Income Redistribution

[raptor9k]

My logic isn't at all diseased. It's based on a rather sound premise: that people who contribute into the system all their lives really ought to be entitled to get something back from the system in their old age. It's only fair at the end of the day.

In fact, I'm fairly certain you'll feel differently about this matter in four decades' time.

That's the problem. Everyone that is contributing to Social Security right now will never see a penny of that money. The government just can't make it work. I pay a financial manager to make sure my retirement will be there when I need it. Unlike the government I can actually hold them accountable. They actually have to answer for their decisions instead of just saying "Oops, we fucked up, sorry, all the money will be gone by the time you get to retire." Retirement should be in the hands of the individual and it would be much easier to do so without having to contribute to a dead program. Basically the government is forcing me to build two retirement plans right now. One for me, and one for every other fucking Joe Schmoe that didn't plan for the future, but instead pulled out their massive sense of entitlement and said I'll be OK the government OWES me my retirement. If I'm contributing to a program I will never benefit from why the fuck should they benefit from it?

[minsx]

Thorsman:

I'd like to know just why you think it's appropriate to spend thousands of dollars a month to keep old people alive that can't afford to do it themselves.

I don't mean just in the context of this argument. People say that lives are priceless (and I agree), but really - there's a price tag on keeping any person alive, and at some point someone has to make a decision that says "this isn't worth it financially, I'm sorry". (Might be worth its own debate thread, really).

For those people who have amassed wealth, they can afford to spend extraordinary amounts of money keeping themselves alive. For those who haven't, I don't really think its appropriate that the rest of us should have to spend extraordinary amounts of money doing the same.

Now, I have no problem with old people who have paid into the social security system for all their lives collecting on it in the end. That's what it was there for, and they DID actually pay into it (as opposed to Thor who apparently believes that all taxes qualify a person). My problem (and I believe Deacon's) and Raptor's etc.) is the fact that I will spend MY entire life paying into the social security system and see NOTHING. Because the system is a bit broken.

Social Security has become little more than an additional tax - goes to fund worthwhile government projects but not my retirement. Either fix it (which is kind of impossible with current population trends) or phase it out and replace it with something better. In this case, the something better being a privatized retirement system where the funds are still taken out like they would be for soc. sec. But instead of being part of a "government budget" they can be part of my "retirement budget". And perhaps I could even have some control over where that goes. What exactly is wrong with this?

The problem with the initial implementation of soc. sec. was that people who previously worried about saving for retirement stopped bothering, and now some wonder whether a) we should increase soc. sec. (because clearly its not enough) or b) we should revoke it. Solution (a) was what got us into this bind in the first place, and I don't believe it solved any problems. Solution (b) will clearly be a hard pill for some to swallow - there will be a learning curve as some people learn what it might take to help them plan for retirement. But at least it pulls government out of the whole situation, where it didn't really belong in the first place.

And maybe, just MAYBE the nation will become a smarter place. (Tough love, kid. Tough love.)

[Thorsman]

Raptor, I'd say that's the government's fault, not the fault of the seniors. You're going to hate me saying this, but the main reason for there not being enough money in the Social Security fund is because the US has among the lowest tax rates of industrialized nations. If you really want social programs like Social Security to work, they need better funding. In the end this will mean that those who are better off will pay somewhat higher taxes, but in the end the system will indeed work for everyone. In fact, if there were more revenues put into these social programs in the US, you wouldn't NEED to have your own retirement plan in the first instance.

I will again point to the UK as an example of at least a halfway decent system of giving retirees their necessary medical needs while still allowing people to accumulate a decent amount of wealth. Sir Alan Sugar, McFly, the Cadbury family et al aren't as rich as Bill Gates, mind you, but they still live more than comfortably, I can assure you. Oh, and in the UK, retirement plans are most often seen as optional. You can get one, but you'll still be decently provided for in your old age for the hard work you've put in. In fact, I'm quite glad that my mother in law can get decent medical treatment, and I don't mind that my tax percentage is a bit higher if she can get quality medical care from the NHS (National Health Service).

[NorthernComfort]

They actually have to answer for their decisions instead of just saying "Oops, we fucked up, sorry, all the money will be gone by the time you get to retire."

Over the last decade the problems with our massive bureaucracy have only grown. Why would anyone want to entrust some of the most important aspects of their lives to a sprawling, unorganized mess that operates somewhat like a football game between Republicans and Democrats? Oh, Democrats have the ball, we'll pay more taxes, and retire rich and fat! Wait! Interception! The Republicans have the ball, and they're cutting taxes like the Rapture's coming! Whoa! Fumble! They lost ten yards! The Democrats grab the ball and -- wait -- where's the ball? Oh, they decided the big Health Care game at the next stadium over needed the ball more.

Taking care of yourself- and your life, your family, your retirement, your savings, your money is not the government's role. Apart from the fact that the government simply has not proven itself competent to put together such a massive system in place for all Americans, it's also simply not the government's role in the first place. "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." -Ford

The money will get loaned, spent, cut, fumbled, and ultimately lost. Keep your mind on your riches.

[Deacon]

Nevermind that these same retirees contributed to US government revenue for nigh on 50 years of their lives, possibly more.

No, they didn't. They contributed to their own pocket, hopefully, by earning a living. Uncle Sam took (at least) his share for all the services and protection they were provided during that time. The US Government is not a 401k.

For these people it's not a matter of wanting "to quit working and hang out all day," and nor is it a matter of them having "failed to properly plan for their retirement," but rather it involves not having to work until they drop in their old age.

That's a contradictory statement. You say it's not about quitting working but rather about quitting working.

What you're in effect championing is a Victorian work-till-you-drop scenario. I say no to this ridiculous attitude: retirement IS a right, especially in light of the decades of hard work these people have already put in to their jobs, not to mention the decades of taxes they paid.

The hell? If you can retire at 30, go for it! Be happy! I don't want anyone to work until they drop! I want everyone to have a gay ol' time! But I sure as hell am neither capable of nor willing to fund everyone else's party time out of my pocket. Retirement is not currently nor has ever been a right. Working hard doesn't give you a right to retire. If they put decades of hard work into their jobs, awesome for them, awesome for their bosses, and awesome for their customers. Hopefully that hard work translated into income which they then chose to spend and invest as they saw fit. Hopefully they did so in such a manner as to build up funds to be able to retire to a life of opulent luxury. If not, then at least of modest comfort. If not, then at least to help contribute toward some food as they live in the home of their eldest child. The decades of taxes they paid were NOT into a retirement account, but to fund all these expensive government programs you love to keep running. Now you want to say that they have some right to a magical source of money-from-nothing because they were funding the services they've been enjoying this whole time. If I go to the same steakhouse every week for 30 years, do they owe me a steak a week for another 30 years until I die? No, they don't.

You want to retire? Awesome, godspeed. I wish you good luck and much success. But to demand that your neighbor's kids pay for it solely on the basis that you've managed to not die yet, having done nothing to earn it, it's wrong and, worse, impossible, a fairy tale. All this money you want to hand out like candy has to come from somewhere.

Would you really deny them getting some of their own back after having worked so hard? If so, I'm glad you're not in power.

If they paid into Social Security, then I don't have a problem with them collecting a Social Security check in kind.

The problem with Hillary's program is that it's taking billions of dollars in tax money and just giving it away. The other problem is that she's proposing an extreme socialist/communist program that's not even wearing a token veil of fairness. Instead, those people who actually did manage to scrimp and save and invest during their life are having the fruits of their life-long labors raided, plundered, and robbed by Hillary and handed over for free to people who have done nothing to earn it. This goes so sharply against everything I believe that I don't even know wtf more to say about it. I find it abhorrent and sick..

Again, you're neglecting the life-long labors of those seniors now struggling to survive.

No, I'm not. Why do you say these things? I'm not neglecting anyone. No one for whom I'm responsible is being neglected even a single second.

It doesn't bleed the wealthy dry as you're trying to say.

I never said that. Straw men are to be burned, not propped up, sir. It's not for you to say how much of someone else's earnings you can take without them being "bled dry." It's not for you to decide what they can or can't live on when they're the ones who worked to earn it in the first place. I cannot for the life of me understand this line of thinking. If someone were to follow you around everywhere you went and take your plate you paid for away from you after a few bites in order to distribute to others who've done nothing to earn it and are not reimbursing you for it just because they deem you to have had enough, you'd start to get pissed, too. This is communism, and it's not OK. Hillary has come forward espousing the concept of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," the creed of communism, and it is not something I believe is right, much less realistic or sustainable.

The idea that your neighbors are responsible to provide for your own retirement is a distinct social sickness.

The social sickness is actually the idea that seniors should be left out in the proverbial cold just because they didn't "plan properly for retirement." Would you say the same if this were a grandparent who was close to you and whom you loved dearly, your previous anecdotal example notwithstanding?

No, I would not leave a grandparent who was close to me and whom I loved dearly out in the cold. They would come in and live with me. However, do NOT expect me to do the same with your grandparent to whom you are close to and whom you love dearly.

My logic isn't at all diseased. It's based on a rather sound premise: that people who contribute into the system all their lives really ought to be entitled to get something back from the system in their old age. It's only fair at the end of the day.

That's only correct inasmuch as we're speaking strictly about a retirement system, which doesn't seem to be the case in your points.

In fact, I'm fairly certain you'll feel differently about this matter in four decades' time.

Nope. I'll be even more pissed because all the money I've been paying into Social Security over 5 decades will have disappeared, and I'll have nothing to show for it. Thankfully, I will have been planning for retirement and will kick back whenever I am both desirous and able to do so.

[raptor9k]

NorthernComfort fails at quoting.

*hands NC a sword*

[NorthernComfort]

NorthernComfort fails at quoting.

*hands NC a sword*

I've seen it attributed to Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Thomas Jefferson, and probably some more random people that I've forgotten. I hate not being sure who said it first, but I think it's a great quote nonetheless.

But I hate failing at quoting.... *takes sword*

For these people it's not a matter of wanting "to quit working and hang out all day," and nor is it a matter of them having "failed to properly plan for their retirement," but rather it involves not having to work until they drop in their old age.

There is a very important Zen story that I think many people in America, and the world, ought to hear.

There was a Zen master who was getting old. Despite his age, he worked with his students, cleaning the temple, tending to the garden. However, his age began to catch up with him, and his body could no longer keep up in the temple's routine chores. He sat down, and did not get up for meals. His students were horrified, and begged him to eat. He refused, saying simply, "No work, no food."

The students realized that he planned to starve himself. Their master believed that if he could not help the monastery in its day-to-day functioning, he should not give his students unnecessary burden. The students did not wish him to die, and begged him to at least eat until springtime. He only accepted once the students pointed out that it was winter, and standing in the cold for a funeral would be very unpleasant, but wouldn't be that bad in the springtime.

He ate just enough to stay alive throughout the winter, meditating endlessly. Once the weather was warm, he refused the bowl, once again saying "No work, no food." He passed away shortly thereafter.

--
The story has taken on a few variations, but the message is simply "No work, no food."

[StruckingFuggle]

The message is also "contribute to society or die".

[Deacon]

Taking care of yourself- and your life, your family, your retirement, your savings, your money is not the government's role. Apart from the fact that the government simply has not proven itself competent to put together such a massive system in place for all Americans, it's also simply not the government's role in the first place. "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." -Ford

The money will get loaned, spent, cut, fumbled, and ultimately lost. Keep your mind on your riches.

I agree with this so hard I don't even know how to describe it. Yes. Thank you. Just...thank you.

As to the Zen story, it's not unique to Zen philosophy, but in that case I believe that if his students (basically his family at that point) were willing to support him and he was still able and willing to contribute to their education even if he can't physically sweep and tend the garden and such anymore, then he should accept their continued support and continue to contribute to their education. "Work" doesn't always have to involve physical labor.

[StruckingFuggle]

On you and your family? Why are they included in what YOU are supposed to take care of? What right do THEY have to get help from you if they can't take care of themselves?

[adciv]

The work grandparents have done once retired frequently has been to take care of the grandkids while the parents worked. Given the normal cost of day care, that's quite a bit.

[Deacon]

On you and your family? Why are they included in what YOU are supposed to take care of? What right do THEY have to get help from you if they can't take care of themselves?

This has been stated and explained before in this thread, but I will go on and elaborate further as to the deeper personal reasoning for this stance rather than a totally self-determination and self-responsibility stance.

They're your family. While you may hate yours and feel no duty or responsibility toward yours, most people don't feel that way toward theirs. They raised you, put a roof over your head, food on your table, clothes on your back during the time in your life when you were unable to do so on your own. Unless they've done heinous things to alienate you or steadfastly refuse your help, I think it shouldn't have to be such a chore to return the favor when they reach the point where they're not able to do so, either. For instance, let's say that their retirement funds run out eventually because they've lived longer than they expected (or were not terribly successful in their long-term investments). Why not sell or rent out their house and move in with you? They would be able to provide monetarily for their food and such, and you can help them out with physical tasks that may be too taxing for them, etc. And if they're completely destitute, for god's sake take them in and help them out. But don't drag them by the foot across the lawn to your neighbor's doorstep and say, "Hey, you're now responsible for their care. Good luck." You have no right to do so, IMHO.

[StruckingFuggle]

And if they're completely destitute, for god's sake take them in and help them out. But don't drag them by the foot across the lawn to your neighbor's doorstep and say, "Hey, you're now responsible for their care. Good luck." You have no right to do so, IMHO.

But you have the right to expect me to take care of someone else? How does that work just because I'm private and they're family?

[Deacon]

Why do you ask the same question over and over again?

[StruckingFuggle]

You didn't offer an explanation that explains away your hypocrisy, last time.