• 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!

Should the Young be Allowed to Opt Out?

Should the Young be allowed to Escape Paying In when they will never Draw Out?

  • NO - I am over 40, and they should have to pay for me, even if they never draw out

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • YES - I am over 40, and they should be allowed to do so

    Votes: 5 15.2%

  • SORTA - I'm over 40; they should be allowed to split their FICA between themselves and me

    Votes: 3 9.1%

  • YES - I am under 40 and I would much rather not pay into an SS system I will never draw from

    Votes: 19 57.6%

  • NO - I am under 40; I feel it's my obligation to pay the Boomers, though I will never see a dime

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • Total voters
    33
SheWolf said:
Again,

STOP LECTURING ME
Click to expand...

Get over it. You opened yourself up to it when you decided to lecture me about my "****ty attitude". Can't take the heat? Well you know where you can shove it, right?

Why do you insist on repeating the very things I said???
Click to expand...

I didn't repeat the things you said. I expounded upon them. I can see conversation isn't your strong point either.

I guess so you miss the bigger point I was trying to make.... :roll:
Click to expand...

What points were those again? Something about liberal hating, senior citizens holocausts and ****ty attitudes? If you care to make an actual point, feel free.

Force people.... I never advocated any of the such. Again, maybe you should read my posts before writing your responses.
Click to expand...

What the hell do you think SS is, lady? It's a forced retirement plan...a forced entitlement.

I do have a lack of faith in the fellow man...
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised by that at all considering the "us against them", partisan black and white mentality you revealed about yourself earlier.

The inaction of people is more a problem than my faith in it, and when I read your selfish statements about 80 year olds eating cat food it kind of reinforces that image I have of people.
Click to expand...

Well when I see one generation saddling the next with the debt for their retirement shenanigans, I see a bit of selfishness there too.

I never made a comment about 80 year olds. People retire at 65, I believe.

If you really care about your community as much as you claim, then why is so difficult for you to understand where I come from? I don't want to see an 80 year old eat cat food. I would do something about that myself. I expect other people to do it as well. I don't expect the government to force it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't watch an 80 year old (or a 40 year old for that matter) that I knew eat cat food either. But that's my choice. And as long as SS is around, yes the government is forcing that issue.

For what we give to SS and get back, we could fund thousands of local foundations to do it cheaper, more efficiently, and with better results. And save for ourselves and support our loved ones.

Look around the ****ing world and at the state of this country... it's pretty apparent that there is a lack of action and good will.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that? Do you know how much charity money is spent in this country?

Again, I never said it's governments obligation... :roll:
Click to expand...

But you support a government program to do what private citizens should be doing themselves. So yeah, you did say it's the government's obligation.

It's not my family... It's just not an uncommon occurrence that people don't have the money to support three generations of their family, especially in this economy. Other times people are selfish you know, and the government doesn't enforce us to care, love, or help our parents.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. But it has also created artificial social mechanisms that have made family bonds less necessary and so, socially, family structures have deteriorated.

Ok... you probably live in some pro (heterosexual, pro life, religious) family values bubble, right?
Click to expand...

Actually, I am gay, prochoice, and a heathen but don't let me be responsible for shattering your carefully crafted preconceptions of what politics a person should subscribe to.

Well, maybe we just come from two different worlds because I happen to be involved with survivors of incest and abuse... I know a lot of people from very dysfunctional family backgrounds. Some people don't have the luxury of depending on a family that treats with basic respect or kindness.
Click to expand...

And I have consistently said that charity should step in to assist those who are unfortunate in that regard. I work with AIDS patients and I see many of them seperated from their family. I know that it happens.

Some people don't know about loving families... it doesn't make them ignorant or stupid. It's just a fact of reality.
Click to expand...

I never said that.

You're still clinging to this strawman?
Click to expand...

But it's so much fun to deflate it before it ever gets used again.

It's ideal that society could do away with SS and everybody would have a comfortable life, which is something I would throw my support behind and help make the necessary changes myself. It will take community involvement and caring for the 80 year olds eating cat food, and it will take rebuilding everybody's faith in man and in the community.

Lecturing people and telling us that you're not obligated to give a ****, isn't going to accomplish anything.
Click to expand...

Meh. That was mostly in reaction to elderly brats telling me I don't know anything about responsibility just because I happen to disagree with letting them go on the dole, guaranteed, at age 65.

I have never received a check from the government.... For somebody crying about assumptions, you're quick to make them yourself.
Click to expand...

So then, you don't want that social security check when it's time for them to start?
Click to expand...
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Given the nature of SS, if it was ended, in my opinion the tax would have to be ended as well and the SS fund be paided out in rebates to those that have paid into it (proportionally based on what individuals have paid into it)

Which of course would result in a massive tax increase as the government does not have the money currently to pay out the few trillion dollars that the SS has in reserve ( currently held as US bonds)
Click to expand...


Precisely. So, to pay off those taxes we paid in earlier, we're going to raise taxes on everyone.
 
iamitter said:
Yeah, but a principled stand won't work with our government. We don't have any money to dish out. It is a gross abuse... but its going to happen sooner or later. That's the problem with SS paying out so much money to people who didn't pay it in earlier. The govt. is either going to start taking a lot more now to dish out less later or just tell us to piss off. We're getting screwed one way or another.
Click to expand...

They are going to have to come up with something, I agree... It might be just to repay what has already been paid, but discontinue the system in the meantime. It could be repaid with a tax rebate... who knows. But paying everybody out all at once wouldn't work. I know that.
 
SheWolf said:
They are going to have to come up with something, I agree... It might be just to repay what has already been paid, but discontinue the system in the meantime. It could be repaid with a tax rebate... who knows. But paying everybody out all at once wouldn't work. I know that.
Click to expand...

The truth is we're not going to get the money back.
If we get rebates, we're going to need further budget cuts to curb the deficit, or, more likely, we're going to raise taxes to pay for them, in which case the rebates will be useless anyway.

Frankly, paying the money back is going to result in a lot of wealth redistribution. The only class that has enough money to pay for rebates for everyone is the high income earners. They're going to be paying for everyone else' SS rebates.


This is just a really bad situation. The question at this point is who do we screw the most?
 
oh........elderly brats? that's rich.
 
I wouldn't watch an 80 year old (or a 40 year old for that matter) that I knew eat cat food either. But that's my choice.
Click to expand...

Nonplussed said:
Sort of like your bull**** fairy tale about seniors dying in the street?

Look, I understand that you've lived your life on the selfish promise made to you by your own generation or maybe the one before that you will get to live out your retirement as a second childhood snowbirding it back and forth to florida or in an RV or on some sailboat at the tax payers' expense. I get that.

But it's not my problem nor is it the treasury's problem. If you have to eat catfood into your 80's because you didn't make any other plan save to collect the dole from the government, that's your own problem. I am sure there are programs (and will continue to be programs) to assist lazy, thoughtless, ambitionless adults who coast into their senior years without a plan.

Get on one of those. Or work as a greeter at Walmart. Just stop driving the country deeper into debt with your selfishness.
Click to expand...

That's your ****ty attitude...
 
iamitter said:
The truth is we're not going to get the money back.
If we get rebates, we're going to need further budget cuts to curb the deficit, or, more likely, we're going to raise taxes to pay for them, in which case the rebates will be useless anyway.

Frankly, paying the money back is going to result in a lot of wealth redistribution. The only class that has enough money to pay for rebates for everyone is the high income earners. They're going to be paying for everyone else' SS rebates.


This is just a really bad situation. The question at this point is who do we screw the most?
Click to expand...

This is the fault of the government being irresponsible... Business owners have paid into the SS to match that of their employees. It was like a double tax and it was a different tax system altogether. The government has been taking the funds out and spending it elsewhere, where general taxes are usually spent (which are not double taxed). This gross abuse of the SS tax was a redistribution of wealth.. from the people to the government. The government owes the people that money as much as it owes China.
 
Nonplussed said:
SheWolf said:
Get over it. You opened yourself up to it when you decided to lecture me about my "****ty attitude". Can't take the heat? Well you know where you can shove it, right?



I didn't repeat the things you said. I expounded upon them. I can see conversation isn't your strong point either.



What points were those again? Something about liberal hating, senior citizens holocausts and ****ty attitudes? If you care to make an actual point, feel free.



What the hell do you think SS is, lady? It's a forced retirement plan...a forced entitlement.



I'm not surprised by that at all considering the "us against them", partisan black and white mentality you revealed about yourself earlier.



Well when I see one generation saddling the next with the debt for their retirement shenanigans, I see a bit of selfishness there too.

I never made a comment about 80 year olds. People retire at 65, I believe.



I wouldn't watch an 80 year old (or a 40 year old for that matter) that I knew eat cat food either. But that's my choice. And as long as SS is around, yes the government is forcing that issue.

For what we give to SS and get back, we could fund thousands of local foundations to do it cheaper, more efficiently, and with better results. And save for ourselves and support our loved ones.



What makes you say that? Do you know how much charity money is spent in this country?



But you support a government program to do what private citizens should be doing themselves. So yeah, you did say it's the government's obligation.



No, it doesn't. But it has also created artificial social mechanisms that have made family bonds less necessary and so, socially, family structures have deteriorated.



Actually, I am gay, prochoice, and a heathen but don't let me be responsible for shattering your carefully crafted preconceptions of what politics a person should subscribe to.



And I have consistently said that charity should step in to assist those who are unfortunate in that regard. I work with AIDS patients and I see many of them seperated from their family. I know that it happens.



I never said that.



But it's so much fun to deflate it before it ever gets used again.



Meh. That was mostly in reaction to elderly brats telling me I don't know anything about responsibility just because I happen to disagree with letting them go on the dole, guaranteed, at age 65.



So then, you don't want that social security check when it's time for them to start?
Click to expand...

Ideally, I would like to get rid of SS... and I have said that a few dozen times. The government can't simply remove it if there isn't some other mechanism of support in society to help people in honest need of help, or popular vote will just replace SS with something else.
Click to expand...
 
SheWolf said:
This is the fault of the government being irresponsible... Business owners have paid into the SS to match that of their employees. It was like a double tax and it was a different tax system altogether. The government has been taking the funds out and spending it elsewhere, where general taxes are usually spent (which are not double taxed). This gross abuse of the SS tax was a redistribution of wealth.. from the people to the government. The government owes the people that money as much as it owes China.
Click to expand...

Yes, I completely agree they owe that money. However, since the government's only way of getting money is taxation, the only way they can pay us back.... is by taking it from us again lol.
 
liblady said:
ever hear of the great depression?
Click to expand...

You're referring to that period of chronic economic crisis engendered by the Federal Reserve.

If the Federal Reserve hadn't existed, the Great Depression would been just another recession.

Given that the government used it's power to create the Great Depression, and given that government rarely does the right thing, how is it that, with the evidence that the government has screwed up social security as badly as it has that you want the government to keep running things and making them worse?
 
lpast said:
I have a question for all those against SS and Medicare and Medicaid.

Do away with all of them ok...then what happens to the MILLIONS of people who get to old to work that never made enough to save for a pension and health benefits, please dont try and say thats their own fault unless you work in walmart full time and are able to live today and save a bundle for tomorrow. We are talking MILLIONS of people.
Click to expand...

They keep working until they melt.

Of course, you're free to donate to the charities of your choice, to help them. And, naturally, one expects that you'll take care of your own parents rather than having them become a burden to others. But that's only if you care about them. And if you don't care enough about them to care for them, why should you care if others don't want to care for them, either? If you owe your parents nothing, what do strangers owe them?
 
iamitter said:
Yes, I completely agree they owe that money. However, since the government's only way of getting money is taxation, the only way they can pay us back.... is by taking it from us again lol.
Click to expand...

They inappropriately allocated government funds... SS funds aren't supposed to be used to fund the general operation of the government, and those taxes are higher on some individuals than the general federal tax. Basically, businesses have been triple taxed to fund the general operation of the government and individuals double taxed. The principle of it should have people fuming, and it should really impair our trust of the government... but to me, it just seems like a lot people are shrugging this off.
 
liblady said:
families used to be much larger. today, it's perfectly normal for people to be childless. what you say will happen, won't.
Click to expand...


So, what you're saying is that someone else should be forced to carry the burden of people who choose to not have the children who would feel responsible for them when they're old. If they're so careless they failed to create offspring, then, first off, they've had an entire life earning money to be spent only on themselves. Given the costs of raising kids, these DINKs should have so much money squirreled away that they shouldn't be a burden in the first place, but if they were so spendthrift and careless to have nothing left to retire on when they had no excuse to not save all that money, then, seriously, they don't have any reason to complain when other people don't want to support their selfish incompetent asses.

Is that perfectly clear?
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
So, what you're saying is that someone else should be forced to carry the burden of people who choose to not have the children who would feel responsible for them when they're old. If they're so careless they failed to create offspring, then, first off, they've had an entire life earning money to be spent only on themselves. Given the costs of raising kids, these DINKs should have so much money squirreled away that they shouldn't be a burden in the first place, but if they were so spendthrift and careless to have nothing left to retire on when they had no excuse to not save all that money, then, seriously, they don't have any reason to complain when other people don't want to support their selfish incompetent asses.

Is that perfectly clear?
Click to expand...

I really don't like this notion that I should have to have children in order to secure my own financial stability... Children are expensive and costly, and just because I have them for the selfish intent of wiping my ass and keeping my kitchen stocked when I am 80, doesn't mean it will work out that way... I might end up sinking more money in taking care of them, then they do me. I won't have a child for that purpose... It's completely ludicrous.
 
SheWolf said:
Stronger family support... **** that. It shouldn't only be on the backs of one's family.
Click to expand...

Why not?

The average works out to the family taking care of it's elderly.

It should be community concern,
Click to expand...

Why? Did the community voice permission for the individual to blow all his cash on booze, drugs, cars, cats, or baseball cards?

and a humanitarian concern.
Click to expand...

The word you're not using is "private charity".

That's how communities get together to help those it deems deserving.

No reason the undeserving should get anything.

Maybe if you fixed your own damn attitude, and everybody gave a **** about their neighbor, we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.
Click to expand...

Maybe if we stopped relying on government to steal money for us, people would abandon their "let the goverment do it" attitude and start becoming part of their communities again. After all, it's the rise of government social engineering that's coincident with the rise of dependency.
 
SheWolf said:
I really don't like this notion that I should have to have children in order to secure my own financial stability... Children are expensive and costly, and just because I have them for the selfish intent of wiping my ass and keeping my kitchen stocked when I am 80, doesn't mean it will work out that way... I might end up sinking more money in taking care of them, then they do me. I won't have a child for that purpose... It's completely ludicrous.
Click to expand...

I do not believe you got where Mayor Snorkum was going with that. Or I didn't. He also mentioned what would happen if you did not have kids. Kids cost a TON of money! Just a college pre-paid plan is $100 a month or something, that doesn't include food, clothing, increased housing cost for more room, summer camp, day care, etc. You would be saving a TON of money to not have kids. You could then do exactly that and SAVE the money, put it in an account, and you will be set for retirement.
 
SheWolf said:
I really don't like this notion that I should have to have children in order to secure my own financial stability... Children are expensive and costly, and just because I have them for the selfish intent of wiping my ass and keeping my kitchen stocked when I am 80, doesn't mean it will work out that way... I might end up sinking more money in taking care of them, then they do me. I won't have a child for that purpose... It's completely ludicrous.
Click to expand...


Actually, if you were capable of understanding the post, you'd realize that not having children is the best possible vehicle for having the wherewithal to save for retirement. Spawnless, you've paid for one college education, your own, if you didn't get daddy to pay for it. You're buying clothes for one person. You're cooking for one. You're carrying car insurance for one, and medical insurance, too. Your house isn't likely to be as large.

So, if you don't have kids, you've got no excuse, none, for not being financially secure when you retire.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Actually, if you were capable of understanding the post, you'd realize that not having children is the best possible vehicle for having the wherewithal to save for retirement. Spawnless, you've paid for one college education, your own, if you didn't get daddy to pay for it. You're buying clothes for one person. You're cooking for one. You're carrying car insurance for one, and medical insurance, too. Your house isn't likely to be as large.

So, if you don't have kids, you've got no excuse, none, for not being financially secure when you retire.
Click to expand...

I got both parts of your statement.... It's just that you're counting on the children to support their parents, and that there will be a payout to the parents for having those kids. And although I don't have kids, it doesn't mean that I only financially support myself either...
 
liblady said:
oh........elderly brats? that's rich.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what you are. Screeching with your hand out while the country falls further and further into debt. Before social security, 58% of men over 65 were still in the workforce, leading productive lives. Why are you opposed to working like previous generations?
 
SheWolf said:
That's your ****ty attitude...
Click to expand...

Cry me a river. I don't know that lady. I don't care if she eats cat food. If she were my neighbor or my aunt or my grandmother or anyone else I cared about, then by all means. But my guilt is absolved by the charity I give already. Let her neighbors or her family tend to her so I have more resources to tend to mine.
 
Nonplussed said:
Cry me a river. I don't know that lady. I don't care if she eats cat food. If she were my neighbor or my aunt or my grandmother or anyone else I cared about, then by all means. But my guilt is absolved by the charity I give already. Let her neighbors or her family tend to her so I have more resources to tend to mine.
Click to expand...

:roll:

I am not crying, just pointing out why I kept mentioning the 80 year olds eating cat food and why you have a ****ty attitude which you had a problem with me saying.
 
SheWolf said:
:roll:

I am not crying, just pointing out why I kept mentioning the 80 year olds eating cat food and why you have a ****ty attitude which you had a problem with me saying.
Click to expand...

My attitude really isn't the issue here. Social Security is. And I think you confuse a little literary license with a disposition.
 
Nonplussed said:
My attitude really isn't the issue here. Social Security is. And I think you confuse a little literary license with a disposition.
Click to expand...

As if you weren't attacking me for attitude and lack of faith in people having good will for each other....
 
SheWolf said:
As if you weren't attacking me for attitude and lack of faith in people having good will for each other....
Click to expand...

What's good for the goose and all.

But to be honest, I think our core values aren't that far apart. Where we differ is in how to execute those values into policy.
 
SheWolf said:
I really don't like this notion that I should have to have children in order to secure my own financial stability... Children are expensive and costly, and just because I have them for the selfish intent of wiping my ass and keeping my kitchen stocked when I am 80, doesn't mean it will work out that way... I might end up sinking more money in taking care of them, then they do me. I won't have a child for that purpose... It's completely ludicrous.
Click to expand...

1. you have children for many reasons,not least of whoch is the continuation and care of the family, which includes yourself. as a side note; it's worth pointing out that our national birthrate is below replacement level. we need to find a way to incentivize people to have kids, and this strikes me as as good a way of doing it as any.

2. if you haven't had kids, congradulations! raising a kid costs $11,000 a year, which is money that you have now saved! invested over the 20 years that you weren't raising kid that nets you $552,461.68, which left alone until you retire - 20 years later - will give you $2.8 million dollars, making you financially independent and relieving you of any need to burden the entitlement system! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom