Social security is the govs way of saying you are too stupid to save your own $$

[Mike Christ]

Here's the truth about social security: it was invented back when people didn't live very long, and you were expected to die around 5 years after you received it.  Because SS is locked into this system, and people are now living much, much longer, it is now sucking the nation dry.  SS was phenomenal back when the baby boomers were still young men, and you had all these wonderful young men working hard and putting lots of cash into SS.  And now they're old and getting the same SS they paid for, except the tables are turned; instead of a giant amount of young people supporting a small amount of dying old people, you now have a ton of longer-lasting old people eating the cash of a dwindling work force.  It's not right, it's not wrong, it's simply unsustainable.  It implies there would be MORE young people being born and working to feed into SS for the baby boomers, but it just isn't happening, and cannot happen: the economy is not growing to match this rate.  It is dying, and SS is a good chunk of the blame.

[1713549351]

1713549351

[1713549351]

1713549351

[1713549351]

1713549351

[Ekaros]

On other hand I think that some system is needed. I'm probably a socialist, but I believe it's best for government to provide the minimum living standards for individuals.

That's all well and good, but those resources have to come from somewhere. The question is, are they collected voluntarily, or is it mandatory?

Mandatory. If you want to live in system, you play by common rules. On other hand no one should be stopped from moving to place not controlled by that system.

OK, and when all the people who don't want to pay for everyone else have left, and you're left with a population consisting mostly of people who can't (or simply decide not to) provide for themselves, what then?

Where do the resources come from to feed all those hungry people?

What would still be left is land which could sustain certain amount of population or resources to buy food.  And really why would people leave, how often it happens unless there is massive downfall of society? Generally it seems that majority will bear the payments and stay instead of moving out. Majority pays to minority for their own protection. If they don't they have to either deal with minority in other ways or minority will deal with them.  Most modern societies seem to be able to afford this.

Would everyone leave? Has that happened in stable conditions?

[myrkul]

On other hand I think that some system is needed. I'm probably a socialist, but I believe it's best for government to provide the minimum living standards for individuals.

That's all well and good, but those resources have to come from somewhere. The question is, are they collected voluntarily, or is it mandatory?

Mandatory. If you want to live in system, you play by common rules. On other hand no one should be stopped from moving to place not controlled by that system.

OK, and when all the people who don't want to pay for everyone else have left, and you're left with a population consisting mostly of people who can't (or simply decide not to) provide for themselves, what then?

Where do the resources come from to feed all those hungry people?

What would still be left is land which could sustain certain amount of population or resources to buy food.

Land has to be worked. By whom?

Would everyone leave? Has that happened in stable conditions?

Of course they would. And it has happened all the time when such changes are implemented. Even here in the US, tax rates changing tends to move people around, and especially businesses.

Let's posit two people, Adam and Bob. Adam is rich, productive, and smart. Bob may be smart, but he's neither rich nor productive. The nation they live in announces a minimum living standard, to be granted to all citizens. To pay for this, a new tax must be introduced. Anyone making more than the minimum must pay this tax.

Bob is happy, he makes less than the minimum, so he now gets that minimum, no matter what he does. He may even quit his job, and just live on that minimum. Why not, after all, if he's going to get it anyway?

Adam is not so happy. The new tax is a percentage of his income, and a pretty hefty one, at that, with what he's making. Being rich, of course, he can afford to move to another country, one without that tax. So he does.

For an example: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/gerard-depardieu-quits-france-because-high-taxes-173222852.html

[Schleicher]

Would everyone leave? Has that happened in stable conditions?

Of course they would.

Money is not the only thing people care about.

[myrkul]

Would everyone leave? Has that happened in stable conditions?

Of course they would.

Money is not the only thing people care about.

No, it isn't. But it is what lets them get those other things.

Unless you're trying to tell me that people who have sweated, and slaved, scrimped, and saved, to get to where they are, would then stick around and support the rest of the population out of the goodness of their hearts?

And if so, why then make such support mandatory? Would they not do it anyway?

[Ekaros]

Would everyone leave? Has that happened in stable conditions?

Of course they would.

Money is not the only thing people care about.

No, it isn't. But it is what lets them get those other things.

Unless you're trying to tell me that people who have sweated, and slaved, scrimped, and saved, to get to where they are, would then stick around and support the rest of the population out of the goodness of their hearts?

And if so, why then make such support mandatory? Would they not do it anyway?

People do moan. But most don't go very far. It all really depends on levels of support. If you get double or triple by working most will work. Also for most people moving away will likely lower the quality of life. And some might even be able to look further than their current situation. By being in this system they know that they will get same support if they need it.

Mandatory system gets rid of free riders, or atleast prevents real issues with those.

[yvv]

Social security is the govs way of saying you are too stupid to save your own $$

No doubt, the majority of humans on this Earth are indeed too stupid for such things.

Why should you save when you can rob other people, physically... And that is a valid solution model for individual in some ways. Not ethical, but still valid.

I think social security as price paid for stability and general safety.  Other option would be to kick out everyone who can't provide for themselves and are risk to others, but there is certain lack of places to place them and prisons can also be considered to be social security for prisoners, they aren't penal colonies were prisoners are set to make living for themselves...

I don't disagree with the current system not being very good.

On other hand I think that some system is needed. I'm probably a socialist, but I believe it's best for government to provide the minimum living standards for individuals. 

Sorry, man, my answer to you was censored (freedom of speech, my ass). I basically agree with your statements.

[myrkul]

Would everyone leave? Has that happened in stable conditions?

Of course they would.

Money is not the only thing people care about.

No, it isn't. But it is what lets them get those other things.

Unless you're trying to tell me that people who have sweated, and slaved, scrimped, and saved, to get to where they are, would then stick around and support the rest of the population out of the goodness of their hearts?

And if so, why then make such support mandatory? Would they not do it anyway?

People do moan. But most don't go very far. It all really depends on levels of support. If you get double or triple by working most will work. Also for most people moving away will likely lower the quality of life. And some might even be able to look further than their current situation. By being in this system they know that they will get same support if they need it.

Mandatory system gets rid of free riders, or atleast prevents real issues with those.

Can you guarantee that those who do work will get triple what those who do not do? Even after the taxes for the dole are taken out? And still make the minimum level a survivable amount?

Can you make the reduction in quality of life produced by such a tax smaller than that suffered from moving to a nearby country?

And I'm sorry to say, making the system mandatory does not discourage free riders. Rather, it gives everyone three options to choose from: Stay, and work to support everyone else as well as yourself, Leave, and work to support yourself, or stay, and be supported. Most will choose the last two options. At least a voluntary system adds the option of "Stay, and occasionally support others"

There's a reason socialist countries have traditionally had closed borders.

[Beans]

The whole idea of social security appalls me. The idea that they take some of our money to save it for us. And in reality they just go and dip into those funds to spend at will. It's stupid.

More like your posting is stupid. A lot of people don't save enough, it's hard to know what is enough. SS is not just retirement anyway, I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

Would you be so proud had the money to raise you come from muggings?

I used to for college and a new car, but not sure what anything has to do with muggings... SS is about distributing money to people who cannot earn it themselves. If you don't like it, you can always move to some crap hole country that doesn't mind if you starve or go homeless.

[myrkul]

The whole idea of social security appalls me. The idea that they take some of our money to save it for us. And in reality they just go and dip into those funds to spend at will. It's stupid.

More like your posting is stupid. A lot of people don't save enough, it's hard to know what is enough. SS is not just retirement anyway, I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

Would you be so proud had the money to raise you come from muggings?

I used to for college and a new car, but not sure what anything has to do with muggings... SS is about distributing money to people who cannot earn it themselves. If you don't like it, you can always move to some crap hole country that doesn't mind if you starve or go homeless.

I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Would you be so proud, had the money you used to go to college and buy a new car had come from muggings?

Oh, and to explain what SSI has to do with mugging, think about where the money comes from. If it is not OK to use a gun to take money from people, why is it OK to use a politician? And if it is OK to use a politician to take money from people, why is it not OK to use a gun?

[FirstAscent]

The whole idea of social security appalls me. The idea that they take some of our money to save it for us. And in reality they just go and dip into those funds to spend at will. It's stupid.

More like your posting is stupid. A lot of people don't save enough, it's hard to know what is enough. SS is not just retirement anyway, I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

Would you be so proud had the money to raise you come from muggings?

I used to for college and a new car, but not sure what anything has to do with muggings... SS is about distributing money to people who cannot earn it themselves. If you don't like it, you can always move to some crap hole country that doesn't mind if you starve or go homeless.

I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Would you be so proud, had the money you used to go to college and buy a new car had come from muggings?

Oh, and to explain what SSI has to do with mugging, think about where the money comes from. If it is not OK to use a gun to take money from people, why is it OK to use a politician? And if it is OK to use a politician to take money from people, why is it not OK to use a gun?

Tired old argument that doesn't really hold up. Like someone else said, go somewhere else then. Somalia awaits. And don't let the back door hit you on the way out. Need help? Maybe you could solicit some donations here to help you get some coach airfare to Somalia.

[myrkul]

The whole idea of social security appalls me. The idea that they take some of our money to save it for us. And in reality they just go and dip into those funds to spend at will. It's stupid.

More like your posting is stupid. A lot of people don't save enough, it's hard to know what is enough. SS is not just retirement anyway, I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

Would you be so proud had the money to raise you come from muggings?

I used to for college and a new car, but not sure what anything has to do with muggings... SS is about distributing money to people who cannot earn it themselves. If you don't like it, you can always move to some crap hole country that doesn't mind if you starve or go homeless.

I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Would you be so proud, had the money you used to go to college and buy a new car had come from muggings?

Oh, and to explain what SSI has to do with mugging, think about where the money comes from. If it is not OK to use a gun to take money from people, why is it OK to use a politician? And if it is OK to use a politician to take money from people, why is it not OK to use a gun?

Tired old argument that doesn't really hold up.

Maybe if you say that enough, someone will actually believe it.

Maybe.

Don't hold your breath.

[Beans]

The whole idea of social security appalls me. The idea that they take some of our money to save it for us. And in reality they just go and dip into those funds to spend at will. It's stupid.

More like your posting is stupid. A lot of people don't save enough, it's hard to know what is enough. SS is not just retirement anyway, I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

Would you be so proud had the money to raise you come from muggings?

I used to for college and a new car, but not sure what anything has to do with muggings... SS is about distributing money to people who cannot earn it themselves. If you don't like it, you can always move to some crap hole country that doesn't mind if you starve or go homeless.

I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Would you be so proud, had the money you used to go to college and buy a new car had come from muggings?

Oh, and to explain what SSI has to do with mugging, think about where the money comes from. If it is not OK to use a gun to take money from people, why is it OK to use a politician? And if it is OK to use a politician to take money from people, why is it not OK to use a gun?

SS doesn't collect money by mugging people, it comes from the same people that receive it. Should kids feel bad for going to public schools? I don't know what kind of close minded, dumb ass views you have. But they seem pretty damn ridiculous from where I'm sitting. 35% of the people in the world don't even have toilets, I'm betting those folks have just the kind of government's you wish we had.

[myrkul]

The whole idea of social security appalls me. The idea that they take some of our money to save it for us. And in reality they just go and dip into those funds to spend at will. It's stupid.

More like your posting is stupid. A lot of people don't save enough, it's hard to know what is enough. SS is not just retirement anyway, I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

Would you be so proud had the money to raise you come from muggings?

I used to for college and a new car, but not sure what anything has to do with muggings... SS is about distributing money to people who cannot earn it themselves. If you don't like it, you can always move to some crap hole country that doesn't mind if you starve or go homeless.

I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Would you be so proud, had the money you used to go to college and buy a new car had come from muggings?

Oh, and to explain what SSI has to do with mugging, think about where the money comes from. If it is not OK to use a gun to take money from people, why is it OK to use a politician? And if it is OK to use a politician to take money from people, why is it not OK to use a gun?

SS doesn't collect money by mugging people, it comes from the same people that receive it.

So, they take money, and then give (some of) it right back? If that's the case wouldn't it be more efficient to let people keep the money?

And didn't you say:

I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

So doesn't that mean it doesn't come from the same people that receive it, that it comes from other people?

[Mike Christ]

Where the hell is my SS?  I haven't seen a dime.

[TheButterZone]

Where the hell is my SS?  I haven't seen a dime.

And you never will, unless you enter into a cold war with the government, like my parents are having to wage every fucking month.

[Richy_T]

Please remember that, as an insurance/Ponzi scheme, one's SSI is not paid for with one's own money. It's paid for with other people's money, which is taken from them by force. If it were my own money coming back to me, that would make it a savings account.

Sooner or later, the young people will get pissed off and say "Enough".

Then the old people will say "But what about all the money I paid in"

And the young people will say "That was your responsibility to put a stop to that when *you* were young. You failed to protect your income to provide for your own future."

And those that see this coming will be prepared and live comfortably

And those that hoped to live off the backs of others in the face of brutal demographics...

[Richy_T]

Once you've done that, we can move on to force. As you know, buying automobile insurance is forced. I know you disagree with that concept, but it's reality. Can you think of other ways in which society forces things? I think you can. Please enumerate some.

Government is not society.

[TheButterZone]

Once you've done that, we can move on to force. As you know, buying automobile insurance is forced. I know you disagree with that concept, but it's reality. Can you think of other ways in which society forces things? I think you can. Please enumerate some.

Government is not society.

It's high society, where you can violate civil rights and common laws with practically absolute impunity.

[enquirer]

A society without any social security at all is not a futuristic/libertarian concept at all, but today's reality for a large part of Earth population. You are old/sick/stupid/have no money - you die. Very simple and good from natural selection point of view. The problem is those societies are universally much worse off than societies with social security. So the empirical evidence strongly suggest in favor of social security.