the cato institute explains why young people should be pissed off

[Ben Kenobi]

Any other institution that can actually invest the money to benefit the economy in a more efficient manner.

Safeguards? We don't want the administrators to take the money and run. Who's going to ensure that the money is spent properly?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
and what's wrong with foisting the care of their parents onto their children? or are we not so sure about personal responsibility here?

Because it's inefficient. Most homes aren't that big and most people don't like living with their parents.

why i don't ***** about auto insurance: i don't drive a car. if i did, i would, but specifically in regards to the rates i would get being an unmarried male under the age of 25. i would not complain about everyone having to have it, because if some nutjob hits me, i'll at least be guaranteed that i won't have to pay for damage they caused.

That's the same reasoning behind social security. If everyone pays who is able to (because our market economy distributes incomes such that it would be a hardship for very poor people to pay) then we don't see old people on the street. Almost no one wants to see that, and almost no one wants to see elderly people dying prematurely for lack of basic medical care.

Everyone is compelled to pay because people wouldn't pay enough if it were left to the market. Some because they couldn't afford it, others because they would be hoping that other people would.

Without social security many elderly people would end up being dependent on their families. Not only do many people find this degrading, but it isn't an option for people who choose not to have children or are otherwise estranged from their offspring.

All social security is, is insurance against dying young. People need it for the same reason they need other forms of insurance - risk sharing. If we left it up to the market, large numbers of people would be uninsured for various reasons. That's why it's a compulsory scheme - same as car insurance.

as for costs of having to house and care for elderly parents: you forget, i was raised in an environment where i internalized a lot of confucian mores. there is no option for me but to house and care for my elderly parents, whether i like living with them more not.

The vast majority of people are not like you. Especially in societies like Canada and the US.

annoyance of elderly people in the streets? about as annoying as regular people in the streets. the elderly would just garner more pity. it's not my fault if some ungrateful fool of a child doesn't want to care for his or her parents, and because they shirk their responsibility, i should have to pay?

Because it's a public good. Unlike you, most people think it is positively awful that elderly people suffer. But if payment is not compulsory very few people would pay, because they would be hoping that others would (in which case they would get the benefit without paying). But this hardly ever works. It's a standard collective action problem, just as in the case of auto insurance and countless other problems people face. The short answer is that you have to pay, because if you didn't hardly anyone would.

and yes, it is an argument against social security, those voting numbers. my responsibility to other peoples' parents stops where their responsibility begins. because they're going to bankrupt the system, it will be non-existent for me.

But you still haven't provided a reasonable alternative. You say that you are not responsible. Well, you aren't responsible for other people driving badly, yet if you drive a car you are compelled to have insurance. On the face of it, that might seem unfair, but the alternative is worse - masses of uninsured drivers.

In short, your own personal responsibility is trumped when everyone is going to be worse off if we allow people to pick and choose. Same goes for funding the police or the army. In fact, same goes for a lot of things, if we weren't compelled by the state in certain spheres, we would regress to a state of nature.

Rah is right - there's nothing wrong in principle with SS, but there are problems of implementation. That's where the real debate is.

[Ben Kenobi]

my responsibility to other peoples' parents stops where their responsibility begins.

Nope.

As a society, there are certain things that can be done much more efficiently if everyone pools their money. I agree that people should have the option of caring for their parents, but that if they choose to do so, this does not exempt them from social security.

Would you abolish all forms of taxes, because those are a form of social welfare, in a sense taking responsibility for those outside of our immediate family?

[Japher]

Who's going to ensure that the money is spent properly?

No ones doing it now!

[Whoha]

I think that there are 3 or so religous sects that are exempted from paying SS tax because they prove that they take care of their elders.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Nope.

As a society, there are certain things that can be done much more efficiently if everyone pools their money. I agree that people should have the option of caring for their parents, but that if they choose to do so, this does not exempt them from social security.

Would you abolish all forms of taxes, because those are a form of social welfare, in a sense taking responsibility for those outside of our immediate family?

Exactly.

[Az]

bEN kEnOBI iS a comMie!!!!!1111111

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Assuming the economy doesn't tank again. Assuming your stcoks don't take a dive just before you hit retirement age. Assuming that your brokers just don't flat out rip you off.

Assuming one makes an INFORMED decision with their IRA account and looks for respectable, reputable brokers.

[Japher]

Naw, he's just a religous zealot

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Japher
Naw, he's just a religous zealot

Yeah, right. He's one of the most tolerant people on this forum.

[GePap]

I will pay tens of thousands of dollars for many programs that I will not recieve directly-that is the nature of paying taxes. That is also the nature of living in a modern industrialised, or post-industrialized state. There is NO modern state that has implemented any of the anti-government ideas of the repugs. NONE. So it falls on them to show proof, or any empirical evidence that thier schemes will work.

If you want to change Social security, make a few significant yet simple changes.

Up the retirement age between 67 and 70. A simple change that ups the viability by dozens of years. 2: implement income requirements- and finally, make it come out of the general treasury and not go into some trustfund-in essence, don;t make it an entitlement but a public support system for the elderly without the resources to live. Add a good public health system, and there you go.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Agathon


Yeah, right. He's one of the most tolerant people on this forum.

Hmmm . . . why do I disagree with this to some extent?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MrFun


Hmmm . . . why do I disagree with this to some extent?

Because you can't tell the difference between someone who disagrees with you and who yet has respect for you as a person, and someone who thinks you're dog's dirt.

Ben being at one end of the scale and Fez at the other.

Well, you asked.

[MrFun]

I have to admit, I have more respect for Ben Kenobi than I would ever have for . . . . um some other Apolytoner who will be unamed.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MrFun
I have to admit, I have more respect for Ben Kenobi than I would ever have for . . . . um some other Apolytoner who will be unamed.

I HATE YOU TOO!!!!!!!