A great book. I particulary like how they set up a cell based system for revolution that is coordinated through the computer (can't remember it's name).
I often get very libertarian when it comes to my money. Frankly, at this moment in my life I could definately use the money that was taken from me for my own protection. I'm responsible enough to realize that I must plan for a retirement, but at the same time it does me no benefit to pay interest on debts (house payments) right now. IOW, if I had my SS money I would pay less interest total and thus be able to save more for my retirement.
That said, I just don't think our society would tolerate an abundance of old people suffering even if it was there own fault.
My guess is that once the baby boomers bleed us dry and the Gen Xr's finally wake up to politics we will either scrap social security or severely reduce defense to pay for it.
That's fine, but the quote you posted doesn't address the Social Security issue.
Clearly it does.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
-Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein
I don't want the government to provide old age insurance. The government forces me to pay for what I do not want. That is tyranny.
Oh, and let's go back to your Zamibia comment real fast. Were you really saying if I don't like taxes I should get the hell out? I just want that verified for all to see.
Oh, and let's go back to your Zamibia comment real fast. Were you really saying if I don't like taxes I should get the hell out? I just want that verified for all to see.
No, if you don't want to pay them you should go to Zambia. From what I understand a foreigner can run a business tax free in Zambia. It's a law they have set up to encourage foreign investment.
So you tried to verify 'something', but just look silly in the process. I just want all to see that.
By your definition, any taxes are tyranny to someone. That's incorrect. And it's hilarious that the main point of this thread is to say that we pay not but Social Security might not be there for us, but your quote clearly states that tyranny is when we're forced to pay for something we don't want for ourselves. Make up your mind. Is Social Security going to collapse and disappear before we can all get our cash, or are we being forced to pay for something we're going to get in the future whether we want it or not? That's logically inconsistent, or as some might say, a contradiction.
No, if you don't want to pay them you should go to Zambia. From what I understand a foreigner can run a business tax free in Zambia. It's a law they have set up to encourage foreign investment.
So you tried to verify 'something', but just look silly in the process. I just want all to see that.
Bunge bunge bunge. You told me that if I don't like the situation here I should move to another country where the situation would be more to my liking. That sounds an awful lot like "Don't like it here? Well, get out and go to somewhere you won't pay as much taxes."
Quote:
By your definition, any taxes are tyranny to someone.
I like roads.
Quote:
That's incorrect. And it's hilarious that the main point of this thread is to say that we pay not but Social Security might not be there for us, but your quote clearly states that tyranny is when we're forced to pay for something we don't want for ourselves. Make up your mind. Is Social Security going to collapse and disappear before we can all get our cash, or are we being forced to pay for something we're going to get in the future whether we want it or not? That's logically inconsistent, or as some might say, a contradiction.
I don't want to pay for old age insurance. Whether I will ever be able to cash in the policy for which I am forced to pay under penalty of jailtime if I don't is a wholly separate matter. Nice try. No logical fallacies here.
I don't want to pay for old age insurance. Whether I will ever be able to cash in the policy for which I am forced to pay under penalty of jailtime if I don't is a wholly separate matter. Nice try. No logical fallacies here.
And I don't want to pay for roads because I take a train to work. Is it tyranny that I have to pay for the roads? By your definition it is.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
-Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein
I don't want the government to provide old age insurance. The government forces me to pay for what I do not want. That is tyranny.
Oh, and let's go back to your Zamibia comment real fast. Were you really saying if I don't like taxes I should get the hell out? I just want that verified for all to see.
There is a lot of "tyranny" in our democratic countries. Lot of things are forbidden althought that it will endanger only ourself : obligation in some states to fasten our seatbelt, only the right to buy authorized devices (security rules) ....
The problem is that the governement is oblige to check problems. Most people will think that ols age assurance is not mandatory for them, and that they have time to think of it. When they will be old, these people will have no money, will suffer of starvation, will became a sort of begger, and people will ask the governement to do something about it.
So governement prefer to anticipate. They oblige people to anticipate, to fasten their seat belt, to be vaccinate ...
In a society we interact with each others. Hurting ourself, hurt others. In short we are not alone. The key is to find a balanced solution between our freedoom and a necessary regulation.
There is a lot of "tyranny" in our democratic countries. Lot of things are forbidden althought that it will endanger only ourself : obligation in some states to fasten our seatbelt, only the right to buy authorized devices (security rules) ....
The problem is that the governement is oblige to check problems. Most people will think that ols age assurance is not mandatory for them, and that they have time to think of it. When they will be old, these people will have no money, will suffer of starvation, will became a sort of begger, and people will ask the governement to do something about it.
So governement prefer to anticipate. They oblige people to anticipate, to fasten their seat belt, to be vaccinate ...
In a society we interact with each others. Hurting ourself, hurt others. In short we are not alone. The key is to find a balanced solution between our freedoom and a necessary regulation.
Clearly the government cannot be trusted with its finances. Look at the track record. The government was given a chance to run things properly and they fudged it. They ran up the debt. They spent the money that was supposed to be saved. They can't handle it. I'd rather leave it up to the individual to fail some of the time than for the government to fail everyone.
Clearly the government cannot be trusted with its finances. Look at the track record. The government was given a chance to run things properly and they fudged it. They ran up the debt. They spent the money that was supposed to be saved. They can't handle it. I'd rather leave it up to the individual to fail some of the time than for the government to fail everyone.
It's true, and same apply in France, i pay a lot for a old aging policy who will bring me nearly nothing.
but what you are referring at is bad management. You can made old age assurance mandatory, and manage this assurance by private companies. I have nothing against the principle of old age assurance, but the way it's done.
actually, getting back to the ponzi scheme for the govt., if SS does collapse in the near future, then it will, by definition be a ponzi scheme, correct?
actually, getting back to the ponzi scheme for the govt., if SS does collapse in the near future, then it will, by definition be a ponzi scheme, correct?
There are two big differences I see between Social Security and a ponzi scheme.
First, in a ponzi scheme, people invest their money for a guaranteed return. With Social Security this just isn't the case. You're not investing for your own return, you're paying for someone else's retirement and that's the upfront deal.
Second, with a ponzi scheme, the people setting it up steal the cash out of the hands of the people that are owed a return when they purposely collapse the scheme and run for the border. Social Security isn't going to have this problem.
If we want to use the term ponzi scheme to describe this, we'll have to use it to describe most taxation. There are plenty of taxes people would choose not to pay because they don't like where the dollars go. Is it a ponzi scheme if they're never going to see a return on those dollars?
Back in the day when trolley systems were prevelant in the U.S.A., the trolley companies actually had to pay for tracks out of their profits. That mean the cost of setting up the system was paid for by the users. This isn't true of streets. The auto industry was able to convince the U.S. govenrment to subsidize the building of roads in anti-competitive fashion. Because of this we've got millions of miles of roads and no (basically) no more street cars.
Was it a ponzi scheme that made street car riders pay for the roads they didn't use?
Look up synonyms and semantics. Because that is the type of off-topic discussion you wish to provoke instead of addressing the fallacy that is Social Security.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
-Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein
Actually, come to think of it, wouldn't forcing a man to pay for what he does not want because you think it's BAD for him be more tyrannical?
I see this conversation drifting into the typical abstract libertarian idealism in which every little detail of society is debated as to it's value to society vs. it's value to the individual.
Obviously, you will always be able to find someone who doesn't want to pay for something in government even if they might benefit from it. Clearly we can't operate a government where you need 100% consensus. On the same note, we can't simply let the majority trample the minority's rights. Why o why does this sound like a familiar debate?
With regard to SS, it would seem evident that until we come up with a cure for old age (aside from suicide) everyone needs some sort of security for their old age. It would also seem evident that a significant percentage of our people are incapable or neglectful in preparing for their retirement.
Then when you start to figure in the consequences to those who don't even have the capability to plan for their future (children, mentally ill, the senile) it would seem incumbent on a moral society to provide some sort of security for them.
There are two big differences I see between Social Security and a ponzi scheme.
First, in a ponzi scheme, people invest their money for a guaranteed return. With Social Security this just isn't the case. You're not investing for your own return, you're paying for someone else's retirement and that's the upfront deal.
Are you saying that people somehow don't have to invest their own money in Social Security? They are required to do so with their earnings. The employer and employee have to withhold and it is usually the largest tax on most people's paychecks.
I suppose if there is a gun to your head, then it isn't an "investment."
As for investing for your own return. Most people believe their social security money is being invested for them and will yield a return. We (the informed) know different but all politicians intentionally use language to obscure the fact that Social Security is pay as you go. Calling it a "trust fund" for example is misleading.
Quote:
Second, with a ponzi scheme, the people setting it up steal the cash out of the hands of the people that are owed a return when they purposely collapse the scheme and run for the border. Social Security isn't going to have this problem.
That could happen when it collapses. What you have to consider though is how it works up to that point. Social Security hasn't "collapsed" yet so we can't declare it the ultimate ponzi scheme yet. However the signs all point to that. The ponzi scheme involves getting the same investors to give more and more promising a return. There never was a return, they just paid the previous returns with new investors. If you look at the history of Social Security, every "reform" has basically been a tax increase. We are having to "give" more and more for the same return. Meanwhile the number of people paying per retiree is also dropping. Someday soon the system will collapse and the government will already have spent all that money.
They (the goverment) won't have to run for the border. They will just change the rules since they happen to make them. The most popular conspiracy theory on this, is that they will just inflate their way out of debt/deficit/social security problem which will destroy the retirement not only of those who are collecting social security, but also the regular retirements of those who have pensions, 401k's etc.
That is why my "retirement" is in Real Estate which is very much inflation proof.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
What, no one has a response to this?
A great book. I particulary like how they set up a cell based system for revolution that is coordinated through the computer (can't remember it's name).
I often get very libertarian when it comes to my money. Frankly, at this moment in my life I could definately use the money that was taken from me for my own protection. I'm responsible enough to realize that I must plan for a retirement, but at the same time it does me no benefit to pay interest on debts (house payments) right now. IOW, if I had my SS money I would pay less interest total and thus be able to save more for my retirement.
That said, I just don't think our society would tolerate an abundance of old people suffering even if it was there own fault.
My guess is that once the baby boomers bleed us dry and the Gen Xr's finally wake up to politics we will either scrap social security or severely reduce defense to pay for it.
Originally posted by bunge
Because it's irrelevant. If you don't want to pay taxes move to a Zambia.
I see. If I don't like how things are run in this country I should get the hell out.
I hate to break it to you bunge but part of the social security discussion is whether or not it should exist at all.
Originally posted by BR
I see. If I don't like how things are run in this country I should get the hell out.
I hate to break it to you bunge but part of the social security discussion is whether or not it should exist at all.
That's fine, but the quote you posted doesn't address the Social Security issue.
Originally posted by bunge
That's fine, but the quote you posted doesn't address the Social Security issue.
Clearly it does.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
-Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein
I don't want the government to provide old age insurance. The government forces me to pay for what I do not want. That is tyranny.
Oh, and let's go back to your Zamibia comment real fast. Were you really saying if I don't like taxes I should get the hell out? I just want that verified for all to see.
Originally posted by BR
Oh, and let's go back to your Zamibia comment real fast. Were you really saying if I don't like taxes I should get the hell out? I just want that verified for all to see.
No, if you don't want to pay them you should go to Zambia. From what I understand a foreigner can run a business tax free in Zambia. It's a law they have set up to encourage foreign investment.
So you tried to verify 'something', but just look silly in the process. I just want all to see that.
By your definition, any taxes are tyranny to someone. That's incorrect. And it's hilarious that the main point of this thread is to say that we pay not but Social Security might not be there for us, but your quote clearly states that tyranny is when we're forced to pay for something we don't want for ourselves. Make up your mind. Is Social Security going to collapse and disappear before we can all get our cash, or are we being forced to pay for something we're going to get in the future whether we want it or not? That's logically inconsistent, or as some might say, a contradiction.
Originally posted by bunge
No, if you don't want to pay them you should go to Zambia. From what I understand a foreigner can run a business tax free in Zambia. It's a law they have set up to encourage foreign investment.
So you tried to verify 'something', but just look silly in the process. I just want all to see that.
Bunge bunge bunge. You told me that if I don't like the situation here I should move to another country where the situation would be more to my liking. That sounds an awful lot like "Don't like it here? Well, get out and go to somewhere you won't pay as much taxes."
By your definition, any taxes are tyranny to someone.
I like roads.
That's incorrect. And it's hilarious that the main point of this thread is to say that we pay not but Social Security might not be there for us, but your quote clearly states that tyranny is when we're forced to pay for something we don't want for ourselves. Make up your mind. Is Social Security going to collapse and disappear before we can all get our cash, or are we being forced to pay for something we're going to get in the future whether we want it or not? That's logically inconsistent, or as some might say, a contradiction.
I don't want to pay for old age insurance. Whether I will ever be able to cash in the policy for which I am forced to pay under penalty of jailtime if I don't is a wholly separate matter. Nice try. No logical fallacies here.
Originally posted by BR
I don't want to pay for old age insurance. Whether I will ever be able to cash in the policy for which I am forced to pay under penalty of jailtime if I don't is a wholly separate matter. Nice try. No logical fallacies here.
And I don't want to pay for roads because I take a train to work. Is it tyranny that I have to pay for the roads? By your definition it is.
EDIT: or is it only tyranny if YOU don't like it?
Originally posted by BR
Clearly it does.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
-Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein
I don't want the government to provide old age insurance. The government forces me to pay for what I do not want. That is tyranny.
Oh, and let's go back to your Zamibia comment real fast. Were you really saying if I don't like taxes I should get the hell out? I just want that verified for all to see.
There is a lot of "tyranny" in our democratic countries. Lot of things are forbidden althought that it will endanger only ourself : obligation in some states to fasten our seatbelt, only the right to buy authorized devices (security rules) ....
The problem is that the governement is oblige to check problems. Most people will think that ols age assurance is not mandatory for them, and that they have time to think of it. When they will be old, these people will have no money, will suffer of starvation, will became a sort of begger, and people will ask the governement to do something about it.
So governement prefer to anticipate. They oblige people to anticipate, to fasten their seat belt, to be vaccinate ...
In a society we interact with each others. Hurting ourself, hurt others. In short we are not alone. The key is to find a balanced solution between our freedoom and a necessary regulation.
Originally posted by BR
You told me that if I don't like the situation here I should move to another country where the situation would be more to my liking.
No. I told you that if you don't want to pay taxes you should move to Zambia.
Originally posted by bunge
No. I told you that if you don't want to pay taxes you should move to Zambia.
Which is telling me that if I don't like it here I should go somewhere else.
Originally posted by bunge
And I don't want to pay for roads because I take a train to work. Is it tyranny that I have to pay for the roads? By your definition it is.
EDIT: or is it only tyranny if YOU don't like it?
I take it you don't shop at supermarkets?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
There is a lot of "tyranny" in our democratic countries. Lot of things are forbidden althought that it will endanger only ourself : obligation in some states to fasten our seatbelt, only the right to buy authorized devices (security rules) ....
The problem is that the governement is oblige to check problems. Most people will think that ols age assurance is not mandatory for them, and that they have time to think of it. When they will be old, these people will have no money, will suffer of starvation, will became a sort of begger, and people will ask the governement to do something about it.
So governement prefer to anticipate. They oblige people to anticipate, to fasten their seat belt, to be vaccinate ...
In a society we interact with each others. Hurting ourself, hurt others. In short we are not alone. The key is to find a balanced solution between our freedoom and a necessary regulation.
Clearly the government cannot be trusted with its finances. Look at the track record. The government was given a chance to run things properly and they fudged it. They ran up the debt. They spent the money that was supposed to be saved. They can't handle it. I'd rather leave it up to the individual to fail some of the time than for the government to fail everyone.
Originally posted by BR
Clearly the government cannot be trusted with its finances. Look at the track record. The government was given a chance to run things properly and they fudged it. They ran up the debt. They spent the money that was supposed to be saved. They can't handle it. I'd rather leave it up to the individual to fail some of the time than for the government to fail everyone.
It's true, and same apply in France, i pay a lot for a old aging policy who will bring me nearly nothing.
but what you are referring at is bad management. You can made old age assurance mandatory, and manage this assurance by private companies. I have nothing against the principle of old age assurance, but the way it's done.
Originally posted by BR
Which is telling me that if I don't like it here I should go somewhere else.
I hate to say this, but only for a limited intellect.
Originally posted by BR
I take it you don't shop at supermarkets?
I live two blocks from one and I walk past another on the way to work.
Originally posted by alcimedes
actually, getting back to the ponzi scheme for the govt., if SS does collapse in the near future, then it will, by definition be a ponzi scheme, correct?
There are two big differences I see between Social Security and a ponzi scheme.
First, in a ponzi scheme, people invest their money for a guaranteed return. With Social Security this just isn't the case. You're not investing for your own return, you're paying for someone else's retirement and that's the upfront deal.
Second, with a ponzi scheme, the people setting it up steal the cash out of the hands of the people that are owed a return when they purposely collapse the scheme and run for the border. Social Security isn't going to have this problem.
If we want to use the term ponzi scheme to describe this, we'll have to use it to describe most taxation. There are plenty of taxes people would choose not to pay because they don't like where the dollars go. Is it a ponzi scheme if they're never going to see a return on those dollars?
Back in the day when trolley systems were prevelant in the U.S.A., the trolley companies actually had to pay for tracks out of their profits. That mean the cost of setting up the system was paid for by the users. This isn't true of streets. The auto industry was able to convince the U.S. govenrment to subsidize the building of roads in anti-competitive fashion. Because of this we've got millions of miles of roads and no (basically) no more street cars.
Was it a ponzi scheme that made street car riders pay for the roads they didn't use?
Originally posted by giant
Ah, but what you said was horse = donkey = zebra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
Giant's link? That's wikipedia.
Look up synonyms and semantics. Because that is the type of off-topic discussion you wish to provoke instead of addressing the fallacy that is Social Security.
/ignore giant
Nick
Originally posted by BR
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
-Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein
Actually, come to think of it, wouldn't forcing a man to pay for what he does not want because you think it's BAD for him be more tyrannical?
I see this conversation drifting into the typical abstract libertarian idealism in which every little detail of society is debated as to it's value to society vs. it's value to the individual.
Obviously, you will always be able to find someone who doesn't want to pay for something in government even if they might benefit from it. Clearly we can't operate a government where you need 100% consensus. On the same note, we can't simply let the majority trample the minority's rights. Why o why does this sound like a familiar debate?
With regard to SS, it would seem evident that until we come up with a cure for old age (aside from suicide) everyone needs some sort of security for their old age. It would also seem evident that a significant percentage of our people are incapable or neglectful in preparing for their retirement.
Then when you start to figure in the consequences to those who don't even have the capability to plan for their future (children, mentally ill, the senile) it would seem incumbent on a moral society to provide some sort of security for them.
Originally posted by bunge
There are two big differences I see between Social Security and a ponzi scheme.
First, in a ponzi scheme, people invest their money for a guaranteed return. With Social Security this just isn't the case. You're not investing for your own return, you're paying for someone else's retirement and that's the upfront deal.
Are you saying that people somehow don't have to invest their own money in Social Security? They are required to do so with their earnings. The employer and employee have to withhold and it is usually the largest tax on most people's paychecks.
I suppose if there is a gun to your head, then it isn't an "investment."
As for investing for your own return. Most people believe their social security money is being invested for them and will yield a return. We (the informed) know different but all politicians intentionally use language to obscure the fact that Social Security is pay as you go. Calling it a "trust fund" for example is misleading.
Second, with a ponzi scheme, the people setting it up steal the cash out of the hands of the people that are owed a return when they purposely collapse the scheme and run for the border. Social Security isn't going to have this problem.
That could happen when it collapses. What you have to consider though is how it works up to that point. Social Security hasn't "collapsed" yet so we can't declare it the ultimate ponzi scheme yet. However the signs all point to that. The ponzi scheme involves getting the same investors to give more and more promising a return. There never was a return, they just paid the previous returns with new investors. If you look at the history of Social Security, every "reform" has basically been a tax increase. We are having to "give" more and more for the same return. Meanwhile the number of people paying per retiree is also dropping. Someday soon the system will collapse and the government will already have spent all that money.
They (the goverment) won't have to run for the border. They will just change the rules since they happen to make them. The most popular conspiracy theory on this, is that they will just inflate their way out of debt/deficit/social security problem which will destroy the retirement not only of those who are collecting social security, but also the regular retirements of those who have pensions, 401k's etc.
That is why my "retirement" is in Real Estate which is very much inflation proof.
Nick