richardag said:tysker said:
Hot take alert:
if you receive welfare from the federal government (most commonly Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), you shouldn't be permitted to vote in federal elections.
You can receive all the welfare and payments you think you deserve but you don't also receive the power to force others to pay for your lifestyle choices.
Hot take alert:
Social Security and Medicare are not welfare. They are directly funded by payroll taxes, check your paycheck, it will be itemized.
They were not instituted well and both have been completely corrupted by self serving legislators.
If demanded to institute these then:
When instituted the money should have been privatized with no ability of any government having access. The investment of the funds shout have been regulated as to how the funds were invested by the individuals and never taxed again(like roths). There should have been regulations on when and how the funds could be drawn out and only by the individuals.
Social Security for retirement
Medicare for insurance premiums
If this had been done by the time I retired, I would have had a few million saved. As it is, I will never get what I and the companies I worked for paid in, let alone any interest, before I die.
Hell, I'd even agree that any remaining money reverts to the government. Want your kids to have inheritance fund your own retirement accounts with beneficiaries.
Quote:
In Texas, more than 95 percent of federal grants received in fiscal 2016 went to three functional areas of government: health and human services; public and higher education; and business and economic development, primarily highways and transportation
Quote:
On Sept. 8, the president signed into law a $15.3 billion measure providing federal aid for those affected by Hurricane Harvey, including $7.4 billion from FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, $450 million from the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) Disaster Loan Program and $7.4 billion in community development block grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
tysker said:richardag said:tysker said:
Hot take alert:
if you receive welfare from the federal government (most commonly Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), you shouldn't be permitted to vote in federal elections.
You can receive all the welfare and payments you think you deserve but you don't also receive the power to force others to pay for your lifestyle choices.
Hot take alert:
Social Security and Medicare are not welfare. They are directly funded by payroll taxes, check your paycheck, it will be itemized.
They were not instituted well and both have been completely corrupted by self serving legislators.
If demanded to institute these then:
When instituted the money should have been privatized with no ability of any government having access. The investment of the funds shout have been regulated as to how the funds were invested by the individuals and never taxed again(like roths). There should have been regulations on when and how the funds could be drawn out and only by the individuals.
Social Security for retirement
Medicare for insurance premiums
If this had been done by the time I retired, I would have had a few million saved. As it is, I will never get what I and the companies I worked for paid in, let alone any interest, before I die.
Hell, I'd even agree that any remaining money reverts to the government. Want your kids to have inheritance fund your own retirement accounts with beneficiaries.
Just because the tax bill is itemized doesn't mean the payouts are not welfare.
The programs are government administrated and sponsored, and aid recipients typically receive more in benefits than they paid in. That's welfare, in my opinion.
The more problematic concern, in my view, is the expansion of the entitlement state and generational dependency on government programs. Recipients of program benefits should bear some proportionate cost relative to the value they receive. My take is that one's privilege to vote is that cost
Zobel said:
The system has enough to pay every current retiree $44k.
Proposition: we pay that out and end it. Thats what's in the bank we all contributed to.
Fair or unfair?
Change Detection said:
The system should stop now. Pay the $44K out to all retirees, and nobody pays income tax until all they put in is made zero in the ledger.
AgGrad99 said:Zobel said:
The system has enough to pay every current retiree $44k.
Proposition: we pay that out and end it. Thats what's in the bank we all contributed to.
Fair or unfair?
That might be what's in the bank, but that's not what we contributed. (highlighting why the ponzi scheme sucks)
Fair? No. By no measure is it 'fair.'
If you're asking if that's a good solution...that's another question.
Zobel said:
This doesn't work because it doesn't provide a way to pay for the first generation of retirees. The money began to flow on day one. Your money largely was spent. There's enough in the system to pay each current retiree $44k. That's it.
AgGrad99 said:
welfare is 'aid' provided to someone in need...financial or otherwise.
That's not an accurate definition.
It's a horribly executed attempt at a retirement plan for our country's working citizens.
Quote:
Ok - you don't like the payout. Is it fair to make your kids liable for the decisions made to this point that they weren't a party to?
AgGrad99 said:Change Detection said:
The system should stop now. Pay the $44K out to all retirees, and nobody pays income tax until all they put in is made zero in the ledger.
Dont hate that idea.
Quote:
But it was NEVER intended to be a retirement plan, ever.
AgGrad99 said:Quote:
Ok - you don't like the payout. Is it fair to make your kids liable for the decisions made to this point that they weren't a party to?
Of course not. We all agree the system sucks. No one was party to it...it was a requirement, not an option.
Those aren't mutually exclusive.
Zobel said:AgGrad99 said:Change Detection said:
The system should stop now. Pay the $44K out to all retirees, and nobody pays income tax until all they put in is made zero in the ledger.
Dont hate that idea.
Note this also categorically will not make current retirees whole; they're largely zero income tax payers.
Zobel said:
I'm saying you should forgo the benefit you're entitled to by law for a moral reason, not for a personal pragmatic one.
We can't afford it. The country is broke. It is having a meaningful negative impact on our economy and society. It's burdening our children.
The right thing to do is self sacrifice. That's what civic virtue is about, and is the chief of virtues for the citizens of a republic.
Zobel said:
I'm saying you should forgo the benefit you're entitled to by law for a moral reason, not for a personal pragmatic one.
We can't afford it. The country is broke. It is having a meaningful negative impact on our economy and society. It's burdening our children.
The right thing to do is self sacrifice. That's what civic virtue is about, and is the chief of virtues for the citizens of a republic.
richardag said:tysker said:richardag said:tysker said:
Hot take alert:
if you receive welfare from the federal government (most commonly Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), you shouldn't be permitted to vote in federal elections.
You can receive all the welfare and payments you think you deserve but you don't also receive the power to force others to pay for your lifestyle choices.
Hot take alert:
Social Security and Medicare are not welfare. They are directly funded by payroll taxes, check your paycheck, it will be itemized.
They were not instituted well and both have been completely corrupted by self serving legislators.
If demanded to institute these then:
When instituted the money should have been privatized with no ability of any government having access. The investment of the funds shout have been regulated as to how the funds were invested by the individuals and never taxed again(like roths). There should have been regulations on when and how the funds could be drawn out and only by the individuals.
Social Security for retirement
Medicare for insurance premiums
If this had been done by the time I retired, I would have had a few million saved. As it is, I will never get what I and the companies I worked for paid in, let alone any interest, before I die.
Hell, I'd even agree that any remaining money reverts to the government. Want your kids to have inheritance fund your own retirement accounts with beneficiaries.
Just because the tax bill is itemized doesn't mean the payouts are not welfare.
The programs are government administrated and sponsored, and aid recipients typically receive more in benefits than they paid in. That's welfare, in my opinion.
The more problematic concern, in my view, is the expansion of the entitlement state and generational dependency on government programs. Recipients of program benefits should bear some proportionate cost relative to the value they receive. My take is that one's privilege to vote is that cost
And you would be wrong.
They are government mandated insurance plans
Zobel said:
There's a difference between discretionary spending and entitlements and other mandatory spending on the one hand, and between direct payments and indirect / service spending.
Mandatory spending plus interest is 73% of the spend right now, and it is 102% of revenue. That means the entire budget shutdown etc could be unilaterally won by the fiscal conservatives and we could spend zero dollars on ANYTHING discretionary (like military or any appropriation) and we'd still have a deficit.
Burpelson said:
Give me what i paid into SS plus a modest 10% growth and im good.
schmellba99 said:Zobel said:
I'm saying you should forgo the benefit you're entitled to by law for a moral reason, not for a personal pragmatic one.
We can't afford it. The country is broke. It is having a meaningful negative impact on our economy and society. It's burdening our children.
The right thing to do is self sacrifice. That's what civic virtue is about, and is the chief of virtues for the citizens of a republic.
I "sacrifice" about half of my income every single year to the tax man. I"m sacrificed out. Go pound sand.
Zobel said:
Round two. This is an unpopular topic because boomers feel that they have contributed to a system - paid into it - and are therefore morally entitled to receive what they feel they are owed.
However, as this article shows, there are three real world problems.
One is that the program was really intended as a bulwark against true poverty for the elderly. FDR said "We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age." He also said "The Act does not offer anyone, either individually or collectively, an easy life-nor was it ever intended so to do. None of the sums of money paid out to individuals in assistance or insurance will spell anything approaching abundance. But they will furnish that minimum necessary to keep a foothold; and that is the kind of protection Americans want." The purpose has shifted as our national and generational wealth has shifted. Rather than being a kind of insurance safety net against destitution, people view it as a retirement program that they've contributed toward. This political framing matters a great deal. This will probably be the bulk of the responses - people basically saying they contributed so now they are owed.
The second is that regardless of the intent, or how people view it, there is a very real wealth transfer happening from the young to the old as a result of the current system. There are economic and social consequences of this. Feelings of low optimism, delays in housing purchases and marriage, birth rate suppression are all downstream of things like this.
The final and most important one is that as the system stands today, we can't afford it. We have debt, and as the article notes, the system costs in multiple compounding ways - tax and debt today, inflation for deficit spending and debt financing tomorrow.
I think it's important for people to accept that what is happening is wealth transfer and to come to terms with the reality of the system that was created and what it has become: a pay as you go, aged based welfare system that does not save for the future for individuals but instead uses current workers wages to pay retirees. No parent that I know would do this to their own children unless they had no other choice, but collectively we are doing it to our children.
The other piece is that there's an element of unwitting hypocrisy because of the political framing. People view those on welfare as economic deadweight, unworthy receiving largesse from taxpayers - but because they paid taxes in the past, they don't apply this same standard RJ themselves.
A quote from the article:Quote:
Too often, though, defenders of the conservative movement take it for granted that America preserved a free market system and constitutional government through the Cold War era. Typically, our situation is compared with the centralized control of the CCP. If this comparison is accurate, however, it's hard to see it in the data. In his book Breakneck, Dan Wang observes,
Nearly three-quarters of China's population are spared from paying income tax…. Low taxes make China stingy on welfare. Around 10 percent of its GDP goes toward social spending, compared to 20 percent in the United States and 30 percent among the more generous European states. China's pension and health care spending are much lower than that of other rich countries.
In fact, Wang's comparison understates how much more the American government redistributes wealth compared to China. America is three times as wealthy, per person, as China. So the U.S. spends at least six times as much per person on social programs as China - and most of that goes to seniors.
There is a real problem here, we've known it for years.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/what-is-total-boomer-luxury-communism/
AgGrad99 said:Zobel said:
The system has enough to pay every current retiree $44k.
Proposition: we pay that out and end it. Thats what's in the bank we all contributed to.
Fair or unfair?
That might be what's in the bank, but that's not what we contributed. (highlighting why the ponzi scheme sucks)
Fair? No. By no measure is it 'fair.'
If your asking if that's a good solution...that's another question.
Keller6Ag91 said:Zobel said:
Round two. This is an unpopular topic because boomers feel that they have contributed to a system - paid into it - and are therefore morally entitled to receive what they feel they are owed.
However, as this article shows, there are three real world problems.
One is that the program was really intended as a bulwark against true poverty for the elderly. FDR said "We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age." He also said "The Act does not offer anyone, either individually or collectively, an easy life-nor was it ever intended so to do. None of the sums of money paid out to individuals in assistance or insurance will spell anything approaching abundance. But they will furnish that minimum necessary to keep a foothold; and that is the kind of protection Americans want." The purpose has shifted as our national and generational wealth has shifted. Rather than being a kind of insurance safety net against destitution, people view it as a retirement program that they've contributed toward. This political framing matters a great deal. This will probably be the bulk of the responses - people basically saying they contributed so now they are owed.
The second is that regardless of the intent, or how people view it, there is a very real wealth transfer happening from the young to the old as a result of the current system. There are economic and social consequences of this. Feelings of low optimism, delays in housing purchases and marriage, birth rate suppression are all downstream of things like this.
The final and most important one is that as the system stands today, we can't afford it. We have debt, and as the article notes, the system costs in multiple compounding ways - tax and debt today, inflation for deficit spending and debt financing tomorrow.
I think it's important for people to accept that what is happening is wealth transfer and to come to terms with the reality of the system that was created and what it has become: a pay as you go, aged based welfare system that does not save for the future for individuals but instead uses current workers wages to pay retirees. No parent that I know would do this to their own children unless they had no other choice, but collectively we are doing it to our children.
The other piece is that there's an element of unwitting hypocrisy because of the political framing. People view those on welfare as economic deadweight, unworthy receiving largesse from taxpayers - but because they paid taxes in the past, they don't apply this same standard RJ themselves.
A quote from the article:Quote:
Too often, though, defenders of the conservative movement take it for granted that America preserved a free market system and constitutional government through the Cold War era. Typically, our situation is compared with the centralized control of the CCP. If this comparison is accurate, however, it's hard to see it in the data. In his book Breakneck, Dan Wang observes,
Nearly three-quarters of China's population are spared from paying income tax…. Low taxes make China stingy on welfare. Around 10 percent of its GDP goes toward social spending, compared to 20 percent in the United States and 30 percent among the more generous European states. China's pension and health care spending are much lower than that of other rich countries.
In fact, Wang's comparison understates how much more the American government redistributes wealth compared to China. America is three times as wealthy, per person, as China. So the U.S. spends at least six times as much per person on social programs as China - and most of that goes to seniors.
There is a real problem here, we've known it for years.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/what-is-total-boomer-luxury-communism/
Are you suggesting that people who have paid into the SS system for 30+ years willingly go without the promised benefits of it?
Keller6Ag91 said:Zobel said:
Round two. This is an unpopular topic because boomers feel that they have contributed to a system - paid into it - and are therefore morally entitled to receive what they feel they are owed.
However, as this article shows, there are three real world problems.
One is that the program was really intended as a bulwark against true poverty for the elderly. FDR said "We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age." He also said "The Act does not offer anyone, either individually or collectively, an easy life-nor was it ever intended so to do. None of the sums of money paid out to individuals in assistance or insurance will spell anything approaching abundance. But they will furnish that minimum necessary to keep a foothold; and that is the kind of protection Americans want." The purpose has shifted as our national and generational wealth has shifted. Rather than being a kind of insurance safety net against destitution, people view it as a retirement program that they've contributed toward. This political framing matters a great deal. This will probably be the bulk of the responses - people basically saying they contributed so now they are owed.
The second is that regardless of the intent, or how people view it, there is a very real wealth transfer happening from the young to the old as a result of the current system. There are economic and social consequences of this. Feelings of low optimism, delays in housing purchases and marriage, birth rate suppression are all downstream of things like this.
The final and most important one is that as the system stands today, we can't afford it. We have debt, and as the article notes, the system costs in multiple compounding ways - tax and debt today, inflation for deficit spending and debt financing tomorrow.
I think it's important for people to accept that what is happening is wealth transfer and to come to terms with the reality of the system that was created and what it has become: a pay as you go, aged based welfare system that does not save for the future for individuals but instead uses current workers wages to pay retirees. No parent that I know would do this to their own children unless they had no other choice, but collectively we are doing it to our children.
The other piece is that there's an element of unwitting hypocrisy because of the political framing. People view those on welfare as economic deadweight, unworthy receiving largesse from taxpayers - but because they paid taxes in the past, they don't apply this same standard RJ themselves.
A quote from the article:Quote:
Too often, though, defenders of the conservative movement take it for granted that America preserved a free market system and constitutional government through the Cold War era. Typically, our situation is compared with the centralized control of the CCP. If this comparison is accurate, however, it's hard to see it in the data. In his book Breakneck, Dan Wang observes,
Nearly three-quarters of China's population are spared from paying income tax…. Low taxes make China stingy on welfare. Around 10 percent of its GDP goes toward social spending, compared to 20 percent in the United States and 30 percent among the more generous European states. China's pension and health care spending are much lower than that of other rich countries.
In fact, Wang's comparison understates how much more the American government redistributes wealth compared to China. America is three times as wealthy, per person, as China. So the U.S. spends at least six times as much per person on social programs as China - and most of that goes to seniors.
There is a real problem here, we've known it for years.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/what-is-total-boomer-luxury-communism/
Are you suggesting that people who have paid into the SS system for 30+ years willingly go without the promised benefits of it?
Keller6Ag91 said:Zobel said:
Round two. This is an unpopular topic because boomers feel that they have contributed to a system - paid into it - and are therefore morally entitled to receive what they feel they are owed.
However, as this article shows, there are three real world problems.
One is that the program was really intended as a bulwark against true poverty for the elderly. FDR said "We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age." He also said "The Act does not offer anyone, either individually or collectively, an easy life-nor was it ever intended so to do. None of the sums of money paid out to individuals in assistance or insurance will spell anything approaching abundance. But they will furnish that minimum necessary to keep a foothold; and that is the kind of protection Americans want." The purpose has shifted as our national and generational wealth has shifted. Rather than being a kind of insurance safety net against destitution, people view it as a retirement program that they've contributed toward. This political framing matters a great deal. This will probably be the bulk of the responses - people basically saying they contributed so now they are owed.
The second is that regardless of the intent, or how people view it, there is a very real wealth transfer happening from the young to the old as a result of the current system. There are economic and social consequences of this. Feelings of low optimism, delays in housing purchases and marriage, birth rate suppression are all downstream of things like this.
The final and most important one is that as the system stands today, we can't afford it. We have debt, and as the article notes, the system costs in multiple compounding ways - tax and debt today, inflation for deficit spending and debt financing tomorrow.
I think it's important for people to accept that what is happening is wealth transfer and to come to terms with the reality of the system that was created and what it has become: a pay as you go, aged based welfare system that does not save for the future for individuals but instead uses current workers wages to pay retirees. No parent that I know would do this to their own children unless they had no other choice, but collectively we are doing it to our children.
The other piece is that there's an element of unwitting hypocrisy because of the political framing. People view those on welfare as economic deadweight, unworthy receiving largesse from taxpayers - but because they paid taxes in the past, they don't apply this same standard RJ themselves.
A quote from the article:Quote:
Too often, though, defenders of the conservative movement take it for granted that America preserved a free market system and constitutional government through the Cold War era. Typically, our situation is compared with the centralized control of the CCP. If this comparison is accurate, however, it's hard to see it in the data. In his book Breakneck, Dan Wang observes,
Nearly three-quarters of China's population are spared from paying income tax…. Low taxes make China stingy on welfare. Around 10 percent of its GDP goes toward social spending, compared to 20 percent in the United States and 30 percent among the more generous European states. China's pension and health care spending are much lower than that of other rich countries.
In fact, Wang's comparison understates how much more the American government redistributes wealth compared to China. America is three times as wealthy, per person, as China. So the U.S. spends at least six times as much per person on social programs as China - and most of that goes to seniors.
There is a real problem here, we've known it for years.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/what-is-total-boomer-luxury-communism/
Are you suggesting that people who have paid into the SS system for 30+ years willingly go without the promised benefits of it?
