Originally posted by quackquack Perhaps that means a nurse needs to save more money if they work fewer years and want to retire/ cut back before Social Secuirty is avaiable.
People who work at desks have "real jobs" too -- in fact I'd argue that people who use their mind have real jobs and people who use just brute force can and should probably be replaced by machinery.
What a privileged life you've led.
Keep using your mind when people wait on you and consider what it would be like to have a machine do it instead of a person.
Originally posted by Zapp Brannigan What a privileged life you've led.
Keep using your mind when people wait on you and consider what it would be like to have a machine do it instead of a person.
Originally posted by quackquack There isn't only sales tax on essentials. In fact most essentials (such as food) are specifically excluded in the US.
But the percentage of income spent on essentials drives the regressivity of the sales tax, as a greater % of a low income person's income goes to essentials. That is the economists' reasoning.
Also, unprepared foods (groceries) are generally tax free, but prepared food including fast-food, which regrettably can be more efficient in delivering calories for time and money spent, is taxable.
Social Security was put into place to combat the problem of elderly poverty. It has been extremely successful in doing so. The people support it overwhelmingly.
If there are those who are sooooooooooooooooooo outraged at contributing to a system that combats ...[text shortened]... topping them, but disgruntled hermits don't get to run the US to the detriment of its people.
I've read that another motivation for SS retirement benefits was that by making it easier for the over-65 to retire and survive, jobs were opened up for the large number of unemployed at the time SS was passed. I don't have a link.
Originally posted by quackquack There is no justification for a 31% increase in spending during this presidency. We already got rid of the Bush cuts for what the government deemed the wealthy but kept the for everyone else. I wouldn't raise taxes at all and I certainly wouldn't raise taxes only on one segment of our population.
If you say there is no justification for the spending increase during this presidency, do you have access to a breakdown of the spending increase and have you found all of it to be unjustified? That would be interesting. If you don't have a breakdown you might be basing your "no justification" claim on general principle.
Originally posted by Zapp Brannigan Or bring him food in a restaurant or fix his car or wait on him in stores or a thousand other things he thinks a machine could do.
There's a fair chance he fixes his own car and cooks his own food. Being "waited on" at a store simply means giving the merchant's agents money. There's not much more involved.
Originally posted by quackquack People don't wait on me. I do things myself.
You do things yourself. Typical self-delusion. There are people ready and waiting right now in case you are involved in an emergency situation. Maybe there should be a system where people like you can opt out of the availability of an EMT, an ER, fire services, etc. There are people serving in the armed services and police forces for you. There are people enforcing all sorts of laws or you. There are people testing foods for absence of e coli, for you. There are people inspecting bridge construction for you. There are people patching potholes for you. Maybe Somalia is the ideal government for you.
Yeah, Britain, which is further to the right than any other country in Western Europe. The US, of course, is further to the right still, but that mere fact should demonstrate how wildly exceptional the US is as far as developed countries go - a fact that ought to cause Americans to question their values and the organisation of their society.
Originally posted by JS357 If you say there is no justification for the spending increase during this presidency, do you have access to a breakdown of the spending increase and have you found all of it to be unjustified? That would be interesting. If you don't have a breakdown you might be basing your "no justification" claim on general principle.
If you think a 31% increase in three years of a non-inflationary period makes sense, than explain to me why. But until then I feel comfortable saying we do not need to spend so much more than we did in 2008? Since we are reach a debt cap and most people feel they themselves should not have to or cannot afford to pay any more there a two solutions. (1) tax someone else (2) stop spending. I think in fairness to everyone we cannot continue to ask the same group to continue paying and there is just no need for government to continue to get bigger.
Originally posted by quackquack I think in fairness to everyone we cannot continue to ask the same group to continue paying and there is just no need for government to continue to get bigger.
You seem to be under the curious delusion that the rich are a fixed, defined "group". They are no more and no less than those who earn more than a certain total in a given year. If any individual ceases to be one of the rich, they will no longer pay so much tax. If any individual becomes one of the rich, they will be expected to pay tax in accordance with their means. It's a wholly fair and just situation, and the mechanism by which a civilised society ensures a basic minimum standard of living for all.
As for whether there's a need for the state to get bigger, well that's something for the voters to decide in the elections held every two years in the US or every four to five years here in Britain.
Social Security was put into place to combat the problem of elderly poverty. It has been extremely successful in doing so. The people support it overwhelmingly.
If there are those who are sooooooooooooooooooo outraged at contributing to a system that combats ...[text shortened]... topping them, but disgruntled hermits don't get to run the US to the detriment of its people.
If the numbers are over whelming the 'system' would be self sustaining and a sure sell for those to voluntarily sign up. People acting in there own self interest are propelled into society rather than to become hermits, I deal with numerous people daily but there's a differnece between you and I no1, my priority is that they want to deal with me, freely of their own voilition, and vice versa. An alien concept for you, to be sure.
Originally posted by Wajoma If the numbers are over whelming the 'system' would be self sustaining and a sure sell for those to voluntarily sign up. People acting in there own self interest are propelled into society rather than to become hermits, I deal with numerous people daily but there's a differnece between you and I no1, my priority is that they want to deal with me, freely of their own voilition, and vice versa. An alien concept for you, to be sure.
The people acted in their own self-interest by creating Social Security. Every society has rules; contributing to SS is one of the rules here. Since it certainly deprives no one of any Natural Right to be taxed on the bounty that they gain from being part of society in order to fund programs that better protect themselves and other members of said society from being poor when they are older, the question of whether to have an SS program is legitimately decided by majority vote.
Originally posted by quackquack If you think a 31% increase in three years of a non-inflationary period makes sense, than explain to me why. But until then I feel comfortable saying we do not need to spend so much more than we did in 2008? Since we are reach a debt cap and most people feel they themselves should not have to or cannot afford to pay any more there a two solutions. (1 ...[text shortened]... ame group to continue paying and there is just no need for government to continue to get bigger.
I don't think it is adequate to reject a spending increase on the general basis that there is no inflation going on and/or that the same group is paying. We do need to consider fairness, and it is also not adequate to blindly accept the spending increase.
Retirement Age Adjustment
22 Jul '11 19:12
Back to Top