sc94597 said:
I won't argue about what "should be" but rather what "is." The majority of Americans, regardless of their economic status, do not support redistributions of wealth when they are evident and outwardly so. Much of the redistributive legislation that has gotten passed is more subtle and has other merits. That makes a progressive tax (or even a flat tax) on social security unlikely, because the rewards would be equally distributed for an unequal pay in. Furthermore, this would create a financial burden that would have to be accomodated for by the cut of some other tax, otherwise the deadweight loss becomes too much and you accelarate the process of executives of corporations movement overseas and to tax havens. Additionally, in the scenario I proposed in this thread - workers get to manage their own retirements (which is what the American far-left - an essentially syndicalist movement - would want), which is a thousand times better than government (whom you seem to agree is heavily influenced by the rich) doing as such. So it's not even a left wing principle to have government in control of retirements. It is a state socialist one which proponents of mixed economies have adopted when liberals merged with social democrats. |
if the government works okayish, there is nothing negative about government controll of retirement. but the us government isnt even close to working okayish.
oh and i found the answer for this thread...
“Should any party attempt to abolish social security and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course, that believes you can do these things … Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” some republican president
