The Debate To Raise The Retirement Age (senior, behavior, tax)
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're offering to give up my money too. But I'm okay with that; it's for a good cause, working together to address society's failure.
no no friend i know san bruno jail they are not human beings, they are vicious violent animals. but they keep demanding respect.
in fact they crave it just cant get enough of it. that is why they join gangs and end up at san bruno jail.
we are for the most part- animals- all of us, but how well we restrain our violent natures determines how we get treated.
u wish to collect a debt of great respect from society that is not owed.
Tax my full 100% SS benefit and every journey begins with a small step and I have offered my small first step. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS I am actually offering to give up money. I now feel so morally guilty that I have broken down and yielded.
No need to feel "morally guilty". Although, I think I recognize the sarcasm here.
I think much of what holds us all back in the discussion to fix social security are feelings so many have that always begin "I am entitled". I'd like to see a discussion where one rule is that no one is permitted to talk about what they think are entitled too. Instead, the rules would that their whole focus has to be on what is necessary to fix the system.
If we took some of the emotion out of this, we might actually get somewhere. Undoubtedly, very wishful thinking though.
While I agree that income inequality has gotten out of hand, society simply can't afford to somehow subsidize everyone up to a level well above the median., nor should we. You have far more faith in human nature than I do I guess, you would largely destroy citizens desire to work productively even further - whether you agree or not, I suspect you understand the arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
That's a cop out. You're basically claiming that we're too stupid as a species to craft a way to be both compassionate and promote responsibility.
I never said "stupid" has anything to do with it, I said human nature. No society has been able to achieve and sustain the compassionate society you describe that I know of. If it was possible you'd think someone would have built such a society. Socialism in any form hasn't worked yet that I know of (and I am NOT using the word/ideology to incite anyone). Where that experiment has been tried, it promotes equality, at a significantly lower standard of living for all doesn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack
What almost always goes unsaid/unspoken by the 'personal responsibility' crowd - they do want to help those truly less fortunate, but they do not want to support others who could stand on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
If you want to build into the system, more generally, a requirement that people who can work either find a job or a job that pays a living wage will be assigned to them based on ability, I'm fine with that. I also don't want to support people who can work for what they need to live, but refuse to. It is society's responsibility to ensure there are enough living-wage jobs that people are qualified for - Janet Yellen Federal Reserve even touted society's responsibility regarding job creation a few weeks back - but when society does so it is the citizen's responsibility to avail themselves of such opportunities.
If society at large truly believed that everyone was working to their potential, I think you'd be surprised how many people would support helping the less fortunate, conservatives included. But we've never been able to administer benefit programs that effectively beyond very local levels if then, people who refuse to help themselves are exposed every day. But again, I don't think anyone knows if the ratios are 90:10 or 10:90 or anything in between. Again, I was trying to say that's a major reason society can't seem to reach a consensus.
Shed any light on the idea of using $75K as a threshold for taxes? I'd contend that whatever the threshold is, it has to at least be lower than GDP per capita...
Interesting thread, rants and extreme (dogma) views aside.
Midpack "..Interesting thread, rants and extreme (dogma) views aside."
Double ditto on that comment. Its fascinating to follow this thread. There are a few cohorts that haven't joined yet, but I'm hopeful they will show up eventually.
I think much of what holds us all back in the discussion to fix social security are feelings so many have that always begin "I am entitled". I'd like to see a discussion where one rule is that no one is permitted to talk about what they think are entitled too. Instead, the rules would that their whole focus has to be on what is necessary to fix the system.
+1. AKA "the third rail."
I may have missed it, but I don't remember anyone who takes the "I paid in so I am entitled, but don't call it entitlement" position ever confronting the arithmetic (what they paid in, what the COLAd benefits are, the demographic realities, what's fair to all generations - old and young, FICA revenue vs benefit obligations history/projections, paygo vs investment, etc.). They rarely if ever address the math, several examples yet again on this thread - we've all seen it thousands of times.
Ya'll might want to consider broadening your "research" efforts to consider including ALL the various support components currently in place. SS by itself is only one component of the broader environment. Just a suggestion.
Which has nothing to do with what we're talking about in this thread. I have to give you credit, though: That's a creative derail attempt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
I'd like to see a discussion where one rule is that no one is permitted to talk about what they think are entitled too. Instead, the rules would that their whole focus has to be on what is necessary to fix the system.
Or even better, each person is only allowed to advocate for things that benefit others and not themselves. That would be quite interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
If we took some of the emotion out of this, we might actually get somewhere.
I don't see that taking emotion out of it. I see it taking self-servingness (for lack of a better term) out of it. People who care about other people generally do, and should, "care with emotion".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack
I never said "stupid" has anything to do with it, I said human nature.
Fair enough. Human nature also drives many base behaviors that we've overcome as part of civilization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack
No society has been able to achieve and sustain the compassionate society you describe that I know of.
I have to admit that I could respect a perspective that honestly and forthrightly advocates for a more barbarian society. I'd still oppose the perspective, but at least I could respect it more than those perspectives that dance around the offensive nature of the ramifications of the approaches such perspectives suggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack
If it was possible you'd think someone would have built such a society.
I think you need to review human history since the beginning of the Enlightenment. I recently wrote a sermon that outlines a number of such instances where a change in society toward a more enlightened bent was persecuted when first suggested and now is considered a durable and fundamental aspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack
Socialism in any form hasn't worked yet that I know of (and I am NOT using the word/ideology to incite anyone).
I don't think Socialism is the answer. I don't believe any one perspective is the answer, but rather certain measures of several seemingly opposing perspectives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack
Shed any light on the idea of using $75K as a threshold for taxes? I'd contend that whatever the threshold is, it has to at least be lower than GDP per capita...
While that seems arbitrary to me, for reasons I outlined earlier (per capita GNP does not equal a living wage), I'm gratified that I've gotten you to endorse a number, $48,620 per capita in 2011 (according to the World Bank, Atlas method), which is almost double the $75k (per family - see earlier message) I suggested.
I cannot wait for TuborgP to pile-on your comments, at least double the amount s/he piled on my comments earlier.
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.