FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » A rant on the "Entitlements" excuse. (Page 0)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: A rant on the "Entitlements" excuse.
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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 [Wink]

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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FoolishTook
Member
Member # 5358

 - posted      Profile for FoolishTook   Email FoolishTook         Edit/Delete Post 
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...
From: http://drrocketanski.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/dehumanizing-rationality-the-wisdom-of-agent-smith/

and

http://drrocketanski.wordpress.com/2011/03/

Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Ever read 'The Rights of Man'?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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 [Wink]


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 ]

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-life-you-can-save/200908/is-it-wrong-not-help-part-i

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-life-you-can-save/200909/is-it-wrong-not-help-part-2

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.


Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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)
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
You've switched out the word "parent" for the word "citizen" in your summary. Thats a major change in the meaning of the sentence.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
I've never said "Canadian" either.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
So this Canadian law applies to people who aren't Canadian?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Laws that only cover citizens are fairly uncommon.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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." [Wink]

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.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
Sam, I completely agree. Especially about the long-windedness of the thread. [Wall Bash]
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2