Why is society responsible for your life?

[specklebang]

"Ponzi Scam" then.


Your right. That does work better!

No. I think you could call it a Ponzi System since it has been known from the start that it would work the way it does. That's why scheme and scam aren't valid. Surely nobody thought the money would come from the heavens so we all knew we were just paying it forward. You might not like that but that's almost besides the point.

 

[YoungConserv]

No. I think you could call it a Ponzi System since it has been known from the start that it would work the way it does. That's why scheme and scam aren't valid. Surely nobody thought the money would come from the heavens so we all knew we were just paying it forward. You might not like that but that's almost besides the point.

No that's not true it was originally sold as a individual account system now it's just one big pool and the government decides how much you get.

 

[specklebang]

No that's not true it was originally sold as a individual account system now it's just one big pool and the government decides how much you get.

SS already existed by the time I was sent to your planet. But I can't find any support for your assertion.

Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program. (Full text of the 1935 law.)

[/QUOTE

This does not imply that it was individual in/individual out. That concept which I have titled a Mandatory Savings Account would have been wiser but they would still have to pool it because of lifetime low earners.

Social Security History

Or am I missing something? Seems like a Ponzi Concept from the get-go even before they added all the other stuff. AFAIK I get exactly the same check that Mitt Romney does so yes, I agree the government set the payout rates but remember the caps mean that Mit and Specklebang paid in the same amount, which was OK with me but even easier for Mitt. I use Mitt as an example of rich and high income, not taking a crack at him.

 

[Oftencold]

No. I think you could call it a Ponzi System since it has been known from the start that it would work the way it does. That's why scheme and scam aren't valid. Surely nobody thought the money would come from the heavens so we all knew we were just paying it forward. You might not like that but that's almost besides the point.

Known to whom? You and I know that working people pay the cost of their elders' Social Security, but I assure you, most Americans do not. Ask around and see how many people you find who will tell you about "the money in their account," and "getting back what I put in." I had a coworker go in about it a few days ago.

I wanted to scream at it hit the the "money he'd put in," had already been spent on other silly things the government uses to bribe gullible people into serfdom.

 

[Mithrae]

There is no gap in reasoning there as I've NEVER said everyone who is poor made personal bad choices.

Ah yes, my apologies, I misread you; you didn't have a question mark so I read "that is" instead of "is that":
"When you don't have the basics, is that because you do not have the basics of because you choose not to make the right choices."

However, when you are poor, and you don't work you're arse off to improve your lot, just whine about how unfair life is? I got no pity for you. When you get assistance and you buy big screen TV's nice smart phones, clothes and a car instead of bettering your future earning potential through hard work, education.... I have a problem with that.

I imagine most folk would have a problem with that. But it seems to me that much of the wealth accumulated by the rich is likewise based essentially on transfer of wealth or ownership from the community or the government to individuals - we just prefer not to see it that way. Take mining, for example. The only right by which someone lays claim to minerals for extraction is by government sanction; they can't just go and start up a mining operation in US territory without so much as a by-your-leave. But then the profit margin from a mining operation is essentially a government grant, giving over much of that wealth from communal/government ownership into private or corporate ownership. Some of it goes to the government of course. But the rest - all the profits beyond what might be considered reasonable wages for the work done - is little more than a handout, is it not?

 

[Renae]

Ah yes, my apologies, I misread you; you didn't have a question mark so I read "that is" instead of "is that":
"When you don't have the basics, is that because you do not have the basics of because you choose not to make the right choices."


I imagine most folk would have a problem with that. But it seems to me that much of the wealth accumulated by the rich is likewise based essentially on transfer of wealth or ownership from the community or the government to individuals - we just prefer not to see it that way. Take mining, for example. The only right by which someone lays claim to minerals for extraction is by government sanction; they can't just go and start up a mining operation in US territory without so much as a by-your-leave. But then the profit margin from a mining operation is essentially a government grant, giving over much of that wealth from communal/government ownership into private or corporate ownership. Some of it goes to the government of course. But the rest - all the profits beyond what might be considered reasonable wages for the work done - is little more than a handout, is it not?

Yeah, that sentence didn't read out the way I wanted it to. Oops.


Wait, how do you figure profits from a mining operation are a handout from the government? Because I can easily take your thought here and apply it to all economic activity. For example:

"The only right by which someone opens a factory is by government sanction; they can't just go and start up a factory operation in US territory without so much as a by-your-leave.
But then the profit margin from a factory operation is essentially a government grant, giving over much of that wealth from communal/government ownership into private or corporate ownership. Some of it goes to the government of course. But the rest - all the profits beyond what might be considered reasonable wages for the work done - is little more than a handout, is it not?"

You may not see it this way, but that sentence is scary. I mean this. You see to imply that profit is just a gift from the government letting an entity(person, group of people, business) unduly prosper at the expense of others. Is that what you are saying? I really am looking to understand.

 

[274ina]

Aside the simple reality that employers should NEVER be forced to pay some arbitrary "Living wage".... yes, it is your fault. Wages are reflection of the market value of that job. So if you're not making what you feel you need to earn a "Living wage", that's on you for not having the marketable skills to earn more. Employers do not exist to grant you a paycheck, you have no right to a job with a comfy salary.

Somtimes, life happens.

Work get's your everything, what's happened i Unions are being seen as the destructive force they are and I take it you're a pro-union type.

After all, look at the numbers in Wisconsin, Union membership is plummeting when people have a choice to be a member or not.

It's 2013, you still on about Romney? I honestly have no idea of this 100 million claim you're on about. If it's some wealth transfer through a trust to ensure his kids get taken care well I have no thing to say other then good for them.

Wages are not "market value". They are the result of the forced lowest common denominator. Keep open borders, keep wages low.......its market manipulation. So all your talk of
"learn more" bla bla bla is just lies in a rigged game.

But they dont pay more for skills. They just hire the H1b.

WI is a case of union busting for over 10 years. The members are trying al lthe decert suits they can because the leadership sold out and cant be removed.
You will note the rich love not allowing democratinc unions in USA.

And Romney is what all the rich get to do. Why not the rest of US...............You ran him for president, the raper of the nation, the 99% will not forget.

 

[specklebang]

Known to whom? You and I know that working people pay the cost of their elders' Social Security, but I assure you, most Americans do not. Ask around and see how many people you find who will tell you about "the money in their account," and "getting back what I put in." I had a coworker go in about it a few days ago.

I wanted to scream at it hit the the "money he'd put in," had already been spent on other silly things the government uses to bribe gullible people into serfdom.

Using your methods of extrapolation, no money you put in the bank is yours because that mean old bank loaned it to me to buy a Ferrari. However, the fact remains that the bank owes you the money.

You're a good guy but your logic is a bit off on this one.

Now, if you want to bitch about people who put in nothing and collect disability, you might have a better case. The alternative, which is to humanely put them to sleep just as feral cats are handled is OK by me but I doubt that will be found as a satisfactory solution. But your trying to tell me my $180K was spent elsewhere so I shouldn't get my SS check doesn't fly (IMHO).

 

[Mithrae]

Wait, how do you figure profits from a mining operation are a handout from the government? Because I can easily take your thought here and apply it to all economic activity. For example:

"The only right by which someone opens a factory is by government sanction; they can't just go and start up a factory operation in US territory without so much as a by-your-leave.
But then the profit margin from a factory operation is essentially a government grant, giving over much of that wealth from communal/government ownership into private or corporate ownership. Some of it goes to the government of course. But the rest - all the profits beyond what might be considered reasonable wages for the work done - is little more than a handout, is it not?"

You may not see it this way, but that sentence is scary. I mean this. You see to imply that profit is just a gift from the government letting an entity(person, group of people, business) unduly prosper at the expense of others. Is that what you are saying? I really am looking to understand.

Not necessarily at the expense of others, no; obviously no-one had yet been using minerals before they were mined, and society in general benefits from their extraction and use. But it is obvious that beforehand those minerals did not belong to the mining boss - they belonged to everyone, or the government which in theory represents everyone (or perhaps to no-one, depending on one's philosophy - and afterwards, thanks to government permission, protection of ownership rights and so on, the mining boss now has a lot of extra money. They've provided a service to society and deserve remuneration for that service, certainly; but beyond a certain point the question of how much they get lies in pretty much the same category as welfare, doesn't it?

You're right that similar reasoning could be applied to many other things also - though generally not as much as in the case of extractive industries - because all wealth is generated in the context of a society; land, transport infrastructure, dumping grounds (or air) for waste and so on are all, for the most part, communal resources.