Who's worried about Social Security?

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 15:13:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Greg, you missed my point entirely. Intentionally, even.



The reason it has to be redistributive is because without that, the elderly poor will die. There's no getting around it. If they are too old to work, and they don't have the money to support themselves, and they don't get the money from somewhere, they die. It's just that simple. And don't give us any BS about private savings plans or any high-sounding crap about fiscal discipline either, because they didn't have the money while they were working.



Person A knows someone who can get him a good job; Person B lost his manufacturing job to India. Person A has a forty-hour work week and gives his kid a dirt bike for Christmas; Person B works overtime so his kid can ride a bike, period. Person A can afford Chili's every night; Person B eats Campbell's and ramen. Family A can afford to send their kid to a private teen gulag; Family B, with some belt-tightening, scrapes by enough for community college. (Okay, I admit it, that last one was a cheap shot.) This is fair? And now we're going to say to Person B, "Guess what, buddy? No safety net for you! Too old to work? That's your problem! Guess you wish you didn't lose your tiny 401k in the latest stock market crash, huh?"



This is capitalism at its most merciless.



What the actual problem is, and no one wants to admit, is that we have ways of keeping people alive, and no way of keeping them still able to work. This creates, yes, a drain on the system.



The choice remains: Either we, as a society. keep them alive or we kill them. If you're going to argue to kill them, there is a serious argument there, but don't dance around the subject."

Shh, if this is you, you are ignoring my argument in totality. Specifically you are ignoring the repeated statement that I support helping people who can't help themselves.  Yet you continue to come back with over emotional rebuttals to an argument that isn't even mine while ignoring the argument that you made... that progressive taxation is "fair".

 Is that how you really wish to interact with people?

[SHH]

That wasnt me Greg, the last one was me.

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 15:35:00, SHH wrote:

"Greg, you cannot really be serious with your statement in a previous thread that low and middle income earners "hit the jackpot" with their Social Security income, because they lived long enough?? Hit the jackpot? Hit the jackpot??? What world do you live in Greg? I was thinking the other side of this world but now Im beginning to think it may be on another planet! Do you seriously think that my father's $475 dollars a month is hitting the jackpot??? That is his ONLY income. His 11 medicines if he didnt have medicaid, would cost him over 800 a month. Not to mention, food, rent if he rented a place, electricity, phone, etc. I know good and well $475 is probably half your car payment so it probably isn't a concept you can relate to that some people LIVE on $500-700 a month in Social Security. Hitting the jackpot wouldnt be what Id call it. "

If your father is collecting $475 a month, then his figure is way below the average, and the amount he paid in was very low.

so in relation to what he paid in, absolutely he paid the jackpot.  The rest of the emotional argument is just diversionary.  I have repeatedly said we should help people like that.  Are you intentionally ignoring what I say?

 Where is your argument for "fairness"?

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 15:36:00, SHH wrote:

"That wasnt me Greg, the last one was me."

Sorry.  I just responded to your last one.  Whoever wrote that, you picked up the conversation in the middle and totally mis-represented my position.  take the time to catch up on the argument or stay out of it.

[Anonymous]

"Greg,
You really put a spin on your figures, number one
I have a had time believing that at 35,000 a year a person only pays in just 2000 a year in SS "

i pulled an old income statement where i cleared just over 35k and i had paid 2077.00
so he's pretty close

- one thing SHH said before just commenting on, SS isnt a "tax" per se. its meant to be a benefit. a forced benefit to be sure, but you contribute x amount of dollars you are permitted to get a certain amount back per month. if you contribute more, you can get more. if you make 35k per year for your life, vs someone who make 50k per year, that 50k person gets to have more. he's finally getting "his" money back.
secondly the exapmle of paying money, taxes and medical insurance bills taking up more of a percentage of a middle income person's budget then a rick persons budget is a bit off in the sense that medical insurance is not a tax. medical insurance premiums are determined by your age, gender and previous healthy history. i dont see how it should have anything to do with your income level. yes its easier to be 40 rich and pay your medical insurance of 500 a month, then 40 and not rich.

i dont mind a bit of a scalled tax system because i think a society should be able to provide what is affectively some assistance or burden shiftting to somoene who can better handle it. however i think that needs to be reasonable. the question of course is where is "reasonable" exactly. i think they need to raise the income level at which taxes begin being calculated, i think its currently 15k. i think it should come up to 20 or 25k before taxes begin gettnig paid. of course the governement will do this quite reluctantly and they seem to be very free in spending money rapidly. so they need a as big a budget as they can get and they look to assess as much money as they can at every turn. no one can ever accuse the government of being fiscally responsible even in the best of econmonic conditions. they find plenty of things to waste money on.
probably i think the worse tradegy of SS is that the benefits are inadequate. anyone who tries to live off what they will actually get (including current money's) will be sadly disappointed.  and yet the politicians kept finding ways to take money ot of the fund (or keep money out of the fund) that was meant to be for our retirement. our money set aside for our own good.  so its just more money into a tax pile (i know i started off saying its not a "tax" per se) that we wont see the benefit of.

[SHH]

Im caught up Greg, I typed that last post while you were typing your last post. I know exactly what this argument is about, and yes, it is fair to tax the wealthy more than the poor. It is fair to pay higher taxes on a more expensive house. It is fair to charge more for a better car, it is fair for those of us "privedged" folk to take care of the poor and elderly.

[Anonymous]

"lastly, our politicians should all be shot in the crotch, what with the Social Security Mess we are left with. But they keep buying those senior votes year after year, and we like mindless drones accept our low expectations of them and keep re-ellecting them to fuck us again and again."

you know greg and i dont see eye to eye all that often, but i couldnt agree more with this statement.
there have always been real problems that real people face, i.e. taking care of a parent or grandparent with completely in adequate medical care or financial support from a society that should certainly be capable of providing it, but politicians manage to avoid the problems and dump them on the next generation succesfully time after time after time. and we keep reelecting them. the congressional check writing scandal of the late 80s (i think it was late 80s) being the perfect example of it i think. even when they were demonstrated to be spending congressional budge money on their personal homes (and no, not for an office to work from) so many of them were reelected or narrowly defeated. thats just sad.  the real problem isnt that the rich should pay 38% compared to 35% vs someone else paying 25% maybe who should be paying 24%..its that they manage to waste the resources that are provided to them so grossly.

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 15:50:00, SHH wrote:

"Im caught up Greg, I typed that last post while you were typing your last post. I know exactly what this argument is about, and yes, it is fair to tax the wealthy more than the poor. It is fair to pay higher taxes on a more expensive house. It is fair to charge more for a better car, it is fair for those of us "privedged" folk to take care of the poor and elderly. "

Still

no

argument.

[GregFL]

Wow, you last two anons......




:tup:  :tup:  :tup:  :tup: [ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-24 17:03 ]

[SHH]

You keep on saying Greg, that its not fair to tax the wealthy more than the middle class or the poor. Tell me, why not? You keep on saying I dont have a valid argument about whats fair and what isnt. I think its fair for those who earn more to pay more. Because, in this society that we live in, thats how it works. You earn more, you pay more. You buy a bigger house, you pay higher taxes. It wouldnt be fair any other way. Why is it not fair for wealthy citizens to pay more? Why would it be fair for poorer citizens to pay as much as wealthy? What is fair to you? A straight 10% tax? a flat rate for everybody no matter what? tell me, how would you do it?

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 15:49:00, Anonymous wrote:

""Greg,

You really put a spin on your figures, number one

I have a had time believing that at 35,000 a year a person only pays in just 2000 a year in SS "



i pulled an old income statement where i cleared just over 35k and i had paid 2077.00

so he's pretty close

Yes I am.  I pay SS and medicare tax as an employer on a bi-weekly basis.  I handle my own accounting so I know what I speak.  In addition, I took the benefit amounts and extrapolated a monthly figure using the Social Security Administrations "retirement calculator".  I also used the employers estimates based on a fictitional version of my own situation.

Isn't it funny how people come to online debates and just say basically "you are full of it" and have nothing to back it up with?  You gotta love the comment  paraphrased, "you really spin your numbers because I have a hard time believing them".....Leaving no real rebuttal or reason for their discrediting comments other than a "hard time" feeling they are having.

Double yawn.  Get an argument anon.  The real question is why you don't educate yourself on what you are paying, where the money went, and who is fucking who (thanks to Ging for that).

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 17:10:00, SHH wrote:

"You keep on saying Greg, that its not fair to tax the wealthy more than the middle class or the poor. Tell me, why not? You keep on saying I dont have a valid argument about whats fair and what isnt. I think its fair for those who earn more to pay more. Because, in this society that we live in, thats how it works.

Wow.  How convincing.  It is fair because that is how it works. This is your argument?   This after I asked you for pages and pages  to comport the dictionary meaning of fairness with this concept?  Not very well thought out, eh?


 
You are asking me AGAIN to explain why it isn't "Fair"?  This convinces me you either aren't reading or aren't paying attention.  I suggest you go back and read my detailed posts on fairness, what a 'fair' system would entail, why it isn't fair, and why 'fairness' is an unacheivable goal in our society.  Like anon above, I don't mind paying more than my share (ie: more than what is fair) as a price to pay to live in a privelidged society, but when it becomes punative (and it is) I reserve the right to speak out.  I also reserve the right to speak out against stupid comments, like it is "fair" to ask other people to pay your way.

Damn, I feel like a broken record.

[SHH]

I never said I was asking someone to "pay my way". I want people to pay their share, equally. Not pay my share, pay their own share. Since when is that unfair? Youre being obtuse on purpose Greg, and then telling me that I am. Sorry, its not me this time Greg. Its you. You will never understand my point of view on this because you dont live in the real world like I do, struggling to make ends meet, buying hundreds of dollars of medicine a month, paying a mortgage payment of 1,060 a month just so my son and I wont have to live in a ghetto and in a decent school district, paying ridiculous premiums for crappy medical insurance, paying 200 a month for electricity, and scraping by on 33,000 a year while STILL paying my fair share of income tax, property tax, ad valorem tax, and SS tax. dont tell me I dont know what FAIR is Greg. Try living in a regular American worker's world again. Youll find its not all peaches and cream.

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 17:32:00, SHH wrote:

"I never said I was asking someone to "pay my way". I want people to pay their share, equally. Not pay my share, pay their own share. Since when is that unfair? Youre being obtuse on purpose Greg, and then telling me that I am. Sorry, its not me this time Greg. Its you. You will never understand my point of view on this because you dont live in the real world like I do, struggling to make ends meet, buying hundreds of dollars of medicine a month, paying a mortgage payment of 1,060 a month just so my son and I wont have to live in a ghetto and in a decent school district, paying ridiculous premiums for crappy medical insurance, paying 200 a month for electricity, and scraping by on 33,000 a year while STILL paying my fair share of income tax, property tax, ad valorem tax, and SS tax. dont tell me I dont know what FAIR is Greg. Try living in a regular American worker's world again. Youll find its not all peaches and cream."

SHH fallacies in the last two posts.


1)  Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam, literally, "argument from pity"): An emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate. While pathos generally works to reinforce a reader?s sense of duty or outrage at some abuse, if a writer tries to use emotion merely for the sake of getting the reader to accept what should be a logical conclusion, the argument is a fallacy

and

2)Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum Ad Traditio): This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it.

3)Argumentum ad Populum (Literally "Argument to the People): Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser.

4)  Argumentum Ad Hominem Circumstantial: To argue that an opponent should accept an argument because of circumstances in his or her life.


I offer these criticisms of your argument in hopes that next time we can talk more productively.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-05-24 17:32:00, SHH wrote:

"I never said I was asking someone to "pay my way". I want people to pay their share, equally. Not pay my share, pay their own share.

I would apologize, but first we need to resolve this you wrote, on page two....

On 2006-05-24 17:32:00, SHH wrote:


 My question is, WHY NOT? Those people in that higher income bracket almost always have IRA's or other investments that they draw off of after retirement in addition to SS. The poor and middle class, however, usually don't. Not only do I think they should tax every income level for Social Security, they should tax the higher incomes a higher percentage.

So which is it SHH, should we each pay our own share as in post#1, or should we gouge the higher income earners, as in post #2 because...

 "WHY NOT? Those people in that higher income bracket almost always have IRA's or other investments"