that wouldn't mean jack shit without the governmental bodies taking it from you. If your survival is riding on said chump change, then you should make sure you aren't legally entitled to any money before knocking the whole idea.
The entire social welfare program is charity, government enforced charity. The fact that the streets aren't up in arms against this charity means that there is enough of a charitable feeling in the populace that even if such programs were no enforced there would be money given to the poor. You act as if the government is this body entirely separate from the people, but it's a representation of the majority's inclinations.


privatization in this realm equates to little more than monetary NIMBY. Like it or not, it's all our problem to deal with in one way or another. I personally don't care for riots.
Who the heck is going to be rioted against if the government is not allowed to support public programs?
Like it or not the "I don't like riots" argument is the same as the "give terrorists, kidnappers and criminals what they want or they might hurt us" argument. Is your ideal state really the one that cowers to the threat of force?




If you care so much about the infringed rights of the middle class and the wealthy, then start a blog about the Fed and NWO stealing your precious chump change, and leave us alone.
I care about the infringed rights of all classes. And the last time I checked this was a forum for political discussion, not political ear plugging/yelling.

[walfin]

Why do so many of you support social security?

Shouldn't your embracing of the individual's freedoms apply to their earning as well?

Why do you draw the line on money?

murkrow,
a piece of advice.

If you start off a thread being confrontational and dismissive, people will be confrontational and dismissive to you. Simple.

From your OP, I can deduce some entirely baseless assumptions you make:
1. (Too) Many people support social security
2. Social Security=>Not supporting economic freedoms
3. We draw lines

When you post a message showing utter disregard for everyone else's views, the only thing you can expect is people showing utter contempt for your views. You don't ask people what their views are: rather you just assume that everyone else must be wrong and then proceed to impose your views on others. And you go on to say the posters here are irrelevant/etc/etc. This is a bad attitude to have not just on this forum but in life in general. Go sit in the corner and don't come back until you feel sufficiently penitent. Don't be naughty again, OK? :stupid:

[ghost]

All I really want to say is facepalm.jpg

But I guess I'll bite:

"Do you really think that there would be no privately organized charities to support the poor and elderly?"

No. I think there would be a lot. And each one of them would require an office, administration and other fees. Most of them would be run inefficiently, and would not be incorporated with programs designed to help people long-term (education programs, apprenticeships, job search networks, work for the dole, study allowances, disability pensions etc.)

Most of them would probably have religious affiliation, who would pay more attention to recruiting fresh meat, rather than actually helping people.

And eventually all of them would fail - all of the fees used to set up each separate organisation would be a waste. And the staff who worked at them would all be unemployed. Wouldn't it be more logical for all that money be pooled into a single organisation?

How do you expect private organisations to keep data on all of their customers? To ensure funds are going into sustainable programmes that reach those most in need? What about privacy issues and red tape? Wouldn't a government-run system be more efficient?

I'd rather pay higher taxes, and use the money that would've been wasted on alcohol or video games to support a single, well-structured, efficient welfare system. I'd rather not have homeless people lingering in my doorway and threatening to stab me for small change.

[murkrow]

Do you really need to be babied so thoroughly?

I have asked the questions I would like answers to so that I will be able to understand the leftist perspective.

Yes, all of those are assumptions I make, and they haven't been proven wrong.

The first one is obviously a point of opinion, but the other two aren't.

Total economic freedom=zero taxation, therefore the more taxes there are the less economic freedom there is.

You obviously support personal freedoms in most or all other fields but not in economics. Whether or not you are actively aware of the line there, it's still there.


Let's look at some of your assumptions.

1. I disregard the views of others.
2. In all situations that I bring up a topic in this way it is greeted with similar responses.
3. I don't ask people what their views are. (this one is really ridiculous considering all I did was ask questions.)

Oh and then you went on to insult me, which is exactly what you told me not to do.

[MadamI'madaM]

The entire social welfare program is charity, government enforced charity. The fact that the streets aren't up in arms against this charity means that there is enough of a charitable feeling in the populace that even if such programs were no enforced there would be money given to the poor. You act as if the government is this body entirely separate from the people, but it's a representation of the majority's inclinations.
Charity cannot be forced, the word loses meaning. I would say the reason people aren't shooting/marching in the street over forfeited chump change is not because they're absolutely smitten with the cause, but because it is, ultimately, chump change.


Who the heck is going to be rioted against if the government is not allowed to support public programs?
Like it or not the "I don't like riots" argument is the same as the "give terrorists, kidnappers and criminals what they want or they might hurt us" argument. Is your ideal state really the one that cowers to the threat of force?
I get what you mean about the convolution of the issue, but people won't just lose their residence on a massive scale without some anger. Usually, there's a pretty agreed upon group of people who decided or lead to any given course of action. When both of these people live within walking distance of eachother, ugly shit can go down. A burned down house is worth lots more than chump change, and I doubt your insurance covers it.




I care about the infringed rights of all classes. And the last time I checked this was a forum for political discussion, not political ear plugging/yelling.
Actually, you don't at all care about the disabled and elderly's legal right to vital resources.

[murkrow]

No. I think there would be a lot. And each one of them would require an office, administration and other fees. Most of them would be run inefficiently, and would not be incorporated with programs designed to help people long-term (education programs, apprenticeships, job search networks, work for the dole, study allowances, disability pensions etc.)

Most of them would probably have religious affiliation, who would pay more attention to recruiting fresh meat, rather than actually helping people.

And eventually all of them would fail - all of the fees used to set up each separate organisation would be a waste. And the staff who worked at them would all be unemployed. Wouldn't it be more logical for all that money be pooled into a single organisation?

like any private venture, only the well organized and well conceived charities would succeed and thrive. I see no problem with religiously founded charities, if the followers of the religious choose to donate their money it is their choice to do so, just as it is their choice to follow the religion.
Either system has it's pitfalls, the government system's employee requirements will likely drop quickly as technology advances but the responsibility of the government to keep them employed will require unnecessary taxation and possible inefficient service. The lack of competition in the field of charity means that the government can organize itself however it sees fit and appoint unsuitable men to important positions without any risk of losing their income.



How do you expect private organisations to keep data on all of their customers? To ensure funds are going into sustainable programmes that reach those most in need? What about privacy issues and red tape? Wouldn't a government-run system be more efficient?
I see no difference in the government having the power to know everything about you and what you obviously see as a horrible scenario with the corporations having that same power. Why not simply have all information volunteered to the charities, are you afraid that the poor will be too ashamed to apply?



I'd rather pay higher taxes, and use the money that would've been wasted on alcohol or video games to support a single, well-structured, efficient welfare system. I'd rather not have homeless people lingering in my doorway and threatening to stab me for small change.

I'd rather pay lower taxes and give that extra money to charities that I have researched and am confident in, not the officials elected by a group of people I do not agree with on nearly anything and who my only connection to is a shared passport layout.

Or I could just give it to the neighborhood watch to keep the homeless guy off my porch, or to the homeless guy himself, or keep it and buy that video game.

[murkrow]

I get what you mean about the convolution of the issue, but people won't just lose their residence on a massive scale without some anger. Usually, there's a pretty agreed upon group of people who decided or lead to any given course of action. When both of these people live within walking distance of eachother, ugly shit can go down. A burned down house is worth lots more than chump change, and I doubt your insurance covers it.

Actually, you don't at all care about the disabled and elderly's legal right to vital resources.

I do care about them, I'd just like to care about them without my own rights being undermined.

If the issue you have with this is the logistical problems of transferring the system from government control to private control then I really think it's ridiculous to not support the change. I would gladly pay twice what I do in taxes (which is a lot by the way) for a year to a building charity in order to finance their handling of the privatization switch, and I'm sure that many others who share my views would do the same.

[MadamI'madaM]

If the issue you have with this is the logistical problems of transferring the system from government control to private control then I really think it's ridiculous to not support the change. I would gladly pay twice what I do in taxes (which is a lot by the way) for a year to a building charity in order to finance their handling of the privatization switch, and I'm sure that many others who share my views would do the same.

Actually, the only other countries likely to be that naive about privatization would probably need the charity more than our poverty class.

I mean, fuck, would you actually like to haggle with three different firms about a binding contract to pick up your trash? That's the beauty of privatization. So much money would be wasted on petty competition(advertisement/publicity). And I don't know what it's like in Canada, but over here private firms are less regulated than the government.

I'm having a hard time getting to the root of your stance. Are you against all taxation, or only when it's spent pro-socially? Because if squandering of tax funds really miffs you, then there are much more worthy gripes than social services.

[murkrow]

Actually, the only other countries likely to be that naive about privatization would probably need the charity more than our poverty class.

I mean, fuck, would you actually like to haggle with three different firms about a binding contract to pick up your trash? That's the beauty of privatization. So much money would be wasted on petty competition(advertisement/publicity).

Yes, I do want to haggle. And I don't think there's such a thing as petty competition.



I'm having a hard time getting to the root of your stance. Are you against all taxation, or only when it's spent pro-socially? Because if squandering of tax funds really miffs you, then there are much more worthy gripes than social services.

I have plenty of time to spend.
I am curious what it is about social programs that people are so attached to.
I am trying to keep an open mind about leftist politics.
I am against all unnecessary taxation. (which may very well be all.)

[ghost]

like any private venture, only the well organized and well conceived charities would succeed and thrive. I see no problem with religiously founded charities, if the followers of the religious choose to donate their money it is their choice to do so, just as it is their choice to follow the religion.
Either system has it's pitfalls, the government system's employee requirements will likely drop quickly as technology advances but the responsibility of the government to keep them employed will require unnecessary taxation and possible inefficient service. The lack of competition in the field of charity means that the government can organize itself however it sees fit and appoint unsuitable men to important positions without any risk of losing their income.

k

Edit: nm.
2nd Edit: Actually.... why not? "it's pitfalls"



I see no difference in the government having the power to know everything about you and what you obviously see as a horrible scenario with the corporations having that same power. Why not simply have all information volunteered to the charities, are you afraid that the poor will be too ashamed to apply?

No. I'm not paranoid about corporations having power. That would be a security nightmare, but more importantly, completely inefficient. Imagine having hundreds of different charities that all have access to personal data. They would all need to be constantly updated, communicating with each other and keeping track of who is being supported by what charity. Customer details would be accessible to most likely anyone who worked in a charity. It would be complete chaos.



I'd rather pay lower taxes and give that extra money to charities that I have researched and am confident in, not the officials elected by a group of people I do not agree with on nearly anything and who my only connection to is a shared passport layout.

No matter how much confidence you have in a charity, it still requires set-up, maintenance, and running costs, before it actually gets around to helping people. There is no point for each organisation to pay this money over and over again. It's a waste.

Maybe giving $10 to a charity every week would make you feel good about yourself. Meanwhile, people will be unemployed, homeless and hungry.

I knew I should've just gone with facepalm.jpg

[MadamI'madaM]

Yes, I do want to haggle. And I don't think there's such a thing as petty competition.
So, if the goal is to support the needy, and you don't want to do it through the state all enforced like, then you don't think 10% of charitable income being spent on advertisement (since it would NEED advertisement, beyond the petty competitive element) is a waste of needed funds? It basically requires higher input for the same effect.

[murkrow]

I don't care if it costs me more, I just want to control my earnings.

[MadamI'madaM]

I don't care if it costs me more, I just want to control my earnings.

Most people will have a hard time believing that.

If everyone controlled their earnings, then we'd be living under a feudal system. Which is close to what we have now, only completely disorganized.

Funny thing is, the Lords would be the exact same group of people taking your chump change, and there would be no reason to give a cent of it to your lame aunt in Vancouver, who would rely completely on the pity of strangers. (i.e. DIE)

[murkrow]

Ummm...

How in the world would we be living under a feudal system?!

[MadamI'madaM]

Ummm...

How in the world would we be living under a feudal system?!

You seem to value the concept of unregulated, 100% control over private funds. If this had always been the case throughout history, money and resources would not be so diffuse, and the average citizen would actually have control over fuckall. Also, organized states would not exist for lack of levied funds. The only reason you even have the limited rights over your wages today is because a fuckload of people got shot hundreds of years ago. I guess someone had to be willing to die for chump change.

[murkrow]

...

So in your mind the only possible situations are those that exist in the past and present?

There is no system that has not been tried or idea not yet conceived?

[MadamI'madaM]

...

So in your mind the only possible situations are those that exist in the past and present?

There is no system that has not been tried or idea not yet conceived?

Everyone wishes for what you do: a modern, efficient technological society with equal rights for everyone where nobody is cheated or starving. This requires two basic, yet impossible ingredients: bountiful resources and human goodness.

You can rewrite the rules and crunch the numbers over and over, but it comes down to two crude models. Either everyone has a little something, or there's a variable gradient of those with a lot down to those with nothing. As much as I love communism, it's a pipe dream. Greedy deuchebags are going to take their hard-inherited goods and resources to the grave with them, as you would your chump change if you had the choice. In this imperfect world of greedy assholes, privatization and deregulation are bad for anyone who doesn't own a shitload of shares in the blooming industry.

Let me backpeddle a bit and make clear that I don't believe in the goodness of mankind, and I sort of wonder if the reason the state reappropriates our funds to the needy is because they're pretty damn sure it's the only way it would ever happen and they understand the consequences of social collapse.

With that, I cease my end of the argument, and await mgb to (rightfully) call me a tool for responding.

[murkrow]

Your idea of a "goodness" which is beyond mankind is ridiculous.

If mankind is not capable of the "goodness" you want then there is another level of "goodness" which mankind can attain, and that's what should be considered "goodness".

I am glad you have revealed to me the fact that you are a communist, that is the one word that makes me stop arguing and start pitying.

[MadamI'madaM]

I am glad you have revealed to me the fact that you are a communist, that is the one word that makes me stop arguing and start pitying.

Cool, I'm all about equity.

[murkrow]

Hahahahaha!

Life must be simple when your ideals are such light burden.

[MadamI'madaM]

Hahahahaha!

Life must be simple when your ideals are such light burden.

What do you believe in?

Some bullshit haveyourcashandspendittoo take on anarchy/libertarianism?

And I said I don't think it's workable, only that equality in ownership and power would result in a more perfect society. You know, where people aren't all in a huff about the few thousand dollars a year they never really owned in the first place.

[murkrow]

A society without competition, ambition or result of opinion.

If you see a perfect society in the workings of ants then I totally support your pursuit of that in a nation that I will have no connection to.

Yes, some bullshit take on anarchy and libertarianism. I believe in a system which allows human beings to be human beings.

My desire has people not being in a huff about a few thousand dollars a year too, btw.

[Lateralus]

Charity cannot be forced, the word loses meaning. I would say the reason people aren't shooting/marching in the street over forfeited chump change is not because they're absolutely smitten with the cause, but because it is, ultimately, chump change.
Chump change? I disagree. The amount of social security tax (6.2%) you see on your pay check is actually only half of the real tax. The employer is responsible for the other half, which is a factor in your (reduced) salary. I don't think 12.4% of my paycheck is chump change. Would you mind giving me some of your chump change? I mean, since it's not really that meaningful to you.

Social security is also very, very flawed with its wealth redistribution. Many beneficiaries are nowhere close to the poverty level, yet they receive benefits. And the tax...there's an income cap, so anyone upper-middle class or higher will be paying a lower (effective) tax rate than the poor, then they'll be eligible for the same benefits when they hit retirement age. Yes, social security is a major screw job for the poor.

If the government wanted to make the system more effective with its wealth redistribution, it should allow an exemption, similar to income taxes, then remove the income cap. That way, the poor have a lower (effective) tax rate. The government should also include assets in determining if someone is eligible for benefits. Just because your reported income is small does not mean you're poor, because some incredibly wealthy people have low incomes. Many retirees own their own homes (with no mortgage), but they receive the same benefits as those who don't.

Something I would love to see is how much revenue the social security tax brings in, and how much is paid out in benefits.

[MadamI'madaM]

Chump change? I disagree. The amount of social security tax (6.2%) you see on your pay check is actually only half of the real tax. The employer is responsible for the other half, which is a factor in your (reduced) salary. I don't think 12.4% of my paycheck is chump change. Would you mind giving me some of your chump change? I mean, since it's not really that meaningful to you.

Social security is also very, very flawed with its wealth redistribution. Many beneficiaries are nowhere close to the poverty level, yet they receive benefits. And the tax...there's an income cap, so anyone upper-middle class or higher will be paying a lower (effective) tax rate than the poor, then they'll be eligible for the same benefits when they hit retirement age. Yes, social security is a major screw job for the poor.

If the government wanted to make the system more effective with its wealth redistribution, it should allow an exemption, similar to income taxes, then remove the income cap. That way, the poor have a lower (effective) tax rate. The government should also include assets in determining if someone is eligible for benefits. Just because your reported income is small does not mean you're poor. Many retirees own their own homes (with no mortgage), but they receive the same benefits as those who don't.

Yes, the American Social Security program is really fucked, but I don't think privatization is the answer. Might as well just call the whole thing off. I was just shitting on murkrow.


Something I would love to see is how much revenue the social security tax brings in, and how much is paid out in benefits.
Shady figures, to be sure.

[Lateralus]

Yes, the American Social Security program is really fucked, but I don't think privatization is the answer. Might as well just call the whole thing off. I was just shitting on murkrow.
Privatization is more likely to occur than a dismantling of the program. We won't see the program dismantled until it collapses. And the more immigrants we bring in (younger than baby boomers), the longer it will be until the system collapses.

[Pier della Vigna]

Why do so many of you support social security?

Shouldn't your embracing of the individual's freedoms apply to their earning as well?

Why do you draw the line on money?


Because you need money to live and everone has the right to live.

A civilized state cannot kill a person (no to death penalty!) or let somebody die without providing some help (health should be free).

[Pier della Vigna]

you are a communist, that is the one word that makes me stop arguing and start pitying.

Why?

[Ptah]

Because you need money to live and everone has the right to live.

And so it follows that its the state's responsibility to hand it out or manage it? How?

[Lateralus]

Because you need money to live and everone has the right to live.

A civilized state cannot kill a person (no to death penalty!) or let somebody die without providing some help (health should be free).
I'm not sure how a 'right to live' translates to society forcing me to provide for others. As far as I'm concerned, 'right to live' means that I can't murder you. If you start to consider indirect consequences of my actions (like I use 'too much' electricity, which causes power companies to use more coal, which increases pollution, which could cause you to develop a respiratory disorder, resulting in your death), you're beginning to tread into some dangerous territory. The possibilities are increasingly subjective and infinite. You could say we're all killing each other with every action we take.

[murkrow]

A civilized state cannot kill a person (no to death penalty!) or let somebody die without providing some help (health should be free).

So what you really mean is: A civilized state is absolutely responsible for the physical health of all it's citizens. The choices and personal preferences of the citizens is secondary.

Would you rather a very nice dictator?

[Pier della Vigna]

So what you really mean is: A civilized state is absolutely responsible for the physical health of all it's citizens. The choices and personal preferences of the citizens is secondary.

Would you rather a very nice dictator?

The right to make choices and have preferences is a fundamental right, but as every right is available only for living people (I don't think corpses can make a lot of choices).
If somebody decides to die, it's ok. But nobody should die if he doesn't want and if it's possible to save him.

A good state has to provide to all the citizens fundamental rights: free health care, a home, economical support for those who have not a job.
The only way to grant these rights is with welfare.

[Ptah]

A good state has to provide to all the citizens fundamental rights: free health care, a home, economical support for those who have not a job.
The only way to grant these rights is with welfare.

"Fundamental rights" include free health, home and economic support? And from where do these amenities come to each citizen? At the cost of every other. Where does "freedom" fall here, exactly?

[Pier della Vigna]

(POINT1)I'm not sure how a 'right to live' translates to society forcing me to provide for others.

(POINT2) As far as I'm concerned, 'right to live' means that I can't murder you. If you start to consider indirect consequences of my actions (like I use 'too much' electricity, which causes power companies to use more coal, which increases pollution, which could cause you to develop a respiratory disorder, resulting in your death), you're beginning to tread into some dangerous territory. The possibilities are increasingly subjective and infinite. You could say we're all killing each other with every action we take.

1)You don't directly provide for others, you pay taxes to help the state providing for others. I'm speaking (for example) about health care and stuff like that.

2)I wasn't speaking about this, but it's an interesting point to discuss about.
Every action has a consequence. If you care about consequences you're a wonderful person, but you shouldn't be forced.
State and politicians should care about consequences, making decisions.
(For example they can choose different kind of technologies to produce electricity).

[Lateralus]

A good state has to provide to all the citizens fundamental rights: free health care, a home, economical support for those who have not a job.
The only way to grant these rights is with welfare.
When did 'free' health care become a fundamental right? I thought fundamental rights were rights that didn't require anything of others, like free speech and religion. The right to free speech doesn't require any sort of financial support from others, neither does freedom of religion. 'Free' health care does.

[Pier della Vigna]

"Fundamental rights" include free health, home and economic support? And from where do these amenities come to each citizen? At the cost of every other. Where does "freedom" fall here, exactly?


For example in Italy (I'm not nationalist, but it's the case I know the best) your right to health is granted as much as possible if you're poor too.

What does freedom means? To pay only a few taxes also if you're very rich?
The results of such a statement probably would be extreme freedom for the rich and extreme poverty (and maybe death) for poor people.

[murkrow]

If you're not nationalist does that mean you would support a globally enforced social services tax?

[Thevenin]

One of the things I regularly observe about economic and political arguments here and elsewhere is that very few people argue from the middle when they start a thread. Interestingly, I can understand an INTP doing this because s/he often will take a position s/he doesn't necessarily believe in just to explore ideas and provoke discussion. However, having started a number of companies and having been financially successful, I can tell you that there are a lot of assholes out there ready to screw the hell out of you had they "total economic freedom." Economic systems are extremely complex and the concepts of "economic freedom" and the free market are unattainable ideals. Instead, we have relative "economic freedom" and relatively free markets because of the absolute necessity for regulation in our economic systems to, basically, protect us from the assholes out there. It is extremely naive to believe we don't need regulation and taxation to have a stable, balanced system. And what I mean by naive is someone who hasn't experienced damage or pain from the little Hitlers out there, or the narcissists who would sooner slap down INTP's than accept their counsel. A totally free economy with no rules and operational costs quickly becomes a primitive, brutal system and, in such a hypothetical situation, I guess most of the people here would be among the first losers.

Currently, we are experiencing what happens when there has been too little regulation applied to the economy. The mistakes of the greedy morons are now affecting all of us. Imagine giving $500K mortgages to people making only $20,000 a year. Ultimately, the challenge is to have just enough regulation and just enough taxation for an economy to operate most efficiently but with a margin of safety and control. Anyway, on that note, it should be mentioned that social security has never been intended to be anything more than a safety net. It's not something anyone would want to rely on as a single source of sustenance.

[walfin]

A civilized state cannot kill a person (no to death penalty!) or let somebody die without providing some help (health should be free).
Yay! My country is uncivilised. I knew it all along.


And what I mean by naive is someone who hasn't experienced damage or pain from the little Hitlers out there, or the narcissists who would sooner slap down INTP's than accept their counsel.
To be fair to the Other Types, we should replace INTPs with "Good People". :)


If you're not nationalist does that mean you would support a globally enforced social services tax?
You know, I haven't encountered murkrow a great deal, but I know now what people mean when they say he gives ENTJs a bad name.
It's like, If it's not a dog, does that mean it likes to chase mice? Then after that he scolds everyone for saying that Is Not Dog does not imply Is Cat.

[M.L.Fay]

...

You know, I haven't encountered murkrow a great deal, but I know now what people mean when they say he gives ENTJs a bad name.
It's like, If it's not a dog, does that mean it likes to chase mice? Then after that he scolds everyone for saying that Is Not Dog does not imply Is Cat.

I have friend who's ENTJ, and he agrues quite similar to murkrow. Sometimes I tell him that I find him to be rude and that he appears to be an asshole to people. He isn't, though. It's just his way of communicating - and that it's different from mine.

Here people sometimes seem very thin-skinned. Probably reality takes a hard toll on some of us. Makes us become bitter.

[Pier della Vigna]

When did 'free' health care become a fundamental right? I thought fundamental rights were rights that didn't require anything of others, like free speech and religion. The right to free speech doesn't require any sort of financial support from others, neither does freedom of religion. 'Free' health care does.

Maybe we have just different opinions on this problem. From my point of view equality it's an important value. I think that a society where rich persons are less rich but everyone has free (or almost free) health care granted, is better than a society with a few rich people having everything and a lot of poor persons.

If a state exist is to avoid excessive social inequalities too, I think. Yes, free speech is a really important right, but, like I've said before, this right is granted only if you're not dead.
I think that the right to health is just more important than economical freedom.

[Pier della Vigna]

If you're not nationalist does that mean you would support a globally enforced social services tax?

Before making a decision I'd like to know how this globally enforced social services tax would work (in detail I mean).

[Spring]

Why do you draw the line on money?

If you genuinely wish to understand the leftist libertarian perspective and why so many people on this particular forum are dismissive of your neoliberalism then I suggest you read some Chomsky. A very good book to read is "Profit over People: Global Order and Neoliberalism".

Just my 2 cents. :grin:

[Dark Razor]

Currently, we are experiencing what happens when there has been too little regulation applied to the economy. The mistakes of the greedy morons are now affecting all of us. Imagine giving $500K mortgages to people making only $20,000 a year. Ultimately, the challenge is to have just enough regulation and just enough taxation for an economy to operate most efficiently but with a margin of safety and control. Anyway, on that note, it should be mentioned that social security has never been intended to be anything more than a safety net. It's not something anyone would want to rely on as a single source of sustenance.

I think what we are currently experiencing shows that the system forces the public to bail out the private financial institutions, if their losses are too great, to prevent systemic collapse of the economy. This way profit remains privatized while losses and costs become socialized, working as designed.

What should happen, among other things, is the abolishment of corporate personhood, so that leaders of corporations and financial institutions are personaly responsible for what they do. Currently failure is not sanctioned at all if you are high enough up the ladder. In fact managers who are epic fail are frequently rewarded with more money as a good-bye-gift than a normal worker earns over his entire life time. Instead they should be send to labor camps for life so they can pay for some of the damage they caused through providing productive labor. Ah the sweet fantasies.



Would you support a global social services tax?

Absolutely. If we have a global economy, then we also need an equally global regulation body and also global taxes as redistribution and equalizing mechanism.

Neither is currently in place, therefor nations (or groups of nations) use other means to protect themself from the dangers of unrestricted trade: protectionism. Import tariffs and certain taxes are used to protect local industry from foreign competition. Without it the fate of a nation would be largely at the mercy of outside forces, often far away and even out of reach for the military of that nation.

In fact you can observe a distinct pattern in the world, those that have used protectionist measures for a long time, and continue to use them today are the most prosperous and powerful countries.

They use their power to impose "free trade" on other countries, mainly the "third world". The rich nations force weaker ones to open their borders to first world products while at the same time closing their's to products of the third world. Though industrialized coutries also use protectionist measures against each other, of course. The EU has a common market largely without trade barriers, but is strongly protectionist towards the outside.

This keeps the local industries of the poor countries down, which keeps living standards, and thereby wages, low there as well. This in turn guaranties "cheap labor" (essentially outsourced slavery) for global corporations and the first world nations and artificially raises the living standards of the first world masses. Now that the masses there are turned into well-fed, complacent consumo-zombies, they have less incentive to rebel against their rulers, and do also have an interest in preserving the aforementioned global order.

This order of exploitation however cannot easily be changed, because if we just removed all borders to trade then we would also largely remove the ability of nations and people to direct their own destiny, unless there is a global redistribution mechanism.

Of course the question whether one wants a society where there is a redistribution of wealth that creates a more equal standard of living for all people, or whether one wants a cut-throat society in which everyone is out for himself and in which there are only big winners and big loosers is a question of values and not of logic. However, people should consider that there can only be very few big winners and that there would be many more hard working, big loosers living in extreme poverty, and they should consider as which of the two they would likely end up and choose the system they want to support accordingly.

To make it short, I think that left wing policies have more supporters because these policies are in the interest of the many, while right wing policies mainly benefit the few. If the actual support differs from this, it is probably the result of propaganda.

Of course, many social reforms have been implemented by conservatives in the past, but only to tame the masses. These reforms would not have happend had it not been for left wing political groups threating the conservative's power.

[garak]

Wow, the INFJs really cleaned this thread up. Excellent work.

[Thevenin]

I think what we are currently experiencing shows that the system forces the public to bail out the private financial institutions, if their losses are too great, to prevent systemic collapse of the economy. This way profit remains privatized while losses and costs become socialized, working as designed.

You're right. When the government bails out a bank or organizations like Ginny Mae and Freddy Mac, it is socializing risk. Yet, the profits remain private (i.e., for the benefit of stockholders). The true, consistent conservative position would be to let these organizations fail. But, it is only in this kind of situation where certain conservatives believe in welfare, corporate welfare, that is. So, as the saying goes, for these organizations it's, "heads we win, tails you lose."

[Dark Razor]

You're right. When the government bails out a bank or organizations like Ginny Mae and Freddy Mac, it is socializing risk. Yet, the profits remain private (i.e., for the benefit of stockholders). The true, consistent conservative position would be to let these organizations fail. But, it is only in this kind of situation where certain conservatives believe in welfare, corporate welfare, that is. So, as the saying goes, for these organizations it's, "heads we win, tails you lose."

The problem, though, is that you cannot let them fail without causing severe problems, or even cascading collapse, for/of the entire economy.

A good strategy for certain players, like powerful financial institutions, is to maneuver yourself in a position where you are indispensable to the function of a crucial sector of the economy, so that the state has to support you no matter what, or otherwise face serious damage.

The key is therefor to limit the influence of any one instuitution or company so that it cannot gain a sufficient amount of power or influence to take the whole system down with it. Since money and property = power it boils down to a limitation to the amount of wealth, however constituted, that any one person or institution is permitted to accumulate.

Personal profit above a certain threshold is detrimental to the whole of society and the resulting wealth above that threshold needs to be administered by some governmental body that distributes it according to where it is most urgently needed in the context of the common good. The "common good" is not a waste btw, it also means the good of you and me. This redistribution is usually refered to as taxes and social security payments. There are however severe problems with rich people evading taxes, which needs to be severely punished.

If we for example compare the losses to the state caused by terrorism and those caused by tax evasion, we will notice that the damage caused by not paying taxes is actually much greater, and should be persecuted accordingly.

Tax heavens need to be eradicted as well. It should be very easy to force them to cease their practice, and I can only conclude that our rulers want them to remain the way they are.


Wow, the INFJs really cleaned this thread up. Excellent work.

Cannot ... resist ..... :hug:

[Thevenin]

The problem, though, is that you cannot let them fail without causing severe problems, or even cascading collapse, for/of the entire economy.

You make some very good points. In the US there is too much money polluting and corrupting the political system. In fact, spending money to access politicians is considered "free speech," whereas, obviously it's paid speech. This is why we have no logical energy policy, no intelligent, comprehensive health care system, and no workable approach to solving global warming. The interests of the big spending companies who think they know what's best for themselves, but don't, have had more influence in the Bush administration than the interests of the American people. If these companies were so smart, we wouldn't be having a mortgage crisis and General Motors wouldn't be on the brink of bankruptcy. (That is, GM would be selling hybrids, wouldn't be stuck with SUV's, and would be competing with Toyota et al.)

[C.J.Woolf]

The "personality" of the typical American corporation is that of a child with no impulse control and no ability to delay gratification. The best-managed companies I read about tend to be run by their founders, or by well-chosen successors. These are people who want to do something cool and make some money in the process. Companies that are run by bean-counters? Forget it. The irony is, doing something cool is the best way to make money; making all your business decisions thinking solely of the bottom line bites you in the ass eventually.

Thank you for your posts, Thevenin.

[eggs]

Generally, I've found that the less involved the government is with any aspect of my life the better off I am. That being said I do like paved roads and, despite their failings, police seem like a good idea.

[murkrow]

Roads could be payed out of the gas taxes.

[walfin]

Roads could be payed out of the gas taxes.
And cancer research could be payed out of cigarette duties. Let's face it, it's not gonna be enough and jacking gas taxes sky high will just get motorists up in arms.

[murkrow]

And cancer research could be payed out of cigarette duties. Let's face it, it's not gonna be enough and jacking gas taxes sky high will just get motorists up in arms.

Yeah, they'll be super pissed about paying the tax in their gas and not from their paychecks.

Every single person who uses paved roads either takes a car or uses the bus. I'm pretty sure enough money could be generated from that.

[walfin]

Yeah, they'll be super pissed about paying the tax in their gas and not from their paychecks.
They will because any increase in any tax is generally bound to be accompanied by noise, even if something else goes down.
Plus a fuel tax increase actually hurts more because it's more tangible (you notice it EVERY time you fill up).
When money gets deducted from the paycheck, it's like, oh, ok, i'm still getting the rest anyway, so screw it I won't bother to protest.
That's my take on the SJ world that's America (and pretty much everywhere else, really).

[murkrow]

People have been convinced of terribly stupid things before, something rational might have a chance.

[Lateralus]

You're right. When the government bails out a bank or organizations like Ginny Mae and Freddy Mac, it is socializing risk. Yet, the profits remain private (i.e., for the benefit of stockholders). The true, consistent conservative position would be to let these organizations fail. But, it is only in this kind of situation where certain conservatives believe in welfare, corporate welfare, that is. So, as the saying goes, for these organizations it's, "heads we win, tails you lose."
I have yet to meet an American conservative who supports corporate welfare, even though people make these blanket accusations that conservatives support this policy. Whenever corporate welfare is used, it's always with the excuse of 'saving jobs'. That seems pretty left-wing to me.

It seems to me that left-wingers enjoy this situation. On one hand, they get to 'save jobs'. On the other hand, they get to accuse conservatives of catering to the rich. It's win-win for the lefties, but it's also poor reasoning, and almost everyone seems to buy into it.

[Lateralus]

Yeah, they'll be super pissed about paying the tax in their gas and not from their paychecks.

Every single person who uses paved roads either takes a car or uses the bus. I'm pretty sure enough money could be generated from that.
I'd rather have toll roads.

[Thevenin]

I have yet to meet an American conservative who supports corporate welfare, even though people make these blanket accusations that conservatives support this policy.

Bush considers himself a conservative, although I understand that he's on the outs, at least according to 72% of the American people. He supports corporate welfare for Ginny Mae et al. McCain supports this corporate welfare and so does Bernanke and his friends, not to mention Obama and most Democrats. If you exclude these guys and their supporters, you're really whittling down the population of self-professed conservatives. Of course, you have a right to your own definition of "conservative," no matter how narrow it may be.

[Psy-goat]

I have yet to meet an American conservative who supports corporate welfare, even though people make these blanket accusations that conservatives support this policy.

I've yet to meet a conservative who doesn't support a strong defense policy, a defense policy that subsidizes the oil supply chain to the tune of $300+billion per year.

Republicans, Democrats different wings of the same party, somebody brought up in this forum the idea of 'cooperative' competition a la Coke & Pepsi, same thing going on here.

[walfin]

Bush considers himself a conservative
I just consider Bush an Idiot.

[Lateralus]

Bush considers himself a conservative, although I understand that he's on the outs, at least according to 72% of the American people. He supports corporate welfare for Ginny Mae et al. McCain supports this corporate welfare and so does Bernanke and his friends, not to mention Obama and most Democrats. If you exclude these guys and their supporters, you're really whittling down the population of self-professed conservatives. Of course, you have a right to your own definition of "conservative," no matter how narrow it may be.
Did you even read my post? Or did you start typing out your response blindly? I'm talking about people I've actually met, not some politician who pretends to be something he's not (that is actually in the pocket of special interest groups). In fact, that's exactly what I said, specifically, "I have yet to meet...".

There's a HUGE difference between an American conservative voter and an American 'conservative' politician.

[C.J.Woolf]

There's a HUGE difference between an American conservative voter and an American 'conservative' politician.
So when will conservative voters vote for real conservative politicians instead of radical reactionaries like G.W. Bush, DeLay, and Gingrich?

[Lateralus]

So when will conservative voters vote for real conservative politicians instead of radical reactionaries like G.W. Bush, DeLay, and Gingrich?
I doubt they ever will. You can level similar claims at democrats. I blame our socialized educational system for dumbing down the public. There's a direct correlation.

[Thevenin]

Did you even read my post? ...

Yeah. It was useful as an introductory quote. I also appreciate your subsequent elaboration.


I just consider Bush an Idiot.

My friends and I refer to him as "the moron." As in, "did you hear what the moron said today?" Many who supported him for 6 or 7 years, now say he's not a conservative, just a dope. Of course, who's a conservative varies from person to person. It's probably a matter of perspective and expediency (as in, "I don't like what this SOB did, so he's no longer a conservative, even though I voted for him and I'm to the right of Attila the Hun, or, at least, I think I am").

[ajblaise]

Why do so many of you support social security?

Shouldn't your embracing of the individual's freedoms apply to their earning as well?

Why do you draw the line on money?

The freedom argument goes both ways. In one way getting rid of social security would give people more economic freedom, but having social security gives social security recipients more economic freedom also.

That's the thing about income redistribution, it takes freedom away from some, but gives (it many cases, more) freedom to others.

[Lateralus]

The freedom argument goes both ways. In one way getting rid of social security would give people more economic freedom, but having social security gives social security recipients more economic freedom also.

That's the thing about income redistribution, it takes freedom away from some, but gives (it many cases, more) freedom to others.
Theoretically, at least. The problem with Social Security is that it doesn't exactly achieve its goals.

[ajblaise]

Theoretically, at least. The problem with Social Security is that it doesn't exactly achieve its goals.

It might have a lot of problems and there might be a SS crisis in 50 years, but it's primary goal is to give money to retired old people, and it's doing exactly that and helping millions everyday.

[Lateralus]

It might have a lot of problems and there might be a SS crisis in 50 years, but it's primary goal is to give money to retired old people, and it's doing exactly that and helping millions everyday.
I'm not talking about the solvency of the system. I'm talking strictly about the wealth redistribution. I assume you didn't read one of my previous posts stating how the wealth redistribution isn't exactly working as intended, how it actually takes money away from the poor.

[Ferrus]

Except social security was never about income distribution. That could not be achieved without huge dislocation and the sums involved don't amount to that. It is all about avoiding societal melt-down - which is exactly why the corporate welfare policy of 'saving jobs' is used. If you want to believe in the fantasy of a perfectly balanced labour market in which the only unemployment is structural, then fine, I suppose a complete lack of historical knowledge is to be expected. Otherwise you are going to have to accept societal revolution. Ultimately, if self-help is what is needed, a large class of starving and dispossed unemployed workers will shoot you and steal your property.

And there are no 'fundamental' rights at all. No one has the right to anything. All you have is a society that calibrates itself to work best and within that subjective context grants such rights as effect societal harmony.