Welfare State: Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages

[rika60607 215]

You could look at it this way, of course...

But as young and productive employees age, they will become unproductive wealthy (or not) retirees. So this is only a circle of life...

No, it's redistribution of wealth from the young and productive workers to the unproductive wealthy retirees.

Edited to add: unless those young and productive a new immigrants, the retirees are their parents, yes? So does it really matter? This money goes into the same family anyway, the only question is who gets control of that portion - the young and productive or the retirees.

Edited March 9, 2011 by rika60607

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You could look at it this way, of course...

But as young and productive employees age, they will become unproductive wealthy (or not) retirees. So this is only a circle of life...

Edited to add: unless those young and productive a new immigrants, the retirees are their parents, yes? So does it really matter? This money goes into the same family anyway, the only question is who gets control of that portion - the young and productive or the retirees.

If that were indeed true, why does the government have to control how that money is redistributed? When gramps asks for money, just give it to him, and cut out the middleman.

[rika60607 215]

Because some gramps have no children, some gramps have children who are struggling to make ends meet themselves and some gramps have mean irresponsible children

Because some gramps are not the wealthy retirees, but the non-wealthy retirees who have no other means.

Because if you have a system where old folks have no guarantees of any support at all, you create a fear of abandonment and death of hunger on the streets... natural response to that would be having more children (gambling that one of them will help) and hoarding resources (in case none of them will help). Also, committing crimes so that you get guaranteed roof over your head, meals and medical care.

The system is there to keep all afloat. SS payouts are quite miserly anyway.

If you object that government controls it, I am right there with you. Should have been an independent entity (but of course non-profit and not private).

If that were indeed true, why does the government have to control how that money is redistributed? When gramps asks for money, just give it to him, and cut out the middleman.

Edited March 9, 2011 by rika60607

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If that were indeed true, why does the government have to control how that money is redistributed? When gramps asks for money, just give it to him, and cut out the middleman.

Why do corporations need to lobby for special bond elections for construction of their buildings? If you really want a pay-as-you-go system, you should at least start at the top.

Because some gramps have no children, some gramps have children who are struggling to make ends meet themselves and some gramps have mean irresponsible children

Because some gramps are not the wealthy retirees, but the non-wealthy retirees who have no other means.

Because if you have a system where old folks have no guarantees of any support at all, you create a fear of abandonment and death of hunger on the streets... natural response to that would be having more children (gambling that one of them will help) and hoarding resources (in case none of them will help). Also, committing crimes so that you get guaranteed roof over your head, meals and medical care.

The system is there to keep all afloat. SS payouts are quite miserly anyway.

If you object that government controls it, I am right there with you. Should have been an independent entity (but of course non-profit and not private).

Bill has no children to support him when he retires. He'll be suckling on that big gov't teet as eager as the next closet socialist.

[rika60607 215]

But of course...

Socialist is the one who gladly pays into the system to support others, not knowing if he will ever benefit from the system himself. The one who gladly uses said system is not necessarily a socialist.

Bill has no children to support him when he retires. He'll be suckling on that big gov't teet as eager as the next closet socialist.

[rika60607 215]

BTW I really do not think this is the case of pay-as-you-go proponents. Simple test - would the same people who dislike SS, also equally dislike private medical and life insurance? There is a clear potential with both to get a higher payout than the money that was put in by any particular person.

I am yet to hear anyone speaking against either.

Why do corporations need to lobby for special bond elections for construction of their buildings? If you really want a pay-as-you-go system, you should at least start at the top.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

BTW I really do not think this is the case of pay-as-you-go proponents. Simple test - would the same people who dislike SS, also equally dislike private medical and life insurance? There is a clear potential with both to get a higher payout than the money that was put in by any particular person.

I am yet to hear anyone speaking against either.

But their argument is that they don't like the fact that some are receiving more in benefits than they have paid into it, so logically, they would also shun the insurance model.

[mawilson 2,133]

Because some gramps have no children, some gramps have children who are struggling to make ends meet themselves and some gramps have mean irresponsible children

Because some gramps are not the wealthy retirees, but the non-wealthy retirees who have no other means.

Because if you have a system where old folks have no guarantees of any support at all, you create a fear of abandonment and death of hunger on the streets... natural response to that would be having more children (gambling that one of them will help) and hoarding resources (in case none of them will help). Also, committing crimes so that you get guaranteed roof over your head, meals and medical care.

Fair enough - so how about we support only those who actually need support (i.e. poor retirees)?

I bet we won't even need a 6% tax to support them.

[mawilson 2,133]

But their argument is that they don't like the fact that some are receiving more in benefits than they have paid into it, so logically, they would also shun the insurance model.

I'm ok with the insurance model - if you never get sick, you never use it.

Similarly, if you don't *need* social security benefits, you shouldn't get them just because you paid into the system.

Social Security should be a *safety net*, not an entitlement program.

Edited March 9, 2011 by mawilson

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm ok with the insurance model - if you never get sick, you never use it.

Similarly, if you don't *need* social security benefits, you shouldn't get them just because you paid into the system.

Social Security should be a *safety net*, not an entitlement program.

I totally agree.

[mawilson 2,133]

I totally agree.

Cool! We finally agree

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I totally agree.

steven's against a great social program being a benefit for all?

[Peikko 1,575]

I suppose that would be better than sending us to work camps in Barrow, Alaska, or simply taking us into a rice field and putting bullets in the back of our heads.

Hyperbole anyone?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bill has no children to support him when he retires. He'll be suckling on that big gov't teet as eager as the next closet socialist.

And he'll participate in tea party rallies demanding the government gets off his back - as long as it keeps sending the check, that is.

[rika60607 215]

That would be great, but hard to accomplish. How do you measure who actually needs support? By the house they own? Amount of money in their bank account? They can easily transfer all that to their children, younger lovers or companies who will hold their wealth for them.

The only hope would be that if SS retirement payments are puny enough, may be people who do not really need them, wouldn't bother to collect...

Fair enough - so how about we support only those who actually need support (i.e. poor retirees)?

I bet we won't even need a 6% tax to support them.