U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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 09-05-2011, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,735,102 times
Reputation: 32304

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GLS View Post
My reasoning is based upon a core belief that people have a right of choice that supercedes the government's right to choose for them. I would rather take a chance that a small number of people would be irresponsible and "blow their windfall" than live with the widespread and proven irresponsibility of our politicians. Also, the number of people tempted to "blow their windfall" would be greatly reduced if it were clear that there would not be a government "safety net" (tit) to guarantee immunity from stupidity and irresponsibility.
Your well-stated reasoning is persuasive, but I still doubt that it would work in the real world. First, you talk about "a small number of people" who would be irresponsible. Given what I know of human nature, it would not be "a small number"! Second, I doubt if it would be possible to hold the line on not providing a government safety net following a lump sum payout. Just let the liberal press publish stories and pictures about some 80-year-old who died destitute in the gutter frozen to death along with pictures of her grieving children. Given enough such stories, what do think would be the result?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2011, 12:28 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,496 posts, read 62,152,821 times
Reputation: 32173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Second, I doubt if it would be possible to hold the line on not providing a government safety net following a lump sum payout.
Very true.

In the absence of a program like SS...
we would still need something very much like it.
(regardless of the arguments related to nature of how it gets paid for)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2011, 01:22 PM
 
Location: NJ
24,136 posts, read 30,246,112 times
Reputation: 16027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
which is exactly what Social Security was designed to prevent in the first place.
i actually believe it was designed to be a tax to raise additional government funds.

the fact that no money was ever left in social security for the beneficiaries even when taxpayers were paying much more than the payout was and until this past year where money coming in was still exceeding money going out. it was a tax, the government spent it. social security is just a tax, now that the people responsible for this evil trick are gone it has turned into a huge unaffordable burden. people keep saying "i dont want to pay for the government's mistakes" well, there is nobody else to pay but us suckers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2011, 01:30 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,496 posts, read 62,152,821 times
Reputation: 32173
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
i actually believe it was designed to be a tax to raise additional government funds.
OK... for the sake of the discussion let's say that is correct.
Then what?

Not just the rhetoric about some la-de-dah of what "should be"...
but what *exactly* would be different?

The US has managed to avoid having a national medical plan unlike the rest of the western world...
would the US be able to also avoid having an old age pension plan like the rest of the western world as well?
---

subtext:
Or when Nietzshe got his signature on the Constitution.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2011, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Prospect, KY
5,288 posts, read 17,957,332 times
Reputation: 6544
Most national medical plans have proven to be disastrous. There is no "fix" to this as long as we have unbridled irresponsible spending and dishonest politicians. Some of you act like that if we raise taxes something will change or get "fixed" or be better (when has that ever happened?)....the only thing that will change is that most of us working folks will continue to struggle along financially even more than we already do as more and more "programs" and entitlements are funded by our tax dollars - programs and entitlements that many of us don't use, don't want and certainly can't afford to pay for.

Last edited by Cattknap; 09-05-2011 at 02:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2011, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Coastal Georgia
37,105 posts, read 45,622,935 times
Reputation: 61719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dollydo View Post
Many seniors have nothing because they squandered their money throughout their life. Others budgeted, invested and planned for their retirement. So, because they did the right thing they should be penalized? I think not.
I totally agree with you in principal, however, there are people who worked hard at low paying jobs that were not able to sock away any significant amount of money. It's not as though their labor was less valuable to society, it's not that they squandered their nest egg, it's that they could only feed and house their families with nothing left over.
If I had a couple of million in the bank and could live off my interest, I would still take my ss because it is MINE, I earned it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2011, 03:30 PM
 
Location: NJ
24,136 posts, read 30,246,112 times
Reputation: 16027
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
OK... for the sake of the discussion let's say that is correct.
Then what?
it doesnt really matter. we have to deal with it in the present, so what it was intended for doesnt matter. its just always funny to me that people come up with these beliefs about what x program was intended to do either because thats how it was sold, thats how its currently being sold or maybe thats just what makes logical sense to them so they assume it to be true. considering the reality that social security has taken in more than it paid out until recently and that all the extra money it takes in is spent by the government, i think it makes more sense to believe its purpose was a source of government revenue. thats why i believe there is such a strong fight against privatization. it has little to do with risk to seniors that people try to use as a fear tactic, its because it takes away government revenue to spend. although, that wont make much sense for long since social security takes in less than it spends now.

ill throw out an example, the 40 hour work week. how many people would say that the reason was so that working people got time off work to spend with their families or just to be able to have time not working like chinese factory workers. but the real purpose is to reduce unemployment.

Last edited by CaptainNJ; 09-05-2011 at 03:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2011, 03:31 PM
GLS
 
1,985 posts, read 4,846,869 times
Reputation: 2408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Your well-stated reasoning is persuasive, but I still doubt that it would work in the real world. First, you talk about "a small number of people" who would be irresponsible. Given what I know of human nature, it would not be "a small number"! Second, I doubt if it would be possible to hold the line on not providing a government safety net following a lump sum payout. Just let the liberal press publish stories and pictures about some 80-year-old who died destitute in the gutter frozen to death along with pictures of her grieving children. Given enough such stories, what do think would be the result?
Since I can't resist satire, the grieving children would be flanked by attorneys prepared to sue the gutter manufacturer because they didn't insulate the gutter.No mention would be made of the children's lack of familial responsibility or compassion to spare even a dish towel for a blanket, or their refusal to cough up even a saltine cracker to mitigate the old lady's nutritional depletion.

On a more serious note, the solution preferable to government largess at the expense of taxpayers that take care of themselves, is private charity.
Even today, churches, civic groups, and caring individuals share their good fortune with the destitute. They are more efficient, significantly more timely and effective, and in my opinion, more nurturing of the human spirit than any government "safety net".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2011, 03:57 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,496 posts, read 62,152,821 times
Reputation: 32173
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
How many people would say that the reason was so that working people got time off work to spend with their families or just to be able to have time not working like Chinese factory workers...
With a secondary purpose being to reduce unemployment.
(there are 3rd and 4th level reasons as well)

You posed this as though both/several reasons couldn't be true at the same time.
How absurd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2011, 04:16 PM
 
13,773 posts, read 33,906,848 times
Reputation: 10561
Thread has been cleaned up. As a reminder you don't have to agree with everyone however do not attack someone because you disagree or don't like what they have posted in response.

Remember any one of us could be wrong.

Last edited by Keeper; 09-06-2011 at 05:59 AM..
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 > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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