Post by thereisnospoon on Jan 5, 2008 11:14:09 GMT -5
ellethwen said:
I recently read a book on Libertarianism for Historical Viewpoints: Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick.I have this book as I was meaning to use it for a paper I was doing on utopias, but I never used. Folks seem to keep bringing it up, so perhaps I should go read it at some point.
Now, back to what Betty Ann said about Social Security. I needed some time to think over a response.
The money that goes into Social Security right now would go into a private account. You're not using any extra money beyond that unless you want to. If you're working, you're already putting money into SS, so ideally that same money would go into your private account instead of the SS account.
Of course people who earn less would get less in the end. It encourages people to work harder, and elect to put more in if they are able to do so.
Of course people who earn less would get less in the end. It encourages people to work harder, and elect to put more in if they are able to do so.
Working hard doesn't always translate to earning more. Someone can work multiple low income jobs and still make only poverty level income. Sometimes the higher paying jobs aren't always available; sometimes the means aren't always available. People cannot be penalized for not "working hard" just because they haven't moved up the economic ladder.
In terms of electing better officials, I doubt privatizing Social Security will suddenly change voter apathy and horrible candidates who use their clout and money to get ahead.
I don't buy that no one has the opportunity to increase their earnings. I came from a family of 9 who was below the poverty level for the entire time I lived at home; we didn't even have running water or electricity sometimes. Sometimes we didn't even have enough food. But that wasn't because my parents somehow were being held back, it was because they weren't trying to get ahead. They were just... sorry and lazy. I got out and am now upper middle-class; it isn't impossible to move up the social ladder if you work hard.
No to offend you, but your case is one out of millions of others. While it might be representative of certain families in the United States, I find it hard to think that's the case for everyone. That's why success stories are as big as they are: they're rare and captivating.
Now, you were able to learn from your parents' mistakes; an education of sorts that had to come by unfortunate means. However, sometimes people don't strive for a better life because the society they grow up in has hammered it into them that they can't go anywhere. Why should those who are in that position be ignored for that? It's more of a social issue rather than one of simply the individual being lazy, so a new culture of success has to be created while giving people the resources to lift themselves out of poverty. Hitting them with high health care costs and skyrocketing tuition rates is not the answer. In such cases, the government has the means to change the situation for the better (though, as anyone who has studied government knows, it isn't easy). That's when people need to begin realizing that they need better leaders.
To relate this back to Social Security, it seems to me that telling low earning families that they should put more money into the system doesn't make much sense---by that I mean it isn't their number one priority. If a family is in the scenario yours was in---barely able to pay for necessities---why would they start putting their earnings into Social Security when they need to worry about having food for tomorrow? It's like telling them to invest their money in the stock market.
You might say then that they still would get benefits anyway, but if Social Security is privatized, it means families and individuals in those situations are going to be left with little while those who are wealthy will be able to throw as much as they would like into Social Security because it's almost totally their own money as opposed to be a broad social welfare program. Bill Gates doesn't need a huge Social Security check. Obviously, one would like for them to put money into Social Security, yet those at the bottom would see much of an increase anyway.
Furthermore, on the issue of privatization, most anything that becomes private gets itself tied to businesses and organizations. While they say there will be accountability and government oversight, look at what has happened in Iraq with Blackwater and Halliburton.
You should look into it! It has a lot of support from regular people, politicians, and lots of economists. Basically it eliminates the income tax and does everything based on sales taxes. You are being double-taxed right now: you get taxed on your income once, then you are taxed on it again when you spend it. Even the governments knows and acknowledges this: if you save every single receipt for every single thing, you can send them in with your taxes and get tax breaks. But nobody does that because that is insane and taxes are already complicated enough as it is.
With the fairtax, there's no more ridiculous complication, and the IRS is eliminated. It removes a lot of bureaucratic BS which saves a ton of money for the government which can in turn be used on things like social services.
There are just so many great things about it!!!
With the fairtax, there's no more ridiculous complication, and the IRS is eliminated. It removes a lot of bureaucratic BS which saves a ton of money for the government which can in turn be used on things like social services.
There are just so many great things about it!!!
While it sounds appealing, I would like to find some sort of devil's advocate, or at least a source that isn't already dedicated to the cause, so I can see a broader view of what the Fair Tax is all about.