 |
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
There is a simple alternative to paying for social security.
Leave.
Find somewhere else to live where you will not have to endure this hell.
Or, vote for a party that will get rid of it. Change the system from within! If there isn't such a party right now : create one!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:23
|
|
The original idea has been demolished fairly well already but I would just like to chime in
1. The biggest flaw is the fact that the proposal only applies to mortgage interest so only homeowners are paying in-- Why not my student loan ?? Or even my investment loan?
2. If the government were lending at market rates under this program and then allocating half to social security and half to admin, there is a huge cost to this( apart from the amounts wasted on admin)-- . . . Government, believe it or not does not have a limitless pot of money, and giving it away in what are essentially interest free loans, means that government is paying for social security . . . But if you want to do that, why not just be honest about it and simply allocate additional general revenue to the SS fund and avoid the administration hassles
3. If it were this easy, could not government fund a whole bunch of things by lending money interest free ?? Have a problem with education funding ?? here, we will lend you a billion dollars -- you pay us back over 20-25 years with no interest-- The problem is the time value of money -- there is an inherent cost in lending money and getting no interest on it . . . If such a program existed, every sharp operator would borrow as much as possible and make money on the interest bearing investments they used the funds for. I know that you were not proposing interest-free loans to the consumer, merely loans that would garner no interest to the lender, which IMHO is worse, given the proposal that half would go to administer the program
The end result would be a bloated agency to adminster a program in which all that is happening is the government is investing its own money in social security through a complicated mechanism.
Much simpler would be to calculate the amount that such a scheme would cost and invest it directly in SS . . . people would pay exactly the same interest on their loans, the government would pay the exact same amount as a result and MORE of it would end up in the SS fund since admin costs are avoided entirely
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We have the same problem in Canada with the pension programs in that it is getting increasingly costly to fund an aging population-- But the issue arises with respect to many other things ( like our health care programs)-- What do you do when a large segment of your population have not taken adequate financial measures to provide for themselves ??
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
The YOUNG rich are the lazy ones because thier parents give them money while we have to work our buts off and get only 6 hours of sleep to pay for college. As my parents say, when the republicans are in power the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. |
Are these the same parents who have managed their finances so poorly that you are placed at a competitive disadvantage to your peers? Why are you listening to their advice, you should be listening to the parents of those young rich kids you envy. At least they were successful enough to give their children a good nights sleep for their college years instead of a chip on their shoulder.
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
If you want good goverment service you have to pay taxes, thats the way it is. (and apparenly libertarians have no concept of reality, they are stuck in this free market delusion.  )
|
I don't want government services at all in a vast majority of my life. Enforce the laws, protect the borders, and protect the rights of the citizens are plenty to do. I'll take care of myself thank you, and help my friends and family when they need it. I've already been doing this for years. If a fair chunk of the tax burden that I have to carry for all of the government programs that I will never use (even if I have qualified for them) was lifted I would be well on my way to a life of philanthropy now, instead of still slaving away trying to make sure that I'll be alright whether or not I ever collect SS while paying for it through the nose.
As for the free market delusion, it's pretty persuasive. In time you will probably realize the extreme limitation of your current zero sum view of economics. Suffice it to say that those rich kids you hate are not making you poor, in fact they are making you wealthier than you would otherwise be. While it is good to teach your children the value of hard work, I don't think that this is a value that accrues only to the children of of 'honest' blue-collar workers. Meanwhile, everyone would be better off getting a full nights sleep before class.
I also think that we are all richer when we all produce, and we are all poorer when we fight over what is produced. A gang of punks can certainly take over a neighborhood by force, but they can only steal what is already lying around. They will not be able to produce a fraction of what the people who have fled could (before they were forced to leave because someone was stealing all of the fruits of their labor). IMO this is where the "politics of envy" (TM Republican Party) leads us. You are better off investing your time and effort producing wealth rather than fighting tooth and nail in the hopes of redistributing someone elses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caligastia
Does everyone here believe that the rich are all lazy slobs who didnt earn, and don't deserve their money, and that the poor are all hardworking people who just get screwed by the Man? |
I don't. There are people getting loads of money without putting much effort in it, while others are exhausting themselves to barely survive. OTOH there are other people who exhaust themselves to get loads of money (that they deserve), and there are poor people who're poor because they are lazy slobs.
BUT, what I've seen with experience, is that you don't have to put the same motivation to get a good social situation (and loads of money) depending where in the society you come from.
A child of a rich family will go to a good school in all cases, and will have good opportunities in the career, except if he is especially pathetic and unskilled.
A child of a poor family won't go to good schools, and won't have a top-notch carreer (partly because of his lack of education), except if he is exceptionnaly gifted and skilled.
Wait, I may be wrong 
SO, I don't think all rich are slobs, or all poor are hardworking, nor do I think the opposite (I leave this kind of stupidity to David Floyd). What I think is that the birth has an incredible influence on the career and wealth of the regular person.
The consequence is simple : I think poverty and wealth are mostly undeserved, even if the exceptional people deserve what they get. And because I think a civilized society should fight against birth selection, I'm all for taxes, social security, whatchacallit. In general, I'm for an institutionalized and state-wide form of solidarity.
You may ask : "Why aren't you for a personal solidarity instead ?". It's simple : when you belong to a social category, you have a good chance to know almost only people from this category. Executives know other executives since College ; Computer engineers work almost only with other Computer engineers. Rich people tend to send their children in schools filled with other rich children, and they are likely to go to vacation where other rich people go (because they simply can afford the better quality).
SO, since the acquaintances are generally from the same social class, even though anybody knows some people from another class, the financial help you can hope will change drastically depending on what social class you belong.
Since the social class is mostly determined by birth, the "solidarity income" you could hope for is also mostly determined by birth. With a statewide institutionalized solidarity, you get ca. as much wheter you're rich or poor, which is normal IMO, because the immense majority of rich and poor people do NOT deserve their fortune or misfortune.
PS : I'm expecting comments like quote:
Your reasoning is flawed. I have a millionaire friend who has working-poor parents. And even if I come from an upper-class family, I do know workers, duh. |
I don't say my theory applies to everybody. In fact, it fits perfectly to no one. I'm just saying birth is the most influencial parameter which will explain someone's fortune. I'm not talking about exceptions here like Bill Gates or George Soros, I'm talking about the ordinary person, who has a normal willingness to work to earn money.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
BUT, what I've seen with experience, is that you don't have to put the same motivation to get a good social situation (and loads of money) depending where in the society you come from. |
Rich kids still have to do just as much studying and schoolwork as anyone else, they just don't have the financial burden.
quote:
A child of a poor family won't go to good schools |
Not true. It depends on whether the public schools in their area are any good.
quote:
the immense majority of rich and poor people do NOT deserve their fortune or misfortune. |
I totally disagree. Do you have any facts to back that statement up with?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caligastia
Rich kids still have to do just as much studying and schoolwork as anyone else, they just don't have the financial burden. |
True. But even if the financial burden is a big deal, it isn't the most significant part of the inequality before schooling between rich and poor. AFAIK, the rich people who send their kids to expensive schools deem them better than public schools. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
This statement is probably true in most cases. Hence, rich kids generally go to school where they get a better education. If you remember the difference between a good and bad teachers, you know how significant the difference is (a better schooling doesn't only mean better teachers, but also a better environment for learning, including having mates who think studies are important).
quote:
Not true. It depends on whether the public schools in their area are any good. |
Right. I've expressed myself badly, I meant 'not-as-good schools' (they can range from good to awful, but remain below private schools, otherwise these private schools wouldn't exist).
quote:
I totally disagree. Do you have any facts to back that statement up with? |
Absolutely not, nor you have any fact proving the opposite, since the very notion of deserving is a subjective one 
However, I admit I also expressed myself poorly here. To be more precise, I don't think rich people are lazy (except some rare exceptions whom I don't want to take into account), and I don't think poor people are extremely hardworking, except some less-rare exceptions.
I believe most people who make a living work diligently for it. What I don't believe (and if you read my previous post you'll understand why) is that rich people are inherently more hardworking than poor people, and vice versa.
For the majority of people, i.e those who aren't exceptionnaly bright or dumb, the most important explanation to your class-belonging is birth and its followings. It is not the only explanation factor, but only the most important one.
The consequence is that most people do NOT deserve the class to which they belong. Now there are variations within a class : a rather hardworking worker will make more money than an unmotivated worker (and will deserve it), and an bright executive will have much more success than the standard trade-school graduate who went there because Dad really insisted (he'll also deserve it).
However, with the same motivation to do the job, you'll notice the unmotivated worker gets much less money than the guy who came from the trade-school. THAT is what I call not deserving
You could say : "this worker should have done some good studies, and he wouldn't be getting so little money now", which would be right. However, when you look at the population of a school of this kind, you'll notice there are less than 5% of students who come from the working class, and these people are extremely motivated.
Let me ask you this question : do you think people born from the working class are generally more lazy and stupid than the people coming from the middle/upper class ? Or do you think the social origin plays a significant role in education, and then carreer and income ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Absolutely not, nor you have any fact proving the opposite, since the very notion of deserving is a subjective one |
Then its total speculation.
quote:
I believe most people who make a living work diligently for it. What I don't believe (and if you read my previous post you'll understand why) is that rich people are inherently more hardworking than poor people, and vice versa. |
I think you would find that rich people are generally more hardworking and intelligent than poor people. Sure, there are some who are not, but there are always exceptions to the rule.
quote:
For the majority of people, i.e those who aren't exceptionnaly bright or dumb, the most important explanation to your class-belonging is birth and its followings. It is not the only explanation factor, but only the most important one. |
It depends which stage of their life they are in.
quote:
The consequence is that most people do NOT deserve the class to which they belong. |
Thats a pretty vague statement. Its like saying that most people do not deserve the eye color they are born with. You can't control who is born into which class, any more than you can control what color your eyes will be.
quote:
Now there are variations within a class : a rather hardworking worker will make more money than an unmotivated worker (and will deserve it), and an bright executive will have much more success than the standard trade-school graduate who went there because Dad really insisted (he'll also deserve it).
However, with the same motivation to do the job, you'll notice the unmotivated worker gets much less money than the guy who came from the trade-school. THAT is what I call not deserving |
I'm not following you. Are you saying the unmotivated worker is undeserving? If so I agree.
quote:
You could say : "this worker should have done some good studies, and he wouldn't be getting so little money now", which would be right. However, when you look at the population of a school of this kind, you'll notice there are less than 5% of students who come from the working class, and these people are extremely motivated. |
Now you seem to be saying that the working class is extremely motivated.
quote:
Let me ask you this question : do you think people born from the working class are generally more lazy and stupid than the people coming from the middle/upper class ? Or do you think the social origin plays a significant role in education, and then carreer and income ? |
Of course social origin plays a significant role, but in the long term I believe that a good genetic inheritance can overcome these handicaps.
"While a good environment cannot contribute much toward really overcoming the character handicaps of a base heredity, a bad environment can very effectively spoil an excellent inheritance, at least during the younger years of life. Good social environment and proper education are indispensable soil and atmosphere for getting the most out of a good inheritance."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
Clarification of previous, badly worded statements :
quote:
Originally posted by Caligastia
I'm not following you. Are you saying the unmotivated worker is undeserving? If so I agree. |
Not quite. I compared 2 unmotivated people : one being a worker who doesn't do more than he's ordered, and the other one being a graduate from a trade-school, only because Dad really insisted.
These people deserve not to earn as much as hardworking people within their class. BUT, the unmotivated worker doesn't deserve to earn less than the unmotivated exec, even though he DOES earn less. In this comparison, either the worker didn't deserve to be poorer, or the exec didn't deserve to be richer.
quote:
Now you seem to be saying that the working class is extremely motivated. |
No, I am talking about the very few individual students in trade-schools who were born in the working class. All these particular students are exceptionnaly motivated, and had to fight against the odds to enter in this kind of place.
I'm not saying the working class is motivated or unmotivated as a whole, because motivation is mostly an individual matter (even if your social environment shape it partly).
However, I am saying that you absolutely don't need the same motivation to enter an excellent school or an excellent carreer depending where you come from. When you had luck with your birth, an average motivation will lead you to a situation an average person-who-hadn't-the-same-luck-at-birth could never reach.
When I say "birth", I mean "Birth and all its followings, i.e education, acquaintances & relations, financial pressure etc."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Not quite. I compared 2 unmotivated people : one being a worker who doesn't do more than he's ordered, and the other one being a graduate from a trade-school, only because Dad really insisted.
These people deserve not to earn as much as hardworking people within their class. BUT, the unmotivated worker doesn't deserve to earn less than the unmotivated exec, even though he DOES earn less. In this comparison, either the worker didn't deserve to be poorer, or the exec didn't deserve to be richer. |
Look at it this way: Don't the parents of the exec deserve to spend the money they earned on their child? If the child chooses to be slothful and waste its opportunities then what can you do? The parents did their best.
quote:
No, I am talking about the very few individual students in trade-schools who were born in the working class. All these particular students are exceptionnaly motivated, and had to fight against the odds to enter in this kind of place. |
I get the feeling that a "trade school" means something different to me than it does to you. When I think of a "trade school" I think of a school that teaches things like welding, auto mechanics and carpentry. This kind of school would have almost 100% working class students.
quote:
However, I am saying that you absolutely don't need the same motivation to enter an excellent school or an excellent carreer depending where you come from. When you had luck with your birth, an average motivation will lead you to a situation an average person-who-hadn't-the-same-luck-at-birth could never reach. |
That's just the way it goes. How are you going to change it? If you work hard and earn a lot of money from that, why shouldn't you be able to spend that money on your children?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Wrong, it also helps those who had an accident in their life which required enormous money, those who have been crooked by corporate America and the likes (are all those poor buggers who have been fecked by Enron stupid ? I don't think so), those who'd have invested money in a bad investment, those who spend too much money for the good of their children, etc. etc.
Plus, I don't think the people not articulate with investment and long-term placing should die from poverty once they reach old age. But that is purely ideological, I understand you think otherwise as a member of the AECCP. |
I think you are confusing SS with unemployment benefits and nationalised health.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Brow
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
quote:
David, are you saying that a senior who can't pay for thier medicine is greedy! |
Yes, they are greedy in that they see what someone else has and determine to take it through force. That's an example of greed, in my opinion.
In retrospect, though, greed might not be the right word. Theft is much more like it. |
Another example of greed is the determination that legal taxation needed to establish minimal standards of living is the same thing as theft.
quote:
I have grandparents too, but I don't use them as an excuse for Social Security. If you care about your grandmother that much, you'll help her out - that's what family is for. |
What is your recommendation to those people who only had children with Down's Syndrome or autism, those grandparents whose adult children were killed in foreign wars, etc. ? Starvation?
quote:
quote:
How is it fair that the rich don't help people who need the money the most. |
It's fair because they worked hard and earned the money, and now it is theirs. It's wrong to force them to give it up, although there are many examples of rich people giving greatly to charitable causes. |
This is complete, unadulterated manure. You have completely ignored that the rich have been given the opportunity to create/maintain their wealth at the sufferance of the poor, by having the poor buy into the artificial system that allowed them to become rich. The poor are ust as responsible for the opportunities the rich receive as are the rich themselves.
For example, land ownership is an arttificial system. If the poor chose to disregard the concept of land ownership, then real estate would have no value, and there would be no wealth attached to land. It is the fact that the poor accept the concept of ownership of land that allows the rich to own land. Taking some of the value of this artificial construct and returning it to the people who enable it in the first place is much like paying a royalty fee. The same applies to income and capital gains taxes. Paying taxes is the price you pay for having the poor accept the entire system of wealth and income.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-11-2002 17:18
Lazy
). I mean management-school, commerce schools, MBA etc. The kind of place where you learn to be an executive or a director.
|