Political Crossfire Forums

[Brooklyn]

Quote: A Ponzi scheme is a situation where investors pay into an "investment" in which a portion of the money is used to pay investment "returns" and the rest is stolen.

This is exactly what social security is. The first group of investors are paid by the second group. The second group is paid by the third and so on.

As long as the pyramid keeps getting wider as we go along, the program works. However, the social security pyramid is getting more and more narrow every generation.

[Iriemon]

pyrophasma wrote: And at what point does this distribution go from being just, to unjust? We could bring up the standard of living of a good number of Africans, who are starving. Sure, we might lose our house, decent car, and other nice things like TV and internet access to afford the tax bill, but look at them over there, they're starving and dying of common diseases.

If the principle itself, taking money from one to give to another is justified, at what point, if ever, is it not justified?

Could they justifiably tax someone into the poorhouse, so long as it saved a life of someone else?

Would you ditch your standard of living for someone? Have you?

You raise a lot of questions on a lot of levels. What is just or justified is a subjective matter. If you are asking what the Govt can do, it can do just about whatever its elective representatives or the people vote that it do. Certainly it can raise taxes (the top tax rate was 90% in the 50s and 70% in the 60s and 70s) and use the money to prevent people from dying and starving, sure.

If you are asking my opinion on these subjective questions, I believe we can afford to provide a basic safety net of social insurance so that old/disabled/survivors aren't thrown into the streets at a reasonable level of taxation. I think it should, because I think society benefits from not having hordes of homeless crones living under freeway. IMO Govt should not provide benefits beyond a basic sustenance level of living to those who need it. I am against taxes being higher than necessary, and if you provide too luxurious of benefits you remove incentive for people to save (or work) for their own benefits. I don't see why the Govt should be making these payments to people who clearly don't need them.

I don't think we owe these benefits to all mankind. I do think it benefits our country to provide some level of foreign aid.

[Iriemon]

LeopardPM wrote: Iriemon wrote: pyrophasma wrote: I can't believe that in my country there are people who would think for a second that S.S. is anything other than a scam.

If I am the prime benefactor of S.S., why is the government so intent on not letting me keep my money for myself, and plan my retirement how I choose?

Some might say something along the lines of 'Well, if you are stupid and don't have a retirement plan, you will burden our welfare services.'

So, in order to cover for and protect one faulty, scandalous sytem, they must create and perpetuate another equally faulty, scandalous sytem. And so it goes.

You are not the prime benefactor of SS. What gave you that idea? If you die before the retirement age you benefit nothing.

Social security is social insurance in which the prime benefactor is society. Namely, we get to live in a society where we don't have to deal with hordes of decrepid old folks or the infirm living under freeways and begging at stoplights.

are you insinuating that this was the case BEFORE social security? you are wrong if that is what you think.

According to this source, in 1997 nearly half of all elderly people — 47.6 percent —had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits.
http://www.cbpp.org/4-8-99socsec.htm

Elderly poverty in the U.S. decreased dramatically during the twentieth century. Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent, and research has documented similarly steep declines dating back to at least 1939.

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04/w10466.html

The best estimates are that in 1934 over half of the elderly in America lacked sufficient income to be self-supporting. Despite this, state welfare pensions for the elderly were practically non-existent before 1930
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

[Iriemon]

Brooklyn wrote: Quote: A Ponzi scheme is a situation where investors pay into an "investment" in which a portion of the money is used to pay investment "returns" and the rest is stolen.

This is exactly what social security is. The first group of investors are paid by the second group. The second group is paid by the third and so on.

As long as the pyramid keeps getting wider as we go along, the program works. However, the social security pyramid is getting more and more narrow every generation.

This is a long term known problem and the reason why SS taxes were increased in '83, to build up a trust fund to cover the cost of the baby boom demographic. These extra taxes have generated almost $2 trillion in extra revenues since the mid-80s. Unfortunately, and scandalously IMO, those funds have been stolen by the Govt to cover the costs of the huge deficits the Govt has run for most of the past 20 years.

There are no "investors" in SS. It is not an investment or savings plan, it is social insurance.

But otherwise you are correct, because of the aging demographic, either taxes will be raised or benefits reduced or both.

[pyrophasma]

So its justified to take money from Joe for Paul, as long as Paul is an American citizen, and as long as it is only enough to cover basic necessities.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

pyrophasma wrote: So its justified to take money from Joe for Paul, as long as Paul is an American citizen, and as long as it is only enough to cover basic necessities.

No. Theft is unjustifyable under any circumstance.

George Bernard Shaw wrote: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

[Iriemon]

pyrophasma wrote: So its justified to take money from Joe for Paul, as long as Paul is an American citizen, and as long as it is only enough to cover basic necessities.

In my opinion, and assuming Paul is an elderly or disabled person, yep. I think its better than the alternative of having a few million 85 year old Pauls and Janes living in the streets and hobbling up to your car at stoplights begging for food and money.

When you are talking about young healthy people, its a different issue, IMO.

[Iriemon]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: pyrophasma wrote: So its justified to take money from Joe for Paul, as long as Paul is an American citizen, and as long as it is only enough to cover basic necessities.

No. Theft is unjustifyable under any circumstance.

Taxes are not the same as theft. It's like dues for a club. You generally don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to be part of the American club and give up your citizenship and move away. Though in another post someone pointed out that in certain limited circumstances, you may owe taxes if even if you leave, which I thought was a little troubling and closer to theft.

But if you want to be part of the club, you have to pay the dues. But that's not theft.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: pyrophasma wrote: So its justified to take money from Joe for Paul, as long as Paul is an American citizen, and as long as it is only enough to cover basic necessities.

No. Theft is unjustifyable under any circumstance.

Taxes are not the same as theft. It's like dues for a club. You generally don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to be part of the American club and give up your citizenship and move away. Though in another post someone pointed out that in certain limited circumstances, you may owe taxes if even if you leave, which I thought was a little troubling and closer to theft.

But if you want to be part of the club, you have to pay the dues. But that's not theft.

The State != a club. A club is a voluntary organization and you can leave at any time (a club doesn't commit mass murder as well). I never consented to the taxes that were taken from me, I don't know about you but anything that is taken without consent is theft. And just because I live here means jack s**t, I still never consented to taxes because I live here.

[pyrophasma]

Ok, so you go from saying its justified, to it isn't, to it is but under certain conditions, to saying it's not justified, it's just what you gotta do to be in the club.

Well, I was born in this club. It's mine, and we will see an end to S.S., and other things, in my lifetime.

Then, if the 'millions of homeless crones' you assume will crop up bother you, you can sell everything you own to help ease their burden.

It will be GG

[Gus]

Helping those truly in need is a noble thing to do. Invoking force upon others to do so...nullifies that nobility, in my opinion. I don't understand why some people feel obligated to point guns around to get people to do "noble" things...neither the gun-pointing nor the forced charity are noble in that case.

[Iriemon]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: pyrophasma wrote: So its justified to take money from Joe for Paul, as long as Paul is an American citizen, and as long as it is only enough to cover basic necessities.

No. Theft is unjustifyable under any circumstance.

Taxes are not the same as theft. It's like dues for a club. You generally don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to be part of the American club and give up your citizenship and move away. Though in another post someone pointed out that in certain limited circumstances, you may owe taxes if even if you leave, which I thought was a little troubling and closer to theft.

But if you want to be part of the club, you have to pay the dues. But that's not theft.

The State != a club. A club is a voluntary organization and you can leave at any time (a club doesn't commit mass murder as well). I never consented to the taxes that were taken from me, I don't know about you but anything that is taken without consent is theft. And just because I live here means jack s**t, I still never consented to taxes because I live here.

Are you arguing that you cannot leave the club US at any time and that you are involuntarily detained in the US? This isn't the Soviety Union. I disagree with your point on consent. By living in the US and being an American you are implicitly consenting to abide by its laws and pay taxes, or suffer the consequences. You generally don't have to pay US taxes if you leave the country, with some exceptions.

[Iriemon]

pyrophasma wrote: Ok, so you go from saying its justified, to it isn't, to it is but under certain conditions, to saying it's not justified, it's just what you gotta do to be in the club.

Yeah, in my opinions a tax to provide for social insurance is justified up to a point, beyond that in my opinion it is not "justified." That is my opinion, is there something I was unclear about?

Quote: Well, I was born in this club. It's mine, and we will see an end to S.S., and other things, in my lifetime.

Well, pursuant to the rules of the club, SS can be eliminated if that is what most of the members of the club wants, sure. I don't know how old you are, but IMO it is very unlikely the baby boomers will vote to eliminate their retirement benefits.

Quote: Then, if the 'millions of homeless crones' you assume will crop up bother you, you can sell everything you own to help ease their burden. I do give to charitable organizations, but I'll decline to liquidate my assets. It wouldn't fund SS anyway.

[Iriemon]

Gus wrote: Helping those truly in need is a noble thing to do. Invoking force upon others to do so...nullifies that nobility, in my opinion. I don't understand why some people feel obligated to point guns around to get people to do "noble" things...neither the gun-pointing nor the forced charity are noble in that case.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Whether social insurance that keeps crones and the infirm off the streets is noble or not is a matter of opinion, I generally support it (though I'd certainly make changes to it if I had my druthers) for the less noble reason that I don't want to live in a country like that.

[LeopardPM]

Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: pyrophasma wrote: So its justified to take money from Joe for Paul, as long as Paul is an American citizen, and as long as it is only enough to cover basic necessities.

No. Theft is unjustifyable under any circumstance.

Taxes are not the same as theft. It's like dues for a club. You generally don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to be part of the American club and give up your citizenship and move away. Though in another post someone pointed out that in certain limited circumstances, you may owe taxes if even if you leave, which I thought was a little troubling and closer to theft.

But if you want to be part of the club, you have to pay the dues. But that's not theft.
fine - go participating in the government or from government services are then voluntary and I can stop, or withdraw my consent, at anytime, right? Not true, because the government does not allow us to actually own the property we live on, it is part of 'the united states' and we all rent our property from government. Erradicate property taxation, make all taxation voluntary, and I will (with others) provide the same services more efficiently and less costly than government does.

[Katsumoto]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: I support ending Social Security altogether.

[LeopardPM]

I support ending government altogether, ending social security would just be a good step along the way to this paradise.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: pyrophasma wrote: So its justified to take money from Joe for Paul, as long as Paul is an American citizen, and as long as it is only enough to cover basic necessities.

No. Theft is unjustifyable under any circumstance.

Taxes are not the same as theft. It's like dues for a club. You generally don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to be part of the American club and give up your citizenship and move away. Though in another post someone pointed out that in certain limited circumstances, you may owe taxes if even if you leave, which I thought was a little troubling and closer to theft.

But if you want to be part of the club, you have to pay the dues. But that's not theft.

The State != a club. A club is a voluntary organization and you can leave at any time (a club doesn't commit mass murder as well). I never consented to the taxes that were taken from me, I don't know about you but anything that is taken without consent is theft. And just because I live here means jack s**t, I still never consented to taxes because I live here.

Are you arguing that you cannot leave the club US at any time and that you are involuntarily detained in the US? This isn't the Soviety Union. I disagree with your point on consent. By living in the US and being an American you are implicitly consenting to abide by its laws and pay taxes, or suffer the consequences. You generally don't have to pay US taxes if you leave the country, with some exceptions.

When I said "leave" I ment secede, and the government thinks it owns my property anyway.

How does living here mean I consent to the government? Is it because of the social "contract"?

[Iriemon]

LeopardPM wrote: Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: pyrophasma wrote: So its justified to take money from Joe for Paul, as long as Paul is an American citizen, and as long as it is only enough to cover basic necessities.

No. Theft is unjustifyable under any circumstance.

Taxes are not the same as theft. It's like dues for a club. You generally don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to be part of the American club and give up your citizenship and move away. Though in another post someone pointed out that in certain limited circumstances, you may owe taxes if even if you leave, which I thought was a little troubling and closer to theft.

But if you want to be part of the club, you have to pay the dues. But that's not theft.
fine - go participating in the government or from government services are then voluntary and I can stop, or withdraw my consent, at anytime, right? Not true, because the government does not allow us to actually own the property we live on, it is part of 'the united states' and we all rent our property from government.

How does it make that not true. No one is forcing you to "rent" property from this government.

Quote: Erradicate property taxation, make all taxation voluntary, and I will (with others) provide the same services more efficiently and less costly than government does.

Dubious proposition, IMO.

[Iriemon]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Iriemon wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: pyrophasma wrote: So its justified to take money from Joe for Paul, as long as Paul is an American citizen, and as long as it is only enough to cover basic necessities.

No. Theft is unjustifyable under any circumstance.

Taxes are not the same as theft. It's like dues for a club. You generally don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to be part of the American club and give up your citizenship and move away. Though in another post someone pointed out that in certain limited circumstances, you may owe taxes if even if you leave, which I thought was a little troubling and closer to theft.

But if you want to be part of the club, you have to pay the dues. But that's not theft.

The State != a club. A club is a voluntary organization and you can leave at any time (a club doesn't commit mass murder as well). I never consented to the taxes that were taken from me, I don't know about you but anything that is taken without consent is theft. And just because I live here means jack s**t, I still never consented to taxes because I live here.

Are you arguing that you cannot leave the club US at any time and that you are involuntarily detained in the US? This isn't the Soviety Union. I disagree with your point on consent. By living in the US and being an American you are implicitly consenting to abide by its laws and pay taxes, or suffer the consequences. You generally don't have to pay US taxes if you leave the country, with some exceptions.

When I said "leave" I ment secede, and the government thinks it owns my property anyway.

How does living here mean I consent to the government? Is it because of the social "contract"?

Whatever you want to call it. I am pointing out why IMO taxes are not the same as theft. Theft is an involutary parting of property. You generally only have to pay US taxes if you want to live in the US, be a US citizen, or earn money from US sources. Whether you do those things is a voluntary choice.