Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

BUSINESSMEN ARE EATING BABIES

3 (7%)

I'm a socialist

5 (11.6%)

Businesses need heavier regulation, and social programs should be expanded

12 (27.9%)

Businesses need heavier regulation, but current social programs are too expensive

1 (2.3%)

Regulation is stifling growth, but we should expand social programs

1 (2.3%)

Regulation is stifling growth, and current social programs are too expensive.

4 (9.3%)

Regulation is stifling growth, but current social programs are working well.

0 (0%)

Current regulation is fine, but we should expand social programs.

0 (0%)

Current regulation is fine, but current social programs are too expensive.

2 (4.7%)

Businesses need heavier regulation, but current social programs are working well.

0 (0%)

Both current regulation and social programs are working fine.

2 (4.7%)

I'm a libertarian.

4 (9.3%)

I'm heavily conservative.

1 (2.3%)

LIBERALS ARE EATING BABIES

1 (2.3%)

I'm a communist

3 (7%)

I'm a fascist

4 (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 43

[Kearn]

poorly worded hilarity too intelligent/witty for dumb people to get

[Aqizzar]

my point was that heavy regulation strangles businesses

letting them go free is also a bad idea, but if you have to do so many things and spend so much money to fit into regulations so that you can finally start making money, you've almost certainly used up your money and are now bankrupt. in the rare event that you DO have money left, taxes will quickly remove that too

I'm not sure what economy you think you're describing, but let's give it a shot.  What counts as heavy regulation to you?  What would you call an optimal business tax?

[mainiac]

frankly, people who voted number 3 have little idea of how the economy works

if you regulate and tax businesses, there will be no incentive to start a business

how do you think large businesses start? they start off as single floor retail stores and they grow and expand

social programs are way too expensive. the USA spends 1.3 trillion in welfare programs each year and only rakes in 1.2 trillion in tax dollars

Frankly, you have no idea how numbers work.  Last year the US took in 2.1 trillion dollars in taxes and 'welfare' is nowhere near 1.3 trillion unless you are counting giving elderly people back the money they paid for with payroll taxes in the form of social security and Medicare as welfare.

[Kearn]

hilarity that dumb people dont understand

[Aqizzar]

many people who would normally keep working retire at the minimum age because they want free money from the government for doing nothing

I love the idea that paying into Social Security tax your entire life and then reaching 67 without being independently wealthy counts as "doing nothing".

[mainiac]

The average age was low because of high child mortality, which you would know if you were remotely interested in the program and not just spouting right wing talking points.  The average life expectancy of someone actually receiving social security was almost 80 for women and 78 for men.

But yeah, totally what you said, people dropped dead at the age of 66.  It's not like tiny adjustments in the structure of social security would fix the tiny gap that we have over a 70 year timeline.  No, let's just cut social security.

Oh, btw, if you opt into social security early, it pays less.  Nice talking point though.

Probably more stuff I missed, the entire post was nothing but a piss pile of blatant distortions.

[Ghills]

The average age was low because of high child mortality

True, but irrelevant - the average was much lower, and Social Security was designed on the (stupid, but these were politicians) assumption that that would not change.

  It's not like tiny adjustments in the structure of social security would fix the tiny gap that we have.

True, actually, although you were doubtless being sarcastic. We'd have to raise the Social Security age by quite a bit to balance the quite large gap. That would cause political havoc, which is why very few politician are willing to do it.  The other options are all equally painful.

many people who would normally keep working retire at the minimum age because they want free money from the government for doing nothing

I love the idea that paying into Social Security tax your entire life and then reaching 67 without being independently wealthy counts as "doing nothing".

You don't understand how Social Security works. You don't pay money into a savings account. It's a tax, which the government has declared it will send to people who have removed themselves (or been removed) from the workforce.  Does the government owe you something for taxes paid? That's kind of a libertarian position, you know.  Libertarians believe that people should own their property, and should get something in return for not having it. Welcome to the club!

Receiving money for not working is actually being paid for nothing.  And Social Security strongly reinforces removing yourself from the labor pool with limitations on who can receive it based on retirement income. This lowers productivity and harms the economy.

What we should be actually aiming for is awarding Social Security on a needs-only basis, and taking the cap off of what wages can be taxed by Social Security, since Social Security taxes are currently up there with sales taxes in being regressive.

[Zrk2]

Is this an economic debate without me? You guys... You should have called.

Anyway, woo libertarianism, I'm certain we all agree that we can't completely deregulate the economy because people are amoral and so there will always be those that will choose to act in an immoral fashion to achieve their goals, meaning that regulations is required to protect the rest of us from those who would use immoral means and shaft the rest of us.

Off to bed, don't get the thread locked in my absence.

[mainiac]

The average age was low because of high child mortality

True, but irrelevant - the average was much lower, and Social Security was designed on the (stupid, but these were politicians) assumption that that would not change.

Pray tell how does someone dying before either joining the workforce or reaching social security age affect the financial structure of social security?

You continue to post ignorance about social security.  You do not get it if you don't pay into it.  And no, it's not yours, it's shared with the country.  Because sharing the burdens make things easier for all involved.  There is a libertarian position, it's called the stock market.  And it sucks as a reliable way of retiring.

There is a position known as basic human decency.  It says that just because someone got unlucky doesn't mean they don't deserve a modicum of dignity in retirement.  This is why social security is a very popular program exactly for it's socialist tendencies.

And I will never, ever be a libertarian.  I am not a child who believes that it's unfair that I should have to share when I'm fortunate.

And also, the experts on social security, i.e. the people who dont post idiotic things like the life expectancy statistic, understand that the shortfall of security is pretty small and would be made much much worse by "privatization" schemes.

[knaveofstaves]

social security is a welfare program whose retirement age is far too early

many people who would normally keep working retire at the minimum age because they want free money from the government for doing nothing

when social security was made, the average age was only 1 year above the retirement age in the program

Social Security is not welfare.

(Yes, I know I've been ninja'd five times. But I provide links. )

Being poor doesn't give you the right to more benefits -- if you earn more when you work, you get more when you retire, though as a percentage of earnings lower earners receive higher benefits.

Social Security retirement age these days is 67. Depending on your profession, that might be early or it might not be, but unlike benefits, retirement age doesn't change depending on what you did -- a boy who dropped out of high school to work on a factory floor is treated the same as a college-graduate professional with lifelong desk jobs. And if you retire early (early being age 62 in this context), your benefits are reduced by 30 percent.

I don't really know what your last sentence means, but I think it has to do with life expectancy? If so, that number is misleading. People dying in infancy, who obviously never paid into Social Security, reduced the life expectancy number considerably when the Social Security Act was signed in 1935.

[_DivideByZero_]

I think the big issue with social security is mainly that the government takes money from people, spends it elsewhere, then borrows money to pay it back... it's a vicious cycle.

I voted 7 for the lulz but I do think that economic policies really need to change.
There are people (that I personally know) who make money by doing literally NOTHING! They get paid for having temporary injuries that keep them from doing work, yet they haven't been at their office for years on end! And now that they're fine and they've recovered and are regularly doing heavy lifting around the house, they still get to sit in their homes being paid for doing absolutely positively nothing. These kinds of people are the people we need to deal with. We can't have people sitting in their homes, leeching off the state, being paid more than others for coming to work occasionally once a week.
There are even teachers at my own school who barely do their jobs. Half the class is failing (I'm not one of them) and the teacher still isn't fired... I don't know what's wrong with our district but we're still paying the government to keep these people in their positions.
That said, this is all from my experience. I'm probably too young to understand economics anyhow, but from what I've seen I think our (the U.S.) government is killing itself by rewarding those who can't work and neglecting those who can. We simply give too many benefits to people who leech off the government. Social security is okay, but what about the people who never earn the money in the first place?

The solution is not to funnel money into the hands of those who don't work, but to encourage them to work. There are many people with a job whose work barely passes off as acceptable. There are people who live off unemployment benefits. The solution is not to let these people continue their 'way of life' but rather make them contribute to society and support themselves.
Some people I know make more money from unemployment benefits than from a real job! I understand it's not always their fault they're unemployed, but if we let the unemployed stay unemployed, where will we find jobs for them? Minimum wage is also an issue. In many states, minimum wage is high enough that people working at the minimum wage are often fired simply because they're not worth paying. If the minimum wage was lower, more people could be hired, letting those who want to move up... well... move up.

There will always be people who can't work. But there are also people who can but don't want to. There is a difference.

[mainiac]

Some things to consider:
Unemployment benefits have an expiration date.  They are also contingent upon you having paid payroll taxes in the past and are indexed to your previous salary.
The minimum wage is quite low.  Someone making minimum wage, working full time and working 50 weeks a year is pulling in a measly 14.5k a year.  Try coming up with a budget that accounts for housing, transportation and food under 14.5 k.  Then try to add on things like electricity, cellphone (try keeping a job without one), car repairs, medical expenses, emergencies and try to keep it under 14.5k.
Yeah, we are in a deficit.  But we were in a surplus back in the 90s (thanks to the 1993 tax hike).  Most of our debt is because of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, without those and the wars we wouldn't have much debt at all.  Most of our current deficit is because of the tax cuts and because the recession lead to falling government revenues.  Our long term situation isn't intractable.  There's a reason why the US treasury bond is considered the most safe investment in the world.

[Phmcw]

I think the big issue with social security is mainly that the government takes money from people, spends it elsewhere, then borrows money to pay it back... it's a vicious cycle.

Could you explain me why the government have to borrow to pay back money that he had?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

There are people (that I personally know) who make money by doing literally NOTHING!

Yes, that why you must tax income, else there would be a fuckton of poeple that'd live of someone else's work.

There are even teachers at my own school who barely do their jobs. Half the class is failing (I'm not one of them) and the teacher still isn't fired... I don't know what's wrong with our district but we're still paying the government to keep these people in their positions.

Maybe pay them a little more? That way teacher wouldn't be a dead end job for poeple without career perspective.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

There will always be people who can't work. But there are also people who can but don't want to. There is a difference.

Yeah, and you'll penalize everyone to create crappy, below minimum wage jobs. Don't come crying because your children have been murdered for their lunch money. You'll be responsible. You created a society where it's "find money or die".
And you know what? Exploiting someone without paying him BELGIAN  minimum wage (1,415.24 euros) is not acceptable, because you use him,  but don' allow him to live decently.

Don't even begin with "but those who want to work..." those who want to work , in civilized country, have access to continued education, and free formations if they are unemployed.
There you'll come with "so we have to pay form their unemployment AND for their education. We'll go bankrupt before then end of the week". And There  reply : that's the way it work in a lot of country, and they are not bankrupt. At least not more than the US.

Libertarian crap in the US is just a way to attack the US society so that insanely wealthy people can gain yet more power, and nothing else. It have no basis in mathematics or social sciences altogether. If you had some, you'd know it.

[Reelyanoob]

I like this poll idea, but think the linear spectrum is way to limiting in options - it's a multi-polar world and one theory being wrong doesn't make the "opposite" theory true. (taking data from CIA world fact book, unless noted).

e.g take the socialism = big spending government idea

total govt spending: USA =~ 40% of GDP, Colombia =~ 30% GDP, Venezuela =~ 20% of GDP
military spending: USA - 4.06% of GDP, Colombia =~ 3.4% of GDP, Venezuela =~ 1.2% of GDP

France and Britain's governments spend 50% GDP and I don't think labelling them as communist countries is a worthwhile dialogue.

The big money payouts under the capitalist framework is to subsidize basic life in the face of rampant price rises deregulated big business. The health system is the primary culprit in the USA.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Total US federal liabilities for Prescription Medicines and Medicare currently are about $100 trillion which is $20 trillion greater than the combined assets of every US citizen and corporation combined. Be aware this is not the total costs, only the "unfunded" liabilities, e.g. not taking into account what's been paid out or budgeted for, so the real payouts/costs are higher.

This is a cost to all taxpayers, yet most people can't get into a hospital without purchasing additional health cover. I mean WTF! I'm Australian, we pay less tax than you guys, and get to go the hospital.. Hell, Venezuelans pay even less overall tax (both as % and total) than we do and get to go to hospital. (our government spends about 35% of GDP, way higher than Venezuela's 20%)

[Vector]

I'm a heterosexual white male in his late twenties who lives in America.

Someone must have forgotten to tell me where my free money is...?

What's the difference between a doctor of mathematics and a large pizza?

The pizza can feed a family of four.

Should've gotten an MBA, bro.  Should've gotten an MBA.