An alternative approach to solving the Social Security mess

[Gorgo]

So I can individually decide what wallets belong to me, and if I decide you have my wallet, which, by your definition, was just created solely by my superhuman abilities, then you have stolen that wallet from me?

Give me my wallet!

Quote by: Autolykos If a theif steals your wallet and then buys you a hot dog with some of the money, is it still theft? (Hint: the answer is "yes".)

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Gorgo Government is one of the ways that society acts. It is not separate from society.

That, in part, is the basis for my belief that taxation is theft. Government is made up of individuals. Therefore, the government can't have any rights that each of the individuals don't have. A person cannot grant, to another person or to a group of people, a right that he himself doesn't have. There is no moral justification for a group of people forming together and declaring that they have the right to take a chunk of my paycheck even if I don't want them to.

Quote by: Gorgo People that think taxation is stealing, think that they create their own wealth by themselves and own it without government interference. Such a thing is ridiculous. The very technology that lets me use communicate with you was largely created by the government and given to the computer industry. The school taught me to type, etc., etc. etc.

Here's an example to illustrate my stance on this issue;

I like the idea of space exploration. I think it's an exciting field of innovation. This doesn't mean that I must necessarily agree with how space exploration has been almost entirely funded. I don't think it's a contradiction to think that a certain technological advancement is a good thing but that the method in which it's being funded is a bad thing. In fact, private spending is more efficient and productive than public spending.

Also- you seem to think that if somebody was involved in the production of something, then they forever have a stake in it. This ignores what is involved in trading. Apple Computers produced the computer I am using right now. I exchanged a sum of money for the computer. The computer became my property, and the money became theirs. The fact that Apple Computers produced the computer does not mean that they still hold any property claims over it.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio "donkrabbit, what about those people that make risky investments, lose everything, what about thier CHILDREN? Are you saying we should let children jsut starve because thier parents were dumb?"

I don't see a way in which the children can be held responsible for the poor decisions of their parents. Therefore, it's a worthy cause to donate to. However, donations should be voluntary- not forced (through taxation).

People are allowed to spend the majority of the money they earn in the way they see most fit. I don't see how allowing people to spend (or save) the extra bit of their paycheck will suddenly cause children across the nation to starve.

[Gorgo]

donkrabbit says: In fact, private spending is more efficient and productive than public spending.

I've found no reasonable evidence for such a statement.

Also- you seem to think that if somebody was involved in the production of something, then they forever have a stake in it.

That's not my point. My point is that "your" money is not "your" money unless someone else tells you that it is. You do not earn it on your own. It is an effort based on our ancestor's work and the work of others in the world. Just because an INDIVIDUAL or group of INDIVIDUALS decided that you should own what you own doesn't mean that it is any more wrong for them to decide something else.

Again, if you want to get rid of government "interference," that's fine. Then everyone will own everything. That's called socialism.

[Gorgo]

For a lot of this stuff, like the pharmaceutical industry, computers, etc., the taxparyer funds the R & D, and gives the knowledge to corporations who crow about "the private sector" doing so great.

Quote by: donkrabbit The fact that Apple Computers produced the computer does not mean that they still hold any property claims over it.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Can you provide examples of efficient government?

I'd LOVE to see that.

[Gorgo]

Can you provide examples of efficient "private enterprise?" Maybe you've never worked for a corporation.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Gorgo So I can individually decide what wallets belong to me, and if I decide you have my wallet, which, by your definition, was just created solely by my superhuman abilities, then you have stolen that wallet from me? Give me my wallet!

What?

How in the world do you get "I can individually decide what wallets belong to me" and "by your definition, was just created solely by my superhuman abilities" out of what I said?

Are you unable to comprehend my analogy or are you trying to avoid addressing it directly?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Two Reasons. 1. While yes, it is still a defacto "tax", unlike the current system, where the money dissappears into DC. Individual accounts are "mine" and thus not sucject to the hands of the government. Plus I can earn more then 1.6% of lifetime gain on what I "add" to social security.

I think it telling that you put the word "mine" in quotes. That is, you yourself admit that such "personal accounts" are actually not personal, but government-owned. As we all (should) know, the government giveth and the government taketh away.

2. The novel idea of "taxing" me into a system I control, can pass on, and gives better return on investiment then the goverments handleing... is a "tax" I can live with.

You do not control the system. The government does.

If you can live with that tax, that's fine. All other things being equal, you can "tax" yourself in such a way. The problem lies with those people, such as myself, who do not wish to live with such a tax. Why should we be forced to put $X into a "personal account" if we don't want to?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Gorgo Yes, and collections of individuals are called groups. Society is one of those groups. If you're saying otherwise, then I just can't comprehend.

Yes, and groups can no more act than "society" can. Only individuals can act.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Gorgo Quote by: donkrabbit In fact, private spending is more efficient and productive than public spending. I've found no reasonable evidence for such a statement.

Is that because you feel that you somehow have more control over public spending?

Quote by: Gorgo That's not my point. My point is that "your" money is not "your" money unless someone else tells you that it is. You do not earn it on your own. It is an effort based on our ancestor's work and the work of others in the world. Just because an INDIVIDUAL or group of INDIVIDUALS decided that you should own what you own doesn't mean that it is any more wrong for them to decide something else. Again, if you want to get rid of government "interference," that's fine. Then everyone will own everything. That's called socialism.

Ultimately, anything viewed as "property" by anyone can be such only to the extent that the supposed owner can defend against those who would try to take it. However, civilized societies based upon voluntary interaction and exchange (i.e. the members thereof) have adopted the viewpoint that if one has a claim to something that is not already under another claim, it's his, and it remains his until he relinquishes his claim. This concept is called property rights.

When I get a job, I agree to exchange my labor for a certain monetary reward. Thus, one can say that I earn my money on my own.

Everyone owning everything is logically equivalent to no one owning anything (or everyone owning nothing).

- Rob

[Gorgo]

That's what I said. If you want to end government interference, then everyone owns everything. Government is the way that society tells us who owns what. You want to make private "defense" tell people who owns what? That's called robbery. Yes, that happens in government, but only because so many people think that we have a "free market." That's the fault of education, not the government. Government is only a tool.

[Gorgo]

Why do you assume that it is me that is not comprehending?

Quote by: Autolykos What? How in the world do you get "I can individually decide what wallets belong to me" and "by your definition, was just created solely by my superhuman abilities" out of what I said? Are you unable to comprehend my analogy or are you trying to avoid addressing it directly? - Rob

[Mr.Vicchio]

Auto, I will not argue that FORCING you to opt to either pay SS or pay into a "personal account" is right.

Because it's not. But, to effect change, you have to convince the average Joe, that his money, is his money. Too many people are dependant in a most unhealthy manner, on the teat of the Government.

Private accounts would be a step away from this, and points towards future changes that will bring about what you seek. To get there though, we must take small steps.

And yes, I am fully aware that they could be "taken away" but if the system is put in place, and people start seeing thier money grow, feel that it is in fact, THIERS, any politician that attempts to "take it away".... is gonna stir up a much needed and long over due hornets nest among the average joes of America.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Autolykos Don't you think that the grasshopper-ish behavior, as it were, is motivated by the presence of Social Security itself? That, if SS did not exist, people would save more on their own?

Perhaps, but we don't know, having not done it so that point is moot.

I, for one, am not in favor of protecting people from their own stupidity. Protecting people from others' stupidity, when it causes harm to them or their property, is fine, but I fail to see how I'm harmed by Joe Schmoe setting aside no money for his old age. Besides, what he does with his own money is not my business.

As I mentioned earlier, dropping SS at any time without a backup plan invites massive welfare expenditures and we can't fix this by going after IT alone.

When one brings up an argument for abolishing Social Security outright, those in favor of SS tend to have two "knee-jerk" reactive logical fallacies. The first logical fallacy is this: they assume that, immediately, many elderly people would be thrown out onto the streets to starve to death. This is a fallacy because it does not acknowledge the fact that other institutions exist besides those of the federal government. Such institutions include churches, private charities, families and friends.

You mean the SAME churches and private charities which are constantly raising money and saying they don't have enough to do the work they already DO? Again, that hasn't happened so you can't use that as a viable alternative.

Since most people have some modicum of compassion, they do not suggest a suddent cutoff for the program. The unfortunate thing is, however, that such a situation is exactly what we are heading for if SS is not reformed.

In 40 or 50 years, maybe. In the meantime I don't need Chicken Little Bush telling me the economic sky is falling when he does not now, nor EVER had the remotest clue as to the value of a dollar.
And Bush must realize that he CAN'T propose dropping it suddenly, as he might not have to worry but the REST of his party likes to get elected and reelected.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Autolykos How is it not welfare?

Correct me if I'm wrong but to recieve most of the SS benefits you need to PAY into it first. That's what the government is telling me when they send me the info on how much I've paid and how much I'll be entitled to.

[kharmajunkie]

It is welfare when some 25 year old slacker gets ssi because he's bi-polar or some other psychological/emotional problem that can be treated and the patient can still work (he hasn't paid into the system, it's defacto welfare).. It happens all the time and if you go to a social service agency for related problems, most likely you'll be encouraged to apply.


Vic, I'm still waiting for that source regarding your statement that we never had a balanced budget or a surplus in the 90's. What's the matter, is Sean Hannity not answering his phone today?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: kharmajunkie It is welfare when some 25 year old slacker gets ssi because he's bi-polar or some other psychological/emotional problem that can be treated and the patient can still work (he hasn't paid into the system, it's defacto welfare).. It happens all the time and if you go to a social service agency for related problems, most likely you'll be encouraged to apply.

No argument about that, but that can be considered one of the things that need to be fixed without totally discarding ther whole system. I believe a LOT of the benefits that were tacked on as afterthoughts over the years can be addressed.
I don't think many people will argue against the need to retool SS (which is what Bush is capitalizing on) but a lot can be done to keep it going, barring a better system replacing it.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Gorgo I've found no reasonable evidence for such a statement.

You've found no reasonable a priori evidence that a price system controlled by the forces of supply and demand allocate resources in a way that is more productive and efficient than allocation by central planning? Have you ever taken even a high-school-level macroeconomics course?

Quote by: Gorgo That's not my point. My point is that "your" money is not "your" money unless someone else tells you that it is.

Correct- the "someone" is the previous owner of the money. It becomes my money during the voluntary trade.

Quote by: Gorgo You do not earn it on your own. It is an effort based on our ancestor's work and the work of others in the world.

I don't understand what you mean.

I trade my time and effort in exchange for a paycheck. Being that this trade is mutual and voluntary, my employeer must think that what I produce is worth the paycheck he is giving me in exchange. How are the efforts of my ancestors and other people in the world involved in this specific trade?

Quote by: Gorgo Again, if you want to get rid of government "interference," that's fine. Then everyone will own everything. That's called socialism.

Again- I don't understand what you mean. How will the abolishment of Social Security lead to socialized resources?

I am not opposed to government involvement in the production of defense. I think this is the very (and the only) role of government- to defend property rights.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Gorgo For a lot of this stuff, like the pharmaceutical industry, computers, etc., the taxparyer funds the R & D, and gives the knowledge to corporations who crow about "the private sector" doing so great.

You're dropping the context of the analogy.