DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
I'm taking two shanek quotes totally out of context here, but I think it works quite well 
Segnosaur said:
Read all about it:
http://www.tppf.org/government/perspect/holbrook.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/congress/pd051600g.html
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politic...thcarewelfareorsocialsecurity/galveston.shtml
And for information on how you can make a fairly bullet-proof portfolio without indexing, check out Fail Safe Investing by Harry Browne.
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
jj said:
Well, I'm a whole lot older than you are, I've put a great deal into my own retirement accounts, both deferred and undeferred, and I've also paid a s**tload into Social Serickety that I could have dumped into an IRA.
I presume, then, that you assume that we (you and I both) are just SOL as far as the money "paid in". (quotes of contempt, as you seem to understand)
I think it was taken, somebody has to give it back.
In other words, I am not willing to write it off, even if it looks like it will be hard to get.
Social Serickety of the "only if they need it" variety does nothing but penalize those who have sense and brains. It should be illegal to penalize those who have sense and brains, i.e. they ought to get their money back too.
(end of quiet rant)
You have something of a point. If I were in charge of things, I wouldn't cut off the social security tap all at one time for the very reason that people who have been forced to pay into it didn't have the chance to make other arrangements. I'd try to find a way to scale it back gradually so that people who are almost retirement age now would still get it but people like myself who have a lot less invested into it wouldn't be forced to pay into it and could use that money to invest in retirement funds on their own. Of course I am not an economist nor am I in politics so I freely admit that I don't have any details on exactly how I would accomplish that, so it is probably a good thing that I am NOT in charge of things.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
shanek said:
Read all about it:
http://www.tppf.org/government/perspect/holbrook.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/congress/pd051600g.html
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politic...thcarewelfareorsocialsecurity/galveston.shtml
And for information on how you can make a fairly bullet-proof portfolio without indexing, check out Fail Safe Investing by Harry Browne.
That answers part of the questions I had asked, namely, how much had to be contributed by the employee, and where the money was invested (bonds and annuities), but it didn't answer all the questions:
- Isn't the idea that the government would tell you how much and where you can invest your money a little anti-libertarian?
- What do you do with people who fail to save enough for their retirement?
Also, although it is possible to put together a 'safe' portfolio, the question is, is it a good idea to force people to use it?
(For the record, I actually like the idea of allowing people to invest in bonds/index funds rather than in Social Security, also known as Canada Pension Plan up here, and it was even suggested by the Reform party here a while ago... But those other issues need to be addressed.)
shanek said:
I was the one who just said it was a pyramid scheme, wasn't I?
Thing is, the gummint can print more money.
The wisdom of that is indeed questionable, none the less, they took it, they are going to give it back. With interest.
I don't have a good answer. Obviously, the Libertarian answer won't work, because you can't sell things with no real value.
(read that twice before you explode, Shanek)
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
jj said:
I hope you're kidding....
Yes the government can print more money, but that would just devalue the currency and make any money less valuable. (It would probably lead to inflation, eroding some savings.)
As I said before, you may get 'some' back, but the people of the baby boom (and the 'echo' generations) will be getting a lot more back than those caught in the middle. For me, that's the issue.
Segnosaur said:
[sigh] The point was to refute the claim that the only alternative to SS was the stock market, and that leaving it to the stock market would cause people to lose their retirement savings. Neither statement is true, as the evidence I have presented shows.
It's their fault they didn't save enough. We can help them out through charities, or maybe their family members can take care of them, etc., but they have NO business saying, "I failed to save for my retirement, so I'm going to force YOU to pay me money!"
jj said:
Which results in inflation, so we end up paying for it anyway.
How do these assets have "no real value"? True, it's hard to gague the value of these things, but all indications are that the cumulative value of all of these are $10-15 trillion dollars or more!
Buildings have real value. Pipelines have real value. Power companies have real value. Closed-down military bases have real value. All of these things can be sold off to the private sector and the money used to transfer to private Social Security annuities.
"No real value"? You're just making stuff up.
(Geez...you post something agreeing with the guy and supporting him and he still jumps all over your case...)
DialecticMaterialist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,022
The problem with Bush's plan is that it ignores human nature.
It is not in human nature to save retirement money or spend such things responsibly, it is not a part of human nature to spend long hours researching complex subjects like the best schools, nor can many just move away to ones they want. Poorer people (the ones who need the money most) are especially suceptible to this.
It is in human nature to spend money as soon as you get it. Scientists like Pinker show that it is part of our very psychology, due to our evolution.
In the past when people got rescources, they didn't save up (that wouldn't have made sense) they used them before they rotted, or were stolen.
People also compete with eachother, and many would sooner spend recklessly then look poorer then the Jonse's.
That is why we need Leviathan to curb our spending for our own good. In an organized, nonprofit manner.
And government is better at this then private enterprise because they are not solely focused on profit, are more centralized, and have more accountability.
Bush's choice plans are naive ones that sound good on paper, and would make sense if people were rational 24/7. But people are not.
That is why we eat fattening foods even though it kills us, that is why many of us consume addictive chemicals to our own detriment, and that is why so many of us ruin families by having affairs. And that is why Bush's choice plans will fall apart.
All Bush is doing is throwing the money down the toilet, and putting us in a position where we will have to
A) Have the government pay for the reckless/bad spenders anyways.
or
B) Live in an environment without Leviathan where life for the elderly will be made "nasty, brutish" and cut "short." And kids will not get a proper education or perhaps even no education.
And that's fine, until its your parents living on the street, or dying in the road, and the kids left out who are robbing your house.
Not to mention the fact that it's just callous.
So we will end up simply paying more either way.
So I will end by saying, sorry Bush, but 50 years of Republican rhetoric will not change a million years of human evolution.
It is not in human nature to save retirement money or spend such things responsibly, it is not a part of human nature to spend long hours researching complex subjects like the best schools, nor can many just move away to ones they want. Poorer people (the ones who need the money most) are especially suceptible to this.
It is in human nature to spend money as soon as you get it. Scientists like Pinker show that it is part of our very psychology, due to our evolution.
In the past when people got rescources, they didn't save up (that wouldn't have made sense) they used them before they rotted, or were stolen.
People also compete with eachother, and many would sooner spend recklessly then look poorer then the Jonse's.
That is why we need Leviathan to curb our spending for our own good. In an organized, nonprofit manner.
And government is better at this then private enterprise because they are not solely focused on profit, are more centralized, and have more accountability.
Bush's choice plans are naive ones that sound good on paper, and would make sense if people were rational 24/7. But people are not.
That is why we eat fattening foods even though it kills us, that is why many of us consume addictive chemicals to our own detriment, and that is why so many of us ruin families by having affairs. And that is why Bush's choice plans will fall apart.
All Bush is doing is throwing the money down the toilet, and putting us in a position where we will have to
A) Have the government pay for the reckless/bad spenders anyways.
or
B) Live in an environment without Leviathan where life for the elderly will be made "nasty, brutish" and cut "short." And kids will not get a proper education or perhaps even no education.
And that's fine, until its your parents living on the street, or dying in the road, and the kids left out who are robbing your house.
Not to mention the fact that it's just callous.
So we will end up simply paying more either way.
So I will end by saying, sorry Bush, but 50 years of Republican rhetoric will not change a million years of human evolution.
Cain
Straussian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the faux-choice movement
This is what I'm talking about! The last book I read, if you care, was Thomas Sowell's primer _Basic Economics_. It contained views diametrically opposed to mine and guess what? The author attempted to create arguments (to some degree) and support them with evidence.
You're just Mr. Assertion. Tax slaves? I had no idea I was a tax slave. Care to develop the idea? It's not too hard; even in my efforts to shut down ideas contrary to my own, I managed somewhere along the line to read libertarian philosophers of the likes of Robert Nozick.
You're emotionally-laden language is closer to Ayn Rand. It's comical, hollow, and inane.
Tony said:
This is what I'm talking about! The last book I read, if you care, was Thomas Sowell's primer _Basic Economics_. It contained views diametrically opposed to mine and guess what? The author attempted to create arguments (to some degree) and support them with evidence.
You're just Mr. Assertion. Tax slaves? I had no idea I was a tax slave. Care to develop the idea? It's not too hard; even in my efforts to shut down ideas contrary to my own, I managed somewhere along the line to read libertarian philosophers of the likes of Robert Nozick.
You're emotionally-laden language is closer to Ayn Rand. It's comical, hollow, and inane.
DialecticMaterialist said:
That's just bull$#!7. In fact, voluntary retirement savings are on the rise because more and more people are realizing that they can't rely on Social Security.
Bull$#!7 as well, as it is very well a part of human nature to do exactly that when rearing a child. You research EVERYTHING.
Human nature has absolutely nothing to do with how much money you have.
No, it isn't. That may be YOUR nature, but don't transfer your character flaws to the rest of humanity.
More bull$#!7. Money only came about in the last few thousand years, not anywhere near long enough to have any kind of effect on how we evolved.
Because the resources could not be stored. Now, thanks to money, they can. And people do exactly that. That's the whole reason we came up with the idea of money in the first place!
Oh, yes, we need mommy government to take care of us because we're too stupid to do it ourselves.
Pardon me while I roll on the floor laughing here...Where the *&^% is the accountability in government? Where do they have the incentive to do ANYTHING other than make things better for the politically-connected?
And how are charities solely focused on profit?
Learn how the world works.
Fattening foods do not kill us.
No, there are definite reasons why people self-medicate, none of which are reasons you have given.
Affairs are symptoms of other problems, again none of which are mentioned in your post.
This is just an ad hominem attack, plain and simple. Charities do a wonderful amount of work getting money and resources to the people who need them, and people gladly and cheeringly support them.
You do NOT know what you are talking about.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
shanek said:
So? Does that mean that you believe people should be allowed to invest in anything they would like for their retirement? You seem to be dancing around that issue.
shanek said:
Charities are imperfect means of helping people, since people tend to give to the 'cause of the month', at the cost of neglecting other less-famous (but perhaps more deserving) charaties. Also, not everyone has families to depend on.
People can end up with no resources at retirement age because of bad planning, but they could also end up that way for other reasons: supposedly "safe" investments could prove to be less safe than was expected, people may be partly disabled, and thus not able to work full time in order to earn enough to retire on, or may have excessive expenses.
Which brings me to the question that you haven't answered yet: What do you propose doing with people who have not saved enough to retire on (either through bad planning or honest mistakes), that family and charity will not provide for? Are you willing to see these people die?
Cain
Straussian
What do you mean substantial now? What percentage of my income does the government have to take in order for me to be a classified as a slave? The implications are sort of interesting: we can only find slaves in the upper-income tax brackets? All the really, really rich people are slaves? Or is the magic number 50%? I've written about this stuff elsewhere on these forums.
Besides, the idea of percentage seems to run against the spirit of your position on toilet bowls (to use a handy example). There you essentially argued that the concept of even oblique government intervention is equivalent to the grossest invasions of privacy. I now vividly remember recounting the position of a Canadian philosopher, a communitarian, who you dismissed, again characteristically without argument or reason.
Or why don't you try supporting your absurd positions. But I'll go ahead and ask: What makes a person a tax slave?