4 ms·

Yup. I've said in other places that people who can have kids but don't probably shouldn't get social security.

by usrn 4y ago

anamax 4y ago
> Yup. I've said in other places that people who can have kids but don't probably shouldn't get social security. And you also said that such people shouldn't pay social security either, right? Moreover, they get a refund (with interest) for past payments when the determination is made.
- usrn 4y ago
  No. By not having kids you save a lot of time and money that should have gone into the future. That's your refund.
  - anamax 4y ago
    So, you want me to pay for my own retirement AND subsidize yours? And before you say "but you'll be relying on my kids", I'll be PAYING for my retirement. Just like you. The difference is that you think that you're entitled to my money to do so.
    - usrn 4y ago
      Yeah that's part of living in civilization. If you don't like it you can go live in Somalia. An alternative would be to just get rid of social security but that seems pretty unpopular. If you're going to have socialism you have to think through the issues like this.
      - anamax 4y ago
        Paying for you is part of civilization? Why isn't paying for ME part of civilization? Do you really want to claim that this is socialism?
        usrn 4y ago
        Yes, social security is collectivist. When you do something collectivist like this you have to be very careful about edge cases because they're rarely self correcting. It doesn't matter how much money you've saved up over your career if there's no production to spend it on. This is about paying for you, but that means someone has to be there to do trade goods/services for your money to make getting paid meaningful. Also you seem to think I'm some retired boomer. I'm unmarried, in my 20s, and facing the same taxes and issues you are. The practical realities of retirement require people be there to continue production. Otherwise we'll just have to keep working until we die no matter how we label or slice things. And again: by not having kids you're taking that payout early. This prevents you from getting paid twice.
        anamax 4y ago
        Making me pay into social security but not giving me the benefits is NOT "taking a payout" early or otherwise.

Yup. I've said in other places that people who can have kids but don't probably shouldn't get social security.

by usrn 4y ago

Yup. I've said in other places that people who can have kids but don't probably shouldn't get social security.

> Yup. I've said in other places that people who can have kids but don't probably shouldn't get social security. And you also said that such people shouldn't pay social security either, right? Moreover, they get a refund (with interest) for past payments when the determination is made.

usrn 4y ago
No. By not having kids you save a lot of time and money that should have gone into the future. That's your refund.
- anamax 4y ago
  So, you want me to pay for my own retirement AND subsidize yours? And before you say "but you'll be relying on my kids", I'll be PAYING for my retirement. Just like you. The difference is that you think that you're entitled to my money to do so.
  - usrn 4y ago
    Yeah that's part of living in civilization. If you don't like it you can go live in Somalia. An alternative would be to just get rid of social security but that seems pretty unpopular. If you're going to have socialism you have to think through the issues like this.
    - anamax 4y ago
      Paying for you is part of civilization? Why isn't paying for ME part of civilization? Do you really want to claim that this is socialism?
      - usrn 4y ago
        Yes, social security is collectivist. When you do something collectivist like this you have to be very careful about edge cases because they're rarely self correcting. It doesn't matter how much money you've saved up over your career if there's no production to spend it on. This is about paying for you, but that means someone has to be there to do trade goods/services for your money to make getting paid meaningful. Also you seem to think I'm some retired boomer. I'm unmarried, in my 20s, and facing the same taxes and issues you are. The practical realities of retirement require people be there to continue production. Otherwise we'll just have to keep working until we die no matter how we label or slice things. And again: by not having kids you're taking that payout early. This prevents you from getting paid twice.
        anamax 4y ago
        Making me pay into social security but not giving me the benefits is NOT "taking a payout" early or otherwise.