Iain Duncan Smith says he “would encourage” elderly people who can well afford to pay for their their own heating bills, bus passes and television licences to return the money to the state.ADDED: Is shame something that can be re-instilled? It's common to generate shame about something we haven't previously felt shame about — like not recycling or thinking that gay sex is shameful. But when you've got something people used to feel ashamed of, and you've convinced them not to be ashamed anymore, I think it might be close to impossible to make them feel ashamed once again. I want to talk about the nature of shame. Is it subject to resurrection? Or, once dead, does it stay dead?
April 28, 2013
There was a time when people felt shame accepting a handout.
We moved beyond that, normalizing the sense of entitlement. But what if you wanted to restore that shame... some of it anyway?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
222 comments:
1 – 200 of 222 Newer› Newest»If you take Social Security you're supposed to feel shame.
Let's "encourage" people. That'll work.
When people see others taking unneeded handouts, they feel taken advantage of. One response to that is to take more handouts yourself to get some of your money back.
I remember seeing an article where Lefties were stunned (stunned, I say) that Felix Frankfurter's widow would rather be poor than go on "relief", as it was then called.
You'd have to restore people's sense of their own ability to produce (as opposed to self-esteem) and their pride in their own self-reliance. Also the good old Protestant work ethic would have to come back.
Most of all, you'd have to restore social approbation - yes, shame - over a lot of things - drug use, illegitimacy, sex out of wedlock - all the things we had when the country worked. Getting rid of the Welfare State, so people couldn't count on the "Safety Net", which doesn't exist anyway, would be a necessity, making people have to rely on their own efforts.
Not for nothing did Teddy Kennedy speak of a War on Individualism because that's what we've had the last 80 years.
They're kidding, aren't they?
They undermined the Judeo-Christian work ethic and especially worked to jettison shame in accepting handouts.
Now they are a positive right, money owed to them merely for existing. Brits on the dole talk about "payday" literally, as if they are getting what's owed them.
The same is happening here in the US, by design.
They count on a few remaining dipshits who still believe in self sufficiency to keep their noses to the grindstone and pay for it all.
But the numbers no longer add up, as the marginal revolution ate into the base of makers, and taking became the smart road to take.
Obama's life is a chief example. Never an honest day's work in his life, now ruler of the once free world.
Obamaphones, Obamafarms, Obamacare.
Too late, much too late now.
It's true. You can only keep up a welfare state if societal pressure encourages people to work.
Another thing going on here is several companies (Starbucks, Amazon) paid little or no UK taxes last year, legally and according to the tax code. But there has been
an active shaming campaign against them in an attempt to get them to pay anyway.
Its weird because there is so little talk about the tax code being to blame. It's all about the scoundrels following the tax code.
To answer your question, the Victorian era tells me societies can swing back to find something shameful again that had been de-shamed.
Maybe, MayBee.
Maybe.
Why should they return money that was stolen from them in the first place? It's not a handout but a "hand-back". There's no shame in receiving the benefits you are entitled to under the contract you were forced to participate in.
What Pogo said.
I'm speaking of American Social Security, not of the British dole or our welfare system.
The other thing is that if you take a handout, you are giving the other person or entity power over yourself, you are dependent. A defense against that is to minimize the value of the handout and denigrate the giver.
Shame is something that the younger generation has no concept of. Proof? This wearing of the pants down around the ass. Also, piercings in not the usual places.
Shame enforced by gossip is a social control mechanism. Without it people are free to do as they wish. Take away judgments of people's behavior and there are no limits short of the criminal code which is tough to maintain in the abstract.
Shame enforced by gossip is a social control mechanism. Without it people are free to do as they wish. Take away judgments of people's behavior and there are no limits short of the criminal code which is tough to maintain in the abstract.
madeleine said...
Why should they return money that was stolen from them in the first place? It's not a handout but a "hand-back". There's no shame in receiving the benefits you are entitled to under the contract you were forced to participate in.
Right, wrong, or indifferent, the money taken for Social Security went into the general fund as soon as it was withheld and was spent the second Congress got its hands on it.
Moreover, something like a year and a half on full Social Security benefits and you've gotten back every penny taken from you.
It's a Ponzi scheme. Always was, always will be.
it's all about manipulating the "little" people or just the people outside of government. The people in government are unique and special and deserve high pay and free perks for telling us all how to live.
"Everybody does it" is as good a justification as you will ever find.
Here's where socialism crashes on the shores of economic reality, every time.
Eventually, you've trained a majority of the population to be compliant sheep, waiting to be fed. But there's no money to feed them.
Where'd all the wealth go?
Shit, it was here a minute ago.
And then they realize, maybe for the first time, that the government cannot create wealth. Some moronic lefty professors may still think otherwise (e.g., Krugman), but that's not where productivity comes from, and never has.
Government discovers it is not, in fact, God.
So in time, the economy stagnates or even collapses (see: USSR). Then they have to try to beg you to work, to have kids, to behave like Western adults.
But begging fails. Then what?
'Stupid stupid rat creatures.'
If a nuclear weapon destroys L.A. and New York, you would see, if you weren't dead too, a lot more anger and then shame in America than we have today.
So, we can't restore shame to those areas and cultures which celebrate the absence of shame, but if those areas and their influence wane (via nuclear weapons or The New Plague or WhatEver), shame could spread among the areas it wasn't lost before and this spreading would indeed constitute a resurgence of shame.
Edutcher:
"Moreover, something like a year and a half on full Social Security benefits and you've gotten back every penny taken from you. "
You should double check your math. If you made $40,000 a year for 40 years, you and your employer paid in about $192,000.
As an older person, my attitude is becoming "take the money and run". I don't feel much confidence in SS, nor do I feel the government is careful with the money it gets. I don't think spending and underfunding can go on too much longer, so it is best to take advantage of what is offered while it lasts.
AJ Lynch said...
Moreover, something like a year and a half on full Social Security benefits and you've gotten back every penny taken from you.
You should double check your math. If you made $40,000 a year for 40 years, you and your employer paid in about $192,000.
That's what the Feds say.
I grant you the time frame may not be completely correct (1 or 2 years, more or less), but that's the answer you get and I can't remember it ever being disputed.
If you have something from the Feds to back it up, I'll happily stand corrected.
Great question, Annie. There's a good scene in the movie, Cinderella Man, when the boxer, James Braddock, repays welfare money he received when he was not making money. He was ashamed he had to take it. Our culture will not ressurect shame, it has to come from the family. The family of my youth instilled it, and the culture reinforced it. With the eroding family structure, I would say the Vegas odds are 250-1, absent some profound paradigm shift.
As an older person, my attitude is becoming "take the money and run".
Better run fast old man... legal thievery is still thievery.
edutcher said:
It's a Ponzi scheme. Always was, always will be.
Well, of course it is! I'm just saying there's a distinction between handouts and contractually agreed upon payments even though we all know the "contract" is just a big lie.
I guess the shame should come in not having been vociferous enough in our opposition to the "scheme" nor enthusiatic enough in our support for reform or abolition of it.
I believe Bill Clinton was the knockout blow for shame, a great lesson for our children!
Well, of course it is! I'm just saying there's a distinction between handouts and contractually agreed upon payments even though we all know the "contract" is just a big lie.
-------------------
not everyone buys this
or surrenders independence so easily as the fat boomers...
It is unlikely that anyone made $40,000 for 40 years. If you made $40,000 last year, you made about $7-8,000 40 years ago, assuming a dead-end job with no promotions.
I want to talk about the nature of shame. Is it subject to resurrection? Or, once dead, does it stay dead?
Your generation has spent the last 50 years doing everything it can to destroy the concept of shame.
"If it feels good, do it"
In order to have shame, you need to have a consensus of what is proper and appropriate behavior. The whole basis of multiculturalism is explicitly the rejection of such consensus.
Shame is born from morality and judgement, two other concepts the Boomers have done their best to destroy.
If shame ever does come back, it will probably begin as the Boomers sit in their retirement communities, as society continues to collapse, looking back at their efforts to destroy every single institution (except the welfare state) in Western Civilization.
Better run fast old man... legal thievery is still thievery.
When society breaks down the definition of thievery becomes rather loose. The money I would give up would go to what? Green industries that go bankrupt while while the founders prosper? Fraudulent Fannie Mae bonuses based on shady accounting? Enriching corrupt politicians and their friends?
I'd happily participate in shared sacrifice, but I don't see shared sacrifice anywhere in the near future, the system is too corrupt for that.
The Gerbil feels Shame. Richard Gere does Not.
We also need a lot less talk about Rights as Americans and a lot more talk about responsibilities as Americans.
Rights have morphed into precious inalienable entitlement rights to freebies.
Even when a pair of lifetime welfare parastites blow us up, we are subjected to unending lectures by our Ruling elites on the two Muslim brothers Rights as resident Americans not to be considered enemy...and how the surviving one is entitled by rights to free medical care, three 180K a year attorneys, and a 10 million plus trial deluxe.
And how wonderful our society is because we have the Elites and the Holy All-Wise 18th Century Constitution guiding us into the 21st Century.
Worst comes to worst, a 2nd Civil War happens before the whole country becomes Chicago or Detroit. The present Constitution is burned and a better one with a whole lot less rights for parasites and criminals is put in place.
If you take Social Security (or Medicare) you should feel shame.
You are taking welfare from others. The fact that you paid taxes that financed that welfare for others in the past in no way changes the fact that SS is welfare.
There is no "contract". Simply an income tax charged specifically on wages that can be spent in any way the govt sees fit. They can increase your payout or decrease it. They can stop it altogether. It is not yours by right. It is yours by charity.
If you need it, take it. If you don't, don't take it. It is welfare stolen from others at the point of a gun.
John Henry
When society breaks down the definition of thievery becomes rather loose.
That's the whole point. Although you have the causation reversed. When definitions are broken down (like having to refer to "traditional" marriage rather than just marriage) and/or rejected, society breaks down. The Left knows this, just look at their records in the French and rudssian revolutions.
The triumverate of evil in the modern Left is communism, deconstruction and multiculturalism.
The money I would give up would go to what?
to whatever the earner keeping it in his pocket decides...
we're not going to agree to work to 70 or 75 to feed fat wealthy boomers who want it all.
' When society breaks down the definition of thievery becomes rather loose. ... I'd happily participate in shared sacrifice, but I don't see shared sacrifice anywhere in the near future, the system is too corrupt for that. '
you best be careful what you wish for.
that's an ugly future once you're done looting and taking all you can get your hands on...
Moreover, something like a year and a half on full Social Security benefits and you've gotten back every penny taken from you.
Wrong. Someone retiring today, after working say 40 years at an average wage will NOT get back all of their SSN payments (remember, your employer matches what you pay out)
The only way a retiree "gets more back" is if one lumps in Medicare with it.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2011/01/06/will-you-get-back-your-social-security-taxes-in-retirement
a whole lot less rights for parasites and criminals is put in place.
One of the characters in Stirling's post-apocolyptic series comments on the absurdity of our cvilization taking wealth away from hardworking, productive members of society to support criminals in a life of leisure.
chuck said...
Better run fast old man... legal thievery is still thievery.
When society breaks down the definition of thievery becomes rather loose. The money I would give up would go to what? Green industries that go bankrupt while while the founders prosper? Fraudulent Fannie Mae bonuses based on shady accounting? Enriching corrupt politicians and their friends?
I'd happily participate in shared sacrifice, but I don't see shared sacrifice anywhere in the near future, the system is too corrupt for that.
I get Chuck's point here. At some sad point, not grabbing everything you can get will be an enormous disadvantage and probably is already.
I am small businessman and already own more guns and grain than most people. But if I started a green energy scam, I could loot enough to buy an estate in Uruguay, and then sit back sipping rum while the handful of decent remaining Americans fight it out with the mongrel hordes. You don't want the guy ahead of you in line to be the last Jew who escapes Nazi Germany.
like having to refer to "traditional" marriage rather than just marriage
----
you mean the traditional 'lifelong commitment' kind.
better spell that out.
The calculation on how much someone paid the govt in SS taxes is a bit complicated.
First, as someone pointed out, it is unlikely that someone earned $40m/yr for 40 years. Most likely started at a low wage and worked their way up. Also, the equivalent of $40m today is $7-8m 40 years ago due to inflation. (As someone else pointed out)
Second the amount taken has varied over time. In the 1960's it was around 4.5% combined employee/employer and has gradually risen to the current 14.7% (or so)
Third, many of the calculations I've seen do not assume any interest on the payments. If you set the same amount of money aside at, say, 4% average interest, it would have compounded wonderfully.
I once tried to calculate this in a spreadsheet, using applicable rates in each year and assuming increases in earnings plus inflation.
Then, I figured the distribution over 20 years (age 65-85)Remember that the undistributed portion still earns interest.
I came up with a number similar to SS payouts at the time. Within 10-20%.
John Henry
The fact that you paid taxes that financed that welfare for others in the past in no way changes the fact that SS is welfare.
Sorry, but I call Ragnar Danneskjöld on that.
you mean the traditional 'lifelong commitment' kind.
better spell that out.
I would indeed eliminate no fault divorce, and revamp "family law" to restore equity if made king for the day.
At some sad point, not grabbing everything you can get will be an enormous disadvantage and probably is already.
----
fine just be prepared to run fast/shoot straight/and hide quietly in your old age once you've gone through society's 'safety net' ...
Teams of dedicated doctors, surgically implanting all new-born babies with Shame Holes.
fine just be prepared to run fast/shoot straight/and hide quietly in your old age once you've gone through society's 'safety net' ...
You mean government's safety net, which has replace society's safety nets of family and religion.
Schools will teach Shame Hole care and cleanliness from an early age.
I would indeed eliminate no fault divorce, and revamp "family law" to restore equity if made king for the day.
----
doesn't take a king to tell the truth.
the traditional 'lifelong commitment' marriage needs to be specified these days if you're going to use loaded termS.
Adults will have spent all their lives with their Shame Hole. It will always be there, a reminder.
Shame kept the teenage pregnancy rate low for generations.
Shame kept the divorce rate low for generations.
Shame made parents keep their kids in line
Shame made people show up for church
Shame got the lazy out of bed
Shame was a strong govenor on the desires of men and women, a leash that kept them from doing what they wanted at the moment they wanted.
So, yes, shame is dead and cannot be resurrected. Too late.
It will be a Federal Crime for any Doctor to surgically close the Shame Hole.
Modesty will return. No One wants to look at your Shame Hole.
the traditional 'lifelong commitment' marriage needs to be specified these days
Today is my parents' 62nd wedding anniversary.
Mary said...
At some sad point, not grabbing everything you can get will be an enormous disadvantage and probably is already.
----
fine just be prepared to run fast/shoot straight/and hide quietly in your old age once you've gone through society's 'safety net' ...
Oh, but I am! And if I run out of ammunition, I am ready to set to with tomahawk and knife, if needed.
You mean government's safety net, which has replace society's safety nets of family and religion.
-----
I mean the societal safety net that now keeps the illegal thievery down.
Crooks vs the simply crooked.
normalizing the sense of entitlement.
Well, when you call federal wealth transfer programs "entitlements" yeah.
madeleine said...
It's a Ponzi scheme. Always was, always will be.
Well, of course it is! I'm just saying there's a distinction between handouts and contractually agreed upon payments even though we all know the "contract" is just a big lie.
I guess the shame should come in not having been vociferous enough in our opposition to the "scheme" nor enthusiatic enough in our support for reform or abolition of it.
In truth, if there were an opt-out, and you didn't take it, then one's shame would be justified, but the Feds want every penny they can get their hands on.
Deviants who fetishize the Shame Hole will rightly be seen as Outcasts.
Wrong. Someone retiring today, after working say 40 years at an average wage will NOT get back all of their SSN payments (remember, your employer matches what you pay out)
Since you didn't pay the employer portion, why is this relevant?
Was there ever a time when you would have felt shame about hiring a completely unqualified and untested man for a very serious life or death position of power? If so, can that shame be revived?
Oh, but I am! And if I run out of ammunition, I am ready to set to with tomahawk and knife, if needed.
----
lol.
I am grateful to all those stocking for end times and advertising their preparedness.
address please? there will be ongoing security tests...
The Shame Hole will Never Let You Forget.
Once something resides within the Shame Hole it will Never Leave the Shame Hole.
"Since you didn't pay the employer portion, why is this relevant?"
Of course you pay the employer portion. All the money made by the company is made by the employees, all this bills are paid by them.
All the money made by the company is made by the employees, all this bills are paid by them.
Nonsense
Calculating what your employer paid for you as something you paid in is silly and absurd.
Contemplation of Potential Shameful Acts will cause a Puckering Response: you cannot lie to your Shame Hole.
Since you didn't pay the employer portion, why is this relevant?
Because that would have been part of your salary.
Calculating what your employer paid for you as something you paid in is silly and absurd
geez, Jay, why do I assume you've never owned a business?
Shame is a form of risk; but, it is processed locally. It will not be resurrected, and corruption will be progressive, as long as we follow the redistributive change economic model (i.e. monopoly).
We cannot normalize involuntary exploitation and hope to avoid sabotaging character development, of both the benefactor and beneficiary.
In a redistributive change economic model, the "fish" rots from the head, corrupts the tail, which together consume the body.
stop paying.
stop taking.
independently support yourselves.
yes you can.
stop complaining.
geez, Jay, why do I assume you've never owned a business?
Uh, yeah, and the money paid wasn't by the employee.
Again, stop the absurdity.
Because that would have been part of your salary.
A ridiculous contention.
When someone has paid into the system all their life, particularly if they have money now they probably paid in a lot...
Why shouldn't they get money out?
Not that I disagree with the idea of instilling shame, or there being shame, or it being *valuable* that there is shame...
But you can't shame elders with money unless you shame everyone. The poor old person is also ashamed because they failed. You can't have one and not the other. You just can't.
Jay, You just don't understand business or economics. If the employer's portion was not paid by employers, then it would become part of the gross profit that companies would use to compete for labor, and would quickly raise wages. So it now comes out of wages.
Darleen -- trust me -- you have enough...
are we financially supporting your parents in this ponzi? why not you?
Why shouldn't they get money out?
----
that money is gone.
you're robbing the future because you got suckered into an unworkable scheme...
not a wise investment.
As to what people pay in and get back, it depends where you sit on the income distribution scale:
A married couple retiring last year, after both spouses earned average lifetime wages, paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.
Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration.
I hope you have something better than:
"Nonsense" and "A ridiculous contention".
Do you have anything that might convince us that we're wrong? That might help us get somewhere.
bagoh20 said...
Jay, You just don't understand business or economics
Right.
Totally right.
Note; you're talking "if" and I'm talking "is"
bagoh20 said...
Do you have anything that might convince us that we're wrong?
You mean other than the fact that when I take money out of my own pocket to pay for a tax for an employee, they didn't pay it?
bagoh20,
You seem to be confusing your worldview with what happens in large corporations.
Merely asserting that there is a 1:1 relationship that if the employer portion of taxes would go away the $ would go to wages is absurd.
shush jay...
in their entitled minds, they don't want to get it
'all your future monies belongs to us' -- now pay us what we've earrrrrrned.
lol. selling their independence so cheaply .
Here is a different article on this:
It’s true that workers fork over Social Security and Medicare taxes every payday. But under current law, over their lifetimes most Americans will get back substantially more from these programs then they’ve paid in, even after accounting for inflation and adjusting for interest you might have earned if you’d kept the money.
It is completely ridiculous to to suggest that if the Employer-portion of wage earnings for SS were removed everyone would get a 6.2% raise.
And screaming "that's my money" is pathetic.
Simple embarrassment would provide incentive for many young "slackers" to put more effort into finding a job.
For example:Changing food stamps from looking like play money into a debit card thing lowered the shame or embarrassment factor.
People who have lived a productive life are more likely to be ashamed or embarrassed to be on welfare because of layoff or other reasons beyond their control.
People who denigrate "fat rich selfish baby boomers" tend to project their hatred for their parents and grandparents, similar to the way "rich baby boomer" Bill Ayers rebelled against "the establishment"
I seem to remember 4 decades of Social Security and Medicare tax.
I'm a pragmatist and see little way to fix the mess politicians have got us in without means testing SS and Medicare (Medicare already is). But I resent liberals equating these programs with welfare. Is Duncan Smith stupid or disingenuous?
Jay, you're being silly. Everything that the employer pays directly for each employee... like social security and benefits and health insurance, come out of the money the employee brings to the company and is part of the compensation. It's just shifted around. If employers paid zero and employees paid everything the employees would have to be paid about twice as much (because "benefits" about double the cost to the employer of even having the employee.) Or employers could pay all of it and employees would get correspondingly less because the total cost of employing that person would have to stay the same.
Darleen -- trust me -- you have enough...
are we financially supporting your parents in this ponzi? why not you?
How sweet and predictable. The State encourages class warfare and you just suck it up.
"It is completely ridiculous to to suggest that if the Employer-portion of wage earnings for SS were removed everyone would get a 6.2% raise."
That changes would immediately result in exact readjustment and balance is ridiculous... but no one claimed that.
Only that the whole amount is part of employee compensation, no matter if the employer pays it before the employee sees it or not.
I did not know this:
the SSA announced that it is ending payment by paper checks on March 1, 2013.
Which is good news.
It is completely ridiculous to to suggest that if the Employer-portion of wage earnings for SS were removed everyone would get a 6.2% raise.
No, YOU are pathetically ignorant of how a business makes a decision on hiring & how total compensation packages work into that.
The employer part of SSN is part of the package (and considered a business expense as it is counted by Gov as income to the employee .. hence why up to 50% of SSN benefits are taxable since the 1980's since Congress wanted to "recapture" that untaxed income)
Businesses don't make employee compensation package decisions in a vacuum. If SSN disappeared totally tomorrow, all businesses would need to decide if they want to raise their employees salaries or keep the money for themselves risking losing employees to businesses that WOULD pass on the $ to their employees.
Synova,
People claiming that the employer portion should be counted as your tax paid, and "benefit" are indeed claiming if the employer portion would remove that money would all go to your salary.
You can't really claim one without the other.
If SSN disappeared totally tomorrow, all businesses would need to decide if they want to raise their employees salaries or keep the money for themselves risking losing employees to businesses that WOULD pass on the $ to their employees.
You just made my point for me.
I would add to that, that business would also evaluate expanding and/or hiring more employees.
I was lied to. All I want is all the money I paid in. One lump sum. That's all. They don't even have to pay me the interest. Just the money they forcefully took from me. They don't even have to give it back in dollars. I'll take federally held property.
Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, etc., a.s.o., are all "welfare" programs and should be regarded and debated as such. Maybe we will decide to keep them as they are, maybe not, but calling them other than what they are is not going to be helpful in reaching rational decisions.
Jay - All taxes paid by business come out of the hide of individuals. FICA from the worker, corporate taxes from consumers and shareholders.
I thought you were smart enough to know that.
How it works is that some employers who need employees would start using that extra money to win them and keep them. Other employers will need to match that or lose them, and eventually all employers and employees are operating at a higher wage level. This is why taxes are so bad for workers, no matter who they are aimed at. The workers always pay them eventually.
Original Mike said...
Jay - All taxes paid by business come out of the hide of individuals. FICA from the worker, corporate taxes from consumers and shareholders.
This isn't even part of the discussion.
How are social security benefits calculated for each individual?
It should also be pointed out that when the state takes over the welfare system, the system must be managed by paid employees working in buildings constructed for the purpose, etc., i.e., there are overhead costs that also must be paid for by taxes.
bagoh,
I'm not disputing generally speaking there would be wage inflation if the employer portion of the SS payroll tax were eliminated.
What I'm saying is: every working adult would not get an automatic 6.2% raise, and assuming said 6.2% is therefore to be assumed to be a tax that said employee paid, is silly.
bagoh20 wrote:
How it works is that some employers who need employees would start using that extra money to win them and keep them. Other employers will need to match that or lose them, and eventually all employers and employees are operating at a higher wage level.
In theory that's how it would work, but that assumes that there is no scarcity in jobs and that people can shop around from company to company getting the best salary. When in fact a company could use the money to restructure or pay CEO's more and not pay the individual higher salaries at all.
It would be nice if someone from the Social Security Administration held a press conference and said:
"The Employer portion of Social Security tax is a tax on labor employers pay so current Social Security recipients can go to the bingo and on cruises" to clear up this confusion...
"What I'm saying is: every working adult would not get an automatic 6.2% raise, ..."
Of course they wouldn't.
"...and assuming said 6.2% is therefore to be assumed to be a tax that said employee paid, is silly."
Of course it's not silly. It is reasonable to assume, on average, that workers pay the "business" portion of SS. You're such an absolutist.
Is shame more shameful when it is monetized or eroticized?.....Just now I'm reading a biography of Yeats. Yeats is one of the few men in the world who had a more interesting sex life in his seventies than in his twenties. (Not coincidentally he is one of the few poets whose old age poetry is more lyrical than his youthful stuff.). Yeats was a virgin until he was thirty. That's not to say he was above the fray. He spent a considerable amount of time thinking of women and jerking off. In those pre Internet days masturbation was a tedious, time consuming activity. Yeats was thoroughly ashamed of his sex life, although technically speaking he didn't have one. Later on he became something of a player. He was married but gave a number of women a chance to demonstrate their love of poetry. He seemed to take comfort, even pride, in those activities although, to an outsider, they seem more shameful than masturbation.....I suppose we all have areas of shame but they differ according to age and class.......I was very poor for a number of years. I was very ashamed of that fact. It was public and humiliating unlike my various sexual flaws. On the whole (heh) I would say poverty is more shameful than horniness, but different strokes for different chokes.
But when you've got something people used to feel ashamed of, and you've convinced them not to be ashamed anymore, I think it might be close to impossible to make them feel ashamed once again. I want to talk about the nature of shame. Is it subject to resurrection?
Yes, but not top down, and not from the ruling caste. I think the resurrection of shame is bubbling around among the middle and lower-middle classes at the moment. In doing pro bono work, I've occasionally heard remarks from poor natives who used to have jobs and are now on welfare ("disability") expressing shame and remorse that they are not working -- that they are not the "kind" of person who lives in public housing, collecting SSI, etc. Not to say that they feel a full-fledged shame that they're sponging off complete strangers who have no choice in the matter, just that they have not completely fallen into the mindset that the money taken from others in tax is theirs by right. It's more a shame, really, that others might think they're the same as the able-bodied poor who are on some form of government assistance from cradle to grave. Because a lot of those people are just messed up.
I think if there is a resurrection of the old values of self-reliance, industry, and thrift, it will come through the churches. As an atheist and non-Christian, I find things like "have a blessed day" and appeals to my nonexistant Christianity somewhat irritating, but many of the poor natives do seem to have a strong attachment to Christianity, and -- one hopes -- to their churches.
You're such an absolutist.
Well, when someone says a specific dollar amount which can be calculated is "theirs" - yeah.
Synova wrote:
If employers paid zero and employees paid everything the employees would have to be paid about twice as much (because "benefits" about double the cost to the employer of even having the employee.)
They'd HAVE to be paid twice as much? Why would it be impossible for companies to not use that money to hire more workers or buy more equipment rather than pay the individual more?
Lets suppose that there is a company currently paying for healthcare that doesn't meet Obamacare standards. And are being told they will need to cough up more dough to cover the employees. So decide to opt out of paying for health care at all. We should expect that all current employees will get a raise?
What I'm saying is: every working adult would not get an automatic 6.2% raise, and assuming said 6.2% is therefore to be assumed to be a tax that said employee paid, is silly.
Then why is it on my pay stub every month?
bagoh20 wrote:
How it works is that some employers who need employees would start using that extra money to win them and keep them. Other employers will need to match that or lose them, and eventually all employers and employees are operating at a higher wage level.
So when companies do away with things like pensions the salaries of their employees rise at the exact same rate as the cost (to the companies) of the benefit that was taken away?
Does anyone see the Employer portion in here?
The calculation looks at your entire earnings history with inflation adjustments, chooses the 35 best years and finds your average indexed monthly earnings for those years. Then it applies a formula that typically comes to somewhere between 25% and 45% of this inflation-adjusted average.
...
earnings are wages and net earnings from self-employment. Other types of income, such as investment income, are not included.
??
Re: Jay:
You mean other than the fact that when I take money out of my own pocket to pay for a tax for an employee, they didn't pay it?
I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand. It's part of the total money the employer is willing to pay to secure the employee's services, and it's not an expense like facilities and a computer, which are connected with performance of those services. I.e. it's part of what the employee could capture in compensation if the government weren't taking it.
It's little different from other things that are paid for by the employer but count as compensation to the employee (the "perks" that are sometimes subject to taxation). Or like employee health care plans, which are essentially another species of compensation paid for directly from the employer's accounts.
Gahrie said...
Then why is it on my pay stub every month?
The employer paid portion of SS tax is on your paystub?
I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
Does the Social Security benefits formula include the taxes paid by employers on your behalf?
Re: jr565:
So when companies do away with things like pensions the salaries of their employees rise at the exact same rate as the cost (to the companies) of the benefit that was taken away?
Companies are willing to pay salary + FICA + pension contribution to secure employees' services. The employee is obviously willing to work for just salary + pension contribution, because he never sees FICA. And he may be willing to work for less depending on the value he placed on the pension contribution. If he is, he'll get paid the same salary. Otherwise, he'll negotiate an increase in pay, or quit.
"Well, when someone says a specific dollar amount which can be calculated is "theirs" - yeah."
So, what's your number? How much of the 6.2% is not attributable to the employee?
I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand. It's part of the total money the employer is willing to pay to secure the employee's services, and it's not an expense like facilities and a computer, which are connected with performance of those services. I.e. it's part of what the employee could capture in compensation if the government weren't taking it.
You seem to think I'm arguing against this theory or principle.
I'm not.
How many times do you want me to repeat myself?
Otherwise, he'll negotiate an increase in pay, or quit.
You really didn't answer the question.
Re: Jay:
Does the Social Security benefits formula include the taxes paid by employers on your behalf?
I . . . are you thick? Why would it? It's just a formula!!! The amount the employer pays is exactly equal to what you paid. If you input your salary into the formula, you can tell exactly what the employer paid. Or was supposed to pay. And it's not like there's some sound actuarial derivation for the formula. That's the point everyone has been making above.
Balfegor wrote:
Companies are willing to pay salary + FICA + pension contribution to secure employees' services. The employee is obviously willing to work for just salary + pension contribution, because he never sees FICA. And he may be willing to work for less depending on the value he placed on the pension contribution. If he is, he'll get paid the same salary. Otherwise, he'll negotiate an increase in pay, or quit.
Companies will pay the salaries that the market will bear. IF they don't have to pay a pension it doesn't mean that a worker will get a raise to cover the benefit that was lost. They can try to negotiate a better salary out of the deal, but they very well may find their ass on the street. There is no 1:1 correlation with benefits you receive on the job and the salary you would otherwise receive if you didn't get paid those benefits but instead got a salary.
Re: Jay:
You really didn't answer the question.
I thought my answer to jr565's question would have been obvious, given what I wrote above, but if you can't tell, the answer is:
Maybe. Maybe not. It depends.
And it's not like there's some sound actuarial derivation for the formula.
Huh?
The people above are claiming the full 12.4% is a tax they paid and therefore the benefits are theirs.
You are really, good at not answering questions.
Balfegor said...
Maybe. Maybe not. It depends.
Right, so why are you arguing with me?
Do you not understand that people are claiming that the 12.4 is money they paid?
And since the answer is "it depends" they are wrong?
Re: jr565:
Companies will pay the salaries that the market will bear. IF they don't have to pay a pension it doesn't mean that a worker will get a raise to cover the benefit that was lost. They can try to negotiate a better salary out of the deal, but they very well may find their ass on the street. There is no 1:1 correlation with benefits you receive on the job and the salary you would otherwise receive if you didn't get paid those benefits but instead got a salary.
The business was obviously willing to pay that much compensation before, but if other people will work for less, they'll pay them instead of you. Yes -- your ultimate compensation depends on what your competition will work for.
So my question is:
In your Social Security benefits calculation, does it assume that you paid 12.4% taxes in your earnings?
So when Social Security was mailing out those yearly statements -providing a personal record of the earnings on which you have paid Social Security taxes during your working years - why didn't it include an extra 6.2% since that would be like totally yours?
Edutcher,
Regarding social security:
I just did the math on myself. Actual numbers, actual payments. Breakeven for me is ten and a quarter years. That's raw dollars so it makes no allowance for lost earnings on those "contributions" or inflation for the lower value of the dollars I receive versus the dollars I contributed.
Original Mike,
the answer to your question is: It depends
I would look at it as: the Employer-portion: 6.2% of wage earnings, up to the maximum wage base of $113,700, is a wage tax for labor in America. It is not a contribution that translates into a benefit for a specific individual
People arguing that the employer portion is "for you" or "mine" are simply trying to justify that they will be drawing out more than they paid in. In my opinion.
I think he had Jay in mind:
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker’s game because they almost always turn out to be — or to be indistinguishable from — self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
Neal Stephenson
Cryptonomicon
On the other hand, Jay does represent a sample of what goes for rational discourse on the Isthmus. So he serves a useful purpose. Althousians do not have to visit that fever swamp to find out what goes on there.
John Henry
Re: Jay:
Do you not understand that people are claiming that the 12.4 is money they paid?
It's money that's part of their compensation, obviously, just like money spent on taxable perks is also part of their compensation. The fact that if those perks were taken away or if the FICA taxes were not required to be paid they wouldn't necessarily capture 100% of the resulting cash value doesn't mean it's not part of their compensation. When companies end taxable perks, I think it's pretty rare for employees to get the full value of those perks back in salary, but that doesn't mean they weren't taxable income.
Furthermore, it may not literally be paid out of their accounts, but, well, I don't pay my employee-side FICA payments either. They're also withheld from my paycheck and paid by my employer, from their accounts. At least, that's what they tell me.
Jay,
When your employer looks at you, what he sees is your total cost to him, salary, taxes, benefits, floorspace, electric bill and extra toilet paper.
I think you are one of these guys who just have to be right, no matter how wrong you are.
Smith's solution highlights how far the taint of Socialism has infected public discourse: Work all your life and when you retire, then turn the benefits you worked for and earned over to those who did not. This after a full working life supporting the same group.
Balfegor wrote:
It's money that's part of their compensation, obviously, just like money spent on taxable perks is also part of their compensation.
A pension is part of your compensation. But we all know that pensions are promised money often cannot be paid. California is learning this the hard way.
So, if we are talking about compensation, if its compensation that will bankrupt the state to honor, perhaps we shouldn't expect, realistically that such a deal will continue.
"People arguing that the employer portion is "for you" or "mine" are simply trying to justify that they will be drawing out more than they paid in. In my opinion."
I'm not trying to justify anything. The whole system is a pathetic excuse of a retirement system. I'm simply arguing for analytical simplicity.
Hagar said...
Jay,
When your employer looks at you, what he sees is your total cost to him, salary, taxes, benefits, floorspace, electric bill and extra toilet paper.
You seem to think I'm somehow disputing this.
When companies end taxable perks, I think it's pretty rare for employees to get the full value of those perks back in salary, but that doesn't mean they weren't taxable income.
Which is my point.
Why a few people are so inflamed about this is not clear to me.
Hagar said...
I think you are one of these guys who just have to be right, no matter how wrong you are.
I'm not wrong.
You're not addressing what I said.
"So when companies do away with things like pensions the salaries of their employees rise at the exact same rate as the cost (to the companies) of the benefit that was taken away?"
The problem with this is that pensions are often just promises that are not currently funded at a cost equivalent to the promise (value to the employee), but yes, the current real cost of having a pension would be used to retain employees if it was eliminated. It would be necessitated by your competitor either offering more money or a pension to lure away your labor.
If the employee could negotiate $100 worth of pension cost, why couldn't they just ask for the money without using the pension mechanism if the cost is the same to the company? One reason it's not 1:1 is that a pension creates loyalty, so the company is actually getting more than it's paying for in the short run, but in the long run it can be a company killer.
As both an employee and an employer, I prefer the cash up front to a promise, that I may not collect or be able to pay later. Keep it clean and simple.
The fact that you paid taxes that financed that welfare for others in the past in no way changes the fact that SS is welfare.
I would distinguish SS from welfare in that you are paying into a system that is supposed to give you money when you retire, and if you don't work for a requisite number of years you don't actually get the benefit.
Social security was specifically NOT desiged as welfare. It's supposed to work where you get out what you put in. However, the left is trying to change SS security so that it IS a welfare program. Many have argued that rich people should pay more into Social security but not get the additional benefit of putting extra money into the system. It should rather go to fund other people.
This is a useful example of what I'm saying:
When your employer looks at you, what he sees is your total cost to him... floorspace, electric bill and extra toilet paper.
Right. So if you become a teleworker, you get the costs the employer was paying for you in power & space, along with water & toilet paper back to you in wages, right?
If only that bastard LBJ didn't put Social Security into the general fund in a "Unified Budget" so he didn't have to raise taxes to pay for the war JFK started, we wouldn't be having this argument...
bagoh20 wrote:
If the employee could negotiate $100 worth of pension cost, why couldn't they just ask for the money without using the pension mechanism if the cost is the same to the company? One reason it's not 1:1 is that a pension creates loyalty, so the company is actually getting more than it's paying for in the short run, but in the long run it can be a company killer.
A company probably has tax advantages in offering pensions or 401ks. But if they weren't offered an employee wouldn't know exactly how much an employer would pay for "perks" and there is no reason that a company would have to compensate an employer with the same amount of cash. You might earn more in saliary than you did when you had all the perks, but your salary wouldn't be Salary + Cost of perks that employer doesn't have to pay.
jr,
Social Security is a welfare program, just a peculiarly designed one so that it could be sold for something other than what it is.
and yes Jay, working from home, I charge about twice what I would be getting working out of someone's office, and my clients are still getting a bargain!
"So if you become a teleworker, you get the costs the employer was paying for you in power & space, along with water & toilet paper back to you in wages, right?"
It's never that simple, but let's assume it is. The company converts half it's employees to telecommuting, and saves millions in costs. What do you think they will do with the money, put it under a mattress or invest it in growth?
If they choose growth, and this telecommuting is part of their success, then how do they get more telecommuting employees? How would they get costly non-telecommuters to switch?
They don't have to do anything unless they have competitors who have discovered the same savings. Once the competitors come, they have no choice but to negotiate higher pay. Remember the extra money was not going to the employee at all before, it was going to rent and support expenses.
In the best of all possible worlds, people will not feel shame about taking government handouts or any type of sexual excess. Shame will be restricted solely to feelings of Islamophobia after terror bombings. Perhaps we all have these feelings but no respectable person says them openly.
Hagar,
I would say that being a consultant is different than being an employee.
If Yahoo, Google, or Apple pays FTE's who don't come into the office more as a matter of policy, nobody would come to the office.
Still, the point stands.
bagoh,
It's never that simple,
Is exactly my point. Asserting the employer SS contribution is yours, is never that simple.
How would they get costly non-telecommuters to switch?
Tell them that they can no longer come to the office.
Work from home or find another job?
I don't know if I consider SS welfare, but I think it should be.
The idea that a country over $16 trillion in debt should be announcing to people who are 62 with sometimes millions in assets: Welcome to the golden years! Here's $1,185 a month in borrowed money, is crazy.
Competition is the mechanism, not costs. Just like everybody else, employers don't pay much more than they have to for labor or anything else. None of us insists on paying more than we have to for stuff we buy. That's why companies have to be tight. Their customers (YOU) won't pay them to over-compensate their employees. If you did, there would be no Wall-Marts, and China would be a wasteland.
It's hypocrisy or greed that people who overwhelmingly buy Chinese imports expect their American employers to pay them more than they have to.
I love it that Jay and Mary are so cozy in their stupidity.
"Work from home or find another job?"
So you lose good people (the most valuable and difficult asset to acquire), and you give them to your competitor at a discount. Good luck.
bagoh20 said...
So you lose good people (the most valuable and difficult asset to acquire), and you give them to your competitor at a discount.
Putting aside the merits of the decision - I'm merely pointing out there are options.
Inga said...
I love it that Jay and Mary are so cozy in their stupidity.
Right stupid shit, you could totally point out anything I said was wrong.
Really. You could.
I don't need to Jay, everyone ELSE already did, dummy:)
They don't have to do anything unless they have competitors who have discovered the same savings. Once the competitors come, they have no choice but to negotiate higher pay.
I would also point out that years of research shows that employee compensation ranks in the middle of the pack in terms of employee satisfaction.
Inga said...
I don't need to Jay, everyone ELSE already did, dummy:)
Keep telling yourself that, idiot.
Nice excuse, by the way.
"Putting aside the merits of the decision - I'm merely pointing out there are options."
Suicide is always an option.
Damn, this business stuff is hard. I thought you just cracked the whip, and counted the money.
bagoh20 said...
Suicide is always an option.
Right. Because companies never make decisions that employees think suck, and yet they still show up the next day.
Bagoh, you obviously didn't go to the Jay School of Biznes.
Speaking of telecommuting:
These were among the factors that led Ms. Mayer to announce last week that she was abolishing Yahoo’s work-from-home policy, saying that to create a new culture of innovation and collaboration at the company, employees had to report to work.
The announcement ignited a national debate over workplace flexibility — and within Yahoo has inspired much water cooler conversation and some concern.
Haven't seen much in terms of follow-up
Moreover, something like a year and a half on full Social Security benefits and you've gotten back every penny taken from you.
Bullshit. At least in my case. I'm going to be 57 this year. I started paying in to social security in 1972. Since 1978 I have been paying FICA up to the maximum is social security wages. Since the eighties as a business owner I have been paying the equivelant of the self-employed FICA of 12.4% to the maximum of the annual social security wage. I will be paying the maximum for another thirteen years until age seventy. I would have paid in for fifty two years just to be elegible for 25% of the maximum social security wage. Then I will be means tested. And if I am lucky I will collect for fifteen years based on the average mortality tables. I will never ever get back what I paid in.
Public sector employees work thirty years, collect thirty years at an average of 60% of their final pay and barely contribute. And people like RV and Garage wonder why private sector employees resent paying ever higher taxes just for their retirement.
Hahaha, Jay is trying to change the subject.
Inga said...
Hahaha, Jay is trying to change the subject.
Hey retard:
Remember when you so excitedly announced you weren't replying to me here?
why don't you show everyone how smart you are and point out what I said, I mean anything, is wrong?
It would be super exciting for you to demonstrate to everyone how wrong I am, wouldn't it?
So go ahead.
thanks.
Bage good observation but there is always a but. Depending on the bussiness in hard times employers wouldn't match if they didn't have to. In good times they could replace workers with off shoring or automation and pocket the difference.
Jay, don't be embarrassed. It's not your fault that you shoot your mouth off to commenters here who know their stuff, unlike you. It's been great fun seeing you slapped down by your betters here. It made my day actually :)
he company converts half it's employees to telecommuting, and saves millions in costs. What do you think they will do with the money, put it under a mattress or invest it in growth?
Is Obama still President in this scenario?
Because if so, they are sitting on the cash. Hiring has become too expensive with ObamaCare hitting us in 8 months.
Inga said...
Jay, don't be embarrassed. It's not your fault that you shoot your mouth off to commenters here who know their stuff, unlike you
Hey stupid shit:
Why do you think it is that you keep making these absurd generalities, and can't actually point to an example?
You're a silly, pathetic, woman. In your old age, you should find another hobby than being an Internet troll.
Meanwhile - Pigford.
I don't watch sunday news.
Did any of the major networks touch on the massive democrat-party sanctioned fraud -that will cost tax payer billions?
btw- in 2006 Obama voted to extend the Pigford fraud. I suspect the media will get real quiet about Pigford now. Bad NYT. BAD.
LOL! I love it.
Bage good observation but there is always a but. Depending on the bussiness in hard times employers wouldn't match if they didn't have to. In good times they could replace workers with off shoring or automation and pocket the difference.
Exactly! If you don't have to pay the extravagant benefits you've just lowered the dost of paying for labor. You don't NAVE to put the money back into labor to compensate for paying for a benefits package. It could go into restructuring or hiring more (lower paid) workers. IT's not an entitlement program offered by businesess.
Oh, shame can still be instilled in people. Our government does it every day.
Take the food-stamp recruiter in this WaPo article, for instance. She masterfully shames the shameful into taking food stamps. It's a psychological pick-pocket, really, because she artfully relieves the mark of his dignity and self-respect..
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-23/national/38763705_1_food-stamps-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-local-food-bank
he company converts half it's employees to telecommuting, and saves millions in costs. What do you think they will do with the money, put it under a mattress or invest it in growth?
Growth of what? Existing employers salaries or more employees at an existing or lower salary?
I've never considered the employer portion of the payroll tax something I contributed, nor does SS include it in as part of your wages.
So to me, claims that we need to include it regarding a payout of your benefits is bizarre.
"Because if so, they are sitting on the cash. Hiring has become too expensive with ObamaCare hitting us in 8 months"
I've already started warning my people that the normal raises and bonuses for 2013-2014 will probably not be materialize because of the cost of Obamacare. I'm not just blowing smoke; we've already run the numbers with our insurance carrier. It completely fucks up the successful and popular incentive system we've developed over years that relies on employees trusting management. Obamacare comes in and just takes it away, and gives them something less in it's place that they didn't even want. Incentive is shot to hell. Plus they will all be paying significantly more out of their own pocket. "This is what's known as bad luck."
As self-employed since 1978, yeah, I think it "IS" my money.
JR 565 said:
Social security was specifically NOT desiged as welfare.
Nope. SS was specifically designed as a tax and a welfare system.
It was not originally but was probably unconstitutional. Justice Harlan Stone told Frances Perkins at a tea party that the govt had unlimited taxing powers AND unlimited welfare powers.
SS was structured as a combination tax and welfare system.
See here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/tea.htm
It is why the Supremes had to find that Obamacare is a "tax" so they could call it constitutional.
John Henry
"Depending on the bussiness in hard times employers wouldn't match if they didn't have to."
There is no way around the market value of labor. If you want paid more than anyone is willing to pay you, then get a government job. Their customers are forced to buy that product regardless of price or quality, or if they even want it at all.
Tim said...
As self-employed since 1978, yeah, I think it "IS" my money.
I'm not talking about people in your situation
The SS program is an even worse scam for people like you.
bagoh,
I think the only hope is that somehow the people in DC agree to delay the implementation of this train wreck.
though the true believes will go wild if that happens.
"Incentive is shot to hell."
I've always believed that if you had to pick one attribute which characterizes liberals, it would be their inability to understand the concept of incentives.
it's all about manipulating the "little" people or just the people outside of government. The people in government are unique and special and deserve high pay and free perks for telling us all how to live.
Glyn Willmoth
Jay:
You're right. The employer portion of entitlement revenue, as well as other government revenue streams, are selectively classified and redistributed without regard for the law, contracts, or moral code. They is a simple tax wrapped in an emotional plea.
Still, at least it's an overt act of involuntary exploitation. Whereas the trillion dollar deficits are covert, progressive devaluations of capital and labor through currency debasement. Whereas welfare is processed through the conversion of producers to serve consumers, and advance the political, economic, and social standing of individuals and cooperatives who promise instant gratification.
That said, from the employee and employer's perspective, there is a material difference between contributory and non-contributory (i.e. welfare) entitlements. Since there is risk associated with the former, it is capable of acting to mitigate progressive corruption. Whereas the latter acts to create dissociation of risk, thereby causing corruption of both benefactors and beneficiaries.
So, the actual use and exploitation of revenue generated through any taxation or redistributive change scheme is secondary in importance to the character of its collection. This is why contributory entitlements can be tolerated, and non-contributory entitlements for purpose of rehabilitation are non-corrupting.
The effect of redistributive change economics on government and its agents is another matter. By design, it enjoys a unique dissociation of risk, which must be moderates in order to control corruption of its institutions and agents.
Jay, it looks like everyone with clout will find a way out. Us small businesses will get clobbered, first trying to implement, then trying to negotiate through the coming stutter steps, then left hanging when it collapses from it's own weight. All along the way the premiums and associated costs will explode, and you know what happens with stuff like that; the pendulum never swings back.
I expect this will be a boom for insurance companies, consultants, and lawyers in the long run. Battles small businesses just can't afford to fight, but large ones can. It's called "fairness" now days.
Will Obama voters ever feel shame? Will they admit it?
"Will Obama voters ever feel shame? Will they admit it?"
Let's ask Althouse!
Breaking organization entitlement is dirty work. It's hard for the leader and the entitled. I doubt we have the moral courage to do it. Or to stand by and watch the detox
Will Republicans ever feel shame for running McCain and Romney?
I expect this will be a boom for insurance companies, consultants, and lawyers in the long run.
Short run, maybe. Long run, like the railroads.
bagoh,
from my vantage point, employer sponsored health care in 2 years will be - "Here is an extra $100 a month, good luck to you"
I say this because:
Employers can terminate their employee coverage, give their workers a raise with part of the savings, and let the taxpayers bear the cost of subsidizing their coverage in the Exchange
Inga,
Now that's funny.
Off topic and pathetic, but funny.
've always believed that if you had to pick one attribute which characterizes liberals, it would be their inability to understand the concept of incentives.
When your self identity is wrapped up in being morally self-assured that you are right in telling other people what to do, incentives don't cross your mind.
Sorry Inga, I just now realized that you were responding to Original Mike. I retract my "off topic" comment.
Jay wrote:
I've never considered the employer portion of the payroll tax something I contributed, nor does SS include it in as part of your wages.
So to me, claims that we need to include it regarding a payout of your benefits is bizarre.
Even if we did include it, and even if we said it was included as part of your wages, it still shows how woefully unworable SS actually is. Because it's pay as you go, there is no lockbox.
So even if you assume that because you paid in (and included your employers contribution as YOUR benefit) it will require people working today to pay for the money you (and your employer put in) which has already LONG been spent.
And the workforce will not be there to fund the baby boomers retiring, who are demanding that they get a benefit that includes what they put in directly but also what their employer paid as a tax as a benefit that's owed them.
CWJ, even if I were not responding to OM, SHAME is on topic.
it still shows how woefully unworable SS actually is.
Yep.
And I love how liberals refer to Social Security as "the Most Successful Program in American History"
also, the point is kind of moot anyway considering that govt keeps changing benefits. From 1950 to the mid 80's congress raised benefits 8 times and in the 70's was indexed for inflation.
If your benefits are raised 8 times, then are you really getting back exactly what you put into the system?
Will Republicans ever feel shame for running McCain and Romney
Hopefully.
This former Republican does. But not nearly as much shame as the Left should feel for running and elected President Obama.
The man gives new meanuing to the term empty suit, and lives higher on the hofg than any president before on our dime. The only thing tempering my outrage is the anticipation of what history is eventually going to do to him.
You were right, CWJ. It was pathetic. McCain nor Romney have not presided over ObamaCare nor our economic "recovery". They might have done a bad job if they had been given a chance, but that's not what happened.
Also, a lot of whether you get back what you put in depends on your age and when you die. A lot of poorer people who have a tendency to die younger never see a dime of their benefit. Meanwhile people who live to 100 are almost certainly getting back more than they put into the system.
Post a Comment