what do you mean? i pay when i am young and collect whan i am old. you can look at it different and say i am paying old people right now so i can collect from the kids when i old? whats the difference? i am still being forced to pay so i can collect my money back again. i do not want to loan the government my money. no thanks. ill want to keep it. if old people didnt save, too bad for them. i do not want to give them my money, nor do i want young people forced to give me money when i am old. i want the government to keep the peace, not manage my portfolio.
A big pull on SS may be a result of our divirce rate. After 10 years of marriage your spouse is entitled to either her part of SS or half of yours. Which ever is greater. So if she did not work it's a no brainer. So out of your contributions comes your part of 100% and then the government kicks in 50% of your eligble part at no cost to you.. So before you retire divorce your spouse and both collect and you just got a 50% raise. What marriage penalty.
You keep evading the issue. People just like you can lose their savings through illness or catastrophe. SS isn't a savings plan, it's a cushion on the basement floor. Save all you want, I do! Re-read post #9. I'm not going to keep repeating myself just because you like to argue and have a peculiar fetish about getting in the last post. Now, paranoia sets in . . . Anarchists do have peculiar notions. My God, martin! All of the paranoids are out to get you! Quick, hide in here! Oh, no! It's Big Brother and . . . and . . . a fearsome flying glove! Kum-by-yah, my looooord . . . Kum-by-yahhhhh! . . .
1. if you are saying people need insurance against unfortunate events, fine, why cant they buy that from private agencies? why do we have be forced to take part in this insurance system? what about freedom of choice? my question is why there needs to be a system that people are forced to be a part of? "Originally Posted by martin how is it a reward to have your money taken from you against your will? Now, paranoia sets in . . . " paranoia? the government isnt forcibly taking your money for social security? red, are you unable to buy insurance against disaster? wouldnt you be even more able to do so if you were not paying some of your money to social security? and if you are too incompetent to buy insurance for yourself, and need the government to take it from you to save on your behalf, why should i be forced to do the same? i am not an idiot, i can save money myself without help from the government. why not have the government force people to pay an extra tax on gas for car insurance for everyone? isnt that basically the exact the same thing? why not favor that, if you dont care about freedom of choice? hell, why not just raise taxes even more and we could have "free" health care, and in case we needed expensive surgery it would be provided for. oh boy wouldnt that be great. hey red, big government is bad, freedom is good. when people have to provide for themselves, things work better. collectivism is bad.
Look, some of what you say has merit. But you apply your logic across the board without proper consideration, making it senseless in other instances. Government is always bad. Private interests are always good. Everything is black and white in your world. You just cannot see the shades of gray, much less the color of the situation. As you might expect, I think the answers almost always lie somewhere in the middle, not in the extremes. Nobody is a bigger supporter of personal freedom than I. But I also perceive the need for government. There is a common good that is the very basis of our constitution and a collective need that is better served by a collective process. The role of government in a nation Of The People is a proper balance between personal and collective responsibilities of the citizens. Moderation in all things. ---- Throw moderation to the winds, and the greatest pleasures bring the greatest pains. -- Democritus There is a mean in all things; and moreover, certain limits on either side of which right cannot be found. -- Horace Safety lies in the middle course. -- Ovid Excess in nothing,--this I regard as a principle of the highest value in life. -- Terence True happiness springs from moderation. -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Moderation is commonly firm, and firmness is commonly successful. -- Samuel Johnson Be moderate in everything, including moderation. -- Horace Porter
I suspect Martin would feel vee-erry differently if he actually was required to work for a living, which he currently isn't.
not only are you wrong, you dont make sense. whether i am a trust fund millionaire or a minimum wage laborer has nothing to do with it. i favor small government so everyone can have more freedom and their own money. learn to address the issue, not the person. red, it seems like you favor SS merely because it already exists and your being moderate requires that you dont take a real stance on anything for fear that real change is "extremist" if it was a new proposal, a massive government program whereby we are required to pay for a collective old person insurance, it would seem awfull extreme. but since it is already in place, and kiling it would be a big extreme deal you cant favor that. red favors moderation. my question remains: if you are saying people need insurance against unfortunate events, fine, why cant they buy that from private agencies? especially because if they arent paying SS they will have more money. thats more choice for individuals. the problem with collectivist programs is not only that people want the goverment to provide them with a service. is is that they want to force you to participate too. and they use the tyrannical will of the collective to coerce. and that should only be done for truly vital things. for any given service, it can better be handled by private industry. including investing and retirement and insurance against disaster. government is , by nature, very inefficient, because it is not subject to free market forces. plus collective power is always at the expense of individual power, so we should be extraordinarely careful about what we put in the hands of the collective. i do not see everything in black and white. i realize their are freedoms that individuals must give up for the colective. we must pay some of our money to the collective defense fund, etc. but old people insurance just isnt something that needs to be socialized. you really cant favor massive government social programs and still make this claim.
Not at all. I favor SS because there is a need for it or something like it, as pointed out previously. It doesn't have to remain fixed in time. Social security needs an overhaul to improve some things so it can continue to be self suporting. SS can continue to evolve, perhaps even into something like the private system you favor. Just dumping it would be extreme. Being a minority is a bitch ain't it? The fact is, we live in a democracy. The vote of the majority goes and most of us just don't see government services as "the tyrannical will of the collective". There is no tyrant, dude. Them is us. What part of "We The People" don't you understand? In many cases this is true, but in many others it is not. You often mistake specific truths for universal truths. There is a role for both sectors and balance is the key. This is not a one-size-fits-all world. A point we seem to agree on. Damn, there is another one. You have gotten smarter on this thread. Funny how that works. :grin:
I don't. Never said that. Read post 9 once again if you've forgotten my position. You are now making up issues to rail against. I'm outa here.
