5 ms·

No. Lots of people who haven't thought about the consequences for their nation or their families or who simply don't care agree with you. It's especially commo

No. Lots of people who haven't thought about the consequences for their nation or their families or who simply don't care agree with you. It's especially common among young people that want to display their virtuous radicalism and who haven't ever really had to pay for the bad consequences of anyone's actions.

themagician 10y ago
It's more common among young people because they aren't yet invested in entitlements. Most people think of SS and other entitlements as being something they have earned and they don't want them shared with others. Everyone wants a handout. Most people just want to pretend like they earned it.
- ap3 10y ago
  How else would one view the Social Security program that you are paying into? You can even go into SSA.gov and see how much you have "earned".
  - lend000 10y ago
    Except that it won't be around when I qualify. World's biggest ponzi scheme.
  - ajdlinux 10y ago
    It's interesting looking at the US Social Security system coming from a country (Australia) where the social security system doesn't have the facade of being a contributory system and is funded entirely out of general tax revenue - there's no such thing as "paying in" to the social security system. There's still a bit of an attitude of "I've paid my taxes, now I deserve my pension", but the system doesn't act as a piggy bank for you to save up over time. (For that, we have a mandatory minimum 9.5% superannuation/401k-equivalent contribution that you invest in shares/property/bonds etc.) In my mind, this is fairer than the US system, but there is a good case to be made that keeping elements of a "contributory" system helps to maintain political support for the welfare state among people who are a bit more, um, selfish. (An interesting piece I read a while ago that describes how the "contributory" nature of Australia's social security system in the 1940s was actually just a cover for a general tax increase: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-27/berg-chifleys-political-time-bomb-70-years-in-the-making/5480154 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-27/berg-chifleys-politica...)
    - davidgay 10y ago
      > where the social security system doesn't have the facade of being a contributory system and is funded entirely out of general tax revenue So I'm curious: can you move to Australia at 64, work for one year, retire, and receive a full income from social security?
      - jamestnz 10y ago
        Not certain about Australia, but here in NZ we call it "NZ Super" (or just "the pension") instead of "social security". It is a universal superannuation which kicks in at age 65, is not means-tested, and is paid in the same amount to everyone who qualifies. The money that the fund invests/disburses comes from an annual government contribution to the NZ Super Fund, determined by some legislated formula. Individual workers/earners don't "pay into" it in any way that is separately taxed or monitored. To collect the pension you simply need to be lawfully living in the country (e.g. citizen or permanent resident status), have made NZ your primary/main country of residence (usually by living and working here), and you must have lived in New Zealand for 10 years since the age of 20, of which five of the years must have been since the aged of 50 years. If the above applies to you, you should sign on and start getting your $792.34 per fortnight :-)
        ajdlinux 10y ago
        Over in Australia, "social security" is merely the technical name for all of the government welfare programs handled by the Department of Human Services, including Age Pension, Youth Allowance (study benefits), Newstart Allowance (unemployment benefits), Disability Support Pension and so on and so forth. No-one really uses the term "social security" unless you're reading the legislation. With no further qualification, "the pension" means the Age Pension. What we call "super" you'd call KiwiSaver, except over here it's mandatory. I suspect the NZ use of the term "superannuation" is probably closer to the original/traditional use of the term.
      - ajdlinux 10y ago
        There is a residency requirement. But no requirement that during that residency period you actually need to be working or otherwise "contributing" to the system.
  - jamestnz 10y ago
    >How else would one view the Social Security program that you are paying into? I'm certainly no expert, but that sounds more like a description of an IRA or 401K, I think. As far as I know, the social security program in the US isn't actually structured in such a way that each person's SS taxes are going into an individual investment account under their own name (despite the "how much I've earned" statements which might seem to suggest this). In fact, the SS taxes being collected right now from you and the entire current generation of earners, are going directly to the current generation of retirees. So rather than being a career-long savings/investment scheme where your own money comes back to you at the end, it is actually implemented as a wealth transfer scheme from the current generation of earners to the current generation of retirees. Some years the fund might book a surplus (more taxes raised than benefits paid) and in some years a deficit. But I agree that it seems to be a common view (or perhaps just metaphor) that people's own SS taxes are being accrued against their name for later payback as benefits. But as far as I can tell, social security has never worked that way and wasn't designed to.
    - toast0 10y ago
      > As far as I know, the social security program in the US isn't actually structured in such a way that each person's SS taxes are going into an individual investment account under their own name (despite the "how much I've earned" statements which might seem to suggest this). It's not structured that way, but you do need to 'earn credits' to establish eligibility for benefits, and the benefits are calculated with a formula based on the amount of your wages that were subject to social security tax; and the official name is old age insurance. It certainly feels like it's retirement insurance that you pay into while you're working, and get the benefits should you live long enough.
  - closeparen 10y ago
    As a wealth transfer from the young to the old. I don't think any Millennial pays into Social Security under the delusion that they will ever get anything back. The program is on track to be insolvent once it's done serving the generation currently in power.
    - meddlepal 10y ago
      Agreed. I see thousands of dollars go into SS that I will never see come back.
geofft 10y ago
This seems like a reply with relatively little information content: lots of people who haven't thought about consequences agree with all sorts of political opinions. I could easily accuse young people who wear any candidate's or political concept's apparel of wanting to display their virtuous radicalism, but that's hardly a useful criticism of the candidate or concept. I suppose you're attempting to imply that people who have thought about the consequences, or who do care, or who are old people who have had to pay for the bad consequences of people's actions, are unlikely to agree. Is there a reason, is there evidence, to believe that much more interesting claim? Or is this merely an accusation of "virtue signaling"?
Curious42 10y ago
I'm not sure I fully understand your POV right, but I hope you're not suggesting that a person born within the confinement of certain national border should have the privilege of being a bigger priority when chosen for work within the same border confinement. That's a bit ridiculous. A Syrian Software Engineer shouldn't have to work 1000x more than an American SE to get a job at Google HQ. Let the deserving be decided by their ability for the job rather than their birthplace. It bothers me how we neglect to work towards a borderless planet. Sure, it wouldn't make sense in terms of economy, politics, and a lot of other things in the beginning, but shouldn't we at least be talking about it and envisioning it, and we even work towards formulating the logistics involved?
- RestlessMind 10y ago
  If you want to disregard economics, politics and a lot of other things (which is a big assumption, but let's continue with it), lets start with the first principles - why do you advocate borderless planet? Whats so compelling about it?
  - Curious42 10y ago
    I'm not disregarding it. I'm suggesting we should be working towards formulating economics, politics and everything else which works out for a borderless planet. In regards to why I advocate it - like I said, the way the system works today, some people have more privilege than the others, and this isn't by choice. We should be trying to bring everyone upto the same datum, not the other way around. While the current visa systems are not the texbook definition of discrimination, we are in some way still limiting people's choices based on the land they were born in. If we're talking first principles, a human should be able to roam wherever he chooses. Of course, this isn't an ideal world, and I'm not advocating for terrorists to be able to make it through wherever they wish, but I'm sure if thought hard enough, we'll be able to come up with a system that ensures that a couple of groups of terrorist, and a few other kinds of knobheads don't pull their entire nations down. But right now, we're working in the opposite direction.
    - 10y ago

themagician 10y ago

It's more common among young people because they aren't yet invested in entitlements. Most people think of SS and other entitlements as being something they have earned and they don't want them shared with others. Everyone wants a handout. Most people just want to pretend like they earned it.

ap3 10y ago
How else would one view the Social Security program that you are paying into? You can even go into SSA.gov and see how much you have "earned".
- lend000 10y ago
  Except that it won't be around when I qualify. World's biggest ponzi scheme.
- ajdlinux 10y ago
  It's interesting looking at the US Social Security system coming from a country (Australia) where the social security system doesn't have the facade of being a contributory system and is funded entirely out of general tax revenue - there's no such thing as "paying in" to the social security system. There's still a bit of an attitude of "I've paid my taxes, now I deserve my pension", but the system doesn't act as a piggy bank for you to save up over time. (For that, we have a mandatory minimum 9.5% superannuation/401k-equivalent contribution that you invest in shares/property/bonds etc.) In my mind, this is fairer than the US system, but there is a good case to be made that keeping elements of a "contributory" system helps to maintain political support for the welfare state among people who are a bit more, um, selfish. (An interesting piece I read a while ago that describes how the "contributory" nature of Australia's social security system in the 1940s was actually just a cover for a general tax increase: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-27/berg-chifleys-political-time-bomb-70-years-in-the-making/5480154 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-27/berg-chifleys-politica...)
  - davidgay 10y ago
    > where the social security system doesn't have the facade of being a contributory system and is funded entirely out of general tax revenue So I'm curious: can you move to Australia at 64, work for one year, retire, and receive a full income from social security?
    - jamestnz 10y ago
      Not certain about Australia, but here in NZ we call it "NZ Super" (or just "the pension") instead of "social security". It is a universal superannuation which kicks in at age 65, is not means-tested, and is paid in the same amount to everyone who qualifies. The money that the fund invests/disburses comes from an annual government contribution to the NZ Super Fund, determined by some legislated formula. Individual workers/earners don't "pay into" it in any way that is separately taxed or monitored. To collect the pension you simply need to be lawfully living in the country (e.g. citizen or permanent resident status), have made NZ your primary/main country of residence (usually by living and working here), and you must have lived in New Zealand for 10 years since the age of 20, of which five of the years must have been since the aged of 50 years. If the above applies to you, you should sign on and start getting your $792.34 per fortnight :-)
      - ajdlinux 10y ago
        Over in Australia, "social security" is merely the technical name for all of the government welfare programs handled by the Department of Human Services, including Age Pension, Youth Allowance (study benefits), Newstart Allowance (unemployment benefits), Disability Support Pension and so on and so forth. No-one really uses the term "social security" unless you're reading the legislation. With no further qualification, "the pension" means the Age Pension. What we call "super" you'd call KiwiSaver, except over here it's mandatory. I suspect the NZ use of the term "superannuation" is probably closer to the original/traditional use of the term.
    - ajdlinux 10y ago
      There is a residency requirement. But no requirement that during that residency period you actually need to be working or otherwise "contributing" to the system.
- jamestnz 10y ago
  >How else would one view the Social Security program that you are paying into? I'm certainly no expert, but that sounds more like a description of an IRA or 401K, I think. As far as I know, the social security program in the US isn't actually structured in such a way that each person's SS taxes are going into an individual investment account under their own name (despite the "how much I've earned" statements which might seem to suggest this). In fact, the SS taxes being collected right now from you and the entire current generation of earners, are going directly to the current generation of retirees. So rather than being a career-long savings/investment scheme where your own money comes back to you at the end, it is actually implemented as a wealth transfer scheme from the current generation of earners to the current generation of retirees. Some years the fund might book a surplus (more taxes raised than benefits paid) and in some years a deficit. But I agree that it seems to be a common view (or perhaps just metaphor) that people's own SS taxes are being accrued against their name for later payback as benefits. But as far as I can tell, social security has never worked that way and wasn't designed to.
  - toast0 10y ago
    > As far as I know, the social security program in the US isn't actually structured in such a way that each person's SS taxes are going into an individual investment account under their own name (despite the "how much I've earned" statements which might seem to suggest this). It's not structured that way, but you do need to 'earn credits' to establish eligibility for benefits, and the benefits are calculated with a formula based on the amount of your wages that were subject to social security tax; and the official name is old age insurance. It certainly feels like it's retirement insurance that you pay into while you're working, and get the benefits should you live long enough.
- closeparen 10y ago
  As a wealth transfer from the young to the old. I don't think any Millennial pays into Social Security under the delusion that they will ever get anything back. The program is on track to be insolvent once it's done serving the generation currently in power.
  - meddlepal 10y ago
    Agreed. I see thousands of dollars go into SS that I will never see come back.

geofft 10y ago

This seems like a reply with relatively little information content: lots of people who haven't thought about consequences agree with all sorts of political opinions. I could easily accuse young people who wear any candidate's or political concept's apparel of wanting to display their virtuous radicalism, but that's hardly a useful criticism of the candidate or concept. I suppose you're attempting to imply that people who have thought about the consequences, or who do care, or who are old people who have had to pay for the bad consequences of people's actions, are unlikely to agree. Is there a reason, is there evidence, to believe that much more interesting claim? Or is this merely an accusation of "virtue signaling"?

Curious42 10y ago

I'm not sure I fully understand your POV right, but I hope you're not suggesting that a person born within the confinement of certain national border should have the privilege of being a bigger priority when chosen for work within the same border confinement. That's a bit ridiculous. A Syrian Software Engineer shouldn't have to work 1000x more than an American SE to get a job at Google HQ. Let the deserving be decided by their ability for the job rather than their birthplace. It bothers me how we neglect to work towards a borderless planet. Sure, it wouldn't make sense in terms of economy, politics, and a lot of other things in the beginning, but shouldn't we at least be talking about it and envisioning it, and we even work towards formulating the logistics involved?

RestlessMind 10y ago
If you want to disregard economics, politics and a lot of other things (which is a big assumption, but let's continue with it), lets start with the first principles - why do you advocate borderless planet? Whats so compelling about it?
- Curious42 10y ago
  I'm not disregarding it. I'm suggesting we should be working towards formulating economics, politics and everything else which works out for a borderless planet. In regards to why I advocate it - like I said, the way the system works today, some people have more privilege than the others, and this isn't by choice. We should be trying to bring everyone upto the same datum, not the other way around. While the current visa systems are not the texbook definition of discrimination, we are in some way still limiting people's choices based on the land they were born in. If we're talking first principles, a human should be able to roam wherever he chooses. Of course, this isn't an ideal world, and I'm not advocating for terrorists to be able to make it through wherever they wish, but I'm sure if thought hard enough, we'll be able to come up with a system that ensures that a couple of groups of terrorist, and a few other kinds of knobheads don't pull their entire nations down. But right now, we're working in the opposite direction.
  - 10y ago