Social Security Alternative

[Richelieu]

There is a simple alternative to paying for social security.
Leave.
Find somewhere else to live where you will not have to endure this hell.
Or, vote for a party that will get rid of it. Change the system from within! If there isn't such a party right now : create one!

[JohnT]

Did I really revive this poor thread just to have it highjacked by Floyd?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Does everybody here believe that the rich are all hardworking people, and that the poor are all lazy slobs too stupid to save money ?

Does everyone here believe that the rich are all lazy slobs who didnt earn, and don't deserve their money, and that the poor are all hardworking people who just get screwed by the Man?

[Flubber]

The original idea has been demolished fairly well already but I would just like to chime in

1. The biggest flaw is the fact that the proposal only applies to mortgage interest so only homeowners are paying in-- Why not my student loan ?? Or even my investment loan?

2. If the government were lending at market rates under this program and then allocating half to social security and half to admin, there is a huge cost to this( apart from the amounts wasted on admin)-- . . . Government, believe it or not does not have a limitless pot of money, and giving it away in what are essentially interest free loans, means that government is paying for social security . . . But if you want to do that, why not just be honest about it and simply allocate additional general revenue to the SS fund and avoid the administration hassles

3. If it were this easy, could not government fund a whole bunch of things by lending money interest free ?? Have a problem with education funding ?? here, we will lend you a billion dollars -- you pay us back over 20-25 years with no interest-- The problem is the time value of money -- there is an inherent cost in lending money and getting no interest on it . . . If such a program existed, every sharp operator would borrow as much as possible and make money on the interest bearing investments they used the funds for. I know that you were not proposing interest-free loans to the consumer, merely loans that would garner no interest to the lender, which IMHO is worse, given the proposal that half would go to administer the program

The end result would be a bloated agency to adminster a program in which all that is happening is the government is investing its own money in social security through a complicated mechanism.

Much simpler would be to calculate the amount that such a scheme would cost and invest it directly in SS . . . people would pay exactly the same interest on their loans, the government would pay the exact same amount as a result and MORE of it would end up in the SS fund since admin costs are avoided entirely

-----------------------------------------------------------------

We have the same problem in Canada with the pension programs in that it is getting increasingly costly to fund an aging population-- But the issue arises with respect to many other things ( like our health care programs)-- What do you do when a large segment of your population have not taken adequate financial measures to provide for themselves ??

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Does everybody here believe that the rich are all hardworking people, and that the poor are all lazy slobs too stupid to save money ?

The YOUNG rich are the lazy ones because thier parents give them money while we have to work our buts off and get only 6 hours of sleep to pay for college. As my parents say, when the republicans are in power the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If you want good goverment service you have to pay taxes, thats the way it is. (and apparenly libertarians have no concept of reality, they are stuck in this free market delusion. )

Thanks Spiffor for saving my arse from David "flipin' out" Floyd.

[NeOmega]

Good governemnt service... does such a thing exist? And if so, where can I find it?

BTW, I worked full time and went to a community college (I paid for in cash) full time for 3 quarters.

Most of my classmates were single mothers who needed and hand up, and most of them dropped out.

I am so glad to see my tax dollars working hard to reward baby factories. I pay, they play.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin

The YOUNG rich are the lazy ones because thier parents give them money while we have to work our buts off and get only 6 hours of sleep to pay for college. As my parents say, when the republicans are in power the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Are these the same parents who have managed their finances so poorly that you are placed at a competitive disadvantage to your peers? Why are you listening to their advice, you should be listening to the parents of those young rich kids you envy. At least they were successful enough to give their children a good nights sleep for their college years instead of a chip on their shoulder.

Originally posted by Odin
If you want good goverment service you have to pay taxes, thats the way it is. (and apparenly libertarians have no concept of reality, they are stuck in this free market delusion. )

I don't want government services at all in a vast majority of my life. Enforce the laws, protect the borders, and protect the rights of the citizens are plenty to do. I'll take care of myself thank you, and help my friends and family when they need it. I've already been doing this for years. If a fair chunk of the tax burden that I have to carry for all of the government programs that I will never use (even if I have qualified for them) was lifted I would be well on my way to a life of philanthropy now, instead of still slaving away trying to make sure that I'll be alright whether or not I ever collect SS while paying for it through the nose.

As for the free market delusion, it's pretty persuasive. In time you will probably realize the extreme limitation of your current zero sum view of economics. Suffice it to say that those rich kids you hate are not making you poor, in fact they are making you wealthier than you would otherwise be. While it is good to teach your children the value of hard work, I don't think that this is a value that accrues only to the children of of 'honest' blue-collar workers. Meanwhile, everyone would be better off getting a full nights sleep before class.

I also think that we are all richer when we all produce, and we are all poorer when we fight over what is produced. A gang of punks can certainly take over a neighborhood by force, but they can only steal what is already lying around. They will not be able to produce a fraction of what the people who have fled could (before they were forced to leave because someone was stealing all of the fruits of their labor). IMO this is where the "politics of envy" (TM Republican Party) leads us. You are better off investing your time and effort producing wealth rather than fighting tooth and nail in the hopes of redistributing someone elses.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Does everyone here believe that the rich are all lazy slobs who didnt earn, and don't deserve their money, and that the poor are all hardworking people who just get screwed by the Man?

I don't. There are people getting loads of money without putting much effort in it, while others are exhausting themselves to barely survive. OTOH there are other people who exhaust themselves to get loads of money (that they deserve), and there are poor people who're poor because they are lazy slobs.

BUT, what I've seen with experience, is that you don't have to put the same motivation to get a good social situation (and loads of money) depending where in the society you come from.
A child of a rich family will go to a good school in all cases, and will have good opportunities in the career, except if he is especially pathetic and unskilled.
A child of a poor family won't go to good schools, and won't have a top-notch carreer (partly because of his lack of education), except if he is exceptionnaly gifted and skilled.
Wait, I may be wrong

SO, I don't think all rich are slobs, or all poor are hardworking, nor do I think the opposite (I leave this kind of stupidity to David Floyd). What I think is that the birth has an incredible influence on the career and wealth of the regular person.
The consequence is simple : I think poverty and wealth are mostly undeserved, even if the exceptional people deserve what they get. And because I think a civilized society should fight against birth selection, I'm all for taxes, social security, whatchacallit. In general, I'm for an institutionalized and state-wide form of solidarity.

You may ask : "Why aren't you for a personal solidarity instead ?". It's simple : when you belong to a social category, you have a good chance to know almost only people from this category. Executives know other executives since College ; Computer engineers work almost only with other Computer engineers. Rich people tend to send their children in schools filled with other rich children, and they are likely to go to vacation where other rich people go (because they simply can afford the better quality).
SO, since the acquaintances are generally from the same social class, even though anybody knows some people from another class, the financial help you can hope will change drastically depending on what social class you belong.
Since the social class is mostly determined by birth, the "solidarity income" you could hope for is also mostly determined by birth. With a statewide institutionalized solidarity, you get ca. as much wheter you're rich or poor, which is normal IMO, because the immense majority of rich and poor people do NOT deserve their fortune or misfortune.

PS : I'm expecting comments like

Your reasoning is flawed. I have a millionaire friend who has working-poor parents. And even if I come from an upper-class family, I do know workers, duh.

I don't say my theory applies to everybody. In fact, it fits perfectly to no one. I'm just saying birth is the most influencial parameter which will explain someone's fortune. I'm not talking about exceptions here like Bill Gates or George Soros, I'm talking about the ordinary person, who has a normal willingness to work to earn money.

[Spiffor]

Now, taxes and SS can be spent badly. I didn't say there wasn't any waste

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Spiffor
BUT, what I've seen with experience, is that you don't have to put the same motivation to get a good social situation (and loads of money) depending where in the society you come from.

Rich kids still have to do just as much studying and schoolwork as anyone else, they just don't have the financial burden.

A child of a poor family won't go to good schools

Not true. It depends on whether the public schools in their area are any good.

the immense majority of rich and poor people do NOT deserve their fortune or misfortune.

I totally disagree. Do you have any facts to back that statement up with?

[Sava]

Wow, I'm surprised my thread was revived... although there's nothing worth responding to

[Caligastia]

Admit it, youre just being lazy

[Sava]

Lazy

But I've also realized that many times its not worth arguing with people on a lot of issues because they're so stubborn, it's impossible to change their minds.

[JohnT]

Well, flubber and I had some thoughts regarding your post and Social Security Sava - though, Flubbers post was more on-topic.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Rich kids still have to do just as much studying and schoolwork as anyone else, they just don't have the financial burden.

True. But even if the financial burden is a big deal, it isn't the most significant part of the inequality before schooling between rich and poor. AFAIK, the rich people who send their kids to expensive schools deem them better than public schools. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
This statement is probably true in most cases. Hence, rich kids generally go to school where they get a better education. If you remember the difference between a good and bad teachers, you know how significant the difference is (a better schooling doesn't only mean better teachers, but also a better environment for learning, including having mates who think studies are important).

Not true. It depends on whether the public schools in their area are any good.

Right. I've expressed myself badly, I meant 'not-as-good schools' (they can range from good to awful, but remain below private schools, otherwise these private schools wouldn't exist).

I totally disagree. Do you have any facts to back that statement up with?

Absolutely not, nor you have any fact proving the opposite, since the very notion of deserving is a subjective one
However, I admit I also expressed myself poorly here. To be more precise, I don't think rich people are lazy (except some rare exceptions whom I don't want to take into account), and I don't think poor people are extremely hardworking, except some less-rare exceptions.
I believe most people who make a living work diligently for it. What I don't believe (and if you read my previous post you'll understand why) is that rich people are inherently more hardworking than poor people, and vice versa.
For the majority of people, i.e those who aren't exceptionnaly bright or dumb, the most important explanation to your class-belonging is birth and its followings. It is not the only explanation factor, but only the most important one.
The consequence is that most people do NOT deserve the class to which they belong. Now there are variations within a class : a rather hardworking worker will make more money than an unmotivated worker (and will deserve it), and an bright executive will have much more success than the standard trade-school graduate who went there because Dad really insisted (he'll also deserve it).
However, with the same motivation to do the job, you'll notice the unmotivated worker gets much less money than the guy who came from the trade-school. THAT is what I call not deserving

You could say : "this worker should have done some good studies, and he wouldn't be getting so little money now", which would be right. However, when you look at the population of a school of this kind, you'll notice there are less than 5% of students who come from the working class, and these people are extremely motivated.

Let me ask you this question : do you think people born from the working class are generally more lazy and stupid than the people coming from the middle/upper class ? Or do you think the social origin plays a significant role in education, and then carreer and income ?