Would the lower class be better off overall...

[A18]

I vote yes

[John Dibble]

In at least some ways, yes. For instance, if Social Security is abolished, they don't pay as much in taxes(and everyone has to pay into this), so they'll have more money in the short term. Whether they use it properly for the long term may be another matter.

[A18]

Yes, but most people have children, so the retirement argument is pretty poor.

People would have a lot more spending money if they didn't have to pay payroll taxes.

[nclib]

Of course not. Most people receiving welfare would rather be working.

[Jake]

does Ace=Philip ?

[A18]

Yes, and no, but not in that order

[Rob]

Yes, and no, but not in that order

Why did you delete your account?

[A18]

I like to create a new account every now and then just to keep things fresh.

[Jake]

I like to create a new account every now and then just to keep things fresh.

How many posts have you accumulated in your 3 or 4 different accounts.  IIRC, you deleted your account thrice already, all three times with around 3000 posts.

[A18]

I got 5,000 the first time, 3,500 or so the third time. I don't know how many I got on the second, but I don't think I had it very long.

[Leif Ericson]

Do you post on any other message boards?

[A18]

Do you post on any other message boards?

Only one right now, why?

[Nym90]

One thing that must be kept in mind about social security and welfare is that we'll end up paying the price for such things in other ways if we eliminate the direct government programs themselves.

If people aren't on welfare, the sad reality is that they will likely turn to crime, which is much more destructive overall than is welfare. Obviously we want to provide an incentive for them to work, first and foremost, but provided they can't find a job, simply cutting them off is not going to be a good idea because they'll find some other way to stay alive, and society will be the worse for it.

Likewise with social security. If people squander their retirement money foolishly, they'll turn to crime, or we'll have to pay for them through other welfare programs. The stock market does not provide a guaranteed rate of return on money, and the risk of losing it all is one that not everyone should be forced to take.

[Leif Ericson]

Do you post on any other message boards?

Only one right now, why?

Broaden your horizons! The internet is a fun place

[Frodo]

no, they would not.  the whole reason why these two programs (as well as Medicare and Medicaid) were created was so they would alleviate the poverty of those not as fortunate as yourself, Ace/Philip. 

[A18]

no, they would not.  the whole reason why these two programs (as well as Medicare and Medicaid) were created was so they would alleviate the poverty of those not as fortunate as yourself, Ace/Philip. 

All the programs do is give people their own money back, but as I said before, I have no problem with that as long as we're going to have welfare.

It is much better than having them live on someone else's wages, which is why we must not allow Social Security to become a welfare program.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The phrase "lower class" is offensive

[opebo]

The phrase "lower class" is offensive

And yet it perfectly reflects their position in our heirarchical society.

[Bono]

One thing that must be kept in mind about social security and welfare is that we'll end up paying the price for such things in other ways if we eliminate the direct government programs themselves.

If people aren't on welfare, the sad reality is that they will likely turn to crime, which is much more destructive overall than is welfare. Obviously we want to provide an incentive for them to work, first and foremost, but provided they can't find a job, simply cutting them off is not going to be a good idea because they'll find some other way to stay alive, and society will be the worse for it.

Likewise with social security. If people squander their retirement money foolishly, they'll turn to crime, or we'll have to pay for them through other welfare programs. The stock market does not provide a guaranteed rate of return on money, and the risk of losing it all is one that not everyone should be forced to take.

But criminals can be killed, and welfare recipients can't.

[Nym90]

One thing that must be kept in mind about social security and welfare is that we'll end up paying the price for such things in other ways if we eliminate the direct government programs themselves.

If people aren't on welfare, the sad reality is that they will likely turn to crime, which is much more destructive overall than is welfare. Obviously we want to provide an incentive for them to work, first and foremost, but provided they can't find a job, simply cutting them off is not going to be a good idea because they'll find some other way to stay alive, and society will be the worse for it.

Likewise with social security. If people squander their retirement money foolishly, they'll turn to crime, or we'll have to pay for them through other welfare programs. The stock market does not provide a guaranteed rate of return on money, and the risk of losing it all is one that not everyone should be forced to take.

But criminals can be killed, and welfare recipients can't.

Even if they are killed (and most people don't support the death penalty for things like robbery), in most cases the damage they have done through the crime is going to be greater than the damage they did by being on welfare.

I certainly support doing everything we can to get people to work, and I don't support giving welfare to those who don't make an attempt to get a job, assuming they are perfectly able to work.

It's just worth remembering that it may well be in our best interest not to have people who are in a position in which they are so desperate that they become much more likely to resort to irrational behavior. People turn to things like crime and drugs, in the vast majority of cases, because they feel that they have no other alternatives.

[Bono]

One thing that must be kept in mind about social security and welfare is that we'll end up paying the price for such things in other ways if we eliminate the direct government programs themselves.

If people aren't on welfare, the sad reality is that they will likely turn to crime, which is much more destructive overall than is welfare. Obviously we want to provide an incentive for them to work, first and foremost, but provided they can't find a job, simply cutting them off is not going to be a good idea because they'll find some other way to stay alive, and society will be the worse for it.

Likewise with social security. If people squander their retirement money foolishly, they'll turn to crime, or we'll have to pay for them through other welfare programs. The stock market does not provide a guaranteed rate of return on money, and the risk of losing it all is one that not everyone should be forced to take.

But criminals can be killed, and welfare recipients can't.

Even if they are killed (and most people don't support the death penalty for things like robbery), in most cases the damage they have done through the crime is going to be greater than the damage they did by being on welfare.

I certainly support doing everything we can to get people to work, and I don't support giving welfare to those who don't make an attempt to get a job, assuming they are perfectly able to work.

It's just worth remembering that it may well be in our best interest not to have people who are in a position in which they are so desperate that they become much more likely to resort to irrational behavior. People turn to things like crime and drugs, in the vast majority of cases, because they feel that they have no other alternatives.

Who said anything about the death penalty? I mean self-defense.

[dazzleman]

One thing that must be kept in mind about social security and welfare is that we'll end up paying the price for such things in other ways if we eliminate the direct government programs themselves.

If people aren't on welfare, the sad reality is that they will likely turn to crime, which is much more destructive overall than is welfare. Obviously we want to provide an incentive for them to work, first and foremost, but provided they can't find a job, simply cutting them off is not going to be a good idea because they'll find some other way to stay alive, and society will be the worse for it.

Likewise with social security. If people squander their retirement money foolishly, they'll turn to crime, or we'll have to pay for them through other welfare programs. The stock market does not provide a guaranteed rate of return on money, and the risk of losing it all is one that not everyone should be forced to take.

Even I don't think that we should eliminate social security and welfare!

I think that welfare should always be there for people who are unable to take care of themselves through no fault of their own.  My big problem with welfare has been that it has hurt the poor in the past by creating perverse incentives - such as paying people more money for every child they had.  I believe that AFDC played a large role in destroying the black family structure in particular, with devastating consequences for the black community.  It has also undermined the family structure among the fringes in other groups, including whites.

Even with all this, some type of welfare is necessary.  But it should not go to people who choose to do nothing for themselves, only to those with no other choice.

Social security is also a necessity, but it urgently needs reform.  Eric, I don't think you understand the extent of government mismanagement that has taken place with social security.  Unfortunately, I can't blame the Democrats for all of it, but I can blame them now for refusing to face up to the problem, even though they admitted it existed when Clinton was president.

Since 1983, when social security taxes were massively increased, social security has run a surplus.  They would have us believe that it's in a "trust fund."  It isn't.  It has all been effectively spent on the general item side of the budget, and exists as massive amounts of government bonds.  The only way to make good on this money will be to require the government to run a surplus running into several hundred billion dollars per year starting in about 15 years or so.  This will require massive tax increases, or massive cuts in spending.  Either that, or social security benefits will have to be cut.

Eric, do you recognize that people who spent most of their working life prior to 1983 are basically getting a free ride courtesy of us?  The government, with Nixon as a primary contributor to this, raised benefits way beyond what these people effectively paid for with the tax rates that they were paying, because it was possible to do this in the short run.  With a private pension plan, this would not have been possible, because private pension plans must make provisions for future liabilities, but not social security.  It is a pay-as-you-go system, effectively a pyramid scheme.  A private pension fund operator who ran a fund in this manner would create a scandal of Enron-type proportions, yet we accept it from the government.

As far as social security is concerned, the riskiest course of all is to do nothing.  I hear people say that the president's proposal is too risky, but I think these people fail to recognize that under the current system, we are headed for certain disaster.  We should have had private accounts going back to 1983 for each person's share of the surplus social security taxes contributed; if we had done that, the problem would already be solved, and the returns on social security would have been much greater.  We have to do something before it's too late.

[Nym90]

We agree on welfare. I also don't think it should go to people who are able-bodied and refuse to work. And I did support, generally, the welfare reform that was passed in 1996.

I agree that something needs to happen with social security, though I honestly haven't looked into it as much as I'd like. I agree that the benefits shouldn't have been raised so much in the 1970's; I was unaware of that, thanks for bringing it up.