Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think the idea that a technologically advanced species should work more than it plays, in life, is a complete fucking waste and ungratefulness of the gift we've been handed
I kind of agree. Here's the thing. We have accepted that we are required to work for a living, but there's actually less work to do. Most production is automated, most customer service is automated.
Accepted in the sense that we havent yet set up a special council or meeting of the minds and done the work to restructure society from its bedrock....I think the idea that a technologically advanced species should work more than it plays, in life, is a complete fucking waste and ungratefulness of the gift we've been handed
I kind of agree. Here's the thing. We have accepted that we are required to work for a living, but there's actually less work to do. Most production is automated, most customer service is automated.
As life expectancy rises and birthrates decline, the ratio is getting worse..
Life expectancy has remained largely flat since 1980 and currently stands at 78.
You want to turn it into a welfare program?
Careful, you'll reduce support for it.
How would it be a welfare program if you pay into it? If you're paying into it, you're earning an entitlement. Welfare is what Conservatives use to balance their budgets.
“If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations
DERP!
What do you think this proves?
A bit. Not enough to push back the depletion of the trust fund more than a few years.
So you don't know. Why am I not surprised? BTW - according to the links I provided, it would push it out 75 years. That's according to the PBS article I posted. You know, the one you read but didn't understand?
So you're just pulling this out of your ass. Why do you do that, anyway? Why do you have a compulsion to respond when you don't know what you're talking about? You do that often, BTW. You make wild claims, then refuse to back them up. You use deliberately vague words and phrases, to give yourself wiggle room on the parameters. Or you just make shit up. Bitch move. Pretty transparent, and very, very lazy and sloppy. And indicative of what you really are; a shitty propagandist. You're not even good at it. That's what's so disappointing.
You double the tax collected from someone, you double (not exactly, close enough) the benefits they are due.
Says who?
Rich guy pays twice as much, five times as much, ten times as much into it, but gets an identical benefit.....no longer an "insurance program". Sorry.
Life expectancy in 1980 was 73.61 years in 2015 it was 78.74 years, that's nearly a 7% increase, IMHO you need to work on your definition of "largely flat" since the curve between the two years is distinctly upward sloping.As life expectancy rises and birthrates decline, the ratio is getting worse..
Life expectancy has remained largely flat since 1980 and currently stands at 78.
How would it be a welfare program if you pay into it? If you're paying into it, you're earning an entitlement. Welfare is what Conservatives use to balance their budgets.
Currently the base changes. Tread softly.
The Heritage analysis, based on the SSA's own projections, shows that eliminating the cap on wages subject to the Social Security tax would generate only enough revenue to push back the date of the system's bankruptcy a few years. It would be the largest tax increase in U.S. historySSA
Life expectancy in 1980 was 73.61 years in 2015 it was 78.74 years, that's nearly a 7% increase, IMHO you need to work on your definition of "largely flat" since the curve between the two years is distinctly upward sloping.
What do you call it when one person pays in X + Y and another person pays in X but both receive the exact same benefit amount? isn't the second person receiving a handout of some portion of Y? how does the second person become "entitled" to that portion of Y?
So you don't know.
The Heritage analysis, based on the SSA's own projections, shows that eliminating the cap on wages subject to the Social Security tax would generate only enough revenue to push back the date of the system's bankruptcy a few years. It would be the largest tax increase in U.S. history
That wasn't your assertion, your assertion was "largely flat" the curve isn't largely flat by any reasonable interpretation since I think any reasonable person would conclude that a 7% increase in their expected lifespan isn't insignificant.Life expectancy in 1980 was 73.61 years in 2015 it was 78.74 years, that's nearly a 7% increase, IMHO you need to work on your definition of "largely flat" since the curve between the two years is distinctly upward sloping.
OK, and if you look at that within the overall historical trends, what is it you then see? Did life expectancy rise faster prior to 1980 than since?
What do you call it when one person pays in X + Y and another person pays in X but both receive the exact same benefit amount? isn't the second person receiving a handout of some portion of Y? how does the second person become "entitled" to that portion of Y?
^^So this isn't an economic or fiscal argument, this is an emotional argument.^^
You're a very emotionally unstable person, aren't you?
You're trying to make this an issue of "fairness" which is hysterical because that concept doesn't mean shit to you when it comes to taxes. So now you're suddenly all concerned about fairness? LOL! You expect me to believe that?
No, as a matter of fact, they didn't.Um, yeah, if these guys were striking for better equipment and better hours
Is that why they broke the law?
Well, no, they didn't. But never mind, you guys have your own history of why Reagan endangered air travelers and broke up the Middle Class being a good thing.
Is that why they broke the law?
Well, no, they didn't.
At 7 a.m. on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay, and a 32-hour workweek (a four-day week and a eight-hour day combined). In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In striking, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees.
Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia
You can put out whatever babble you want, but they had every right to strike to address working conditions that were putting safety at risk.
That wasn't your assertion, your assertion was "largely flat" the curve isn't largely flat by any reasonable interpretation since I think any reasonable person would conclude that a 7% increase in their expected lifespan isn't insignificant.
LOL, it's not an argument at all, it's a question designed to determine whether or not you understand the concept behind social welfare programs, apparently you don't since the best you could muster was an attempt at a vapid insult followed by a straw man construction project.
Not unless you don't understand statistics and margin of diminishing returns with respect to life expectancy.That wasn't your assertion, your assertion was "largely flat" the curve isn't largely flat by any reasonable interpretation since I think any reasonable person would conclude that a 7% increase in their expected lifespan isn't insignificant.
7% increase over 35 years isn't largely flat?
LOL, since we're comparing apples and oranges, why not throw in a comparison between the relative merits of traveling by jet versus holding your breath under water? HINT: just because the increase in two things are measured in annual percentage terms it doesn't mean that it's rational to compare their nominal growth rates.If the economy grew only 7% over 35 years, would you say that growth was largely flat? I would.
LOL, it's not an argument at all, it's a question designed to determine whether or not you understand the concept behind social welfare programs, apparently you don't since the best you could muster was an attempt at a vapid insult followed by a straw man construction project.
No, it's an emotional argument because it hinges on the "fairness" of capping benefits for high earners. That's the only argument you're making...that removing the cap on taxable SS income and capping benefits for high earners wouldn't be fair to the high earners. That's your argument. Nothing fiscal, nothing economic, just pure emotion and semantics.
If you are paying into an entitlement, then it's an entitlement. Welfare is something for nothing. Which is what Conservatives use to pay for their tax cuts.
Not unless you don't understand statistics and margin of diminishing returns with respect to life expectancy.
LOL, since we're comparing apples and oranges, why not throw in a comparison between the relative merits of traveling by jet versus holding your breath under water? HINT: just because the increase in two things are measured in annual percentage terms it doesn't mean that it's rational to compare their nominal growth rates.
LOL, I didn't even mention "fairness" nor did it even cross my mind....
How is that one person has to pay more for the same exact "entitlement" than another person? Isn't the first person subsidizing the second persons "entitlement" and isn't that the very definition of what's commonly known as a social welfare program?.
Uh-huh.... either that or you made an assertion without understanding the facts.Not unless you don't understand statistics and margin of diminishing returns with respect to life expectancy.
Well, that sounds like you're pulling right from your ass in order to win a semantic argument you can then use as a red herring to gaslight the actual discussion. But fine.
Actually you just described yourself but don't let it deter you from offering up non-sequiturs, perhaps if you do it enough you'll be able to convince somebody other than yourself that it makes sense.So this is "I'm going to apply my own personal standard to this argument without bothering to look at historical context because I'm a propagandist who can't formulate a coherent and cogent argument". That's basically it from you. No substance.
As per usual what the voices in your head told you I wrote is starkly different from what I actually wrote, if I were you I would get some new voices since the ones you have don't appear to comprehend English.Yes you did, whether you realize you did it or not.LOL, I didn't even mention "fairness" nor did it even cross my mind....
I made no such counter argument, I asked a question which you have been desperately trying to dodge.Your counter argument to my argument of removing the cap on taxable SS income is that you'd have to increase benefits for everyone.
As per usual what the voices in your head told you I wrote is starkly different from what I actually wrote, if I were you I would get some new voices since the ones you have don't appear to comprehend English.
I made no such counter argument, I asked a question which you have been desperately trying to dodge.
How is that one person has to pay more for the same exact "entitlement" than another person? Isn't the first person subsidizing the second persons "entitlement" and isn't that the very definition of what's commonly known as a social welfare program?.
How is that one person has to pay more for the same exact "entitlement" than another person?
Isn't the first person subsidizing the second persons "entitlement" and isn't that the very definition of what's commonly known as a social welfare program?
