U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-08-2010, 08:13 AM
 
4,829 posts, read 4,809,378 times
Reputation: 6172

Advertisements

Let's face it SS & Medicare are classic ponzy scheme pyramids. Both depend on constant population growth, the only way one's benefits can be greater than one's contributions is when supply of young, healthy, working age workers experience constant healthy growth. If this growth slows down or stalls due to falling fertility rates (joblessness, falling wages, top 10% of wealth holders (who don't pay to SS) hog greater and greater share of national wealth, etc. also contribute) the systems falls apart, since tax burden on the working segment eventually becomes unbearable. The only reason it's not plainly obviously yet - unique status of American dollar as a currency of world trade, Americans can run dollar "printing press" without experiencing mega inflation it would cause elsewhere since inflation is being "exported" oversea together with freshly minted dollars. This way America can milk the world, keep old geezers more or less happy and SS taxes low. But it appears that the freeloading party is about to be over. Mushrooming debt, deficits and general shift towards a banana republic undermine image of USA and faith in its dollar. There is strong resentment towards a mega leech across the world as we speak. So whats next, how to save SS?


Actually, if one to think about it, health insurance (private or socialized) are also sorta ponzy schemes depending on the inflow of more or less healthy workers to pay claims of the sick older workers (+ healthy incomes of medical&insurance industry workers). Skyrocketing premiums have a lot to do with "shrinking supply" of healthy (including financial health) wage units.

I think SS & Medicare are a must in a (post?) industrial society of isolated, estranged wage units with rudimentary (in the best case) social and family support networks. There are no viable alternatives. Relying on charity of strangers is stupid, relying on Wall Street jocks even more so. Relying on oneself is a good things, but for great many living from paycheck to paycheck that means sure and nasty death once discarded.

So what to do?

It's only fair that Social Security tax should be much higher on top 1% income earners than on SS recipients themselves, I'm talking owning class. Since owning class fortunes are created by labors of the countless wage slaves whose compensation are not adequate to support those slaves in their unproductive years, it's only fair to impose tax justice.

As for now, SS essentially taxes wage slaves to support wage slaves. Slave owners in the past could not avoid expenditures related to supporting slaves. Wage slave owners, on the other hand, successfully dodge wage slave maintenance costs. Another way to look at it. Since Capital treat labor as a commodity to buy, use and throw out, it should treat labor as a commodity all the way. One cannot just dump a used commodity in the middle of a street. There are disposal costs involved. However, Capital is given green light to use human labor commodity and just throw it out once it's unusable. Labor disposal costs shall not be passed on labor itself, as one cannot pass commodity disposal costs on a commodity. SS should be treated largely as labor disposal costs.

No, it's not "socialism" it's insistence labor to be treated equally with iron ore, corn, or coal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2010, 08:16 AM
 
4,829 posts, read 4,809,378 times
Reputation: 6172
In a country with this graph of income distribution, SS&Medicare is oxymoron considering that top 10% don't pay SS taxes.


Last edited by RememberMee; 03-08-2010 at 08:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 08:25 AM
 
2,073 posts, read 3,679,733 times
Reputation: 2498
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post

It's only fair that Social Security tax should be much higher on top 1% income earners than on SS recipients themselves, I'm talking owning class. Since owning class fortunes are created by labors of the countless wage slaves whose compensation are not adequate to support those slaves in their unproductive years, it's only fair to impose tax justice.
You use the word 'fair', yet who is the final arbiter in what is considered fair? Why do you get to decide what is fair? Is it fair that this decision is based solely on your opinion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 08:52 AM
 
4,829 posts, read 4,809,378 times
Reputation: 6172
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnytang24 View Post
You use the word 'fair', yet who is the final arbiter in what is considered fair? Why do you get to decide what is fair? Is it fair that this decision is based solely on your opinion?
So, you think current decisions are based on something else than opinions (of very narrow circle) on what's is fair and sufficient? You don't mind their opinions, yet you summarily dismiss alternatives without going in the trouble of rational argument. How come? I think a wage unit being treated with the same care&attention as iron ore is "fair" because most people believe that humans "deserve" better care than iron ore by simple fact of them being humans. If you don't think it's "fair" to be treated as equals of iron ore, state your arguments. No sophistry, please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 08:56 AM
 
1,492 posts, read 6,778,682 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Let's face it SS & Medicare are classic ponzy scheme pyramids.
You are so RIGHT! Take from someone today- to pay for a previous obligation...and then keep taking hoping when that 'someone that previously paid' ...will get paid themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,566,735 times
Reputation: 24548
Start by removing the cap on income being taxed by including income from all sources. Include corporations as individuals to be taxed as they insist they are individuals under the Constitution. Reduce the tax rate to cover current expenses and increase it as necessary to cover the baby boom generation. Apply the tax to illegal’s as well as citizens.

The increased revenue should provide SS payments for the future because they are charging the entire "citizen" base and not just working people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869
This was a topic a couple of weeks ago.

My thought: Reduce the top monthly benefit from $2400 to about $1500, and let retirees figure out how to live on that (which is easy). There is no justification for a retired couple getting a tax-free $60,000 a year from a strapped and imperiled benefit fund.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Summerville
7,934 posts, read 14,706,701 times
Reputation: 1347
"The Fair Tax" would save Social Security, as it is today. But the best way to save it is to let younger people opt out of it completely and let them invest their own money the way they want. The ponsy scheme as it is now will implode eventually, they always do....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869
Quote:
Originally Posted by OleTomCat View Post
"The Fair Tax" would save Social Security, as it is today. But the best way to save it is to let younger people opt out of it completely and let them invest their own money the way they want. The ponsy scheme as it is now will implode eventually, they always do....
Are you also in favor of letting childless families opt out of the school tax? How would that "save" public education?

We already "let" people invest their money any way they want, and a great majority of them have zero saved and owe thousands of dollars to their creditors. Great nest egg.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2010, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,119 posts, read 9,208,003 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by OleTomCat View Post
"The Fair Tax" would save Social Security, as it is today. But the best way to save it is to let younger people opt out of it completely and let them invest their own money the way they want. The ponsy scheme as it is now will implode eventually, they always do....
Technically, no tax is fair. And a retail sales tax on transactions presumes that the transaction is a revenue taxable privilege.
Since 1933, that was easy - Federal Reserve notes are not dollars, but dollar bills (debt instruments) and do not "pay" debt.
However, since FRNs are about to collapse, methinks it is not a good idea to base a revolutionary tax plan on a flawed premise.

In addition, usury is mathematically impossible to pay in a finite money token system, like that in the USA. It only took 20 years to bankrupt the Federal government (1913-1933). (Current national debt, denominated in dollars, cannot be paid with dollar bills. Debt cannot pay debt.)

Frankly, the problem is charity from the public treasury.
That not only includes the "welfare" and pensions, but all disbursements to individuals that are not remuneration for services rendered, or goods delivered.

In the dim past, when folks actually knew law, it was better known as pauperization. And it was to be abhorred. However, by 1935, FDR could trick the people into accepting pauperization, by lying.

In fact, his administration repealed the pauper's oath that was previously required by ANY recipient of public support.

The pauper's oath used when establishing eligibility status under United States Federal law is as follows:
" I do solemnly swear that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help me God."
Now, we have the recipients empowered to VOTE themselves ever higher benefits, oppose any politician who dares to speak ill of it, and chastise the bureaucracy created to serve them.

So, no, there is no way to "save" Socialist InSecurity, except by abolishing it and any other charity from the public treasury that does not come with a massive drop in status, prohibition from voting and holding office, and a negative connotation for anyone who accepts it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top