Social Security Alternative

[monkspider]

David- You're accusations of theft indicate an unwillingness to live for your fellow man. What you see as theft, I see as cooperation. It is all a matter of perspective.
You speak a great deal of natural laws and so forth. But who are we to put Natural Laws above God's laws? Our greatest purpose in this world is not to accumulate a great deal of wealth, but to live in brotherhood with our fellow people. The sooner America realize this, the sooner we will come to a much greater spiritual oneness with the almighty.
I urge you David to give up the ideals of living only for yourself tonight, and join me in living for all people of all nations. The opposition that we face in creating this brotherhood may seem overwhelming at times. But the largest flame starts with but a single spark.

[MRT144]

i see nothing wrong with taking money from people who dont NEED it and giving it to people who do NEED it. t
this is about NEED after all. the NEED to live.

[David Floyd]

David- You're accusations of theft indicate an unwillingness to live for your fellow man. What you see as theft, I see as cooperation.

Cooperation is by nature and implication voluntary. When it becomes forced, it's coercion.

You speak a great deal of natural laws and so forth. But who are we to put Natural Laws above God's laws?

Oh, well, if it's a matter of God's law, read the 10 Commandments. Specifically, the one that says something about theft...oh yes "Thou shalt not steal".

Our greatest purpose in this world is not to accumulate a great deal of wealth, but to live in brotherhood with our fellow people. The sooner America realize this, the sooner we will come to a much greater spiritual oneness with the almighty.

Funny, I thought the Bible said the greatest purpose was to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and might". Do you have a different Bible?

But in any case, quoting Scripture verses or going on about God's law is irrelevant. We don't live in a theocracy, or a nation ruled directly by God. Therefore, God's law applies to Christians, in the sense that Christians are held accountable before God, but that law should not be enforced as such upon those who choose not to believe in God. Freedom of religion is one of our most important freedoms, and freedom of religion, by implication, includes freedom to have NO religion.

I urge you David to give up the ideals of living only for yourself tonight, and join me in living for all people of all nations.

And I believe the best way for people to better themselves is through greater protection of individual rights, unfettered free trade amongst nations, and capitalism.

[David Floyd]

i see nothing wrong with taking money from people who dont NEED it and giving it to people who do NEED it. t
this is about NEED after all. the NEED to live.

Need is irrelevant. Need is also arbitrary. Where is the line between "need", "comfort", and "desire"? Do you think people should take only enough money to live, only enough to live in comfort, or only enough to fulfill some desires?

But I really don't care about the need issue, anyway. What I care about is the issue of liberty. Even if someone is going to die, they don't have the right to violate my rights - it doesn't work like that.

But people aren't going to starve without Social Security. There are churches, there's charity, and there is, most importantly, family. Just because living off of those sources won't provide much comfort doesn't mean you won't live.

[Dis]

this thread is getting hilarious. I can't wait to see what happens.

Forcibly take 15% of rich persons money. I love it.

but it would be OK if we called it tax. So we'd have to rename social security into social tax. Then it would be OK to take rich people's money and not give it back to them.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Cooperation is by nature and implication voluntary.

Indeed, and when I pay taxes, I do so happily and see it as cooperation. That is, the nature of the giving of my money is done voluntarily. If you value you wealth a great deal, I imagine that paying taxes is seen as coercive. We as Americans must learn to overcome this intristic greed that is so part of the very fibers of our nation if we are ever going to become closer to God.

Funny, I thought the Bible said the greatest purpose was to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and might". Do you have a different Bible?

....and do you remember the second great commandment, upon which the entire law is based? "Love your neighbor as yourself".
You may ask, who is your neighbor? Your neighbor is whoever is in need of support, whether he is across the street, or half-way across the globe.

But in any case, quoting Scripture verses or going on about God's law is irrelevant.

The fact that we don't live in a theocracy goes without saying. But our government is dervied from a mandate by the people. And there is nothing to prevent a spiritually enlightened mandate from choosing a government that is more representative of God's laws rather than the laws of capitalism.

And I believe the best way for people to better themselves is through greater protection of individual rights, unfettered free trade amongst nations, and capitalism.

Your support of individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism may sound rather benign on paper. But what they actualy entail is strict individualism. In other words, a man living only to improve himself, rather than to improve the lives of others. In fact, the philsophies you embrace completely rule out the possibility of a government to caring for the welfare of it's people. Once again, you are placing the philosophies of Rand or Smith above the philosophies of God. Which is a foolish thing to do.

I urge you to give up these ideals David, and join US.

[David Floyd]

Indeed, and when I pay taxes, I do so happily and see it as cooperation. That is, the nature of the giving of my money is done voluntarily. If you value you wealth a great deal, I imagine that paying taxes is seen as coercive. We as Americans must learn to overcome this intristic greed that is so part of the very fibers of our nation if we are ever going to become closer to God.

Sorry. Taxation is OBJECTIVELY coercive, without regard to individual viewpoint. Whether you support taxes or not, they are coercive in that if you DON'T pay them, men with guns come and make you.

If you would give the same amount of money voluntarily, good for you. But that is not how the system works.

....and do you remember the second great commandment, upon which the entire law is based? "Love your neighbor as yourself".
You may ask, who is your neighbor? Your neighbor is whoever is in need of support, whether he is across the street, or half-way across the globe.

Very true. But you'll notice that these passages do not apply to government or society as a whole, but rather to the individual. Yes, individuals should love their neighbor, but Jesus telling an individual (or group of individuals) to love their neighbor does NOT extend to or imply that governments should steal money.

The fact that God gave man free will tends to support the argument that the concept of individual liberty is NOT anti-thetical to the Bible.

However, neither God nor the Bible tell us specifically what individual liberty is. The 10 Commandments can in part be viewed as an indication of this, but I wouldn't use them as an argument seeing as how they were issued to the Nation of Israel, which was ruled theocratically by God.

I would say that, in order to determine what individual liberty is, the Bible is relatively useless. Hence, we must rely on our God given ability to use logic and reason in order to derive the concept of rights. Fortunately, we have a thread going on about that right now, but unfortunately, only loinburger and I are participating (the debate is rather stalled, as we can each argue until we are blue in the face, but we can't get past the fact that we disagree about the characteristics of a state of nature). I encourage you to join in, and add your viewpoint.

The fact that we don't live in a theocracy goes without saying. But our government is dervied from a mandate by the people. And there is nothing to prevent a spiritually enlightened mandate from choosing a government that is more representative of God's laws rather than the laws of capitalism.

Our government may be derived from the people, but it is limited by the Constitution. Fortunately, this has little to do with the people. Therefore, if a bunch of people who view themselves as "spiritually enlightened" (but are more likely just a bunch of fools trying to push their religion on others) try to pass laws that are unconstitutional, they will be shut down (if our government is functioning as it should).

Your support of individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism may sound rather benign on paper. But what they actualy entail is strict individualism.

I see this debate as one of objectivism vs. altruism. The problem with altruism is that it destroys the moral worth of the individual, and I don't think that this can be Biblically justified in any way.

In fact, the philsophies you embrace completely rule out the possibility of a government to caring for the welfare of it's people.

That's not true. They just rule out the possibility of government taking money from those who earn it to give it to those who don't.

Once again, you are placing the philosophies of Rand or Smith above the philosophies of God. Which is a foolish thing to do.

First of all, it is not a foolish thing to do, given the fact that not everyone is a Christian. The fact is, if the US were run strictly according to Biblical law, things would fall apart because of the simple fact that this would destroy our Constitution, and virtually no one would consent.

Secondly, I'm not putting the philosophies of Rand or Smith above those of God. Christianity is not a philosophy by which one should try to run the lives of others, but rather a religion by which one should personally live. Further, Smith and (especially) Rand simply argue for liberty. Liberty, as I have already pointed out, is NOT anti-thetical to Christianity.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Sorry. Taxation is OBJECTIVELY coercive, without regard to individual viewpoint. Whether you support taxes or not, they are coercive in that if you DON'T pay them, men with guns come and make you.

Again David, it all depends on your vantage point. Taxation is not objectively coercive. On the contrary, from a proper vantage point taxation is objectively liberating!
If you give willingly, and happily and in doing so love the fact that you are supporting the lives of others, that is not theft, that is cooperation. Moreover, you would be living your life as one with God, which is true freedom! Not the crude matter that Rand or Smith speaks of. But the highest level of freedom that man can possibly ever acheive. If you seek freedom David, this is where it is found, not in the philosophies of individualism.

Very true. But you'll notice that these passages do not apply to government or society as a whole, but rather to the individual.

The passages in question are aimed at the individual, yes, but what would stop a collective of the spiritually enlightened, formed by a mandate of the people, from applying it to law? As you said, the law knows no God. It could not care here nor there. But if the will of people desired a greater brotherhood, what would it matter if it's a decision based on God's teachings? As you said, this is not a theocracy, it could care less.

[QUOTE]
However, neither God nor the Bible tell us specifically what individual liberty is. QUOTE]
God doesn't care one whit about what one considers "individual liberty" or not. What God does care about is man loving his neighbor, and living for his fellow man. However, the philosophies from which you derive the term "individual liberty" in the context applied in this sentence profess to a man living only for himself. The notion of man living for a greater collective is out of the question.

[Hence, we must rely on our God given ability to use logic and reason in order to derive the concept of rights.

Using our logic and reason to derive this or that philosophy is fine, so long as it is recognized that these philosophies are merely man-made inventions, and not to be placed above God's philosophy of brotherhood
Following the philosophy of the divine, infinite mind is far wiser than following the philosophy of the mind of man.

I encourage you to join in, and add your viewpoint.

Thanks for the polite invitation.

Our government may be derived from the people, but it is limited by the Constitution.

Placing allegiance to constitutions above the will of the people, nay, above God's will, is foolish. In any event, in terms of the US constitution, I highly doubt that anything I have proposed would be considered unconstitutional.

[
I see this debate as one of objectivism vs. altruism. The problem with altruism is that it destroys the moral worth of the individual, and I don't think that this can be Biblically justified in any way.

Again, your decision is based on your value of the individual self. Your desire for the will of the self to be placed above the will of the many. This is foolishness David.
On what grounds do you believe the moral worth of an individual living for God's brotherhood is destroyed? This is the greatest height that a person can be attain morally, giving up ideals of greed and living for the betterment of all. You believe that this, living in the way God wishes, destroys man's moral worth?

Secondly, I'm not putting the philosophies of Rand or Smith above those of God. Christianity is not a philosophy by which one should try to run the lives of others, but rather a religion by which one should personally live. Further, Smith and (especially) Rand simply argue for liberty. Liberty, as I have already pointed out, is NOT anti-thetical to Christianity.

I am not making a plea for a despotism of the spiritually enlightend, rather for a mandate of American people who have reached a greater degree of spiritual enlightenment. People who have decieded that they want to support God's philosophy of brotherly love. They don't even have to be Christians to agree with this philosophy. The imprint of what's right or wrong in God's eyes is imprinted in all of us.
As I have stated earlier, there is no freedom to be found in the philosophy of individualism, only chains.Only through living your life in support of your fellow man can *true* freedom be found.

[Sava]

David, can the whole "taxation is theft" crap. Taxing is in the bible. Your God says its okay. The whole selfish, narcissistic anti-tax rhetoric you spout is getting old.

Unfortunately, nobody except JohnT, has given any intelligent insight into this. I love how people nit-pick over the little things in my posts. Please restrict your comments to the idea of the federal government offering mortgages to people and putting the interest paid into a pension/retirement fund that gains interest like some sort of long term fund.

Just doing some quick math...

Using www.monstermoving.com I found that a $150k mortgage with no down payment has a monthly payment of about $1k or ($997.95). The average amount of monthly interest is $581.29.

Using www.bankrate.com if that interest is compounded like a savings account at say, 4.5% the final amount is $445271.27.

I'm not saying this will be the end all solution for SS, but it is definitely a good way to generate money for retirement. And to answer someone's earlier question. Yes, I think that having the money I pay in interest on my mortgage going to my retirement is a lot more productive than just going to some bank. Banks are evil. But I'll make another topic to discuss this.

Don't dwell on the numbers right now please. Look at the overall idea, analyze it, and comment on it. Too many people have been commenting on my views on the stock market, or the numbers I used as the interest rate. DON'T FOCUS ON THAT PLEASE. PUT YOUR DAMN STEREOTYPES ABOUT MY POLITICAL VIEWS ASIDE AND LOOK AT THE IDEA OBJECTIVELY.

[JohnT]

Didn't we just have this debate in the "Single Issue Voter" thread (a debate started, I might add, by my mentioning my Social Security arguments in another thread.)

Sava, I can't continue this discussion for a few days, so I suggest you go to the Single Issue Voter thread, look for my first couple of posts in it and find my link to the Social Security thread that we had but a month and a half ago. I go into detail as to what we should do to reform the program, but then got into a pissing match with DF about the same stuff he's pissing on Monkspider in this thread.

Btw, what we Yanks call Social Security and what Euro's call Social Security seem to be two totally different things. I think(!) that Euro's mean the entire welfare state while we in America mean just that portion that goes to old-age benefits.

[JohnT]

Lastly, somebody has to dwell on the number to see if the idea works. If you're not pulling enough in, then the idea is flawed... see?

[Sava]

Yeah, but the numbers for everyone is going to be different. I'd like to see how the idea in general would work. Of course it isn't perfect, but I think its a helluva lot better than this silly 12% tax. The current SS is seriously flawed. And I would much rather see my interest payments going to my retirement instead of some greedy bank.

[Sikander]

Social Security is flawed mainly because it wastes a lot of money trying to accomplish a particular aim, which is to limit poverty amongst the elderly. To do so it taxes everyone else who earns any money at all, whatever their situation. Seeing that the elderly happen to be the wealthiest sector of the population, one wonders why they have been selected to receive the only guaranteed income in our society. Surely children who are impoverished and have no legal means to earn a living deserve consideration before those who have had an entire lifetime to save money and have not done so.

Social Security needs to honestly admit what it in fact is: A welfare program. It needs immediate means testing for beneficiaries in order to retain it's solvency. Current payers into the system should have their "contributions" cut down significantly in order to allow them to save that income for their retirements. They should also be grandfathered into the program, receiving benefits in proportion to the years they have spent "contributing" to the program before it was restructured. New workers would start from scratch, only paying a tiny percentage of their wages into the fund in order to fund the welfare (disability, survivors benefits etc.).

Stupid people should be allowed to have their monies deposited into a conservative investment scheme run by the Government, which would pay out at whatever Government bonds pay. Everyone else can invest as they like. Investment classes would be mandatory for high school students.

I am saving money so that I will be cared for in my old age whether I get any payback for SS or not. Many people of my generation are doing the same. It's a good idea, because SS is not only a fvcking ponzi scheme, it's a ponzi scheme that relies on each generation being significantly larger than the last. It is bound to fail, and the sooner we base our savings programs on individuals rather than generations, the sooner we will put ourselves on a much more solid footing.

The amount of money I have put into SS over the years would provide much more income to me (even if invested very conservatively) than the governmentally mandated amount I am slated to receive, and this of course is subject to the run on the fund that the baby boomers will make before I get mine. The actual amount may be far lower.

[Sava]

I agree Sikander... what are your thoughts on the mortgage idea? It's not a total solution, but rather a more efficient use of the interest. It could be used in conjuction with other programs.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava
And I would much rather see my interest payments going to my retirement instead of some greedy bank.

Why don't you borrow money from a "greedy" Credit Union, or your "greedy" parents, or enter into a land contract with a "greedy" elderly person when you buy your house? You don't need a bank at all. People expect something when they lend you money, namely at least as much more money as they could have earned from another conservative investment. Perhaps your parents can afford to offer you a gift, everyone else needs to make a living. Almost everyone needs to use the power of capital in order to replace their own ability to do "honest" labor as they get older. They aren't any greedier than a young man who is looking for a job.