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.
You are not treating people equal in their capabilities because you encourage individuals to not meet their expectations by meeting needs they otherwise would be able to go out and obtain..
Thats like saying we shouldnt allow everyone to have a BMW because a Volkswagon meets the capabilities and needs..
Had a recent discussion concerning social security benefits and how they were unfair.
The average social security benefit it was noted the average monthly benefit was $1,269 and how I should give up part of mine in order to be more "fair".
I'm 66, not collecting yet and if I stay on plan my wife and I should receive a combined monthly benefit of $4,095 which is a whole lot more than the average. According to the new mindset I have had some tell me this is "unfair" because I am getting a whole lot more than most and everyone paid in.
Pure rubbish!
44% of the population starts taking social security at age 62 where the amount is calculated at 75% of the full retire age benefit. If your full retirement age benefit is calculated at $2,000 you cab expect to receive $1,500 if you retire at 62.
Less than 3% of the population waits beyond full retirement age, in my case that is 66, to collect but if you put off collecting beyond full retirement age your benefit increases by 8% annually or a full 32% if you put it off to age 70.
My plan is to be one of the 3% and put off collecting to age 70. If my scheduled full retirement age benefit was $2,000 I can expect $2,640 (double the average benefit) by just waiting four more years but according to the prevailing thought today this is somehow unfair that I will receive so much more.
Never mind I didn't collect at 62 and worked an additional 8 years it is still considered by some to be unfair.
I see this mindset ever expanding into every part of our lives. Never mind that I worked 55 years, never mind that I sometimes worked two jobs when I was younger and never mind I worked hard to advance in my profession the main thing seems to be I am getting so much more and that is inherently unfair.
If I didn't want to work and collected at 62 I suppose it would have been fair of me to shriek and cry how someone received so much more than me but end the end they could have done the exact same thing I am doing to receive more. Life is all about the choices you make.
The real conflict between Socialism and what we call Capitalism is the actual conflict between a Free Market that provides opportunity for those that can fins them and a Monopolistic Cronyism that locks up all the opportunity for themselves.
IMH and Idealistic O - Governments should regulate the economics so that everyone has access at no cost to air, water, food, shelter and cloths before anyone gets wealthy. The government law and regulation should also prevent the formation of Monopolistic business ownership and alliances. Realistically this will never happen because under any real economy the wealthy control access to capital and opportunity for the benefit of themselves and their kids by excluding as many as possible from the wealth creating system.
The real conflict between Socialism and what we call Capitalism is the actual conflict between a Free Market that provides opportunity for those that can fins them and a Monopolistic Cronyism that locks up all the opportunity for themselves.
IMH and Idealistic O - Governments should regulate the economics so that everyone has access at no cost to air, water, food, shelter and cloths before anyone gets wealthy. The government law and regulation should also prevent the formation of Monopolistic business ownership and alliances. Realistically this will never happen because under any real economy the wealthy control access to capital and opportunity for the benefit of themselves and their kids by excluding as many as possible from the wealth creating system.
What makes you think those who are dependent on means-tested social welfare programs don't opt for that intentionally? Think about it... They expend no effort... they don't have to work... they don't have to prove their value in the employment marketplace... all they have to do is sit back and collect.
Had a recent discussion concerning social security benefits and how they were unfair..
It's pays to keep your mouth shut when retirement money comes up.
Pensions are now unfair because not everyone gets one.
401Ks are unfair because not everyone makes use of them.
Rather than complimenting you on astute retirement planning you are deemed "lucky".
And that it's not fair that some are more lucky then others when it comes to retirement income.
What makes you think those who are dependent on means-tested social welfare programs don't opt for that intentionally? Think about it... They expend no effort... they don't have to work... they don't have to prove their value in the employment marketplace... all they have to do is sit back and collect.
Because they think that people won't settle for what those programs provide and will only make use of them in-between working for income.
Only one program is temporary..TANF for 5 years and even then states can fund it for longer than 5 years.
The other 83+ programs are "forever".
And there are ways to live so that various members of the family all get benefits.
Socialism works when everyone is doing their part.
And therein lies its failure. The system rewards those who DO NOT DO THEIR PART. There's no point in being the dutiful ant if the system dictates that the grasshoppers get to fiddle during the summer and then are entitled to the ant's stored grain during the winter. Under collectivism, being the grasshopper is the smart play and being the ant makes you a sucker.
The other part of collectivism that always breaks is the disincentive to produce surplus. If surplus must simply be given away, why produce it? The way it works is, you are supposed to do your part, but if you don't, you are entitled to the surplus of someone else. That someone else must give away that surplus, given that you are entitled to it. They receive nothing from that exchange, so even the most socially benevolent among us would begin questioning doing the extra work required to produce a surplus that is just taken away with no compensation.
The historical reference can be found by reading about the "time of starving" in the original Jamestown settlement in the early 17th century. When the land was collectively owned and all work went the "common store," men did not work nearly as hard or efficiently. Once Thomas Dale established property rights and let people profit from their labors, the Invisible Hand did what it does, and the rest is history. The lesson there is that when a common store exists, and nobody is free to benefit from their labor, being essentially indentured to each other and the common store, you get sloth, indolence and apathy....which almost wiped out the original English settlers in North America. In other words, people stop doing their part because...well...it just ain't worth it.
We have transgenerational welfare dependency in this country. As in, there are people in America who are born, live their entire lives, and die at some ripe old age...never knowing anything but government dependency. Not special needs or physically/mentally handicapped people mind you, but able bodied, capable individuals who simply know no other way than a lifetime of government dependence. They NEVER DO THEIR PART. As the reward for not doing your part gets better, the number of people choosing to no longer do their part increases. Once just one more person takes than gives, the system is collapsing irreversibly.
This is where collective "benevolence" always leads. Everywhere, always, perfectly consistent since the dawn of mankind. You name the society it takes hold in, and history shows that minus upheaval and drastic change, all such societies collapse within a century, unless propped up from the outside by some other society (re: modern socialist nations borrowing economic fortune from neighbors, and relying on the US to do their national defense on the global scale). But look at your Venezuelas of the world, and when the economy is not diverse, and you have no neighbors to prop up your mistakes, and your collective overlords are morons, it takes far less time for the rot to take hold and crumble your society's pillars. The greatest forced collective empire in world history only lasted 74 years before its inevitable collapse.
tl;dr - it never works because human effort is like any other form of energy...it follows the path of least resistance. Tell me I can get by just fine without working, and I'll stop working.
And therein lies its failure. The system rewards those who DO NOT DO THEIR PART. There's no point in being the dutiful ant if the system dictates that the grasshoppers get to fiddle during the summer and then are entitled to the ant's stored grain during the winter. Under collectivism, being the grasshopper is the smart play and being the ant makes you a sucker.
The other part of collectivism that always breaks is the disincentive to produce surplus. If surplus must simply be given away, why produce it? The way it works is, you are supposed to do your part, but if you don't, you are entitled to the surplus of someone else. That someone else must give away that surplus, given that you are entitled to it. They receive nothing from that exchange, so even the most socially benevolent among us would begin questioning doing the extra work required to produce a surplus that is just taken away with no compensation.
The historical reference can be found by reading about the "time of starving" in the original Jamestown settlement in the early 17th century. When the land was collectively owned and all work went the "common store," men did not work nearly as hard or efficiently. Once Thomas Dale established property rights and let people profit from their labors, the Invisible Hand did what it does, and the rest is history. The lesson there is that when a common store exists, and nobody is free to benefit from their labor, being essentially indentured to each other and the common store, you get sloth, indolence and apathy....which almost wiped out the original English settlers in North America. In other words, people stop doing their part because...well...it just ain't worth it.
We have transgenerational welfare dependency in this country. As in, there are people in America who are born, live their entire lives, and die at some ripe old age...never knowing anything but government dependency. Not special needs or physically/mentally handicapped people mind you, but able bodied, capable individuals who simply know no other way than a lifetime of government dependence. They NEVER DO THEIR PART. As the reward for not doing your part gets better, the number of people choosing to no longer do their part increases. Once just one more person takes than gives, the system is collapsing irreversibly.
This is where collective "benevolence" always leads. Everywhere, always, perfectly consistent since the dawn of mankind. You name the society it takes hold in, and history shows that minus upheaval and drastic change, all such societies collapse within a century, unless propped up from the outside by some other society (re: modern socialist nations borrowing economic fortune from neighbors, and relying on the US to do their national defense on the global scale). But look at your Venezuelas of the world, and when the economy is not diverse, and you have no neighbors to prop up your mistakes, and your collective overlords are morons, it takes far less time for the rot to take hold and crumble your society's pillars. The greatest forced collective empire in world history only lasted 74 years before its inevitable collapse.
tl;dr - it never works because human effort is like any other form of energy...it follows the path of least resistance. Tell me I can get by just fine without working, and I'll stop working.
And for those that do nothing and collect there is a plethora of excuses given.
And you watch the numbers of "collectors" increase.
1/3 of our budget goes to means tested welfare programs.
It's growing at 20% annually.
Corruption in these programs ? You betcha but they say we can't afford annual audits.
We did with the Lifeline program and 41% did not qualify for their free phone.
Nearly 1/2 were scamming the program costing an extra $1 billion a year.
Imagine if we audited the other 83+ programs and kicked those out that didn't qualify ?
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.
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.
