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

[jonnysensible]

Right. Whether people are all Type A, or all Type B.

Which you said you didn't ask.

And now you admit you did ask.


Also, "can socialism exist without force" is a straw man. If you mean "socialism without oppressive authoritarian control", the answer is "yes, obviously, anyone who isn't a McCarthyist propagandist knows that and it isn't remotely uncertain". If you mean "socialism without rule of law", that's a non-sequitur because nobody was suggesting we end the existence of rule of law; it's a nonsense argument that has nothing to do with socialism, and doesn't reflect any change from the status quo anyway. Either way, the framing is willfully dishonest. You're shitposting, not engaging in good faith.

If you want to go all-in on being an anarchist, after years of demanding we accept that you aren't one, go nuts. Until/unless you do so, drop this willfully stupid and ignorant "force" argument. Literally the only "force" required under socialism is the same "force" used in every society, to enact rule of law as a concept.

how is this position anarchistic? its quite obviously Koch bros (or maybe more Peter Thiel SV) style extreme right wing libertarian-ism. With a lil bit of NxR thrown in.

hes defining force as paying tax lol.

[Endus]

how is this position anarchistic? its quite obviously Koch bros (or maybe more Peter Thiel SV) style extreme right wing libertarian-ism. With a lil bit of NxR thrown in.

hes defining force as paying tax lol.

It's anarchistic because he's arguing that "laws are enforced" is "force" which is "bad".

If the government does not have laws and cannot tax to fund any programs (because tax laws are laws), then that government does not exist in any meaningful sense; the region is in a state of anarchy.

You can take your pick as to whether that's actually what Machismo wants, but if not, then he's being deliberately dishonest every time he kvetches about "force", because enforcement of laws is a basic standard of nationhood and no society outside of anarchy is going to operate without use of force in that manner, at a minimum.

[Jastall]

It's anarchistic because he's arguing that "laws are enforced" is "force" which is "bad".

If the government does not have laws and cannot tax to fund any programs (because tax laws are laws), then that government does not exist in any meaningful sense; the region is in a state of anarchy.

You can take your pick as to whether that's actually what Machismo wants, but if not, then he's being deliberately dishonest every time he kvetches about "force", because enforcement of laws is a basic standard of nationhood and no society outside of anarchy is going to operate without use of force in that manner, at a minimum.

I'm morbidly curious to hear about his stand on property laws in light of all his ridiculous nonsense.

Like, if any law enforcement = force = bad, does that mean I should be able to trash my neighbor's gate and make off with one of his two Ferraris and anyone trying to arrest is infringing on my freedums? If that old guy can't stop me by himself, guess he doesn't deserve two Ferraris after all!

[Endus]

I'm morbidly curious to hear about his stand on property laws in light of all his ridiculous nonsense.

Like, if any law enforcement = force = bad, does that mean I should be able to trash my neighbor's gate and make off with one of his two Ferraris and anyone trying to arrest is infringing on my freedums? If that old guy can't stop me by himself, guess he doesn't deserve two Ferraris after all!

Like, weirdly, he likes bringing up Lynsi Snyder, owner of In-N-Out, to say it would be "bad" if she had to publicly trade her company and sell part of her ownership to pay off a wealth tax.

But if "force" is "bad", then no laws should exist, and if I can storm into Lynsi Snyder's office and shoot her and take the ownership documents, now I own In-N-Out and that's totally fine, apparently.

Or maybe he's entirely inconsistent and doesn't even believe the nonsense he's putting forth. Which is more likely.

[bladeXcrasher]

I'm morbidly curious to hear about his stand on property laws in light of all his ridiculous nonsense.

Like, if any law enforcement = force = bad, does that mean I should be able to trash my neighbor's gate and make off with one of his two Ferraris and anyone trying to arrest is infringing on my freedums? If that old guy can't stop me by himself, guess he doesn't deserve two Ferraris after all!

If you want to hear weird libertarian property rights disputes I recommend watching Sam Seder's debates with libertarians.

Basically it seems to boil down to an illogical number of courts arbitration on the matter. It's all really out there, but it's funny listening to these people.

[Machismo]

I've got a busy evening, and too many people to respond to... so this will cover it all.

Social Security has become a bloated program, mainly regarding the sheer number of people collecting. Raising the retirement age is perfectly reasonable, because a 65-year-old person is considerably healthier than someone of that age from even 30 years ago.

I get the desire to just make the wealthy pay for it all, but that's the cowards way out... it's too fucking easy. Of course lots of people will support such a plan, because they are not risking anything with that stance. If you don't believe restricting a freedom will ever negatively impact you, then it's so much easier to justify. To me, that's not really any different than what the asshats in Texas did with their abortion ban.

[Edge-]

but that's the cowards way out...

Bravery or cowardice have nothing to do with this, and are patently irrelevant to resolving an issue like the long-term solvency of SS. Outside of getting the ball rolling, at least.

it's too fucking easy.

...and? Is an easy and effective solution...bad because it's easy?

If you don't believe restricting a freedom

It's literally still not restricting "freedom", especially for the wealthy individuals in question.

To me, that's not really any different than what the asshats in Texas did with their abortion ban.

At least you're being honest that you see little difference between money/property and human beings.

[Machismo]

Bravery or cowardice have nothing to do with this, and are patently irrelevant to resolving an issue like the long-term solvency of SS. Outside of getting the ball rolling, at least.



...and? Is an easy and effective solution...bad because it's easy?



It's literally still not restricting "freedom", especially for the wealthy individuals in question.



At least you're being honest that you see little difference between money/property and human beings.

It has plenty to do with it. People want all these changes, but they only want the benefits, without the added extra costs.

Someone else will pay for it.

It's easy, because it's not you paying for it. It's like when a state bans abortion. Of course it's easy for them, the people banning it are a bunch of old white guys.

As for the people/property issue. The last time I checked, the wealthy are still people, no matter how much you insist on dehumanizing them.

afk, tequila.

[Edge-]

it has plenty to do with it. People want all these changes, but they only want the benefits, without the added extra costs.

I believe every person in this thread has said that they would accept higher personal tax rates as part of raising additional revenue for SS, so this strawman is rather moldy.

Please let it rest.

[Machismo]

I believe every person in this thread has said that they would accept higher personal tax rates as part of raising additional revenue for SS, so this strawman is rather moldy.

Please let it rest.

Great, then stop trying to ditch the earnings cap, and call your congressman's office and have him raise your payroll taxes.

From what I can tell, it'll be about $700 a year, per adult to make it happen, and that would only protect until 2034, with another increase after that.

The tequila was delicious.

[Edge-]

Great, then stop trying to ditch the earnings cap

Why? What purpose does the cap serve to begin with other than to be a functional tax break for the wealthy? Why should they have part of their income exempted while people earning under the cap have none of their income exempted?

[Machismo]

Why? What purpose does the cap serve to begin with other than to be a functional tax break for the wealthy? Why should they have part of their income exempted while people earning under the cap have none of their income exempted?

The earnings cap exists as a direct answer to the benefits cap.

[Beefhammer]

The math disagrees with you on that. It would mean that Lynsi Syder would need to start selling pieces of her company after only 4 years. That's not a publicly-traded company. In 17 years, it would mean she would have lost over half that company. Mind you, this is even faster, if the company performs well.

Right so you are claiming she's so incompetent to not raise extra revenues somewhere to deal with the extra taxes, then she deserves to lose her company. Seriously, you are proving you are out if your lane here

[Fugus]

Great, then stop trying to ditch the earnings cap, and call your congressman's office and have him raise your payroll taxes.

From what I can tell, it'll be about $700 a year, per adult to make it happen, and that would only protect until 2034, with another increase after that.

The tequila was delicious.

You were also against taxing all income as income so the top couldn’t dodge paying it at all. Them paying more than 0% went against your views.

[Endus]

Social Security has become a bloated program, mainly regarding the sheer number of people collecting. Raising the retirement age is perfectly reasonable, because a 65-year-old person is considerably healthier than someone of that age from even 30 years ago.

It isn't "bloated", and the numbers of people drawing benefits isn't that big a deal. It's a demographic bubble of Boomers. Once that demographic starts "aging out of the system" (a terrible euphemism for "dying"), the numbers will return to normalcy. All that's needed is some carry-over funding to get the system over this demographic hurdle.

It isn't that the system itself is designed to give out more than it takes in. That's just not true.

And no; raising the retirement age is not reasonable as a response to this, because;

1> The problem is temporary, and will self-correct on its own.
2> People retire when they want to retire, already, and
3> Everyone drawing from the system paid into it with certain expectations. Any change should be forward-dated a solid 20 years or so before it takes effect, and by that point, the demographic issue will have worked itself out.
4> Taxing people a little bit more solves the issue with a lot fewer secondary effects.

I get the desire to just make the wealthy pay for it all, but that's the cowards way out... it's too fucking easy.

"Your solution is too simple and effective" is certainly . . . a way to go.

Just not one that helps you.

Of course lots of people will support such a plan, because they are not risking anything with that stance. If you don't believe restricting a freedom will ever negatively impact you, then it's so much easier to justify. To me, that's not really any different than what the asshats in Texas did with their abortion ban.

On the one hand, the super-rich being taxed ever so slightly more but still remaining super-rich no matter what.
On the other hand, a direct attack on women's basic equality as human beings and control over the use of their own bodies.

Why not just compare the rich to the Jews in Nazi Germany, while you're making egregiously bigoted comparisons?

[Egomaniac]

As for the people/property issue. The last time I checked, the wealthy are still people, no matter how much you insist on dehumanizing them.

I don't think you get to make accusations of dehumanizing people when your position is that its better for the poor to die than to increase the taxation of the Ultra-Rich.

[Jastall]

If you want to hear weird libertarian property rights disputes I recommend watching Sam Seder's debates with libertarians.

Basically it seems to boil down to an illogical number of courts arbitration on the matter. It's all really out there, but it's funny listening to these people.

It's really funny yeah, because the enforcement of that libertarian dream world where everyone who isn't "productive" and "successful" is left to die in the gutter would require stringent laws and much force by the wealthy upper crust to protect their privileges and property, but then you have the catch-22 of laws being bad vs obviously being wealthy means little if nothing stops you from being robbed.

So what, is their ideal an age of warlords where anyone with a scrap of power must jealously guard it by force because there's neither social contract nor credible law enforcement to help them do so peacefully? Drop the lot of them in Somalia or Afghanistan and see how fun and games that is.

[bladeXcrasher]

It's really funny yeah, because the enforcement of that libertarian dream world where everyone who isn't "productive" and "successful" is left to die in the gutter would require stringent laws and much force by the wealthy upper crust to protect their privileges and property, but then you have the catch-22 of laws being bad vs obviously being wealthy means little if nothing stops you from being robbed.

So what, is their ideal an age of warlords where anyone with a scrap of power must jealously guard it by force because there's neither social contract nor credible law enforcement to help them do so peacefully? Drop the lot of them in Somalia or Afghanistan and see how fun and games that is.

The ideal libertarian world is feudalism.

[Azadina]

It's not my will at all. If I do literally nothing, then it falls off a cliff in 2034, and continues to decline from there. I need not do anything, that's just the math of the situation.

It's not about never receiving benefits, it's about either limiting benefits, because we have so many people collecting them, or reducing the number of people collecting, by increasing the retirement age.

MY "will" is to try and prevent it from utterly collapsing.

Still doesn't quite satisfy me. Why should I keep paying full price for...either non existant benefits or as you suggest, constantly 1% a year shrinking ones? Change what I have to pay to reflect what I'm going to end up receiving out of it.

[Muzjhath]

It's really funny yeah, because the enforcement of that libertarian dream world where everyone who isn't "productive" and "successful" is left to die in the gutter would require stringent laws and much force by the wealthy upper crust to protect their privileges and property, but then you have the catch-22 of laws being bad vs obviously being wealthy means little if nothing stops you from being robbed.

So what, is their ideal an age of warlords where anyone with a scrap of power must jealously guard it by force because there's neither social contract nor credible law enforcement to help them do so peacefully? Drop the lot of them in Somalia or Afghanistan and see how fun and games that is.

No no no!
You don't get it! All those guards would be employes who personally choose to do those jobs! And they'd be doing what they were paid to do, protecting the private property of themselves and others!
All those people in the gutters? They could pull themselves up by their bootstraps and join the guard and one day themselves own property!

Everything is about liberty to choose!