the cato institute explains why young people should be pissed off

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Japher
All I know is that I will never see a penny of that SS money, it is only being STOLEN from me so that old people don't start roaming the streets and smelling up the place; and that's worth it.

I am investing as much as I can now so that I can enjoy my future. I am also lucky in that if I work for my company for at least 10 years I get a nice pension, on top of my 401k, and I can keep my health insurance for as long as I live (no Spider, just pay the flat monthly of whatever it is when I leave)... I like that

Have more babies Japher.

[rah]

Originally posted by el freako


Now that's a silly argument if ever I heard one.

You might as well say that it's not your fault as a worker that the company is going bust because the standards were set by people who had higher productivity (for which read had more children) and demanded lower wages (for which read dying earlier).
You say our generation is not to blame because we behaved differently than our parents - and yet we expect the same benefit from a system that only really worked under their behaviour.

Sadly, you are typical of our generation, you complain that we should get the benefit of a system that has been broken by our changes behaviour.
Us boomers need to face up to the consequences of our actions.

Yes, my argument was as silly as yours, that's was my intent. I'm glad you were equally amused.

Try arguing my original point, (IF YOU CAN)

Which was, I refuse to be called greedy to expect some benifits after contributing to a system (not of my design or choice of participating) over 1,000,000 dollars. Which is what I would have when I'm 65 if I had stashed the money almost anywhere but this pyramid scheme.

How does expecting something equate to greed?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
I am investing as much as I can now so that I can enjoy my future. I am also lucky in that if I work for my company for at least 10 years I get a nice pension, on top of my 401k, and I can keep my health insurance for as long as I live (no Spider, just pay the flat monthly of whatever it is when I leave)... I like that

Unless your company tanks. Then your pension will be worth as much as an Enron employee's pension. But those folks are glad that they've got SS.

[Japher]

I don't think my company will tank, but then I don't invest all my 401k money into the company stock... It is actually only about 10% of my retirement holdings when I combine it with my IRA... I also have an investment account outside of my retirement accounts. I manage these, feed them regualarly, and have done rather well over the past 10 years with it. Since I started working full time 5 years ago I have done even better, having been able to contribute more... That will all stop, Kid, when I have kids, and then some of it will be put into a house... All I am getting at is that if you rely on the government to plan for your future you will be even more disappointed than those screwed by Enron. Note: Enron employees put all their trust in the company and not the government. The government is the next Enron, only this time it is plainly obvious.

[chequita guevara]

Let me put it this way. If the government can't fund SS, then the government is way more trouble than just SS, and the economy will be f*cked anyway.

[Q Classic]

let me put it this way. the government already looks like it can't fund ss without stealing gratuitous amounts of my paycheck.

the government is already in trouble, and it's only a matter of time before young moderates are pissed off enough to have a revolution of roses.

the economy is always going to look ****ed to those on the receiving end of it.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by rah




Yes, my argument was as silly as yours, that's was my intent. I'm glad you were equally amused.

Try arguing my original point, (IF YOU CAN)

Which was, I refuse to be called greedy to expect some benifits after contributing to a system (not of my design or choice of participating) over 1,000,000 dollars. Which is what I would have when I'm 65 if I had stashed the money almost anywhere but this pyramid scheme.

How does expecting something equate to greed?

If you don't want to contribute your share, how is that not greed?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
the government is already in trouble,

Only because you conservatives keep trying to kill it.

[Agathon]

This thread is rather amusing.

There is no reasonable alternative to state provision of health care for the elderly. It's simply cheaper, just as Canada's single payer health care system is cheaper than private insurance. Partly because single payer systems involve less bureaucracy and partly because their compulsory nature prevents free riding.

If you can find some other cheaper way by which we can make sure that the elderly get the appropriate health care, remembering that people use the vast majority of health care resources in the last years of their life, then I'll eat my hat. We know that charity doesn't do enough and private markets are a joke.

Private systems of insurance don't work in this case (that's why every single civilized country has adopted some version of social security). Too many people are irrational and won't save enough and too many people will be caught up in losing schemes and end their lives prematurely and in poverty.

Remember that everyone would not enjoy seeing hordes of the elderly begging on the streets or having to have their incontinent senile parents living with them.

[Kidicious]

It always breaks down to this, SS is SOCIAL security. Individuals pay in so that other individuals will benefit. It doesn't really matter that SS is going to run deficits, because if you don't like the idea of individuals paying for other individuals benefits then you will always hate SS.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
Remember that everyone would not enjoy seeing hordes of the elderly begging on the streets or having to have their incontinent senile parents living with them.

They wouldn't enjoy it, but some of them would rather not pay their share to take care of them. Now, that's greed.

[Q Classic]

Only because you conservatives keep trying to kill it.

i love being called a conservative. really, i do. about as much as i love being called a liberal.

the government is in danger not because conservatives want to kill it, but because those who get elected tend to be mediocre, they tend to slavishly follow party directives without thought, and then **** up the rest of us with huge policy shifs to the left and to the right.

the country is in danger because we keep failing our national iq tests.

[Q Classic]

It always breaks down to this, SS is SOCIAL security. Individuals pay in so that other individuals will benefit. It doesn't really matter that SS is going to run deficits, because if you don't like the idea of individuals paying for other individuals benefits then you will always hate SS.

i don't mind people paying for others. i mind the fact that it's the single worst investment i will ever make, and i won't even get a choice nor a say in it.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

It always breaks down to this, SS is SOCIAL security. Individuals pay in so that other individuals will benefit. It doesn't really matter that SS is going to run deficits, because if you don't like the idea of individuals paying for other individuals benefits then you will always hate SS.

i don't mind people paying for others. i mind the fact that it's the single worst investment i will ever make, and i won't even get a choice nor a say in it.

But it's not an investment. It's a tax. Some people get a net benefit and some people lose out.

[chequita guevara]

Why don't you just ***** about taxes like the rest of the conservatives?

[Q Classic]

as i always understood the program, you pay into it to receive a payout at the end of it.

sounds like an investment to me. it's only a tax because it's at the point of a gun.

[Q Classic]

Why don't you just ***** about taxes like the rest of the conservatives?

because, by and large, most of the other taxes don't bother me. the bush tax cut did.

i'm so sorry that my views cross party lines.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Agathon
This thread is rather amusing.

There is no reasonable alternative to state provision of health care for the elderly. It's simply cheaper, just as Canada's single payer health care system is cheaper than private insurance

Just because something is cheaper doesn't make it better. Having a dictatorship is much more efficient and cheap than a democracy, but does that mean we should iinstall a dictator?

Partly because single payer systems involve less bureaucracy and partly because their compulsory nature prevents free riding.

Haha, you think thats true for Canada? Think again...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

i don't mind people paying for others. i mind the fact that it's the single worst investment i will ever make, and i won't even get a choice nor a say in it.

Yes, and that's why it works. If people got a say in whether they paid or not, the system would collapse and the costs of taking care of the elderly would be foisted off on their chilldren or to some other underperforming scheme like private insurance.

Anyway, why are you complaining about this, and not other forms of compulsory insurance like auto insurance? There's a reason that is often compulsory, and that is that people will attempt to free ride if it isn't.

If you don't want to see hordes of elderly people on the streets (most people don't) and you want to do this in the cheapest way possible, then SS is the best option.

You say that this is the worst investment you will ever make. Have you ever considered the costs of not having social security? What about having to house and care for your elderly parents? What about the annoyance of having elderly people begging on the streets? What about the early and preventable deaths?

If there is a real complaint here, it's that the feckless baby boomers have used their voting numbers to vote themselves a free ride at the expense of everyone else. But that is not an argument against Social Security.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn

Just because something is cheaper doesn't make it better. Having a dictatorship is much more efficient and cheap than a democracy, but does that mean we should iinstall a dictator?

That's a terrible argument. Having a dictatorship may well be cheaper, but it isn't more efficient, since people are worse off. We want the maximum benefit for everyone at the least cost.

Some form of social security is far and away the cheapest and most humane response to the problem of providing for the elderly.

Haha, you think thats true for Canada? Think again...

Why do you think that private insurance schemes end up charging ten bucks for a Tylenol? It's the bureaucratic overheads. That's why people have moved to HMOs in the States. In any case, the figures are clear. Canada provides excellent health care to more people for less cost per capita than the US which can't even provide health care to all its citizens (and I'm including private schemes in that account). If that's not better, then what is?

[rah]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If you don't want to contribute your share, how is that not greed?

Sometimes I wish you would read the thread before making your normal ignorant trolling comments. If you had read it you would have seen.

Originally posted by rah
Well, despite it being a rip off, I do feel some obligation to support the workers that are now old and in need of help.

I did say it was rip off but I went to great lengths to describe how big a share I was paying.

So I never said I wasn't willing to contribute, I just said it's WRONG to call us all greedy when all we expect is some eventual partial payback since we've contributed BIG bucks in.


And for all those that are complaining that boomers are to blame because they didn't produce 14 children families, just how many children are you planning on having? I guarentee it's smaller than the average size familys that our parents had.

[Q Classic]

and what's wrong with foisting the care of their parents onto their children? or are we not so sure about personal responsibility here?

why i don't ***** about auto insurance: i don't drive a car. if i did, i would, but specifically in regards to the rates i would get being an unmarried male under the age of 25. i would not complain about everyone having to have it, because if some nutjob hits me, i'll at least be guaranteed that i won't have to pay for damage they caused.

as for costs of having to house and care for elderly parents: you forget, i was raised in an environment where i internalized a lot of confucian mores. there is no option for me but to house and care for my elderly parents, whether i like living with them more not.

annoyance of elderly people in the streets? about as annoying as regular people in the streets. the elderly would just garner more pity. it's not my fault if some ungrateful fool of a child doesn't want to care for his or her parents, and because they shirk their responsibility, i should have to pay?

and yes, it is an argument against social security, those voting numbers. my responsibility to other peoples' parents stops where their responsibility begins. because they're going to bankrupt the system, it will be non-existent for me.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why don't you just ***** about taxes like the rest of the conservatives?

I'm not *****ing about taxes at all, but it's not a personal investment. It's a social investment.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Stefu
SLAUGHTER THEM AND EAT THEIR FLESH!

Use them to pull chariots as an alternative means of transportation and energy-saving measure.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
as i always understood the program, you pay into it to receive a payout at the end of it.

sounds like an investment to me. it's only a tax because it's at the point of a gun.

The point is that it doesn't matter whether the system costs you more personally, because it's designed for social benefit, regardless of individual costs. The measure of the system is how much it benefits workers as a group, not individually.

[Q Classic]

and what i'm saying is that it does not benefit younger workers as a group at all.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

Why don't you just ***** about taxes like the rest of the conservatives?

because, by and large, most of the other taxes don't bother me. the bush tax cut did.

i'm so sorry that my views cross party lines.

You don't like the tax? Look at the alternative.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
and what i'm saying is that it does not benefit younger workers as a group at all.

It doesn't benefit younger workers or the rich. Since these two groups are the only ones capable of paying the cost, they should.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by rah
So I never said I wasn't willing to contribute, I just said it's WRONG to call us all greedy when all we expect is some eventual partial payback since we've contributed BIG bucks in.

This sounds like you support SS, so I'm confused. Sorry.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unless your company tanks. Then your pension will be worth as much as an Enron employee's pension.

Only if it was a 401k where you invested most of the money into the company's stock. Japher's 401k is diversified, so he's ok. He also has a pension, which he is vested in, on top of that, and even if the company tanks, he is entitled to that money (of course it may be a bit difficult in finding the money, but he still gets 100% of it if vested).