In case you were wondering -

[kyburg]

Some very good reasons why privatization of Social Security makes me nervous. Reasons that don't have dollar signs attached to them.

Go take a look.

Comments

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

I read it. I was unmoved. I'd have been unmoved even were I still practicing the Judaism into which I was born, because Wallis's argument is built on faulty premises.

The god of Judaism and Christianity does indeed command believers to honor (which means heed) their (own!) fathers and mothers, and reach out to help the less fortunate. Even as an atheist, I'll acknowledge that there are good reasons why we should reach out voluntarily to help our parents in need, and perhaps others in need as well. But Social Security is not voluntary. There is no religious justification, in Judaism or Christianity, for "redistribution of income" (i.e., stealing). Charity, in Judaism, is a very great virtue (the word is synonymous with righteousness). But taxation isn't charity. Honesty is very important in Judaism and Christianity, but Social Security is a fraud, and a violation of the Constitution.

Neither the Jewish nor Christian Bibles provide a textual defense of Social Security, or any other social welfare scheme. In fact, by the program's very nature, they oppose it.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

And some people don't get it.

Look, I've been on the giving AND receiving end of Social Security. Neither is enviable, believe me.

However, justifying removing it or making it anything less than the program (however flawed) it has been from its inception, goes against a number of points I believe the man made very well. And since this is an administration that prides itself on "Christian" values, well - here they are.

No religious text provides a roadmap - and as far as being voluntary is concerned, I don't get a lot of choices when it comes to living here in general. If I don't go to work, earn my share and split it between me and everyone else on the bill list, my value on the open market is subject to debate. I don't begrudge my share towards Social Security; I'm even fairly certain I won't see as much benefit from it as I've put into it, but still, I don't mind. Folks have benefited from it all my working life - that, I haven't minded either.

I'm not the only oyster in the stew. My largest objection to the current CW is the awareness of that, and then the total greed-grab to get as much as possible before someone else can get to it. "It" can be whatever you'd like at the moment. That's not how I was brought along - and it's not Christian in any of the ways I know.

[washuotaku.livejournal.com]

LOL, what crap! Everybody knows that Social Security is the biggest Pyrimid Scheme run by the Government, and they all know it's going to break-down if they don't fix it. Privatization would help pervent reduce that problem by putting the money you earn into the individual's hands. For people that are smart, they will go far with it; others who aren't so saavy should leave it alone then. The plan, if anybody read it, would only put a part of the social security in it, and only if you elect to do so. Also, people that are now on social security will not be asked or forced to change.

The irony is that this was started by President Clinton, not Bush. I am amused that you used the Bush lied/People died icon on this one. I know you tend to be skeptable on anything Bush puts on the table, but this is actually one of the better ones... it's just sad that Democrats make it look like gloom and doom and the end of society and all that crap.

[digitaldraco.livejournal.com]

The idea of voluntary charity is all well and good, but it'll never fly in practice. Even the most supposedly "moral" Christians I've met are still greedy and selfish with their money. They'll donate to their church or buy a new SUV but fuck the poor people in our country strugling to get by.

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

Everybody knows that Social Security is the biggest Pyrimid Scheme run by the Government, and they all know it's going to break-down if they don't fix it.
No, "everybody" does not know this:
Wikipedia article on the subject
An article by Paul Krugman, and just about anything else by him on the subject.

Privatization would help pervent reduce that problem by putting the money you earn into the individual's hands.
Or, alternatively, it causes the "crisis" much sooner:
http://zfacts.com/p/784.html
Another Krugman article

For people that are smart, they will go far with it; others who aren't so saavy should leave it alone then.
Assuming past performance predicts future results, and that people are as smart as they think they are, perhaps.
Yet another Krugman article (interview actually) addresses this in a couple of questions. He also mentions that if we really want to talk about crisis, we should be worrying about Medicare & Medicaid.

One point we do have some agreement on is that the Dems have been complicit in the federal governments fiscal irrisponsibilities.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

And then blame them for being poor. Yeah, we know this one, don't we?

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Well, at least you're consistent.

[digitaldraco.livejournal.com]

"For people that are smart, they will go far with it; others who aren't so saavy should leave it alone then."


Occasionally I make jokes about throwing an extra chlorinated gene pool party for the stupid... but I've never actually heard someone suggest it in practice before.

Let me see if I can boil down what you're saying: Power to the smart and rich! The "unsavvy" people have only themselves to blame when they fall by the wayside. Certainly wasn't our fault in any way!


Pretty close?

...yeah.

[digitaldraco.livejournal.com]

Jesus sure as hell wasn't a Republican.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

By his own words, he came not to destroy, but to fulfill the law (by which he meant the Torah), which is nothing if not deeply concerned with charity. No, he wasn't a Republican, because he wasn't a hypocritical theocrat, and railed against them. But he wasn't much of a Democrat, either, because he didn't advocate the forcible "redistribution" of wealth. He exhorted each of his followers, individually, to do good works among the poor.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

No, some people don't get it. And I believe you - any involvement with Social Security implies something unhappy is going on. I'd rather not play.

This administration is as hypocritical as any that preceded it; no argument there. Christians are supposed to be peaceful, and not launch wars for no good reason, but many presidents did, and all were nominally Christian.

That you don't begrudge your share towards Social Security is your prerogative. I'd never stop you from participating if you wished, nor force you to do so. Why won't you and others who support the program extend the same courtesy of a choice to those of us who do not? And what does it say about the program that people not yet born are obligated to support it, with no way out but death or refusing to work? If it's so wonderful, why must we be forced to participate? If you don't pay your taxes, men with weapons will come to take you and your property away. That sounds much more Imperial Roman than Christian to me.

No, Willis doesn't get it. As I noted, he's making strong arguments for charity as a Christian virtue, which is fine. His error is in attempting to translate that into support for government action which mandates what ought to be voluntary. Coercion, unlike charity, isn't a Christian virtue.

Points

[turandot.livejournal.com]

You're allowed to believe what you want, but I wanted to call you on a couple of things.

Why all taxes in theory are paid by everyone on the same basis:

Because to allow some people to pay for something where other people who are similarly situated are allowed to opt out as they please would be to apply taxes in a discriminatory manner. Voluntarism wouldn't work: after all, anyone would say to themselves "Why am I the only person paying in? After all, why give my money to the government to work, when everyone else get away with having the government work for them for free if they so wish?".

Voluntary contributions would not be coercive, but would it be fair to leave the problem of paying for everyone to whoever wishes to assume the burden? It's the problem of the "free rider", magnified by several millions. Such problems, even in a smaller setting, are usually solved by deciding that no one holding any type of membership gets out of paying their fair share. Residenceship is such a type of membership. To ask someone to actually hold up their end of the bargain (i.e., paying for the services they rely on when things go wrong by virtue of living in this country) hardly sounds coercive, does it? Then again, one theoretically has a choice to pick up and leave, although I'll grant there's hardly anywhere else one could go and not run into the same problem.*

Taxes are about fairness. One can argue that some people and corporations already get out of paying their taxes, but it's hard to argue that it matters when they don't do it fairly.

What the government does if your taxes are not paid:

The government, after an audit on your taxes, puts a federal tax lien on your property. That's a lien that expires in 10 years. Ditto with states that allow State Tax liens (though expirations on those vary as much as state to state laws vary). The lien is recorded at a recorder's office, so that while the lien has to yet expire, you can't sell your house unless you make provisions to pay the lien off. I'd hardly call that "men with weapons".

No, what you are thinking of is a lot more devious, and is done by private beings. In some states, certain speculators are allowed to assume your liens and debts, and then sue you in court for compensation, i.e., going as far as asking for a sheriff's eviction, which the court may have to grant based on how much was paid. Or a bank, should you not pay off the mortgage they gave you, might do something similar and get a sheriff's sale to sell off your obligation, and your house, from under you. You can argue that such things are patently unfair, but
1. It's not "the government" doing that
2. Where is it written that we have obligations that should ever go away?


* People pay all sorts of taxes in many other countries, but in my limited experience, Americans are the only ones who seem to have time on their hands to bitch about it most of the time.