• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Minimum Wage vs Living Wage

Lawrence was a recruiter failure.

I see yer point. I suppose he couldn't have been a draftee because, as I understand it, the Marines didn't do any drafting between the winter of 1965 and the spring of 1968, after Tet. Lawrence and his group must have gone in in 1967, since the ones sent to the conflict were there in Jan 1968.

>>you have lots of fun at boot camp.

No will, you and some of those with you had fun. You guys are nuts.

>>Since Wal Mart pays wages to people who would otherwise be poor, I declare them to also be a charity. The biggest charity in the world

Like the Clinton Foundation? Very large and highly profitable multinational corporations could, imo, be properly subsidised by taxpayers to meet societal goals, but as I've said I'd want that to be explicit.

>>OASI does not function as insurance. It functions as a crappy pension program.

Again, I see it as both. With a company pension, that business could fail and you might lose some or all of that money, right? I think that happened with some airlines and casinos. I trust Uncle Sam on this — unless we get Frumpy.
 
I see yer point. I suppose he couldn't have been a draftee because, as I understand it, the Marines didn't do any drafting between the winter of 1965 and the spring of 1968, after Tet. Lawrence and his group must have gone in in 1967, since the ones sent to the conflict were there in Jan 1968.

>>you have lots of fun at boot camp.

No will, you and some of those with you had fun. You guys are nuts.

Anyone who says that they enjoyed Boot Camp is nuts. But you can learn to enjoy suffering, in a sick, messed up, Stockholm-Syndrome kinda way. :)

>>Since Wal Mart pays wages to people who would otherwise be poor, I declare them to also be a charity. The biggest charity in the world

Like the Clinton Foundation? Very large and highly profitable multinational corporations could, imo, be properly subsidised by taxpayers to meet societal goals, but as I've said I'd want that to be explicit.

Hm. Well while I would say that WalMart and the Clinton Foundation are absolutely equally focused on operating as a charitable organization, WalMart is more effective at it.

>>OASI does not function as insurance. It functions as a crappy pension program.

Again, I see it as both. With a company pension, that business could fail and you might lose some or all of that money, right?

Actually the US Taxpayer is on the hook.

I think that happened with some airlines and casinos. I trust Uncle Sam on this — unless we get Frumpy.

Well that's the trick with Government - it's not always going to be run by people you like, whose judgment you trust. So we need to keep it from doing those things, and controlling those parts of our lives, that we cannot trust to the immoral and idiotic.
 
If your spouse is already receiving benefits, will the benefits of the deceased be added on? A person can leave their pension to their sister, brother, favorite hooker, etc....

....so both leave it to your survivor, except that SS requires that this survivor be a spouse, or under-age children, or disabled adult children. That particular ruling isn't what makes it or makes it not insurance. It makes it a crappy pension, with a restriction on who counts as a "survivor".

S.S. is structured as insurance, such that if a person makes it to the eligibility age, they will receive a cash flow payments until they are deceased.

Yeah. There's a term for a program that, once you reach a certain age, based on your work and the fact that you payed in, guarantees you a cash flow of payments until you are deceased. That term is "Pension".

If i die before i reach 65 and have a pension plan, i can structure the proceeds of that plan to anyone i want.

:shrug: and if you die before you reach 65, your Social Security Pension will go (in modified form) to your survivors.

Old age survivors insurance is meant to shield against the decline in ones income income, earned from employment, that typically occurs in the later years of life. Furthermore, the label of insurance is not reserved for catastrophic risk.

What is the risk to me that I will turn 65 years old 65 years after my birth, that I am transferring?
 
....so both leave it to your survivor, except that SS requires that this survivor be a spouse, or under-age children, or disabled adult children. That particular ruling isn't what makes it or makes it not insurance.

Yet you cannot leave it to your brother, sister, best friend, favorite neighbor, charity of choice, etc.... There is no account created on your behalf, to which it can be taken as a lump sum upon retirement. With a pension, you have complete control as to how the funds will be disbursed. This is not the case with O.A.S.I..

It makes it a crappy pension, with a restriction on who counts as a "survivor".

O.A.S.I. differs from a pension.

Yeah. There's a term for a program that, once you reach a certain age, based on your work and the fact that you payed in, guarantees you a cash flow of payments until you are deceased. That term is "Pension".

A pension has a limit; in the event the recipient elects to structure the present value of the account into an annuity, once it runs out... it runs out. Similarly, the recipient can elect to take a lump sum. That is a pension.

and if you die before you reach 65, your Social Security Pension will go (in modified form) to your survivors.

If you do not have survivors, does it go to your next of kin? Of course not!

What is the risk to me that I will turn 65 years old 65 years after my birth, that I am transferring?

The ability to earn an income from employment. Some will continue to draw S.S. and work the same time, using it as a supplemental income. You are attempting to redefine terminology to suit your belief. That by labeling S.S. a "crappy pension", it becomes easier to argue on behalf of your idea for a mandated retirement scheme.
 
Last edited:
you can learn to enjoy suffering, in a sick, messed up, Stockholm-Syndrome kinda way.

Prepares you for the time you spend defending RW positions on DP. You must try harder to see five fingers.

>>WalMart and the Clinton Foundation are absolutely equally focused on operating as a charitable organization, WalMart is more effective at it.

Sad that some actually see things that way.

>>Actually the US Taxpayer is on the hook.

That agency has its problems as well.

>>Government - we need to keep it from doing those things, and controlling those parts of our lives, that we cannot trust to the immoral and idiotic.

I don't feel controlled, I feel free. I see five fingers, or three, or however many I may need to see.
 
Yet you cannot leave it to your brother, sister, best friend, favorite neighbor, charity of choice, etc.... There is no account created on your behalf, to which it can be taken as a lump sum upon retirement.[ With a pension, you have complete control as to how the funds will be disbursed.

:shrug: this is not true. Pensions come with their own individual rules, some of which offer lump sums and some of which do not. The US Military Pension and Federal Civil Service Pensions, for example, do not offer lump-sum payment upon retirement (if you leave civil service early you can pull out what you paid in in return for never getting a pension, and there is a military rule that allows you to receive a small lump sum at a point in your career - well before retirement - with the cost of a reduced pension payment).

O.A.S.I. differs from a pension.

You have not demonstrated this - you have instead argued that the rules for passing on OASI are more restrictive than the laws governing what individual private pensions are allowed to set up (incidentally, those restrictions also apply to military pensions). Which is not a condition that would cause OASI to be or not be a pension.

I might as well argue that OASI's are pensions because both are primarily paid out through digital transfer. It's a non sequitur.

A pension has a limit; in the event the recipient elects to structure the present value of the account into an annuity, once it runs out... it runs out. Similarly, the recipient can elect to take a lump sum. That is a pension.

..... no. Pensions include types where recipients can take lump sums, types where they can't, types where the money can run out, and types where it doesn't.

I think you are conflating "Pension" with "defined contribution plan". As opposed to a Defined Benefit Pension Plan, where "an employer/sponsor promises a specified monthly benefit on retirement that is predetermined by a formula based on the employee's earnings history, tenure of service and age, rather than depending directly on individual investment returns."

Gosh. What does that sound like.

Oh. That sounds exactly like how OASI works.


Types of pensions

Employment-based pensions

A retirement plan is an arrangement to provide people with an income during retirement when they are no longer earning a steady income from employment. Often retirement plans require both the employer and employee to contribute money to a fund during their employment in order to receive defined benefits upon retirement. It is a tax deferred savings vehicle that allows for the tax-free accumulation of a fund for later use as a retirement income. Funding can be provided in other ways, such as from labor unions, government agencies, or self-funded schemes. Pension plans are therefore a form of "deferred compensation". A SSAS is a type of employment-based Pension in the UK.

Some countries also grant pensions to military veterans. Military pensions are overseen by the government; an example of a standing agency is the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Ad hoc committees may also be formed to investigate specific tasks, such as the U.S. Commission on Veterans' Pensions (commonly known as the "Bradley Commission") in 1955–56. Pensions may extend past the death of the veteran himself, continuing to be paid to the widow...

Social and state pensions

Many countries have created funds for their citizens and residents to provide income when they retire (or in some cases become disabled). Typically this requires payments throughout the citizen's working life in order to qualify for benefits later on. A basic state pension is a "contribution based" benefit, and depends on an individual's contribution history. For examples, see National Insurance in the UK, or Social Security in the United States of America....​

If you do not have survivors, does it go to your next of kin? Of course not!

Sure. The same is true of many pension plans. The US Military and Civil Service pensions, for example. OASI for another.

The ability to earn an income from employment

No I'm not. A) I can still work after 65, and B) I know when I am going to turn 65. There is nothing unanticipated or risky.

And if it was a transfer of risk, then the insurance would only pay out when that risk was realized. IE: when I began to approach poverty, due to an inability to work.

You are attempting to redefine terminology to suit your belief.

:lol: I'm not the one trying to redefine "pension" as "that which can be inherited by a hooker". :)
 
Last edited:
Prepares you for the time you spend defending RW positions on DP. You must try harder to see five fingers.

>>WalMart and the Clinton Foundation are absolutely equally focused on operating as a charitable organization, WalMart is more effective at it.

Sad that some actually see things that way.

:shrug: I"ve spent time on the low-income side of the scale. Wal-Mart helped me far more than the Clinton Foundation did.


Of course it does. It's a government agency.

However, your link doesn't actually go to any delineation of the problems. It just goes to the google search page where you typed in "Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation problems".

>>Government - we need to keep it from doing those things, and controlling those parts of our lives, that we cannot trust to the immoral and idiotic.

I don't feel controlled, I feel free. I see five fingers, or three, or however many I may need to see.

Sure. And President Trump is gonna be great. I'm so happy that President Obama spent the last couple of years expanding the imperial presidency and setting the precedent that Presidents should be able to do what they want so long as they have a pen and a phone.

I'm not getting the 'seeing fingers' reference.
 
:shrug: this is not true. Pensions come with their own individual rules, some of which offer lump sums and some of which do not. The US Military Pension and Federal Civil Service Pensions, for example, do not offer lump-sum payment upon retirement (if you leave civil service early you can pull out what you paid in in return for never getting a pension, and there is a military rule that allows you to receive a small lump sum at a point in your career - well before retirement - with the cost of a reduced pension payment).



You have not demonstrated this - you have instead argued that the rules for passing on OASI are more restrictive than the laws governing what individual private pensions are allowed to set up (incidentally, those restrictions also apply to military pensions). Which is not a condition that would cause OASI to be or not be a pension.

I might as well argue that OASI's are pensions because both are primarily paid out through digital transfer. It's a non sequitur.



..... no. Pensions include types where recipients can take lump sums, types where they can't, types where the money can run out, and types where it doesn't.

I think you are conflating "Pension" with "defined contribution plan". As opposed to a Defined Benefit Pension Plan, where "an employer/sponsor promises a specified monthly benefit on retirement that is predetermined by a formula based on the employee's earnings history, tenure of service and age, rather than depending directly on individual investment returns."

Gosh. What does that sound like.

Oh. That sounds exactly like how OASI works.


Types of pensions

Employment-based pensions

A retirement plan is an arrangement to provide people with an income during retirement when they are no longer earning a steady income from employment. Often retirement plans require both the employer and employee to contribute money to a fund during their employment in order to receive defined benefits upon retirement. It is a tax deferred savings vehicle that allows for the tax-free accumulation of a fund for later use as a retirement income. Funding can be provided in other ways, such as from labor unions, government agencies, or self-funded schemes. Pension plans are therefore a form of "deferred compensation". A SSAS is a type of employment-based Pension in the UK.

Some countries also grant pensions to military veterans. Military pensions are overseen by the government; an example of a standing agency is the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Ad hoc committees may also be formed to investigate specific tasks, such as the U.S. Commission on Veterans' Pensions (commonly known as the "Bradley Commission") in 1955–56. Pensions may extend past the death of the veteran himself, continuing to be paid to the widow...

Social and state pensions

Many countries have created funds for their citizens and residents to provide income when they retire (or in some cases become disabled). Typically this requires payments throughout the citizen's working life in order to qualify for benefits later on. A basic state pension is a "contribution based" benefit, and depends on an individual's contribution history. For examples, see National Insurance in the UK, or Social Security in the United States of America....​



Sure. The same is true of many pension plans. The US Military and Civil Service pensions, for example. OASI for another.



No I'm not. A) I can still work after 65, and B) I know when I am going to turn 65. There is nothing unanticipated or risky.

And if it was a transfer of risk, then the insurance would only pay out when that risk was realized. IE: when I began to approach poverty, due to an inability to work.



:lol: I'm not the one trying to redefine "pension" as "that which can be inherited by a hooker". :)

Sorry.. but social security is not a pension. Its insurance. For all of the reasons Kushinator pointed out.
 
Sorry.. but social security is not a pension. Its insurance. For all of the reasons Kushinator pointed out.

:lol: because the defining difference between a pension and insurance is that insurance is inheritable by hookers? :)
 
:lol: because the defining difference between a pension and insurance is that insurance is inheritable by hookers? :)

That's not really an accurate characterization of Kush's argument.
 
:shrug: I"ve spent time on the low-income side of the scale. Wal-Mart helped me far more than the Clinton Foundation did.

You weren't far enough over "on the low-income side of the scale." Barrel-bombed lately?

syria.jpg

>>your link doesn't actually go to any delineation of the problems. It just goes to the google search page

Yes. I'm not much interested; I just thought you might be.

>>President Obama spent the last couple of years expanding the imperial presidency and setting the precedent that Presidents should be able to do what they want so long as they have a pen and a phone.

Empty RW rhetoric.

>>I'm not getting the 'seeing fingers' reference.

It's Orwellian.
 
You weren't far enough over "on the low-income side of the scale." Barrel-bombed lately?

Not lately at all. I haven't been bombed since.... 2007. Wow. Almost a decade. Time flies when you aren't being bombed.

>>your link doesn't actually go to any delineation of the problems. It just goes to the google search page

Yes. I'm not much interested; I just thought you might be.

I'm a nerd. I'm not quite that bad. :)

>>President Obama spent the last couple of years expanding the imperial presidency and setting the precedent that Presidents should be able to do what they want so long as they have a pen and a phone.

Empty RW rhetoric.

Reality, and a troublesome one. Like parties trapped in a scenario that requires mutual disarmament, but which punishes the actor that goes first, our political parties are trapped in a cycle of expanding the imperial presidency when they have it, and trying (often fruitlessly) to restrict it when they don't (and, often, they find that simply complaining loudly about it on television is preferable to making any of those difficult decisions they like to land on the President for making on their behalf). The result is that increasingly legislative power is being subsumed into the executive branch, creating a dangerous imbalance of power in our federal government.

>>I'm not getting the 'seeing fingers' reference.

It's Orwellian.

:-/ I only ever actually read Road to Wiggan Pier and Animal Farm.
 
Time flies when you aren't being bombed.

When bombs fly, yer time may be up.

>>legislative power is being subsumed into the executive branch, creating a dangerous imbalance of power in our federal government.

Any examples? Does it bother you that four million undocumented workers who are playing an important role in our economy are not at the top of the list for mass deportation? Is there an Obummer executive order you find particularly troubling?

Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens?

Blocking Property of the Government of Iran and Iranian Financial Institutions?

Promoting Efficient Spending

Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government

Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service


Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Reducing Improper Payments and Eliminating Waste in Federal Programs

>>I only ever actually read Road to Wiggan Pier and Animal Farm.

I think you'd like 1984.

I enjoy talking to you. Your mind appeals to me. It resembles my own mind except that you happen to be insane.​
 
:shrug: this is not true. Pensions come with their own individual rules, some of which offer lump sums and some of which do not. The US Military Pension and Federal Civil Service Pensions, for example, do not offer lump-sum payment upon retirement (if you leave civil service early you can pull out what you paid in in return for never getting a pension, and there is a military rule that allows you to receive a small lump sum at a point in your career - well before retirement - with the cost of a reduced pension payment).

Of course. You must know that i am speaking broadly, as varying organizations -both public and private- stipulate their benefit packages differently.

You have not demonstrated this - you have instead argued that the rules for passing on OASI are more restrictive than the laws governing what individual private pensions are allowed to set up (incidentally, those restrictions also apply to military pensions). Which is not a condition that would cause OASI to be or not be a pension.

O.A.S.I. is a mandatory program, insofar as to take precedent over federal taxes for many Americans paying into the system. It doesn't build a cash value. It's benefits are also is shielded from taxation. The same cannot be said of any other retirement plan.

That sounds exactly like how OASI works.

No. O.A.S.I. is a paygo system that is mandatory for all payroll employees.

:lol: I'm not the one trying to redefine "pension" as "that which can be inherited by a hooker". :)

The extreme example points out the instance of property rights, where your pension is your property. O.A.S.I. isn't your property. It doesn't create an account with cash value. You cannot leave it (public variants aside) to the person of your choice.

Again, viewing it as a pension misses the forest for the trees, and you are doing so for the convenience of selling your personal idea on how to change the system.

Some interesting reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/business/05norris.html?_r=1
 
:lol: because the defining difference between a pension and insurance is that insurance is inheritable by hookers? :)

Insurance is inheritable by hookers? :lol:
 
Insurance is inheritable by hookers? :lol:

It's not. Your argument is that SS isn't a pension because it's not inheritable by random hookers, but rather by more closely defined survivors....

...Which makes it just like a bunch of other pensions, including the federal military and civil service pensions.
 
It's not. Your argument is that SS isn't a pension because it's not inheritable by random hookers, but rather by more closely defined survivors....

S.S. isn't property; a pension is.

Which makes it just like a bunch of other pensions, including the federal military and civil service pensions.

Are pensions taxed? It is a simple yes or no.
 
S.S. isn't property; a pension is.

Like other pensions, SS can go to benefit your survivors in the event of your death. Like other pensions, SS legally limits who qualifies as a "survivor".

Are pensions taxed? It is a simple yes or no.

Pensions, like Social Security, are liable to taxation, yes.


But does this mean that you have given up on your earlier working definition that limiting who counts as a "survivor" makes something a pension or not?
 
Pensions, like Social Security, are liable to taxation, yes.

Social security isn't subject to taxation. It can, in conjunction with alternative sources of income, push your tax liability up.

But does this mean that you have given up on your earlier working definition that limiting who counts as a "survivor" makes something a pension or not?

My point on property rights stands. A pension is property, O.A.S.I. is... insurance.
 
Social security isn't subject to taxation. It can, in conjunction with alternative sources of income, push your tax liability up.

Social Security isn't subject to taxation?

Could you tell the Social Security Administration this? If we can get them to pass that information on to the IRS, we can probably reduce a lot of tax bills.

Social Security Administration: You must pay taxes on your benefits if you file a federal tax return as an “individual” and your “combined income” exceeds $25,000. If you file a joint return, you must pay taxes if you and your spouse have “combined income” of more than $32,000.

My point on property rights stands. A pension is property, O.A.S.I. is... insurance.

OASI isn't insurance. We just titled it that. It's a crappy pension program, because it operates as a crappy pension program.
 

As i already pointed out, you must have alternative sources of income that exceed $25k. A person whose income is only from S.S. doesn't pay taxes. This is a fact.
 
As i already pointed out, you must have alternative sources of income that exceed $25k. A person whose income is only from S.S. doesn't pay taxes. This is a fact.

No, the combined income that has to exceed $25K. Combined income includes monies received from Social Security. Specifically the formula is (AGI)+(Non-Taxable Interest)+((Social Security Benefits)/2).



And I would still like to know whether or not you are willing to admit that you were incorrect earlier that a defining characteristic of pensions was that they did not have limits on survivorship.
 
Last edited:
:lol: because the defining difference between a pension and insurance is that insurance is inheritable by hookers? :)

no because your pension depends on how much you put in.

while its possible for you to get social security when you get hurt at age 21 as long as you have put in the bare number of hours.

Because most pensions are transferable to dependents or folks you designate.. while social security is not.

A pension is usually held in the market and its value fluctuates with the market while social security is secured by the full faith and trust of the US government.

so while all those retirees that saw their retirement pensions and funds drop when the economy went into recession... continue to get social security checks of equal amount.
 
no because your pension depends on how much you put in.

Oh. You mean sort of like Social Security, where the payments depend on how much you put in?

while its possible for you to get social security when you get hurt at age 21 as long as you have put in the bare number of hours.

That's SSDI, which does function as insurance. OASI, which is what we are discussing, functions as a pension. A crappy pension.

Because most pensions are transferable to dependents or folks you designate.. while social security is not.

Actually Social Security is indeed transferable to your survivors. There are simply restrictions on who those survivors can be. This is similar to pensions, who also put limitations on what survivors count for having a pension transferred.

For example, the US Military Pension Survivor Benefit Plan is available to spouses and dependent children who qualify. That it isn't inheritable by a random hooker (see earlier discussion) does not make it not a pension.

A pension is usually held in the market and its value fluctuates with the market while social security is secured by the full faith and trust of the US government.

That depends entirely on the nature of the pension. Some pensions are defined contribution, others defined benefit.

so while all those retirees that saw their retirement pensions and funds drop when the economy went into recession... continue to get social security checks of equal amount.

Sure. Just as many also saw their pension checks remain the exact same while the value of the funds dropped. Because it's a defined benefit pension plan.
 
Oh. You mean sort of like OASI, which depends on how much you put in?



That's SSDI, which does function as insurance. OASI, which is what we are discussing, functions as a pension. A crappy pension.



Actually Social Security is indeed transferable to your survivors. There are simply restrictions on who those survivors can be. This is similar to pensions, who also put limitations on what survivors count for having a pension transferred.

For example, the US Military Pension Survivor Benefit Plan is available to spouses and dependent children who qualify. That it isn't inheritable by a random hooker (see earlier discussion) does not make it not a pension.



That depends entirely on the nature of the pension. Some pensions are defined contribution, others defined benefit.



Sure. Just as many also saw their pension checks remain the exact same while the value of the funds dropped. Because it's a defined benefit pension plan.

1. No because people on social security often take out WAY WAY WAY.. more money than they put in. Meanwhile.. folks like me.. will put in way way way.. more than we take out.

Just like insurance works.

2. No.. because they are both social security.

3. No not really.. because if your spouse also qualifies for social security.. she doesn't get yours as well. one or the other.


4. And if the pension fund runs out. they are screwed. Meanwhile.. despite what americans have put in over the years.. they will still get their social security checks despite outliving what they put in. Just like insurance.

Sorry dude.. its insurance.

The original Social Security Act, signed into law on August 14, 1935, grew out of the work of the Committee on Economic Security, a cabinet-level group appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt just one year earlier. The Act created several programs that, even today, form the basis for the government's role in providing income security, specifically, the old-age insurance, unemployment insurance, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) programs. The old-age program is, of course, the precursor to today's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, or Social Security, program
 
Back
Top Bottom