Social Security and wealth.

[Brian37]

Again, how many people today would find it moral or credible if a man said about his wife, "I earn the most, I get to tell her what to do."

Nobody is denying he put in,  not the point. The point is it is still a pool, thus the word "social" and someone like Jeff with his money already have the "security'.

It isn't a matter of what he did, it is a matter of what someone that high up should want to do. Just like a moral husband isn't going to hold money issues over his wife if she is not draining him and he can afford it.

Social security was never meant to prop up billionaires. Saying once you have more than enough isn't a punishment to say others need it more than you do.  That is what "social" means. It isn't an argument to punish success.

But it sounds as though you’re the one advocating punishing success. If Jeff Bezos can’t draw the benefit because he’s already wealthy, isn’t that punishing him for being rich?

Boru

"Punishment" would be if any law we make made him broke without committing a crime. "Punishment" is hitting someone in the wallet to the point of hurting. If he quit tomorrow and didn't make another dime, he'd be able to spend millions per month for hundreds of years.

If I made what he did, I wouldn't give a shit less about not collecting social security because with that money, I wouldn't need it. It isn't about punishing, but perspective.

There was a time when social security did not  exist and wealth still existed. What social security did do when it became law was to protect the working class so that they would not be a financial burden on society. It really is simply a matter of perspective. Jeff Bezos isn't going to end up on cat food with what he has made in his life.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But it sounds as though you’re the one advocating punishing success. If Jeff Bezos can’t draw the benefit because he’s already wealthy, isn’t that punishing him for being rich?

Boru

"Punishment" would be if any law we make made him broke without committing a crime. "Punishment" is hitting someone in the wallet to the point of hurting. If he quit tomorrow and didn't make another dime, he'd be able to spend millions per month for hundreds of years.

If I made what he did, I wouldn't give a shit less about not collecting social security because with that money, I wouldn't need it. It isn't about punishing, but perspective.

There was a time when social security did not  exist and wealth still existed. What social security did do when it became law was to protect the working class so that they would not be a financial burden on society. It really is simply a matter of perspective. Jeff Bezos isn't going to end up on cat food with what he has made in his life.

First off, that’s a really bizarre way to define ‘punishment’.

Secondly, you’ve been asked a couple of times now where you’d draw the line, so what metric would you use to determine who gets the benefit and who doesn’t? For example, Joe lives in the city where things cost more. Jim lives in the country where things cost less. Should Joe get more than Jim?

Boru

[Fireball]

My apologies, Brian. I didn't take the time to make a more thoughtful response. It was uncalled for. 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

My apologies, Brian. I didn't take the time to make a more thoughtful response. It was uncalled for. 

Spoken like a gentleman.  

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

Having millionaires pay into Social Security without benefitting from it personally makes it a tax on the rich.

[Silver]

I’d have to marry my boyfriend to ensure I get decent social security later in life when I need it, all because I refuse to work myself to death to appease a system that only works for the one percent.

[Brian37]

Having millionaires pay into Social Security without benefitting from it personally makes it a tax on the rich.

Considering that minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour and hasn't changed in 5 billion years, and yes, that is sarcasm. 

If I were a billionaire who made say, 50 billion per year, and was taxed 25 billion, that would still leave me with 25 billion. I am really having a hard time trying to figure out how somebody cant live off of 25 billion.

[tackattack]

Having millionaires pay into Social Security without benefitting from it personally makes it a tax on the rich.

I wasn't suggesting they don't benefit from it, just that they contribute equally so all can benefit from it, without the caps to protect their wealth. I'm certain they're rich enough to get the lawyers and CPAs to find more loopholes though.

[Brian37]

Having millionaires pay into Social Security without benefitting from it personally makes it a tax on the rich.

I wasn't suggesting they don't benefit from it, just that they contribute equally so all can benefit from it, without the caps to protect their wealth. I'm certain they're rich enough to get the lawyers and CPAs to find more loopholes though.

The  top earners simply obey the same laws. YES, nobody is arguing they are not. 

I am arguing that they don't need it.  


NOBODY should argue against success. All I will ever argue is a matter of perspective. 

A "punishment" would be if raising taxes or saying "You don't need it" ended the top on cat food. Nobody sane thinks billionaires or millionaires are going to end up eating cat food living in cardboard boxes.

Outside even America, there is not one nation, friend or foe, open or closed state, that does not invest in the global market. It is not my idea of global competition to let China's authoritarian capitalism beat us by driving down labor costs globally just so we can have cheap Walmart crap and burner cell phones.

No sorry, the rich DO NOT contribute equally. China's billionaires don't and our billionaires dont.

The math in every nation is the same, you have those with money and power, whom constitute the few, and the majority of labor those powers make money off of.

[tackattack]

But the problem is the rich make laws and caps that protect their wealth Brian, and have the wealth to get out of paying what little they are required to pay. I was simply pointing out that an SSI cap and gaping loopholes in estate tax are 2 simple examples of the wealthy protecting their wealth and identifying a path towards more equanimity of outcome by removing protections that prevent equality of opportunity.