I'm frankly fed up with politicians blaming the deficit problem on "entitlements". It’s a really underhanded dishonest political ploy. By blaming “entitlements”, politicians can simultaneously imply that the budget deficit is due to things that have been taken out of their control and that the government’s financial problems are the fault of free loaders living on the government dole. Neither of these is remotely true. Look at the details.
The biggest single entitlement program is Social security. It is funded by FICA taxes, which can only be used for Social Security. Social Security taxes collected exceed benefits being paid and are forecast to exceed benefits through 2017, i.e. the Social Security program has a budget surplus not a budget deficit. The excess SS taxes collected are being saved in the Social Security Trust. The Social Security Trust fund contained $2.6 trillion dollars at the end of 2010. It is expected to continue to grow via interest earned for about a decade after 2017 when SS taxes collected fall below the benefits. Depending on which economic models you use, with out any changes in SS taxes or benefits, the SS trust fund will not be depleted for at least another 35 years. If the economy performs well, SS may continue having a net surplus forever. Even when the trust fund is depleted, Social Security can continue to operate as it was original designed, a pay as you go system. This would require raising FICA taxes, reducing benefits or running a deficit but note that none of that is required for at least 3 decades. Anyone who claims the deficit is due in any part to Social Security is either sadly misinformed or lying.
Medicare is the second largest entitlement program. Medicare also has a trust fund that is supported by FICA, premiums, and income taxes on social security benefits. That fund is in trouble and expected to become insolvent within the next decade so there is cause for future concern but thus far, Medicare is not and has not contributed to the deficit. Medicare’s future is in trouble because medical costs in the US are double what they are in other developed countries and are rising far faster than the growth in GDP.
Next up on the list is Medicaid. Medicaid is indeed in deficit but the Medicaid total is only a small fraction of the budget deficit. We could cut Medicaid entirely and we'd still have a budget deficit around $800 billion dollars. Despite the stereotype that Medicaid is covering lazy poor people, the largest cost to Medicaid currently is nursing home care for aging adults. Like Medicare, Medicaid faces future challenges because of the deplorable state of the US health care system as a whole.
The other large entitlement programs include unemployment insurance, which is funded by insurance premiums, federal employee retirement payments which are funded by a trust that employees and their employing agencies pay into throughout their working years, and military retirements, which for some reason aren’t included in the defense budget. All the other entitlements are penny ante stuff.
The broad term “entitlements” hides the reality of what these programs are. For the most part they are either self-supporting retirement programs or medical costs for the elderly, poor and disabled. So what is the truth about the Budget Deficit? The US has been running a budget deficit for the past decade because 1) Americans spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined, 2) Americans demanded tax cuts at the same time that they supported two expensive foreign wars and 3) America has the least cost effective medical care system in the world. Those are all things that our politicians can do something about. If America and its politicians want to do more than grand stand about fiscal responsibility we need to first accept that if we want such a huge military we will have to pay higher taxes to support it and second radically revise the US health care system.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Those things are so true. But how can we get politicians to DO something about it?
Such as have less military spending?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
One thing I think would work well is to switch all taxes to the same system we have for social security. W e would have defense taxes, which could only be spent on defense, energy taxes which could only be spent on energy, interior department taxes which could only be spent on DOI projects and so on. This would remove the disconnect between government services and taxes that exists in the current system.
If congress wanted to increase military spending, they would have to increase the military tax, draw down the military trust fund or run a military debt -- but it would be clear to everyone why we were increasing taxes or borrowing money. If congress cut taxes, they couldn't do it without saying which departments they were cutting from.
[ March 22, 2011, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's an interesting idea, and I can see many positives and negatives coming out of it. I suspect that when people see their tax bill itemized, they're going to find a lot of particular things they want to see defunded, which could be good or bad. On the other hand, when they see how little of their actual paycheck goes to pay things like Foreign Aid or the NEA, they might stop putting quite so much emphasis on attacking things that are a pittance compared to the rest of the budget.
An interesting aspect to this idea is that it could incentivize efficiency in government. If you tell a Department that they get X number of dollars this year, and that any money they don't spend goes into a trust fund, they might work extra hard to spend a little as possible. The flip side of that is Congress would see the trust fund and cut taxes accordingly, saying they can make due with less. I doubt most departments would EVER truly get a trust fund under this system. They'd all have their budgets slashed as soon as they produced a surplus.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I suspect that when people see their tax bill itemized, they're going to find a lot of particular things they want to see defunded, which could be good or bad.
There are some serious limitation to how much detail could reasonably be included on the tax bill. I doubt it could be implemented beyond the cabinet level departments for practical reasons so people would be unlikely to see Foreign Aid or NEA directly. But I think even that level of detail would promote accountability at all levels, citzens, congress persons and public servants.
Right now, I have very little idea what programs are covered by the Department of Interior, for example. If I had a line item on the tax bill for the DOI, I'd be more likely to look into. If there were a proposal to cut or increase the DOI tax, I'd be more likely to look into what programs were most likely to be affected.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah I doubt it would be that detailed either, but, I guarantee that it would take about five minutes for special interests to educate the American people on which programs are in which departments. I'm pretty sure the State Department has Foreign Aid funding, and the Department of the Interior has EPA funding. Lots of relatively already underfunded departments would probably come under fire, but, at the same time, some of them might appear to be pretty underfunded when compared with others. Hard to tell how people would react.
I bet at the very least, people would become very, VERY well-educated on which departments do what things, to really understand their tax dollars at work.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lower military spending to 1% gdp, done.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I bet at the very least, people would become very, VERY well-educated on which departments do what things, to really understand their tax dollars at work.
Which is exactly my goal, better understanding of how our taxes are really spent.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Lower military spending to 1% gdp, done.
Yes. I think that everybody else in the world should do this.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Lower military spending to 1% gdp, done.
Yes. I think that everybody else in the world should do this.
True story. You've said this more than once Blayne, and it's never going to happen unless every country follows suit.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I bet at the very least, people would become very, VERY well-educated on which departments do what things, to really understand their tax dollars at work.
They aren't particularly educated on social security and medicare, despite their tax bills breaking down to that level. They aren't particularly educated on what sales taxes or property taxes pay for, despite those taxes being paid entirely separately. What will force people to become educated on what's in these departments instead of looking at the total tax bill and paying that, ignoring all the details as they already do for all the other taxes that are broken out?
Breaking taxes down by department is just going for political grist for no real benefit.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Lower military spending to 1% gdp, done.
Yes. I think that everybody else in the world should do this.
True story. You've said this more than once Blayne, and it's never going to happen unless every country follows suit.
"Follow" doesn't make really sense in this context, unless you mean that the US is failing to follow. If you look at the sorted list of countries by military spending by GDP, there are only a handful of failed African and/or Middle Eastern countries with higher spending, Georgia, and Vietnam.
In the G7, the US could cut from 4.3% of GDP to 3.5% and still remain tied with Russia, which has a much smaller economy.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Why should military spending be some percentage of GDP? Does having a larger economy create a bigger demand for military action?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Incidentally, one can play around with this to see that the technical difficulties with solving the budget aren't really that difficult. The sacrifices that have to be made don't even "have" to hit the US military that hard. The challenge is less than probably both the British austerity plan and the Canadian cuts under Chretien.
The real barriers are political and not particularly difficult to tackle with some effort.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Also the manner of absolute figures, 1% of GDP would die it in absolute figures with China.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Why should military spending be some percentage of GDP? Does having a larger economy create a bigger demand for military action?
Well, in fairness, they can't be totally unlinked. Costs for salary, R&D, and paying for healthcare for wounded soldiers reasonably should increase with GDP.
Ex: American military propaganda uses social media expertise that probably has to heavily compete with hiring outside the military (such as Facebook) as well, so that would be linked with (per capita) GDP.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Countries with larger GDPs both have more interests to protect, requiring larger militaries, and are more appetizing targets for other countries, requiring at least somewhat proportional protection.
And, much as it might be nice to imagine we have entered some sort of post large scale conflict age, the largest reason the last twenty years have seen so few major conflicts is the ability of the US military to enforce a lack of large scale conflict. Imagining a world where everyone has small militaries is imagining a world waiting for a lot of conflict to happen.
Of course, some parts of the world probably could have used some larger scale conflict. A few more forthright wars in sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, probably would have resulted in preferable political situations and fewer deaths than the protracted and brutal violence that has seethed through many of those countries.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Countries with larger GDPs both have more interests to protect, requiring larger militaries, and are more appetizing targets for other countries, requiring at least somewhat proportional protection.
Larger countries may have more interests to protect but I've seen no evidence of any relationship between the number of military threats against a country and the size of its economy. Provide some evidence to support this claim. Many wars have been fought over natural resources, a few may have been motivated by the desire to hinder an economic competitor, but I don't know of any that can be linked to GDP. I think its far easier to support the claim that having a very large military makes one a target than that having a very large economy makes one a target.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The relative peace and lack of major conflict has more to do with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If you look at likely flashpoints you'll find that good old-fashioned mutual (or even non-mutual) assured destruction is supressing conflict since even moderate powers like Pakistan and India have them (Or even bush league countries like Israel and North Korea).
The only conflicts left are minor ones.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Imagining a world where everyone has small militaries is imagining a world waiting for a lot of conflict to happen.
Why? Everyone in western Europe has a relatively small military and the they've had fewer conflicts over the last 50 years than for any comparable period in recorded history. When countries invest their resources in social justice instead of armies, it reduces conflict.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Just read all this and looked at the whatwepay site. According to it, I will pay about the same taxes for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; which I have never received any benefits from, as I do for Operation and Maintenance, Army, which I do receive at least some benefit from. So from a completely personal perspective, which should I want to see cut?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Larger countries may have more interests to protect but I've seen no evidence of any relationship between the number of military threats against a country and the size of its economy. Provide some evidence to support this claim. Many wars have been fought over natural resources, a few may have been motivated by the desire to hinder an economic competitor, but I don't know of any that can be linked to GDP. I think its far easier to support the claim that having a very large military makes one a target than that having a very large economy makes one a target.
You're asking us to imagine a future world where all the countries have nominal militaries, and I'm pointing out that, given the capacity of modern militaries to project force, an obvious move for a country would be to develop a larger military and take resources from a wealthier country.
And it definitely does happen. The most dramatic example is probably the fourth crusade, where Constantinople was conquered twice (once with the assistance of the crusaders, once by the crusaders after the guy they assisted was overthrown) in order to settle a debt the crusaders owed. It was the most convenient source of funds on the scale they needed to pay off Venice for the ships for the crusade.
Heck, for a long time it was a common practice for, for instance, nomads and semi-nomadic peoples (see: peoples to the north and west of ancient China, peoples all over and from outside the italian peninsula at various times from early to late Roman, et cetera) to use the threat of military attack (often after the fact of military attack) to extract tribute from wealthier neighbors, neither conquering them for natural resources nor particularly after hindering them.
It doesn't happen much in the modern age in large part because countries have either had fairly large militaries (proportional to GDP), or the protection of large militaries of other countries, or both.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Just read all this and looked at the whatwepay site. According to it, I will pay about the same taxes for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; which I have never received any benefits from, as I do for Operation and Maintenance, Army, which I do receive at least some benefit from. So from a completely personal perspective, which should I want to see cut?
I would argue that all of us benefit from having fewer starving people but are you sure you are reading that chart correctly? The defense budget is listed as lots of smaller entries. For instance, the only thing that I pay more for than defense is Social Security. All of social services is about a tenth of that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You're asking us to imagine a future world where all the countries have nominal militaries, and I'm pointing out that, given the capacity of modern militaries to project force, an obvious move for a country would be to develop a larger military and take resources from a wealthier country.
This is presuming that wealthier countries have resources that can be taken by force. By and large in the world today, this is not the case. Wealthier countries have largely exhausted their easily accessible natural resources. Their economies depend on , intellectual property and industrial output rather than natural resource extraction. These are things which can't be easily taken in a war. A far more likely scenario is that wealthy countries would invade lesser developed countries to secure access to their natural resources. This is in fact already happening.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It is funded by FICA taxes, which can only be used for Social Security.
No. The FICA taxes go into the general fund and they are spent with the rest of the pot. They aren't supposed to be, but they are.
quote:Social Security taxes collected exceed benefits being paid and are forecast to exceed benefits through 2017, i.e. the Social Security program has a budget surplus not a budget deficit.
No. You have old information - then the economy tanked and receipts went down. As of 2010, Social Security pays out more than it takes in.
quote: The excess SS taxes collected are being saved in the Social Security Trust.
No. There is no money in the trust fund.
quote:The Social Security Trust fund contained $2.6 trillion dollars at the end of 2010.
No. The trust fund contains nothing. 100% of the FICA taxes collected so far have been spent, most of it with the rest of the general pot.
quote:It is expected to continue to grow via interest earned for about a decade after 2017 when SS taxes collected fall below the benefits.
No. You have old information that you have not updated with the new economy.
I can see how, if you believed the above, you'd be frustrated. However, you have your facts wrong. The reason you can't understand why people are debating this is because you don't understand how Social Security works in reality, as opposed to the ideal.
If the ideal were real, the above would be true. In reality, it was all spent. There is nothing in the trust fund - it's empty. The only way to continue shelling out real money, now that payouts exceed intake, it to take it from the general pot.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You know how you know the IOUs in the trust fund are fake? They aren't included in the list of government debt. When the deficit is announced, it only includes money owed to entities outside the government. It does not include accounting tricks where one part of the federal government says it owes another part.
If they were real IOUs, they would be counted as debt. They aren't. The IOUs are nothing. One part of the federal government (general pot) owes nothing to another part (SS fund), and therefore there is nothing in the SS fund. For the last 60 years, FICA taxes have been spent with the general post - and the revenue they have generated has counted as tax revenue along with income tax.
The Supreme Court has found on two seperate occasions that FICA taxes are taxes, straight up. Not investment, not pension contributions, not promises. Congress can eliminate Social Security tomorrow and never shell out another and no one can sue, because they have no legal claim.
There's this fiction that was spun to make what is old people entitlements palatable to the general public. Now that the largest portion of the voting general public IS the old people, and they are expecting what's been promised, the truth is coming out.
There is nothing in the fund. They are all different types of taxes, and it's all coming out of one pot.
That's why people are talking about it.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Just read all this and looked at the whatwepay site. According to it, I will pay about the same taxes for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; which I have never received any benefits from, as I do for Operation and Maintenance, Army, which I do receive at least some benefit from. So from a completely personal perspective, which should I want to see cut?
I would argue that all of us benefit from having fewer starving people but are you sure you are reading that chart correctly? The defense budget is listed as lots of smaller entries. For instance, the only thing that I pay more for than defense is Social Security. All of social services is about a tenth of that.
I don't disagree, just playing devil's advocate. From a completely selfish perspective at looking at the figures, defense looks like the winner.
Of course, going through everything you soon see there are many more defense expenditures besides just that one and while there are also many more "entitlements" listed, some of those actually do directly benefit me or are things I would support even if they don't.
But then there are also many, many things that just p me off. I'm only a few pages into the results and have already seen several entries taking my money with "railroad" in the title. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... This is presuming that wealthier countries have resources that can be taken by force. By and large in the world today, this is not the case ...
Furthermore, invading countries to take resources is a fool's errand when both countries have nuclear weapons in the equation. The minor boost in the economy from securing resources simply isn't worth the chance of a couple nuked cities or even a couple of nuked cities in an ally country.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Why? Everyone in western Europe has a relatively small military and the they've had fewer conflicts over the last 50 years than for any comparable period in recorded history. When countries invest their resources in social justice instead of armies, it reduces conflict.
Conveniently ignoring the protection afforded by the US military is not a sign of accurately describing the situation. You're advocating a world where every country has a drastically smaller budget -- apparently where even 1% of GDP is far too much (note: even post Cold War, the larger countries in Europe spend a lot more than that) and the amount won't be tied to GDP at all, so as the economy grows, you seem to expect the percentage to grow even smaller. That's very different from a world where military sizes are roughly tied to GDP (even with the low spending in Europe), and where large parts of the world are under the protection of an extremely powerful military.
Also, if we're comparing military expenditures to other drastically different points in history and expecting the scales to match up, you shouldn't have any problem with the US's military expenditures -- they're tiny, in comparison to typical expenditures at many points in history Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
And what the hell is this taking $1.50 of my money?
Tobacco Trust Fund Agency: Department of Agriculture Bureau: Farm Service Agency
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The fundamental premise of this rant - that Social Security is self-supporting and will continue to be - is flawed.
Instead, Social Security has been General Fund Supporting and must now be General Fund Supported.
It was always just another tax, and the payouts are just another line item.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:This is presuming that wealthier countries have resources that can be taken by force. By and large in the world today, this is not the case. Wealthier countries have largely exhausted their easily accessible natural resources. Their economies depend on , intellectual property and industrial output rather than natural resource extraction. These are things which can't be easily taken in a war. A far more likely scenario is that wealthy countries would invade lesser developed countries to secure access to their natural resources. This is in fact already happening.
I assume it would happen as it did through most of history: money and items. Give us $X. Give us this much high end industrial equipment. Give us control of this oil refinery.
Of course, a country that built up a large military while all the other countries have small ones could also attack poor countries for resources. And unlike today where many poor countries are protected by countries with large militaries that protect them, no other such countries would exist. Are you intending to argue against your own proposal, here?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Why? Everyone in western Europe has a relatively small military and the they've had fewer conflicts over the last 50 years than for any comparable period in recorded history. When countries invest their resources in social justice instead of armies, it reduces conflict.
Conveniently ignoring the protection afforded by the US military is not a sign of accurately describing the situation. You're advocating a world where every country has a drastically smaller budget -- apparently where even 1% of GDP is far too much (note: even post Cold War, the larger countries in Europe spend a lot more than that) and the amount won't be tied to GDP at all, so as the economy grows, you seem to expect the percentage to grow even smaller. That's very different from a world where military sizes are roughly tied to GDP (even with the low spending in Europe), and where large parts of the world are under the protection of an extremely powerful military.
Also, if we're comparing military expenditures to other drastically different points in history and expecting the scales to match up, you shouldn't have any problem with the US's military expenditures -- they're tiny, in comparison to typical expenditures at many points in history
Exactly. If the U.S. completely pulled out of NATO, the UN, etc. and shut down all our European bases, European countries would be tripling their defense spending within just a few years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:I bet at the very least, people would become very, VERY well-educated on which departments do what things, to really understand their tax dollars at work.
They aren't particularly educated on social security and medicare, despite their tax bills breaking down to that level. They aren't particularly educated on what sales taxes or property taxes pay for, despite those taxes being paid entirely separately. What will force people to become educated on what's in these departments instead of looking at the total tax bill and paying that, ignoring all the details as they already do for all the other taxes that are broken out?
Breaking taxes down by department is just going for political grist for no real benefit.
Special interests and politicians. Gives them fodder for ads and what not to push their particular issue. I never said it was a net gain, but I do think people would, whether they'd like to or not, become much more informed about where their money goes. I'm not sure it's comparable to the other two taxes.
And by the way, sales tax? Here anyway, that money goes into the general fund, and I have really almost no concept of how much money I paid in sales tax last year, and I'd be surprised if most people did. It's not itemized, like the other things we're talking about. Now you're just talking about general knowledge of the budget as a whole.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Just read all this and looked at the whatwepay site. According to it, I will pay about the same taxes for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; which I have never received any benefits from, as I do for Operation and Maintenance, Army, which I do receive at least some benefit from. So from a completely personal perspective, which should I want to see cut?
I would argue that all of us benefit from having fewer starving people but are you sure you are reading that chart correctly? The defense budget is listed as lots of smaller entries. For instance, the only thing that I pay more for than defense is Social Security. All of social services is about a tenth of that.
I don't disagree, just playing devil's advocate. From a completely selfish perspective at looking at the figures, defense looks like the winner.
Of course, going through everything you soon see there are many more defense expenditures besides just that one and while there are also many more "entitlements" listed, some of those actually do directly benefit me or are things I would support even if they don't.
But then there are also many, many things that just p me off. I'm only a few pages into the results and have already seen several entries taking my money with "railroad" in the title.
If you look at the blue chart, it lumps things together a bit.
Why do railroads annoy you?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: this site is a cool resource:
My problem is that this site perpetuates the lies about entitlements.
Let me give an example. Suppose I earned $80,000 in 2009. I would have paid $4960 for SS and my employer would have paid another $4960. That money can only be spent on SS. The excess goes into the trust fund. But the the what we pay for website, estimates that I would have paid $3135.62 for Social Security, less than half of what my employer and I would have actually paid. Similar, this site estimates I would have paid $1986.41 for Medicare. Between me and my employer, we would have actually paid $2320 for medicare. Legally, the government can't spend that money on any thing else.
This website totally ignores the fact that most of the entitlement programs aren't funded out of the general tax fund, they have special line item taxes and trust funds. Most of these entitlement programs are in the black. By lumping everything together, you are hiding programs that really are not making ends meet.
If you take all the programs out of the budget that have special line item taxes and established trust funds, what's left is the military, the bail out, and a bunch of little stuff.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Special interests and politicians. Gives them fodder for ads and what not to push their particular issue. I never said it was a net gain, but I do think people would, whether they'd like to or not, become much more informed about where their money goes. I'm not sure it's comparable to the other two taxes.
Becoming a bit more informed is very, VERY different from "very, VERY well-educated". People are a bit more informed about social security and medicare (taxes that are directly broken out), and you can see how much that means. What's more, you can see how special interest groups use the increased visibility of those programs to spread misinformation almost as much as information.
Creating an accounting and political morass on the hope it might make people a tiny bit more informed about how the federal budget works is crazy. And I'm for increases in programs that are largely self-contained (revenues vs expenditures).
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
Why do railroads annoy you? [/QB]
Because why am I paying for them? If I want to use a railroad, I buy a ticket. If it can't support itself that way, it's not needed.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: this site is a cool resource:
My problem is that this site perpetuates the lies about entitlements.
Let me give an example. Suppose I earned $80,000 in 2009. I would have paid $4960 for SS and my employer would have paid another $4960. That money can only be spent on SS.
And yet here you are spreading lies about SS. That is NOT how it works.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:That money can only be spent on SS.
This is the lie. The money collected from FICA has been added to the pot.
You are taking as true what has been clearly disputed in other places and clearly challenged here.
The fundamental premise - that Social Security is a self-contained system and the money is not spent elsewhere and money from elsewhere need not be spent on it - is absolutely, completely wrong. Whoever told you that was lying.
That's why the current debate makes no sense to you. You flat out have your facts wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wingracer, I don't drive, perhaps I shouldn't have to pay for roads? People that do take trains are polluting less, using less fuel, and reducing traffic making your drive easier.
The point you are really missing, though, is that most of rail traffic is freight. I am pretty sure that you consume goods transported on via rail. I suppose that we could make the people doing the shipping pay for upkeep of the rails but the cost of almost everything would skyrocket. It would be unsafe. Not to mention the added truck traffic on the roads (wear and tear and pollution and congestion and accidents) which would also send fuel prices through the roof.
[ March 22, 2011, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Exactly. If the U.S. completely pulled out of NATO, the UN, etc. and shut down all our European bases, European countries would be tripling their defense spending within just a few years.
Well, that just depends on if they intend on occupying Libya as their private little Iraq (or Afghanistan) Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Re: social security, I really wish we were using a modified accrual system (Australia and Canada have worked out a lot of the kinks) for the government instead of cash. That would make a lot more clear that social security needs adjustments to be sustainable starting in the relatively near future.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:They aren't particularly educated on social security and medicare, despite their tax bills breaking down to that level. They aren't particularly educated on what sales taxes or property taxes pay for, despite those taxes being paid entirely separately. What will force people to become educated on what's in these departments instead of looking at the total tax bill and paying that, ignoring all the details as they already do for all the other taxes that are broken out?
I'm confident that most people know that the FICA deductions from their paycheck go to Social Security and Medicare. People are pretty confused about what actually happens after that but that's because there is a lot of deliberate misinformation about the state of Social Security. Much of that misinformation is connected with my original complaint -- politicians attempts to incorrectly blame the budget deficit on SS. If the income tax were broken down in to line item taxes for all the major programs, politicians couldn't get away with that nearly as easily.
Sales taxes and property taxes aren't broken out in the way I've suggested they should be. They are described as taxes on what you buy and what you own, not taxes for a specific program. If we had a "school tax", which by law had to be spent on schools or placed in a school trust fund people it would make the link between the tax and school funding far more transparent. Even if said "school tax" was levied as a fraction of sales or property values or income, it would still be clearly linked to school spending that it isn't currently.
It would make an enormous difference in how people view taxes. Even in Utah (the reddest of the red), ballot initiatives that call for an increased sales tax to support light rail or increased property taxes s to support new school construction pass with surprising frequency. People are far more willing to pay taxes with the connection between the tax and the public service are more obvious.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You know how you know the IOUs in the trust fund are fake? They aren't included in the list of government debt. When the deficit is announced, it only includes money owed to entities outside the government. It does not include accounting tricks where one part of the federal government says it owes another part.
You are misinformed. The money in the Social Security Trust Fund is included in the National Debt.
This is a lie. Too many people believe this lie but it is an outright, provable falsehood.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't drive, perhaps I shouldn't have to pay for roads? People that do take trains are polluting less, using less fuel, and reducing traffic making your drive easier.
The point you are really missing, though, is that most of rail traffic is freight. I am pretty sure that you consume goods transported on via rail. I suppose that we could make the people doing the shipping pay for upkeep of the rails but the cost of almost everything would skyrocket. It would be unsafe. Not to mention the added truck traffic on the roads (wear and tear and pollution and congestion and accidents) which would also send fuel prices through the roof.
I kind of see your argument there.
I would question whether or not you take walks, ride a bike, use the city bus, or just sit inside all day and never leave your house.
We are taxed for roads and I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is trying to keep things like Amtrak going since it has operated at a net loss of $27 billion since 1971, the year it started.
And....Aren't most freight goods shipped by private companies? Amtrak is primarily used for mass transportation isn't it? (I don't really know since train and subway travel is rare in the Southwest)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:That money can only be spent on SS.
This is the lie. The money collected from FICA has been added to the pot.
You are taking as true what has been clearly disputed in other places and clearly challenged here.
The fundamental premise - that Social Security is a self-contained system and the money is not spent elsewhere and money from elsewhere need not be spent on it - is absolutely, completely wrong. Whoever told you that was lying.
That's why the current debate makes no sense to you. You flat out have your facts wrong.
Please provide a reliable source for this information. I have provided two which contradict everything you have said. Please give me the reference to the Supreme Court cases of relevance.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Was Wingracer just talking about Amtrack? He did not make that clear.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Exactly. If the U.S. completely pulled out of NATO, the UN, etc. and shut down all our European bases, European countries would be tripling their defense spending within just a few years.
I sincerely doubt this. Over the past 20 years, the US has closed most of its military bases in Germany. Over that same time frame, German military spending has fallen from 2.7% of GDP to 1.4% of GDP. The US, through NATO, pressures most Western European countries to spend more on the military than they would spend if the US pulled out.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Was Wingracer just talking about Amtrack? He did not make that clear.
I was talking about all the budget points with "railroad" in the title. Now I have no idea what that money is specifically spent on but the only full railroad business the government owns to my knowledge is AMTRACK. Freight companies are all self sustained, private sector, for profit businesses. Now it is entirely possible that some of that money goes to those freight companies in the form of subsidies or bailouts or what have you but the vast majority of it is AMTRACK.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that, to an extent, both Rabbit and kat are right.
1) The money in the SS trust fund, which was not supposed to be spent as if it were part of the general fund, has been spent. It's simply not there.
2) As a consequence, the money we expect to cover upcoming Social Security "deficits" is not available, and either other debt will need to be issued to cover these shortfalls or Social Security payments will need to be drastically cut (or both).
3) However, this is not itself evidence of a problem with Social Security or "entitlements;" that's like calling someone irresponsible if someone else breaks into the house you're sharing with a friend and steals your rent payment, which your friend has been holding for you.
4) Of course, the problem here is that the person with the rent payment is mildly schizophrenic and is actually stealing from your rent fund, and then promising you that he'll put the money back in. Given this, it is not entirely surprising that you might be unwilling to continue to let him hold onto your rent money. But, again, the problem is not that you are attempting to pay rent; rather, it is that the person you're letting hold your rent money can't be trusted to do so without tighter oversight.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Geraine: Amtrak owns extensive rail lines, which it leases to freight companies.
quote:I sincerely doubt this. Over the past 20 years, the US has closed most of its military bases in Germany. Over that same time frame, German military spending has fallen from 2.7% of GDP to 1.4% of GDP. The US, through NATO, pressures most Western European countries to spend more on the military than they would spend if the US pulled out.
The massive threat that was right next door to Germany went away, so the military assets deployed directly in Germany decreased. This is unsurprising. They still benefit from the military umbrella the US provides, they just don't require nearly the level of forward-deployed military assets as they used to.
I disagree that European military spending would triple, or that it would happen quickly. I suspect overall levels would double over the next couple of decades after a drastic draw drown in US military expenditures, though (not that I see any plausible story causing such a decrease).
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Exactly. If the U.S. completely pulled out of NATO, the UN, etc. and shut down all our European bases, European countries would be tripling their defense spending within just a few years.
I sincerely doubt this. Over the past 20 years, the US has closed most of its military bases in Germany. Over that same time frame, German military spending has fallen from 2.7% of GDP to 1.4% of GDP. The US, through NATO, pressures most Western European countries to spend more on the military than they would spend if the US pulled out.
Initially you are probably right, so perhaps my "few years" time frame is untrue. But I would be willing to bet that sooner or later, someone (probably Russia but quite possibly someone else) would see an opportunity to take over a small neighbor for profit and before you know it, it's an arms race all over again.
Of course, I could be completely wrong. So let's look at the consequences of each approach.
1. Reduced defense spending.
No attack, economic growth is good, peace prevails, all is well.
Attack, country is conquered, enjoy your near enslavement.
2. Increased defense spending.
No attack, economic hardships but not totally bad as your defense industry will provide many jobs and possibly even exports. Perhaps not as efficient as you could be but not collapsing either.
Attack, successfully defend your country and possibly even profit from reparations.
So unless you know with absolute certainty that no one will ever attack you, option 2 looks a lot better to me. Are you willing to bet your life on it?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Geraine: Amtrak owns extensive rail lines, which it leases to freight companies.
Makes sense. Don't we however essentially do the same thing though with our roads through gasoline taxes?
Wingracer: I suppose it wouldn't even have to be an invading army. A few nukes would completely decimate the country.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Tom, Did you read the links I posted. It is 100% false that the Social Security Trust Fund is not included in the national debt. Read the government financial reports. In this respect, katharina is completely wrong. She is repeating a lie.
You are correct that there isn't a big pile of money sitting somewhere called the Social Security Trust Fund, but this really isn't any difference than any other investment. If you put money in the bank, the bank doesn't simply store the cash in a vault somewhere until you want it back. They loan the money to someone else or invest it somewhere, yet, with the exception of a few crazy people, no one considers the money they put in the bank to have been squandered by the bank on something else unless the bank actually goes bankrupt.
The US government has a legal requirement to repay the social security trust fund just like they have a legal requirement to repay all other government bonds. There are several ways the government could do that including selling more bonds (which would likely require paying a higher interest rate) or raising taxes. The US government turns over government bonds every minute. They get the money to do this by selling more bonds. If they can't sell enough to pay off bonds that mature, they have to raise interest rates.
Claiming that the Social Security Trust Fund doesn't exist, is equivalent to claiming that the US government is bankrupt and will inevitably default on its debts. If anyone seriously believed that, the interest rates on Government bonds would be skyrocketing. They aren't.
We pay into Social Security with the expectation that this is how the money will ultimately be spent. If our elected representatives are spending the money on something else -- they are cheating us pure and simple. We the voters need to hole them responsible for spending this money the way the law says it must be spent.
When they claim that the budget deficit is due to "entitlements", they are basically admitting to violating the law and cheating the American tax payer. As an American tax payer, I'm not going to let them get away with that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They loan the money to someone else or invest it somewhere...
Except that, in the case of federal debt, this is not actually what has happened; we have not invested the fund, and in fact have promised to pay interest to people in exchange for their purchase of the monies that were supposed to be in the fund.
quote:We pay into Social Security with the expectation that this is how the money will ultimately be spent. If our elected representatives are spending the money on something else -- they are cheating us pure and simple.
Yes. They are cheating us, and they will get away with it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Makes sense. Don't we however essentially do the same thing though with our roads through gasoline taxes?
I think that was part of the point of comparing the two .
quote:Except that, in the case of federal debt, this is not actually what has happened; we have not invested the fund, and in fact have promised to pay interest to people in exchange for their purchase of the monies that were supposed to be in the fund.
Whatever you think of social security, US savings bonds are a heck of a lot safer investment than any other they could make. Or is your assertion that somehow an economic event causing the US government to default on debt won't cause massive downturns in pretty much every market in the world?
Any potential problems with social security are due to the future liabilities of the social security program due to its structure combined with changes in the distribution of the US population. Whether social security invests its surpluses in federal savings bonds or stocks or anything else is irrelevant to that question. The federal government will need to issue the same amount of bonds in either situation (though likely with higher interest rates), and social security will be at least as vulnerable to lack of return on its investment in either situation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You're less cynical than I am, fugu; for my part, I strongly suspect that because the monies for Social Security are entirely virtual, the government will simply decide one day that they don't exist and aren't owed.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Except that, in the case of federal debt, this is not actually what has happened; we have not invested the fund, and in fact have promised to pay interest to people in exchange for their purchase of the monies that were supposed to be in the fund.
Please explain. According to the references I gave on the previous page, the Social Security Fund holds 2.4 billion in government bonds which accrue interest. This is included in official figures for the national debt. How is this different from investing the funds in (say for sake of argument) German treasury bills. In what way has the government promised to pay interest on the funds to any one other than Social Security beneficiaries. Your comment has me totally confused.
You are essentially arguing that US government bonds are not a secure investment. This contradicts what every financial analyst says. If investors did not believe US government bonds were secure, the US government would have to offer much higher interests to get people to buy them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The US defaulting on any part of its debt would be a world-shattering financial event that would cause a heck of a lot more problems than repaying the social security debt liabilities at the gradual rate that will be required. There are so many much easier and less painful ways to act fiscally irresponsible.
Additionally, since the government controls social security as a program, it can sustain the situation by increasing social security's revenue, having social security continue to have a surplus and purchase new government bonds as the old ones expire (if it so chooses).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The US defaulting on any part of its debt...
Oh, I don't think the U.S. will default on this debt. It'll just say, "Oh, yeah, the Social Security fund doesn't actually exist; all this money here is just, y'know, the general fund" and then stop making Social Security payments.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The US defaulting on any part of its debt...
Oh, I don't think the U.S. will default on this debt. It'll just say, "Oh, yeah, the Social Security fund doesn't actually exist; all this money here is just, y'know, the general fund" and then stop making Social Security payments.
Either that or once it starts really bleeding money like crazy, they will have to keep it afloat from the general fund.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Oh, I don't think the U.S. will default on this debt. It'll just say, "Oh, yeah, the Social Security fund doesn't actually exist; all this money here is just, y'know, the general fund" and then stop making Social Security payments.
That is defaulting on its debt. The money is held in federal savings bonds. Not making payments on those is defaulting on the debt. There's no way to do what you're asserting without triggering a credit event that will result in a huge shock to world markets. I suspect it would make the recent recession look mild, as it would mean the US was having problems with its debt. Look at the problems when the (comparatively) puny economies of Greece, Portugal, and Ireland had less severe credit events than defaulting on the social security debt would be! And they're not the world's reserve currency like the dollar is.
As for ending social security, while there will definitely need to be changes made, I think how deadly even talking about the possibility of decreasing social security payments to anyone even a tiny bit causes serious political problems should tell you how much more likely it is some other choice will be made.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Not making payments on those is defaulting on the debt.
I don't mean that they'd stop paying interest to themselves. I meant that they'd stop paying Social Security to old people.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Lower military spending to 1% gdp, done.
Yes. I think that everybody else in the world should do this.
True story. You've said this more than once Blayne, and it's never going to happen unless every country follows suit.
"Follow" doesn't make really sense in this context, unless you mean that the US is failing to follow. If you look at the sorted list of countries by military spending by GDP, there are only a handful of failed African and/or Middle Eastern countries with higher spending, Georgia, and Vietnam.
In the G7, the US could cut from 4.3% of GDP to 3.5% and still remain tied with Russia, which has a much smaller economy.
Despite what it says on that chart, you can bet your butt that China is spending much more than 2%. They don't publish half of what they spend, but most analysts agree that China's military capabilities are perhaps just over a decade away from matching ours, and that they wouldn't be able to do so without spending much more than is on the books. So as nice as it would be to for us to cut military spending, it's simply not going to happen. There is going to be a lot more military spending as a bipolar system emerges over the next few decades. We had our chance this decade and the last to reign in military spending, but now I think that the window of opportunity has passed.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I don't mean that they'd stop paying interest to themselves. I meant that they'd stop paying Social Security to old people.
Stop paying social security entirely? And you think there's any way a politician (excepting one or two extraordinarily quirky districts) supporting that would get reelected, ever?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah. They just need to wait until it's our generation's turn to actually collect it. The old people will still get their money, on our backs, and the young people won't care because they'll have been primed to not expect it. And our generation doesn't have the votes to matter, so we'll wind up screwed.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Lower military spending to 1% gdp, done.
Yes. I think that everybody else in the world should do this.
True story. You've said this more than once Blayne, and it's never going to happen unless every country follows suit.
"Follow" doesn't make really sense in this context, unless you mean that the US is failing to follow. If you look at the sorted list of countries by military spending by GDP, there are only a handful of failed African and/or Middle Eastern countries with higher spending, Georgia, and Vietnam.
In the G7, the US could cut from 4.3% of GDP to 3.5% and still remain tied with Russia, which has a much smaller economy.
Despite what it says on that chart, you can bet your butt that China is spending much more than 2%. They don't publish half of what they spend, but most analysts agree that China's military capabilities are perhaps just over a decade away from matching ours, and that they wouldn't be able to do so without spending much more than is on the books. So as nice as it would be to for us to cut military spending, it's simply not going to happen. There is going to be a lot more military spending as a bipolar system emerges over the next few decades. We had our chance this decade and the last to reign in military spending, but now I think that the window of opportunity has passed.
Until you realize that you're wrong.
While that the Chinese government certainly are spending more than they say, this isn't as large as a number as you think it is, at most its 150 billion$ or to put it in perspective 1/5th of the US budget for capabilities pound for pound matching US ones.
That capabilities match doesn't imply anything at all regarding how much is spent, they're a command economy with a armaments industry that since inception has been tried to do things as self sufficiently as possible.
Look at it in perspective, PLA Army Colonels arriving in the States for military exchanges are constantly shocked at just how much better paid US Colonels in the same rank are. Clearly this implies that widely speaking the PRC is demanding far more from their military and industry then the US is for the amount they pay.
Essentially your military-industrial complex is robbing you blind.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: the percentage of the population in the US over 65 is expected to grow, and fairly dramatically, over the next five plus decades. How does an increasing population not have the votes to matter?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: ... Attack, country is conquered, enjoy your near enslavement ...
No country with nuclear weapons, or even countries with allies with nuclear weapons will ever be "enslaved" barring some pretty miraculous developments in missile defense.
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: ... They don't publish half of what they spend ...
If we're going to be using your gut feeling that the Chinese are spending more than the SIPRI estimates, then we're going to have to use the Muslim world's gut feeling as to how much the US has hidden on its books, and then its a short spiral into guesses against guesses.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom: the percentage of the population in the US over 65 is expected to grow, and fairly dramatically, over the next five plus decades.
Man, I am more cynical than you are. Because it astonishes me that you don't expect that they're going to just keep moving the target beyond 65.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Lower military spending to 1% gdp, done.
Yes. I think that everybody else in the world should do this.
True story. You've said this more than once Blayne, and it's never going to happen unless every country follows suit.
"Follow" doesn't make really sense in this context, unless you mean that the US is failing to follow. If you look at the sorted list of countries by military spending by GDP, there are only a handful of failed African and/or Middle Eastern countries with higher spending, Georgia, and Vietnam.
In the G7, the US could cut from 4.3% of GDP to 3.5% and still remain tied with Russia, which has a much smaller economy.
Despite what it says on that chart, you can bet your butt that China is spending much more than 2%. They don't publish half of what they spend, but most analysts agree that China's military capabilities are perhaps just over a decade away from matching ours, and that they wouldn't be able to do so without spending much more than is on the books. So as nice as it would be to for us to cut military spending, it's simply not going to happen. There is going to be a lot more military spending as a bipolar system emerges over the next few decades. We had our chance this decade and the last to reign in military spending, but now I think that the window of opportunity has passed.
Until you realize that you're wrong.
While that the Chinese government certainly are spending more than they say, this isn't as large as a number as you think it is, at most its 150 billion$ or to put it in perspective 1/5th of the US budget for capabilities pound for pound matching US ones.
That capabilities match doesn't imply anything at all regarding how much is spent, they're a command economy with a armaments industry that since inception has been tried to do things as self sufficiently as possible.
Look at it in perspective, PLA Army Colonels arriving in the States for military exchanges are constantly shocked at just how much better paid US Colonels in the same rank are. Clearly this implies that widely speaking the PRC is demanding far more from their military and industry then the US is for the amount they pay.
Essentially your military-industrial complex is robbing you blind.
This is true. But it's not just that. You're right that you could pick a sector and find numerous inefficiencies when it comes to the way the US handles defense. It's also important to note that it's simply much cheaper to buy or manufacture weapons that are on the market as opposed to developing new ones. Because the United States is so determined to stay on the cutting edge of military technology, we're the ones paying the extra cost of developing those new weapons. The older weapons work just fine, and I would argue that that's the real reason why China is catching up to us, not so much as the inefficiencies within our system (not that those don't contribute).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... How is this different from investing the funds in (say for sake of argument) German treasury bills.
The problem is the conflict of interest. The US owns its own treasury bills in one hand and controls the money supply in the other.
The easiest way to visualize this is to consider the current dilemma that the Chinese are in. They hold, IIRC, over a trillion USD in short term treasury bills. But they are still worried that the US will print too much money and the actual value of their foreign reserves will go down. But the "good news" is that with short term bills, if the US starts doing that the Chinese can always sell the bills or wait until they expire.
The social security fund is also, IIRC, over a trillion. But they're essentially stuck with treasury bills that they can't sell on the market and they're forced to hold onto them until the ship goes down. No matter how much the US government decides to inflate.
The US doesn't have to explicitly default, it can simply reduce its debt that way. Indeed, thats why one of the choices in that NYT budget puzzle is "Use an alternate measure for inflation."
Edit to add: This is part of why the Canadian pension plan system is structured with an *independent* investment board, a board that invests all over the world, not just in Canadian or American assets.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: what age do you imagine it going to without getting the larger population of older people voting against the measure? I bet that even if you pick a fairly high age, the percent of the voting age population (or likely voters, or total population) above that age when you're retired will still be higher than the current percent above age 65. Who will apparently not vote for the fairly minimal measures that are required to make social security sustainable.
quote:The US doesn't have to explicitly default, it can simply reduce its debt that way. Indeed, thats why one of the choices in that NYT budget puzzle is "Use an alternate measure for inflation."
This is an inaccurate reading of that option. That option refers to how increases in benefits are counted, not anything to do with the debt. Changing the inflation measure is just another way of saying benefits in the future will be lower. However, the government changing how inflation is calculated won't affect the debt at all, only actual inflation will do that, however that inflation is approximated by economic statisticians.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug* I thought it was pretty obvious and didn't need spelling out.
Since benefits are indexed to inflation, you obviously have to weaken or remove that index before inflating aggressively to reduce your debt. Think of it as a prerequisite.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I bet that even if you pick a fairly high age, the percent of the voting age population (or likely voters, or total population) above that age when you're retired will still be higher than the current percent above age 65.
Honestly, I think an adjustment of retirement age to 75 would suffice; like I said, we've already conditioned a lot of people to not expect to receive Social Security already, and voters can't be reliably counted on to vote for their own financial best interests anyway. I would be surprised if our parents' generation were not the generation that voted to strip Social Security from us.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: [QUOTE]This is true. But it's not just that. You're right that you could pick a sector and find numerous inefficiencies when it comes to the way the US handles defense. It's also important to note that it's simply much cheaper to buy or manufacture weapons that are on the market as opposed to developing new ones. Because the United States is so determined to stay on the cutting edge of military technology, we're the ones paying the extra cost of developing those new weapons. The older weapons work just fine, and I would argue that that's the real reason why China is catching up to us, not so much as the inefficiencies within our system (not that those don't contribute).
The Chinese do not buy nearly as many systems as you think they do, they buy a few yes, but they also get liscenses and produce them themselves, simply producing an aircraft isn't so simple that you can do so without already having a significant R&D Military Industrial complex in place.
Corporations like Norinco are huge defense establishments that not only produce parts but are actively developing new systems.
That the Chinese can start developing an aircraft carrier, main battle tanks and AFV's clearly in the same category as the Abrams and the Bradley, a 5th generation stealth air superiority fighter/intercepter as well as a whole host of other developments from small arms to electronics on a fraction of the US budget I think is showing far more than you think it shows.
But all of this is beside the point, cutting back the US budget to even 2 to 2.5% of GDP would still keep it well ahead of China's figures, thus there's no need to have China or any other nation reduce their GDP.
So stop shifting the goal posts, since the Chinese figures are clearly a certain number at most and thus most is still well below what the US military budget at 2% would be there's nothing to fear that couldn't be solved with burden sharing with allies.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Since benefits are indexed to inflation, you obviously have to weaken or remove that index before inflating aggressively to reduce your debt. Think of it as a prerequisite.
None of the savings in the chart have anything to do with inflating, and only have to do with the benefit reduction. In other words, it isn't what the entry is about at all. Benefit reduction makes social security more sustainable whether or not parts of the treasuries are inflated away. Which, since it's a debt owed by the government to itself in the first place, is actually pretty irrelevant. All that matters are the debt obligations. The government wants to inflate to reduce the burden of debt it owns to others, but if it shifts less to social security in one way, it has to make up for it some other way (such as taxes, or benefits reductions, or any of numerous other things). The benefits all come from the other debts; inflating actually causes costs for the social security parts of the debt.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote: I would be surprised if our parents' generation were not the generation that voted to strip Social Security from us.
Pick a year you think it is greater than 50% likely to have happened by . I'd also be interested in hearing when you think it is greater than 95% likely to have happened by.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Honestly, I think an adjustment of retirement age to 75 would suffice; like I said, we've already conditioned a lot of people to not expect to receive Social Security already, and voters can't be reliably counted on to vote for their own financial best interests anyway. I would be surprised if our parents' generation were not the generation that voted to strip Social Security from us.
As a "younger" worker, I definitely fall into this conditioned category. I have no faith in Social Security, and wouldn't be upset at all if enrollment in the program ceased before my eligibility date. After all, it isn't as if the program is something I am investing in. I pay a tax for it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think it will dissaper entirely.
Instead, the age will be raised to 70 and it will be means-tested, which will make it obvious what it is: welfare. As a result, it will be combined - rhetorically if not beurocratically - with the rest of the welfare programs, growing steadily less popular and less funded as the people who vote are less and less likely to recieve any benefits from it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The US government has a legal requirement to repay the social security trust fund just like they have a legal requirement to repay all other government bonds.
No. Not like the requirement to repay all other government bonds. Because they aren't the same bonds.
What matters here is the consequences of default.
If the US Government defaults on bonds bought by China or by citizens, then their credit rating drops. Interest rates go up, drastically, and there is economic debacle.
If the US Government doesn't repay the Social Security fund, the outside consequences are...nothing. Absolutely nothing. Defaulting on that "debt" will have zero effect on the USA's credit rating, because the rating agencies don't count accounting tricks as bonds. Who cares if one account is emptier than another account, or the US government doesn't transfer money back? According to the credit agencies, all the accounts are looked at as a whole, so...it isn't real debt. If there are no consequences of default, it isn't real debt.
It's theater, theater designed to hide that the money has vanished and isn't coming back. Theater designed to hide that FICA is a tax and SS payments are non-guaranteed welfare checks. The Supreme Court has determined that the Feds cannot be sued for lowering or eliminating benefits because there was no legal promise in the first place.
It isn't a pension program. The fund is EMPTY, and there are no consequences to default, which means the bonds are a trick.
Hence the discussion of what to do from here.
[ March 23, 2011, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:No. Not like the requirement to repay all other government bonds. Because they aren't the same bonds.
Once again, katharina if you are going to keep making this claim please provide a reliable reference. It contradicts everything in the references I've posted. As best I have been able to determine from my research, this is a lie promulgated by people who want to eliminate social security. It has no basis in fact. If you have a reliable source that says otherwise -- posted it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So not worth the effort. Do your own homework.
I've definitely read it in at least two separate places - one on The Atlantic.com and the other I can't remember. I'm not wasting my time on this. I suppose you could imagine I'm lying, which makes this even less worth any actual effort.
However, it doesn't even matter. Whether payments go straight from the general fund or else pause in a different account along the way, going forward, the money for SS will come from, in part and in a growing porportion, from the general fund.
You could eliminate every single government agency and there would STILL be a deficit, because the money for payments has to come from the general fund. The only way cutting non-entitlement spending and come out even or ahead would be if all the people in the SSA were fired so they didn't cut checks.
So whether the "bonds" are a bald-faced lie or a toothless illusion, the facts are that citizens have no legal claim on any taxes they've paid before, and that going forward, the money for the benefits will come from the general fund.
Everything is legally, and should be, on the table.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
katharina, I've done my own homework and posted the links. You won't post any links because there are no reliable sources for what you are saying. Its a myth. Its lies. If it isn't. Prove it by linking a reliable source for what you are saying. I have already done this. You are the one who flunks the homework assignment.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
A note on the timeline, that article is out of date already in this part.
quote:Today Social Security is collecting more money than it needs to pay benefits, but by 2018 it will begin running a deficit—
... compared to ...
quote:Payroll taxes exceeded benefit payments regularly until 2010. But the fact is that Social Security has now passed a tipping point, beyond which the Congressional Budget Office projects that it will permanently pay out more in benefits than it gathers from Social Security taxes. The imbalance is made even larger this year by a one-year "payroll tax holiday" that was enacted as part of last year’s compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts.
No. Your statements are flat out wrong and wishful thinking. Rather than facing the reality, you are ranting based on lies. I won't do research for free for you because isn't worth the effort to me. I do research for money or credit. You can't give credit, but if you pay me, then I'll look up the links for you. My freelance rate is a flat $85/hour.
Tell you what - if those bonds are so real, then make the SS payments with those bonds.
Good link, Dark Knight. From the US Chamber of Congress, no less.
quote:The Social Security trust fund consists totally of special issue Treasury bonds and certificates of indebtedness. They are special in that these bonds can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security trust funds. These bonds cannot be sold in the open market.
The SS Fund is filled with "Bucks" as real and reliable as the bishop bucks we used at the last ward service swap. It's funny money. If it can't be traded on the open market, if it isn't transferable, then it means exactly nothing. Real bonds can and are sold on the open market.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
katharina: Is there a reliable email address I could contact you at? I've written you emails before but I am never certain you are getting them. If you could PM me through the forums your address I'd very much appreciate it. I of course, will not disseminate that information to anybody else.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here is an interesting take on how to solve Social Security. Let's go all in!
The US Chamber of Commerce is EXTREMELY biased. It may be correct, but I wouldn't use it as the sole source of info on this topic.
THat said, one thing I have heard was that the SS trust fund buying bonds was a decision made out of necessity AND convenience.
On the once hand, being "secure", SS couldn't exactly invest too speculatively, for fear of losing money on investments. That said, by just stockpiling cash, they were getting hit hard by inflation (especially in the 70s and early 80s). That dollar you put in last year was worth a fair bit less today.
So it makes sense that a decision was made to by government bonds, that accrued interest. The interest payments could at least mitigate inflation's effects on the fund.
On the other hand, there were the Reagan tax cuts. In order to get people on board with these cuts (which significantly reduced the top marginal rates aka the rates for wealthy folks), it was shown that by SS buying bonds, we could cover some/much of the revenue shortfall in the general fund. Of course this wasn't sustainable in the long run, and the idea was to get tax cuts then, and re-raise taxes later (10-20 years down the line) to cover the long term issues. Unfortunately, the raising of taxes never happened. Instead, the Federal tax rate for individuals is at the lowest its been in decades.
Now, that last line is not exactly apropos to the rest of it, except that when I hear people complaining about taxes, I can't gather much sympathy for them, especially since the proposed tax increases, by and large, would affect only the fairly to very wealthy to 10% or so, not the people generally doing the grousing.
(A complete aside, it seems to be a maxim in this day-and-age is that the poor and middle classes complain and protest, the wealthy classes lobby...)
Now, this is what I've heard, and it has a neat bit of logic. That said, it is also suspiciously conspiracy theory-esque, so I'm not exactly putting a lot of stock (ha!) into it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:No. Your statements are flat out wrong and wishful thinking.
My statements are backed by official treasury reports, statements by Alan Greenspan, expert opinions, reports from the social security adminstration and law. Your statements are backed by "I know I read it somewhere -- look it up yourself". Which would you say was best described by "wishful thinking"? I pretty sure your critical thinking skills aren't so bad you can't figure it out.
You're repeating Tea Party lies. If I'm wrong, prove it.
I don't even know why I continue asking that since it's evident that though you are willing to grandstand, you simply will not provide evidence to support your claims. When pressed you turn to snide personal insults. You have a great future in Tea Party Politics.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rabbit, any ideas about the article I posted?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rabbit,
Answer my points, rather than insulting me. And I meant what I said - this discussion isn't worth to me the bother of research.
If they were real bonds, then they would be transferable - that's the point of bonds. I've stated that all the bonds are theatre - pointing out the details of the theatre production isn't convincing.
I'll be convinced the "SS Bucks" have redeemable value when...they can be redeemed, for their face value. Until then, they are theatre. But none of that even matters - that's not the point of the present dillema.
And whether they are or not, the situation remains the same: from now on, Social Security is not self sustaining and must be paid, in a growing porportion, from the general fund. Social Security is a line item in the federal budget. The Supreme Court has found there is no legal claim on SS benefits.
That means it gets the same scrutiny as every other government program.
---
kmboots - I read it, and I was struck that by proposing the methods of paying for it, it also ends the fiction that Social Security is self-sustaining. Eliminating all the income tax deductions and dedicating an estate tax to pay for it is finally admitting that Social Security is just another line item government payout program and not a government-run pension plan.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:On the other hand, there were the Reagan tax cuts. In order to get people on board with these cuts (which significantly reduced the top marginal rates aka the rates for wealthy folks), it was shown that by SS buying bonds, we could cover some/much of the revenue shortfall in the general fund. Of course this wasn't sustainable in the long run, and the idea was to get tax cuts then, and re-raise taxes later (10-20 years down the line) to cover the long term issues. Unfortunately, the raising of taxes never happened. Instead, the Federal tax rate for individuals is at the lowest its been in decades.
This is so immoral it makes it me want to scream. Break it down. FICA is a flat tax on the first $106,000 of wages. No FICA taxes are levied against interest income, capital gains, dividends, benefits, or wages in excess of of $106,000/year. That means that the poor and middle class are taxed at a significantly higher rate than wealthier Americans. This is consider acceptable to most because there is also a cap on Social Security Benefits, so poor and middle income Americans get back more of what they pay into social security than wealthy Americans. But if we allow congress to default on the money in the trust fund (which they cannot do without a change in current laws), then we have a general purpose tax where levied on the poor and middle class that exempts the wealthy. That's obscene.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Actually, I completely agree. Payroll taxes are horrendously regressive and that is so unfair it is immoral.
---
They exist because it is all part of the theatre that Social Security isn't a tax and the payments are not a government check from the general fund.
Maybe one of the benefits of this thing finally blowing up in our faces is that the fiction will be so unsustainable that the FICA tax is eliminated and regular income taxes - which are progressive - will be adjusted to make up the difference.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rabbit, yep. Lift the cap.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am actually thrilled that the entitlement programs are being looked at closely, because it's fundamentally unfair. Why is there such a great - as flawed as it is, the others are worse - income payout for when citizens are old, but not for children. In terms of the most vulnerable among us, it's definitely kids. Three times the porportion of children live in poverty compared to seniors. And poverty at the beginning of life is worse - it has effects that are usually never recovered from. Poverty in childhood darkens the rest of their lives. Why are we so worried about poverty at the end of life but so blase about poverty at the beginning, when citizens are both unable - truly unable, all of them - to make their own way and are also completely not responsible for their own poverty.
What I would like to see is Medicare expanded to include everyone under 18, and benefits lessened for the older generation to do it, if necessary. Head Start programs for good preschool. Home nursing visits when there is a new baby. And a federally guaranteed at least two nutritious meals a day, instead of this piece meal version we have now.
There are a lot of problems with the structure of society today that leaves so many children in poverty, and it is absolutely reprehensible that needy children are left wanting while the oldest generations are robbing their presents and their futures for themselves. By saying Social Security is off the table, what is left on the table is disporportionally for the children, for the young. The grandchildren are left wanting because their grandparents didn't save. It's absolutely wrong. If I were to reform the system, that's where I'd start. Medicare for everyone under 18, paid for by eliminating the cap and, if necessary after that, adjusting benefits for the elderly.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The debt, including that owed to the "trust fund" will be inflated away. They've already started printing the money.
Once again, the people who do the right thing (save money) are screwed and the people who run up debt are rewarded.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Doesn't welfare usually protect mothers in this category? Also, doesn't the new health care law at least make it illegal for companies to deny health insurance to children with pre-exisiting conditions?
Also, the recent federal defunding of Planned Parenthood's non-abortion related services eliminates a large source of affordable contraception and gynecological care for the people most likely to be unable to provide for children. I read somewhere that for every dollar spent on such services.
[ March 23, 2011, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Also, doesn't the new health care law at least makes is illegal for companies to deny health insurance to children with pre-exisiting conditions?
And as a result, insurance companies in 23 states have dropped children-only health care policies. Including my friend's state, and when they applied for a family policy which accepted them the year before when they just wanted the parents, magically the parents didn't qualify this year, even though nothing about them had changed. They do have a daughter with special needs, however. Oh no, she wasn't denied insurance - it was the parents. And they don't offer children-only policies.
My point is that the services and programs for children are piece meal, messy, full of holes, and cut before the programs for old people, who should have saved. Frak that. Switch the priorities.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:The debt, including that owed to the "trust fund" will be inflated away.
Debt owed to others is reduced by inflation, but since the only purpose of the trust fund debt is to account for previous surpluses of a particular tax in the future for a particular liability, all that matters is the size of the liability. The federal gov't is on the hook for the amount of the liability no matter what the size of the trust fund is. Inflation does absolutely nothing. The only thing that matters is the size of the liability (which is scaled with inflation, absent future adjustments).
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
Why do railroads annoy you?
Because why am I paying for them? If I want to use a railroad, I buy a ticket. If it can't support itself that way, it's not needed. [/QB]
I guess we should close the USPS down now, too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Do you have an argument for not doing so that doesn't rely on "We've always had a Postal Service"?
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
Rural communities, and service of legal papers.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If rural communities want packages delivered to them, why should they not pay the real costs of those deliveries? As for legal papers, is there a particular reason the delivery has to be done by a government agency? And if that's really your reason for keeping the USPS around, why not just establish a courier service for that particular purpose? There is surely no need for the vast structure of the postal service just to deliver summonses and whatnot.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What would be the difference between the courier service and a (right-sized) postal service?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Rabbit,
Answer my points, rather than insulting me. And I meant what I said - this discussion isn't worth to me the bother of research.
It's very difficult to answer points when the data that allegedly supports these points is absent. Provide me with the links so I can address your points. How many times do I have to ask.
quote:If they were real bonds, then they would be transferable - that's the point of bonds.
Why do you think the point of bonds is to be transferrable? According to every investment guide I've ever seen, the point of bonds is to provide a high security investment with a guaranteed rate of return. There are many different types of bonds that have restrictions on their sale and transfer. The bonds held by the Social Security Trust are not unique in being non-transferrable.
quote:I've stated that all the bonds are theatre - pointing out the details of the theatre production isn't convincing.
Whenever you buy any type of bond, whether its a savings bond at a bank, a municipal utility, a corporation or the US government -- the issue of the bond immediately spends the money on something else. This is always the case. That's how bonds work. It bares little to no relevance on whether the bond has real value.
quote:I'll be convinced the "SS Bucks" have redeemable value when...they can be redeemed, for their face value. Until then, they are theatre. But none of that even matters - that's not the point of the present dillema.
1. The US government is legally bound to redeem those Social Security Bonds as soon as they are needed to make Social Security payments. That can't be changed by executive order or administrative shuffling. A law would have to be passed through both laws of congress and signed by the President to devalue or annul the debt owed to social security. Doing that would be catastrophic for the US economy and world so I can't imagine the government ever making such a move. The medicare trust fund is held in exactly the same type of bonds and the government has been "redeeming" Medicare Trust Funds nearly every year since 1995. Do you accept that the Medicare Trust Funds have real value since they have in fact been redeemed? They are exactly the same kind of bond held by Social Security.
And this is only irrelevant to the current dilemma if you don't think we the US people have a moral obligation to keep the agreements we have made with our own workers and senior citizens. It's only irrelevant if you integrity, paying your bills, and filling the obligations you have made are unimportant.
quote:And whether they are or not, the situation remains the same: from now on, Social Security is not self sustaining and must be paid, in a growing porportion, from the general fund. Social Security is a line item in the federal budget.
Whether or not Social Security is now or will be self sustaining in the future is utterly dependent on the question of the trust fund. It was recognized back in 1980 that Social Security would no longer be self sustaining when the baby boomers began to retire. To fix that problem, social security taxes were increased creating a surplus which, by law, would be saved in government bonds to make up the future shortfall. We planned ahead for this moment, but now that the bill is coming do we don't want to pay it. The fact that the trust fund isn't a big pile of cash stowed somewhere, doesn't make it pretend money any more than the money in my bank account is pretend. The US government has numerous options for paying off the debt it owes to Social Security. It can sell bonds to private investors. It can raise taxes or it can cut other programs. The US government is not facing bankruptcy if it has to gradually pay down the Social Security Trust to meet the demand for which it was created.
What would you think of a person who refused to pay their unsecured debts even though they had multiple options for doing so? I'd think they were lying cheating scum. As an American citizen, I expect the government to represent me -- not lying cheating scum.
The government isn't "them", its "us:. It represents "us". What it does, we do. We the American people made a compact with US workers that the surplus social security taxes they were paying would be held in a trust for when they retired. Now the that time has come. If we have any ounce of integrity we will not forget the obligation we have to the payers of the FICA tax. It's a legal obligation but its also a moral one. It might be possible to change the law, but every moral person should oppose it.
quote:The Supreme Court has found there is no legal claim on SS benefits.
I've asked for a source for this before, I will ask again. In my search, I found a case where the Supreme Court ruled that an individual had no legal claim to Social Security. (The particular case dealt with an immigrant who was deported for being a member of the communist party during the McCarthy era and sued to receive the Social Security he would have received had he remained a US resident.) This case has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether the American people (as a whole as opposed to individual Americans) have a legal claim on Social Security. Under existing law, we clearly do. Under existing law, the moneys paid to Social Security must be used to pay Social Security Benefits and the other branches of the Government which have borrowed from the Social Security Trust are legally bound to repay that money. That law could be changed. Changing it would be immoral, irresponsible and dishonorable.
quote:That means it gets the same scrutiny as every other government program.
Only if you don't think that one has a moral obligation to pay ones debts. The US government owes retirees 2.4 trillion dollars. If treating social security like every other program means forgetting that -- them NO. No honorable person would treat it like programs that have not generated a surplus specifically earmarked for specific task.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What would be the difference between the courier service and a (right-sized) postal service?
It would not do a fixed route; rather than a van-full of letters and whatnot being carted around every day, it would do point-to-point deliveries on a motorbike. Further, it would only accept legal notices.
Note that I am not advocating such a thing. I'm saying that, if the reason we need a postal service is to deliver legal papers, why have we got all this paraphernalia of mailboxes on every street corner and daily deliveries of junk mail to every neighbourhood? Why not optimise for the thing you (meaning in this case Genuine) say we need it for? Conversely, if such an optimisation would be a bad thing, then why should I take seriously the argument that this is why we need the service?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: The US government is legally bound to redeem those Social Security Bonds as soon as they are needed to make Social Security payments.
Right, this is fine, but it does not address the underlying point that this money does not exist in a bank account somewhere. It is a legal obligation of the US government whic, at the moment, has no money for it. When the first of those bonds is due, that is to say, the very day that SS outgo is greater than income, the government will have to either borrow or tax, or default. Thus the argument that the 'Trust Fund' shows the solidity of SS is invalid. The trust fund is only as good as the ability of USG to find money to pay off its IOUs. If you want to argue that SS is solvent, show where USG gets the money to pay its IOUs; not that SS has a bunch of IOUs. A bond is only worth as much as the solvency of its issuer.
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
Rural communities?
In the long run, putting land, even remote land, to productive use has a net benefit. Don't ask me for a statistic -- but I suspect that it's a small price to pay. Question: do people in rural communities get junk mail?
Legal service?
Side note: You usually can't serve an individual person with a summons via the mail anyway. Unless the person is a business entity (corp, LLC, LLP, etc.) or a government entity or something. But for every document subsequent to the summons . . .
Why? I can't say why, historically. But what if you want to sue the private courier in your region? What if an unrepresented party doesn't have access to fax or a computer? A federally-operated system of delivery is about as fair a system as we can get.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Right, this is fine, but it does not address the underlying point that this money does not exist in a bank account somewhere.
How would it be any different if the money were in a bank account somewhere? Banks don't just keep money in a vault. If it had been placed in a bank account, the bank would have lent or invested it somewhere. If the borrowers defaulted or the investments tanked, we could not redeem the money from the account.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Without taking a side, I'd like to state that I've learned a lot by following the argument(s) in this thread, or at least I think I have.
From a meta perspective, I'm also interested in the fact that this argument has no apparent consensus, or even clearly delineated sides. I guess that demonstrates just how fuzzy this issue is.
Katie, I do admit that I am a little confused by your refusal to provide links validating your claims, as you've demanded sources from an opponent in a similar way in a recent thread, and are clearly invested in the discussion. Maybe we can convince you to do some research for us pro bono ?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: My point is that the services and programs for children are piece meal, messy, full of holes, and cut before the programs for old people, who should have saved. Frak that. Switch the priorities.
I don't know about switching the priorities, but I basically agree. More important that we have govt-provided coverage for children.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
X, it's easy. Becuase that would be work, and this is recreation. It's not worth it, and I don't have the slightest doubt that I could provide lists of links and Rabbit would simply dismiss everything that doesn't already fit in her world view.
It's a collasal waste of time. I read a lot of blogs and three or four economic wonky blogs specifically, so there is a huge number of places it could be. Looking up the links simply isn't worth the trouble.
Especially since what Rabbit is disputing isn't even essential to the argument - where the bonds are fake or not (they are), the money coming forward must come from the General Fund, and if you make old people programs sacrosanct, then you rob children to do it. That's foul.
The Supreme Court has determined that Social Security is not guaranteed. There is less obligation to pay social security than there is to pay public employee pensions. It simply isn't a pension plan, and it never was.
*shrug* I think someone who cares enough to do research on this topic because of this discussion (which is so not me) would research that themselves. Unless, of course, you think I am lying through my teeth, which Rabbit does, but her opinion isn't worth much to me. There just needed to be some correction to the false premises of this rant.
Leaving Social Security as it is and robbing children of their presents and their futures is reprehensible. Baby Boomers didn't save - they could vote, and they let this situation happen. Four times the percentage of children live in poverty than seniors. The unemployment rate of 16-24 is over 20%. The bursting of the housing bubble has cratered the ability of first-time homeowners to build wealth. And while every single person over 65 in this country has access to health care, the programs for children are spotty, messy, laborious, and substandard.
Holding Social Security sacrosant is flat out stealing from children. It's wrong. I am GLAD that those entitlements are on the table now, because now there can be a readjusting of priorities.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Destineer, how would you provide for children without also providing for their parents?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If you want to argue that SS is solvent, show where USG gets the money to pay its IOUs; not that SS has a bunch of IOUs. A bond is only worth as much as the solvency of its issuer.
I've done it already, but let me repeat it. The US government gets money to pay its IOUs through taxes and by selling government bonds. One year US government bonds are currently selling with an interest rate of 0.25% -- suggesting that there is no shortage of people willing to invest in the US government. The US government can easily gradually pay down the Social Security Trust Fund (and gradually pay down is what is required) by switching publicly financed debt to privately financed debt.
This will not lead to any net change in the national debt, though its likely that over time it will lead to higher interest rates. But be I wouldn't complain to loudly about that. What it suggests is that if it were not for the SS and the other trust funds, we would have been paying higher interests rates all along.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The bonds in the SS fund are NOT the US Government bonds issued to the general public that are redeemable for their face value.
The are "special" bonds and have no redeemable value on the open market.
That makes them just funny money. What you want to do is to borrow real money to redeem them - which means it is coming out of the General Fund. That means Social Security is broke. Which means that the premise of this rant is wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For years - decades - the burden has been pushed on to the next generation. Now it is coming due, and the next generation is saying "No". I actually don't have a problem with that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: [QB] X, it's easy. Becuase that would be work, and this is recreation. It's not worth it, and I don't have the slightest doubt that I could provide lists of links and Rabbit would simply dismiss everything that doesn't already fit in her world view.
Kat, You have absolutely no right to insult me based on your forecasts of how I would respond if you were to something you have never done. If you aren't willing to do the work needed to back up the claims you make -- stick to fluff threads for your recreation and leave the serious discussions to those of us who care about truth and honest.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you can't handle challenges to your falsehood-ridden rants, get a blog.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Kat, I can handle challenges to my rants. I can't handle you. You have a smug, nasty condescending way of responding to me and others on this board that makes me want to fight you to the pain. You are genuinely unpleasant poster. I really can't abide interacting with you any more. If I have to leave the community to avoid it, then I guess I will.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not interested in insults and threats and personal drama - only in correcting false premises.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That makes them just funny money.
Bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government are real money whether or not they're tradable. The question is whether USG has pledged its faith and credit too widely, and still has the ability to redeem all its promises.
quote:The US government gets money to pay its IOUs through taxes and by selling government bonds.
Right, agreed. Since selling bonds is effectively just putting off the taxation, this comes down to "higher taxes", either in 2017 or (if USG sells 20-year bonds) 2037, or sometime between the two. Right? So in the end, SS is solvent if, and only if, USG has the will and ability to pass higher taxes. By all means argue that it does; I'm not contesting that point. But to say that this means SS is solvent in itself is, IMO, a bait and switch. It's distracting from the actual problem people have with SS, which is that either USG reforms it, or taxes go up, in spite of the higher taxes instituted in the eighties which were intended to avoid precisely that problem.
quote:How would it be any different if the money were in a bank account somewhere? Banks don't just keep money in a vault. If it had been placed in a bank account, the bank would have lent or invested it somewhere.
The difference is that phrase, "lent or invested". The bank would have exchanged the money for assets. Possibly not liquid assets, and some of its investments would have lost money (although if it lost money on average, it would go bankrupt); but it would be able to show, for every dollar, "Yep, we spent that dollar on this asset, and we made so-and-so much interest, and now we have a dollar and X cents if we liquidate at market prices". USG, however, has spent the money on consumption. It can show, for every dollar, "We spent that dollar on food stamps for this guy, a Tomahawk missile that we shot at Gaddafi, and spare parts for this peachy-keen jet fighter, and now we have - well, nothing except our ability to tax."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rabbit, you don't have to leave the community (and I hope you don't); you just have to ignore kat. Really. It isn't difficult. Nothing anyone does will change her behaviour but nothing says you have to respond to her.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lots of people are ignorable. There are some usernames that instantly make my eyes glaze over because nothing they say betrays the slightest sign of intelligent life.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Or let me put it differently. Suppose that SS taxes had not been increased in the eighties, but that the 'Trust Fund' had existed just the same; that is, Congress passed a law saying the Treasury had to give SS so many bonds at such a rate of interest. The only difference is that people would not have been paying the extra SS taxes in the eighties and nineties, right? There would still have to be a tax hike in 2017, or whenever it is. So what was the purpose of the extra SS taxes? Tomahawk missiles, apparently. If the money had been lent to banks which would have invested it in interest-generating products, fine. But it has been lent against the future taxation power of USG, and that is really very different.
Similarly, what would have happened if there had been neither an SS tax increase nor a trust fund established? People would have paid less taxes through the eighties and nineties, and we'd still need a tax hike in 2017. So the point is that the only thing those eighties taxes accomplished was to buy extra Tomahawk missiles and food stamps, or whatever it is USG has been spending money on. The 2017 tax hike that it was supposed to avoid has not been avoided. Arguing that SS is 'solvent' is just playing with words in the face of this fact; it ignores what people mean by 'solvent' when speaking of government programs, namely "won't require me to pay more taxes". Especially when they've already been paying extra taxes to avoid precisely that problem. This is the source of the rage; pointing to a pile of IOUs and saying "We have the power to increase taxes to pay these off" is just compeltely missing the point.
Kat, you are actually correct, but you are arguing in a very unpleasant manner. If you're really uninterested in this debate, could you please go elsewhere? You're adding heat but no light.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:If you want to argue that SS is solvent, show where USG gets the money to pay its IOUs; not that SS has a bunch of IOUs.
In 1982, it was the same situation that is happening now: receipts were going to be lower than payouts. As a result, taxes were raised and benefits were lowered. It's happened before, and I have no doubt that it can and will happen again. It should.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Lots of people are ignorable. There are some usernames that instantly make my eyes glaze over because nothing they say betrays the slightest sign of intelligent life.
You're being a little too hard on yourself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Katharina, you should bow out of this debate if you're going to continue acting like you usually do.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: One year US government bonds are currently selling with an interest rate of 0.25% -- suggesting that there is no shortage of people willing to invest in the US government.
I wouldn't put much stock in that.
The biggest holder of US government bonds would be the government itself. That shouldn't give much confidence, that would be like asking a shady guy in an alleyway how much he trusts himself. That would be followed by the Chinese who need it to depress the exchange rate and are simply hoping they won't be screwed too much when it comes crashing down*. Between them and other foreign currency reserves around the world, there's not a lot of "people" investing in the US government.
*
quote: Luo Ping, a director-general at the China Banking Regulatory Commission, said after a speech in New York that China would continue to buy Treasuries in spite of its misgivings about US finances. ... Mr Luo, whose English tends toward the colloquial, added: “We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion-$2 trillion [$1,000bn-$2,000bn] . . .we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys but there is nothing much we can do.”
Rabbit, KoM, Dobbie, Samp, and Kate. Aw, the usual suspects. That also officially makes it a dogpile. I know I'm fascinating, as always, but none of you are worth fighting with. Go back to our public debt disaster.
-------------------
So forget the funky accounting to pretends one part of the Fed can be in debt to another part of the Fed and credit ratings care (they don't).
In the future, there are huge populations that will expect government money, and there are also populations of citizens who can't take of themselves who need it. Why is it that seniors are guaranteed a minimum life, while children are not? The safety net for kids is full of holes. I mean, philosophically, if you believe that society has an obligation to take care of those who can't take care of themselves, why aren't children at the front of that line?
More specifically, why on earth doesn't Medicare cover children?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am not interested in insults and threats and personal drama - only in correcting false premises.
If you were interested in correcting false premises, you would provide data rather than conjecture and you would respond to the facts presented by others. If you weren't interested in insults, you wouldn't make so many of them. If you weren't interested in drama, you'd be an entirely different human being.
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
Katie, I miss you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This personal drama isn't worth the pixels. Go back to the money talk.
---
Text me, sweetheart. My phone died and I lost your info. I'll send you my blog.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Rabbit, KoM, Dobbie, Samp, and Kate. Aw, the usual suspects. That also officially makes it a dogpile. I know I'm fascinating, as always, but none of you are worth fighting with.
The reasons you are fascinating usually have to do with how pathologically incapable you are of understanding what's wrong with the way you act. If none of them are worth fighting with, you would think you would be able to restrain yourself from fighting and belittling constantly. Even just this once, if even to prove you were even remotely in control of yourself.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No one actually cares about the money talk anymore? They care more about me? How flattering, and pointless. The fascination isn't returned. Go back to the serious discussion of whether something can actually have monetary value if no one is allowed to buy it. "Priceless" really isn't the description you want of the fund that is supposed to pay for your retirement.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rabbit, really, just stop. It could be an interesting discussion. Any thoughts on lifting the cap?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Don't worry, Kat, I'll watch your back.
umm... Could you wiggle it some more?
Anyway, the reason we shouldn't heap entitlements on the children is the fact that the entitlements we've already given them have created a society where no one needs to take care of their family anymore. Who asks "But who will take care of me and my baby?" No one because the answer is obvious. The government.
So poor kids screw around, get pregnant, don't get married and raise another generation to live off the dole.
As for old people, they should have spent their youth either raising kids to take care of them or socking it away in savings. Instead taxes (including payroll taxes) looted them dry. Or they pissed it away on cars and big screen tvs, which is their own damn fault. Either way I don't feel obligated to take care of them either.
People who DO feel such an obligation to take care of their fellow man should get together and form a charity rather than using the force of law to thrust their own morality on to others. Yes I know, those laws have been around for generations now. Doesn't mean they're a good idea.
Not that it matters. I never change any minds here...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: One year US government bonds are currently selling with an interest rate of 0.25% -- suggesting that there is no shortage of people willing to invest in the US government.
I wouldn't put much stock in that.
The biggest holder of US government bonds would be the government itself. That shouldn't give much confidence, that would be like asking a shady guy in an alleyway how much he trusts himself. That would be followed by the Chinese who need it to depress the exchange rate and are simply hoping they won't be screwed too much when it comes crashing down*. Between them and other foreign currency reserves around the world, there's not a lot of "people" investing in the US government.
The interest rates on government bonds aren't determined by who holds the most. They are determined by who is currently trading the most. The interest rates on the publicly held debt are locked to market rates but since they aren't traded on the market, the publicly held debt can't directly influence the market value. It does however have an indirect effect on the market value since it reduces the total amount of bonds issued on the private market.
But all that is virtually irrelevant to my point. If the US needs to sell more bonds to private holders to gradually pay off the bonds to Social Security -- all they need to do is set the interest rate high enough to attract the needed investors. Right now, the privately held debt is growing rapidly and interests rates are still at rock bottom. There is no reason to believe that the US government couldn't easily the money needed to meet its commitments to Social Security without having to offer enormous interest rates.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Anyway, the reason we shouldn't heap entitlements on the children is the fact that the entitlements we've already given them have created a society where no one needs to take care of their family anymore. Who asks "But who will take care of me and my baby?" No one because the answer is obvious. The government.
So poor kids screw around, get pregnant, don't get married and raise another generation to live off the dole.
I love this conceptualization because it's not really what happens. Countries with serious doles don't have an explosive problem with unleveled rates of poor kids acting like libertarian-conceptualized mass unproductives bringing the whole economy down.
If you have any sort of statistical data stating otherwise, now's the time to bring it up for review.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: This personal drama isn't worth the pixels.
Then be a less constantly insulting person, and you won't create it.
Don't just create it to be flattered by it later.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The interest rates on government bonds aren't determined by who holds the most. They are determined by who is currently trading the most.
This is essentially the same thing while China runs its trade surplus and the US government is playing games with the Fed.
quote: There is no reason to believe that the US government couldn't easily the money needed to meet its commitments to Social Security without having to offer enormous interest rates.
Of course there is. Without Chinese purchases of treasury bonds, interest rates would spike. That is why Geithner was sent to Beijing in 2009 to encourage the Chinese to continue buying bonds and why Clinton says in Wikileaks that America simply cannot get tough with its banker (China).
At one point, before the housing bubble, that spike would have been a good thing since it would slowed the bubble down. But now, with the US running trillion dollar deficits, I find it doubtful.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, can we just stop responding to katharina? This is actually rather an interesting discussion; she isn't.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You're less cynical than I am, fugu; for my part, I strongly suspect that because the monies for Social Security are entirely virtual, the government will simply decide one day that they don't exist and aren't owed.
I want to know when this will happen. Am I a rare person to think that even I am going to get social security when I retire?
Or maybe it won't be social security and will have a different name, but I still think I get money back when I am old, one way or another, unless we have an apocalyptic economic event.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Stats on this are really hard to find... But if you google up "teen pregnancy" You'll find that, indeed, teen pregnancy is tied to poverty. I'm sure you can come up with a lot of reasons for that, but really, if we, as a society, wasn't taking care of them, what would happen? Would there be social pressure for the fathers to step up and take care of their child? Do you really think they'd just starve? Or do you think the extended families of the parties involved would help them make it work?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Oh, and while we're at it, please produce evidence that societies with a real dole system don't have this problem because that's not what my, brief, research says.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Teen pregnancy is less of a problem in Canada (or anywhere else it looks like) and it would be hard to argue that the US has a superior "dole" system in that regard.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Stats on this are really hard to find... But if you google up "teen pregnancy" You'll find that, indeed, teen pregnancy is tied to poverty.
It is. "The Dole" is not poverty. It is an anti-poverty measure. We have a much more paltry system than other modernized countries, we also have worse teen pregnancy rates. That's it own issue, not a counterpoint.
quote:Oh, and while we're at it, please produce evidence that societies with a real dole system don't have this problem because that's not what my, brief, research says.
What is your 'brief research?' What is the research at all? That's what I'm opening by asking. What backs up the assertions you make about what the dole transforms economically disadvantaged people into? How does it contrast with the way things actually work in nations like Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, France, etc?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
katharina: Expect an email from me. Until further notice could you not respond to Rabbit? Also, I'm not OK with how readily you are insulting other posters. You are even disrespectful to those who agree with your ideas, but not your presentation. You need to calm down, and do it very soon.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I don't plan on relying on Social Security at all. I have co-workers who collect it now and it really is not enough to live off of.
I was brought up being told by my parents, school teachers, professors, and even a music theory teacher to invest as much in a 401(k) as possible.
I think it is important to bring up one thing about the OASDI tax. While we have been at the 12.4% rate (Employee and employer portions) for years now, the cap generally goes up each year. From 1980-1989 the wage base went from $25,900 to $48,000. From 1990-2000 it went from $48,000 to $72,600. Just in the past decade we have jumped from $72,600 to $106,800, where it has stayed since 2009. (Most likely due to the economy) In the past 20 years we have jumped over $80,000 in the wage base.
The wage limit has been going up to keep up with inflation. Removing the cap completely would be an option, though if the money had been managed better in the past it would not need to even be considered.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I just have no idea how the whole money-to-old-people situation is going to work itself out. You can have theories, but a lot of it is going to be dependent upon economic flashpoints, and what parties of what ideologies hold what positions and what clout for those points in time decades in the future. At any rate, I think, money will continue to be spent on the welfare of old people. We'll just agonize for a long while over how the hell we want to do this, and there will be plenty of dysfunction in the meanwhile.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I'm one of those 'younger' people who doesn't think Social Security will be around when I retire. I subscribe to Tom's philosophy on it, and I've felt that way since I started working (and paying the taxes).
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: I'm one of those 'younger' people who doesn't think Social Security will be around when I retire. I subscribe to Tom's philosophy on it, and I've felt that way since I started working (and paying the taxes).
While I suspect it will be around, it would be foolish to count on it. So keep doing what you're doing and save. Even if you do get it, that's just that much more you will have.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: I'm one of those 'younger' people who doesn't think Social Security will be around when I retire. I subscribe to Tom's philosophy on it, and I've felt that way since I started working (and paying the taxes).
Same here. I don't expect to get much, if anything out of it, but I fully expect that I'll have to pay into it for another couple decades when I'd rather just put that money into a 401K for myself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What I find most troubling about this thread reflects a pervasive misconception that is all too common in American culture - the idea that wealth is somehow a sign of virtue and that poverty necessarily reflects a lack of virtue. Sure. In some cases people "deserve" to be either wealthy or not, but for every "welfare queen" I can show you someone who has done everything "right" and still can't get ahead. Or some person, born to well off parents who has had it pretty darn easy. Especially now, with the income gap getting larger and larger, perfectly virtuous people are suffering.
Yes, we absolutely should provide more and more consistent help for children but the idea that we should take that help from "undeserving" old or ill people is wrong. Before we put that "on the table" can we look at some of our other priorities? We could start with tax cuts for the wealthy and defense spending.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Yes, we absolutely should provide more and more consistent help for children but the idea that we should take that help from "undeserving" old or ill people is wrong.
I'm a little confused, Kate. Who's saying we should take money away from needy old or ill people? Katie's position, for example, is that the needy old and ill should be cared for by a program that is more openly welfare than SS claims to be.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
There are multiple posts in this thread that either suggest that old people should be a lower priority than children or that if they are old and poor that's their own damn fault.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not referring to just Kat but to statements like:
quote:My point is that the services and programs for children are piece meal, messy, full of holes, and cut before the programs for old people, who should have saved. Frak that. Switch the priorities.
quote:As for old people, they should have spent their youth either raising kids to take care of them or socking it away in savings. Instead taxes (including payroll taxes) looted them dry. Or they pissed it away on cars and big screen tvs, which is their own damn fault. Either way I don't feel obligated to take care of them either.
and
quote:The grandchildren are left wanting because their grandparents didn't save.
Two of those were from kat and one from Pixiest but they are hardly alone. I idea that wealth reflects virtue is as old as this country. I am saying that we needn't abandon the elderly in order to help children. There are a lot of other places to find the money. Yes, we should switch priorities but not just switch who gets help.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I don't know why you're surprised. This is a defining aspect of Internet politics.
An Internet conservative is one who believes that anyone making less than they do is a lazy, good-for-nothing welfare leech who steals all their money from the working man and deserves any punishment we can give them.
And an Internet liberal is one who believes that anyone making more than they do is a greedy, thieving con artist who steals all their money from the working man and deserves any punishment we can give them.
Once you come to terms with these definitions, some of these posts will seem a lot less shocking. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Speed, I am not shocked. As I said, the idea that wealth is a reflection of virtue is a particularly American idea - it really did come over with the Mayflower. It doesn't just pervade the Internet; it has pervades American culture and politics for as long as we have been here. Look at Prosperity Theology for example. Heck, look at Benjamin Franklin. "Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise." Can we guarantee that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:ere are multiple posts in this thread that either suggest that old people should be a lower priority than children or that if they are old and poor that's their own damn fault.
Rather, I think Katie's argument is that levying a regressive tax on poor people with children to pay for the retirement of people who've had a lifetime to amass retirement savings is, in her view, reprehensible.
I don't see any suggestion that money equals virtue in this observation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is the assumption that the fact that they need assistance when they are too old to work is their fault for not saving. Hence, a lack of virtue.
edit: And, again, I am not talking specifically about kat.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is the assumption that the fact that they need assistance when they are too old to work is their fault for not saving.
Would you disagree that people have a responsibility to provide for themselves?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I certainly wouldn't agree with it without some qualifications. There is a huge "as best as they can" clause that needs to be added and and understanding that we are not solely responsible for providing for ourselves nor for providing solely for ourselves.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* And would you agree that children do not have a responsibility to provide for themselves, but that parents have a responsibility to provide for their children?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sure. Again as best as we can. Old people rarely have parents who can take care of them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* So if old people are responsible for themselves, and if parents are responsible for their children, then we as a society -- by taking from parents who are caring for their children to give to old people who are caring for themselves -- are making it harder for both groups to fulfill their responsibilities.
The issue for Katie is, I suspect, not whether old people should be left to die in poverty, but rather whether it is an effective and moral mechanism to tax the families of children in poverty to provide for those old people. In making that determination, one's responsibility for the welfare of one's self and/or others should be a considered factor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I am saying that there are other choices. We don't really need to choose between hungry children and hungry old people. We may need to choose between hugely wealthy children and hungry children or between lots of tomahawk missiles and hungry children. The reason we (not again just kat but as a society) think that the moral choice is between hungry children and hungry old people is because we can pin the fault for their hunger on their fault.
I was a mild libertarian when I was young. As I got older, I found the problem with that was children. Children certainly didn't deserve to starve; that wasn't fair. As I got older, I realized that life wasn't all that fair for grownups either and many of them didn't deserve to starve either. Even older and I learned that "deserve" doesn't really enter into it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would suggest that the issue today is very rarely actual starvation. It is more likely to be selling one's house and moving to a flat, or perhaps moving in with one's adult children. Independence is valuable and I would myself hate to lose it, but it is not so obvious a moral claim as starvation. Paying to keep food in someone's mouth is one thing, or a roof over their heads; but paying to keep a particular roof is a bit more dodgy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would suggest that you haven't seen some of the things that I have.
quote:The reason we (not again just kat but as a society) think that the moral choice is between hungry children and hungry old people is because we can pin the fault for their hunger on their fault.
You know, I don't think this is the case. Very few of the people I know who support removing entitlements, for example, do so because they think the poor suffer from moral failings.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How do you read "should have saved" and "pissed it away...which is their own damn fault"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You don't think they should have saved? Must we absolve someone of all their mistakes before we help them, or can we help them while recognizing that they may have made mistakes?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I don't mind using some of my income to support fellow citizens as they get old and retire. Part of the problem with Social Security that I see, however, is that it's perceived as an account I'm paying into for my own eventual retirement. The fact that I'm forced to pay into it without any promise of benefiting from it is galling.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that some of them havesaved and that some of them couldn't have saved. And that whether they saved or not, we have an obligation to help them. Too often, we use their perceived failings as an excuse to not help.
"Why should I help them? It's their own fault."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would suggest that you haven't seen some of the things that I have.
Yes, yes. We were discussing programs for the middle-class majority, numbered in the tens of millions. Not for the few thousands of homeless. I did say "very rarely", not "never". I suggest that SS, intended for every resident, is a very blunt instrument relative to the problem of homelessness.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
IIRC, there are enough social programs and safety nets in place that homelessness is rarely a financial issue. Rather, even in Canada, a majority of homeless suffer from mental illness which prevents them from taking advantage of various programs for financial assistance. There was a study where there was a silly number (like 4%) of seniors that simply didn't claim benefits to which they were entitled.
Thus, the recommendation is normally to beef up centres that treat mental illness and provide healthcare rather then bluntly attack the problem with more money for seniors.
Edit to add: There was an interesting government program in Quebec where they actually track down seniors that deserve money and then give it to them.
[ March 24, 2011, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:IIRC, there are enough social programs and safety nets in place that homelessness is rarely a financial issue.
I've volunteered in a homeless shelter and I do not believe this is true in the US. It probably is in Canada and Europe, but in the US homelessness is quite commonly a financial issue.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
According to the article I linked, most homelessness of the elderly was linked to poverty.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The problem is that if you have benefits to which you're entitled but you don't claim them, then you're still in poverty (or have financial issues).
Raising the level of benefits doesn't particularly help in this case because they're not getting to the people that need it anyway.
ex:
quote:In December 2001, under-subscription to the OAS and GIS made the headlines and Canadians learned that approximately 300,000 seniors eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Allowance, or the Survivor Allowance did not receive these benefits. A Toronto food bank had raised the alarm when people 60 and over accounted for 10% of its users and only a minority of these individuals knew about and were receiving GIS and Allowance benefits.
quote:The sums in question are considerable. For example, the 50,000 seniors who are eligible for OAS but do not apply sustain a total income loss of $250 million a year. It is more often women, particularly elderly women, who fail to apply for the GIS – a group that is most at risk of living in poverty.
It is true as The Rabbit indicates that the problem might be different in the States, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't a major problem in the States as well because I wouldn't expect it to be any easier to apply for benefits in there.
[ March 24, 2011, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Mucus, One of the things I did as a volunteer in the homeless shelter was help people get connected with programs that could get them housing. They were mostly NGO programs because the US really doesn't have adequate tax payer funded programs for the poor.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think there should be more money put into programs to help the homeless. I know some would say "Get a job" but if the person has no place to live, no changes of clothes, no/little bathing, it is extremely difficult to get a job and keep it.
If the person has mental illness that would prevent them from receiving training or holding a regular job, there are multiple non-profits out there that are willing to help. There is one here in town called Opportunity Village that deals specifically with people that are mentally ill, retarded, or disabled. I LOVE that charity, they do so much to help those in need, and I donate to them as often as I am able.
It is important to remember that some people prefer to be homeless. There have been some articles and radio interviews here in Las Vegas over the past year with the people that live in the tunnels under the city. A lot the people enjoy that life, and who am I to tell them they have to get a home and a job?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Anyway, the reason we shouldn't heap entitlements on the children is the fact that the entitlements we've already given them have created a society where no one needs to take care of their family anymore. Who asks "But who will take care of me and my baby?" No one because the answer is obvious. The government.
What do you think should be done with children whose parents can't take care of them (or don't exist)? For the sake of argument, assume the kids live in an area with no charities around to take them in.
quote:As for old people, they should have spent their youth either raising kids to take care of them or socking it away in savings.
I don't understand. Is there supposed to be some law that says kids have to take care of their parents?
quote:Destineer, how would you provide for children without also providing for their parents?
In the case of health care, it would be easy. We already provide for the elderly without providing for their families. Give the kids the equivalent of Medicare.
This isn't my idea, I should add. David Brin has proposed it as a way of incrementally bringing about single-payer national health care. I think it would stand a good chance of succeeding.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I don't understand. Is there supposed to be some law that says kids have to take care of their parents?
there should be one. it would be more moral and more just than what we have now - random strangers supporting random strangers.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Should the law require you to support your biological parents, or your legal guardians when you were a kid? The latter, obviously, one would think. What if you had several different legal guardians? What if your legal guardian was a brother or sister just a few years older than you? What if you'd been abused as a child and had a restraining order out against your parents?
If you have multiple kids, should they all chip in equally, or at some rate determined by their income? Should someone with more kids make more money from the system? What about if your kids all die in a car accident?
These considerations aside, think of the incentive this would create for people to off their parents (or pull the plug on them).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I don't understand. Is there supposed to be some law that says kids have to take care of their parents?
there should be one. it would be more moral and more just than what we have now - random strangers supporting random strangers.
At least here, these laws already exist. They're just not used very often.
quote:China is considering a law that would force children to visit their elderly parents. And here in Canada, nearly every province has a law on the books allowing parents to sue their children for financial support. We meet a daughter who is being sued by her mother.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Mucus, One of the things I did as a volunteer in the homeless shelter was help people get connected with programs that could get them housing. They were mostly NGO programs because the US really doesn't have adequate tax payer funded programs for the poor.
*shrug* We have equivalent programs like that too. It just doesn't seem like there are many homeless elderly that need these programs, the homeless are disproportionately younger.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I don't understand. Is there supposed to be some law that says kids have to take care of their parents?
there should be one. it would be more moral and more just than what we have now - random strangers supporting random strangers.
That's inane, sorry. A law legally obligating you to take care of your parents? How is that moral? Its like allowing you to indenture someone to you by birthing them. Using the force of law to compel that makes people want children for the worst reasons.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... What if your legal guardian was a brother or sister just a few years older than you? What if you'd been abused as a child and had a restraining order out against your parents?
If you have multiple kids, should they all chip in equally, or at some rate determined by their income?
Usually it's an actual parent not a guardian. And if your parents didn't take care of you (e.g. abused as a child) then the law doesn't apply. ex
quote:Every child who is not a minor has an obligation to provide support, in accordance with need, for his or her parent who has cared for or provided support for the child, to the extent that the child is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 32.
A good summary
quote:"The obligations that of each of the defendants (adult children) have to their own families will take priority over any obligations that they owe to the applicant;
"Any assets and income which are available to the (adult children/defendants) from their spouse or former spouses are not to be taken into account when determining whether, on the basis of their responsibilities and liabilities and their reasonable needs, they also have an ability to maintain and support the applicant;
"Evidence of abandonment, abuse and estrangement can be taken into account as one of the factors in the objective evaluation of the application;
"The length of the period of estrangement is also a factor to be taken into account in the objective evaluation of the application and the consequent ranking of the needs of the adult child; (and)
"A parent should first look to spousal support and, only if such support is not available, to then look to possible child support"
[ March 25, 2011, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: ... How is that moral? Its like allowing you to indenture someone to you by birthing them.
It's (was?) the Christian thing to do. Family values and all that
quote:"A father, by the law of God and nature, is bound to support his son and è contra, in case the father is impoverished." Justice Windham, Manby v Scott
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Usually it's an actual parent not a guardian
So the law discriminates against those who adopt? Classy.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
That's the last thing the laws of the country need. it would inspire people to become parents for the wrong reasons, while adding nothing to the right reasons. If christians want to make legal contractually binding obligations on their children to be retirement policies (for them specifically, and specifically just for making children) and call this moral and just, go let them try that in some other place and let us know how well that works out.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: ... go let them try that in some other place and let us know how well that works out.
As I'm saying, they did. It worked out. No biggie.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Adoptive parents are actual parents, not guardians.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This gets back to my question, then. What if you're adopted later in childhood? Do your bio parents as well as your adoptive parents have the same claim on you?
Mucus, how much is this law enforced? I mean, we had anti-sodomy laws for a long time and in a sense it "worked out," because nobody paid attention.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Also, WTF? I agree with Parkour that on principle, these laws are unjust. Moreover, the exemption for abuse has to have some standard of proof involved. So what if your parents were abusive and really good at covering it up? You'd be obligated to pay. Or what if they were bad parents, but their transgressions fell short of the legal definition of abuse (or provable abuse)?
Far better to have society in general support them than have the burden fall on the kids whose lives they've already screwed up.
Edit to add that, frankly, a very high proportion of parents are bad enough not to deserve special financial help from their kids. I had great parents myself, who I'd give a lot for, but if I think of my grad school friends, for example, maybe a third of them had one or more parents who don't deserve any special help from their kids.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Mucus, how much is this law enforced? I mean, we had anti-sodomy laws for a long time and in a sense it "worked out," because nobody paid attention.
In the latter half of that interview, the lawyer at the Family Law clinic mentions that she's used it in actual courts four times in the last 27 years. She also mentions that in the majority of other cases, she uses it as a threat instead of actually having to litigate since most people who have resources can be shamed into doing what's right instead of having to go to the courts.
Multiply that by the number of clinics, so we're not talking an big number but its not a negligible proportion either considering how few elders (as I've said all along) have these kinds of financial problems in the first place.
After all, the law is not to give a parent "special help" but simply to avoid actual impoverishment. And with so many safety nets in place, there are relatively few that manage to miss every one and actually be in a position to use this law.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Why in the world would we choose to let either America's elderly or America's children suffer in poverty? It's not like these are the only two options. This is the wealthiest society in the history of the world. Its absurd to pretend we can't afford to take care of all of the people who are too young, too ill or too old to take care of themselves. The choice isn't between whether we let children go without medical care or cut social security benefits. There are lots of other options. We could raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans or even across the board. We could cut military spending. We could adopt a single payer health care system that would get health care costs under control. And I'm sure there are a million other options out there.
The choice isn't between children and grandparents -- its between taking care of the needy and the pursuit of luxuries.
[ March 25, 2011, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
So the money I make is a gift from society? That explains a lot. Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But, the top 400 individuals in the US deserve to have more than the bottom 50%. They deserve that share of the resources and to suggest otherwise is just mean. And if I didn't know that I could someday have more assets than a city full of people than why would I be motivated to work?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Swampjedi, you would make no money without society (and if you did, whoever made the best weapon would pretty quickly take it) so yes, you do have obligations back to the society.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Obligations, yes. Servitude? No.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
What are you defining servitude as and why is it distinct from obligation?
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
This derail over a bit of snark isn't worthwhile. The issue was over Rabbit's use of the word "give". A gift is something that is not earned. Therefore, the implication is that my labor earns me nothing, and that anything I get is a gift from the Master Society.
Now that the snark has been explained, it is no longer "funny". Nothing to see here, folks.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: This gets back to my question, then. What if you're adopted later in childhood? Do your bio parents as well as your adoptive parents have the same claim on you?
In order to adopt a child, the child's living parent(s) must either relinquish their parental rights or have them revoked by a court. Either way, since they no longer have any parental rights, they clearly wouldn't have the right to claim support.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: This derail over a bit of snark isn't worthwhile. The issue was over Rabbit's use of the word "give". A gift is something that is not earned. Therefore, the implication is that my labor earns me nothing, and that anything I get is a gift from the Master Society.
Now that the snark has been explained, it is no longer "funny". Nothing to see here, folks.
You are interpreting my word choice far differently than was intended. I've never suggested that your labour should earn you nothing so don't go all hyperbolic over it.
The real dilemma, as I see it, is determining what you justly earn through your labor, what is just compensation to the others who contribute to your productivity and what you owe to society. I'm unwilling to assign moral force to the "value" assigned by the markets.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: After all, the law is not to give a parent "special help" but simply to avoid actual impoverishment.
By "special help," I just meant help over and above what you give just by paying your taxes.
Nobody's suggesting it's better to allow actual impoverishment. But in situations with parents at risk of poverty, it seems obviously better and more fair to have everybody pay a bit to prevent that, rather than squeeze large amounts of money out of children who may have excellent reasons not to love or care about their parents.
I'm perfectly happy with the state forcing its way into my pocket book. What I don't like is the idea of the state forcing its way into my personal relationships.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug* The state already "forces itself" into your personal relationships when you consider that there are laws on spousal support, child support, and even sperm/egg donors are potentially liable for their children even if they've never met their children.
As for the rest, if they have excellent reasons not to care for their parents, the court takes that into consideration. I'm not seeing a big issue here.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... it seems obviously better and more fair to have everybody pay a bit to prevent that, rather than squeeze large amounts of money out of children ...
Also, as the interview points out. In many of the growing number of cases in which the law applies, the seniors in question aren't qualified for state benefits in the first place.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
One note from a bit back. It was mentioned that more poor are children than elderly, so why the big bucks to the elderly?
The answer is history. 100 years ago the majority of the poor were the elderly. There were no 401K programs. There were few retirement options. You worked hard and saved your money until the company you worked for, or your health, decided you shouldn't work any more. If you were lucky you had family that could support you, or the bank you put your money into didn't go bust--legally taking your life savings with you.
If you were unlucky--you could sit out in the weather with a can and beg for change, or find some quiet place to die.
Social Security and many other social programs have changed that, and changed how we view old age.
It worked.
It works.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:As for the rest, if they have excellent reasons not to care for their parents, the court takes that into consideration. I'm not seeing a big issue here.
Like I said, they shouldn't have to prove it in court. Their excellent reasons might not be publicly documented. A lot of families keep their issues private.
quote:The state already "forces itself" into your personal relationships when you consider that there are laws on spousal support, child support, and even sperm/egg donors are potentially liable for their children even if they've never met their children.
I don't think the way we handle those things is ideal either, but at least parenthood or marriage are the result of your own choices.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Like I said, they shouldn't have to prove it in court.
Why not? Innocent before proven guilty after all.
quote:I don't think the way we handle those things is ideal either, but at least parenthood or marriage are the result of your own choices.
Not necessarily. I suspect that immigrant couples from countries with forced marriages are still liable for spousal support. Also, in the United States, there is already precedent that a male rape victim is liable for child support to the female rapist's child.
quote:That biology, that is, parentage, will in all instances create child-support liability has been made clear in a number of different factual scenarios involving involuntary parentage. For example, if a woman or man deliberately lies about the use of contraception or fertility, child-support liability will nonetheless attach because the partners willingly engaged in sexual intercourse, which could result in conception and birth. Courts have been unwilling to accept an argument that the constitutional rights that a woman enjoys to terminate a pregnancy also give men the right not to procreate. Even if the child-support obligor was underage and thus a victim of statutory rape, child-support liability will attach.
The courts have even gone so far as to hold a biological father liable for child support when he was the victim of sexual assault.
I don't even necessarily see why "choice" should be an argument to shift responsibility from a child to other people. Surely, if a child didn't have a choice in being conceived by one's parent, then certainly other people didn't have a choice in merely happening to live in the same state.
[ March 25, 2011, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The real dilemma, as I see it, is determining what you justly earn through your labor, what is just compensation to the others who contribute to your productivity and what you owe to society. I'm unwilling to assign moral force to the "value" assigned by the markets.
Who decides what this "just" amount is? Who decides what value your work is? Who decides how much you owe to society? The type of reasoning you describe always looks good on paper, but in reality could never work.
Look at most corporations. Most companies have job/pay grades. You have the opportunity based on your hard work to move up pay grades to make more money. The company usually decides the caps on each pay grade, which is fine.
It seems like what you are suggesting is that someone (presumably the government) tells the company how much they have to pay each of their employees. To a certain extent they already do this with the minimum wage. What it sounds like to me though (and please correct me if I misunderstood) is that you would want the government to define how much a person is allowed to make and how much they are taxed based on what job they hold.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Like I said, they shouldn't have to prove it in court.
Why not? Innocent before proven guilty after all.
I'm not sure how that maxim is supposed to apply here. The hypothetical parent is not being accused of a crime. They're being accused of not having been a good enough parent to deserve large amounts of financial support from their child, which shouldn't be a matter for parties outside the relationship to decide.
Further, if the innocent-until-proven-guilty maxim is applied to the case, it doesn't cut the way you suggest. The law allows parents to sue children for support. In that case, the parents should be obliged to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child is "guilty" of withholding support.
And finally, you're making this into a question about how a law like this should work. I'm saying any such law will always be less just than one in which the state provides for the impoverished parent instead. They don't qualify for other social services, you say? Well, they should. Whenever a parent is in bad enough shape to need support from their children to avoid poverty, they should qualify for welfare.
The injustice is easy to fix. Just take whatever system is used to determine when parents qualify for support for their children, and make it so that this qualifies them for state welfare instead.
quote:I don't even necessarily see why "choice" should be an argument to shift responsibility from a child to other people. Surely, if a child didn't have a choice in being conceived by one's parent, then certainly other people didn't have a choice in merely happening to live in the same state.
I merely meant that in the case of child support, a bad system is made more tolerable by the fact that in normal cases you only fall under the law as a result of risky behavior you could have avoided.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The hypothetical parent is not being accused of a crime.
Aren't they? The conditions that exempt a parent are abuse and abandonment. These are crimes.
quote:... which shouldn't be a matter for parties outside the relationship to decide.
You've said this before and I don't really see why. Parties outside the relationship regularly decide in the other cases, for example whether an annulment is granted or whether a divorce is granted. Child support payments can be changed by court depending on how the relationship between the child and the parent changes.
quote: They don't qualify for other social services, you say? Well, they should.
Why? At bare minimum, I think you need to establish that the reasons they don't qualify for other social services aren't good ones.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Look at most corporations. Most companies have job/pay grades. You have the opportunity based on your hard work to move up pay grades to make more money. The company usually decides the caps on each pay grade, which is fine.
Let's consider Microsoft. Jokes about BSOD aside, there's no doubt that Microsoft has created a lot of value; people have been willing to pay untold millions of dollars for their products, and monopoly or not, unfair practices or not, nobody was holding a gun to their heads. So when Microsoft has X bazillions in revenue, fine. But is it really justice that Bill Gates should receive such a vast portion of that money? Microsoft is a cooperative venture between literally thousands of people. Is it really, truly likely that Bill Gates is personally responsible for even ten percent of the value it created? I think not; and thus it seems to me that the world would be a lot fairer if his hundred billions had been more like ten million, and the rest distributed as extra wages for Microsoft's workers.
Now, it may be that the means we'd have to employ to that end would be truly disastrous, that the cure would be worse than the disease. In fact I believe that's likely true. But this does not prevent me from noting that it is genuinely unfair that Bill Gates has captured such a large portion of the value that thousands of people coordinated to produce.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I wouldn't put Gates' contribution so low. Look at how Microsoft has become much less capable since he left office -- and Ballmer is pretty good at being a CEO. But Gates was a heck of a lot better, at least for Microsoft. He probably created at least several billion dollars worth of value. Now, how much of that it is reasonable for him to capture is a different question.
Of course, by giving him the money, it turns out he's redirected a huge proportion of it to help many of the poorest in the US, and the world, and committed to seeing the rest of it except for some nominal sums go to the same cause; that's probably been a more effective redistribution than if it had been shared more with other Microsoft employees (though other major Microsoft players have hardly gone uncompensated).
As far as I'm concerned, the idea that society can and should step in to determine "just" compensation for every sort of job is disturbing and bankrupt. I want to tax rich people more to provide extensive social support for those at lower incomes because poverty, easily preventable health problems, and the like are also morally horrible, and rich people are both better able to contribute and taxes on them are less likely to distort the overall economic situation negatively.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:As far as I'm concerned, the idea that society can and should step in to determine "just" compensation for every sort of job is disturbing and bankrupt.
Sounds like somebody needs to report to Juche re-education happy time camp!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also I totally want to have a bunch of kids now so that I can spend my way into poverty late in life then sue my kids into supporting me.
I will call them my darling little indentured pensionees
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Sounds like somebody needs to report to Juche re-education happy time camp!
clearly you just came from there..
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Mucus, let me put together an example to illustrate the point I'm trying to make.
Joe's parents are extremely conservative Christians who home-school him to believe in young-Earth creationism and the sinfulness of masturbation and pre-marital sex. Later in life he realizes his parents beliefs were bogus, and that by raising him in this bizarre moral system they've done him a terrible wrong. He cuts off all contact with them.
Joe's parents never broke the law. They never abused Joe. But they were bad parents and don't deserve financial support from Joe, any more than they deserve it from a random stranger on the street. It would be unjust to force Joe to bear the lion's share of the cost for supporting them later in life, when they're the ones who foisted this terrible childhood on him.
That's the sort of example that upsets me so much about the law you're defending.
quote:Aren't they? The conditions that exempt a parent are abuse and abandonment. These are crimes.
Yes, those are the conditions that exempt parents, according to the unjust law you're defending. They should also be exempt if they were bad parents. Children don't owe bad parents anything more than random strangers do.
quote:You've said this before and I don't really see why. Parties outside the relationship regularly decide in the other cases, for example whether an annulment is granted or whether a divorce is granted. Child support payments can be changed by court depending on how the relationship between the child and the parent changes.
To be clear: my position is not that our current system of awarding child support and alimony is just. I don't believe that it is.
quote:Why? At bare minimum, I think you need to establish that the reasons they don't qualify for other social services aren't good ones.
People should qualify for welfare if they'll be poor without it. Same as the conditions that would qualify them for support from children under the law you're defending.
quote:As far as I'm concerned, the idea that society can and should step in to determine "just" compensation for every sort of job is disturbing and bankrupt. I want to tax rich people more to provide extensive social support for those at lower incomes because poverty, easily preventable health problems, and the like are also morally horrible, and rich people are both better able to contribute and taxes on them are less likely to distort the overall economic situation negatively.
Well put.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Sounds like somebody needs to report to Juche re-education happy time camp!
clearly you just came from there..
You're adorable. Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You're adorable.
really? i dont even try to be adorable so it means so much to me that you noticed.
truthfully, i dont think you came from a north korean re-ed camp (surprise?) but i do have a suspicion that youre drunk and cant come up with a solid response to the issue being discussed.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Children don't owe bad parents anything more than random strangers do.
but why do random strangers owe bad parents anything at all? dont you think that random strangers are relatively far down the list when assessing obligations of support? im exploring this idea myself but, shouldnt obligation of support coincide with channels of influence? meaning, those closest to an individual are more likely able to influence the behavior of that person. family, extended family, neighborhood, community, town/city, state, country, etc. thats a simplified interaction, obviously, there is much that takes place in a family (or community, city..) and a sphere of influence can be large, but, for example, its nearly impossible for me to influence what happens in a georgia trailer park many states away yet im obligated to financially support someone (good parent, bad parent, it doesnt matter) from that community? how is that just? i can think of many more constructive ways to help needy individuals than to simply throw money at them.
and i still dont see how i came to be moral obligation to provide for random strangers. the humanistic response would be to better the country/humanity/world, but i can think of many better ways to do that if thats the goal.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... But they were bad parents and don't deserve financial support from Joe, any more than they deserve it from a random stranger on the street.
Right, but thats where the logic breaks down.
We can both agree that they don't deserve it from a random stranger from the street, then why would we prefer to take it from the random stranger on the street?
At bare minimum, in your story Joe still got food, housing, and was taken care of as a child to the best of his parents beliefs. He might not agree with what his parents believe, but there's nothing in your story that indicates that his parents were malicious.
quote:
quote:Why? At bare minimum, I think you need to establish that the reasons they don't qualify for other social services aren't good ones.
People should qualify for welfare if they'll be poor without it.
They wouldn't be poor without it because their children would be supporting them. The "if they'll be poor without it" doesn't apply.
I can understand the argument that the state should step in if the child is *unable* to provide for the parent. But you seem to basically assume that Canada doesn't have a good reason for structuring it's Old Age Security system in such a way that it prefers that a capable child care for a parent when the parent doesn't qualify for OAS.
That seems to be incredibly arrogant.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:there should be one. it would be more moral and more just than what we have now - random strangers supporting random strangers.
Ha. We're not supposed to be just random strangers, we're supposed to be at the very least fellow Americans. Sharing some sort of common bond. You're a conservative, capax, unless I'm very much mistaken so I know you believe in the notion that we're not just random strangers to one another-there are things you feel some Americans owe other Americans. You just don't feel like these particular things are in that category.
So don't go playing that 'we're random strangers' card now, otherwise it'll get played on you next time some conservative starts crowing about 'supporting the troops' (usually as a means for some crass political objective) or 'tightening the belt' (for some people), just to name a couple of the common little things that get trotted out as a means of shutting down opposition complaints by suggesting we should all stick together.
-------
Geraine,
quote:Who decides what this "just" amount is? Who decides what value your work is? Who decides how much you owe to society? The type of reasoning you describe always looks good on paper, but in reality could never work.
As has been said, we as a society already are quite comfortable making these sorts of decisions all the time about all sorts of things, and even weightier issues-we've just decided, for arbitrary reasons, that this particular set is off the table. It's not really a third rail, that's a decision we've made for ourselves.
'Could never work'? How do you know? Has it been tried? I'm not suggesting this is how you personally mean it, but there are those who say that sort of thing - say that it could never work - that, to me at least and perhaps to others - it sounds like what they mean is, "I'm afraid it might work, and if it works then that's the new reality-and we don't want that."
Except in this case the new reality isn't a toll road that was supposed to be for awhile and ends up being forever (come to think of it, I don't actually know if that happens, it's just something I've heard-although I wouldn't be surprised). The new reality would be a few more percentage points worth of tax on the very most (and I mean the hugely most) wealthiest Americans with which we as a society would take the sharpest edge off our most desperate, grinding poverty.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:but why do random strangers owe bad parents anything at all?
Basically, for the reasons that fugu laid out. Because poverty is a cause of great suffering, and it's better if we alleviate the suffering of others when the cost to us isn't comparably bad.
The classic thought experiment is: if you see a child you don't know about to fall into a well, don't you owe it to that child to save him/her from falling? Since obviously you do, we have obligations to prevent death and suffering on the part of random strangers. Once you grant that, well, that's enough to justify state welfare in my book (again, for the reasons fugu said).
quote: We can both agree that they don't deserve it from a random stranger from the street, then why would we prefer to take it from the random stranger on the street?
Like I just said, I don't agree that they deserve nothing from the random stranger. Depending on how much money the stranger has to spare, they deserve a small amount of help in the form of taxes paying for welfare.
quote:At bare minimum, in your story Joe still got food, housing, and was taken care of as a child to the best of his parents beliefs. He might not agree with what his parents believe, but there's nothing in your story that indicates that his parents were malicious.
I think you underestimate how much it can damage someone's life to be raised in a religion that doesn't work for them. For example, many people with this sort of upbringing end up with some sort of sexual dysfunction due to deeply-ingrained subconscious guilt.
I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from here. Are you seriously saying in every case where parents have provided for their children financially and not broken the law by abusing them, they deserve major financial support from their kids? You don't have any friends who've been majorly messed up by bad parents?
quote:They wouldn't be poor without it because their children would be supporting them. The "if they'll be poor without it" doesn't apply.
I'm trying to make it clear what I'm saying. It's wrong to force children to pay for their parents', so when the parents need help, society at large should pay instead. When I said "if they'll be poor without it," I meant "if they'll be poor without help from someone, either their kids or state welfare."
quote:I can understand the argument that the state should step in if the child is *unable* to provide for the parent. But you seem to basically assume that Canada doesn't have a good reason for structuring it's Old Age Security system in such a way that it prefers that a capable child care for a parent when the parent doesn't qualify for OAS.
What's the good reason? (I'm asking for a good reason why the money to support the struggling parent should come from a child rather than taxes.)
quote:That seems to be incredibly arrogant.
I've presented a sound argument to the effect that this Canadian law is unjust. Is it arrogant for me to conclude that the law is therefore unjust?
[ March 26, 2011, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You're adorable.
really? i dont even try to be adorable so it means so much to me that you noticed.
truthfully, i dont think you came from a north korean re-ed camp (surprise?) but i do have a suspicion that youre drunk and cant come up with a solid response to the issue being discussed.
I know, that's what makes it adorable! You're expending a lot of effort really, really trying to jump in and take potshots at me, but this time around you couldn't even keep it connected to anything else.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:I can understand the argument that the state should step in if the child is *unable* to provide for the parent. But you seem to basically assume that Canada doesn't have a good reason for structuring it's Old Age Security system in such a way that it prefers that a capable child care for a parent when the parent doesn't qualify for OAS.
What's the good reason? (I'm asking for a good reason why the money to support the struggling parent should come from a child rather than taxes.)
This is where understanding begins.
Learn more about how foreign countries work before broadly denouncing them as immoral. It's a good idea whether you're a tourist or a media pundit
quote:Are you seriously saying in every case where parents have provided for their children financially and not broken the law by abusing them, they deserve major financial support from their kids?
No, in most cases seniors qualify for state support.
In the cases where they don't, then they deserve (at least) the minimal support from the child required to avoid poverty. e.g.
quote:"A father, by the law of God and nature, is bound to support his son and è contra, in case the father is impoverished."
The law, whether in spirit or in practice doesn't really touch on major financial support.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
There is an estimate that having kids causes a loss of a million dollars in lifetime earning potential. So, maybe someone raised their kids in the wrong religion or screwed them up in some other way, but most likely those parents would be in a massively better financial position if they had not had those kids. And while maybe the kids are screwed up, but they are alive because of their parents.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Without arguing the waste, the fraud, and the trap of government-sponsored charity, there's something humiliating as a citizen of the U.S. to be forced into giving. Not for the reasons you expect. Rather, I'm moral enough, smart enough, and compassionate enough to help when help is needed, doggone it. If I can't be trusted as an individual to do my part in the face of great need, then there is something gone so wrong, no amount of government benevolence can fix it.
I live in a small community where charity is rampant. People do not go hungry. People are not left in the cold. Even when the government is useless (because said needy person doesn't fit the government's criteria of "needy"), the community steps in and helps.
But then, we see each other and recognize each other as human beings, which is how charity should always work.
It's impossible to do this with a nameless, faceless welfare recipient living on the other side of the state. So the entitlement programs dehumanize the ones suffering, assume the worst of taxpayers, create animosity towards the poor, and fail to effectively tackle the needs of the needy.
I'm not against welfare or safety nets in general, but nor do I subscribe to the notion that being against them makes you heartless. (Not saying anyone is stating that here.) There is more to it than not wanting to "do your part." Some of us wonder if it's doing more harm than good.
And, to quote and link a blog:
quote:If the government then decides what help you need based on these broad models and statistics about you, then it is determining what is best for you without really knowing you. Many unintended effects may come out of this. But one effect is obvious: when a person who actually is capable is consistently helped, that person will eventually be broken and reduced to a state of perpetual victimhood...
Ever read 'The Rights of Man'?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ha. We're not supposed to be just random strangers, we're supposed to be at the very least fellow Americans.
the 'random strangers' comment is because im trying to discover the basis for your reasoning. nothing you have said identifies the source of the moral obligation. if its a moral imperative simply because some citizens say so then its wholly within the rights and power of other citizens to counter that opinion.
quote:Sharing some sort of common bond. You're a conservative, capax, unless I'm very much mistaken so I know you believe in the notion that we're not just random strangers to one another-there are things you feel some Americans owe other Americans. You just don't feel like these particular things are in that category.
some sort of common bond, yes. the problems arise when attempting to defining the bond and its terms and conditions. i do believe we owe each other some things, but if we were each to enumerate these things, our lists would vary, perhaps to a large degree. so yes, its likely i dont believe these particular things are in that category.
but even that is only the first part of the problem. though we are all citizens, we still dont all share a common and equal obligation one to another. like i said, obligations of the sort we're discussing should be dictated by proximity and channels of influence. all family members are citizens but that doesnt mean every citizen has the obligations of a family member. likewise, two people living in the same town have much more in common (and i dont mean they simply share interests) and therefore should be more obligated one to another than two people living on opposite sides of the country would be.
this view is justified because if im going to pay the consequences for someones actions, i sure as hell better have the power to make sure they dont make the same mistake twice - or are unlucky twice, if thats the case. in this instance you could say im a conservative until my libertarian leanings take over.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The classic thought experiment is: if you see a child you don't know about to fall into a well, don't you owe it to that child to save him/her from falling? Since obviously you do, we have obligations to prevent death and suffering on the part of random strangers. Once you grant that, well, that's enough to justify state welfare in my book (again, for the reasons fugu said).
this is an oversimplified thought experiment. the fatal flaw when applied to this context is that stopping the accident before it happens is preemptive - much preferred - and it implies that im the only one who could have done so. if the child falls into the well, there are people much more accountable than i. where is the parental supervision? why are open wells legal in that county? when the child falls in, do they bring a rescue crew from the other side of the nation? no. what if its not a child but an adult? if i repeatedly tell the person to be cautious of the well, they dont heed my warnings and fall in, i think you believe i should feel guilty and further assistance is my duty, but its not. assistance in this case shouldnt go beyond my means and it shouldnt be forced by the government. a pure accident would obviously entail different obligations.
so if there is an impoverished individual living on state assistance 6 states away, i didnt put them there, i have no power over state lawmakers, enonomies, and education 1000 miles away. that person is in a well and those nearest to him - in blood, relationship, and proximity - have the larger obligation to help him.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: What's the good reason? (I'm asking for a good reason why the money to support the struggling parent should come from a child rather than taxes.)
This is where understanding begins.
Learn more about how foreign countries work before broadly denouncing them as immoral. It's a good idea whether you're a tourist or a media pundit
You didn't answer my question. Again, what's the good reason?
Also, I'm not broadly denouncing Canada as immoral. My position is that Canada has one unjust law (the one we're talking about).
Every country has unjust laws.
quote:No, in most cases seniors qualify for state support.
In the cases where they don't, then they deserve (at least) the minimal support from the child required to avoid poverty.
If they need more money to avoid poverty, why doesn't that fact by itself mean they deserve state support?
That's my view. If you need money to avoid poverty, you deserve state support. Not in most cases. In all cases.
[ March 26, 2011, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Capax: Rather than do an imperfect job of arguing for the moral obligation to help others, I'll just refer you to the best source on the topic.
quote:•First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.
•Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.
•Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.
•Conclusion: Therefore if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: You didn't answer my question. Again, what's the good reason?
Of course I didn't. You immediately leapt to phrases such as "WTF", denounced the law as being unclassy and immoral when it is now clear that you don't actually know who the law now applies to and what the consequences are.
I've actually linked to background already if you want to have an informed opinion.
quote: That's my view. If you need money to avoid poverty, you deserve state support. Not in most cases. In all cases.
I really doubt you're thinking "in all cases" through. Do you really think its politically feasible for the United States to give state support to everyone thats in poverty? Current UN estimates say that roughly 1 billion citizens around the world currently live in poverty.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Of course I didn't. You immediately leapt to phrases such as "WTF", denounced the law as being unclassy and immoral when it is now clear that you don't actually know who the law now applies to and what the consequences are.
I've actually linked to background already if you want to have an informed opinion.
I don't care who the law applies to in particular. That doesn't matter to my argument. My claim is that, if it applies to anyone at all, it's unjust.
My opinion is that no law which forces people to provide for their parents is just when compared with a law which provides those parents state welfare instead. In my previous posts I've given you a sound argument for that opinion (which in my book makes it informed).
Now that I've staked out a position and supported it with evidence (as in my "Joe" example), it's your choice whether to offer evidence against my position or not.
ETA: Sorry my rhetoric was a little flippant earlier. I never meant to imply that Canada is overall a bad country or anything like that. My gripe is with this one specific law.
quote:I really doubt you're thinking "in all cases" through. Do you really think its politically feasible for the United States to give state support to everyone thats in poverty? Current UN estimates say that roughly 1 billion citizens around the world currently live in poverty.
No, of course I don't think that the United States, or any country, should provide state support for every poor person in the world, given the present state of affairs.
My position is that in a wealthy country like Canada or the US, every citizen of that country who is at risk of poverty should be given state support.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: That's my view. If you need money to avoid poverty, you deserve state support. Not in most cases. In all cases.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: My position is that in a wealthy country like Canada or the US, every citizen of that country who is at risk of poverty should be given state support.
I don't see how you square these two positions.
In the latter, you claim that only citizens that are at risk of poverty should be given state support (which is actually pretty conservative).
In the former, you claim that all people that need money to avoid poverty deserve state support.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The second statement was a more precise re-statement of the first (an attempt to clarify it).
What I meant in both cases was, if you're Canadian and you are at risk of poverty (that is, you need money to avoid poverty) you should be given state support from the Canadian government.
I'm not sure why you see this position of mine as conservative, since according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government. That strikes me as more conservative than the position I'm advocating.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... since according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government.
Not necessarily.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This is how you've characterized the law:
quote:After all, the law is not to give a parent "special help" but simply to avoid actual impoverishment.
quote:Also, as the interview points out. In many of the growing number of cases in which the law applies, the seniors in question aren't qualified for state benefits in the first place.
quote:I can understand the argument that the state should step in if the child is *unable* to provide for the parent. But you seem to basically assume that Canada doesn't have a good reason for structuring it's Old Age Security system in such a way that it prefers that a capable child care for a parent when the parent doesn't qualify for OAS.
As you said, the law applies in cases where:
-citizens are at risk of poverty -they don't qualify for other state support.
So, like I said, according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: As you said, the law applies in cases where:
-citizens are at risk of poverty
I specifically didn't say this and you should retract your statement that I did.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
So what did you mean by the first of the three statements I quoted?
quote:After all, the law is not to give a parent "special help" but simply to avoid actual impoverishment.
(emphasis added)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You've switched out the word "parent" for the word "citizen" in your summary. Thats a major change in the meaning of the sentence.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Sorry, let me retcon what I said from this
quote:As you said, the law applies in cases where:
-citizens are at risk of poverty -they don't qualify for other state support.
So, like I said, according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government.
to this:
As you said, the law applies in cases where:
-Canadian parents are at risk of poverty -they don't qualify for other state support.
So, like I said, according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians [the parents] who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This is a bit of a side issue, don't you think? We were originally discussing whether the filial responsibility law was just. Whether or not it counts as "conservative" is a separate, and less interesting, question about semantics.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I've never said "Canadian" either.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
So this Canadian law applies to people who aren't Canadian?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Laws that only cover citizens are fairly uncommon.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Interesting. Non-citizens qualify for welfare benefits?
In that case, let's retcon again, to this:
As you said, the law applies in cases where:
-parents resident in Canada are at risk of poverty -they don't qualify for other state support.
So, like I said, according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians [the parents who also happen to be citizens] who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government.
--
Like I said, I'd be happy to get off this side issue and back to discussing whether the law itself is just.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yes, non-citizens can potentially qualify for "welfare", specifically in this case Old Age Security. But not all non-citizens do.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians [the parents who also happen to be citizens] who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government.
As I said before, I never used the word Canadian (in this case, Canadians) when summarizing the law.
This isn't really a side-issue.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
If there are any Canadians who fall under the law, then the law dictates that at least some Canadians who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government. So, unless the law applies only to non-Canadians, I characterized it accurately when I originally said that
quote:according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government.
Now, much as I love logic, I'm growing a little tired of parsing out such a minor point in such detail. Neither of us has made an actual argument in quite a while.
Here is where I left things when I last made an actual argument:
(1) In at least some cases (like my "Joe" example) it would be unjust to require a child to provide financial support to bad parents, beyond what they normally pay in taxes.
(2) Since the law you mentioned only exempts parents based on abuse, abandonment, or other legally provable misdeeds, at least some bad parents will qualify for support according to the law. For example, Joe's parents would qualify.
(3) A hypothetical law that simply awarded state-provided, tax-supported benefits to every parent who qualifies for filial benefits under the current law would not place this unjust burden on the children of bad parents.
(4) Therefore, the law you're defending is unjust compared with my hypothetical alternative law.
You objected to this by claiming
quote:At bare minimum, in your story Joe still got food, housing, and was taken care of as a child to the best of his parents beliefs. He might not agree with what his parents believe, but there's nothing in your story that indicates that his parents were malicious.
which I think I refuted by responding
quote:I think you underestimate how much it can damage someone's life to be raised in a religion that doesn't work for them. For example, many people with this sort of upbringing end up with some sort of sexual dysfunction due to deeply-ingrained subconscious guilt.
I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from here. Are you seriously saying in every case where parents have provided for their children financially and not broken the law by abusing them, they deserve major financial support from their kids? You don't have any friends who've been majorly messed up by bad parents?
I'd be happy to carry on this line of discussion, but I think I'm through breaking down word-by-word exactly what I meant in that one sentence a few posts back.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If the parents had aborted Joe, they would be about a million dollars richer over their life. His life cost them a lot financially, so now that they are old, they deserve something for that sacrifice. Joe doesnt have to talk to them or like them, but a minimum appreciation for their sacrifices is not inappropriate.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: Originally posted by Destineer: (2) Since the law you mentioned only exempts parents based on abuse, abandonment, or other legally provable misdeeds, at least some bad parents will qualify for support according to the law. For example, Joe's parents would qualify.
I'm not convinced that you've established that Joe's parents are bad parents. You said that they haven't abused or abandoned Joe. The only line of reasoning seems to be that you don't like their religion. But you haven't even shown that Joe was abused into following that religion, let alone considered the ramifications of broadly allowing the government to declare members of one religion as being "bad" and discriminating against them.
quote: A hypothetical law that simply awarded state-provided, tax-supported benefits to every parent who qualifies for filial benefits under the current law would not place this unjust burden on the children of bad parents.
I think you're going back on what you've previously stated here.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: No, of course I don't think that the United States, or any country, should provide state support for every poor person in the world, given the present state of affairs.
Clearly, you don't think that the law should award state benefits to all parents since many poor persons in the world are parents.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: If the parents had aborted Joe, they would be about a million dollars richer over their life. His life cost them a lot financially, so now that they are old, they deserve something for that sacrifice. Joe doesnt have to talk to them or like them, but a minimum appreciation for their sacrifices is not inappropriate.
I understand where this line of thought comes from, but in the end I disagree. Joe has been deprived of good things and opportunities worth more than a million dollars. A good education, the friendships he might have had in school, the chance at having a normal sex life without therapy, and knowledge of the range of options available to him in his religious life.
But you don't have to agree with this particular example. All I need to prove my point is one example where a child who has been financially supported and not provably abused should have no financial obligation to their parents, because the parents were so bad.
What if Joe's parents had been racists, raising him as such, and now he has to deal with a crippling reflexive bias against anyone who's not white? What if his parents belonged to Westboro Baptist Church and brought little Joe to "got hates fags" rallies and made him protest at the graves of gay soldiers? What if they were Christian Scientists and prevented Joe from visiting doctors, making them directly responsible for his poor health later in life?
Or, finally, what if they were physically abusive but were careful enough about it that Joe has no way of proving in court that he was abused?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: ]I'm not convinced that you've established that Joe's parents are bad parents. You said that they haven't abused or abandoned Joe. The only line of reasoning seems to be that you don't like their religion. But you haven't even shown that Joe was abused into following that religion, let alone considered the ramifications of broadly allowing the government to declare members of one religion as being "bad" and discriminating against them.
See my response to scholarette. And note that I'm not suggesting that the government discriminate against the parents' religion. On the alternative law I propose, Joe's parents would still receive financial support -- just not from Joe (the victim of their bad parenting).
quote: I think you're going back on what you've previously stated here.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: No, of course I don't think that the United States, or any country, should provide state support for every poor person in the world, given the present state of affairs.
Clearly, you don't think that the law should award state benefits to all parents since many poor persons in the world are parents.
The law I'm proposing would apply whenever the filial support law you're defending applies. The law you're defending doesn't require anyone to provide for non-Canadian parents living outside Canada (for example, it doesn't provide for Sudanese parents living in the Sudan). So the law I'm proposing would not require Canada to provide state support for every poor person in the world. Nor for every poor parent in the world.
So, as I said, I don't think that the United States, Canada, or any country, should provide state support for every poor person in the world, given the present state of affairs.
Sometimes you seem to be suggesting that I've said Canadian law should provide benefits for people who aren't Canadian and don't live in Canada. That's definitely not my position.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: What if his parents belonged to Westboro Baptist Church and brought little Joe to "got hates fags" rallies and made him protest at the graves of gay soldiers?
What if?
Does your equivalent of old age security discriminate against people that are racists? Does it discriminate against Westboro Baptists? Even these people get social support services because we don't generally discriminate who to provide social services to based on whether we think they were politically correct.
Divorced husbands don't get to choose whether they pay alimony to a wife based on whether they like their wives religion, why should Joe get to decide whether he supports his parents based on whether he likes their religion?
quote: Or, finally, what if they were physically abusive but were careful enough about it that Joe has no way of proving in court that he was abused?
What if they weren't abusive but Joe merely claims that they were? It seems to be a dangerous precedent to allow people (say, divorcees) to get out of their obligations without any more than hearsay.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The law you're defending doesn't require anyone to provide for non-Canadian parents living outside Canada (for example, it doesn't provide for Sudanese parents living in the Sudan).
I don't think you've established this, I doubt there has been a case to establish this. Nor do all non-Canadian parents necessarily live outside Canada.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Does your equivalent of old age security discriminate against people that are racists? Does it discriminate against Westboro Baptists? Even these people get social support services because we don't generally discriminate who to provide social services to based on whether we think they were politically correct.
No, my version does not discriminate against these people. I have no problem with these people receiving social support benefits. My problem is with these people receiving benefits from their children, the very people whose lives they've already done their best to ruin.
quote:Divorced husbands don't get to choose whether they pay alimony to a wife based on whether they like their wives religion, why should Joe get to decide whether he supports his parents based on whether he likes their religion?
Like I've said before, I don't think alimony laws as they currently exist are just, for exactly this sort of reason. But they're not anywhere near as bad, because your wife's religion can't mess you up as badly as your parents' religion.
quote:What if they weren't abusive but Joe merely claims that they were? It seems to be a dangerous precedent to allow people (say, divorcees) to get out of their obligations without any more than hearsay.
That's exactly right. Fortunately, on the system I proposed no one can get out of their obligations or lose their benefits just because of alleged abuse. That's because in my proposed law the benefits come from the state, not the child. Questions of abuse will never play any part in determining whether the elderly receive benefits from my proposed law. They get benefits if they are Canadian (or live in Canada) and are in need.
quote:I don't think you've established this, I doubt there has been a case to establish this. Nor do all non-Canadian parents necessarily live outside Canada.
It certainly doesn't apply to Sudanese families who all live in Sudan and have never been within 100 miles of Canada. A Canadian law can't force Sudanese children who live in the Sudan to pay for their Sudanese parents. Therefore, as I said, my position doesn't require that Canada, or any country, should provide state support for every poor person in the world.
Now, again, I think I've made my position crystal clear and I'm through re-stating it.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Also, with the alimony case, one could regard marriage as a sort of contract, so that when we sign up to get married we agree to pay alimony in case of a divorce. There's no corresponding contract between children and their parents.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... the very people whose lives they've already done their best to ruin.
This does not follow. Surely actual abuse does a better job of ruining lives than lack of abuse. So if they were doing their best to ruin their children't lives, surely they would have abused them. Or killed them for that matter, wouldn't death qualify as the best way to ruin someone's life?
quote:... But they're not anywhere near as bad, because your wife's religion can't mess you up as badly as your parents' religion.
Depends on the religion of the wife, how much it affected the husband, and how quickly the child switches to a different religion, no? I don't think you can state this as a categorical rule.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... Therefore, as I said, my position doesn't require that Canada, or any country, should provide state support for every poor person in the world.
Precisely, then your position ensures that there are some children in Canada who have parents that live in poverty but who do not qualify for state support.
Why not require their children to provide that support?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Also, with the alimony case, one could regard marriage as a sort of contract, so that when we sign up to get married we agree to pay alimony in case of a divorce. There's no corresponding contract between children and their parents.
Not necessarily. Not all marriages have contracts, for example common-law marriages regularly have no contract.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:This does not follow. Surely actual abuse does a better job of ruining lives than lack of abuse. So if they were doing their best to ruin their children't lives, surely they would have abused them. Or killed them for that matter, wouldn't death qualify as the best way to ruin someone's life?
You've caught me in a moment of rhetorical hyperbole. Guilty as charged.
Now, should I assume you don't disagree with the substance of my point (that my proposed law does not discriminate against religions)?
quote:Depends on the religion of the wife, how much it affected the husband, and how quickly the child switches to a different religion, no? I don't think you can state this as a categorical rule.
Indeed not, but on average I think it's fair to say that a parent's religion has more effect on their children than a wife's does on her husband. So, on average, parents have more potential to harm their children through misguided religious upbringing. That's what I meant to say.
quote:Precisely, then your position ensures that there are some children in Canada who have parents that live in poverty but who do not qualify for state support.
I'm not sure I understand what sort of case you're referring to. Do you mean to be describing a case where, for example, a Sudanese immigrant living in Canada would be required by Canadian law to pay social support for her parents who still live in the Sudan? If that's not what you mean, could you give an example?
quote:Not necessarily. Not all marriages have contracts, for example common-law marriages regularly have no contract.
I also don't agree with the institution of common-law marriage. In my opinion it's an anachronistic hold-over from a very different period in history.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Destineer- it seems like comparing the child's life with what it could be if the parents had been "better" is not really fair. If the parents had say given the kid up for adoption, then the kid could easily had had a worse life too. And the better is not clear. If you believed the same as the parent, by not raising him that way, you would be condemning his soul to hell and not spending an eternity being tortured and burned would be worth a lot.
Also, implied in this discussion is that Joe has money to give his parents. He is not in jail or leaving on the streets. So, the parents could not have completely destroyed his life.
We know the parents gave him life. That is why they have more obligation to him than a random stranger.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... Now, should I assume you don't disagree with the substance of my point (that my proposed law does not discriminate against religions)?
I don't think that is relevant.
The argument is about why providing benefits should be shifted from the child to the state. You argued that the parents might be racists/of a religion you disapprove of. I argued that we don't normally allow people to get out of providing services based on those grounds.
Stating that services provided by the state side-step this issue doesn't explain why we should side-step in the first place.
quote:
quote:Precisely, then your position ensures that there are some children in Canada who have parents that live in poverty but who do not qualify for state support.
I'm not sure I understand what sort of case you're referring to. Do you mean to be describing a case where, for example, a Sudanese immigrant living in Canada would be required by Canadian law to pay social support for her parents who still live in the Sudan?
Thats one potential example, yes. I'm sure there are others but they would entail that you make some considerations beyond "I don't care who the law applies to in particular."
quote:
quote:Not necessarily. Not all marriages have contracts, for example common-law marriages regularly have no contract.
I also don't agree with the institution of common-law marriage. In my opinion it's an anachronistic hold-over from a very different period in history.
Yet there are a lot of people in them.
It doesn't make sense to propose changes to laws without considering the very large number of people that could potentially be affected by changes in precedent.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Common law marriages require the people in question have been calling themselves married -- that is, endorsing that they are a social compact between a couple and society that we call married.
So there's no problem.
You might find discussion more productive, Mucus, if you engaged with the substance of arguments rather than trying to find nit picky holes that can be easily dismissed.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Destineer- it seems like comparing the child's life with what it could be if the parents had been "better" is not really fair. If the parents had say given the kid up for adoption, then the kid could easily had had a worse life too. And the better is not clear. If you believed the same as the parent, by not raising him that way, you would be condemning his soul to hell and not spending an eternity being tortured and burned would be worth a lot.
Sure, it's very complicated. Did Joe's parents do enough for him to deserve his love, let alone his financial support?
To my mind, these are private questions about the relationship between Joe and his parents. Questions that Joe and his parents should work out among themselves, without interference from the state. If the parents need money to live, they should be given money by the state. Whether they deserve money or help from Joe is for Joe himself to decide, based on his own feelings about their relationship.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... Now, should I assume you don't disagree with the substance of my point (that my proposed law does not discriminate against religions)?
I don't think that is relevant.
It was certainly relevant to this question you raised:
quote:Does your equivalent of old age security discriminate against people that are racists?
That said...
quote: The argument is about why providing benefits should be shifted from the child to the state. You argued that the parents might be racists/of a religion you disapprove of. I argued that we don't normally allow people to get out of providing services based on those grounds.
Of course it's not important whether I approve of the religion or not. It's important whether the child approves of the religion and the impact it's had on the child's upbringing. More broadly, it matters whether the child has justifiable reasons to complain that they were raised badly, in a way that harmed them.
quote: Stating that services provided by the state side-step this issue doesn't explain why we should side-step in the first place.
We should side-step it because it may be of great personal importance to the child. Think of how excruciatingly frustrating it would be to put your unpleasant childhood behind you, only to be roped back in by laws that require you to pay support to the same parents who subjected you to that same unpleasant childhood.
It would rightly feel like a terrible injustice. One that shouldn't be forced upon people.
quote:
quote:I'm not sure I understand what sort of case you're referring to. Do you mean to be describing a case where, for example, a Sudanese immigrant living in Canada would be required by Canadian law to pay social support for her parents who still live in the Sudan?
Thats one potential example, yes.
In that case, I would say that ensuring the safe retirement of Sudanese people, who live in the Sudan, is not the job of Canadian social services.
Regarding the common-law thing, obviously there would need to be many other changes to our laws if we eliminated common-law marriage. The topic would have to be studied at length. That said, I hope it happens some day soon.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Think of how excruciatingly frustrating it would be to put your unpleasant childhood behind you, only to be roped back in by laws that require you to pay support to the same parents who subjected you to that same unpleasant childhood.
Right, but if we're talking about feelings. Think about how excruciating it would be for that Sudanese parent to be in actual hunger. To know that they managed to scrap together enough resources when they were young to raise a child that was successful enough to have resources to spare in Canada, but they themselves face starvation.
quote:In that case, I would say that ensuring the safe retirement of Sudanese people, who live in the Sudan, is not the job of Canadian social services.
I'm not sure I agree. Via the UN resolution on Libya, we've decided that we have a responsibility to prevent death and suffering of non-Canadians in a hugely expensive and risky undertaking. Given this, it seems odd to not consider social policy in a much less expensive and less risky situation that could also prevent death.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If you look at it from the state's viewpoint, Joe's responsibility makes sense. Bob and Jane had a kid. In doing so, they lost one million dollars in lifetime earning potential. The state also lost whatever percent of that would be taxed. In addition to lost earning potential, instead of investing in retirement, Bob and Jane spent their money on food and clothes and Bibles for Joe. Now, Bob and Jane are too old to work and they will soon be starving on the street. Joe has money to spare. Why shouldn't he pay? If it weren't for joe, they wouldn't be in that bad a financial situation. Also, as the state, we got less money from Bob and Jane throughout their life because of Joe.
Before I had kids, I probably would have agreed with Destineer, but now I see a) just how many sacrifices parenting takes and b) how hard it is to make the right decisions. For example, I decided on preschool A instead of 1. preschool 1 would be more academic, less social. In 20 years will my daughter look back and say if my parents had put me in school 1, I would have got into x school, which would have guaranteed my harvard admission and therefore my parents ruined my life. But if I put her in preschool 1, maybe in 20 years, she would complain that I put too much pressure on her- I even put her in super academic peschool, never letting her be a child. Clearly, I ruined her life.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:We should side-step it because it may be of great personal importance to the child. Think of how excruciatingly frustrating it would be to put your unpleasant childhood behind you, only to be roped back in by laws that require you to pay support to the same parents who subjected you to that same unpleasant childhood.
It would rightly feel like a terrible injustice. One that shouldn't be forced upon people.
I think the whole run-around with this entire issue (which is growing quite astoundingly long-winded) comes down to the fact that someone who opts to bring a child into the world of their own volition should not at all consider any option to indenture their child to obligated reciprocation of servitude. The obligation is from the parent to the child. The child does not have to feel obligated to provide their parent anything. Ideally, they will feel free to reciprocate to their parents because their parents, if anything, deserve it, but this will not always be the case.
Society already pretty much agrees, here. Note the extreme lack of prevalence of this law being brought up or enforced. It's an archaic holdover, one of those quirky and obsolete laws. I consider it actively immoral to wield these laws against your own child, and I consider the whole moral idea of the law to be bankrupt. Normally, I'd say 'get rid of it' but there's no point to that; it's already mostly irrelevant and I don't even think it would survive judicial review, so it'll mostly sit and moulder.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Sam, I completely agree. Especially about the long-windedness of the thread. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Perhaps its foolish of me to try to resurrect a deadhorse, but I've been mullying over the question of the whether or not the Social Security Trust Fund is real or not and have one more thing to say on the issue.
The Social Security Trust fund is real in the sense that the money and interest owed on it has all been recorded and by law, the American people have a legal obligation to repay those funds to social security (and by extension retirees). The fund is not secure, not because of the nature of the bonds themselves, but because the people who owe the debt are the same people who make the laws, so if we decide they don't want to repay the debt, we can change the laws.
The bottom line is that the Social Security Trust Fund is only as real as we believe it should be. It's very much like an unsecured loan. The question isn't whether or not Americans can walk away from this debt, they can. The question we face is whether or not we should choose to honor this unsecured debt.
From my perspective, honest people pay their debts, period. It shouldn't matter whether the debt is secured or unsecured, whether you are bound by law or only your word, or whether the debt is to the bank or a friend. Honest people pay their debts even when its inconvenient. I can make an exception when tragedy strikes and people really can not pay their debts, but America isn't anywhere close to declaring bankruptcy. We can repay this debt simply by returning taxes to the levels they were only a few years ago.
The FICA tax structure, where the poor pay a higher rate than the wealthy, isn't one that the American people would ever have approved as an income tax plan to support the military and other general expenses. Usurping that money into the general fund is flat out immoral.
That's what makes me so angry when people start saying that we are in a budget crisis and social security should be treated like everything else. Imagine for a minute that your brother loans you a bunch of money with the understanding that you will pay it back when you can. There's nothing legal, just your word. Some time later, your brother comes to you and says, I really need that money can you pay me back. Well your wife wants a new car, and the kids birthdays are coming up and you've been planning a family vacation and (....) and you don't have enough money to cover it all. Do treat his request like everything else on the list, or up its priority because you owe him?
We owe a debt to social security and even though we can change the law in various ways so we never have to repay that debt, doing that is dishonest. Saying we should do that, is saying we should be dishonest as a people and a nation.
The question at hand (at least for those of us who are US citizens) isn't whether or not Americans will choose to behave honorably, its whether or not we should.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Rabbit, well put.
Personally I would lump the people that never pay into it but receive it as being dishonest unless there were a physical or mental reason why they were not able to contribute.
Other than that I agree with your observation. I don't think we really need to get rid of Social Security completely. I do wish however we would elect people that would be wiser with the money that should be in there, regardless of political party.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Personally I would lump the people that never pay into it but receive it as being dishonest unless there were a physical or mental reason why they were not able to contribute.
As I understand it, the only people who can collect social security benefits who've never paid into are the surviving spouse or minor children of someone who paid into social security. Do you think its dishonest of widows and orphans to collect SS or are you referring to someone else?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I checked it and here are the basic guidelines for collecting social security.
quote:To get Social Security retirement benefits based on your own work record, you need to earn at least 40 Social Security credits. Most people earn 4 credits per year, and have earned enough credits after 10 years of work.
. . . .
To get family benefits as the spouse, divorced spouse, or child of an insured family member, you do not have to earn any credits. However, the insured family member (your spouse, ex-spouse, or parent) must have at least 40 credits.
So aside from spouses and minor children of people who've paid in to SS and people disabled before the age of 22, no one can legally collect social security who hasn't paid in to it.
Even though you can collect SS by earning very little for only 10 years, your SS benefit is a function of your total lifetime SS earnings. Those who pay in very little, also get very little out.
I'm sure that if you looked, you could probably find some people who've found a way to collect SS benefits without ever paying into the system, but those people aren't just dishonest they are guilt of fraud and if caught could be sent to prison.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)