• 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!

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:


  • Total voters
    133
It's mostly nice for white women, SS is racially and gender discriminatory.

It's very difficult to take any sort of anti-SS argument seriously when irrational explanations like that occur. Elaborate so I can rebut.
 
It's very difficult to take any sort of anti-SS argument seriously when irrational explanations like that occur. Elaborate so I can rebut.

Life expectancy is longest for white females while black males have the lowest.
Seeing that they both my pay the same amount into the system, but females get more money from it.

It isn't worth a damn if your a black male, its worth less if your a white male or black female.

White females benefit most from SS.

liferace.jpg



Full retirement age is 65.

Full retirement age
 
Correlation is not causation. It could be posited that white women live the longest because they are 1) more affluent on average than blacks or non-caucasians and 2) they enjoy less physical stress in daily work routines than do their male counterparts.


just because they live longer doesn't mean SS is working better for them, its just a trend thats predicated on numerous issues other than SS.
 
Last edited:
Correlation is not causation. It could be posited that white women live the longest because they are 1) more affluent on average than blacks or non-caucasians and 2) they enjoy less physical stress in daily work routines than do their male counterparts.


just because they live longer doesn't mean SS is working better for them, its just a trend thats predicated on numerous issues other than SS.

No, you're not understanding what he's saying. He's saying that white women benefit from SS more because the collect SS benefits for more years, not that the live longer because of SS.
 
Correlation is not causation. It could be posited that white women live the longest because they are 1) more affluent on average than blacks or non-caucasians and 2) they enjoy less physical stress in daily work routines than do their male counterparts.


just because they live longer doesn't mean SS is working better for them, its just a trend thats predicated on numerous issues other than SS.

True but what purpose does a black male have to contribute to a system that doesn't provide him with any benefits.

If his life expectancy is naturally less than that of a white women, SS has no practical worth for him.
He can't even pass on his accrued payments to his survivors.

Let's look at the next table.
Black and white men participate in the work force on a great scale than any woman does, yet they receive less benefits because of life expectancy.
lfprace.gif


Social Security is nice for retired white women, no so much for everyone else.
 
No, you're not understanding what he's saying. He's saying that white women benefit from SS more because the collect SS benefits for more years, not that the live longer because of SS.

Regardless, i wouldnt attribute SS to being more helpful to white women, regardless of how long they live. I would say overall income and less physical stress are far better indicators of why they live longest, and SS is irrelevant in terms of how already successful they are and the longevity they enjoy independent of what SS might give to them(comparative to wealth of blacks or physical output of males)
 
Regardless, i wouldnt attribute SS to being more helpful to white women, regardless of how long they live. I would say overall income and less physical stress are far better indicators of why they live longest, and SS is irrelevant in terms of how already successful they are and the longevity they enjoy independent of what SS might give to them(comparative to wealth of blacks or physical output of males)

Part of the problem is gender discrimination laws and civil suites.

If you ever work a blue collar job you'll find that both genders receive the same amount of pay on average, men do most of the more laborious work.

The employers pay both men and women the same, to avoid being sued but one does more work than the other.
Of course my position is totally based on observation.
 
Of course my position is totally based on observation.

Any time you find yourself supporting a sexist, racist, homophobic, etc, position because of you own personal observations, that's something you need to rethink. Personal observations are far too small of a sample size to accurately reflect anything at all about society as a whole, and a person is extremely likely to be seeing the situations in their personal life through a heavy lens of their own subjective opinions and whatnot. That's true for anything, not just issues like sexism, but for issues like sexism it's especially important not to rely on such unreliable data because people get screwed over all the time by common misconceptions like this. You absolutely need to base your opinions on topics like that on statistical data, scientific studies, etc.

The factual data does not support what you are saying. There is clear cut, thoroughly documented, statistics that show that women recieve less pay for the exact same jobs. If you believe that men are more productive workers, certainly you need to be able to back that up with solid, credible, studies documenting it. Speculating on something like that off the cuff is just wrong.
 
Regardless, i wouldnt attribute SS to being more helpful to white women, regardless of how long they live. I would say overall income and less physical stress are far better indicators of why they live longest, and SS is irrelevant in terms of how already successful they are and the longevity they enjoy independent of what SS might give to them(comparative to wealth of blacks or physical output of males)

Okay I'll give it a shot.

The issue is NOT why one group lives longer than another.

The issue is who is more likely to benefit from SS benefits?

Because white women live longer on average than any other group, they will collect more in SS than any other group because they will collect it for a longer period than any other group.

Black men are the group least likely to benefit a great deal from the SS contributions they make even if they contribute significantly more than white women contribute to the system. That is because they are much more likely to die earlier.

The way the system is set up, if you die before collecting all or any of your SS contributions, the government gets to keep anything you didn't spend. Unlike your IRA or 401K, you can't leave it to your kids or other loved ones or charity.

So, because black men are far less likely to benefit from most or all of the SS security than are white women, the system benefits white women more than it benefits black men.
 
Okay I'll give it a shot.

The issue is NOT why one group lives longer than another.

The issue is who is more likely to benefit from SS benefits?

Because white women live longer on average than any other group, they will collect more in SS than any other group because they will collect it for a longer period than any other group.

Black men are the group least likely to benefit a great deal from the SS contributions they make even if they contribute significantly more than white women contribute to the system. That is because they are much more likely to die earlier.

The way the system is set up, if you die before collecting all or any of your SS contributions, the government gets to keep anything you didn't spend. Unlike your IRA or 401K, you can't leave it to your kids or other loved ones or charity.

So, because black men are far less likely to benefit from most or all of the SS security than are white women, the system benefits white women more than it benefits black men.

Pretty stupid argument. Both of you are merely stating that because a group lives longer they get more out of social security. There are bigger fish to fry mates.
 
Pretty stupid argument. Both of you are merely stating that because a group lives longer they get more out of social security. There are bigger fish to fry mates.

the biggest fish are:

Socialist Security is a Ponzi scheme, and it's soon going to be busted. Unless the young workers of American don't object to paying 120% of their wages to support the Boomers...

The other issues are moral and practical.

Socialist Security gives a ****ty return on investment. Any youngster stupid enough to consider Socialist Security an "investment" is a damn fool and deserves to die starving in a frozen gutter when he's old. Seriously. Investing 15.4% of your wages in the equities markets can net you millions by the time you retire....and when you croak, that wealth should be inherited by the heirs of your choosing, not taken by politicians to buy votes. They didn't live and work to earn the money, did they? They take any risks? Nope. So, neither the politicians nor the public have any claim on your heirs' money when you croak.

Finally, it's not the government's job to command individuals to "save for a rainy day", nor is it the government's job to issue umbrellas for people who didn't save.
 
White females benefit most from SS.

Anecdotal, but true enough...

....my father's mother became a widow when she was fifty something. Her husband had paid into Socialist Security only ten years or so, back when the socialist security taxes were just a couple percent. She lived until she was 98, drawing down survivor benefits and everything else the system would give her for amost half a century.

Old white women can take FOREVER to die, it seems.
 
The factual data does not support what you are saying. There is clear cut, thoroughly documented, statistics that show that women recieve less pay for the exact same jobs.

And...so?

Explain why businesses aren't firing men in legions and hiring their wives.
 
And...so?

Explain why businesses aren't firing men in legions and hiring their wives.

If you're going to take the stance that women aren't hard working and that they get paid the same as men, the burden is on you to provide evidence of that. Otherwise it's just random bigotry. If what you were saying was true, why don't businesses just hire all men? There is no law requiring them to do otherwise. AA requires federal contractors to provide an explanation if they don't hire any women, but "there were more qualified male applicants" is considered a satisfactory explanation...
 
Pretty stupid argument. Both of you are merely stating that because a group lives longer they get more out of social security. There are bigger fish to fry mates.

I wasn't making an argument. I was attempting to clarify a fact because some didn't seem to grasp the concept involved. Like you.
 
Pretty stupid argument. Both of you are merely stating that because a group lives longer they get more out of social security. There are bigger fish to fry mates.

It's pretty big to me.

I would like to take that money and invest it in things I want.
I shouldn't be forced to buy into something that I may or may not get anything out of.

If I die, my wife and kids get my private investments.
With social security they get a teeny tiny crap death benefit that won't purchase cremation or burial expenses.
They won't get all that I have contributed.
 
Any time you find yourself supporting a sexist, racist, homophobic, etc, position because of you own personal observations, that's something you need to rethink. Personal observations are far too small of a sample size to accurately reflect anything at all about society as a whole, and a person is extremely likely to be seeing the situations in their personal life through a heavy lens of their own subjective opinions and whatnot. That's true for anything, not just issues like sexism, but for issues like sexism it's especially important not to rely on such unreliable data because people get screwed over all the time by common misconceptions like this. You absolutely need to base your opinions on topics like that on statistical data, scientific studies, etc.

The factual data does not support what you are saying. There is clear cut, thoroughly documented, statistics that show that women recieve less pay for the exact same jobs. If you believe that men are more productive workers, certainly you need to be able to back that up with solid, credible, studies documenting it. Speculating on something like that off the cuff is just wrong.

I shouldn't have derailed the thread with that, my bad another topic for another day.
 
It is interesting that among the serious responses to the poll for this thread, the national sales tax vs flat tax vs status quo or other is running pretty even.

I wonder if anybody has changed his/her mind since he or she answered the poll?
 
If you're going to take the stance that women aren't hard working and that they get paid the same as men, the burden is on you to provide evidence of that.

Since you can only get to your position from what I wrote by taking a long long journey through the Twilight Zone, there's no point in answering this.

If you fail to understand a statement as obviously bald as mine, you should reassess your post assimilation processes.

Otherwise it's just random bigotry.

Or....you didn't understand what was said.

Why is it that so many people lacking the ability to comprehend the written word attributes their lack of ability to racism/bigotry on the author's part?

If what you were saying was true, why don't businesses just hire all men?

Yes, since I said that, since you claim that women cost less to employ than men, why don't they fire all the men, naturally what I was really implying is that businesses should hire only men.

Makes perfect sense to you, I suppose.

There is no law requiring them to do otherwise. AA requires federal contractors to provide an explanation if they don't hire any women, but "there were more qualified male applicants" is considered a satisfactory explanation...

Since you claimed, absurdly, that women are paid less than men, it's up to you to explain why the businesses don't fire all the men and save tons of money hiring women.

Which is exactly the only point I was making.
 
Since you can only get to your position from what I wrote by taking a long long journey through the Twilight Zone, there's no point in answering this.

Ok. Appologies if I misunderstood. Before compounding my mistake, lets get it straight now. Are you taking the stance that women are less productive workers?

Since you claimed, absurdly, that women are paid less than men

You honestly didn't know that? I thought everybody was aware of the gender gap in wages... Women make $0.74 for every dollar a man makes for the same job: Women Still Get Paid Less - CBS News
 
Ok. Appologies if I misunderstood. Before compounding my mistake, lets get it straight now. Are you taking the stance that women are less productive workers?

Not at all.

(Edit: Let me qualify this by saying that it also depends on the job. Your average woman hod carrier isn't going to be as effective as your average male hod carrier, that's just how the job works. And your average woman IS better at manual electronic assembly and soldering tasks, their smaller fingers help.)

I'm saying that if it's true that women get paid a significant percentage less to do exactly the same work at the same productivity as men, who in their right mind would hire men?


You honestly didn't know that? I thought everybody was aware of the gender gap in wages... Women make $0.74 for every dollar a man makes for the same job: Women Still Get Paid Less - CBS News

The myth is popular. It doesn't survive the logic of greed.

I would suggest that either the definition of "the same job" needs careful attention, or the measures of productivity are skewed.

Any company that could save 26% by firing the men and hiring women and refuses to do so is guilty of criminally abandoning it'sfiduciary duties to it's shareholders.
 
Last edited:
I'm saying that if it's true that women get paid a significant percentage less to do exactly the same work at the same productivity as men, who in their right mind would hire men?

That's how prejudice works. The same thing happens with black workers. They get paid less for the same job, but all studies ever have shown that they're equally productive. Same with women. Many hiring managers that interview a white man, a white woman, and a black man for a position will walk away unconsciously biased towards assuming the white male is the best applicant even if they have exactly the same capabilities, experience and qualifications. That's what prejudice is in hiring- erroneously making assumptions that whatever group your bias favors will do better work than members of whatever group you are biased against.

The myth is popular. It doesn't survive the logic of greed.

I would suggest that either the definition of "the same job" needs careful attention, or the measures of productivity are skewed.

Any company that could save 26% by firing the men and hiring women and refuses to do so is guilty of criminally abandoning it'sfiduciary duties to it's shareholders.

Do you have any counter evidence we should consider? And studies or statistics to back your position that women get paid the same? If not, we'll have to go with the one I posted by default.
 
actually when you compare unmarried women to unmarried men in the same job fields, women tend to earn just a shade more.

it's when women drop out to be mothers, or scale back hours, or education, or other career development for the same that we begin to see the gap in wages emerge.

Wage Gap Reversal: Young, Single Women Now Earn More Than Men
 
Last edited:
Huh, so six people on these forums haven't read the constitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom