The Welfare state need to care for its elders as it does it's middlers and childer. The idea of a welfare state hinges on the idea that we should all work for each other, together, as a togetherhood. If you reject this cornerstone then you are rejecting the idea of a welfare state in itself. If you question why you should provide for grandma then you might as well start questioning why you should provide for anyone. It is at it's heart a selfish line of reasoning, that of a spoiled child - "I should receive, but I shouldn't have to give".
Originally social security was so that working grandma contributed to retired grandma. It was a time based wealth transfer but not a generational one. But naturally the government already wasted grandma's contribution so she needs to eat mom's contribution. Now mom is retired but her contribution went to grandma so she needs to eat our share. Assuming SS even exists when (if) I retire, I'd have to eat my children's contribution.
If you really wanted future generations to be better off, you wouldn't be sapping their incomes for right now. Spending that money right now, for yourself, is what is selfish here. Why should I give if what I receive may really not exist.
I've already explained before in the Ameripol thread, but the way social security is set up is essentially a reverse bracketed income tax. AKA the more money you make the less percentage of your income you pay. Its fundamentally stupid and it places undo burden on young people trying to start their lives. SS takes money the way almost every other welfare system in existence GIVES money.
Its also worth pointing out that the gap in life expectancy in the US between the richest and poorest people is ~10 years, meaning the average rich person will receive about twice the social security benefits as a poor person. The people who need help put more money in and get less money out. Well designed welfare system.
Although this is in comparison to a hypothetical actually good system, obviously SS is far superior to nothing. But the thing you have to understand is that almost all statistics on US federal spending will bundle in SS with welfare like food stamps. This lets Republicans keep their "the handouts are ruining the economy!" narrative, when in reality social security (which Republican politicians support in absolute terms) is 3/4s of that bundle.
Note that US unemployment is conditional and fairly short term. And I don't even know what the fuck "labor" expenses are, maybe the tiny portion of the budget OSHA takes? The reality is that SS is just a hair under a third of our mandatory spending (thus a quarter of our overall federal spending); our broken welfare and healthcare systems are the only things that can be legitimately blamed for our debt/deficit. But no clearly according to that chart the problem is unemployment payouts and... unions? Somehow.
Author
Topic: [MILK] There were 12 eggs here what did you do with them? (Happy thread?!) (Read 16285324 times)