Get rid of social security?

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Ignorant, Sep 11, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its origins (at least for those not blinkered by American political ideology) can be traced to imperialist competition and the gains achieved by maintaining the physical efficiency of the unemployed. Its of course been successful in that endeavour; so successful that your whole stance is based on coercing the elimination of a Pareto improving result. You just continue to ignore that fact (understandably I suppose, but it doesn't encourage an honest debate)
     
  2. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "moon is made of green cheese" argument still hasn't been supported.

    A failure to invest in one's future is not related to "imperialist competition" but instead the simple failure of the individual to invest a percentage of their financial resources they have when working to build financial wealth that can be used later in life to support themself. Even low income workers can do this and have a personal responsibility to do this so that they do not become a burden on society in the future. The issue is related to personal financial responsibility and nothing more.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've merely referred to the known history. The key word in your reply is failure. You've ignored market failure and that assuredly ensures that you're on the side of coercion
     
  4. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no historical "market failure" related to diversified and age adjusted investments over the projected 45 year working lifetime of the average person in the United States over the last 100 years. Starting at any point in time and analyzing how such investments would succeed over a 45 year time span always reflects the personal wealth accumulation necessary for the individual to sustain themself after that 45 year working life. There are no cases where this cannot be proven based upon history in the United States over the last 100 years.

    The "green cheese" argument fails.
     
  5. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of note there is "coercion" related to the privatization of Social Security but it is the identical coercion that is imposed by our current Social Security welfare program because it forceably takes income from the individual. It is far less coersive though because the individual continues to own their money whereas with the Social Security welfare program they do not. Reducing the coercion is a pareto improvement over what we have today.
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is an ideological led coercion that denies a pareto improving result. Stop playing pretend!
     
  7. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You do have a point and I will not insult it.

    If we did not have Social Security existing, and the problem of renegotiating all our old employment contracts for somewhat equivalent pensions and insurance, the concept is not all that bad.

    If say for instance people could be compensated equitably by the rich owners of the principle means of production for the loss of Social Security Insurance, and the silver spoon inheritors who would benefit from the windfall they would have from not having to have paid more for pensions and insurance, and then the next generation uses such a system, might not be so bad.

    Who pays into the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund, or whatever, is complicated I suppose. Have any ideas?

    Now it is "Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA)" so I suppose it would be Federal Unemployment Compensation Act tax (FUCA)?

    I don't know, but it sounds kind of like FrackA to me. {word changed because we hate French people}
     
  8. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree to disagree regarding just another public policy decision implemented in the US:

    As a public policy decision, social security has done much more than our War on Drugs; therefore, if social security should be privatised so should our War on Drugs.
     
  9. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    UI is mostly self-funded with the public sector making up for any shortfalls. Only persons who have never worked would not have paid into it. However, since the unemployment rate could become less than one percent by some people choosing to not provide labor input at the current rate, persons who are willing to provide labor input could be more free to do so. In any case, subsidising the least efficient for the rock bottom cost of a minimum wage would still be more cost effective than most forms of means tested welfare.
     
  10. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "GREEN CHEESE" agian.

    We live in a capitalistic society, period. Whether a person believes in capitalism or not is irrelevant because all "solutions" must be based upon capitalism. Government Welfare or Personal Wealth in a capitalistic economy are the only two choices and Personal Wealth is a pareto improvement over Government Welfare.
     
  11. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You are welcome to actually refute my assertions with valid arguments whenever you feel capable of it. In the scenario I present, a minimum wage is simply that which is only implemented for public sector social welfare purposes and would not require any active effort on the part of the private sector regarding any potential regulations since potential employees should self-select regarding labor market participation for a wage they can command. I merely assume it must be a form of "efficiency" wage for those market participants willing to provide labor input since the least efficient may not want to compete with more efficient labor market participants if they cannot command such a wage; but still have recourse to an income and command the commodity of their labor even if reserved from the market for labor. In effect, it should be much easier to find work for anyone who has a work ethic and wants to work for the equivalent to an efficiency wage.
     
  12. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While this discussion is on Social Security, not unemployment, the "natural" level of unemployment is actually about 4% as I recall. This accounts for those individual that are in-between employment where employment does exist for them. At any one time, even in a vastly expanding economy where finding work is easy, about 4% of the work force will be in-between jobs by choice.
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already refuted! The minimum wage you'd require would not 'solve poverty' and would significantly increase unemployment, making your whole argument decidedly silly.

    Again you randomly throw in terms that you do not understand. The efficiency wage hypothesis is used to show how full employment will not be consistent with the profit motive.
     
  14. Til the Last Drop

    Til the Last Drop Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    9,069
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    LMAO. Um....your name is "Ignorant". Seriously, that was some funny (*)(*)(*)(*). I don't like SS simply because people with more tend to live longer. A poor person is 10xs more likely to die young from health problems. Not to mention all the people claiming SS so not to work, before the age of retirement, with BS diseases created for pharmaceuticals to sell their products. Everyone paying 70k is not equal when we have people who make 15k a year with people who make billions in a year. The majority of 15kers not living to collect while the billionaire does. It is a scam in so many ways. I would rather just have my money. Just like with the mandates. I'm sure many feel the same way.
     
  15. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I subscribe to this understanding of a natural rate of unemployment:

    As a structural form of unemployment it would be subject to phenomena being experienced in any given political-economy. There is no reason to disbelieve that our current and objective reality is not a new equilibrium in the natural rate of unemployment as it currently has existed on a somewhat longitudinal basis. In other words, it should require another "boom" in our economy to reach a new equilibrium in our current and "natural" rate of unemployment. Or, such an equilibrium could be modified though changes in public policies to meet the new criteria.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We've already educated you over your erroneous use of this concept. Its used to suggest a vertical phillips curve. It can't be used to support your nonsense over minimum wages and/or unemployment benefit

    A meaningless sentence

    Also meaningless!

    And meaningless again!
     
  17. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You are welcome to resort to this form of construction for my arguments since we are not limiting our argument to only microeconomics:

    In the scenario I present, a minimum wage is simply that which is only implemented for public sector social welfare purposes and would not require any active effort on the part of the private sector regarding any potential regulations since potential employees should self-select regarding labor market participation for a wage they can command. I merely assume it must be a form of "efficiency" wage for those market participants willing to provide labor input since the least efficient may not want to compete with more efficient labor market participants if they cannot command such a wage; but still have recourse to an income and command the commodity of their labor even if reserved from the market for labor. In effect, it should be much easier to find work for anyone who has a work ethic and wants to work for the equivalent to an efficiency wage.
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is nonsense too! There is no 'limitation to microeconomics'. Macroeconomic analysis, for example, is reliant on a microeconomic foundations approach. You've just made very silly comment. There is no minimum wage consistent with a 'poverty solution' and certainly not one that can be understood as 'market friendly'. You've again just abused terms

    This is drivel.

    Your abuse of terms is dreadful. We've got efficiency wages bogusly used, despite that analysis being used to show why mass unemployment is the norm. Before that you rambled on about the natural rate of unemployment, despite that analysis being focused on a cretinous supply-side economic understanding of a bogus vertical Phillips Curve (showing that any inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation is apparently the result of money illusion)

    Complete nonsense again!
     
  19. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You may be confusing your special pleading, which will never actually solve anything, for real public policy choices that may actually solve the exigencies of our republic.

    A form of minimum wage which merely subsidizes the least efficient to not provide labor input to the economy but still provide for full employment of the circulation of money in our institutional form of money based markets through normal consumer activities could actually solve official poverty in our republic in a manner as simple as our current regime of minimum wage laws are now.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I'm saying something very direct: your making stuff up and the guff presented has no economic validity. Confusing supply-side economics and efficiency wages really did take the biscuit!

    Utter drivel. There is no minimum wage that would 'solve poverty'. Throwing in random terms won't change that
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course I am "making stuff up" since such a public policy doesn't exist, yet. I am not the one confusing a form of minimum wage that cannot be confused with a median wage or an efficiency wage nor even a maximum wage since a minimum wage is most definitely a form of market based metric in any political-economy where economic forms of discrimination are both legal and socially acceptable. Why do you have any difficulty with the concept of a minimum wage that cannot be confused with a median wage or a maximum wage?
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again you're stringing together vocab and coming out with utter drivel. You've abused minimum wages and efficiency wages, nothing more. You haven't understood either, preferring instead to incoherently combine them to pretend you have an argument.
     
  23. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    We are not discussing microeconomics in that argument; non sequiturs and your special pleading are usually considered fallacies. Thank you for being so cooperative for my Cause and doing injustice to your Cause.
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You again say nothing! You've abused the minimum wage tag and your attempt to embed it within efficiency wage analysis (used to understand why mass unemployment is the norm) was particularly uncunning.
     
  25. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I am simply establishing the concept of a minimum wage as used in that scenario. Why do you have any difficulty with the concept of a minimum wage that cannot be confused with a median wage or a maximum wage? Are you claiming there is no difference in those terms; if not, then why resort to special pleading to try to make a point you don't have.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page