posted
We need a lock box...but it may be too late. We can thank Jimmy Carter for that. When there were more paying in than receiving, they couldn't resist tapping into it. They were shortsighted. We need less lawyers and more businessmen running our government.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you don't understand is that Social Security is not designed to be a retirement plan for those who earn above the poverty level, or who can afford the investment of more than 6.2% of their income without going homeless or starving.
Yes, people would be foolish to invest 6.2% of their income for so little return.
Guess what.
People are foolish.
They are a whole lot more foolish than that.
They will invest 0% of their income and not bother to plan on what becomes of them.
Or they will count on their employers and union retirement accounts, that may be stolen or emptied in bankruptcies.
Or they will invest in the much more lucrative Real Estate market, only to see it disappear in a popped bubble.
People are foolish, stupid, and don't plan ahead.
The result was starving elderly.
You, champion of the Me Generation, say "Why can't My Social Security Account make Me more money like I know I would. I don't trust the mistakes of others with My money."
What Social Security is based on, however, is not your money. Its not a "Me" thing.
The secret is the word "Social". Its based on the idea that Society prospers most when we don't let the elderly starve. When the workers can look forward to an old age with something more than fear and pity.
Social Security is not designed to improve YOU. Its supposed to improve SOCIETY.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why it should drop the charade that you have an "account" and that it is anything other than a wealth transfer from the comfortable to the poor.
posted
They don't say you have an account. Take a look at the statement that was linked. It says how much you've paid in social security taxes, how much that would mean you qualify for in payments under current law, and that the amounts may well change depending on many factors unrelated to how much you pay.
And it isn't forced savings at all (I realize you quote it, indicating you don't consider it literal savings, but I want to emphasize how the program runs now and has always run). It is a forced transfer payment, much like most other government programs (food stamps, medicare, et cetera). The big failure of social security is not its existence, but that the tax to fund it is so regressive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are correct and there is an obvious attitude in government that the people are stupid and need to be protected from themselves. The people just don't understand and need to be dictated to rather than the politicians dictated to by the people. I'm not about "me", rather about what is so often touted, "choice". The same people that are pushing for choice in healthcare or choice for abortion deny school choice in vouchers (ala unions) deny individual choice for one's retirement (ala SS) or even choice to wear a seatbelt. I personally think you are a fool to ride a motorcycle without a helmet but it should be your choice to be foolish and live with the consequences of your actions. You should be able to opt out of social security (congress has that choice)- but hey, they are the smart leaders and trust themselves to take care of their own retirement. The little people they dictate to are to stupid to have the same choice afforded to them.
I agree that there are many who are either too poor or too stupid to take care of themselves. Being so stupid they would also be too dumb and lazy to opt out but we should be able to opt out and live with the consequences. I have life insurance so that my family will be taken care of, perhaps the government should collect life insurance premiums from everyone to cover the stupid parents out there. I get annual dental and physical exams as a preventative measure, perhaps the government should make exams compulsory because some people are either too stupid or poor to look after themselves.
The price of individual liberty and freedom is individual responsibility. When the leaders think that they know what is best for the people, despite the will of the people, we are no longer free.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Astonishly, Ornicoro, personal attacks on my character are not the same thing as a coherent argument.
Try to see if you can manage to write in a thread without resorting to personal attacks. Just try. See what it's like. It'll hurt and you won't get that adrenline rush you get when you insult people, but you'll be a better person for it.
You're an idiot.
Damn. Fail. Oh well...
Good job not answering to all the reasons your statement was wrong though. Well, not so much good, but yeoman-like.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You are correct and there is an obvious attitude in government that the people are stupid and need to be protected from themselves.
It's like a game of telephone with you. He says: society functions better this way despite your personal competence or lack thereof, and you respond: "yes, the government *does* think I'm stupid." Just listen. DM is explaining something you don't demonstrate an understanding of- he's talking about something I'm interested in hearing more about.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
