Social Security should be extended to ALL Americans (drugs, cost, school)

[pknopp]

The one problem I have here is that and I'm going to generalize here so if the shoe doesn't fit............

Many who are against this (and understandably so) support things like QE which is nothing more than a gauranteed income for the rich.

The argument for it is the same as those who argue for a guaranteed income for the rest. While I disagree with both ideas I can understanding one wanting to know when is the government going to come up with "theirs".

[Supachai]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

What if automation replace them?

Then they'll have even less job opportunities.

Putting the entire country on the dole will only create a massive group of people who contribute absolutely nothing to the tax base and only make the economy worse because then there will be millions of unfilled jobs.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by greywar

Go read this:
index - BasicIncome

The main thing to remember is we arent talking about a LOT of money. No really we aren't. Least not for our country.

So, what, you're trying to pass yourself off as some kind of expert?

Why are you suppressing evidence?

Suppressed Evidence

Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.


I know why you're withholding information from forum members.....your position is too weak to withstand real debate.

Originally Posted by greywar

Instead just remove the income cap from social security taxes, and have it apply to all income.

Before making absurd statements, you might want to actually test them.

This thing about removing the Social Security wage/salary cap.....I've debunked that so many times it ain't even funny.

Not one person has refuted my sourced evidence, uh, but then it's impossible to refute factual reality.

Originally Posted by greywar

First-social security as it is, vs's what its suggested it could be.

Social Security is an insurance program.

The evidence shows that a Republican governor created Social Security. Several States copied the program, including FDR when he was governor of New York State.

There were 35 States which had Social Security-like programs at the time FDR violated the Constitution and nationalized all of the State programs, causing pain and suffering for many Americans.

The correct course of action is for the pseudo-federal government to comply with the Constitution, by honoring its contract for those vested in the program; transfer control to the States; privatize Social Security Insurance by allowing persons to purchase insurance for their own needs, with the State providing a watchful eye over the private insurance companies.

Presently, a minimum wage worker pays $96/month to receive $793/month in Social Security Retirement Benefits.

That's what Liberals want.

What Conservatives want is for minimum wage workers to pay $21/month and get $1,600/month in Social Security Retirement Benefits.

As nep321 pointed out, Conservatives are hateful, spiteful bastards for wanting people to pay less while getting more.

Originally Posted by greywar

If S.S is not taking in enough to pay its benefits in the future then the base amount it applies to should in fact be raised. As such it would meet what you describe.

You are currently short 13+ Million workers to fund Social Security at the 6.2% FICA tax rate.

Obama's lack of leadership and disastrous policies have created a situation where Obamcare will cause a recession, which is why Obama is in a total panic and delaying implementation of certain provisions. Likewise raising the FICA payroll tax will slow down your economy creating more job losses.

Not raising the FICA payroll tax will slow down your economy creating more job losses.

That's what "unfunded liability" means....it means that money is coming out of your economy, one way or another.

The FICA payroll tax needs to be 9.0%-9.2% for employer and employee alike. Yes, that will be destructive, but no matter what you do, you have problems.

Originally Posted by greywar

Or alternatively we could pay a wage based upon how unpleasant a job is to do? I know crazy talk right?

Um, we already do that via the Laws of Economics. Those jobs which are difficult or unpleasant have a low supply of workers, which increases the wages.

Originally Posted by greywar

It would eliminate MANY government programs entirely.

No, it would not, but thanks for trying to mislead people just the same.

Originally Posted by greywar

Yes. Welfare adds to our bureaucracy. Giving a person 1K/month to survive on is reasonable if we peg it to inflation.

Economic Fail.

What kind of "inflation?"

Wage Inflation?
Cost-push Inflation?
Demand-pull Inflation?
Interest Inflation?
Real Inflation?

What is the purpose of Economics?

You have 1,539 separately functioning economies in the united States.

Using $1,000 as a base figure, in some of those 1,539 economies, $1,000 really only equals $200. At the same time, in some of those 1,539 economies, $1,000 equals $4,000.

Originally Posted by greywar

At $1,200 its enough for a single person to care for themselves.

Again, not true.

In some of the 1,539 separate economies in the united States $1,200 is too much, while in others, it is not enough.

But then you don't care if people if suffer and endure hardship, so long as your fantasies reign supreme.

So.....what is your plan for Stupid People?

You do have a plan, don't you?.....

Mircea

[Redraven]

Originally Posted by greywar

No one is suggesting sending you and your wife $3,000 per month-especially not each. The numbers generally suggested range from $1,000 to $1,500, with $1,000 being the most common. And adjusted to inflation.

Now I don't know about you folks, but $2-3K for me and my wife doesn't represent a ton of money. I'd still be working.

What part of:
"If yer gonna DREAM, ya might as well dream BIG!"
do you not understand?

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by texan2yankee

So SS is not a savings plan, in your opinion.

Social Security is insurance....and that is a matter of law, not opinion.

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

You leeches should take a basic economics course.

What? That's just more money we'd have to pay. You seriously think they'd give up NetFlix to increase their knowledge?

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

Much of federal welfare is spent on bureaucracy including tens of millions of dollars on advertising for the benefits. If we cut all federal welfare (keeping social security) - you could roughly afford to have the IRS/SS give out that welfare in the form of $275 monthly checks to every man, woman, and child. So a family of 4 would get $1,100 a month.

This wouldn't cost a penny more and would arguably be more efficient than the current graft system.

No, that system would fail miserably...in fact, it already did.

Originally Posted by JohnnyMack

How is the funding of this "Minimum income" acquired?

A gnome riding a gargantuan pink bunny rabbit comes round and gives it to the government to hand out.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

It's not socialism.

Correct....it's a Soviet-style Command Economic System.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Calling it socialism is like calling full employment socialism.

Straw Man

Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

You would be surprised to know that the most prolific economists on the right were in favor of the negative income tax. Hayek, Friedman, Walter Williams.

Lying

A fallacy of reasoning that depends on intentionally saying something that is known to be false. If the lying occurs in an argument’s premise, then it is an example of the fallacy of questionable premise.

Misrepresentation

If the misrepresentation occurs on purpose, then it is an example of lying. If the misrepresentation occurs during a debate in which there is misrepresentation of the opponent’s claim, then it would be the cause of a straw man fallacy.

Suppressed Evidence

Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.

To provide some truth to this thread full of lies, Friedman mentioned it in Capitalism and Freedom, which he wrote sometime in the early 1960s. Just because Friedman mentions it as a possible hypothesis doesn't mean he advocated or was in favor of it.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

I guess Milton Friedman and Hayek should have taken an economics course

Since you claim knowledge is key.....why don't show how knowledgeable you really are and explain to everyone why Friedman abandoned his theory on Negative Income Tax.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Again, BI won't be enough for housing, food, and expenses. What low wage earner can afford food and housing? BI would only meet the federal poverty line.

That is incorrect.

It is the average poverty level.

Get it?

Average poverty level.

I emphasized the operand there....just in case you don't get it.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

How many couples today who're on minimum wage own homea?

A lot. It all depends on where you live in the united States.

Questionable Premise

If you have sufficient background information to know that a premise is questionable or unlikely to be acceptable, then you use this fallacy if you accept an argument based on that premise.

Your premise is questionable, because you make a false assumption that there is uniformity throughout all 1,539 separately functioning economies, when clear evidence shows overwhelming that uniformity is non-existent.

And your false premise is based on this fallacy...

Anecdotal Evidence

This is fallacious generalizing on the basis of a some story that provides an inadequate sample.

Your view is very parochial and narrow-minded.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

With the cost of living, no couple would be satisfied with a $24000 household income. This alone incentivizes people to work.

What a treat!

No True Scotsman

This error is a kind of ad hoc rescue of one’s generalization in which the reasoner re-characterizes the situation solely in order to escape refutation of the generalization.

There are many satisfied with a $24,000 household income.

Note that in some parts of the united States, $24,000 is the equivalent of $60,000.

Conversely, note that in some parts of the united States, $150,000 is equivalent to about $32,000.

No doubt, you are hung up on numbers.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Bud, I don't know where you live, but I assure you that $24000 year won't get you by without some form of safety net. lol

You're wrong, because your knowledge is very limited.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Those are not the real prices listed. lol

Yes, they are.

In Cincinnati you can buy a home on minimum wage. You surely can. Not with a freaking FICO score of 515, but if you have a credit score of 720+ you can get a mortgage for a house.

Calling it what it is...

Mircea

[knowledgeiskey]

Mircea, you're desperately trying to over compensate for the defeat you had in the immigration thread.

[malamute]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

The US government could print/spend as much money as it wants. There's no constraint.

That's what it's doing already. The average welfare household already costs the taxpayers over $61,000 to support. Welfare is becoming a lifestyle choice -- why work for $40,000 when the government will make it so easy to never work.

The same politicians who want to keep extending unemployment handouts indefinitely then turn around and insist that we must bring in many millions of illegals because Americans have become too lazy to work.

[knowledgeiskey]

Houses are cheap in those regions due to low demand. Not all low wage earners could move to Cincinnati and Maine. It would just push the price of housing up.

[knowledgeiskey]

Originally Posted by malamute

That's what it's doing already. The average welfare household already costs the taxpayers over $61,000 to support. Welfare is becoming a lifestyle choice -- why work for $40,000 when the government will make it so easy to never work.

The same politicians who want to keep extending unemployment handouts indefinitely then turn around and insist that we must bring in many millions of illegals because Americans have become too lazy to work.

Again, the US government does not take from one to subsidize the other. That's not how government spending works.

You have an old world view of economics and government.

[malamute]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Again, the US government does not take from one to subsidize the other. That's not how government spending works.

You have an old world view of economics and government.

You would not believe the ridiculous amount of taxes I'm paying -- all because I'm working and not just laying around getting my free government money and other stuff.