Social Security question, was asked to start a new thread on it.

[Egomaniac]

Previously on Machismo

"fuck the poor"

On today's episode of Machismo

"fuck the poor"

[Machismo]

It is not. You're condemning those who can't "prepare" to drown in the icy sea for failure to properly prepare themselves for an avoidable catastrophe you deliberately created, to "test" them.

Your entire position is built around deliberately ramming that iceberg to sink the ship and see who can keep themselves above water, while feeling smugly superior to those who drown. Even if you're a rich guy who pushed kids off a lifeboat so he could get in.



Given that the purpose of social security was never to pay people out for "just a few years", in the first place, you're continuing to be deliberately dishonest.

If the costs are ballooning, that does not mean that the system is unsustainable, it just means that the system needs better funding.

It's like when libertarian types condemn the postal service for "not bringing in enough revenue to pay for its costs". It's not meant to. It's a service that's paid for by the government, because provision of that service is itself the point.

There's plenty of money to carry social security through the Boomer retirement bubble. It's an iceberg that's eminently avoidable. But here you are, trying to force people to steer right for it.

- - - Updated - - -



Like, his position is literally that retirees should be made to either return to work or suffer hardship, as punishment for "poor planning", in a circumstance where the failure in planning was on the part of the government who made them promises Machismo does not want the government to keep.

It's just pure sadism; a desire to foster and encourage human suffering. Not for some big end goal; as I said earlier, the cruelty isn't a bug, it's the point.

Be prepared.

It's not advice that should be this difficult to accept. At some point, people have to be responsible for themselves, to some degree. My whole position is for avoiding that iceberg, and all the rest to follow... and teach others to pay attention to the fucking icebergs.

So, fund it. Fund it more and more, and watch as people revolt against the government taking more and more of their incomes. As it stands, the contribution is 12.4%, for both employee and employer combined. By my rough napkin math (Covering $2.5t over the that time period, we'd need to increase that rate to 14%, just to deal with the issue over the next 13.5 years. After that, it'd have to go up, again. The problem becomes even worse over the 15 years after that, because of Generation X retiring.

Now, that may not seem like a lot, but it's an extra $700 per adult in the United States, per year. That's not nothing.

[Edge-]

Be prepared.

Yes, it's a great Scout motto and something everyone should try for, but simply trying to prepare for something doesn't mean you can actually fully prepare for it, much less have the means to be fully prepared.

Just tossing it out there like that is an empty platitude.

At some point, people have to be responsible for themselves, to some degree. My whole position is for avoiding that iceberg, and all the rest to follow... and teach others to pay attention to the fucking icebergs.

No, your position is that we could adjust course a bit and avoid the majority of the damage from the iceberg, which you think isn't good, or take a hard-turn into an even bigger iceberg that we can't hope to avoid.

So, fund it. Fund it more and more, and watch as people revolt against the government taking more and more of their incomes.

Because of the long history of Americans taking up arms against the government over taxation like....uh...I can't think of any instances off the top of my head, actually. This rings of Kokolum predictions of civil war.

[Machismo]

Yes, it's a great Scout motto and something everyone should try for, but simply trying to prepare for something doesn't mean you can actually fully prepare for it, much less have the means to be fully prepared.

Just tossing it out there like that is an empty platitude.



No, your position is that we could adjust course a bit and avoid the majority of the damage from the iceberg, which you think isn't good, or take a hard-turn into an even bigger iceberg that we can't hope to avoid.



Because of the long history of Americans taking up arms against the government over taxation like....uh...I can't think of any instances off the top of my head, actually. This rings of Kokolum predictions of civil war.

The issue is that if you always take care of people when they fail, or when they don't bother even trying, then they have no incentive to actually try and be prepared.

This applies to all aspects of life. We're talking about fully-grown adults, not teenagers. At some point, even your patience will run out. If we're no longer responsible for our decisions, we can just stop making any hard ones, and let someone else do everything. We get to the point where Wall-E becomes non-fiction.

I'm not talking about violent revolt, simply political revolt, where you get shitmonsters like Trump into office, because people are outraged about something, even if that something may be imaginary. This is largely where we are at, we have two parties trying to ignore the problem, all while playing chicken with one another. So, either one party blinks, and pisses off their base... or nether party blinks, and we go off the cliff.

I honestly don't know which happens. I highly doubt anything rally gets done before 2030. I'd say it's a toss up between an immediate action from the party who wins the election in 2032, to pander to their base, or we hit that iceberg. I guess there's a chance of a bipartisan agreement around 2030, but I doubt it.

[Endus]

Be prepared.

It's not advice that should be this difficult to accept. At some point, people have to be responsible for themselves, to some degree.

You say that like it's obvious.

I'm gonna need you to explain why individuals should be expected to support themselves and left to suffer by their governments if they fail.

Because I see no possible explanation here that does not boil down to sadism.

My whole position is for avoiding that iceberg, and all the rest to follow... and teach others to pay attention to the fucking icebergs.

Like, you're not. You're driving straight into it.

The "iceberg" is the potential for hardship experienced by the elderly, as social security fails to pay out to them. Your "solution" is to remove that support entirely and cause even greater hardship and suffering.

You're not dodging, you're steering into it.

So, fund it. Fund it more and more, and watch as people revolt against the government taking more and more of their incomes.

Why would I entertain delusional fantasies like this? It's not an argument. It's pro-domestic-terror nonsense.

Particularly as nothing in this circumstance suggests that the number would balloon forever. There's a very specific Boomer demographic bubble. That's it.

As it stands, the contribution is 12.4%, for both employee and employer combined. By my rough napkin math (Covering $2.5t over the that time period, we'd need to increase that rate to 14%, just to deal with the issue over the next 13.5 years. After that, it'd have to go up, again. The problem becomes even worse over the 15 years after that, because of Generation X retiring.

Now, that may not seem like a lot, but it's an extra $700 per adult in the United States, per year. That's not nothing.

Not nothing, but not particularly significant, either. Particularly as there's no reason to think it would be divided equally, as you present it.

[Machismo]

You say that like it's obvious.

I'm gonna need you to explain why individuals should be expected to support themselves and left to suffer by their governments if they fail.

Because I see no possible explanation here that does not boil down to sadism.



Like, you're not. You're driving straight into it.

The "iceberg" is the potential for hardship experienced by the elderly, as social security fails to pay out to them. Your "solution" is to remove that support entirely and cause even greater hardship and suffering.

You're not dodging, you're steering into it.



Why would I entertain delusional fantasies like this? It's not an argument. It's pro-domestic-terror nonsense.

Particularly as nothing in this circumstance suggests that the number would balloon forever. There's a very specific Boomer demographic bubble. That's it.



Not nothing, but not particularly significant, either. Particularly as there's no reason to think it would be divided equally, as you present it.

Why should individuals support themselves?

Because, this isn't fucking communism.

That's like asking why someone should be expected to wipe their ass after using the bathroom. Because they are fucking adults, and this is the real world. If they don't want to wipe their ass, fine... they can deal with the shit.

The Boomers will mostly be dead by 2050, but due to increased life expectancy, we're likely to have 1 person collecting, for every 2 paying into the system. With the Baby Boomers already retiring for 10 years, we're at 3:1.

The issue is that the revolt will be people refusing to do anything, and simply letting it hit the iceberg. If you don't think that the Trumpsters wouldn't do this out of spite, then you haven't been paying attention. They have no problem sacrificing the elderly to win an election. So, they refuse to do anything, and 2034 rolls around. We'll learn some real hard lessons about personal responsibility, then.

[Edge-]

The issue is that if you always take care of people when they fail

Presumes the failure is their fault, when a great many times failure is completely out of a persons control, to justify your position.

or when they don't bother even trying

Presumes this is statistically significant without evidence, to justify your position.

then they have no incentive to actually try and be prepared.

Except they do, since as has been frequently noted these safety net programs are already insufficient, and if someone is trying to rely purely on them they're already boned.

So again, this is just something you argue without evidence to justify your position.

We're talking about fully-grown adults, not teenagers. At some point, even your patience will run out.

Because you're presuming they're behaving like teenagers, when by and large they aren't.

If we're no longer responsible for our decisions, we can just stop making any hard ones, and let someone else do everything. We get to the point where Wall-E becomes non-fiction.

There's just a bit of difference between...

Not wanting to let people suffer in abject poverty, often resulting in their death and additional costs/burdens on society.

and

Wall-E

If you think those two are in the same timezone, or even hemisphere, I don't know how to rebut that beyond saying that it's absolutely crazy.

I'm not talking about violent revolt, simply political revolt, where you get shitmonsters like Trump into office, because people are outraged about something, even if that something may be imaginary.

Ok, so a small number of yahoos will violently break the law. Fine. Toss them in jail if they do and we can continue on with life.

[Endus]

The issue is that if you always take care of people when they fail, or when they don't bother even trying, then they have no incentive to actually try and be prepared.

This is just obviously untrue. Is every patient in a hospital languishing and giving up because they've been cared for when their bodies failed them somehow? Of course not. Because this claim you've made is imaginary, misanthropic nonsense. It is not true.

This applies to all aspects of life. We're talking about fully-grown adults, not teenagers. At some point, even your patience will run out. If we're no longer responsible for our decisions, we can just stop making any hard ones, and let someone else do everything. We get to the point where Wall-E becomes non-fiction.

It's telling that you need to cite an animated film aimed at children to try and justify your position, rather than, like, any reputable political theory whatsoever.

I'm not talking about violent revolt, simply political revolt, where you get shitmonsters like Trump into office, because people are outraged about something, even if that something may be imaginary. This is largely where we are at, we have two parties trying to ignore the problem, all while playing chicken with one another. So, either one party blinks, and pisses off their base... or nether party blinks, and we go off the cliff.

This is a non-sequitur which not only doesn't support your position, but in fact admits your position is imaginary. But that you're willing to fearmonger about it to push one political base towards violent action.

[Endus]

There's just a bit of difference between...

Not wanting to let people suffer in abject poverty, often resulting in their death and additional costs/burdens on society.

and

Wall-E

If you think those two are in the same timezone, or even hemisphere, I don't know how to rebut that beyond saying that it's absolutely crazy.

He's also missing that the entire point of Wall-E is a criticism of consumerism and capitalism, and that we should take collective responsibility for our collective well-being. Like, people forget that everyone had to leave Earth because of massive ecological damage because of laissez-faire capitalism run amok.

[Edge-]

Yeah, fuck everyone with disabilities! Fuck everyone who never earned enough to fund a retirement! Only the rich matter!

You’re just sad at this point.

I'm sorry you suffered a serious workplace injury due to your workplace violating safety regulations and are paralyzed for the rest of your life. You should have prepared better by not working somewhere dangerous and making sure you saved enough money to live the rest of your life just in case you were unexpectedly paralyzed.

Really, it's all your fault if you haven't. Apparently.

[Endus]

Why should individuals support themselves?

Because, this isn't fucking communism.

Red scare bullshit was pathetic in the 1960s. That you're still trying to use it just makes it excruciatingly clear how desperately dishonest you are.

Nobody brought up communism, and you've got no business trying to red-scare your way out of answering what should be simple questions.

Here's a hot tip; even Adam Smith would reject your bullshit framing of this question. The Father of Capitalism.

What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.

That's like asking why someone should be expected to wipe their ass after using the bathroom. Because they are fucking adults, and this is the real world. If they don't want to wipe their ass, fine... they can deal with the shit.

And if they're paraplegic or something?

You're just expressing a whopping level of misanthropy, here. It isn't an argument.

The issue is that the revolt will be people refusing to do anything, and simply letting it hit the iceberg. If you don't think that the Trumpsters wouldn't do this out of spite, then you haven't been paying attention. They have no problem sacrificing the elderly to win an election. So, they refuse to do anything, and 2034 rolls around. We'll learn some real hard lessons about personal responsibility, then.

Again, the "iceberg" is "seniors struggling to make ends meet". Your entire argument is that you should make all seniors struggle even more, "because it's good for them", and you want to pretend that's a solution to the problem.

It is not.

It's deliberately making it worse, because you desire to foster and encourage human suffering, particularly among the vulnerable.

[Machismo]

Presumes the failure is their fault, when a great many times failure is completely out of a persons control, to justify your position.



Presumes this is statistically significant without evidence, to justify your position.



Except they do, since as has been frequently noted these safety net programs are already insufficient, and if someone is trying to rely purely on them they're already boned.

So again, this is just something you argue without evidence to justify your position.



Because you're presuming they're behaving like teenagers, when by and large they aren't.



There's just a bit of difference between...

Not wanting to let people suffer in abject poverty, often resulting in their death and additional costs/burdens on society.

and

Wall-E

If you think those two are in the same timezone, or even hemisphere, I don't know how to rebut that beyond saying that it's absolutely crazy.



Ok, so a small number of yahoos will violently break the law. Fine. Toss them in jail if they do and we can continue on with life.

We've had more than 20 years to prepare, how many neve bothered to prepare at all? Once again... at some point, people have to be responsible for themselves.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/survey-fin...100701878.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/23/here...rent-ages.html

They really need to stop relying solely on those safety nets.

The point of Wall-E was that humans had grown so complacent and lazy, they weren't really capable of doing anything.

As for the political game of chicken, all the Trumpsters need to do, is nothing. They would only need to control a single branch, and they could stop anything from being done about it. You and I both know they are petty enough to do it.

- - - Updated - - -

Red scare bullshit was pathetic in the 1960s. That you're still trying to use it just makes it excruciatingly clear how desperately dishonest you are.

Nobody brought up communism, and you've got no business trying to red-scare your way out of answering what should be simple questions.



And if they're paraplegic or something?

You're just expressing a whopping level of misanthropy, here. It isn't an argument.



Again, the "iceberg" is "seniors struggling to make ends meet". Your entire argument is that you should make all seniors struggle even more, "because it's good for them", and you want to pretend that's a solution to the problem.

It is not.

It's deliberately making it worse, because you desire to foster and encourage human suffering, particularly among the vulnerable.

It's not red scare, it's you wanting to know why people should have to be able to take care of themselves. The answer is simple, because if enough of them don't, then the entire society collapses. Socialism promotes complacency and laziness. If you don't make people responsible for their actions, then they won't be, and you get more and more societal outliers who are a burden.

[Edge-]

We've had more than 20 years to prepare, how many neve bothered to prepare at all? Once again... at some point, people have to be responsible for themselves.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/survey-fin...100701878.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/23/here...rent-ages.html

So most folks aren't saving because they can't afford to, and for those that don't care about it they come from younger generations where it's not surprising that retirement isn't top of mind for them. Not terribly shocking, the whole notion that we need to start saving for retirement at age 20 is still VERY recent and a serious ask on people.

They really need to stop relying solely on those safety nets.

I doubt most of them will by the time they get to retirement age, you already see the data that as you go to older demographics the number of folks "not caring" about saving decreases.

The point of Wall-E was that humans had grown so complacent and lazy, they weren't really capable of doing anything.

Except they absolutely were. They were capable of ruining the planet to sustain their quality of life, leaving the planet to sustain their quality of life, all because it was a society primarily focused on consumption over all else.

[Endus]

It's not red scare, it's you wanting to know why people should have to be able to take care of themselves.

I asked that simple question, and your immediate response was "COMMUNISM".

Nothing about that question was connected to communist theory in any way. Bleating about communism is red-scare bullshit. Obviously.

If you had an answer, you'd have given it. You didn't, so you engaged in McCarthyist fearmongering.

The answer is simple, because if enough of them don't, then the entire society collapses. Socialism promotes complacency and laziness.

That's a lie. Just an open, obvious, blatant lie. You have no grounds for this whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

Except they absolutely were. They were capable of ruining the planet to sustain their quality of life, leaving the planet to sustain their quality of life, all because it was a society primarily focused on consumption over all else.

Like I said; he's forgetting the entire setup of Wall-E.

The people on the ship only became "complacent" because they were constantly distracted by consumerism. The entire point of the story is throwing off that consumerism and the capitalists controlling it, to engage in collective action for the benefit of society, not the personal satisfaction of the individual.

Literally the point of the movie.

[Machismo]

So most folks aren't saving because they can't afford to, and for those that don't care about it they come from younger generations where it's not surprising that retirement isn't top of mind for them. Not terribly shocking, the whole notion that we need to start saving for retirement at age 20 is still VERY recent and a serious ask on people.



I doubt most of them will by the time they get to retirement age, you already see the data that as you go to older demographics the number of folks "not caring" about saving decreases.



Except they absolutely were. They were capable of ruining the planet to sustain their quality of life, leaving the planet to sustain their quality of life, all because it was a society primarily focused on consumption over all else.

Great, then they are making that choice, let them deal with the consequences.

And when they got on their little rescue ship, and all their needs were met by someone else... they became useless.

The issue is that when those younger folks, and even people who are older hit that wall in 13 years, they will need to save even more money that they are not saving.

- - - Updated - - -

I asked that simple question, and your immediate response was "COMMUNISM".

Nothing about that question was connected to communist theory in any way. Bleating about communism is red-scare bullshit. Obviously.

If you had an answer, you'd have given it. You didn't, so you engaged in McCarthyist fearmongering.



That's a lie. Just an open, obvious, blatant lie. You have no grounds for this whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -



Like I said; he's forgetting the entire setup of Wall-E.

The people on the ship only became "complacent" because they were constantly distracted by consumerism. The entire point of the story is throwing off that consumerism and the capitalists controlling it, to engage in collective action for the benefit of society, not the personal satisfaction of the individual.

Literally the point of the movie.

That question has been answered. Just because you don't like the answer... not my problem.

Society can only handle so many freeloaders and outliers. At some point, the people doing the work, and producing, will simply tell those people to fuck off, and cut them off.

It wasn't consumerism, it was being able to have all their wants and needs provided for them, by someone else... with no effort from them at all.

[Edge-]

And when they got on their little rescue ship, and all their needs were met by someone else... they became useless.

...that someone else was literally "themselves". They created a technological "dystopia" to care for their every need. There was no under-class of workers slaving away in the lower decks for them to take from.

[Machismo]

...that someone else was literally "themselves". They created a technological "dystopia" to care for their every need. There was no under-class of workers slaving away in the lower decks for them to take from.

Yep, the robots were their 'slaves." The issue is that they were no longer obligated to provide, so they got complacent.

If you take care of everyone, no matter how many times they screw up, then you remove the incentive to work.

[Endus]

That question has been answered. Just because you don't like the answer... not my problem.

Society can only handle so many freeloaders and outliers. At some point, the people doing the work, and producing, will simply tell those people to fuck off, and cut them off.

1> Why? I asked you to explain where you got this idea.
1b> Nobody suggested a totality of "freeloaders and outliers", so you're attacking a straw man anyway.
2> Expecting misanthropy like yours to have the political heft to enact misanthropic policies to deliberately and intentionally foster human suffering is . . . a position, sure. But it's not an argument. It's just a "you'll see, you'll all see!" Machiavellian cackle.

It wasn't consumerism, it was being able to have all their wants and needs provided for them, by someone else... with no effort from them at all.

You really should watch the movie sometime. You clearly haven't.

The reason the Earth was trashed was consumerism. What keeps them complacent on the ship is consumerism. And, yes, a slave population doing all the "real" work behind the scenes, another factor you conveniently overlook.

It was their recognition that they could achieve something more that got them to unite as a collective, along with those who'd been enslaved, that got them to turn back to Earth and start to rebuild. It wasn't "rugged individualism", or something.

Imagine missing the point of a children's movie so hard that you demonstrate you have less empathy than the literal trash compactor robot in the film.

- - - Updated - - -

...that someone else was literally "themselves". They created a technological "dystopia" to care for their every need. There was no under-class of workers slaving away in the lower decks for them to take from.

I mean, there was. In this story, the robots are all individuals, have emotions and internal lives, they're "people" even if not biological. They literally take us through those "lower decks", and they're pretty visually distinct from the passenger areas. They kind of skip over all that in the name of a simpler message, but it's there.


Edit: Oh, and some more Adam Smith quotes, for those who've lost sight of what capitalist theory was meant to be about;

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Rich people should pay more taxes, proportionally, not just in absolute terms.

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer

Businesses and companies should only be given policy consideration by government if said policies are in the consumer's interests, rather than the business'.

The interest of [businessmen] is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ... ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined ... with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men ... who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public

Never trust policy pushed by business people. Their usual goal is to deceive and oppress the public.

The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.

Anyone praising the rich and shitting on the poor is pushing amoral garbage.

Seriously, if Smith were brought forward to today to see what capitalism has wrought, he'd probably self-identify as a democratic socialist.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Okay, at this point it has to be satire from Machismo, because nobody could REALLY think like this, could they?

Or at least nobody could think like this and be so damn PROUD of themselves that they feel they need to share their thoughts on how to treat people with the rest of the world.

So people should plan for both expected and unexpected eventualities. We can't help them because that's apparently communism. We have to treat them as badly as we possibly can so they get tough, and that way we can properly defend the worms when we need to.

I'm telling you, this is somebody who read Dune and took ENTIRELY the wrong message from it. Maybe he was reading Heinlein at the same time and got things all mixed up?

[Zan15]

SNIP
So, Fugus and I have discussed how to solve the issue, and I pointed out that it boils down to three basic concepts (other than liquidating or dissolving it entirely). They are:
1) Increase taxes. This is either done by increasing the payroll tax of all Americans, or by increasing the earnings cap of people making more than ~$130k per year.
2) Increasing the retirement age, so that less people are collecting. Bottom line, people are living longer, so they are collecting longer, and putting more stress on the system.
3) Lowering benefits starting now, to ease the transition to insolvency, slowing it down, and allowing for people to prepare to cover ore of their own retirements when that time comes.

Now, I would prefer to not raise taxes, because we've done it more than 20 times already, and we're still in this spot. I see merit in both the second and third ideas, as it allows for time to prepare, and promotes more individual responsibility.

Now,

Easy don't raise "taxes", just adjust for inflation. You know like they did 20 times already. That's all those tax increases were, adjustments to pay for the benefits people expected.


My second choice is "fuck them". They stopped making "adjustments" around 1989 and we have not had an increase since then. 30 years of increases people never had a problem with till republicans figured out they could get more votes by being sorta kinda "anti tax".

Since they caused their own problems, cut the benefits for people collecting while there is a shortfall till an adjustment is made and let them suffer or die right!!!!
BTW my "second choice" is /s

Medicare has the same problems, even worse because the shortfall is already here and its costing taxpayers 40% of the entire cost of Medicare each year in debt and interest.