Author Topic: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?  (Read 27258 times)

NoraLenderbee

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1254
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #50 on: December 30, 2014, 12:31:17 PM »
I'm childfree, but the only time I ever mention the extra benefits that parents get, or how I have to pay to educate other people's kids, is when someone starts the argument by saying that the childfree aren't paying their fair share.

If it were a discussion in good faith, I would say that I prefer to live in a society where both children and the elderly are cared for, because those things benefit everyone, even if it costs me a few bucks.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8186
  • Location: United States
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #51 on: December 30, 2014, 01:38:03 PM »
This argument that someone didn't produce replacement tax payers is absurd.  What about the people who produced lazy asses who mooch of the system?  Not every child becomes a productive tax-payer.  So really, the child-free are ahead of the people who produced multiple off-spring who never became gainfully employed.

Plus the government saved money by not having to educate those children (and possibly not having to provide special need intervention, or free lunch, or medical care, etc), so if they invested that "savings" wisely, they wouldn't need the replacement tax payers at a 1:1.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 01:39:40 PM by iowajes »

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #52 on: December 30, 2014, 02:50:06 PM »
Isn't it in your best interest to make sure we have an educated population?

I like to take the contrarian view to that.  It's a whole lot easier to get a super high paying job when most (but not all) people are uneducated.  :-)

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #53 on: December 30, 2014, 03:07:33 PM »
Isn't it in your best interest to make sure we have an educated population?

I like to take the contrarian view to that.  It's a whole lot easier to get a super high paying job when most (but not all) people are uneducated.  :-)

That's actually the main hidden argument against continuing government-issued student loans.  Why should poor people have the same chance to compete against my kids?  They can go work at McDonalds.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #54 on: December 30, 2014, 03:17:32 PM »
Isn't it in your best interest to make sure we have an educated population?

I like to take the contrarian view to that.  It's a whole lot easier to get a super high paying job when most (but not all) people are uneducated.  :-)

That's actually the main hidden argument against continuing government-issued student loans.  Why should poor people have the same chance to compete against my kids?  They can go work at McDonalds.

It's actually non-obvious what would happen if the government stopped involving itself in student loans. One possibility is with students no longer able to take out large loans backed up government-enforced-non-dischargeability, schools would find themselves unable to attract students, since most people would not be able to pay and/or would conclude it was a bad deal. The invisible hand of capitalism would then drive down the price of schools to a point where it is easily affordable out of pocket.

Wow, you must be right.  I'm sure it wouldn't be a disaster when thousands of colleges close down from lack of students and colleges go back to being only for the super-wealthy.  Meanwhile, the rest of America will go on the dole because there aren't enough blue-collar jobs with living wages left anymore because our free trade agreements and outsourcing have nearly eliminated American manufacturing.  I guess some people could go into trades, but then the cost of training will be even more expensive than it already is at the for-profit trade schools that already exist but statistically don't lead to jobs for graduates.  Stupid poor people.  It's all their fault, because they should have just been born rich.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #55 on: December 30, 2014, 03:31:08 PM »
In-state tuition is $20-40k for an entire four year degree in most states.

I'm pretty sure that "Narnia" isn't part of the United States.

Elliot

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #56 on: December 30, 2014, 03:42:17 PM »
Universities were cheaper before the invention of large student loans backed by the government.

Furthermore, even with current prices in the USA, you do not need to be "super wealthy" to pay for school out of pocket. That is an absurd claim. In-state tuition is $20-40k for an entire four year degree in most states. The top end of that range includes some very famous schools such as Berkley. Yes, that's a lot of money -- but it's something even a relatively low wage earner could save with a few years of work. It's not the exclusive domain of the super wealthy. It's less than many new cars cost, and we all know normal people -- including low wage earners -- buy those.

Just because some people choose to go to extremely expensive schools such as Harvard doesn't mean those are the only ones that lead to jobs. I could present some data on that but I doubt you even care since you seem convinced that life is impossible unless your family is "super rich" (which I'm guessing is not the case for anybody on these forums or we wouldn't need to save money to retire!).
[/quote

We spend around 1200/month for tuition/books/fees. For one person, in a "poor" state. Even if someone has cheaper books, 55k is probably only middle of the road.

Elliot

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #57 on: December 30, 2014, 04:08:59 PM »
When I said month, I meant month. All 12.

Elliot

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #58 on: December 30, 2014, 04:17:33 PM »
We pay out of pocket, and allocate 1200 dollars each month for education expenses. Still talking about 4 years (8 semesters) for a 4 year degree.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #59 on: December 30, 2014, 06:34:32 PM »
Taking a premise to its logical extreme is a simple test for whether a policy is good for society.  It is also one of the tenets of environmentalism (which many speciously argue for in their quest for self preservation of why their decision to go childless is so noble)
Actually  it is a logical fallacy that is commonly employed to negate an otherwise rational and reasonable argument and is generally considered poor form.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes

Uh-huh. So, PKFFW, what is your opinion on the topic under discussion in this thread? Do you have anything to add?
IMHO, the topic is so inane and the premise so ridiculous it doesn't warrant discussion.  Furthermore, as per my first post, anyone who feels the need to start a thread by assuring readers he is honestly not trying to be a troll is almost certainly trolling.  So no I don't have anything to add.

ETA:  I just realised how you might have taken my previous post.  My apologies, I did not mean to imply you were engaging in the appeal to extremes fallacy.  It was directed at God or Mammon's second sentence claim of speciousness on the part of childless people.

I see. Yeah, I did misunderstand you. I guess it's a good thing I stopped to ascertain your actual position before launching into full-throated self-defense, even if I was a tad snarky about it.  :P

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #60 on: December 31, 2014, 04:41:47 AM »
Taking a premise to its logical extreme is a simple test for whether a policy is good for society.  It is also one of the tenets of environmentalism (which many speciously argue for in their quest for self preservation of why their decision to go childless is so noble)
Actually  it is a logical fallacy that is commonly employed to negate an otherwise rational and reasonable argument and is generally considered poor form.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes

Uh-huh. So, PKFFW, what is your opinion on the topic under discussion in this thread? Do you have anything to add?
IMHO, the topic is so inane and the premise so ridiculous it doesn't warrant discussion.  Furthermore, as per my first post, anyone who feels the need to start a thread by assuring readers he is honestly not trying to be a troll is almost certainly trolling.  So no I don't have anything to add.

ETA:  I just realised how you might have taken my previous post.  My apologies, I did not mean to imply you were engaging in the appeal to extremes fallacy.  It was directed at God or Mammon's second sentence claim of speciousness on the part of childless people.

I see. Yeah, I did misunderstand you. I guess it's a good thing I stopped to ascertain your actual position before launching into full-throated self-defense, even if I was a tad snarky about it.  :P
No worries.  I've found honest misunderstandings are the most common of problems on the internet.

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #61 on: December 31, 2014, 10:13:17 AM »
Wow, you must be right.  I'm sure it wouldn't be a disaster when thousands of colleges close down from lack of students and colleges go back to being only for the super-wealthy.  Meanwhile, the rest of America will go on the dole because there aren't enough blue-collar jobs with living wages left anymore because our free trade agreements and outsourcing have nearly eliminated American manufacturing.  I guess some people could go into trades, but then the cost of training will be even more expensive than it already is at the for-profit trade schools that already exist but statistically don't lead to jobs for graduates.  Stupid poor people.  It's all their fault, because they should have just been born rich.

Well, you just described the point we're reaching now, despite the student loans.  :-)

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #62 on: December 31, 2014, 10:43:27 AM »
We spend around 1200/month for tuition/books/fees. For one person, in a "poor" state. Even if someone has cheaper books, 55k is probably only middle of the road.

1200*8*4 is ~$38k.

Furthermore, regardless of what you are paying, the statistics do not lie. The median total fees and tuition for in-state university was $8,893 per year last year, and that's assuming zero scholarship dollars, which in reality will dramatically bring that number down since most people get some form of merit-based aid throughout their four years, and you can even choose schools based on which one is offering the aid. (The most expensive US schools do not offer merit-based aid, but the less expensive ones do.) Many people pay $0 for in-state tuition because of that aid. In my home country of Canada, substantial merit-based aid did not even exist, so I actually paid more for my school than many of my American friends did.
Most people I knew, in state schools did not get merit aid and the few that did got less than $1000.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #63 on: January 04, 2015, 08:03:52 AM »
Social Security should be eliminated entirely as it's a violation of everyone's rights and besides the point is that it is a Ponzi scheme. The scheme itself is unfair. Of course the government would never do the moral thing and downsize itself, but a simple solution would be voluntary participation. Either opt in or opt out. I would gladly give up any claim to collect anything from the social security program without any compensation for what has already been stolen from me if I was never taxed another cent for it.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8186
  • Location: United States
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #64 on: January 05, 2015, 09:19:43 AM »
One of the things that really upset me about my school's aid programs was that they basically rewarded irresponsible spending.


This is my biggest issue with the idea of student loan forgiveness.   I think tuition has  gotten out of control, and would support forgiveness in the amount of tuition (or at least reduced interest, maybe not payment forgiveness entirely) but most of the people that I know who complain about student loans lived lavishly during college. Always going out to eat, buying new clothes, expensive apartment with fancy amenities- and they were all funded by their "student loans", whatever wasn't needed for tuition came to their bank account.  Rather than returning it directly to the loan company in the form of pay off, they spent it.  Most of these people didn't work either.

Why should that spending be forgiven? They could have made MUCH better choices and had 20-50%, maybe even more, less debt when they left college.

I was very lucky to not have to take out student loans, due to savings pre-college and scholarship, but I lived in an inexpensive apartment and worked during college, so I didn't have consumer debt either.

WYOGO

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Location: Salt Lake City
  • Great Basin
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #65 on: January 05, 2015, 04:56:11 PM »
Yep. I will gladly give up my social security. Just don't expect me to pay for the infrastructure needed to raise and maintain anyone else's dependents. My added ability as a non-breeder is already factored into my filing status. I can assure you the liberated childless already pay their fair share. I do suspect however that the collective earning power of those unchained from the duties of domiciliary may in fact surprise you. Your choice.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6651
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #66 on: January 06, 2015, 01:02:26 AM »
If we are going to even consider loan forgiveness, then I think loan money needs to be limited to tuition and reimbursement for books (for which proof of purchase must be shown).  No living expenses.  Working enough in college to cover a room in a crappy apartment shared with 3 people is not especially difficult.  It can be done. 


deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15958
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #67 on: January 06, 2015, 03:34:37 AM »
As an Australian, I find the whole SS system in the US somewhat baffling. We have a means-tested old aged pension that gives any old person with little in the way of assets enough money to live on a budget once they reach a certain age. The last government of the same ilk as the current one enabled people with certain assets to get it as well, but I am talking about a concept here.

However, as I understand it, people in the US don't get that sort of universal safety net. Instead you pay something into it and get something back in old age - so it is a sort-of insurance policy cum pension, and rich people get more than poor people, so it is the opposite of our old aged pension. If that is the case, why don't you take more from people who support their elderly parents by offering them housing, and caring for them? That would give even more to the rich and less to the poor.

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #68 on: January 06, 2015, 06:40:42 AM »
the US Social Security system is set up in that fashion to have some modicum of fairness, otherwise it likely would have been struck down by the Supreme Court after its passing. It strikes a balance between helping out those who really had bad luck in terms of education, work opportunity, etc and avoiding rewarding irresponsible people who don't save any money throughout their life. The Australian system seems to reward not saving anything, it appears.

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #69 on: January 06, 2015, 11:46:01 AM »
Social Security should be eliminated entirely as it's a violation of everyone's rights and besides the point is that it is a Ponzi scheme. The scheme itself is unfair. Of course the government would never do the moral thing and downsize itself, but a simple solution would be voluntary participation. Either opt in or opt out. I would gladly give up any claim to collect anything from the social security program without any compensation for what has already been stolen from me if I was never taxed another cent for it.

The problem is, everyone would opt out and continue not saving for retirement. So we'd end up with a current generation of retirees and no money to cut them checks, and then a future generation of retirees who would demand that Somebody Should Do Something About This Immediately (tm)! when they realize they're going to be spending their golden years in penury.

dandarc

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5454
  • Age: 41
  • Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #70 on: January 06, 2015, 12:28:50 PM »
Social Security should be eliminated entirely as it's a violation of everyone's rights and besides the point is that it is a Ponzi scheme. The scheme itself is unfair. Of course the government would never do the moral thing and downsize itself, but a simple solution would be voluntary participation. Either opt in or opt out. I would gladly give up any claim to collect anything from the social security program without any compensation for what has already been stolen from me if I was never taxed another cent for it.

The problem is, everyone would opt out and continue not saving for retirement. So we'd end up with a current generation of retirees and no money to cut them checks, and then a future generation of retirees who would demand that Somebody Should Do Something About This Immediately (tm)! when they realize they're going to be spending their golden years in penury.

Pretty much exactly how SS got started in the first place from what I've read.  Was pushed to the masses as way for the elderly to not have to suffer the indignity of relying on charity.  Apparently it is more acceptable to rely on government.

LalsConstant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #71 on: January 07, 2015, 05:52:14 AM »
Like Greystache, I am in favor of taking money and services away from people other than myself.  If all those people were more like me, then they would deserve more.

My contacts inside Washington have told me that this is the platform Hillary will be running on in 2016.

Lol both of you just cracked me up.

Kudos!

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #72 on: January 07, 2015, 08:13:22 AM »
This is a stupid topic not really worthy of a response but...

Why not deny Social Security to people who have severely disabled kids for the reason that these kids will not add to the future tax base? 

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #73 on: January 08, 2015, 09:26:06 AM »
Social Security should be eliminated entirely as it's a violation of everyone's rights and besides the point is that it is a Ponzi scheme. The scheme itself is unfair. Of course the government would never do the moral thing and downsize itself, but a simple solution would be voluntary participation. Either opt in or opt out. I would gladly give up any claim to collect anything from the social security program without any compensation for what has already been stolen from me if I was never taxed another cent for it.

The problem is, everyone would opt out and continue not saving for retirement. So we'd end up with a current generation of retirees and no money to cut them checks, and then a future generation of retirees who would demand that Somebody Should Do Something About This Immediately (tm)! when they realize they're going to be spending their golden years in penury.

Pretty much exactly how SS got started in the first place from what I've read.  Was pushed to the masses as way for the elderly to not have to suffer the indignity of relying on charity.  Apparently it is more acceptable to rely on government.

Sort of, but not entirely.  It was originally really set up (or at least sold to the public) as "This is your money.  You put it in.  You get it back."  In other words: the money you put in was yours by right.   The Supreme Court later struck down that promise. It was also set up with a promise that it would cap out at 3%, but that didn't stick either.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #74 on: January 08, 2015, 09:34:39 AM »
Frankly, this is a very easy to answer question.

If you are a utilitarian, then of course, they should not. No one should.
If you believe in human rights, then of course, they should. Everyone should.

Milizard

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 769
  • Location: West Michigan
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #75 on: January 10, 2015, 08:57:03 PM »
Of course they should get SS, if they qualify.  Maybe the parents should get a small bonus for each child they have that is paying into SS for them.  This would be to encourage and in a teeny, tiny way, compensate for parents the years and money it took to raise these children to become contributing tax-payers.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10880
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #76 on: January 12, 2015, 04:56:13 PM »
I think the US government should pay me extra Social Security because I've been paying for other people's children to go to school for free.

You are not paying for other people's children to go to school for free.  You are paying back the free schooling that was provided to you. But let's assume that you owe nothing to society. Isn't it in your best interest to make sure we have an educated population?  When you need to go to the doctor or need to fly in an airplane, don't you want the persons supplying that service to be educated? We all depend on goods and services supplied by someone's children.  If you choose not produce any children, you still benefit from someone who did.
My emphasis.

And for the same reason, in SS, you are getting back a benefit that you paid in (taxes).  Sure, in the actual money sense, that doesn't happen because our government doesn't work that way.  But I get a letter each year on what my SS benefit will be...

4alpacas

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #77 on: January 12, 2015, 05:17:52 PM »
Of course they should get SS, if they qualify.  Maybe the parents should get a small bonus for each child they have that is paying into SS for them.  This would be to encourage and in a teeny, tiny way, compensate for parents the years and money it took to raise these children to become contributing tax-payers.
Along the same line, should a parent's SS get dinged if their child doesn't pay into the SS system?

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #78 on: January 12, 2015, 05:32:45 PM »
Of course they should get SS, if they qualify.  Maybe the parents should get a small bonus for each child they have that is paying into SS for them.  This would be to encourage and in a teeny, tiny way, compensate for parents the years and money it took to raise these children to become contributing tax-payers.
Along the same line, should a parent's SS get dinged if their child doesn't pay into the SS system?

Or even better, if you have a disabled child who collects SSDI, then you should get that deducted from your SS.  This would encourage parents not to have disabled children.

Milizard

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 769
  • Location: West Michigan
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #79 on: January 12, 2015, 06:07:52 PM »
Of course they should get SS, if they qualify.  Maybe the parents should get a small bonus for each child they have that is paying into SS for them.  This would be to encourage and in a teeny, tiny way, compensate for parents the years and money it took to raise these children to become contributing tax-payers.
Along the same line, should a parent's SS get dinged if their child doesn't pay into the SS system?

No

Milizard

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 769
  • Location: West Michigan
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #80 on: January 12, 2015, 06:09:54 PM »
Of course they should get SS, if they qualify.  Maybe the parents should get a small bonus for each child they have that is paying into SS for them.  This would be to encourage and in a teeny, tiny way, compensate for parents the years and money it took to raise these children to become contributing tax-payers.
Along the same line, should a parent's SS get dinged if their child doesn't pay into the SS system?

Or even better, if you have a disabled child who collects SSDI, then you should get that deducted from your SS.  This would encourage parents not to have disabled children.

Nope, just a small bonus if/while their children do pay in.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #81 on: January 12, 2015, 06:16:31 PM »

Nope, just a small bonus if/while their children do pay in.

So you essentially want to reward anyone who is able to do the horizontal bop, no matter how young or old or financially prepared they were to have a child?  Makes sense.

RunningWithScissors

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Location: Victoria, BC Canada
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #82 on: January 13, 2015, 01:43:19 PM »
I have to chime in to revive a point that was made upthread:  is the criteria 'having' children or 'raising' children?  I come from the perspective of a stepmom, who is helping to raise another woman's children.  Technically, I'm childless, but not child-free. 

My approach to SS has been to cultivate my 'stache, and any money from the government will be a bonus to be spent on frivolities like custom paint jobs on my walker, premium cat food for my cat colony, and fines for whacking young 'uns with my cane without provocation.  Get off my lawn, you darned kids!

4alpacas

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #83 on: January 13, 2015, 01:52:45 PM »
I have to chime in to revive a point that was made upthread:  is the criteria 'having' children or 'raising' children?  I come from the perspective of a stepmom, who is helping to raise another woman's children.  Technically, I'm childless, but not child-free. 

My approach to SS has been to cultivate my 'stache, and any money from the government will be a bonus to be spent on frivolities like custom paint jobs on my walker, premium cat food for my cat colony, and fines for whacking young 'uns with my cane without provocation.  Get off my lawn, you darned kids!
I would look into getting jazzed up by Grandma Pearl (http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/20/smallbusiness/grandma-kickstarter-startup/). 

4alpacas

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #84 on: January 13, 2015, 05:22:42 PM »
So the OP is saying a military member who served their country for 10 or 15 years, maybe fought in a few wars or served hazardous duty for years, living in tents in hell-hole conditions or at sea for years and years, and won't get a pension but contributed into SS shouldn't get that SS if they don't have kids, but Donald freakin' Trump (et al) who sits on his ass in luxury inside his Golden Palace should get the max because he had kids? Just saying...
The OP feels that it is "unfair that the child-free are not paying their fair share for the benefits that they receive."  Maybe you should start a thread to take away freedoms for people that haven't served in the military?

Joking aside, thank you to you and every other veteran and current member of our military.  I would be included in the group with zero freedoms and benefits as a non-veteran without children. 

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #85 on: January 16, 2015, 10:38:48 AM »
Social Security should be eliminated entirely as it's a violation of everyone's rights and besides the point is that it is a Ponzi scheme. The scheme itself is unfair. Of course the government would never do the moral thing and downsize itself, but a simple solution would be voluntary participation. Either opt in or opt out. I would gladly give up any claim to collect anything from the social security program without any compensation for what has already been stolen from me if I was never taxed another cent for it.

The problem is, everyone would opt out and continue not saving for retirement. So we'd end up with a current generation of retirees and no money to cut them checks, and then a future generation of retirees who would demand that Somebody Should Do Something About This Immediately (tm)! when they realize they're going to be spending their golden years in penury.

Everyone? I know a lot of people who save for retirement outside of the government enforced SS program, I'd wager more choose to save something than not to. Certainly among the many financial forums only there are many people who choose to save for retirement, or even retire well before the government sanctioned retirement age.

I can't tell if you're sarcastically mentioning the justification for violence that republicans and democrats will use or actually claiming that as your own stance... But regardless, violence is not justified in this case and it's not mine or your problem what those who choose not to save anything do with their money or their life. I can tell you they won't starve or die of exposure, there are plenty of charitable organizations that would help them and with lower theft by way of taxation there would be even more charities and greater donations.

An interesting question is would those who endorse government violence to steal other people's money and give it to the elderly (with a hefty slice taken off to line government employees pockets) donate some portion of that couple hundred a week previously stolen from them to help those retirees with no money they claim to care so much about? I'd wager not, my observation is that most statists are only generous with other people's money.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #86 on: January 16, 2015, 11:44:10 AM »
I can't tell if you're sarcastically mentioning the justification for violence that republicans and democrats will use or actually claiming that as your own stance... But regardless, violence is not justified in this case and it's not mine or your problem what those who choose not to save anything do with their money or their life. I can tell you they won't starve or die of exposure, there are plenty of charitable organizations that would help them and with lower theft by way of taxation there would be even more charities and greater donations.

An interesting question is would those who endorse government violence to steal other people's money and give it to the elderly (with a hefty slice taken off to line government employees pockets) donate some portion of that couple hundred a week previously stolen from them to help those retirees with no money they claim to care so much about? I'd wager not, my observation is that most statists are only generous with other people's money.
So you think that we should make people feel compelled to "donate" so that the rich - who have more money than a sensible person could need - can pay lower taxes?
That under the assumption that lower taxes really increase donation in the same amont, which is the oppsite of everything I have ever heard of. You self question that in the second last sentence.

Also - as far as retirement and germany is included - government SS is cheaper in the adminsitration then the private variant. Thats no wonder, since under same circumstances there is no reason why private should be cheaper with the overhead of "representative" buildings, high manager costs and profit requirement.


infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #87 on: January 16, 2015, 12:08:11 PM »
Everyone? I know a lot of people who save for retirement outside of the government enforced SS program, I'd wager more choose to save something than not to. Certainly among the many financial forums only there are many people who choose to save for retirement, or even retire well before the government sanctioned retirement age.

You think that the people who actively participate in financial forums should be considered a representative sample of American approaches to money management?

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #88 on: January 16, 2015, 02:43:35 PM »
Everyone? I know a lot of people who save for retirement outside of the government enforced SS program, I'd wager more choose to save something than not to. Certainly among the many financial forums only there are many people who choose to save for retirement, or even retire well before the government sanctioned retirement age.

You think that the people who actively participate in financial forums should be considered a representative sample of American approaches to money management?

I think the people who actively participate in financial forums as well as the general American approach to moeny management are entirely irrelevant as to whether violence is appropriate in this case. I am simply offering anecdotal evidence that there are at least a large amount of people online and in my personal social circles (nice how you don't acknowledge that bit) who choose to save money for retirement rather than relying on Social Security. Yes it's anecdotal, and yes it's irrelevant.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #89 on: January 16, 2015, 02:51:49 PM »
I can't tell if you're sarcastically mentioning the justification for violence that republicans and democrats will use or actually claiming that as your own stance... But regardless, violence is not justified in this case and it's not mine or your problem what those who choose not to save anything do with their money or their life. I can tell you they won't starve or die of exposure, there are plenty of charitable organizations that would help them and with lower theft by way of taxation there would be even more charities and greater donations.

An interesting question is would those who endorse government violence to steal other people's money and give it to the elderly (with a hefty slice taken off to line government employees pockets) donate some portion of that couple hundred a week previously stolen from them to help those retirees with no money they claim to care so much about? I'd wager not, my observation is that most statists are only generous with other people's money.
So you think that we should make people feel compelled to "donate" so that the rich - who have more money than a sensible person could need - can pay lower taxes?
That under the assumption that lower taxes really increase donation in the same amont, which is the oppsite of everything I have ever heard of. You self question that in the second last sentence.

I don't see anywhere that I stated anyone should be compelled or made to feel compelled to donate any amount for any purpose. Nor do I see where I singled out "the rich". Less taxes are stolen from everyone and people could do as they see fit with their own money. I do not believe anyone should be "compelled" to do anything, particularly if it is harassment or with the threat of violence. If a thief holding a knife to your throat or a gun to your head compels you to hand over your wallet, is that a donation?

You think the government should compel people at gunpoint to "donate", so big businesses can profit even more? That is what welfare programs amount to, stealing money, often largely from the lower and middle classes, to subsidize big business.

dunhamjr

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Kent, WA (Seattle)
  • mustachian in training est. July 14
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #90 on: January 16, 2015, 04:17:18 PM »
Also, parents get quite a few tax advantages (though I really do think the daycare FSA should have been indexed to inflation) and that does balance things out.

couldnt agree more about the DC FSA.
the max is $5k.

well guess what.  if both my wife and i want to work, child care for 1 infant is WAY more than $500... WAY.  Try 3-4 times that unless you get very lucky.  Never mind what having kid number 2 does to the numbers.

which is why I feel VERY lucky to have my retired mom as our nanny, we pay her $1k/mo, and still save MASSIVE amounts compared to what we might have had to pay.

Unionville

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #91 on: January 16, 2015, 04:45:41 PM »
I have not read every comment here but my answer is:
-Then maybe child-free people should not subsidize primary/secondary schools
-Maybe jobs should give health care discounts to child-free people
-Maybe maternity leave should not be considered a disability payment

I could go on....believe me, child-free people subsidize families in multiple ways...
« Last Edit: January 16, 2015, 07:58:53 PM by meteor »

WYOGO

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Location: Salt Lake City
  • Great Basin
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #92 on: January 16, 2015, 07:36:42 PM »

I could go on....believe me, child-free people subsidize families in multiple ways...

Quite true my friend...

Unionville

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #93 on: January 16, 2015, 08:15:58 PM »
LA Tiimes Article:

Do Childless Workers Get the Short End of the Stick?
In one author's view, parent-friendly office policies and tax breaks discriminate against employees who don't have children.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/mar/13/news/cl-8250

alleykat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #94 on: January 16, 2015, 10:22:11 PM »
I have not read every comment here but my answer is:
-Then maybe child-free people should not subsidize primary/secondary schools
-Maybe jobs should give health care discounts to child-free people
-Maybe maternity leave should not be considered a disability payment

I could go on....believe me, child-free people subsidize families in multiple ways...

I agree. I can't believe this is a question in anyone's mind.  Maybe the people with kids should pay more taxes since their families are using more resources. 

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #95 on: January 17, 2015, 03:07:45 AM »
I don't see anywhere that I stated anyone should be compelled or made to feel compelled to donate any amount for any purpose. Nor do I see where I singled out "the rich". Less taxes are stolen from everyone and people could do as they see fit with their own money. I do not believe anyone should be "compelled" to do anything, particularly if it is harassment or with the threat of violence. If a thief holding a knife to your throat or a gun to your head compels you to hand over your wallet, is that a donation?

You think the government should compel people at gunpoint to "donate", so big businesses can profit even more? That is what welfare programs amount to, stealing money, often largely from the lower and middle classes, to subsidize big business.
You do know that all this "stealing" you are talking about is just BS wording? Its a lot mroe like paying for a service, and yes, you may not like or even need all these services, but:
If you dont like taxes, go somewhere were you dont have to pay them. Or make a party that abolishes all taxes (and streets and police and fire fighters and so on) You are free, right?

That welfare in some cases ends up beeing business subsidize is result of business lobbying changing the laws to for that, it is not the result of the welfare per se.

EarlyStart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #96 on: January 19, 2015, 10:15:06 PM »
Childless person here. I'm all for it as long as I don't have to pay in. Keep that ponzi scheme all to yourselves. You're welcome!

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?
« Reply #97 on: January 21, 2015, 03:51:58 PM »
You do know that all this "stealing" you are talking about is just BS wording? Its a lot mroe like paying for a service, and yes, you may not like or even need all these services,

Paying for a service is a voluntary and mutually consensual interaction between parties, such as paying someone to paint your fence for some agreed upon price. You agree that it's worth trading x dollars to have a freshly painted fence, and the painter agrees it's worth his time and materials to have x dollars.

Stealing or theft in the fence painting scenario would be the painter putting a gun to your head and demanding some amount of money that he decides upon to paint your fence, or he will kill you and take your money anyway. Or even better in the case of the government is maybe you don't even have a fence, it's some guy's fence across town that he claims to take your money for. Or you're paying for the service of painting the guys fence in a town 50 miles away, so it's okay, it's not theft right? You are paying for a service, the fact that it's not a service you want or need and payment was extorted from you with the threat of violence is irrelevant.

In all seriousness if you do not understand the difference between paying for a service and sealing/theft/extortion you need to go back to the basics or voluntary vs involuntary interactions, consent, initiation of force, etc. before commenting on any of this.

If you dont like taxes, go somewhere were you dont have to pay them. Or make a party that abolishes all taxes (and streets and police and fire fighters and so on) You are free, right?

That welfare in some cases ends up beeing business subsidize is result of business lobbying changing the laws to for that, it is not the result of the welfare per se.

Really, the swap one cage for another argument? Very weak. Your suggestion is like telling a prisoner that has appealed and been found innocent and wrongly convicted that in light of his innocence he is now free to choose to live in another government run jail. Or that a woman wanting a divorce is free to get a divorce so long as she immediately marries another government approved man. Completely absurd.

Listen to the entire thing: http://youtu.be/A5wXIHXXNcU

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!