pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
....but as a socialist it just seems like a decent thing to do.
That explains a lot, nun.
....but as a socialist it just seems like a decent thing to do.
When people see that some money is set aside for them, and for themselves only, they will tend to save more. When people are taxed "according to ability", then the money is thrown into a common pot to be dished out "according to needs", they have no incentives to save, have no abilities left, and become very needy. People are no fools.
PS. That past thread is here: http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/social-security-for-tail-of-baby-boom-62245.html.
I thought the essence of the OP's original question spoke to a more basic human behavior. I divorced it from SS, even though that was the example given. I thought about it as would equal individuals take from an unlimited supply what he/she needed? Or what they wanted? Would that behavior change if the supply were limited? Rationalization works wonders. I hope that I would just take what I needed, but then again, I have a lot of possessions that I don't really need. Do my wants trump others' needs? If so, then I see the moral dilemma.
I thought the essence of the OP's original question spoke to a more basic human behavior. I divorced it from SS, even though that was the example given. I thought about it as would equal individuals take from an unlimited supply what he/she needed? Or what they wanted? Would that behavior change if the supply were limited? Rationalization works wonders. I hope that I would just take what I needed, but then again, I have a lot of possessions that I don't really need. Do my wants trump others' needs? If so, then I see the moral dilemma.
If SS were set up as a pure welfare program, then I would see the analogy.
But as it is a mixture of welfare and retirement benefits, then I do not see how a person should not plan the access to that fund as an income source for retirement.
Here's a counter example. It's greedy and bad manner to load up at an all-you-can-eat buffet, just to squander and leave food on your plate. It's also bad if you sneak some food inside your purse to take home.
However, if you walk into a restaurant and get charged for a filet mignon, would you accept a hamburger to be "nice"? Or worse, just take a drink of water?
By extension, you would also give all your other money, over and above your "needs," to the US government? Because that's exactly the same thing. There's nothing that distinguishes the SS "pot" from any other government "pot"--any shortage in SS will be filled by cutting other spending programs, increased taxes, or more borrowing by the government. The funds are entirely fungible. So if you believe there's no higher good that the SS money owed to you can do than leaving it with Uncle Sam, it is logically consistent that you would send the rest of your excess to the US Treasury as well. You wouldn't give it to a family member, a charity, etc. You'd choose the US government as the recipient.If I could meet my needs and all that entails, and didn't need SS, then I hope I would not take it.
But it was framed in terms of SS, so that steers the discussion that way. And we put into SS, and your benefits are reduced (in relative terms) as you put more in. So an analogy:
You and a friend start a community garden (a community of two). You agree that the harvest will be shared with some consideration to how much effort each of you put in. You end up putting in ten times as much work. Without your efforts, there might be very little harvest at all. When harvest times comes, would you feel bad about taking 2x as much as your friend? That is still low compared to the 10x work you put into it.
Even if you do not 'need' that many tomatoes or whatever, you might want to give them to friends of your choosing.
-ERD50
By extension, you would also give all your other money, over and above your "needs," to the US government? Because that's exactly the same thing. There's nothing that distinguishes the SS "pot" from any other government "pot"--any shortage in SS will be filled by cutting other spending programs, increased taxes, or more borrowing by the government. The funds are entirely fungible. So if you believe there's no higher good that the SS money owed to you can do than leaving it with Uncle Sam, it is logically consistent that you would send the rest of your excess to the US Treasury as well. You wouldn't give it to a family member, a charity, etc. You'd choose the US government as the recipient.
Right?
If you were to make this statement in a forum attended by rich people like Warren Buffet and the like, you would have more people in agreement. Few people here are that rich, I don't think.No, I would not accept a hamburger for a filet mignon, but I don't understand how that relates to only taking what you need from a limited supply. Don't get me wrong, I plan on taking my SS but as I said in my previous post, it's because I don't know of a way to predict my needs with certainty. If I could meet my needs and all that entails, and didn't need SS, then I hope I would not take it.
We did not get to choose partner regarding SS contributions.I understand your point and acknowledge that many others feel the same as you. I worry less about getting what I think I'm owed and more about getting what I need. The benefit to me is that it cuts down on the BS to worry about. BTW, what I would do in your example would be to take what I could use, up to 50%, not scorch my friendship, and choose my gardening partner more carefully in the future.
...
We did not get to choose partner regarding SS contributions.
Nice try, but I'm not going to take the bait. Your passion is evident but I hope it is tempered by tolerance for other perspectives.
... Do my wants trump others' needs? If so, then I see the moral dilemma.
+1000. "Altruism" is 99% of the time a sneaky way to assert one's superiority to those ordinary, supposedly less altruistic slobs. Heroic acts in emergencies or extreme environments I believe are a different, more instinctual thing.“Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
If tempted by something that feels ‘altruistic,’ examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it!"
- R. A. Heinlein--Notebooks of Lazarus Long
The only sensible solution is structural change. .
In the case of Lenin, there was also clearly a lust for power over others. And he did not use it very prettily.Lenin and Marx were great examples of such mush.