Because it’s unethical for people to promise themselves benefits that they don’t pay for, just to leave the debt to their grandkids. If we want to give everyone cake because they managed to survive to 65 the least we could do is vote to pay for it first.
1 Like
Let’s not worry about just yet. I’ve got more states to turn my nose up at:
In addition to Missouri, the states joining Texas were: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia. All of the states were represented by Republican officials in the filing. All but three of the states have Republican governors.
I could have sworn they were taking money out of my paycheck for the past 40 years.
You do realize the money that came out of your paychecks over the past 40 years was given to retirees over the past 40 years. The benefits you will collect as a retiree will be from future “contributions” collected from future paychecks. You’re promising yourself benefits and leaving the debt to your grandkids.
So my grandkids will get paid by the next generation. Under a growing economy every generation in aggregate will receive more than the previous generation.
What if we did it without taxation? Would you care then? They aren’t necessary. Congress could just write checks if they wanted to.
Trump peaked at -295 (you need to bet 295 to win 100) which is about 75%.
Always fascinating those that advocate backing off the support of Federal Government “from cradle to grave” start at the poorest least powerful people and tend to leave (if not increase) the support given to the wealth owners alone.
Start at the top. When I see a small government types advocate for limits and dropping support from the wealthiest and the most powerful first I may reconsider their position as something other than a path to authoritarianism.
1 Like
mavvj is correct. Old people who have stopped producing economic goods are still consuming them. That requires that the people who are producing today send some of their production to the nonproductive old people. The methods we use to justify that transfer vary, but the transfer happens.
And, a large society cannot “save” for this. Whether it is hamburgers, haircuts, or health care, most goods the old people consume are produced in the same time range that they are consumed.
The only way that current workers could send less to retired workers is to get the retirees to consume less.
Social Security is a decent way to provide for some of the transfer.
3 Likes
You sure beat the snot out of that poor strawman. He never had a chance.
He is right though. A conservative small government is a vote for the status quo which means the rich and powerful now stay where they are. The people have the votes though so we have to use the government to protect our interests. The government exists as a moderator between the powerful and the laborer. The US Constitution is the rules of that agreement. It is in our interest to have Social Security and Medicare and I would argue it is also in the interest of US businesses.
For businesses making the United States an attractive platform for citizens to live and work in is great for the economy. Social Security and Medicare certainly make the US a more attractive platform for a potential laborer so they make it easier for US companies to have labor. I could easily argue that Medicare 4 All would enhance that appeal even more since a country where everyone has guaranteed access to healthcare and a secure retirement is very attractive to workers. It also allows the worker to pursue their work without fear of losing health coverage which would allow them to pursue entrepreneurial interests.
On the other hand a platform that offers nothing to workers except freedom (most of the rest of the world is free too) is not an attractive package in the 21st century. America is living on the momentum of it’s past right now. If we elect another Donald Trump that could well be the end of that.
The healthcare system in the US puts me off moving there from my country. That and over £70m votes for Trump.
What is this nonsense??? “A conservative small government is a vote for the status quo”??? And from there it gets even more ridiculous.
In total it makes about as much sense as a statue in New York Harbor called “The Statue of Social Security”.
Shit, that’s over $90m votes!
2 Likes
I saw that and decided that, with some question about what the amount should be, that it was a good way of looking at recent elections. I personally gave nothing toward any other elections this year but have made a small contribution to Stacy Abrams’s group for the GA runoffs. If I believed it would make the difference, I would give more.
This is true. Though it certainly feels arbitrary to me. Ultimately I pay in and it pays out. The way that pool of money is specifically handled isn’t important to me (except functionally-- efficiency, bankruptcy, redistribution, etc.) I have no sense of injustice about who pays in and who pays out, so long as everyone pays in and everyone pays out.
You’d think becoming an actuary would change this feeling-- since we spend a lot of time looking at cash flows and matching assets to liabilities, but frankly seeing behind the curtain makes it feel more arbitrary instead.
Anyway, I appreciate that you feel that it’s not arbitrary, that there is an implied injustice, and for that reason I’m somewhat opposed the concept of social security. It would be better if folks didn’t feel bad about their policies.
Spending the day writing reports clearly spilled out into my post.
Specifically cite the nonsense please.
Yeah, they took money out of your paycheck “for social security”, then that generation voted to go to war and spent the money. The money is gone, the only thing that remains is the self-promise of benefits for which the money is borrowed to be repaid by the youngest in society. Utterly unethical.
This entire exchange started with me arguing that we should strictly means test social security and medicare though?