true. but why is providing old people insurance something we cannot do privately? government involvement is bad. you have shown no reasons why this service needs to be provided by the government and not private industry. the only answer is that only the government can force participation, and you wnt forced participation. if you didnt want forced participation you would favor this being a matter for private industry and individuals. oh, in fact you have many times, and i quoted you many times. favoring any form of SS is paternalistic government, and you favor SS. whether SS is paternalistic government is what you should debate, but that is a debate you will lose. a non paternalistic government has no say in people's savings or retirement plans. i am arguing that you are not conceding the most basic point about your stance, because it casts your opinion in too honest of a light. no, in fact i quote you and address you directly. some times i repeat your same quotes multiple times so you know i am addressing your actual words. heh, it doesnt? what i am trying to get you to do is justify why a government program is needed to provide a service that can easily be provided by private individuals, which is the question you should ask about every government program. this is a question you refuse to answer, and avoid the question by denying that government intervention is at the expense of person freedom, which is 100% ridiculous. again, the question at hand is the following: why can't private banks or investmants or insurance companies provide the services people need? why must the government manage this? i dont suppose i will have to prove again that government programs are by nature far less efficient than private industry. so again, why cant people be allowed to save or not save whatever they choose (or not choose)? why must the government get involved? (i already know the supposed answer, but is so weak and terrible you probably wont admit it)
Alright martin, I'll bite. Why is Social Security (or some such service) here & necessary? Simply, because it's here already. Because no politician would commit political suicide by completely getting rid of it. Because to not have it would be "inhumane" and "unsensitive". Because not all of us are anarcho-capitalists. Because liberals would never allow it. America has a conscience that inlcludes taking care of the poor & the elderly. It's an ethical & moral awareness that is ingrained in this country and isn't going anywhere. The only question is how best to take care of them & at the same time promote economic activity. Thus, we don't just give people money for sitting at home - they have to be looking for a job etc (theoretically). There is no use arguing over whether this conscience should or should not be there - it is & always will be there. Social Security provides for old people while providing incentive to save when younger & spend throughout life. It answers both calls & it works in those respects.
it should exist because it does exist? i am not arguing what will be, but what should be. i am not saying it is going anywhere, just that it it would be best if it did. maybe no politician will touch it. they might not touch the NEA or NASA either. so what, i still oppose these things in theory. the government is wrong for having these things. if we take your attitude (and by and large we do and that is the problem) then the government only gets larger. when ss started it was 2% of your income. now it is like 14 or something, half from you, half from your employer (which is effectively all from you). even more reason charities work. americans do contribute money volutarily. if we are such good people that we want SS to exist then why wont we voluntarily help people out? if i remember correctly, the amount of private funds given to tsunami victims by americans was far more than the amount the government gave. and we would all be richer and more able to give to things if our taxes were reduced by the 14ish % we are paying SS. i mean damn 14%! holy bejeebus what a crippling of the economy that is! right, and this is private charity as well as private investment. provides incentive to save? you mean it forces you to save by paying into the wasteful government beauracracy. what a wonderful incentive, brute force. it is a matter of principle, either you favor the government managing most things or you dont. in college i did lots and lots of research and writing on the national endowment for the arts. i realized that not only is it wasteful, it is actually bad for artists. this is often the case with government program, because of the nature of the government. private industry is basically ALWAYS better. mandated goivernment programs have unintended consequences and take away choice.
Part of what I was saying was why it is necessary, but also why it is here. I'm not against the government and I don't think it's wrong for them to have programs such as NASA. I believe in balance. There's no reason charities & the government can't work hand in hand. I advocate both, except more charities & less goverment. You just take it one step further. As far as crippling the economy, that's not really true. The reason the goverment can get away with such "high" tax rates(not relative to socialist govt's, but still) is because it has such a small effect on the economy. People don't work less because of it and there's very little economic dead weight lost. I was referring to the fact that provides additional incentive to save for retirement because Social Security isn't enough. It's not as black & white as you make it seem. It's not whether I favor the govt being in my life or not. It's how much I want them in my life. I'm for MORE personal freedom & less govt intervention, but I believe that a program similar to SS is a part of my "rights" I'm willing to give up. That's just my, and many other's, decision.
i dont see how adding roughly 14% back to people's paychecks wouldnt be a huge spur to the economy and create jobs. everyone would buy more things and invest more and employ more people. it would be fantastic for the economy. if that wouldnt be great for the economy, letting people keep money they earn, then i honestly do not know what is. fine, give up your rights. but SS forces everyone else to do what you favor. cant you just privately donate your money to something? when you collectivize something, you are doing more than giving up something yourself, you are making everyone do it. i dont feel too good about that, unless i can really super justify it. i cant justify forced participation in a charity/insurance/tax/pension program. i dont feel like i should use the collective power of the government to force you to contribute, unless it provides a service you and i cannot do without or get anywhere else. i wouldnt make this argument with the military or something. i am fine with forcing people to pay for that. i would happily go to their house and take their money from their wallets. some things are worth putting a gun to a person's head and making them pay, and that pretty much is what the government does, because cops with guns will come to your house and cart you to jail if you do not pay taxes. but for old person insurance? do you think it is worth it, forcing the collective will on people for that? are you positive we cant accompish this with private means? imagine how much incentive it would provide to save if SS didnt exist at all. plus you would have 14% more money. i think for 14% more of my money i could buy a lot of old person disaster insurance and have plenty left over for charity. when the new deal started, and all the massive government programs came out of nowhere, and SS was only 2%, would you have been favoring telling people we should increase it sevenfold? that is what we have done over time until now. more money passes through SS than any other govt program, including defense. i would love it we only were as in favor of big government as roosevelt and let SS only be a 2% or 3% tax. i would be even more pleased with 0%, like they had when my grandfather was born.
I was shocked when I learned it as well. However, according to economics the money the govt spends still goes towards the economy, thus the only thing lost is lost business from a lack of incentive in doing business because of taxes. Taxes are at the point where they don't make much of a difference. You'd work relatively the same amount even if you didn't get taxed at all. As I said in an earlier thread, I support a revamp of the social security program to put it in the private sector. However, I still think the government needs to regulate it (to an extent) because I don't want to see old people sitting out on the streets. You are saying you don't want it at all. I'm saying I want a form closer to what you want. But would you? Would other people? I don't think you can count on people to be intelligent enough to save for themselves & kind enough to provide charity for others. I never doubt the ignorance of the general public. For the reason, I believe in moderate govt intervention. No, I don't know how many times I have to say it. I don't like paying this much money. I don't like Social Security. I like the idea of a program similar to Social Security. One that works effectively.
the opposite of anarchy is not monarchy, goof. britain is a constitutional monarchy. monarchy just means there are royals and crap, monarchs. they can be superpowered tyrannical monsters, or freedom loving sweethearts, it has nothing to do with the extent of the govt rule. christ, take poli 101. super all-controlling powerful government would be fascism like the taliban. monarchies can be capitalist and even have representative bodies. how can you not even know what a monarchy is?
i think so, just like citizens gave massive amounts for the tsunami, more than the govt i think. even if they give nothing and the old people are destitute, i dont care. people need to learn to take care of themselves. but they wont have to, because people are so charitable. in new york homeless people are constantly nagged to go to shelters, they refuse, they are homeless because they are insane in the brain, not because the system failed. there isnt much you can do about wretched poor suckas. they are crazy. normal humans do not get super poor and starve. and my point is that a private system that has nothing to do with the government would work best, just like private things work better almost always. this is an outdated new deal program that only grew because of the power and money grubbing nature of politicians and government, as well as well-meaning people like you and red.
