Topic: Social security is the govs way of saying you are too stupid to save your own $$ (Read 3724 times)

If it was voluntary, people who needed it before they were 18 would not be able to get it.

You mean they couldn't sign up to get money, and then pay it back later, like you're doing? Or failing that, their parents?

Older people would most likely still receive money though some other method without every paying in. People who need to save the most would probably opt out. Forcing them to pay is the only way they will save anything for retirement.

So, like the OP says, you consider people too stupid to save for their own retirement.

People don't like to see old people homeless, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Nor do I. It's when they care so much that they're willing to pay other people's money that it starts to trouble me.

Quote from: myrkul on March 25, 2013, 03:03:10 AM

Government does provide security and power companies do supply power. Not sure how you think a county could be defended without a government but good luck with that.

Read the booklet I suggested earlier, and you'll see that While the government does provide security, like the power company supplies electricity, those are not the only way to go about that.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Aesthetics and security theatre...

Beans

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Beans on March 25, 2013, 02:52:48 AM

Umm, no. That means I didn't pay it then, I pay it now. And if no one didn't pay it like your suggesting then where do the kids get it from? It's just a reality that not everyone can save what they need or predict how long they will live. It's hard to argue with someone who think no government would be a good idea. Sorry but we are not going back to the days of being raped and pillaged. It's called progress, and you should be damn happy about it.

If "no one didn't pay it," then everyone would be paying, wouldn't they? College education well spent, I see. I think you meant "If no one payed it." That's not exactly what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that it be voluntary, like other forms of insurance.

And I see you also conflate "government" with "provision of security." That's sort of like conflating "the power company" with "provision of electricity." Security, that service currently mostly provided by government monopolies, can most definitely be provided by other entities, and that provision need not be paid for in such a mafia-like way. This is not a new idea. Gustave de Molinari suggested it well over a century and a half ago.

If it was voluntary, people who needed it before they were 18 would not be able to get it. Older people would most likely still receive money though some other method without every paying in. People who need to save the most would probably opt out. Forcing them to pay is the only way they will save anything for retirement. People don't like to see old people homeless, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Government does provide security and power companies do supply power. Not sure how you think a county could be defended without a government but good luck with that.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Beans on March 25, 2013, 02:52:48 AM

Umm, no. That means I didn't pay it then, I pay it now. And if no one didn't pay it like your suggesting then where do the kids get it from? It's just a reality that not everyone can save what they need or predict how long they will live. It's hard to argue with someone who think no government would be a good idea. Sorry but we are not going back to the days of being raped and pillaged. It's called progress, and you should be damn happy about it.

If "no one didn't pay it," then everyone would be paying, wouldn't they? College education well spent, I see. I think you meant "If no one payed it." That's not exactly what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that it be voluntary, like other forms of insurance.

And I see you also conflate "government" with "provision of security." That's sort of like conflating "the power company" with "provision of electricity." Security, that service currently mostly provided by government monopolies, can most definitely be provided by other entities, and that provision need not be paid for in such a mafia-like way. This is not a new idea. Gustave de Molinari suggested it well over a century and a half ago.

Beans

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: myrkul on March 24, 2013, 02:11:44 AM

Quote from: Beans on March 24, 2013, 01:56:49 AM

The whole idea of social security appalls me. The idea that they take some of our money to save it for us. And in reality they just go and dip into those funds to spend at will. It's stupid.

More like your posting is stupid. A lot of people don't save enough, it's hard to know what is enough. SS is not just retirement anyway, I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

Would you be so proud had the money to raise you come from muggings?

I used to for college and a new car, but not sure what anything has to do with muggings... SS is about distributing money to people who cannot earn it themselves. If you don't like it, you can always move to some crap hole country that doesn't mind if you starve or go homeless.

I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Would you be so proud, had the money you used to go to college and buy a new car had come from muggings?

Oh, and to explain what SSI has to do with mugging, think about where the money comes from. If it is not OK to use a gun to take money from people, why is it OK to use a politician? And if it is OK to use a politician to take money from people, why is it not OK to use a gun?

SS doesn't collect money by mugging people, it comes from the same people that receive it.

So, they take money, and then give (some of) it right back? If that's the case wouldn't it be more efficient to let people keep the money?

And didn't you say:

Quote from: enquirer on March 24, 2013, 04:46:53 PM

I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

So doesn't that mean it doesn't come from the same people that receive it, that it comes from other people?

Umm, no. That means I didn't pay it then, I pay it now. And if no one didn't pay it like your suggesting then where do the kids get it from? It's just a reality that not everyone can save what they need or predict how long they will live. It's hard to argue with someone who think no government would be a good idea. Sorry but we are not going back to the days of being raped and pillaged. It's called progress, and you should be damn happy about it.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

So, if a country does not have social security, it's a third-world country, and if those third-world countries were to implement social security, they would become first-world countries within a generation?

/rolleyes

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on March 24, 2013, 04:32:57 PM

Quote from: enquirer on March 24, 2013, 04:28:51 PM

A society without any social security at all is not a futuristic/libertarian concept at all, but today's reality for a large part of Earth population. You are old/sick/stupid/have no money - you die. Very simple and good from natural selection point of view. The problem is those societies are universally much worse off than societies with social security. So the empirical evidence strongly suggest in favor of social security.

I think you may be suffering from sample bias. Where are all those societies with no social security?

http://beta.globalmarch.org/news/201110.php
"Taking into account those who are not economically active, it is estimated that only about 20 per cent of the world’s working age population and their families have effective access to comprehensive social protection systems."

"[In] sub-Saharan Africa, only 5 per cent of the working-age population is effectively covered by contributory programmes, while this share is about 20 per cent in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa."

So, third-world countries. Yup, definitely sample bias. Got any developed nations to show me?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Beans on March 24, 2013, 01:56:49 AM

I don't know what kind of close minded, dumb ass views you have. But they seem pretty damn ridiculous from where I'm sitting.

+1000.

Someone else finally calls myrkul out with his meme repeating nonsense about muggings.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: enquirer on March 24, 2013, 04:28:51 PM

The problem is those societies are universally much worse off than societies with social security. So the empirical evidence strongly suggest in favor of social security.

Cause... effect... yadda yadda...

enquirer

sr. member

Activity: 306

Merit: 257

Quote from: myrkul on March 24, 2013, 04:32:57 PM

Quote from: enquirer on March 24, 2013, 04:28:51 PM

A society without any social security at all is not a futuristic/libertarian concept at all, but today's reality for a large part of Earth population. You are old/sick/stupid/have no money - you die. Very simple and good from natural selection point of view. The problem is those societies are universally much worse off than societies with social security. So the empirical evidence strongly suggest in favor of social security.

I think you may be suffering from sample bias. Where are all those societies with no social security?

http://beta.globalmarch.org/news/201110.php
"Taking into account those who are not economically active, it is estimated that only about 20 per cent of the world’s working age population and their families have effective access to comprehensive social protection systems."

"n sub-Saharan Africa, only 5 per cent of the working-age population is effectively covered by contributory programmes, while this share is about 20 per cent in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa."

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: enquirer on March 24, 2013, 04:28:51 PM

A society without any social security at all is not a futuristic/libertarian concept at all, but today's reality for a large part of Earth population. You are old/sick/stupid/have no money - you die. Very simple and good from natural selection point of view. The problem is those societies are universally much worse off than societies with social security. So the empirical evidence strongly suggest in favor of social security.

I think you may be suffering from sample bias. Where are all those societies with no social security?

enquirer

sr. member

Activity: 306

Merit: 257

A society without any social security at all is not a futuristic/libertarian concept at all, but today's reality for a large part of Earth population. You are old/sick/stupid/have no money - you die. Very simple and good from natural selection point of view. The problem is those societies are universally much worse off than societies with social security. So the empirical evidence strongly suggest in favor of social security.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: Richy_T on March 24, 2013, 03:15:46 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 02:04:33 PM

Once you've done that, we can move on to force. As you know, buying automobile insurance is forced. I know you disagree with that concept, but it's reality. Can you think of other ways in which society forces things? I think you can. Please enumerate some.

Government is not society.

It's high society, where you can violate civil rights and common laws with practically absolute impunity.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 02:04:33 PM

Once you've done that, we can move on to force. As you know, buying automobile insurance is forced. I know you disagree with that concept, but it's reality. Can you think of other ways in which society forces things? I think you can. Please enumerate some.

Government is not society.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: myrkul on March 21, 2013, 02:00:39 PM

Please remember that, as an insurance/Ponzi scheme, one's SSI is not paid for with one's own money. It's paid for with other people's money, which is taken from them by force. If it were my own money coming back to me, that would make it a savings account.

Sooner or later, the young people will get pissed off and say "Enough".

Then the old people will say "But what about all the money I paid in"

And the young people will say "That was your responsibility to put a stop to that when *you* were young. You failed to protect your income to provide for your own future."

And those that see this coming will be prepared and live comfortably

And those that hoped to live off the backs of others in the face of brutal demographics...

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: Mike Christ on March 24, 2013, 02:55:35 AM

Where the hell is my SS? I haven't seen a dime.

And you never will, unless you enter into a cold war with the government, like my parents are having to wage every fucking month.

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Where the hell is my SS? I haven't seen a dime.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Beans on March 24, 2013, 01:56:49 AM

The whole idea of social security appalls me. The idea that they take some of our money to save it for us. And in reality they just go and dip into those funds to spend at will. It's stupid.

More like your posting is stupid. A lot of people don't save enough, it's hard to know what is enough. SS is not just retirement anyway, I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

Would you be so proud had the money to raise you come from muggings?

I used to for college and a new car, but not sure what anything has to do with muggings... SS is about distributing money to people who cannot earn it themselves. If you don't like it, you can always move to some crap hole country that doesn't mind if you starve or go homeless.

I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Would you be so proud, had the money you used to go to college and buy a new car had come from muggings?

Oh, and to explain what SSI has to do with mugging, think about where the money comes from. If it is not OK to use a gun to take money from people, why is it OK to use a politician? And if it is OK to use a politician to take money from people, why is it not OK to use a gun?

SS doesn't collect money by mugging people, it comes from the same people that receive it.

So, they take money, and then give (some of) it right back? If that's the case wouldn't it be more efficient to let people keep the money?

And didn't you say:

I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

So doesn't that mean it doesn't come from the same people that receive it, that it comes from other people?

Beans

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 24, 2013, 01:19:39 AM

The whole idea of social security appalls me. The idea that they take some of our money to save it for us. And in reality they just go and dip into those funds to spend at will. It's stupid.

More like your posting is stupid. A lot of people don't save enough, it's hard to know what is enough. SS is not just retirement anyway, I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

Would you be so proud had the money to raise you come from muggings?

I used to for college and a new car, but not sure what anything has to do with muggings... SS is about distributing money to people who cannot earn it themselves. If you don't like it, you can always move to some crap hole country that doesn't mind if you starve or go homeless.

I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Would you be so proud, had the money you used to go to college and buy a new car had come from muggings?

Oh, and to explain what SSI has to do with mugging, think about where the money comes from. If it is not OK to use a gun to take money from people, why is it OK to use a politician? And if it is OK to use a politician to take money from people, why is it not OK to use a gun?

SS doesn't collect money by mugging people, it comes from the same people that receive it. Should kids feel bad for going to public schools? I don't know what kind of close minded, dumb ass views you have. But they seem pretty damn ridiculous from where I'm sitting. 35% of the people in the world don't even have toilets, I'm betting those folks have just the kind of government's you wish we had.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM