Fixing social security

[Derek44]

Yes, because all rich or middle class people got that way knowing the basic math that giving away $1000 to save $300 in taxes is financially beneficial to them...

Not supposed to be beneficial to them. It’s charity.

Giving something only because it benefits the giver is not charity. By definition

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Not supposed to be beneficial to them. It’s charity.

Giving something only because it benefits the giver is not charity. By definition

Read what I said.

I was saying people do give for charitable reasons.

If you give a charity $1000 to save $300 (or about 30%), you aren't "saving" money.

You're still out the $700.

Jeez.

 

[Nameless Range]

Imagine what people could give voluntarily if they didn't have to pay so much in taxes.

To collectively get folks to do things for the greater good, laws and regulations are required. Pretty salient feature of society.

I think the nexus of where both libertarian and Communist thought fails, is a belief that human beings will voluntarily collectively act against their own interests for the greater good in a long term reliable way. One is an overestimation of the virtue of markets, the other a similar misjudgment of human propensity to abandon individual interest. Both are important, just not sacrosanct.

When it comes to social safety nets, I can idealize a sweet spot between the two where conversation is hard and interesting, but both fringes are a sort of utopia - the likely efficacy of each happens to be fictional.

Again, none of which means we shouldn’t have conversations about fixing that which is broken or is on its way to be broken or improving that which already exists.

 

[Derek44]

Read what I said.

I was saying people do give for charitable reasons.

If you give a charity $1000 to save $300, you aren't "saving" money.

You're still out the $700.

Jeez.

I did. Yes some people do give freely to charity.

But a higher number of people only give to receive what little benefit they can to cut the tax bill. Remove that benefit and charitable contributions will shrink nationwide. Again, I only state my opinion.

 

[Marshian]

Yes, because all rich or middle class people got that way knowing the basic math that giving away $1000 of their income to save $300 in taxes is financially beneficial to them...

It’s still better than nothing in return and many times, for me at least, it’s a bit of a nudge to push me over the edge. But my causes are usually pretty dear to me- conservation, cancer research, etc. One could say these are more sexy causes than beds for the homeless. People clearly donate if they thinks it’s God’s will and then the church can put that to these less glamorous charities. But church attendance is shrinking. So I understand that there will need to be a safety net. I don’t want bums passed out on my lawn, if for no better reason than it lowers my property values.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

To collectively get folks to do things for the greater good, laws and regulations are required. Pretty salient feature of society.

I think the nexus of where both libertarian and Communist thought fails, is a belief that human beings will voluntarily collectively act against their own interests for the greater good in a long term reliable way. One is an overestimation of the virtue of markets, the other a similar misjudgment of human propensity to abandon individual interest. Both are important, just not sacrosanct.

When it comes to social safety nets, I can idealize a sweet spot between the two where conversation is hard and interesting, but both fringes are a sort of utopia - the likely efficacy of each happens to be fictional.

Again, none of which means we shouldn’t have conversations about fixing that which is broken or is on its way to be broken.

I agree with some of this.

Your last paragraph is really where the meat of this is.

Is the way to solve or fix something that is mostly broken now and heading to being completely broken simply pumping more taxpayer money into it?

I say, no, it isn't.

Some say, yes, it is.

Others want to say that it isn't broken.

 

[SAJ-99]

Yeah, we advocate for crazy things like liberty, property rights and wanting the government to leave us the fck alone.

We don't think the federal reserve system is beneficial to the nation because we've seen what happens when we simply keep printing money we can't back up. Spending money you don't have has always ended well, right?

We would like if people had the freedom to give to charity only through voluntary means, not forcibly.

We don't think America should be the world's police force and would like to stay out of wars that don't directly tie to the defense of our country.

We have crazy ideas like striving towards a completely free market, absent of government interference and intrusion.

And us fascinating creatures think the 2nd Amendment is important to protecting our liberty.

And we don't blindly and naively trust the government to make the best use of our tax money.

We are fascinating...

But you always cash the check. Unless you give your SS check to your church?

 

[Hawk Tuah]

I did. Yes some people do give freely to charity.

But a higher number of people only give to receive what little benefit they can to cut the tax bill. Remove that benefit and charitable contributions will shrink nationwide. Again, I only state my opinion.

You think most people who give, as an example $1000 to a charity do it to save the $300...at the expense of the $700 they lose?

That's you're argument.

 

[Marshian]

You think most people who give, as an example $1000 to a charity do it to save the $300...at the expense of the $700 they lose?

That's you're argument.

Your argument is that for every one dollar you save on taxes, you will donate that dollar. And you assume most everyone will do the same. That seems even more unlikely.

 

[Derek44]

"Your mommy and daddy give you 10 dollars to open up a lemonade stand. So you go out and you buy cups and you buy lemons and you buy sugar..." -Oscar Martinez

Neighbor mommy and daddy give their child 5. All they have. Kid wastes it on a red bull and snickers bar. (Not everyone makes good decisions) now he’s broke and his parents are as well. This kid beats up the lemonade kid and takes his out of desperation. Not one dollar was given to taxes to support law enforcement so nothing can be done to said kid and he already proved he was stronger than the lemonade kid so…. Obviously hypothetical and extreme but you get the point. If only there was a touch of a safety net for the family that didn’t quite have enough to take care of their own, maybe some of the desperation crime could be avoided.

Anyway. None of this has to do with Social Security retirement. Sorry for the derail.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

But you always cash the check. Unless you give your SS check to your church?

What are you saying?

I cash SS checks? If I were of age to collect SS, you're damn right I'd cash it. I'd never get back what I put in, or even close to what I'd have gotten investing the money elsewhere.

So is your argument that libertarians shouldn't cash their SS checks? We somehow go from, "leave me and my money alone unless it is absolutely needed," to "please take my money."

I give more to faith based organizations each year than to SS taxes...not sure why you would bring up giving SS checks directly to church, although it is always interesting when people go straight to attacking a person's faith.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Neighbor mommy and daddy give their child 5. All they have. Kid wastes it on a red bull and snickers bar. (Not everyone makes good decisions) now he’s broke and his parents are as well. This kid beats up the lemonade kid and takes his out of desperation. Not one dollar was given to taxes to support law enforcement so nothing can be done to said kid and he already proved he was stronger than the lemonade kid so…. Obviously hypothetical and extreme but you get the point. If only there was a touch of a safety net for the family that didn’t quite have enough to take care of their own, maybe some of the desperation crime could be avoided.

Anyway. None of this has to do with Social Security retirement. Sorry for the derail.

Oh great, now you've regressed to not giving free handouts to people should mean they aren't culpable for the crimes they commit.

We really are getting somewhere...

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Your argument is that for every one dollar you save on taxes, you will donate that dollar. And you assume most everyone will do the same. That seems even more unlikely.

No it isn't.

 

[Derek44]

For an admiration in our countries education system, you seem to really have trouble reading

 

[Derek44]

In your utopia of no taxes no government I was saying that that fine beaver cleaver family would not have the protections provided from law enforcement services from the bigger stronger bad decision making family. Context sir. Context.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

For an admiration in our countries education system, you seem to really have trouble reading

So, by "admiration," I think you mean "administration." And I think by "countries" which is the plural, you mean "country's" which is possessive.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

In your utopia of no taxes no government I was saying that that fine beaver cleaver family would not have the protections provided from law enforcement services from the bigger stronger bad decision making family. Context sir. Context.

I don't think you understand libertarianism.

 

[Derek44]

So, by "admiration," I think you mean "administration." And I think by "countries" which is the plural, you mean "country's" which is possessive.

You’re absolutely correct. I’m not very educated and good at conveying my thoughts

And auto correct sucks when trying to type on a phone. My bad.

 

[Derek44]

I don't think you understand libertarianism

You’re right again. I really don’t. But if they have the pompous attitude that you exude. I sure won’t be learning about it and being recruited anytime soon

 

[brymoore]

Everyone is a Libertarian about taxes until the potholes on their road aren’t fixed.

SS isn’t going away. The easy solution is to eliminate the pay limit cap and increase the starting age. Neither party is going to do it.