badgenome said:
Where do you think it would go? The money wouldn't be deducted from my paycheck anymore, so of course it would go to me. |
Do you think big business is lobbying to axe social security because they want you to have it and not the government? As soon as that payroll tax drops, so too will your wage, suprisingly by the same amount.
badgenome said:
Yeah, I think HappySquirrel nailed it earlier: basically, this is one fucked up, spoiled, deeply amoral generation, and it's a problem that cuts across class lines. The interviews I saw with looters all pretty much boiled down to, "We're not afraid of being arrested, there's no real consequences for doing it, so why shouldn't we get some free stuff?" Whatever their other myriad failing, I think they were being honest. As for welfare, I think Bastiat said it best: "Every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." The government is not the society, it is only a part of it. I'm all for a safety net for those who truly need it, but I can't help but feel that the safety net turns into a hammock in no time flat under government management. Maybe it's just the nature of bureaucracy. A bureaucrat can write a million checks, but he isn't capable of actually caring about a single one of those people. They're all just case file numbers to him. The whole thing is just so deeply impersonal as to be almost dehumanizing. Private charities, on the other hand, seem to do a much better job precisely because they actually do care. I'm sure it also helps that if they don't do a good job and too much of their donations get eaten up in administration, watchdog groups will blow the whistle on them and people will start giving elsewhere. Whereas with the government, it's just a profoundly unhealthy monopoly. |
Bolded - I know, I'm sure they were being honest. Ironic really.
As for the quote I've often wondered whether it would be better to seperate certain welfare state functions from goverment control and have totally seperate, probably voluntary and/or charity orientated organizations running them. A lot of the issue is the level of bureaucracy and cost around operating large welfare state inititives and I'm convinced a better service could be provided at less cost by cutting through all that.
I have some friends who are senior directors in charities and they do seem to be much more efficient, on the ball and knowledgable in how to best use funds to get the maximum result. Course I might be biased towards my friends, but I honestly don't think so. The independant bodies just seem to handle this kind of tricky eligibility evaluation much better, and get things done with far less fuss.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
| Kasz216 said: The Social Security trust fund is... and always has been filled with by government bonds... when there was more money being paid in then there was paid out... this money was ALWAYS spent by the government that year on something else. |
(Italicised) You just proved my point there that government was raiding the social security surplus in order to fund other things. What right do they have to take that money?
fordy said:
Do you think big business is lobbying to axe social security because they want you to have it and not the government? As soon as that payroll tax drops, so too will your wage, suprisingly by the same amount. |
Is big business lobbying for the end of social security? That's news to me. Big business seems quite happy with big government, and why not? According to the government, they're all "too big to fail."
I'm really not sure why you think that, though. My salary is what is, and the cost to my employer is the same with or without social security. How much I actually take home just depends on how much the government deigns to let me keep after they finish rifling through my pockets.
| Reasonable said: I have some friends who are senior directors in charities and they do seem to be much more efficient, on the ball and knowledgable in how to best use funds to get the maximum result. Course I might be biased towards my friends, but I honestly don't think so. The independant bodies just seem to handle this kind of tricky eligibility evaluation much better, and get things done with far less fuss. |
Yeah. I think it's because they genuinely do care, and also because they have to. Whereas the government can just tax, borrow, or print itself some more money and has no real incentive to be anything other than wildly inefficient, charities just don't have that luxury. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all.
osamanobama said:
that doesnt even make any sense. thats one of the most misinformed non sensicle thing i have ever heard. 1) the tax cuts, which went to every american. is completely seperate from the SS fund, they arent even in the same pool, they could have cuts those taxes by 100% and SS wouldnt have been touched. 2) money from the supposed social security trust fund wouldnt/couldnt get deminished/spent by letting people keep their own money, that requires raiding it, like you said. it just make no sense what you said. money cant be spent from the fund, if they never had it in the first place. like kaz said, there is no fund, they pay people with iou's they spend the money they do get on frivalous spending projects, non sustanable programs. |
1. There were all around cuts, but do you really believe that a cut to capital gains tax would help the lower-middle income bracket? Last I saw, a lot of that bracket had trouble making ends meet, letalone having spare money to invest. Capital gains tax cuts are a tax cut especially for the rich in particular.
2. I think we're getting mixed up here. I'm not angry because government has control of social security. I'm angry because conservative politicians in particular are using the excuse to axe social security to get out of paying back what they owe. Personally, I think you guys would be better off with something like the Australian superannuation scheme, where the employer has to pay roughly 7% into a superannuation investor picked by the employee.
badgenome said:
Is big business lobbying for the end of social security? That's news to me. Big business seems quite happy with big government, and why not? According to the government, they're all "too big to fail." I'm really not sure why you think that, though. My salary is what is, and the cost to my employer is the same with or without social security. How much I actually take home just depends on how much the government deigns to let me keep after they finish rifling through my pockets. |
Big business is interested in big government only if it benefits them (ie. Oil subsidies, Bank bailouts). Anything else is regarded as money that they COULD get.
| fordy said:
|
Agreed there, and big government does benefit big business. Every bit of regulation that has been advertised as being the thing that will finally reign in the excesses of eeeeeeeeeevil big business has only turned out to be burdensome to small businesses who can't afford to hire the lobbyists who help to craft said regulations.
I still don't understand why you think getting rid of social security would put money in anyone's pocket, though. Whenever I make X amount of dollars, the government takes a portion of that and promises to give it back to me later when I'm all growed up. How would my employer justify pocketing that money if social security were suddenly ended? This sounds like the logic behind minimum wage laws being stretched to its breaking point.
Thats ridiculous, when there is a good welfare system there is actually less looting. Most people on welfare arent functional in the society to begin with. If you stop supporting others that doesnt have the same capability, they will have to find other way to survive. Anyway, it cost more to keep someone in prison then on walfare, we would need dead penalty for it to make monetary sense, let alone moral sense.
"With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes."
LOL, thats what you call quick to the conclusion.
badgenome said:
Agreed there, and big government does benefit big business. Every bit of regulation that has been advertised as being the thing that will finally reign in the excesses of eeeeeeeeeevil big business has only turned out to be burdensome to small businesses who can't afford to hire the lobbyists who help to craft said regulations. I still don't understand why you think getting rid of social security would put money in anyone's pocket, though. Whenever I make X amount of dollars, the government takes a portion of that and promises to give it back to me later when I'm all growed up. How would my employer justify pocketing that money if social security were suddenly ended? This sounds like the logic behind minimum wage laws being stretched to its breaking point. |
Any suprise that they want minimum wage laws to be abolished too? Unless something replaces the cutting of social security, such as superannuation, then the move back will be subtle. After all, employees take more notice of their wage changing than any taxes changing. Generally, if complaints are made about taxes raised, it's generally noticed because of a wage drop. Same goes the other way.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
