Page 32 of 44 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 434

Thread: Drug testing for welfare recipients suffers setback

  1. #311
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    No, he's not. What is done with the tax money is totally uncool, but that does not negate the fact that people are taxed separately and specifically for the money to be used for them (and others, too) later in life.
    Incorrect. It is mostly PAYGO. Our current taxes go straight out to current retirees. Our ability collect later depends on our ability to tax younger folks later. It's not "our" money we're getting back.

    It is not the same as other programs where you can pay zero and still get a benefit.
    In this way it is not purely welfare, but it certainly isn't purely old age insurance either. Taxes go to general fund, and nothing but treasury bonds make up the so-called "trust fund."
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 02-01-12 at 04:56 PM.

  2. #312
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: Drug testing for welfare recipients suffers setback

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Money "given" to wealthy citizens by government is illegal. Find me someone around here who promotes this illegal behavior.



    For one thing, BS. The poor shop cheap more than local (who are more expensive). So discount superstores benefit disproportionatey, which means... The money's back in the hands of the rich again. But that's not the important part.

    The important part is the COST of taking the money from somewhere else to give it to the poor negates the added benefit. Subtract the money from one place and adding to another place is not a real net benefit.

    Taking money and giving it to the poor (which is what we do now) is a terrible idea and I agree with you that it negates any benefits. However, using money to help the poor become tax paying citizens is more productive than anything else. It may have an immediate financial burden but the payoff would be huge. In the long run our country would have more income coming in (via taxes) less going out on welfare (because people are actually getting off it) and more production (from more workers). One would even expect to see a decrease in crime. A decrease in crime would offer even further benefits, not the least of which would save more money because we would be putting less into prisons. The effects would countless. And the only downside is investing more up front.

  3. #313
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Drug testing for welfare recipients suffers setback

    Quote Originally Posted by kenvin View Post
    Social security isn't insurance. The first generation of recipients never paid in. It has always been welfare. Just because you paid a tax your whole life doesn't make it insurance.
    Social security is insurance against being destitute in old age after retirement. Which candidate is proposing to do away with SS anyway???

    The first recipients of any insurance companies are treated no differently. If you take out policy to insure you for accidents, and have an accident a month later, other than excluding any fraud on your part, you are paid in full for your coverage, even though you have been a customer for only a month.

    That's how insurance works.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #314
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,407

    Re: Drug testing for welfare recipients suffers setback

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Incorrect. It is mostly PAYGO. Our current taxes go straight out to current retirees. Our ability collect later depends on our ability to tax younger folks later. It's not "our" money we're getting back.
    No, you do not get back the exact same literal money that you paid in. I never expect to get the literal same $10 bill back that I deposit into my bank account, but I know that I still get $10 back.

    And people ask me why I often put disclaimers in my posts. One would think that every single little nuance wouldn't have to be listed. That said minor nuances don't invalidate the general point. But, apparently they are necessary.

  5. #315
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    03-30-12 @ 08:21 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Social security is insurance against being destitute in old age after retirement. Which candidate is proposing to do away with SS anyway???

    The first recipients of any insurance companies are treated no differently. If you take out policy to insure you for accidents, and have an accident a month later, other than excluding any fraud on your part, you are paid in full for your coverage, even though you have been a customer for only a month.

    That's how insurance works.
    Social security is a tax. The opposition in congress called it welfare because that's what it is. The first recipients never paid one premium.
    Last edited by kenvin; 02-01-12 at 05:04 PM.

  6. #316
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: Drug testing for welfare recipients suffers setback

    Quote Originally Posted by kenvin View Post
    Ok then I bet granny is going to ne mad when she is told to pee in a cup to get her check.
    Granny can be mad. Doesn't change anything. She wants the check, piss in the cup.

  7. #317
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    03-30-12 @ 08:21 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    Granny can be mad. Doesn't change anything. She wants the check, piss in the cup.
    Lol these discussions are too funny.

  8. #318
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Drug testing for welfare recipients suffers setback

    I need to speak up about Social Security. It is incorrect to equate this to welfare.

    The figures below are loose estimates, on the low side, but it is accurate enough to make my point.

    I currently receive $2244.00 monthly. I am 68 years old. By the year 1960, I had paid in at least $1000.00. If the USG bought a 52 year treasury with MY money at 4% (actual rates were higher but I'm trying to make a point without being called out for exaggeration) that $1000 would be worth $3080.00.

    Over my lifetime, I paid in about $180,000.00. If I had received the going interest rate of each period, my account value would probably be AT LEAST $360,000.00.

    I started collecting at age 67. I'm projected to expire at age 77 (using annuity tables). So, I'll get back $250,000.00 by the time I toddle off to The Rainbow Bridge. The USG will take a $100,000.00 profit on the deal.

    I have savings. I could probably support myself without Social Security. However, I'm entitled to it because I PAID FOR IT. It's not welfare. It's just a form of savings. I provided all the money being used for my monthly check.

    So, please don't equate Social Security to Welfare.

    Now, I think the Social Security system should be remodeled and I'm full of brilliant ideas about this but that's off topic so eventually I'll post this wisdom in an appropriate thread.

    <<stretches fingers, rubs eyes, goes to take shower>>

  9. #319
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    03-30-12 @ 08:21 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,667

    Re: Drug testing for welfare recipients suffers setback

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    I need to speak up about Social Security. It is incorrect to equate this to welfare.

    The figures below are loose estimates, on the low side, but it is accurate enough to make my point.

    I currently receive $2244.00 monthly. I am 68 years old. By the year 1960, I had paid in at least $1000.00. If the USG bought a 52 year treasury with MY money at 4% (actual rates were higher but I'm trying to make a point without being called out for exaggeration) that $1000 would be worth $3080.00.

    Over my lifetime, I paid in about $180,000.00. If I had received the going interest rate of each period, my account value would probably be AT LEAST $360,000.00.

    I started collecting at age 67. I'm projected to expire at age 77 (using annuity tables). So, I'll get back $250,000.00 by the time I toddle off to The Rainbow Bridge. The USG will take a $100,000.00 profit on the deal.

    I have savings. I could probably support myself without Social Security. However, I'm entitled to it because I PAID FOR IT. It's not welfare. It's just a form of savings. I provided all the money being used for my monthly check.

    So, please don't equate Social Security to Welfare.

    Now, I think the Social Security system should be remodeled and I'm full of brilliant ideas about this but that's off topic so eventually I'll post this wisdom in an appropriate thread.

    <<stretches fingers, rubs eyes, goes to take shower>>
    You dont want to think of it as welfare because you collect it and it would hurt your feelings, but the fact is that when the law was passed it was called welfare.

    The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Why Social Security is WelfareWe don't call Social Security "welfare" because it's a pejorative term, and politicians don't want to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social Security as something else when it isn't. Here is how I define a welfare program: First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it's pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people's own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.

    Let's start with its $2.6 trillion trust fund. Doesn't this prove that people's payroll taxes were saved to pay for future benefits, disconnecting them from our larger budget problems? Well, no. Since the 1940s, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go program. Most benefits are paid by payroll taxes on today's workers; in 2010, those taxes covered 91 percent of benefits. The trust fund's $2.6 trillion would provide only 3.5 years of benefits, which totaled about $700 billion in 2010.

    The trust fund serves mainly to funnel taxes to recipients, and today's big surplus is an accident, as Charles Blahous shows in his book "Social Security: The Unfinished Work." In 1983, when the trust fund was nearly exhausted, a presidential commission proposed fixes but underestimated their effects. The large surplus "just developed. It wasn't planned," the commission's executive director said later. Even so, the surplus will disappear as the number of retirees rises.

    Similarly, Congress has repeatedly altered benefits. From 1950 to 1972, it increased them nine times, including a doubling in the early 1950s. In 1972, it indexed benefits to inflation. People didn't complain when benefits rose, but possible cuts now trigger howls that a "contract" is being broken. Not so. In a 1960 decision ( Flemming v. Nestor ), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that people have a contractual right to Social Security. It cited the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress." Congress can change the program whenever it wants.

    All this makes Social Security "welfare."
    Robert J. Samuelson - Why Social Security is welfare

  10. #320
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Drug testing for welfare recipients suffers setback

    Quote Originally Posted by kenvin View Post
    Social security is a tax. The opposition in congress called it welfare because that's what it is. The first recipients never paid one premium.
    That's the way insurance works. If you think it should be repealed I suggest you start a political party wishing to take your view as their platform.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Page 32 of 44 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •