the faux-choice movement

[corplinx]

There have been a few articles recently about Bush not being a limited government type and instead being for more choices.

Medicare:
Pick the gubment or a private plan? Optional special savings account.

Soc. Sec:
You get a choice for the government plan or having your own optional retirement savings account.

Schools:
get a voucher and use it at a government or private school

Now, choice sounds good. Choice is more politically expedient than real reform. Instead of fixing a broken program, you add alternatives.

However, I will contend that there is no such thing as choice and long as there is no way to opt-out entirely. How about letting me not pay any social security or medicare taxes at all and not be covered by those programs? How about letting me keep my education money in the first place instead of handing me a voucher.

[Tony]

Originally posted by corplinx
However, I will contend that there is no such thing as choice and long as there is no way to opt-out entirely. How about letting me not pay any social security or medicare taxes at all and not be covered by those programs? How about letting me keep my education money in the first place instead of handing me a voucher.


I agree, but you have to remember that we are tax slaves and ultimatly have no rights.

[mumchup]

I feel that giving The People control over their Social Security money is a bad idea. When this idea first became popular a few years ago, the stock market was sky high. Alot of people ended up losing money, and they would have lost their Social Security money as well if given the chance.
If I know Americans (and I am one) everyone would still expect to receive a full retirement from the U.S. Government regardless of how their personal investments did. And some of the people who decide to opt out of the system entirely may end up burdening society in their old age, if they failed to save enough themselves.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by mumchup
I feel that giving The People control over their Social Security money is a bad idea. When this idea first became popular a few years ago, the stock market was sky high.

The 1999-2002 stock market was a great time to be an investor, not a trader. Investors could buy lucrative tech stocks at sometimes below their real value.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by mumchup
If I know Americans (and I am one) everyone would still expect to receive a full retirement from the U.S. Government regardless of how their personal investments did. And some of the people who decide to opt out of the system entirely may end up burdening society in their old age, if they failed to save enough themselves.

That's the point, you are a burden to society if you recieve any sort of social security benefit at all currently since society pays your social security checks.

Some people don't even need the income and still get it. Meanwhile I foot the bill.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx


That's the point, you are a burden to society if you recieve any sort of social security benefit at all currently since society pays your social security checks.

Some people don't even need the income and still get it. Meanwhile I foot the bill.

So, the people who have already been footing the bill for 40 years should be s**t outta luck when it's their time to collect?

DID YOU REALLY MEAN THAT?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by jj


So, the people who have already been footing the bill for 40 years should be s**t outta luck when it's their time to collect?

DID YOU REALLY MEAN THAT?

Did you reply to the wrong post? I don't see that assertion anywhere in my post you replied to.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by jj


So, the people who have already been footing the bill for 40 years should be s**t outta luck when it's their time to collect?

DID YOU REALLY MEAN THAT?

I am in my mid-30's and am pretty resigned to the fact that despite the fact that I have been paying into social security since I was old enough to start working, I am going to be ***** outta luck when it comes time for me to retire. Therefore, I am not counting on it at all and am taking my retirement concerns into my own hands. I would be perfectlyhappy to cut my losses to date and put all the money that I am currently putting into social security (which, as I said, I fully expect to never see again or get any benefit from anyway) and put it into my own retirement accounts. From what I ahve seen among my friends my age, I am far from the only one who thinks this way

[mumchup]

Originally posted by corplinx


That's the point, you are a burden to society if you recieve any sort of social security benefit at all currently since society pays your social security checks.

Some people don't even need the income and still get it. Meanwhile I foot the bill.

My point was that many people who would not pay into S.S. would still get money or assistance paid for by those of us who did contribute. You get a Social Security check when you retire IF you (or your deceased spouse) paid into the system when you were working.
I've gotten updates from the SSA mailed to me showing how much I have paid so far in my lifetime, and how much I would get at retirement based on how much I've paid in so far.
It makes sense in theory, but I don't expect that there will be much left for me after the Boomers get finished claiming their "Fair Share"

[corplinx]

faux-choice for a faux-trust fund

gotta love it

[Cain]

Originally posted by Tony



I agree, but you have to remember that we are tax slaves and ultimatly have no rights.

How can you write this stupid sh*t daily?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain


How can you write this stupid sh*t daily?


How can you? Answer that, and you've answered your question.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I am in my mid-30's and am pretty resigned to the fact that despite the fact that I have been paying into social security since I was old enough to start working, I am going to be ***** outta luck when it comes time for me to retire. Therefore, I am not counting on it at all and am taking my retirement concerns into my own hands. I would be perfectlyhappy to cut my losses to date and put all the money that I am currently putting into social security (which, as I said, I fully expect to never see again or get any benefit from anyway) and put it into my own retirement accounts. From what I ahve seen among my friends my age, I am far from the only one who thinks this way

Well, I'm a whole lot older than you are, I've put a great deal into my own retirement accounts, both deferred and undeferred, and I've also paid a s**tload into Social Serickety that I could have dumped into an IRA.

I presume, then, that you assume that we (you and I both) are just SOL as far as the money "paid in". (quotes of contempt, as you seem to understand)

I think it was taken, somebody has to give it back. :(


In other words, I am not willing to write it off, even if it looks like it will be hard to get.

Social Serickety of the "only if they need it" variety does nothing but penalize those who have sense and brains. It should be illegal to penalize those who have sense and brains, i.e. they ought to get their money back too.

(end of quiet rant)

[jj]

Originally posted by mumchup

It makes sense in theory, but I don't expect that there will be much left for me after the Boomers get finished claiming their "Fair Share"

Actually, it doens't make sense in theory, mumchup, because it was turned into a pyramid scheme, but about those boomers claiming their "fair share", please explain to me, carefully, and directly, how it is NOT my "fair share". I paid in like everyone else had to, it is, by hades and condemnation, my fair share. So why the quotes?

Why do you appear to dislike the fact that it IS the boomer's fair share?

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
Medicare:
Pick the gubment or a private plan? Optional special savings account.

With, of course, the option to use the guns of government to take money from others by force to pay for your medical care.

Soc. Sec:
You get a choice for the government plan or having your own optional retirement savings account.

Although you only get to choose for 2% of it, and even then only from choices that are Bush-approved. Plus, the same as above.

Schools:
get a voucher and use it at a government or private school

Whereupon they can then start making bureaucratic rules for private schools just like they did with private colleges.

The only REAL choice would be to get the government out of all these areas and let people truly decide for themselves.

[shanek]

Originally posted by mumchup
I feel that giving The People control over their Social Security money is a bad idea. When this idea first became popular a few years ago, the stock market was sky high. Alot of people ended up losing money, and they would have lost their Social Security money as well if given the chance.

This is complete and total bull$#!7. In the early 1980s, Galveston County, TX became the only county in the country to privatize Social Security (because Congress closed the loophole almost immediately after they did it). Since then, the people of Galveston County have seen returns over THREE TIMES in excess of what Social Security would have brought them. NONE of that money—NOT A SINGLE DILLAR—was in the stock market. And even if it were put into the stock market, even with the drags of the most recent crash and the crash around 1990, the addition of the stock market would have risen the amount to FIVE TIMES what they would have received under SS. Why? Because retirement investments are LONG TERM and therefore not much affected by short term losses in the stock market.

Know what you're talking about before you go making claims like that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
I think it was taken, somebody has to give it back. :(

Unfortunately, there's no "it" to give back anymore. The politicians have already squandered away all of the money you have put into it. The best way is for the Libertarian plan as designed by Harry Browne to be put into effect, whereby unused/unneeded government assets are sold off to provide private annuities for people who are either on Social Security or will be retiring in the next ten years or so. The rest of us will be ***** outta luck, but then, we are anyway. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that's just not going to last.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Tony



How can you? Answer that, and you've answered your question.

Look, Tony, there's no need to compare my posts to yours; I am not interested in embarrassing you.

Your replies, and this thread is a perfect example, often contain a single incendinary unsupported assertion. Either that person's an authoritarian or this policy is tantamount to slavery. In another case, which I drew out for awhile, you equated government regulations on the size of a toilet bowl to cameras watching people inside their homes. Really f*cking stupid stuff.

It doesn't bother me most of the time. But then, most mornings I don't read stories about real life slaves. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25SEXTRAFFIC.html)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by jj


Actually, it doens't make sense in theory, mumchup, because it was turned into a pyramid scheme, but about those boomers claiming their "fair share", please explain to me, carefully, and directly, how it is NOT my "fair share". I paid in like everyone else had to, it is, by hades and condemnation, my fair share. So why the quotes?

Why do you appear to dislike the fact that it IS the boomer's fair share?

I'm not sure exactly how things work in the U.S., but here in Canada, the payments to current retirees are paid for out of current contributions. (In other words, the government doesn't actually save and invest your money.)

When the baby boomer generation was working, there were relatively few retirees. (One retiree may have 5 working people to support them.) When the boomer generation retires, there will be relatively fewer workers paying into the system (so, for example 1 retiree will have only 2 working people to support them.)

So, baby boomers may have had to pay X% of their income into social security. The generation after them has to pay Y%, where Y>X, in order to guarantee the same retirement income. Then, when that post-boomer generation retires themselves, the generation after them may be able to go back to paying X%.

So, while its not a total loss for the post-boomer generation, its still not fair that they have to pay extra.

(Again, that's the Canadian system, and it assumes no immediate changes to the retirement plans.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek


In the early 1980s, Galveston County, TX became the only county in the country to privatize Social Security . Since then, the people of Galveston County have seen returns over THREE TIMES in excess of what Social Security would have brought them. NONE of that money—NOT A SINGLE DILLAR—was in the stock market. And even if it were put into the stock market, even with the drags of the most recent crash and the crash around 1990, the addition of the stock market would have risen the amount to FIVE TIMES what they would have received under SS. Why? Because retirement investments are LONG TERM and therefore not much affected by short term losses in the stock market.


Although I think the social security system (at least here in Canada) needs reform, I do think your 'example' needs more explaining. For example, where were the people in Galveston allowed to invest their money? Was there a set percentage they had to donate? (Requiring fixed percentages, or forcing people into 'safe' investments seems rather, well, anti-libertarian, doesn't it?)

Another issue: You say that the stock market would have risen more than 5 times compared to what they would have in SS. Problem is, not all investments track the performance of the stock market. Are you going to force people to invest in something like an index fund? What if someone puts their 'retirement' money into something like Enron. Not everyone makes 'wise' investment choices; what will you do with the people who basically 'loose' all their retirement money? (Starve to death, put them on an ice flow in the arctic, soylent green, etc.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
I'm not sure exactly how things work in the U.S., but here in Canada, the payments to current retirees are paid for out of current contributions. (In other words, the government doesn't actually save and invest your money.)

That's exactly how it works here: a Ponzi scam.

[DavidJames]

I'm taking two shanek quotes totally out of context here, but I think it works quite well :)

With, of course, the option to use the guns of government to take money from others by force to pay for your medical care.
This is complete and total bull$#!7

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Although I think the social security system (at least here in Canada) needs reform, I do think your 'example' needs more explaining.

Read all about it:

http://www.tppf.org/government/perspect/holbrook.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/congress/pd051600g.html
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/healthcarewelfareorsocialsecurity/galveston.shtml

And for information on how you can make a fairly bullet-proof portfolio without indexing, check out Fail Safe Investing (http://www.libertyfree.com/FailSafe/FSI-Home.htm) by Harry Browne.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/Perman6.gif

[shanek]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I'm taking two shanek quotes totally out of context here, but I think it works quite well :)

Your usual resorts to cheap shots and your inability to address my points rationally has, once again, been noted.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by jj


Well, I'm a whole lot older than you are, I've put a great deal into my own retirement accounts, both deferred and undeferred, and I've also paid a s**tload into Social Serickety that I could have dumped into an IRA.

I presume, then, that you assume that we (you and I both) are just SOL as far as the money "paid in". (quotes of contempt, as you seem to understand)

I think it was taken, somebody has to give it back. :(


In other words, I am not willing to write it off, even if it looks like it will be hard to get.

Social Serickety of the "only if they need it" variety does nothing but penalize those who have sense and brains. It should be illegal to penalize those who have sense and brains, i.e. they ought to get their money back too.

(end of quiet rant)

You have something of a point. If I were in charge of things, I wouldn't cut off the social security tap all at one time for the very reason that people who have been forced to pay into it didn't have the chance to make other arrangements. I'd try to find a way to scale it back gradually so that people who are almost retirement age now would still get it but people like myself who have a lot less invested into it wouldn't be forced to pay into it and could use that money to invest in retirement funds on their own. Of course I am not an economist nor am I in politics so I freely admit that I don't have any details on exactly how I would accomplish that, so it is probably a good thing that I am NOT in charge of things.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain




Your replies, and this thread is a perfect example, often contain a single incendinary unsupported assertion. Either that person's an authoritarian or this policy is tantamount to slavery. In another case, which I drew out for awhile, you equated government regulations on the size of a toilet bowl to cameras watching people inside their homes. Really f*cking stupid stuff.

.[/URL]


You just dont like hearing the truth about the things you advocate.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek


Read all about it:

http://www.tppf.org/government/perspect/holbrook.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/congress/pd051600g.html
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/healthcarewelfareorsocialsecurity/galveston.shtml

And for information on how you can make a fairly bullet-proof portfolio without indexing, check out Fail Safe Investing (http://www.libertyfree.com/FailSafe/FSI-Home.htm) by Harry Browne.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/Perman6.gif

That answers part of the questions I had asked, namely, how much had to be contributed by the employee, and where the money was invested (bonds and annuities), but it didn't answer all the questions:

- Isn't the idea that the government would tell you how much and where you can invest your money a little anti-libertarian?

- What do you do with people who fail to save enough for their retirement?

Also, although it is possible to put together a 'safe' portfolio, the question is, is it a good idea to force people to use it?

(For the record, I actually like the idea of allowing people to invest in bonds/index funds rather than in Social Security, also known as Canada Pension Plan up here, and it was even suggested by the Reform party here a while ago... But those other issues need to be addressed.)

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Unfortunately, there's no "it" to give back anymore.

I was the one who just said it was a pyramid scheme, wasn't I?

Thing is, the gummint can print more money.

The wisdom of that is indeed questionable, none the less, they took it, they are going to give it back. With interest.

I don't have a good answer. Obviously, the Libertarian answer won't work, because you can't sell things with no real value.

(read that twice before you explode, Shanek)

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



You just dont like hearing the truth about the things you advocate.

Tony, can you clear something up for me? Just exactly what HAS Cain advocated?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by jj

Thing is, the gummint can print more money.

The wisdom of that is indeed questionable, none the less, they took it, they are going to give it back. With interest.

I don't have a good answer. Obviously, the Libertarian answer won't work, because you can't sell things with no real value.

(read that twice before you explode, Shanek)

I hope you're kidding....

Yes the government can print more money, but that would just devalue the currency and make any money less valuable. (It would probably lead to inflation, eroding some savings.)

As I said before, you may get 'some' back, but the people of the baby boom (and the 'echo' generations) will be getting a lot more back than those caught in the middle. For me, that's the issue.

[jj]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


I hope you're kidding....

Yes the government can print more money, but that would just devalue the currency and make any money less valuable. (It would probably lead to inflation, eroding some savings.)

As I said before, you may get 'some' back, but the people of the baby boom (and the 'echo' generations) will be getting a lot more back than those caught in the middle. For me, that's the issue.

I'm not kidding. Get it over with, and dump the stupid pyramid scheme completely.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
- Isn't the idea that the government would tell you how much and where you can invest your money a little anti-libertarian?

[sigh] The point was to refute the claim that the only alternative to SS was the stock market, and that leaving it to the stock market would cause people to lose their retirement savings. Neither statement is true, as the evidence I have presented shows.

- What do you do with people who fail to save enough for their retirement?

It's their fault they didn't save enough. We can help them out through charities, or maybe their family members can take care of them, etc., but they have NO business saying, "I failed to save for my retirement, so I'm going to force YOU to pay me money!"

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Thing is, the gummint can print more money.

Which results in inflation, so we end up paying for it anyway.

Obviously, the Libertarian answer won't work, because you can't sell things with no real value.

How do these assets have "no real value"? True, it's hard to gague the value of these things, but all indications are that the cumulative value of all of these are $10-15 trillion dollars or more!

Buildings have real value. Pipelines have real value. Power companies have real value. Closed-down military bases have real value. All of these things can be sold off to the private sector and the money used to transfer to private Social Security annuities.

"No real value"? You're just making stuff up.

(Geez...you post something agreeing with the guy and supporting him and he still jumps all over your case...)

[DialecticMaterialist]

The problem with Bush's plan is that it ignores human nature.

It is not in human nature to save retirement money or spend such things responsibly, it is not a part of human nature to spend long hours researching complex subjects like the best schools, nor can many just move away to ones they want. Poorer people (the ones who need the money most) are especially suceptible to this.


It is in human nature to spend money as soon as you get it. Scientists like Pinker show that it is part of our very psychology, due to our evolution.

In the past when people got rescources, they didn't save up (that wouldn't have made sense) they used them before they rotted, or were stolen.

People also compete with eachother, and many would sooner spend recklessly then look poorer then the Jonse's.

That is why we need Leviathan to curb our spending for our own good. In an organized, nonprofit manner.

And government is better at this then private enterprise because they are not solely focused on profit, are more centralized, and have more accountability.


Bush's choice plans are naive ones that sound good on paper, and would make sense if people were rational 24/7. But people are not.

That is why we eat fattening foods even though it kills us, that is why many of us consume addictive chemicals to our own detriment, and that is why so many of us ruin families by having affairs. And that is why Bush's choice plans will fall apart.

All Bush is doing is throwing the money down the toilet, and putting us in a position where we will have to

A) Have the government pay for the reckless/bad spenders anyways.

or

B) Live in an environment without Leviathan where life for the elderly will be made "nasty, brutish" and cut "short." And kids will not get a proper education or perhaps even no education.

And that's fine, until its your parents living on the street, or dying in the road, and the kids left out who are robbing your house.

Not to mention the fact that it's just callous.


So we will end up simply paying more either way.

So I will end by saying, sorry Bush, but 50 years of Republican rhetoric will not change a million years of human evolution.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
(Geez...you post something agreeing with the guy and supporting him and he still jumps all over your case...)

Err, you didn't dig deep enough there, guy. Consider the implications of the worth of lots of government property, will you, for a minute?

[Cain]

Originally posted by Tony



You just dont like hearing the truth about the things you advocate.

:rolleyes:

This is what I'm talking about! The last book I read, if you care, was Thomas Sowell's primer _Basic Economics_. It contained views diametrically opposed to mine and guess what? The author attempted to create arguments (to some degree) and support them with evidence.

You're just Mr. Assertion. Tax slaves? I had no idea I was a tax slave. Care to develop the idea? It's not too hard; even in my efforts to shut down ideas contrary to my own, I managed somewhere along the line to read libertarian philosophers of the likes of Robert Nozick.

You're emotionally-laden language is closer to Ayn Rand. It's comical, hollow, and inane.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
It is not in human nature to save retirement money or spend such things responsibly,

That's just bull$#!7. In fact, voluntary retirement savings are on the rise because more and more people are realizing that they can't rely on Social Security.

it is not a part of human nature to spend long hours researching complex subjects like the best schools,

Bull$#!7 as well, as it is very well a part of human nature to do exactly that when rearing a child. You research EVERYTHING.

Poorer people (the ones who need the money most) are especially suceptible to this.

Human nature has absolutely nothing to do with how much money you have.

It is in human nature to spend money as soon as you get it.

No, it isn't. That may be YOUR nature, but don't transfer your character flaws to the rest of humanity.

Scientists like Pinker show that it is part of our very psychology, due to our evolution.

More bull$#!7. Money only came about in the last few thousand years, not anywhere near long enough to have any kind of effect on how we evolved.

In the past when people got rescources, they didn't save up (that wouldn't have made sense) they used them before they rotted, or were stolen.

Because the resources could not be stored. Now, thanks to money, they can. And people do exactly that. That's the whole reason we came up with the idea of money in the first place!

That is why we need Leviathan to curb our spending for our own good.

Oh, yes, we need mommy government to take care of us because we're too stupid to do it ourselves.

And government is better at this then private enterprise because they are not solely focused on profit, are more centralized, and have more accountability.

Pardon me while I roll on the floor laughing here...Where the *&^% is the accountability in government? Where do they have the incentive to do ANYTHING other than make things better for the politically-connected?

And how are charities solely focused on profit?

Learn how the world works.

That is why we eat fattening foods even though it kills us,

Fattening foods do not kill us.

that is why many of us consume addictive chemicals to our own detriment,

No, there are definite reasons why people self-medicate, none of which are reasons you have given.

and that is why so many of us ruin families by having affairs.

Affairs are symptoms of other problems, again none of which are mentioned in your post.

And that's fine, until its your parents living on the street, or dying in the road, and the kids left out who are robbing your house.

Not to mention the fact that it's just callous.

This is just an ad hominem attack, plain and simple. Charities do a wonderful amount of work getting money and resources to the people who need them, and people gladly and cheeringly support them.

You do NOT know what you are talking about.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek

[sigh] The point was to refute the claim that the only alternative to SS was the stock market, and that leaving it to the stock market would cause people to lose their retirement savings. Neither statement is true, as the evidence I have presented shows.


So? Does that mean that you believe people should be allowed to invest in anything they would like for their retirement? You seem to be dancing around that issue.

Originally posted by shanek

It's their fault they didn't save enough. We can help them out through charities, or maybe their family members can take care of them, etc., but they have NO business saying, "I failed to save for my retirement, so I'm going to force YOU to pay me money!"

Charities are imperfect means of helping people, since people tend to give to the 'cause of the month', at the cost of neglecting other less-famous (but perhaps more deserving) charaties. Also, not everyone has families to depend on.

People can end up with no resources at retirement age because of bad planning, but they could also end up that way for other reasons: supposedly "safe" investments could prove to be less safe than was expected, people may be partly disabled, and thus not able to work full time in order to earn enough to retire on, or may have excessive expenses.

Which brings me to the question that you haven't answered yet: What do you propose doing with people who have not saved enough to retire on (either through bad planning or honest mistakes), that family and charity will not provide for? Are you willing to see these people die?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain

You're just Mr. Assertion. Tax slaves? I had no idea I was a tax slave.

Are you? Do you work a job and have a substantial amout of your earned money stolen?

How about this, why don’t you ask questions if you genuinely don’t understand?

[Cain]

Are you? Do you work a job and have a substantial amout of your earned money stolen?

What do you mean substantial now? What percentage of my income does the government have to take in order for me to be a classified as a slave? The implications are sort of interesting: we can only find slaves in the upper-income tax brackets? All the really, really rich people are slaves? Or is the magic number 50%? I've written about this stuff elsewhere on these forums.

Besides, the idea of percentage seems to run against the spirit of your position on toilet bowls (to use a handy example). There you essentially argued that the concept of even oblique government intervention is equivalent to the grossest invasions of privacy. I now vividly remember recounting the position of a Canadian philosopher, a communitarian, who you dismissed, again characteristically without argument or reason.

How about this, why don’t you ask questions if you genuinely don’t understand?

Or why don't you try supporting your absurd positions. But I'll go ahead and ask: What makes a person a tax slave?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
So? Does that mean that you believe people should be allowed to invest in anything they would like for their retirement? You seem to be dancing around that issue.

What, if I don't completely restate a position I've given dozens of times before on this board when I give a simple refutation I'm dancing around the issue? :rolleyes:

My position: It's YOUR money. YOU worked for it. YOU earned it. YOU keep it, save it, spend it, give it away as you see fit. Just don't come crying to anyone else if you squander it all away.

Charities are imperfect means of helping people, since people tend to give to the 'cause of the month',

That just isn't true. Check the stats provided by Giving USA.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain

What do you mean substantial now? What percentage of my income does the government have to take in order for me to be a classified as a slave? The implications are sort of interesting: we can only find slaves in the upper-income tax brackets? All the really, really rich people are slaves? Or is the magic number 50%? I've written about this stuff elsewhere on these forums.


This is a gross misunderstanding, Im not interested in "rich" people. Im talking ALL people, but particually myself. ANY percentage taken is unacceptable.

I now vividly remember recounting the position of a Canadian philosopher, a communitarian, who you dismissed, again characteristically without argument or reason.

I dismiss all fascism and tyranny, that's reason enough.

What makes a person a tax slave?

The fact that they are forced to work against their will for someone else's benefit. What's wrong with giving people te choice to pay income taxes? Or is that idea too much in the spirit of freedom?

[Cain]

Your empty appeals to undefined notions of freedom are growing tiresome.

Originally posted by Tony
This is a gross misunderstanding, Im not interested in "rich" people. Im talking ALL people, but particually myself. ANY percentage taken is unacceptable.

Which is what I thought. Yet, you asked me if a "substanstial" amount of my money was stolen. Of course, "substantial" varies from person to person. To a rich person a sum of X dollars can be peanuts; the same amount to a relatively poor person could mean everything.

I dismiss all fascism and tyranny, that's reason enough.

*golf clap*

The fact that they are forced to work against their will for someone else's benefit.

Oh really? I'm forced to work for the government in this country? Geez, I thought I was nothing but an expense until the age of 18, where the state paid for my police protection and education (I got a relatively sweet deal being white as well). I'm always free to move, leave, zip it on outta here. How is that relevant? Well, because free-market @ssholes say the same exact thing in the private sphere. You don't like making someone else rich in a company? Go find another job. You don't like it there? Start your business and have others make you rich.

Suppose I work for a company, and counting all non-labor expenses, I produce $100 (we'll dismiss those nasty real world complications like the marginal product of labor for a moment). I generated 100 dollars of wealth. The company wants to take 90% of it and give me 10 dollars. This is decided, of course, by market forces; supply and demand of labor. Am I a wage slave? The company is taking 90% of what I created?* Well, no, self-righteous defenders of hierarchy and authoritarian control (e.g. you, Tony) argue that NO wealth would have been created with the entrepenurship of the owners. Unfortunately, the same exact argument can be applied to government, unless you're an anarcho-capitalist. May I suggest you read the first chapter of _Free to Choose_. See specifically the truncated quote from J.S. Mill.

What's wrong with giving people te choice to pay income taxes? Or is that idea too much in the spirit of freedom?

What freedom! What about giving the people themselves the ability to exercise decisions and control over their work environment. You know, fashioning the institutions that affect their lives?

People pay all kinds of taxes beyond income taxes. I'm not sure why that one is always singled out. In fact, most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. Why not make it voluntary? Have you heard of the free-rider problem? Even Milton Friedman would argue for a compulsory tax to pay for extremely limited state functions. Ah, but by your inane calculations, all taxes are probably equally unacceptable. Just as how water saving toilet bowls are the _equally as bad_ as government installed cameras in private bathrooms.



*I fully realize some of this money gets reinvested. It's intended only as a simplistic, straightforward comparison.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by shanek


That's just bull$#!7. In fact, voluntary retirement savings are on the rise because more and more people are realizing that they can't rely on Social Security.


Incorrect, what people are realizing is Social Security is under-funded.


Human nature has absolutely nothing to do with how much money you have.


The claim that it has "absolutely nothing to do" is so obviously false I don't need to even bother.

On a very specific level, it may have less to do then certain environmental factors of course.

But we aren't talking about how much money a specific person has, but how much people in general will spend.



No, it isn't. That may be YOUR nature, but don't transfer your character flaws to the rest of humanity.


These aren't my words, they are Steven Pinker's in "The Blank Slate". This is also basic evolutionary psychology.





More bull$#!7. Money only came about in the last few thousand years, not anywhere near long enough to have any kind of effect on how we evolved.

Irrelevant, as the claim does not apply to merely money in paticular but rescources in general. Your reply suggests that you do not really understand the claims being presented.

Nobody is saying we as a species developed a "spend money" instinct, but more of a general "use rescurces" and "compete for prestidge" instinct.



Because the resources could not be stored. Now, thanks to money, they can. And people do exactly that. That's the whole reason we came up with the idea of money in the first place!


Yes with money you can save up rescources and store them, but is that what people really do?

Or do many, perhaps even most, spend more then they have via credit?

Between what a person can do shanek, and what a person will do, there is a world of difference. Not being able to recognize this, is what has lead to disasterous utopian systems of the past.




Pardon me while I roll on the floor laughing here...Where the *&^% is the accountability in government?

I'm not sure where I have to even answer this.

The government faces voters, checks and balances, courts.

Also officials in the government usually dedicate a good portion of their lives to a rather difficult job (and disbelieve if you want shanek, being a high ranking governor is difficult) in order to serve the public as they see fit.

Such people are thus more reliable and more accountable then corporations or private enetrprises, who are not legally permitted in many cases to do anything besides the action which gets them more profit. (I have heard that corporations being bound to stock holders cannot legally do what is intentionally unprofitable).


They are accountable to nobody but themselves, their profits, and unpredictable market forces.


This system, even if people were responsible, and the companies well intentioned is relatively unstable.

It could lead to the sick and elderly without care, and kids without a school. People in other words, who will simply need the government to take care of them anyways.


And how are charities solely focused on profit?


Total red herring. This also masks the fact that there are charities which turn out to be little more then scams. Peter Popoff for example gave a mere 1% of donated charities to poor children.


In any event , Medical Companies, Social Securities and Private Schools are hardly charities.



Fattening foods do not kill us.

700,000 people die of heart disease in the US each year.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe






No, there are definite reasons why people self-medicate, none of which are reasons you have given.


Smoking cigarettes, shooting heroin, abusing prescription, and abusing alchohol is hardly self-medicating.

And people do the above, first due to cursiousity, social pressure, and because it "feels good". Second because they are addicted.



Affairs are symptoms of other problems, again none of which are mentioned in your post.

Yeah, the problem is lust i.e. human nature. What else?



This is just an ad hominem attack, plain and simple. Charities do a wonderful amount of work getting money and resources to the people who need them, and people gladly and cheeringly support them.

You do NOT know what you are talking about. [/B]


Incorrect. The problem with your reply is three-fold.

First off, it's not all private charities that do an excellent job. It is some private charities that do an excellent job.


One study suggests in fact that in california, only 37 cents a dollar paid out to charity actually went out to charity.

http://www.fraud.org/news/old/122397.htm

Another charity group falsely posed as police officers:

http://www.fraud.org/news/1998/mar98/032698.htm

According to the Better Business Bereau, things are even more grim, to quote:

In most instances the amount going to charity is usually less than 10% of the purchase price, according to the Alliance.



http://www.give.org/news/cause.asp


Thus private charities are hardly the bastions of innocence and efficiency Shanek would wish.

And even if they were they would still be relatively unstable via market forces. The current recession should be a shinning example of what can go wrong.


Secondly, the very mention on charities is also irrelevant. As we are not talking about charities but consumers spending their money wisely, as well as private social security, schooling and medical companies (which are usually not charity organizations.)

Even if charities were all honest and efficient, it wouldn't matter. Because we are not talking merely about charities.

Lastly, I fail to see how any of this proves I made an ad hominem. "Charities are nice, so you made an ad hominem". That doesn't even follow Shenek.

My argument had nothing to do with charities. It was that the idea of giving people their own social security, medical and education money to invest themselves presumes that people are rational enough to consider the long-term.

People are not. So it will fail.




I think its time for you to face facts.

The fact is according to you (and your libertarianism Shanek) having more privatized medicare and welfare should lead to more availability. The Pew Research Center however reports that countries with more government programs in these areas actually have more availability:


http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=75

For example, in the 15% report inability to attain sufficient food. Whereas the numbers are only 11% in Britain and 8% in France.

In terms of healthcare, 26% of US citizens report that they get inadequate healthcare. Compare this with the 13% in Canada, 11% in Britain and 5% in France.

Clearly then there is no link between increased privatization and availability. Quite the opposite seems to be the case.


In terms of happiness, according to Shanek more capitalist nations like the US should be the happiest. But scientific america actually shows that the happiest nations are actually the social democracies of northern europe and Sweden.

http://rationallyspeaking.org/


This is rather amazing, seeing as the people in such areas make a mere 25k GDP per capita, compared the the US's massive 36k.


Hence it seems living in a more capitalistic country helps less then living in a more mixed economy.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Incorrect, what people are realizing is Social Security is under-funded.

Underfunded??? Are you high??? 15% of your income is underfunded??? HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS is underfunded??? Just how much does Social Security need???

The claim that it has "absolutely nothing to do" is so obviously false I don't need to even bother.

Translation: I have no rebuttal for this so I'll just pretend my position is obviously true.

[more evasiveness and argument from authority deleted]

Irrelevant, as the claim does not apply to merely money in paticular but rescources in general.

Money is the store of resources, something we weren't able to do before. The WHOLE ENTIRE REASON we have money is to have this store!

Your reply suggests that you do not really understand the claims being presented.

Translation: I have no refutation, so I'll just insult my opponent and hope no one notices.

Yes with money you can save up rescources and store them, but is that what people really do?

Yes. Fully 25% of GDP is savings.

Or do many, perhaps even most, spend more then they have via credit?

It is absolutely impossible for you to get a certain amount of credit without someone else first having put that amount in savings. That's how it works.

Between what a person can do shanek, and what a person will do, there is a world of difference. Not being able to recognize this, is what has lead to disasterous utopian systems of the past.

Blah blah blah. Nice weasel words with no support whatsoever.

I'm not sure where I have to even answer this.

The government faces voters, checks and balances, courts.

None of which apply to the departments. They only apply to Congress, and even then, they are very limited in what Congress is actually held accountable for. Voting basically just gives us a "choice" between one dishonest villain and another equally dishonest villain.

Such people are thus more reliable and more accountable then corporations or private enetrprises,

You're just living in a dream world. Compare the corruption of government officials to private sector corruption and you'll find that the government corruption wins out every time, by a dramatic amount.

They are accountable to nobody but themselves, their profits, and unpredictable market forces.

Those "unpredictable market forces" can be very effective for this, which you would know if you understood basic macroeconomics (there's a whole thread on this; go read it). These forces aren't as unpredictable as you make them out to be.

It could lead to the sick and elderly without care, and kids without a school. People in other words, who will simply need the government to take care of them anyways.

Then why wasn't it that way before government intervention? Why has the free market improved their lot while government has only held them back? That's what history has shown, clearly and distinctly.

Total red herring.

No, it's not. You set up a false dichotomy. I shot it down. Stop whining.

This also masks the fact that there are charities which turn out to be little more then scams.

No, it doesn't; the vast amount of charities are 100% on the level. Whereas pretty much everything the government does is a scam.

In any event , Medical Companies, Social Securities and Private Schools are hardly charities.

When did I say they were? This is a strawman.

700,000 people die of heart disease in the US each year.

Yes, TOO MUCH fattening foods will kill you. And TOO MUCH salt will kill you. You know what? Too much WATER will kill you. Saying "fattening foods kill people" is just plain dishonest.

Smoking cigarettes, shooting heroin, abusing prescription, and abusing alchohol is hardly self-medicating.

No, that is precisely what it is, and if you'd read the psychological data behind drug use and abuse you would see that.

Yeah, the problem is lust i.e. human nature. What else?

Lust can be satisfied in a relationship. It's always other factors that lead to infidelity. Once again, you show you have no clue what you're talking about, and your viewpoint is so far removed from reality as to be laughable.

First off, it's not all private charities that do an excellent job. It is some private charities that do an excellent job.

The vast, overwhelming majority of them do an excellent job.



And even if they were they would still be relatively unstable via market forces. The current recession should be a shinning example of what can go wrong.

Except that, again referencing [i]Giving USA, charitable donations as a percentage of income go up during recessions. Also, charities save up donations during high periods to get them through economic downturns.

Secondly, the very mention on charities is also irrelevant.

A very good method of taking care of the people you claim would be callously left to die is NOT irrelevant, although it's obvious you wish it to be so.

Lastly, I fail to see how any of this proves I made an ad hominem.

You accused people who want to get rid of security as being callous and wanting seniors to die of starvation in the streets. That is an ad hominem. It's also an argument from adverse consequences.

My argument had nothing to do with charities.

Your argument IGNORED charities and how effective they can be, and how they are a more than reasonable solution for the problem you mentioned.

[irrelevant potshots, and irrelevant sources that do nothing to further the argument deleted]

This is rather amazing, seeing as the people in such areas make a mere 25k GDP per capita, compared the the US's massive 36k.

The idea of people "making" a "GDP per capita" is a meaningless figure. It's pseudiscience, made to sound like something economical, but from an economic standpoint, it's just gibberish.

Here's a thread from awhile back that is just chock full of data as to why you are wrong, wrong, WRONG:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27305

[jj]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Incorrect, what people are realizing is Social Security is under-funded.

Pyramid schemes are, by definintion, "underfunded". What people are learning is that Social Serickety IS a pyramid scheme, and it ought to be aborted as soon as possible, and the confiscated monies returned. Probably as annuities, that will cost less.

But we aren't talking about how much money a specific person has, but how much people in general will spend.

I'll agree everyone ought to eat. One of the biggest failings of many great ideas it that it fails to feed the unwise, incapable, and accidentally injured. (I don't necessarily mean physical injury there, I mean anything that affects having a livelihood.)

Between what a person can do shanek, and what a person will do, there is a world of difference. Not being able to recognize this, is what has lead to disasterous utopian systems of the past.

Quite so. A failure to be able to clearly understand how to fund programs has also led to many a disasterous failure of utopian systems of the past. There are more than enough failures to go around, I think.

Such people are thus more reliable and more accountable then corporations or private enetrprises, who are not legally permitted in many cases to do anything besides the action which gets them more profit. (I have heard that corporations being bound to stock holders cannot legally do what is intentionally unprofitable).

If stockholders can be convinced, it is possible to take a strategic move that may affect short-term outcomes. On the other hand, the present authorities (that would be, to a considerable extent, those you place trust in) are opposed to anything but short-term thinking.

They are accountable to nobody but themselves, their profits, and unpredictable market forces.

That's just about like a president with a big army, eh? Except that the government doesn't even need to "make profits".

This system, even if people were responsible, and the companies well intentioned is relatively unstable.

Just like governments and governmental programs like Social Sericety and such pyramid schemes. You're not suggesting that something like a pyramid scheme is "stable", are you?

It's not so much that I doubt your estimation of corporate behavior IN GENERAL as I doubt your seeming faith in governments.

It could lead to the sick and elderly without care, and kids without a school. People in other words, who will simply need the government to take care of them anyways.

"could lead"? Yes, so could the government passing a prescription program for the eldery that forbids additional "medigap" insurance on the prescription benefits. That could easily lead to people dying because they can't afford their medicine when they run out of government benefits. Oh, wait, we just PASSED THAT LAW!

Methinks that you'er half right. That could happen with corporations in control. It DOES happen with the present government in control.

This doesn't endear your faith in governments to me very well.
First off, it's not all private charities that do an excellent job. It is some private charities that do an excellent job.

Agreed, would that they were all like the Shriner's medical centers.

There are fraudulent charities. There are fraudulent companies. There are also fraudulent government programs, you know, those pyramid schemes?

Your point? When people are involved, there will (sadly) be fraudulent anythings. Governments are hardly excluded. They are no better or worse than corporations or charities.

Why not let the government do what it normally does do best, that is to ride herd on the frauds, not run them. Then, we don't have the fox watching the henhouse any more.

My argument had nothing to do with charities. It was that the idea of giving people their own social security, medical and education money to invest themselves presumes that people are rational enough to consider the long-term.

People are not. So it will fail.

And, you say, government can prevent this? How? The money in government hands isn't even invested!

...


Now, I'm not a libertarian, and you know that by now, I'd hope, but Shanek has a point regarding coercion, and we have a "case in point" with the pyramid scheme called "social security", as well. It's not that we can implicitly trust corporations (we can't) or charities (we can't), or governments (we can't), it's that we can't implicitly trust anyone.

And it's a lot harder to withdraw my money from social security than it is from a particular fund, now, isn't it?

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Underfunded??? Are you high??? 15% of your income is underfunded??? HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS is underfunded??? Just how much does Social Security need???


Aww, come one, Shanek, all pyramid schemes are "underfunded". You know that!

None of which apply to the departments. They only apply to Congress, and even then, they are very limited in what Congress is actually held accountable for. Voting basically just gives us a "choice" between one dishonest villain and another equally dishonest villain.

Oh, the truth of that!

Why has the free market improved their lot while government has only held them back?

You said something about villains?

That's what history has shown, clearly and distinctly.

And then, we have the old-timey Rockefellers, Butterworths, Vails, and so on, who used the free market to stand on everyone's back. The free market is no better than the unbridled government. The only thing that might be worse is the government by unbridled free marketeers, oh, like we sorta have now, eh? (but only sorta, yes, I know that)

No, it doesn't; the vast amount of charities are 100% on the level. Whereas pretty much everything the government does is a scam.

I dare say I hear from more scam charities than I hear from real ones. That is, of course, because the scams are (and have to be)more vocal, and also easier to shoot down.

But I don't think 'vast amount' is a fair statement. Still, I approve highly of honest, effective private charities. I support them, too. [/B]

Hey, guys, I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'll bet you're both surprised.

JJ

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by shanek


Underfunded??? Are you high??? 15% of your income is underfunded??? HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS is underfunded??? Just how much does Social Security need???


Shanek that is completely false, federal income for example amounts to a mere 9.7 of the nation's overall GDP, so how could 15% of the economy be devoted to social security?

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html


Individual income taxes will raise an estimated $972 billion in 2001, equal to about 9.7 percent of GDP.



Of this social programs make up a mere 7%. Of which social security is only a part of.





Social insurance payroll taxes include Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, and Federal employee retirement payments. This category has grown from two percent of GDP in 1955 to an estimated 6.8 percent in 2001.


Do you have any evidence that having it privatized would make it cheaper?


http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html


Yes. Fully 25% of GDP is savings.


Prove it.

It is absolutely impossible for you to get a certain amount of credit without someone else first having put that amount in savings. That's how it works.

Oh yes, that's why so few american's have debt problems.......



None of which apply to the departments. They only apply to Congress, and even then, they are very limited in what Congress is actually held accountable for. Voting basically just gives us a "choice" between one dishonest villain and another equally dishonest villain.


Mayors are voted in, and governors can get in trouble with the courts at any time for abusing public funds.



You're just living in a dream world. Compare the corruption of government officials to private sector corruption and you'll find that the government corruption wins out every time, by a dramatic amount.


I'd like you to find an established, generally recognized source that proves that. So far Shanek all you do is make a lot of grand claims, but provide very little evidence. Do you perhaps expect me to take your word for the above?



Those "unpredictable market forces" can be very effective for this, which you would know if you understood basic macroeconomics (there's a whole thread on this; go read it). These forces aren't as unpredictable as you make them out to be.


Now that is pseudoscience my friend. In any event what about the current recession, which would have greatly cut down on "private social security" funds?



Then why wasn't it that way before government intervention? Why has the free market improved their lot while government has only held them back? That's what history has shown, clearly and distinctly.

Has it? Comparative studies of the US to Japan, Northern Europe and the UK seem to say different.....



No, it doesn't; the vast amount of charities are 100% on the level. Whereas pretty much everything the government does is a scam.


Shanek I brought in research from established sources like the Better Business Buereau saying otherwise.

If you disagree that's fine, but if I'm supposed to take your point as anything besides an argument from incredulity you need some sort of refutation. Since after I present my proof, the burden of proof is on you.



Yes, TOO MUCH fattening foods will kill you. And TOO MUCH salt will kill you. You know what? Too much WATER will kill you. Saying "fattening foods kill people" is just plain dishonest.


Shanek your take on my words is dishonest. Of course I didn't mean by that eating 1 cheeseburger will kill you, I meant american's consume an unhealthy amount of fattening foods. Any intellectually honest person would recognize this via the principle of charity. It's about contex Shanek-context.


But needless to say, how many americans do you hear dying from consuming too much water, or of salt poisoning? Is it 700k a year? Is it even close?


I'm not arguing that american's can do it, but american's do. And if you knew a thing about evolutionary psychology, you would know why.


Lust can be satisfied in a relationship. It's always other factors that lead to infidelity. Once again, you show you have no clue what you're talking about, and your viewpoint is so far removed from reality as to be laughable.


No, actually if you had read up on game theory, and evolutionary psychology, you'd see that cheating is a cultural universal, common to not only humans but birds as well.

And at a proximate level the guiding factor is lust. Monogamous relationships cannot always satisfy this for a number of reasons. One being the spouse isn't always around. Another being people like variety for its own sake.

This is because in the past there were many advantages that came from cheating. For men, having more kids raised by another man. For women, it involved getting more rescources.


Except that, again referencing Giving USA, charitable donations as a percentage of income go up during recessions. Also, charities save up donations during high periods to get them through economic downturns.


Again I'd like for you to actually prove your claim, not just state it and expect us to take it on faith.


You accused people who want to get rid of security as being callous and wanting seniors to die of starvation in the streets. That is an ad hominem. It's also an argument from adverse consequences.


Did I say they want this, or that this will be a result? Stop trying to twist my words Shanek.

I also said just letting people die would be callous, not that those who advocate privatization are callous.



Your argument IGNORED charities and how effective they can be, and how they are a more than reasonable solution for the problem you mentioned.


Because they are irrelevant, unless that is you can prove that private education, social security, and healthcare would be all charities....




The idea of people "making" a "GDP per capita" is a meaningless figure. It's pseudiscience, made to sound like something economical, but from an economic standpoint, it's just gibberish.


Yes, that's why the CIA uses it to measure wealth, as do economists: because its gibberish.


Whatever Shanek, I never even said it was a "science" so your accusation of pseudoscience is totally meaningless.

Also, you have not proven that GDP is irrelevant, again you have merely said it expecting me to take your words on faith. I don't.



Here's a thread from awhile back that is just chock full of data as to why you are wrong, wrong, WRONG:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27305 [/B][/QUOTE]


*chuckles*


Ok shanek, you reject my sources which are scientists, government instutions and mainstream companies, but then expect me to believe the heritage foundation?

A right-wing think tank?

To quote their site:

Our Mission
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.



http://www.heritage.org/about/

Let me ask you, would you believe a left-wing think tank who's mission since 1973 was to promote socialism and marxist values?


Do I even need to go into how the heritage foundation denies global warming:


http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm


Denies separation of church and state:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed122701c.cfm


Shanek, I would like some source that is at least not committed to some sort of far right or left ideological agenda. This by its very nature excludes both left and right wing think tanks. Thank you.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by jj




Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Incorrect, what people are realizing is Social Security is under-funded.

Pyramid schemes are, by definintion, "underfunded". What people are learning is that Social Serickety IS a pyramid scheme, and it ought to be aborted as soon as possible, and the confiscated monies returned. Probably as annuities, that will cost less.


Do you have any evidence that social security is a pyramid scheme? And if it is, why isn't it falling apart in other, more socialistic nations?



That's just about like a president with a big army, eh? Except that the government doesn't even need to "make profits".


Yes, but he is not legally bound to think short-term either. And he can also be arrested for using too much funds for personal gain. Also there is a great deal of stability that comes from socialization.


It's not so much that I doubt your estimation of corporate behavior IN GENERAL as I doubt your seeming faith in governments.


I do not have any faith in government. I for example am very much against socialism and too much taxation, as private enterprise has shown itself superior in many ways.


I am however aknowledging that some things are better left to government. Things like social security, and health care. And this is not a matter of faith, but a position stemming from what I know of human nature, market mechanisms and comparative studies between nations.


"could lead"? Yes, so could the government passing a prescription program for the eldery that forbids additional "medigap" insurance on the prescription benefits. That could easily lead to people dying because they can't afford their medicine when they run out of government benefits. Oh, wait, we just PASSED THAT LAW!


Yes government programs can and do lead lead to such things, but not merely as servely.

This is because people don't have a choice but to save money for insurance and retirement when it comes to government. And this is because benefits become more equal.

You can't spend what you don't have, which insures it is safely put away. And the rich never have to worry about retirment, which is why a pot including the rich is so nice.

Methinks that you'er half right. That could happen with corporations in control. It DOES happen with the present government in control.


Methinks you lack the evidence for your convictions. Prove to me that countries with less government have better social security and I might be inclined to agree.


There are fraudulent charities. There are fraudulent companies. There are also fraudulent government programs, you know, those pyramid schemes?

Again, can you prove that government programs like social security are full of fraudulent spending?

Governments are hardly excluded. They are no better or worse than corporations or charities.

Yes but with government programs you have centralization (i.e. organization) and checks, like re-elections and court investigations.

Government, unlikes companies, does not go out of business during a recession.

Why not let the government do what it normally does do best, that is to ride herd on the frauds, not run them. Then, we don't have the fox watching the henhouse any more.


Because the cost of suffering frauds is not worth the benefits of privatizing the industry.


And, you say, government can prevent this? How? The money in government hands isn't even invested!


The same way government prevents a lot of nasty consequences which would otherwise arise from human nature let lose, things like pollution, ignorance, fraud, murder, rape and extreme drug abuse: by use of organized power, which bring lots of stability and democratic checks along with it.

Like I said corporations can go out of business while the government does not.

And corporations as well as companies are meant to do one thing above all others: seek profit. Government is set up to serve the public.

These legal differences make for very different consequences. This is why they function very differently in different areas.

This is why for example I want the government running the military, police, national parks and fire departments; not companies. And this is why I want the government regulating and providing other essentials like social security, education and welfare.

This is because while fragmentation and competition is good for productivity, it is inherently unstable and bad for availability. Companies also think more short-term then government, since that is also a consequence of competition.






Now, I'm not a libertarian, and you know that by now, I'd hope, but Shanek has a point regarding coercion, and we have a "case in point" with the pyramid scheme called "social security", as well. It's not that we can implicitly trust corporations (we can't) or charities (we can't), or governments (we can't), it's that we can't implicitly trust anyone.



Well I strangely enough do trust my government, and for the most part I even trust major corporations. That is because there are checks on them.


But I also see that certain institutions function in different ways, depending on how they are set up.

Big centralized government predictably are less efficient, flexible, and productive, but more stable, accountable and available. With private companies things tend to be reversed.


Trying to reverse their roles then is a recipe for disaster, with things like social darwinian ghettos and socialist stagnation being the result.

I'm not saying Bush's programs will actually lead to a 19th century disaster, but I do think his policy to not "leave well enough alone" will do more harm then good.


And it's a lot harder to withdraw my money from social security than it is from a particular fund, now, isn't it?

Yes you can withdraw money from a private company, and that's precisely the problem.

Again my main argument is that if you give people the money to save, a lot of them will instead just spend it. That is where the strength of government comes in. Government puts it in a place you can't touch it for your own good.



I mean how long will it be there before your inner demons shout down your better angels and a you withdraw some money for:

-Alchohol and other drugs

-A nicer house

-A ceremony/special event like a wedding or TAM.

-Perhaps a new car

-Some nice TV

-Because you ran up your credit card a bit too much that month.

-To buy the latest fashion.



Or waste it because you are too lazy (or ignorant or busy) to research?


How many people will waste it on drugs? How many schmucks to stay in fashion? How many will put it in the stock market on risky deals then lose it?

And how many will come back crying to the government anyways?



I may not completely trust the government, but I trust human nature a lot less.

[jj]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist



Do you have any evidence that social security is a pyramid scheme? And if it is, why isn't it falling apart in other, more socialistic nations?


Ok, now I know you're just trolling. What the USA has done with its social security funds is well known, and it's a classic Ponzi scheme. If you really AREN'T aware of that, you REALLY need to learn something about your subject before you go on about it.


I do not have any faith in government. I for example am very much against socialism and too much taxation, as private enterprise has shown itself superior in many ways.


Except in dealing with greed, the downfall of both.
Well, greed and the desire for power.
Well, no, wait! Greed, the desire for power, and the need to speed...

No, Well, Wait! No....
Methinks you lack the evidence for your convictions. Prove to me that countries with less government have better social security and I might be inclined to agree.

Why don't you address something I claimed, instead of making up some kind of straw man for me to caw at?


Again, can you prove that government programs like social security are full of fraudulent spending?


Don't have to. I didn't say they were. You're trying to change horses in mid-torrent. Amusingly enough, it has been proven, just read the statistics. Even your straw man fails here.

Government, unlikes companies, does not go out of business during a recession.

I wonder what some of our South American friends have to say about that. Is the State of Amazonias paying its bills yet?

for example I want the government running the military, police, national parks and fire departments; not companies.

Ok, now you've addressed the tragedy of the commons. I'll go that far, but no farther.
Big centralized government predictably are less efficient, flexible, and productive, but more stable, accountable and available. With private companies things tend to be reversed.

Government is accountable? Puhleeze.

I'm not saying Bush's programs will actually lead to a 19th century disaster, but I do think his policy to not "leave well enough alone" will do more harm then good.


Yes, I agree, but that's neither here no there.

I mean how long will it be there before your inner demons shout down your better angels and a you withdraw some money for:

-Alchohol and other drugs

-A nicer house

-A ceremony/special event like a wedding or TAM.

-Perhaps a new car

-Some nice TV

-Because you ran up your credit card a bit too much that month.

-To buy the latest fashion.


Are you for real? I can't speak for others, but my record is clear. Perhaps it's just my Scottish blood, I dunno.

And how many will come back crying to the government anyways?

I may not completely trust the government, but I trust human nature a lot less.
Since the government is made up of humans who can't be held accountable ...

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Shanek that is completely false,

No, it isn't.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=S5i*Gt2h&p_lva=&p_faqid=310&p_created=959284761&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTI3J nBfY2F0X2x2bDE9NyZwX2NhdF9sdmwyPX5hbnl_JnBfcGFnZT0 x&p_li=

Like everything else you've said, you are WRONG.

so how could 15% of the economy be devoted to social security?

I said 15% of income. And you know it, too. This is just evasion because you don't want to answer my question.

Of this social programs make up a mere 7%. Of which social security is only a part of.

No, Social Security is a completely separate budget item. You don't even know the basic information behind how Social Security works!

Do you have any evidence that having it privatized would make it cheaper?

Already presented, with the Galveston County data.

Prove it.

Oh, for crying out loud, check ANY source reporting economic statistics!!! You'll see that savings is fully 25% of GDP, whereas government purchases are only 20% (most of which crowds out savings anyway).

Oh yes, that's why so few american's have debt problems.......

You have completely and deliberately ignored the point, which DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS your claims...as is no surprise. You know NOTHING about this stuff and all of your claims are WRONG.

I'd like you to find an established, generally recognized source that proves that.

More argument from authority. No matter what I come up with (including several that I've referred to in the threads I referenced) you'll just belittle the source.

So far Shanek all you do is make a lot of grand claims, but provide very little evidence.

I have provided LOTS of evidence! You simply want to ignore it.

Now that is pseudoscience my friend. In any event what about the current recession, which would have greatly cut down on "private social security" funds?

Except that it hasn't. Here's an example of how a diversified portfolio has fared throughout the last 30 years. Note the rise at the very end, which is at December 2003, despite years of recession:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/Perman6.gif

In fact, the only year that it lost since 1995 was in 2001, where it lost 1%. In every other year, it gained at minimum 2.7%, and gained over 11% in 2003. Social Security only gives you about 2%.

Again, you are just plain WRONG.

Has it? Comparative studies of the US to Japan, Northern Europe and the UK seem to say different.....

There are such comparisons in the thread I referenced. But you, apparently, don't want to see it.

Shanek I brought in research from established sources

Argument from authority again.

Shanek your take on my words is dishonest. Of course I didn't mean by that eating 1 cheeseburger will kill you, I meant american's consume an unhealthy amount of fattening foods.

That wasn't what you SAID. And this revision nixes your original point and renders it invalid.

[more ad hominems deleted]

Again I'd like for you to actually prove your claim, not just state it and expect us to take it on faith.

I have submitted evidence. You have just closed your mind to it. Check out Giving USA and you will clearly see that what I have told you is true.

Did I say they want this, or that this will be a result? Stop trying to twist my words Shanek.

I'm not. You said it. Stop weaseling.

I also said just letting people die would be callous, not that those who advocate privatization are callous.

But that privatization would mean, according to you, just letting people die. Stop weaseling and take responsibility for what you wrote.

Because they are irrelevant,

No, they aren't. You just want them to be.

unless that is you can prove that private education, social security, and healthcare would be all charities....

I need not do that because I do not claim that they are. There are, however, educational and health care institutions that are charities who provide these services to the needy. You're arguing for an unreasonable strawman because you can't accept reality.

Yes, that's why the CIA uses it to measure wealth, as do economists: because its gibberish.

Here's a hint: The "per capita GDP" is ONE FIGURE. It's not one figure for one person and a different figure for a different person. It's ONE FIGURE. Take the total GDP, divide it by the number of people, and you get per capita GDP. YOU ARE MISUSING THE DATA.

Also, you have not proven that GDP is irrelevant,

I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said that you were misusing it. And you are.

*chuckles*

Ok shanek, you reject my sources which are scientists, government instutions and mainstream companies, but then expect me to believe the heritage foundation?

A right-wing think tank? [/b]

Argument from authority AND ad hominem. And BTW, the Cato Institute isn't right-wing. Not even close.

Argue the DATA.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain



Which is what I thought. Yet, you asked me if a "substanstial" amount of my money was stolen. Of course, "substantial" varies from person to person. To a rich person a sum of X dollars can be peanuts; the same amount to a relatively poor person could mean everything.


Blah, blah, blah. Typical, instead of answering the question, you cloud the issue with bullsh!t.


Oh really? I'm forced to work for the government in this country? Geez, I thought I was nothing but an expense until the age of 18, where the state paid for my police protection and education. quote]

Do you not have parents? My parents "paid" for my education and police "protection" via taxes. The only thing the sate did was waste some of their money in the process.

[quote]I'm always free to move, leave, zip it on outta here. How is that relevant? Well, because free-market @ssholes say the same exact thing in the private sphere. You don't like making someone else rich in a company? Go find another job. You don't like it there? Start your business and have others make you rich.

Apples and oranges.

Am I a wage slave? The company is taking 90% of what I created?*

Are you? You tell me.

Well, no, self-righteous defenders of hierarchy and authoritarian control (e.g. you, Tony).

You really don’t know my positions do you? When have I defended this hierarchy and authoritarian control? And who are you, the advocator of a petty toilet law, one to talk about authoritarian control? Gimme a break.

What freedom! What about giving the people themselves the ability to exercise decisions and control over their work environment. You know, fashioning the institutions that affect their lives?

What about it? Can you offer an example?

People pay all kinds of taxes beyond income taxes. I'm not sure why that one is always singled out.

Because income taxes are the most intrusive and tyrannical form of taxes.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it isn't.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=S5i*Gt2h&p_lva=&p_faqid=310&p_created=959284761&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTI3J nBfY2F0X2x2bDE9NyZwX2NhdF9sdmwyPX5hbnl_JnBfcGFnZT0 x&p_li=

Like everything else you've said, you are WRONG.


Shanek, that's Social Security and Medicare, and it is only 15% for the self-employed. It's 7% for employees.


And in any event, all this shows me is that 90% of the country faces an unfair tax burden. Which doesn't surprise me, as 10% own 70% of the wealth.


Oh, for crying out loud, check ANY source reporting economic statistics!!! You'll see that savings is fully 25% of GDP, whereas government purchases are only 20% (most of which crowds out savings anyway).


Government I believe has about 10% of the economy. In any event, if its everywhere, you should be able to find it. Until then: proof surrogate.





More argument from authority. No matter what I come up with (including several that I've referred to in the threads I referenced) you'll just belittle the source.

Not if it's a reliable source.



I have provided LOTS of evidence! You simply want to ignore it.

I'm looking for quality here Shanek, not quantity.



Except that it hasn't. Here's an example of how a diversified portfolio has fared throughout the last 30 years. Note the rise at the very end, which is at December 2003, despite years of recession:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/Perman6.gif

In fact, the only year that it lost since 1995 was in 2001, where it lost 1%. In every other year, it gained at minimum 2.7%, and gained over 11% in 2003. Social Security only gives you about 2%.

Again, you are just plain WRONG.

(Image tags altered)


And what's the image location? Oh yeah "HarryBrown.org".

Real reliable source.......

Here's an example of where you again put quantity of evidence over quality.



But that privatization would mean, according to you, just letting people die. Stop weaseling and take responsibility for what you wrote.

Actually its a bit more complicated then that Shanek:

IF they spent their money unwisely and IF we didn't start a government charity for them, THEN that would be the case.


I need not do that because I do not claim that they are. There are, however, educational and health care institutions that are charities who provide these services to the needy. You're arguing for an unreasonable strawman because you can't accept reality.

And what percentage of americans are atcually served by these groups Shanek?



And BTW, the Cato Institute isn't right-wing. Not even close.




Shanek please, we're three posts in and your credibilty's already shot

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Shanek, that's Social Security and Medicare

Medicare is less than 1% of it.

and it is only 15% for the self-employed. It's 7% for employees.

Bull$#!7. The employee pays the full amount. It only shows up as 7.65% because the employer pays the other 7.65%.

And in any event, all this shows me is that 90% of the country faces an unfair tax burden. Which doesn't surprise me, as 10% own 70% of the wealth.

Blah blah blah meaningless pseudoeconomic babble.

Government I believe has about 10% of the economy.

Government is spending about $2.5 trillion a year. GDP is $11 million a year. That's more than 10%.

Not if it's a reliable source.

It's only a reliable source if the DATA is reliable.

I'm looking for quality here Shanek, not quantity.

No, you're looking for things that fall into your narrow little view and ignoring everything else.

And what's the image location? Oh yeah "HarryBrown.org".

Refute the DATA. Stop appealing to authority.

Real reliable source.......

Here's an example of where you again put quantity of evidence over quality.

IF they spent their money unwisely and IF we didn't start a government charity for them, THEN that would be the case.

Again, you're deliberately ignoring the private charities, which you continue to claim are irrelevant.

Shanek please, we're three posts in and your credibilty's already shot

Anyone who claims that the Cato Institute is "right-wing" doesn't have any cause to cast aspersions on the credibility of others.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by shanek


Medicare is less than 1% of it.



Bull$#!7. The employee pays the full amount. It only shows up as 7.65% because the employer pays the other 7.65%.


Actually Shanek medicare is over 1% (its 1.5% roughly).
And tax rates for employers are double that of employees for social security, this however is I believe a very relevant point as most people are not self-employed.

The 7.65% tax rate is the combined rate for Social Security and Medicare. The Social Security portion (OASDI) is 6.20% on earnings up to the applicable taxable maximum amount (see below). The Medicare portion (HI) is 1.45% on all earnings.


http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=S5i*Gt2h&p_lva=&p_faqid=310&p_created=959284761&%20p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PT I3J%3Cbr%20/%3E%20nBfY2F0X2x2bDE9NyZwX2NhdF9sdmwyPX5hbnl_JnBfc GFnZT0%3Cbr%20/%3Ex&p_li=


In any event I agree this is excessive, but I don't think the answer lies in an inherently risky and unproven method of privatization, rife for exploitation, as much as a progressive taxation. I believe an extra 10-20 percent tax on the super rich for example would more then double the federal budget.




Government is spending about $2.5 trillion a year. GDP is $11 million a year. That's more than 10%.

Actually its more like 1.8 trillion:

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html

From the CIA world factbook:

Budget:

revenues: $1.946 trillion
expenditures: $2.052 trillion, including capital expenditures of NA


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

That's about 1.5%. Real big difference.....

[DialecticMaterialist]

To quote cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, in his book The Blank Slate (Chapter 16 pages 302-303):


For example, rational agents informed by interest rates and their life expectancies should save the optimal proportion of their wages for comfort in their old age. Social security and mandatory savings plans should be unnecessary-indeed harmful-because they take away choice and hence opportunity to find the best choice between consuming now and saving for the future. But economists repeatedly find that people spend their money like drunken sailors. They act as if they think they will die in a few years, or as if the future were completely unpredictable, which may be closer to the reality of our evolutionary ancestors then it is today. (55) If so, then allowing people to manage their own savings (for example, letting them keep their entire pay check and investing it as they please) may work against their interests. Like Odysseus approaching the island of the Sirens, people might rationally agree to let their employer or the government tie them to the mast of forced savings.


The economist Robert Frank has appealed to evolutionary psychology of status to point out other shortcomings of the rational-actor theory and, by extension, laissez-faire economics. (56) Rational actors should eschew not only forced retirement savings but other policies that ostensibly protect them, such as mandatory health care benefits, workplace safety regulations, unemployment insurance, and union dues. All of these cost money that would otherwise go into their paychecks, and workers could decide for themselves whether to take a pay cut to work for a company with more paternalistic policies or go for the biggest salary and take higher risks on the job. Companies in their competition for the best employees, should find the balance demanded by the employees they want.

The rub, Frank points out, is that people are endowed with a craving for status. Their first impulse is to spend their money in ways that would put them ahead of the Joneses (houses, cars, clothing, prestidgious educations), rather then in ways they only know about (health care, job safety, retirement savings). Unfortunately, status is a zero-sum game, so when everyone has more money to spend on cars and houses, the houses and cars get bigger but people are no happier then they were before. Like hockey players who agree to wear helmets only if a rule forces their opponents to wear them too, people might agree to regulations that force everyone to pay for hidden benefits like health care that make them happier in the long run, even if regulations come to the expense of disposable income.


55: Akerlof, 1984; Daly & Wilson, 1994; Jones, 2001; Rogers, 1994

56: Frank, 1999; Frank 1985.




(Bold added)

So again I say the choice policies will likely fail. This is because it is not human nature to save, it is human nature to spend. That's because there was no retirement plan on the African plains.

[DialecticMaterialist]

My previous post should have said 15% of the nation's GDP went to the government, not 1.5%. Sorry for the confusion. And yes, that is a big difference (though I would like to see it bigger).

[Cain]

Robert Frank is a cool economist, and I remember reading that passage in Pinker.

The point not explicitly stated goes to financial externalities. Libertarians and others will argue that if people do not save their money, then boohoo; too damn bad; you're outta lucky, buddy. Why should I be punished (taxed) for your mismanagement of funds and inability to plan for the future?*

The problem is that if a number of people do not plan properly then there will be financial and social dislocation that could effect everyone in society.

The new research coming from economists and psychologists seems to show that purchasing that BMW will not really make you happy. People miscalculate their expectations constantly. I'm not sure that's a good argument for paternalism though. The problem is with the unintended aggregate consequences of self-interested, individual choices (composition fallacy).




*Notice this is not an argument from economic efficency, but (in my opinion, misguided) individual liberty.

[Ed]

Originally posted by mumchup
I feel that giving The People control over their Social Security money is a bad idea. When this idea first became popular a few years ago, the stock market was sky high. Alot of people ended up losing money, and they would have lost their Social Security money as well if given the chance.
If I know Americans (and I am one) everyone would still expect to receive a full retirement from the U.S. Government regardless of how their personal investments did. And some of the people who decide to opt out of the system entirely may end up burdening society in their old age, if they failed to save enough themselves.

Full retirement? What do you think SS payments are?

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
But economists repeatedly find that people spend their money like drunken sailors.

Economists have found no such thing. Read the Macroeconomics thread and you will see the economic factors that cause the amount of savings in the economy to rise and fall. Or for that matter, just look at all the investing (or "buying on credit," if you prefer to characterize it that way) going on—that wouldn't be possible unless people were saving that amount. Where do you think money to invest comes from?

[jj]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Shanek, that's Social Security and Medicare, and it is only 15% for the self-employed. It's 7% for employees.

Oh. I see. Does, perchance, the employer pay some of this, too?

And in any event, all this shows me is that 90% of the country faces an unfair tax burden. Which doesn't surprise me, as 10% own 70% of the wealth.

And, you suggest, it is more ethical to confiscate their wealth than it is to confiscate others' wealth? Why would this be? "He has it, I want it?"


Sigh, as much as I don't particularly like a lot of libertarian ideas, you're not doing a good job of refuting them here, you know.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Oh. I see. Does, perchance, the employer pay some of this, too?


I don't know. If you could get the information for me, it would be appreciated. I would not be too surprised by this result.


And, you suggest, it is more ethical to confiscate their wealth than it is to confiscate others' wealth? Why would this be? "He has it, I want it?"

Well the above argument is somewhat like asking me in the issue of abortion of I think "murder is wrong". I believe in progressive taxation. I hardly consider that simply "taking" a person's wealth. This is because imo, the wealth is in many way's society's wealth. This is because the very legitimacy of money is established by society, and because all of the "wealth" produced by the person rests on an entire social superstructure and group effort. Lastly, the tax is collected by a central government by democratic mechanisms, not by some criminal just out for personal gain.

The matter of who gets or should get wealth, has been and always will be a matter of value judgment. Not a matter solved by any single standard of demarcation, or universal law of nature.


Even you would likely agree with this when we tax people for example, for military, or police, or the CDC or NASA. Would you call this simply "taking" and "confiscating" someone's wealth and hence, unethical? Or does the fact that it is a tax make it a very different affair?

Let me ask you, what ultimately makes the wealth, "their wealth"? And is it ethical to set up a system where people get vast amounts more then they earn i.e. a system of priviledge and not merit? And is it right for a few elites (10% of society) to have access to the vast majority of wealth(70%), created by and dependent on society as a whole?

[jj]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist



I don't know. If you could get the information for me, it would be appreciated. I would not be too surprised by this result.


You don't even know the answer to this question, but you're rebuking somebody else on the tax rate?



DO YOUR HOMEWORK



Next, perhaps, the question will arise of what it means when the employer is obliged to match the employee's SS tax.

Think about that one, ok?


Well the above argument is somewhat like asking me in the issue of abortion of I think "murder is wrong". I believe in progressive taxation. I hardly consider that simply "taking" a person's wealth. This is because imo, the wealth is in many way's society's wealth.

Yep, thought we'd get there. You just said, in effect:

"What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine.".

I wouldn't argue if you said "fair taxation", and meant that there weren't so many loopholes for the rich to slide by, while those of us who aren't quite rich often get stuck with AMT, and nearly the whole middle class will be being destroyed by AMT in the near future (so says the head of the IRS, btw, not me).

But that's not what you said. You haven't studied what actually happens, you don't know what's happening to the tax burden with the Shrub's changes that help only the mega-rich (not top .5%, top maybe .005%), and you don't realize the freight train headed downhill at the entire middle class.


DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by jj
You don't even know the answer to this question, but you're rebuking somebody else on the tax rate?



Yep, I don't know everything about the issue, though I try to pay attention to evidence. In any event, just cause I don't know everything does not mean I don't know anything.

Shouting at me is hardly an appropriate response, especially seeing as you've brought in virtually no evidence in terms of sources to support many of your claims.


Next, perhaps, the question will arise of what it means when the employer is obliged to match the employee's SS tax.

Think about that one, ok?


Well if you can show me if this is actually the case, I will gladly oblige. Otherwise its proof surrgogate. I know actually having to bring in your evidence, and do research in order to prove what you know to another who doesn't might be tedious, but it still almost always has to be done if we are to avoid an endless series of wild goose chases. It's not my job for example to gather your evidence or prove your case for you. That's your job.

Shouting "Do your Homework" in this issue, in bold and big font isn't evidence for your case.





Yep, thought we'd get there. You just said, in effect:

"What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine.".


Did I really?

No I said, what's in many way's society's wealth should be spent by society in a way that benefits most of us most of the time. That's a very different statement.


Perhaps you simply confuse two types of trading and the ownership that arises, equating trading and market pricing.

Equiaty ownership is what we use most of the time with our personal possesions. It's the way we evolved to think about things, because on the plains of Africa we either directly made most of our own stuff, or purchased it by things we made directly ourselves.

And even then certain things that took group effort, like big kills, would be shared by a group.

Now at days, in our complex, state level market economy things are a bit more complex, and production is a bit more indirect. The concept of ownership becomes a bit more blurry and open to disagreement here.


In your opinion, the wealth of the super rich is the equivalent to personal property. The stone axe, or hut of a caveman. IMO, it's more like a big game that the entire tribe took down, who's shares should be destributed in the most efficient and fair manner.

Of course certain people should get more, because certain people did more. And full equality is not practical as it is usually economically not feasible.

But more fairness, especially in a way that rewards talent is I think preferable to a method that basically rewards priveledge and promotes gross inequality. I really doubt those at the top .5% level really work 200 times harder then the rest of us, which is what one would think seeing as they own 30% of the wealth.



IMO the modern economy is somewhat a mix of personal ownership produced in part by individuals and group ownership, where things are made by group effort. Our job is to find the right balance, so as to serve our general values.


The aspects I'm talking about, overall wealth from which you use your dollars to purchase from, is imo, a group product and multi-personal aggregate of products.

It is stuff produced at many stages by many individuals (like Universities) or commidities/services produced or provided more by single individuals (like books), though groups are involved here as well i.e. publishers, book stores, paper companies, etc..

They all in many ways likewise rely on a superstructure necessary for this system to exist, things like electricity, schools, police/courts, armies, hospitals, roads, and sewers.

All things necessary for the creation of wealth, making its creation even more of a group effort.

So given this set-up, what would you say raw money amounts to?

Mere individual property, like the stone axe, which brings with it a certain psychology?

Or group wealth, like a dead mestadon, that is supposed to be split by the group fairly and efficiently?


Of course extremes on this issue are always wrong, which is why extreme capitalism and socialism fail imo to capture the psychology and system necessary for the best kind of economy.

But this is also why I don't see progressive taxation as outright robbery. Not so much as I see flat tax, which is the equivalent imo, to a single man trying to hoard the group's big kill.

[jj]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well if you can show me if this is actually the case, I will gladly oblige. Otherwise its proof surrgogate. I know actually having to bring in your evidence, and do research in order to prove what you know to another who doesn't might be tedious, but it still almost always has to be done if we are to avoid an endless series of wild goose chases.

I'm the one with the status quo position. You're the one making the extraordinary claim. Do your OWN homework, (*&(* it.

It's not my job for example to gather your evidence or prove your case for you. That's your job.

You're the one making a case, not me. Stop trying to shift the burden.

Shouting "Do your Homework" in this issue, in bold and big font isn't evidence for your case.


No, it's asking you to know "facts before engaging mouth."


Perhaps you simply confuse two types of trading and the ownership that arises, equating trading and market pricing.

Yowsa, yowsa, get yer straw man, right here, Yowsa, yowsa, yowsa. Pick 'em up before they're burnt, step right up ladies and gentlemen!

In your opinion, the wealth of the super rich is the equivalent to personal property.

No, that's not what I said. Please don't seek to speak for me. Ask Shanek how that works out, why don't you?

The stone axe, or hut of a caveman. IMO, it's more like a big game that the entire tribe took down, who's shares should be destributed in the most efficient and fair manner.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?

Um,
NO


But more fairness, especially in a way that rewards talent is I think preferable to a method that basically rewards priveledge and promotes gross inequality. I really doubt those at the top .5% level really work 200 times harder then the rest of us, which is what one would think seeing as they own 30% of the wealth.

Did you notice my discussion about the MIDDLE CLASS and AMT?

The MIDDLE CLASS is hardly the ultra-rich, now, is it? I seem to recall pointing out that the middle class got the shaft, yes? Why are you now suggesting I'm saying something else?

All things necessary for the creation of wealth, making its creation even more of a group effort.

Isn't that what a market is about, rewarding those who create wealth?

But this is also why I don't see progressive taxation as outright robbery. Not so much as I see flat tax, which is the equivalent imo, to a single man trying to hoard the group's big kill.
AMT, which is the flag I keep raising, is FLAT TAXATION.

Hello??????

[NullPointerException]

Retirement plans are for the unintelligent. Just get 15million dollars of life insurance when you're tired of living, and as soon as you pay your first premium take that trip to Palestine you always wanted to take while wearing your "I like women, I like fun, Muslims suck, Satan's #1" wife beater tshirt...

[DialecticMaterialist]

I have said and will say again I only answer responsible criticism. If your criticism is going to be something childish like the yelling of a big "no" in all caps, huge size font, I am simply going to dismiss your claim. Same thing if you simply repeat "do your homework! dp your homework!" for the umpteenth time. (the words "show your proof, show your proof" should give you an idea of what responsible criticism is like.)

After honestly searching your post, all I have come across is irresponsible claims. Literally. There isn't a single, yes literally, not a single serious/relevant statement there. Everything is either some sort of loaded question, yelling or emotional outburst. Hardly the stuff of moderates.

For example :


Do your OWN homework, (*&(* it.

[snip]


Yowsa, yowsa, get yer straw man, right here, Yowsa, yowsa, yowsa. Pick 'em up before they're burnt, step right up ladies and gentlemen!

[snip]

Hello??????

--------real reasonable tone there.

It's really not worth my time at this point. Thanks for helping my case btw.

[jj]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I have said and will say again I only answer responsible criticism.

In other words, when it's suggested that you might have your facts completely wrong, say, about the social serickety tax, you won't do your homework, and insist that the other guy does it for you. You make an assertion, and when it's questioned, you demand that the OTHER person research the information on the assertion THAT YOU HAVE MADE. You are trying to shift the burden. Why? Because you want to waste MY time researching the assertions that YOU have made.

Do your owh homework!

You WOULD think that those of us who've read this board here and there might recognize that pathetic little stunt, now, don't you?

After honestly searching your post, all I have come across is irresponsible claims. Literally.

It is completely and absolutely unethical of you to argue and present your claims as "fact" when you have admitted that you haven't done a bit of the homework.

You've admitted that, and then you've asked ME to do YOUR homework.

Your request is unreasonable, and it is denied.

There isn't a single, yes literally, not a single serious/relevant statement there.

Really?

You mean, for instance, like "isn't that what the market is about"?

That is, especially since there is a libertarian in the crowd, one of the fundamental questions. You've made a fundamental claim when you make your argument about property, and now you won't even discuss it. Why?

Really?

You mean, for instance, like your assertion that I've said "In your opinion, the wealth of the super rich is the equivalent to personal property.", when I've done no such thing? You don't reply to my pointing out that fact. What are you hiding from? Why did you have to fake up something to lay at my feet instead of responding

Really?

You mean, for instance, like my pointing out AMT? How come you haven't explained the issues with Alternatitive Minimum Tax, and how it's going to nail the middle class, and make it uneconomic for them to make financial investments?

You have refused to either offer substance (look at your inability to even explain how Social Serickety works if you're an employee!) or to deal with the substance, yet you dare to accuse me of ignoring substance.

Why won't you address the issues surrounding AMT, and how it removes tax-shelter status from all of the common middle-class investments? Hello, there, do you have ANYTHING to offer beyond abuse?

Look, in my estimation Shakek doesn't make much sense, but you're going to have to do a LOT better than this if you want to argue with him.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by jj



That is, especially since there is a libertarian in the crowd, one of the fundamental questions. You've made a fundamental claim when you make your argument about property, and now you won't even discuss it. Why?


You haven't really given me much to reply to.

Really?

Yeah really.

You mean, for instance, like your assertion that I've said "In your opinion, the wealth of the super rich is the equivalent to personal property.", when I've done no such thing?


Oh, so when you accused me of saying "What's there's is mine" and confiscating the rich's property you weren't going by that assumption? Do you really expect me to believe that for a second JJ?


Why won't you address the issues surrounding AMT, and how it removes tax-shelter status from all of the common middle-class investments? Hello, there, do you have ANYTHING to offer beyond abuse?


I hardly feel I've "abused" you poor JJ. In fact I find the claim somewhat ridiculous, seeing as you've been the one yelling, cussing, and just generally insulting, saying I "can't refute Shanek" (didn't know that was the issue btw).

Likewise I'm not discussing AMT, first off because I don't know much about. Secondly, because it wasn't really the subject, its just more something recently brought up in your last post in mention in one or two sentences which aren't really relevant to my arguments.

And last, because the subject is a very complex one that I'd rather not dig into with a guy who's obviously not ready to be reasonable.

To quote an "AMT Guide" on the issue:

The alternative minimum tax is a large and complicated subject. We won't even try to cover all the rules here. Our goal is to help you identify the important issues so you won't make a costly mistake in dealing with this tax.


http://www.fairmark.com/amt/

The whole thing simply sounds like another red herring to me. If you can explain explicitly i.e. in more then a passing sentence what AMT is, and why it is so relevant and how specifically it refutes what I am saying I will be all eyes. If however you just keep saying "What about AMT! What about AMT!" over and over ad naseum I'm not going to discuss it with you. Sorry if that sounds like "abuse".

[jj]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist



You haven't really given me much to reply to.


I didn't make the claim, you did. If you can't find any substance, that's your problem, not mine. Sort your issues out and get back to me.

Oh, so when you accused me of saying "What's there's is mine" and confiscating the rich's property you weren't going by that assumption? Do you really expect me to believe that for a second JJ?

I have no idea what you believe, and until you explain it, neither does much of anyone.

My reply was a well-known ironic joke about communism. Again, if you lack the knowledge, don't get into the argument.

You obviously have some seriously misbegotten fantasies about what I think. I would suggest that you start replying to what I've said, instead of what you imagine. You complain about substance, but you ignore the substance, and then complain you didn't see any.

Ok, as it turns out below, you don't know substance when you see it, too!

Likewise I'm not discussing AMT, first off because I don't know much about.

I would suggest that you research (it should be easy) what one of the senior IRS officials said about it the other night. It ought to be right up on a search engine. You do know how to use one, right?

Secondly, because it wasn't really the subject, its just more something recently brought up in your last post in mention in one or two sentences which aren't really relevant to my arguments.

Your arrogance is appalling. You don't know what something is, but you have the bald arrogance to say it's not relevant. Once again, you simply won't do your homework. You could have ASKED about AMT, but you chose to ignore it. Now, you admit you don't know what it is, but you know it's not relevant?

How do you know that? Mentalism? Psionics?

The whole thing simply sounds like another red herring to me. If you can explain explicitly i.e. in more then a passing sentence what AMT is, and why it is so relevant and how specifically it refutes what I am saying I will be all eyes.

AMT is a form of flat tax. That's all you need to know in this context. Anyone who isn't ultra-rich or ultra-poor is in danger of paying it very soon. I thought you didn't like flat tax.

Now deal.

(Oh, and AMT isn't very complicated, either, it's just another form of tax that was originally created to catch tax shelters, and that has been doped down to only catch tax shelters that aren't the kind the really rich use.)

You are appalling, unethical, and disruptive, as well as ignorant.

You have launched into a fairly subtle tax issue, insisted that SS isn't a pyramid or ponzi scheme, got battered on that, insisted that AMT isn't relevant to your rantings about flat taxes, claimed that SS is 7 percent for employed individuals without even looking into what an employer might pay...

Do your homework. When you actually know what you're arguing about, maybe you'll be more interesting.

Some things you might have said, but haven't.

1) Progressive taxes are fair because they tax the utility of income, rather than income.
2) Social Security is a pyramid scheme, but could still be converted to a tax and entitlement fund if we stop fooling around and do something.

There are other things, but I'm not going to bother much, you can't even offer up some of the GOOD arguments for the side you're taking.

You're lucky, I'm generous in debating.

Shanek would have taken you apart. In doing so, he would have used a variety of very nasty rhetorical tricks, he would have poisoned the well, made professional accusations, etc, all of which he's demonstrated that he does on a routine basis, and which I've taken him to task for. I'm not sure you even recognize those tactics, because you've misstaken direct, frank responses for rhetorical manouevering from me. You haven't seen me start. I generally don't, it's usually easier to dismember somebody else's prattling.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by jj


AMT is a form of flat tax. That's all you need to know in this context. Anyone who isn't ultra-rich or ultra-poor is in danger of paying it very soon. I thought you didn't like flat tax.

I am for progressive taxation, more taxes for the rich. I am not opposed at all to every case of specific flat tax (just flat tax in general i.e. as opposed to progressive taxation in general). I would personally have to know more about AMT then it is "flat tax" before I opposed it. I'm also less then willing to take your word on a lot of things, given the obvious hostility in your reponses.



You are appalling, unethical, and disruptive, as well as ignorant.

Thank you. :)

I'm honored that you could decipher so much concerning my character from a handful of posts.


You're lucky, I'm generous in debating.

I count my blessings.



You haven't seen me start. I generally don't, it's usually easier to dismember somebody else's prattling.

Calm down tiger. It'd be somewhat sad for you to get so angry and hostile over an "appalling, unethical, ignorant and disruptive" person wouldn't it? One would hope a person like you would be above such things.


In any event, there is a lot of things I haven;t brought up. Granted, but I can't possibly bring up every possible good point on the issue, nor should I be expected to. I just brought in the points I thought were most important and most relevant. I am not btw, saying social security has no problems or against social security reform. All I have said is that I do not believe privatizing it is the answer. That's it.

I will just point out that you still haven't even adressed a lot of my arguments (the one concerning the nature of property, the excerpt from dawkins and evolution, the bankruptcy of charities and dangers of privatization. )

[DialecticMaterialist]

At this point I don't feel it is constructive to continue this debate as JJ seems to be getting overly emotional, and I don't wish to fan the flames, so to speak, for fear of losing patience myself. I will just end by saying that I admire most of JJ's posts, and his courage to stand up as a strong moderate. I don't think he really means a lot of the things he says (or at I least I hope he doesn't). I only hope that he doesn't feel this little disagreement has somehow made us into enemies.

[Cain]

At this point I don't feel it is constructive to continue this debate as JJ seems to be getting overly emotional, and I don't wish to fan the flames....

How can you find the time to write this when you should be doing your homework? Chop, chop.

[jj]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
At this point I don't feel it is constructive to continue this debate as JJ seems to be getting overly emotional, and I don't wish to fan the flames, so to speak, for fear of losing patience myself. I will just end by saying that I admire most of JJ's posts, and his courage to stand up as a strong moderate. I don't think he really means a lot of the things he says (or at I least I hope he doesn't). I only hope that he doesn't feel this little disagreement has somehow made us into enemies.

Oh, right. I'm getting "emotional" when I ridicule you for running away like a scared greyhound when I won't let you shift the burden to me.

Yeah, you don't want to fan the flames, you just come out with gems like "only irresponsible claims", and trying to dodge the bullet by telling me that the biggest trains coming down the track at the middle class are just "irresponsible claims". I guess I should take your word over that of the IRS's senior experts?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're right, it's not constructive for you to jump into an argument unarmed and uninformed, but I don't think that's what you originally meant.

Now, if you said "Oh, yeah, the employer pays the other half when the person isn't self-employed", or "hm, AMT, let me check that out", I'd give you some credit for at least wanting to learn more about what you're arguing about. Ignorance is, after all, something that can be fixed, and we are all ignorant about most of human knowledge, nobody can possibly hold it all.

But, rather than take a point and learn, you just kept arguing, arguing, arguing. I can't even tell quite what your position is for the ad-homs, straw men, and attempts to shifting the burden, but I guess it doesn't matter any more.

[jj]

Originally posted by Cain


How can you find the time to write this when you should be doing your homework? Chop, chop.

Pot, kettle, scrub brush.