Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

What is the value to the 53%?

slo1
Posts: 4,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 10:57:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Looks like Romney is once again trying hard to not get elected by pandering to his sheeple base.

He said 47% of Americans would vote for Obama because they are dependent upon the government via entitlements.

Not only does it completely throw anyone receiving social security and medicare under the bus after they paid years into the system, it demonstrates a level of rhetoric which is designed to lead people by the nose.

Here is a good article showing the breakdown of who the 47% of Americans. There are very good points in this article on both sides. http://blogs.wsj.com...

I am more interested in the misconception that the other 53% don't receive government benefits. While I believe everyone should pay tax, even if a nominal amount to participate, a graduated taxation schedule like we have is fair for the below reasons.

- FDIC insurance. A guarantee by gov to pay up to $100,000 in lost deposits in insured banks.

- Roads and infrastructure. While benefits everyone those who use the systems to benefit from commerce receive a larger benefit than those just using it to drive to jobs.

- Judicial system: Anti corruption and rule of law in a fair means as possible creates the best environment for competition and success. Again benefit to all, but the rich who have more money on the line receive the greater benefit.

- National Defense: Again, items such as policing the worlds shipping routes to invading iraq gives greater benefit to those who can profit from providing services to the government, as well as provide protection for a greater amount of assets.

- Tax advantages targeted to the rich and middle class.
- 15% captial gains
- mortagate interest and points write offs, etc.

This little us versus them bs needs to stop. Stand up like a man Romney and have the courage to discuss the benefits that the greater government gives to all that is not entitlements. Even more important stop buying into the Democrat/Republican scheme of using tax code for activist reasons and let's just minimize taxes for all to pay for what government is spending.

Have the courage to get rid of the mortgage interest write off.

Have the courage to admit the fact that the rich don't work harder than everyone else and that a capitalism can not provide a sustainable living for everyone. That is why we need smart politicians who can set up entitlements which don't create dependency but do provide a safety net rather than demonizing everyone as lazy, stupid, and anti american.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 4:45:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Social security is not really an entitlement as long as the money that you put in = or > than the money that you get out.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
slo1
Posts: 4,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 8:29:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Another one to add to the list.

- Freedom to express ones political position with as much monies as one wants. The rich have more ability to influence the masses as a result of this government given benefit.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:00:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not only does it completely throw anyone receiving social security and medicare under the bus after they paid years into the system
What they are paying is less than what they are getting.

How do I know this? Because they've been racking up debt.

I am more interested in the misconception that the other 53% don't receive government benefits.
If I receive goods and services worth 20,000 from the government and pay them 50,000, I am not benefiting from government.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:57:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 4:45:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Social security is not really an entitlement as long as the money that you put in = or > than the money that you get out.

yet if you invest the money in stocks or other assets, your expected to get more money out then you put in.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 12:07:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:57:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 4:45:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Social security is not really an entitlement as long as the money that you put in = or > than the money that you get out.

yet if you invest the money in stocks or other assets, your expected to get more money out then you put in.

Is social security adjusted for inflation?

Can you get more out of it than you pay in?
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 12:27:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 12:07:41 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:57:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 4:45:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Social security is not really an entitlement as long as the money that you put in = or > than the money that you get out.

yet if you invest the money in stocks or other assets, your expected to get more money out then you put in.

Is social security adjusted for inflation?

Can you get more out of it than you pay in?

Yes, social security is adjusted for inflation once a year.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 12:54:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 4:45:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Social security is not really an entitlement as long as the money that you put in = or > than the money that you get out.

You're thinking of a handout. An entitlement, is just that, something one is entitled to.
slo1
Posts: 4,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:57:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:00:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not only does it completely throw anyone receiving social security and medicare under the bus after they paid years into the system
What they are paying is less than what they are getting.

How do I know this? Because they've been racking up debt.

I am more interested in the misconception that the other 53% don't receive government benefits.
If I receive goods and services worth 20,000 from the government and pay them 50,000, I am not benefiting from government.

That is the equivalent of saying that people should not buy insurance because they may never receive an payout of actual cash and will only pay in.

Risk mitigation has a tangible value. The rich receive more risk mitigation in various areas than what the poor receive. Take national defense. Who has more to loose should we ever drop our defenses enough that another country could do us harm or even take over and take all wealth and land like Castro did in Cuba?

You might say that risk is low, but the $700 billion we spend per year on national defense benefits someone who has $5 mill in the bank a heck of a lot more than someone who does not have a pot to pee in.
slo1
Posts: 4,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 2:02:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
TSA just let in another handgun on a plane as they complain for a lack of funding. There is a security fee on all tickets to pay for TSA, but it does not even closely cover the $7 billion budget.

Rest is covered via taxes. What should be as a 100% usage tax, again gets spread across all tax payers and disproportionately benefits business and the 53% who are more likely to air travel than the poor.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 5:49:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 1:57:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:00:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not only does it completely throw anyone receiving social security and medicare under the bus after they paid years into the system
What they are paying is less than what they are getting.

How do I know this? Because they've been racking up debt.

I am more interested in the misconception that the other 53% don't receive government benefits.
If I receive goods and services worth 20,000 from the government and pay them 50,000, I am not benefiting from government.

That is the equivalent of saying that people should not buy insurance because they may never receive an payout of actual cash and will only pay in.
No. Social security (except the disability bit, which is analytically separate from the retirement bit as a policy) is not a matter of risk management. It's supposed to be as certain as possible-- you pay X percentage, you get Y a month post 65 until death. Any lack of certainty in what Y adds up to for a particular person is entirely accidental. You cannot analogize social security to insurance-- It is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that many many people lose money in paying into Social Security, and absolutely certain for most which many people, at the time they are paying. In (properly construed and wholly private) insurance, you never know whether you'll benefit or lose until the event insured against happens. If you knew what the result of your insurance purchase would be, there would be no point in the insurance industry-- no one would sell to the beneficiaries, and the losers would never buy it.


Risk mitigation has a tangible value.
And that has nothing to do with Social Security.

The rich receive more risk mitigation in various areas than what the poor receive. :Take national defense. Who has more to loose should we ever drop our defenses enough that another country could do us harm or even take over and take all wealth and land like Castro did in Cuba?
There is no credible threat that Cuba would be a country that would conquer the United States. The Chinese are more likely in this hypothetical world without national defense, and the Chinese are practical folk who will not kill the goose who lays the golden eggs, and are quite willing to sentence a bunch of low-income dissenters to slave labor camps. The Joe Blow becomes a slave for the rest of his life, the rich dude might get a little tax hike and have to hire a translator as long as he minds his own business. Regardless, national defense and social security are analytically separate matters. National defense fundamentally provides the benefit to the GOVERNMENT, in maintaining its jurisdictional property to make money off of with law enforcement. Any effects on civilians are entirely incidental, in many countries the average person would benefit from foreign conquest by many other countries.

Note that I no more believe law enforcement (and its subsidiary function, national defense) a rightful excuse for taxation than I do Social Security.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.