Who's worried about Social Security?

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 10:53:00, SHH wrote:

"Greg, assuming your argument was valid about property taxes, the entire taxing world would have to change.

this is a fallicy  known as "appeal to adverse consequences"

http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html

You are still devoid of an argument.

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 10:53:00, SHH wrote:

 Or are you purposely being dense on this one because youre the one with the bigger tax bill?"

This is a logical fallicy known as "against the person".


Still you have no argument.

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 09:36:00, SHH wrote:

"OH and by the way, I do take care of my own. I have my 102 yr old grandfather, 65 yr old disabled father, semi disabled husband, and 2 children living with me. I dont expect anybody else to take care of them. I do, however, expect some assistance from the govt for medical bills for my disabled father, since they were too cheap to pay for benefits for my father when he worked for the State Dept. and the DEA for 25 yrs. "

"appeal to pity".


http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ap.php

SHH, just what is your argument?

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 10:53:00, SHH wrote:

Everything is taxed based on its value.

errr...No.

Some taxes are based on income.  Some taxes are based on consumption. Some taxes are based on purchase price, some taxes are based on value of goods.  Still other taxes (like county park fees and toll roads) are based on usage.

All taxes are money raising schemes, inflicted non-voluntarily by governments onto the producers and consumers of their prospective countries and municipalities.  I don't think any of them have Fairness in mind, with the possible exception of usage fees.












[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-24 11:36 ]

[Anonymous]

Try looking at it THIS way:

We can define fairness as the amount that paying a certain tax will hurt the payer. $400, say, means a hell of a lot more to the poor than the rich. Hence, having everyone pay the same amount in "usage fees" or other sort of "equal" system is inherently unfair.

Of course the rich pay more in raw dollar amounts. Taxing everyone the same raw dollar amount, or attempting to, is a joke when comparing incomes. Of course it's redistributive; it has to be. The poor don't have the money to survive to old age. When you've worked for 50 years at low wages, got screwed out of your pension if you were ever offered one to begin with, and have nothing to live on, you need Social Security to survive. The money has to come from somewhere. The poor don't have it.

The only other alternative is simply to say "Let them die. Let them all die."

[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 , and anyway your employer matches that making it double. and I am yet to see someone getting $1800  a month on SS when they only made 35000 a year.  A person must pay 15% of his salary into SS ,Half of that paid by the employer .   SS is like an insurance and if the money was allowed to grow thru interest and what nots, I believe after 35 or 40 years of putting in most people don't really get back what they should.  Weathly people have many loop holes to avoid all kinds of taxes when the average worker dose not. Most weathly people  also get weathly on the backs of other people or by a such things as luck and that is not to begrudge them but lets not assume that they worker harder then most people or even have a better education.  I worked for a very powerful man and I found nepotism to run rampant in his business, people with very little background in leadership positions making big bucks, many times it's who you know not what you know.  What about people with  healthcare, if they should get a serious health problem,  they certainly take more then they pay in.  Social Security is one of america's greatest institutions. and helps take care of people that have been serving the weathly,   while big business is raiding your 401's and pensions plans and tsking your jobs over seas, talking about terriorist and focusing on the poor mexicans,            I am so sick of the I got mine so  F...k you, you didn't work hard enough.  What would what would be the interest on 80,000 after 20 or 40 years of work.

[cleveland]

I tell you what, this goes to show what Geezers we have all become if the hottest thing on this site in weeks is Social Security and taxes!

Let the debate roll on...

[SHH]

Hey who you calling a Geezer??? LOL....Im a YOUNG 40, almost 41 Damnit!! :razz:

[Johnny G]

The "employer match" of social security is part of the cost to the business, not the income of the business owner; it is the cost of labor - greg, I want you to adjust your payed in and payed out numbers for your hypothetical business owner, and you will find the payback period gets a bit better.

The case for the wealthy using more of the government servioces begins with the police who keep the poor from simply taking what the rich have, the defense establishment which protects US (business) interests - and soes anyone really doubt that the wealthy get better schools, and local services?

No, it's not fair at all.

Unfortunately the general public is more interested in gay married abortions and who shot OJ than in anything further into the future than the next episode of american idol.  I don't think they are even aware of what is in their best interest.

I agree with the comments on the medical system - been in that business for enough years to know what a racket that is.

G

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 13:21:00, Anonymous wrote:

The poor don't have the money to survive to old age. When you've worked for 50 years at low wages, got screwed out of your pension if you were ever offered one to begin with, and have nothing to live on, you need Social Security to survive. The money has to come from somewhere. The poor don't have it.

Well, I agree we 'should' help people like this, but it is a straw man argument to the overall argument for social security in the manner it is being forced on us today which has nothing to do with need vs ability to pay.  

Also, 'should' help the poor and forcing people to help the poor takes the "fairness" issue right out of the equation.  It now becomes a strong arm redistribution.  Still, I support humanitarian help of people who can't do it on their own, even by force. Why?  Hell I don't think it is fair by any definition of the word. I just have seen the very ugly alternative and prefer to live in a society where there are social safety nets.

On 2006-05-24 13:21:00, Anonymous wrote:


"Try looking at it THIS way:



We can define fairness as the amount that paying a certain tax will hurt the payer. $400, say, means a hell of a lot more to the poor than the rich.
 

By what definition are you applying the term 'fair" to this situation?   That is another logical fallacy argument.  What you are doing here is just declaring it fair and then appealing to pity without demonstrating one iota WHY this scenario meets the burden of being 'fair'.  I have listed the definition above and even left clues on how to construct an argument for fairness. ... Sigh...

Tell you what, accepting your premise....the Next time you have dinner at chili's, how would you appreciate it if the waiter added 20 bucks to your bill because the table next to you was poorer and explained it thusly;  "But FAIRNESS dictates that you pay more because it Hurts you less".  you have not been "jacked" into helping the poor and then insulted when you question why.  After all, you don't want to be "unfair" to the poor, do you?

 This is just fiscal liberalism redefining dictionary terms to suit political needs.  In other words....

 *Baloney*


 Taxes, if fair, would be based on the services received.  From the government we receive certain things...security, maintenance, law enforcment all at roughly the same rate.  basing how much it "costs" to be a member of society on how much you have or how much it "hurts" is only acceptable in the strange world of governments and politics. It makes no sense in any other context because it is patently unfair.

Of course it's redistributive; it has to be.

Ahhhh...maybe now we are getting somewhere!  Why does it have to be? Does fairness have anything to do with it, or does the house of cards come tumbling down if fairness doctrines are actually applied to taxation?  I suggest the latter.

So what people do is just declare things such as redistributing wealth as fair by JUST SAYING IT IS SO WITHOUT OFFERING ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR CALLING IT FAIR because it makes them feel good about robbing Peter to pay-off-the-votes of Paul and to pay the way of those that won't or can't.

What are we to do?  I have seen the alternative and it isn't pretty.  I alluded to this way earlier in the thread.  By necessity we go to the people that have to pay the way for those that won't or can't.   But to line up at the teet of high income earners and declare that "it is fair" is a kick in the teeth to those that keep this society humming along. This whole "tax the high income earners more..it will save social security!..argument first presented in this thread is one such kick in the teeth. Just look at my example above and then make an argument I want you to go to this small employer and ask for more money because seniors have a right to his money.  Go ahead, I am sure you can do it..really...be my guest.  


Pure and simple Social security has gone way past punative and entered the realm of exhorbitant, especially for high wage earners who can never expect to get a fraction of their money back whilst low and middle income earners hit the lottery just by surviving. Further, every person Under 35 paying in now is getting ripped off worse than if they were paying three card monty. The Ponzi scheme WILL come tumbling down and we aren't doing shit to address it.

FAIR?  hardly...

Back to the bigger picture, anyone on support of any kind should be humble and thankfull, and should be trying to figure out a way to get off and become a participant of, and not a drag on, the system.  Those that can't should be thankfull they live in a system that can and does help them instead of demanding handouts while talking trash about people who pay a disproportinate amount into the system.


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.

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 14:12:00, Johnny G wrote:

"The "employer match" of social security is part of the cost to the business, not the income of the business owner; it is the cost of labor -

G"

You are obviously not a business owner and/or are not familiar with profit/loss statements.  It is only "cost of labor" because the government demands it by cohersion.

In absense of being jacked of this money by the government, it would go right to the bottom line of the small business owner. In other words, the government involuntarily requires, by threat of force,  the business owner to pay 50% of all social security and medicare taxes collected.

  Moving it one step back to 'the business' ignores the fact that all businesses are either a fictitious name or fictitious entity  for a real person or group of people.  These taxes come directly out of the pocket of the people paying them.  No way around it.
 

Do you not see this?

No, I am sorry, you are DEAD WRONG on this one.

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 14:12:00, Johnny G wrote:



The case for the wealthy using more of the government servioces begins with the police who keep the poor from simply taking what the rich have, the defense establishment which protects US (business) interests - and soes anyone really doubt that the wealthy get better schools, and local services?


Unfortunately the general public is more interested in gay married abortions and who shot OJ than in anything further into the future than the next episode of american idol.  I don't think they are even aware of what is in their best interest.

first part of your argument, I have heard that bantered around before, and even if it is true that the wealthy use some services to a greater extent, the poor also do the same, just different services.  So while I am glad someone FINALLY made a valid argument for fairness, I don't think yours holds up to scrutiny.  

By Jebus, Thanks for understanding the basic premise Johnny!  I was beginning to doubt anyone was paying attention to what I was saying.

For the second part, I agree 100%.

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-24 14:12:00, Johnny G wrote:



 does anyone really doubt that the wealthy get better schools, and local services?

Well

As to schools, the wealthy under utilize the public school system while paying much greater tax rates.  The day of the wealty neighborhoods having all the great public schools is pretty much over.

Local Services?  I think that yes, in the past wealthy neighborhoods were maintained at a much better rate than others.  Streets were paved more often, etc.  This is becoming less and less common, except in private areas that pay for their own maintenance.  On the inverse, poor neighborhoods require much more police, firemen, social service offices, and other services.

I think again we all use services more or less at the same rate, and certainly not at the disparaging differences we pay into the system.





here is an article that was written to demonstrate our tax dollars at work. It is out of context in this discussion but it helps demonstrate how we all pretty much use the government services, sometimes without even realizing it.


http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28731














[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-24 14:52 ]

[Anonymous]

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]

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.