3 ms·

>It must be this way because otherwise it'd be that very high earning people help the poor to a vastly greater extent than the average person does, just by turn

by magduf 7y ago

>It must be this way because otherwise it'd be that very high earning people help the poor to a vastly greater extent than the average person does, just by turning up to work every day and paying their taxes. This would only make sense if paying taxes actually helped the poor. In America, it doesn't really follow. There's not much of a social safety net here. For proof, all you have to do is walk around various large cities' downtowns and see all the homeless people. There's thousands of them within a very short walking distance of the White House and Capitol buildings in DC.

thu2111 7y ago
The USA spends about 25% of the entire federal budget on social security, or nearly a trillion dollars. Sure, America is very large. It may not be 'much' of a social safety net relative to other countries. But it's still the case that the rich subsidise the poor to a very large degree, in any western country.
- magduf 7y ago
  This is disingenuous. Social security has multiple components, but the main one people think of is called "OASDI", and is a government-run retirement program, not a social safety net. It's paid for by individuals over their working careers through a separate tax (called FICA), and then when retired, they draw out of it, based on what they contributed. Someone who contributes nothing to SS gets nothing out of it, while someone with a high income gets a relatively large pension check. It's not helping the poor much at all. It's just a guaranteed but generally poor-return investment that's mandatory for all working adults. There are some other components administered by the same agency, including TANF, SCHIP, and Medicare, so yes there is some safety net there, but relative to other western countries it's rather poor. If it weren't, we wouldn't have so many homeless people. America is NOT like western European nations.
  - thu2111 7y ago
    The rich will bail out state pensions when they go bankrupt, and effectively already do via implicitly backing state debts. In the end, all social security is a wealth transfer from rich to poor. Even rich employees become much (money) poorer when they retire. That's not a criticism, just an observation.

by magduf 7y ago

thu2111 7y ago

The USA spends about 25% of the entire federal budget on social security, or nearly a trillion dollars. Sure, America is very large. It may not be 'much' of a social safety net relative to other countries. But it's still the case that the rich subsidise the poor to a very large degree, in any western country.

magduf 7y ago
This is disingenuous. Social security has multiple components, but the main one people think of is called "OASDI", and is a government-run retirement program, not a social safety net. It's paid for by individuals over their working careers through a separate tax (called FICA), and then when retired, they draw out of it, based on what they contributed. Someone who contributes nothing to SS gets nothing out of it, while someone with a high income gets a relatively large pension check. It's not helping the poor much at all. It's just a guaranteed but generally poor-return investment that's mandatory for all working adults. There are some other components administered by the same agency, including TANF, SCHIP, and Medicare, so yes there is some safety net there, but relative to other western countries it's rather poor. If it weren't, we wouldn't have so many homeless people. America is NOT like western European nations.
- thu2111 7y ago
  The rich will bail out state pensions when they go bankrupt, and effectively already do via implicitly backing state debts. In the end, all social security is a wealth transfer from rich to poor. Even rich employees become much (money) poorer when they retire. That's not a criticism, just an observation.