Page 275 of 418 FirstFirst ... 175225265273274275276277285325375 ... LastLast
Results 2,741 to 2,750 of 4172

Thread: The OT thread V1

  1. #2741
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Dude, give it up. The counter-position is; do you want to live in a country and society that is fine with discarding to death, unborn children. Your hollow statements aren't going to change someone else's values.
    so, you agree you don't want to redistribute wealth to save grandma, you also agree that people living in poverty can't save for there own retirement, but you also don't want grama to die in the streets in poverty?

    these three things cannot be compromised.

    im again left with the proposed solution being "these people shouldn't exist"

    and that isn't a solution to the problem that these people did exist, in massive numbers, before we redistributed wealth to them via social security.

    being unhappy with all the solutions possible does not free you of having the problem in the first place.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #2742
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    In my standard issue word vomit I did say the issue isn't not in doing it.

    It was HOW to do it. I think we are agreed, for the most part, that we want some sort of safety net for the wealthiest portion of our population, The Old People. Because some did not or could not save much through life, in part to their own or others mistakes is not really the issue.



    The argument, short of this distraction, would be on how to best utilize that money.

    Because the pay-as-you-go system can only work FOR SO LONG. It is not a sustainable system because you have to tax more and more to cover it, and that is your position - tax more going into it because right now more is going out of it than is coming in.

    Our current system, however you want to name it, doesn't do any investing. It is a pass though, or Virtual Investment program that doesn't hold more than an IOU, and has a totally piss poor 'return' for money it. It is a tax that at the moment, without putting more money in from other taxes, that doesn't cover the outlay. It is a promise from current generations to help out prior generations that will only last for a finite period as ran, becoming insolvent in the near future (decades, just barely.)

    Even if the system was 'uncapped' it would still become insolvent. Just later. And would 'return' less than what is going in. $100,000 paid in results in a $80,000k payout.

    The modifications proposed is just taxing more and giving less back, for a longer period of time. The total Liabilities for this entitlement though is underpaid by $34 TRILLION.

    Given the pay-as-you-go format, this will always be the result, and no matter how you charge 'the bad wealthy people' extra, there isn't enough money there for long.

    And right now, even if solvent at the moment, the money promised to me will not be paid. It would do better just going into a bank account and getting no interest than the SS System. Uncapped or not.

    Switching to even a 50/50 program, vs Uncapped results in:

    No issue with insolvency.

    Pay outs, or actual returns that are significantly higher than SS is or will ever be

    Money invested stays in the market, increasing the GDP in total (nations has between 50% and 100% of their GDP in this fund, basically doubling national GDP.)

    No new taxes needed, in fact, they could be lowered to the 9 or 10% national average for other nations and still return more.

    Room to roll HSA/HDHP into the process to provide everyone with catastrophic care.


    ______________________

    It seems like a no-brainer. There is some risk, yes. Historically though a moderate market can return several times what SS 'promises' as a 'return'. When ran against the S&P500, even just mutual funds, or bonds, a 50/50 system does remarkably better.

    For the same money in, one option is very clearly a better choice.

    ______________________

    So, no, the argument is whither you want granny to have an 80% return on her SS money put in, or 300% to 600% return on her money into SS.

    To reply 'You want PEOPLE TO DIE!' means you have really lost the argument and have no position, so full speed ahead on the emotional, non-rational position.

    Which seems really silly. It should be obvious I want Granny to have a lot more money and I think that would benefit her.

    Why don't you?
    so you are fine with redistributing wealth, by some method, to save grandma?

    im happy to discuss better ways to do it, but the argument being had here is if we should do it in the first place.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #2743
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Florypb505 View Post
    Yea I can't see where this debate is heading when neither side is willing to admit that their views are imperfect or even impractical. The system doesn't work as a whole individually bickering about morality on either side of one question just lets the broken system continue to be dis-functional. Start a discussion on how to fix the problem from the start, invest in fixing something now instead of just putting a band-aid on it and kicking the can farther down the road to deal with, until we start doing that nothing will change and this constant moral dilemma will always be here with neither side helping by stating the same things over and over again.


    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    so, you agree you don't want to redistribute wealth to save grandma, you also agree that people living in poverty can't save for there own retirement, but you also don't want grama to die in the streets in poverty?

    these three things cannot be compromised.

    im again left with the proposed solution being "these people shouldn't exist"

    and that isn't a solution to the problem that these people did exist, in massive numbers, before we redistributed wealth to them via social security.

    being unhappy with all the solutions possible does not free you of having the problem in the first place.
    I haven't stated what I believe... at all. I have simply pointed out, like Josh jabbed, your argument is emotional and non-rational.

    Starting at the begininning, what is poverty? Are we talking absolute or relative poverty? Big difference. Your position is pretty insular in it's considerations since social security revolves around the later type of poverty.

  4. #2744
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    your argument is emotional and non-rational.
    Don't go down that rabbit hole, logic and rationalization are as value-based as anything. Depending on your initial assertions/beliefs/values/assumptions, anything can be made rational or logical.

    I hate that accusation, especially since most people who use it (typically aimed at conservatives) don't recognize that the foundation of their "logic" is still just an emotion-based statement of values.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  5. #2745
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    Don't go down that rabbit hole, logic and rationalization are as value-based as anything. Depending on your initial assertions/beliefs/values/assumptions, anything can be made rational or logical.

    I hate that accusation, especially since most people who use it (typically aimed at conservatives) don't recognize that the foundation of their "logic" is still just an emotion-based statement of values.
    yup

    as i said, and keep repeating, i don't know how to explain to someone they should care about the well being of other people.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #2746
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    I think you misunderstand the values of your opposition, which isn't that you shouldn't care about other people, but rather that the government is not the appropriate mechanism to do so.

    Until you address that belief you're talking to an empty room.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  7. #2747
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    I think you misunderstand the values of your opposition, which isn't that you shouldn't care about other people, but rather that the government is not the appropriate mechanism to do so.

    Until you address that belief you're talking to an empty room.
    as i have said, there is no other option. no amount of political philosophy will take away the actual mechanical problems of living.

    either you have wealth redistribution by some method, or poor people living pay to paycheck are supposed to save for retirement (impossible), or grandma dies in poverty (common place before SS, and common in any country without something like SS).

    those are really your only options. either someone has to give grandma money, or grandma dies in poverty.

    now, happy to argue about what is the best way to structure the system that gives money to grandma in order to maximize utility per dollar spent, but rejecting it as a solution means there is no solution. now if you want to pull the magical "the private donations will take care of them" argument, that conservatives LOVE, there is no evidence to support that, in fact all evidence points to that not working. it also sets up the moral issue that having a better sob story should not mean you get help over someone else, which is exactly what charitable systems create. or, however better a charity markets itself being who gets the dollars etc etc, these are all moral hazards.

    which leaves government.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 10-26-2017 at 02:55 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #2748
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    I think you misunderstand the values of your opposition, which isn't that you shouldn't care about other people, but rather that the government is not the appropriate mechanism to do so.

    Until you address that belief you're talking to an empty room.
    Steve, I am not going down the rabbit hole on the whole discussion, but the false dilemma Gordon keeps leaning on to make his point is kind of ridiculous without addressing:

    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Starting at the begininning, what is poverty? Are we talking absolute or relative poverty? Big difference. Your position is pretty insular in its considerations since social security revolves around the later type of poverty.
    Absolute and relative poverty are 2 different issues and wealth redistribution is more fixated on societal issues than humanities.


    Again, Steve, problem is that without framing a proper context the conversation will just go in circles. Your second sentence in the 1st post means nothing. It's a weak attempt at discrediting counterpoints without having any basis to do so. If I took a similar position on abortion as you and Gordon seem to be taking on social security, then you'd call me a bigot or cheovanist/ sexist or whatever. Either talk specifically about the mechanics of social security or let the issue die (on this thread) because you're not affecting someone else's value system. Stop throwing out this idiotic attempt at personalizing the issue by using a grandma example and instead limit the talk to funding and structure.

  9. #2749
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    I think you misunderstand the values of your opposition, which isn't that you shouldn't care about other people, but rather that the government is not the appropriate mechanism to do so.

    Until you address that belief you're talking to an empty room.
    Misunderstanding the values of the opposition is kind of a trademark for him though... :P

    That actually is how you have a proper discussion, or debate. Start by clarifying their argument back to them, defining some terms, and then taking it apart. I judged STOA for a while when we did homeschooling, and the basic ability to do that was critical to winning any debate. 10 and 12yo kids can grasp it and do it well. The internets... not so much.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #2750
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Again, Steve, problem is that without framing a proper context the conversation will just go in circles. Your second sentence in the 1st post means nothing. It's a weak attempt at discrediting counterpoints without having any basis to do so. If I took a similar position on abortion as you and Gordon seem to be taking on social security, then you'd call me a bigot or cheovanist/ sexist or whatever. Either talk specifically about the mechanics of social security or let the issue die (on this thread) because you're not affecting someone else's value system. Stop throwing out this idiotic attempt at personalizing the issue by using a grandma example and instead limit the talk to funding and structure.
    Pretty sure you're going in circles by yourself, I didn't say anything about grandma. I have no real position on this issue.

    I did google this article yesterday when the conversation came up and thought it made an interesting point.

    Something here is remarkably consistent. Up until the last decade or two of the 20th century, every democracy that established a social security system set up a pay-as-you-go system with no saving, no investment and no way to assure benefit payments in the future. Every non-democratic regime (I’m ignoring the communist countries here) set up a funded system – although it’s worth noting that after British rule ended, some of these did not always work out well when politicians discovered that provident funds could be looted.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoo.../#79a8f9f76c52
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •