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

[Endus]

The problem with that study, is that they new there was an end, so they opted for stability, while simply gladly accepting the new paycheck

This is you inventing excuses.

Also, both articles were written in 2019. The results of the trial weren't published until 2020. https://www.kela.fi/web/en/news-arch...ntal-wellbeing

While that's an article about the final report, that report's linked at the bottom if you read Finnish. It's dated in the file name, however, and was indeed published in 2020.

Meanwhile, you have provided absolutely no data or evidence to back any of the nonsense you've tried to push, in your pursuit to see the elderly poor struggle and die.

[Machismo]

The experiment ended, and they released some information, with the final report coming later.

https://phys.org/news/2021-06-finnis...mployment.html

I desire to see people provide for themselves, without pushing more and more government creep onto how we live out lives.

Now, my overarching argument against this is something you agree with, and that is that socialism isn't really something that can be implemented voluntarily right now. If people really are willing to keep on working, caring for others, then such a concept requires no force. If you genuinely believe that people can shoulder that burden, and keep on trucking along, taking the "will nots" along for the ride, then by all means, demonstrate it. Make SS entirely voluntary, and see who decided to opt in, and stick with you. You can call it what you like, charge what you like, and not even require people to actually pay in, if they don't want to.

You and I both know how that would end up.

[unfilteredJW]

I like that the argument now is he’s a complete piece of shit so everyone else has to be a complete piece of shit.

Big fat projection.

[Endus]

The experiment ended, and they released some information, with the final report coming later.

https://phys.org/news/2021-06-finnis...mployment.html

I really don't know where you, or anyone, got the impression that a basic income was meant to drive more employment. It's a straw man.

I desire to see people provide for themselves, without pushing more and more government creep onto how we live out lives.

If you really, really believed this, you wouldn't be supporting the measures you're talking about, because there is no possibility that they could ever produce that outcome.

You're kicking out their support systems while providing nothing to replace them, with the intent that those who can't tread water will just drown.

Now, my overarching argument against this is something you agree with, and that is that socialism isn't really something that can be implemented voluntarily right now.

Where did you ever get the impression that I would agree with that giant pile of insufferably wrong bullshit? It's just the same '50s-era anti-Soviet propaganda. It has no basis in reality or modern political theory.

If people really are willing to keep on working, caring for others, then such a concept requires no force. If you genuinely believe that people can shoulder that burden, and keep on trucking along, taking the "will nots" along for the ride, then by all means, demonstrate it. Make SS entirely voluntary, and see who decided to opt in, and stick with you. You can call it what you like, charge what you like, and not even require people to actually pay in, if they don't want to.

You and I both know how that would end up.

Why would I ever make things like that "voluntary"? That's abandoning the principle of rule of law, for no identifiable reason. It is, in fact, you attempting to force a concession out of me by hiding it.

Not gonna happen. You can take that anarcho-capitalist rhetoric and stuff it. It's unworkable nonsense.

Edit: Still at 0 actual evidence or data that backs anything you've claimed. You have nothing, and you know it, you're just not honest enough to admit it.

[Shadowferal]

And your stance is clearly support the slave labor/wages or roll over and die. Not only do you not understand what Eat The Rich means, You also don't understand what a Bootlicker is if you are accusing me of being one. Edit: As for my emote its from BL2.

As posted earlier; I suspect that one of the reasons some libertarians feel so frustrated is the inevitability that their golden idols will get shitcanned. One of the weaknesses libertarian ideology is a zero allowance for disasters/crises. Current pandemic is one example. Economies from most countries are going broke, and with inflation screwing most over only the biggest businesses and the rich are getting wealthier. It's no coincidence that a global tax system was agreed to last month. You can count on this trend to progress further. The only ones who are alarmed are red-state gopers and libertarians. But the longer this pandemic kills more gop voters, the more likely a blue wave will happen. And with other countries needing wealth there isn't any place for the 1 percenters to run. (I'm betting Elizabeth Warren is seeing this)

American Families Plan is just a beginning.

[Huehuecoyotl]

I like that the argument now is he’s a complete piece of shit so everyone else has to be a complete piece of shit.

Big fat projection.

I noticed that with his posts as well; making the argument that everyone could help people but don't, because that's how people are. I don't think he even realises that's telling us so much more about him than it is about us.

The Right and projection. A partnership that never gets tired of one another.

[Beefhammer]

Except, we've seen it with out own eyes. We've seen in the Great Recession, where people went months and months, without getting back to work, Then, once those unemployment benefits ran out, they were suddenly employed.

The simple fact is, the more people who don't produce, the heavier a burden it is on the rest of society. Sure, if 10% aren't pulling their weight, it means that the other 90% have an 11.1% increase in burden, on average. Now, that's a lot, but it's something that could be justified. In the case of the current state of things, (we have about 25% who are the "burden" so to speak. That increases our personal burden by 33.3%. By 2050, it's 2:1, and the burden is increased by 50%.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not punishment to you, but how do you think they would feel? Did you even stop to take their view into consideration?

- - - Updated - - -



1%

/10char

- - - Updated - - -



No, I'm saying you seem to have a self-defeating attitude, and so "Fuck it, it's hard" is the solution.

I have no problem helping people who cannot help themselves. But, when people have decades to plan, I sympathy is going to dwindle.

- - - Updated - - -



Remember when 86% of the population supported gun control after kids were murdered?

How'd that turn out?

But you don't seem to care that the working class had their tax doubt led to pay for it in the 80s, when they were already struggling while the rich received tax cuts. But hey, let's ignore that taxes are the cover charge to live in this land of the free and thise at the top have been successfully avoiding paying their fair share while taking advantage of those without for a very long time.

Also many weren't suddenly employed the moment their UE benefits dried up. But heaven forbid people want to work for livable wages instead of being indentured servants.

JFC you are something.

- - - Updated - - -

That's just an empty lie. You're back to resorting to character attacks, to deflect from the pack of lies you tried to tell that are contradicted by literally any data anyone cares to glance at.



Oh noes, socialism.

Fear the possibility that collective action could serve society's interests! OOoooOOooOoo!

Jesus wept, get some talking points that weren't penned by a rabid McCarthy back in the 1950s.



. . . What?

That's . . . the total productivity. Literally the one measure of the value produced by the nation's workforce. You just don't want to talk about it because it proves your imaginary fables to be false.



So? This is the question you can't answer. You don't like it, because you prefer the alternative.

And the alternative is to choose to watch people suffer and eventually die from preventable hardship. I get that the cruelty there is the point of your worldview, I really do.

It's just not a convincing dystopia that anyone else is gonna want to back. As much as you try and make up stories about some hypothetical "victimhood" for the still-super-rich who might be marginally less super-rich if I got my dastardly way, you're arguing for actual pain and suffering by those most vulnerable. That's your stated goal. It isn't to boost productivity. It isn't to protect the nation's economy. It's just to hold up a magnifying glass and see how many ants you can burn to death.

$10 says he's some guy living off the state who's also in a union just playing a character. Similarly to Orlong who was a union and government basher only to be revealed he was a public sector employee taking advantage of being in a union and the benefits they fought for him.

[Machismo]

I really don't know where you, or anyone, got the impression that a basic income was meant to drive more employment. It's a straw man.



If you really, really believed this, you wouldn't be supporting the measures you're talking about, because there is no possibility that they could ever produce that outcome.

You're kicking out their support systems while providing nothing to replace them, with the intent that those who can't tread water will just drown.



Where did you ever get the impression that I would agree with that giant pile of insufferably wrong bullshit? It's just the same '50s-era anti-Soviet propaganda. It has no basis in reality or modern political theory.



Why would I ever make things like that "voluntary"? That's abandoning the principle of rule of law, for no identifiable reason. It is, in fact, you attempting to force a concession out of me by hiding it.

Not gonna happen. You can take that anarcho-capitalist rhetoric and stuff it. It's unworkable nonsense.

Edit: Still at 0 actual evidence or data that backs anything you've claimed. You have nothing, and you know it, you're just not honest enough to admit it.

I never claimed that was the point of a UBI, you are the one pushing the UBI narrative. This was about Social Security.

No, the point is that the government isn't needed to support them in that aspect in the first place. My point is that the goal should be to push for more personal responsibility.

As for the point of it being voluntary, it goes against the argument that people will keep on chugging along, if you can simply coast, and get shit for free. If things like SS or a UBI were truly universal, and had no requirements, then more and more people would take advantage of the system as a whole. The fact that these things need to be forced, is the evidence. It forces people into compliance, because they know that it wouldn't survive it it was entirely voluntary. To put it bluntly the people making the money, and the people doing the work, would stop supporting the people who are providing nothing.

[Huehuecoyotl]

I never claimed that was the point of a UBI, you are the one pushing the UBI narrative. This was about Social Security.

No, the point is that the government isn't needed to support them in that aspect in the first place. My point is that the goal should be to push for more personal responsibility.

As for the point of it being voluntary, it goes against the argument that people will keep on chugging along, if you can simply coast, and get shit for free. If things like SS or a UBI were truly universal, and had no requirements, then more and more people would take advantage of the system as a whole. The fact that these things need to be forced, is the evidence. It forces people into compliance, because they know that it wouldn't survive it it was entirely voluntary. To put it bluntly the people making the money, and the people doing the work, would stop supporting the people who are providing nothing.

So what you're telling us is that you would coast along if you weren't forced to do something to help society. You'd take advantage of the system. You'd stop working rather than risk supporting people that weren't working (for whatever reason). And because you think you're the centre of the universe, you're utterly convinced that everyone else thinks in the same self-serving, selfish way that you do.

They don't. It's just you and a bunch of people like you. The good news is that the rest of us would still work even to support people like you, as you hypocritically sit back and coast. Because most people are just better than you.

[Machismo]

I noticed that with his posts as well; making the argument that everyone could help people but don't, because that's how people are. I don't think he even realises that's telling us so much more about him than it is about us.

The Right and projection. A partnership that never gets tired of one another.

It is how people are. The fact that these things are forced, shows that they wouldn't survive on their own... because people are self-serving assholes. If given a chance, there's enough outliers to make those systems unworkable.

- - - Updated - - -

But you don't seem to care that the working class had their tax doubt led to pay for it in the 80s, when they were already struggling while the rich received tax cuts. But hey, let's ignore that taxes are the cover charge to live in this land of the free and thise at the top have been successfully avoiding paying their fair share while taking advantage of those without for a very long time.

Also many weren't suddenly employed the moment their UE benefits dried up. But heaven forbid people want to work for livable wages instead of being indentured servants.

JFC you are something.

- - - Updated - - -



$10 says he's some guy living off the state who's also in a union just playing a character. Similarly to Orlong who was a union and government basher only to be revealed he was a public sector employee taking advantage of being in a union and the benefits they fought for him.

And we're back to "fair share."

The wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income than the rest of the country, on average. It's clearly not as much as you want, but they do pay more.

The major issue, is that people want them to pay percentages of their wealth, and not their income. That's the danger that has been laid out, and why it is so fucking terrible. Arguing to jack up their income tax to what it was several years ago, that's at least reasonable. Sure, I may disagree with it, but at least it follows the known principles of progressive taxation based on income.

The real problem is with plans like Elizabeth Warren's tax abomination. A 6% annual wealth tax is so overwhelmingly burdensome and harmful, it's difficult to even comprehend just how big of a catastrophe it would be.

- - - Updated - - -

Looking forward to the next time Machismo tries to shit on Trump supporters as though he has any credibility to do so, or is any different than them.

- - - Updated - - -


IIRC, he's an older guy that's relatively well off.

Can't remember if he's one of those muppets that claims to feed their family rice and beans for an average of $2 a meal all week or not, though.

I'm in my 40's, so fairly old. Yes, I live within my means.

[TwistedSkull]

Just raise the tax on the wealthy.

[Machismo]

So what you're telling us is that you would coast along if you weren't forced to do something to help society. You'd take advantage of the system. You'd stop working rather than risk supporting people that weren't working (for whatever reason). And because you think you're the centre of the universe, you're utterly convinced that everyone else thinks in the same self-serving, selfish way that you do.

They don't. It's just you and a bunch of people like you. The good news is that the rest of us would still work even to support people like you, as you hypocritically sit back and coast. Because most people are just better than you.

No, I'm saying plenty of people would, which is the problem. I have too much decency and work ethic to let others take care of me, but I know plenty who would. I also donate plenty of money, and help those around me. So, if you want to continue the narrative that I'm a selfish shitstain, then you will continue to be wrong.

If people were genuinely generous and considerate, then socialism wouldn't need to be forced. You could set up your own voluntary socialist group, and you could all pay into it, and receive your very own self-funded UBI. heck, if people were as thoughtful as you think, then you could pull 10k random people out of a hat, and be able to do it.

Endus brought up the Finnish test, which was 2k people. If such a plan is as viable as he things it is, and people are as decent as you think they are, then do one with 2k random people, and see how it ends up. Let everyone pitch in what you and they agree is a good amount, and have you all take care of each other.

And I want to note, I wholeheartedly support the premise of voluntarism. It's the government I want. However, I also understand that humans are not even close to being able to pull it off right now. I genuinely wished humans were more decent, and les selfish.

[Shadowferal]

Looking forward to the next time Machismo tries to shit on Trump supporters as though he has any credibility to do so, or is any different than them.

Gotta wonder...he has such disdain for 95% of the US population and indifference toward the suffering and deaths of the disabled and elderly. And yet cried the blues when people took him to task about poor children getting fed...did he think that it was about rich children?

Just raise the tax on the wealthy.

Eventually will happen.

[Machismo]

Gotta wonder...he has such disdain for 95% of the US population and indifference toward the suffering and deaths of the disabled and elderly. And yet cried the blues when people took him to task about poor children getting fed...did he think that it was about rich children? Eventually will happen.

This is simply a lie. Actually, it's you lying about two things at once.

[Azadina]

It is how people are. The fact that these things are forced, shows that they wouldn't survive on their own... because people are self-serving assholes. If given a chance, there's enough outliers to make those systems unworkable.

Now read this post of yours a couple of times, and let it sink in. No, really. It's the exact argument I've used against your libertarian ideas of "let's privatise everything, gogo, it goes great", while you've fought against it at every turn. If it wasn't true, you could not attempt to use it here either, whether it works in this particular case or not. Thanks for the freudian slip of how my arguments against your ideology each time have been on point.

[Machismo]

Now read this post of yours a couple of times, and let it sink in. No, really. It's the exact argument I've used against your libertarian ideas of "let's privatise everything, gogo, it goes great", while you've fought against it at every turn. If it wasn't true, you could not attempt to use it here either, whether it works in this particular case or not. Thanks for the freudian slip of how my arguments against your ideology each time have been on point.

I have long stated instantaneous libertarianism isn't feasible right now, because people are selfish, authoritarian assholes. It's why I have pushed for incremental change, like getting rid of the occasional bad law, or slowly reducing spending.

I'm well aware that people are not ready for what I want this world to be. No, that's not me trying to sound like a condescending prick, it's just a simple reality of where humanity is at this time. I wholeheartedly believe in the ideology, and specifically voluntarism. But, I'm well aware that such things are not going to happen overnight. Think of libertarianism as the utopia, with me wanting small, manageable steps to get there. I am under no illusions that I will be alive to see its fruition, just like the socialists in here aren't going to be alive to see their utopia realized... because people are simply not capable of it. If they were capable of it, then it would not need to be forced.

[Shadowferal]

Now read this post of yours a couple of times, and let it sink in. No, really. It's the exact argument I've used against your libertarian ideas of "let's privatise everything, gogo, it goes great", while you've fought against it at every turn. If it wasn't true, you could not attempt to use it here either, whether it works in this particular case or not. Thanks for the freudian slip of how my arguments against your ideology each time have been on point.

I'm waiting to hear how charity can replace social security and Medicare/Medicaid. I mean if it's such a great idea you might think they'd show government how it's done...o wait. They did! They already said "just wait until they're dead.."
Libertarians give the guillotine a good name.

[Azadina]

I have long stated instantaneous libertarianism isn't feasible right now, because people are selfish, authoritarian assholes. It's why I have pushed for incremental change, like getting rid of the occasional bad law, or slowly reducing spending.

I'm well aware that people are not ready for what I want this world to be. No, that's not me trying to sound like a condescending prick, it's just a simple reality of where humanity is at this time. I wholeheartedly believe in the ideology, and specifically voluntarism. But, I'm well aware that such things are not going to happen overnight. Think of libertarianism as the utopia, with me wanting small, manageable steps to get there. I am under no illusions that I will be alive to see its fruition, just like the socialists in here aren't going to be alive to see their utopia realized... because people are simply not capable of it. If they were capable of it, then it would not need to be forced.

It's very well possible that humanity will absolutely never be ready for something like what you dream of. It doesn't take that many jerk offs to go against the flow, and suddenly you have warlords rampaging around already. So, out of curiosity, what's the point of the ideology? Not happening in your, your children or grandchildrens lifetime, and quite possibly never.

[Machismo]

I'm waiting to hear how charity can replace social security and Medicare/Medicaid. I mean if it's such a great idea you might think they'd show government how it's done...o wait. They did! They already said "just wait until they're dead.."
Libertarians give the guillotine a good name.

Thanks for agreeing with me that people are selfish. I love when socialists admit I'm right.

[Machismo]

It's very well possible that humanity will absolutely never be ready for something like what you dream of. It doesn't take that many jerk offs to go against the flow, and suddenly you have warlords rampaging around already. So, out of curiosity, what's the point of the ideology? Not happening in your, your children or grandchildrens lifetime, and quite possibly never.

I agree, it may never be ready. It may also never be ready for communism, or even socialism. That's why those things are implemented via authoritarianism and force. Without the threat of being shot in the face, they wouldn't comply.

As for me, the point is an increase in individual liberty. I have no illusions that I will get to the goal, but even inching in that direction would be nice.