Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
It’s my body, not the governments
Options
Replies
-
I get the feeling people act like the reason that social security doesn't pay out as well as a 401k is because a 401k is privately managed and is efficient while SS is government slow and lumbering and inefficient and wasteful.
That isn't why. A 401k pays out more because when you put into the 401k that is your money which then comes back to you plus whatever interest. When you "put in" to social security it is a tax to support a welfare system that the entire nation is supported by.
Lets take Bob as an example. Bob was born in 1953 and is 65 years old, he is now retired. He worked from the age of 20 as a sewer maintenance worker. He never married or had children, he just worked that one job all of his life. He made inflation adjusted to 2018 $26k every year during that time. Making that much he contributed $1612 every year to social security. Given his after tax income was something like $20k which is $1600 a month, that he had very budget food ($300), rent ($800), health insurance ($300) and car insurance ($50) and car maintenance/gas ($50) to pay he was not able to save basically any money other than about $100 a month. He doesn't have a phone or internet or really any money at all for entertainment or any other such "extravagance."
When he retires social security will pay him $879 a month which is $10,548 a year...about 8 times more than he put in at $1612 a year. If he lives to 85 that would be 20 years of SS payout compared to 40 years worked so he'd get 4x the amount he invested in return. That with the $100 he squirreled away every month responsibly is just about enough to get a rent controlled studio and rice and beans for meals. Medicare covers his basic medical needs.
The fact that Bob gets 4 times more than he put in (or a 400% return even accounting for inflation) on his SS "investment" is why you and I don't get nearly as good of a "return" on our SS investment compared to something like a 401k that doesn't give a cent to Bob. That fact is also what allows Bob to survive and for us to continue to have a labor force paid at those rates that support our infrastructure.
Without social security Bob would have 20 years of unemployment with at maximum $48,000 in savings to survive off of which would be $100 a month. Chances are he'd have less than that given he would likely have had expenses along the way like having to buy another car or maybe buy some clothes now and again. How exactly would he have a roof over his head and food for that? Is that his fault? His failings? His problem?8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
So if there was no safety social net and you lost your investments after you could no longer work, you'd what? Lay down and die? I'm really curious to know what your exact expectations of those with no money and limited ability to earn more are.
This has nothing to do with "compassion," I'm asking about the practical consequences if we all adopted this as a matter of policy.
If I couldn't work and/or couldn't enjoy my life, then why not die?
What is the benefit to keeping around a host of people who cannot care for themselves?
We have the technology to keep people "alive" but are they living? I told my daughter that if I'm 100 and want black coffee and bacon for breakfast, I don't want her suggesting to me or others that I cannot have black coffee and bacon for breakfast.
I believe we spend the most on health care at the end of life for most folks. For what? A few more months of low quality life?
I'd rather have a nice scotch, some beautiful surroundings, and maybe something to ease my pain.
If all I am is a burden to others, maybe it's time to let me move on.
So yeah, if I screwed the pooch with my portfolio and can no longer work, I'm so broken in body and/or mind that I need adult supervision and support, it's time to let me go. There are 7+ billion on this planet, I'm not irreplaceable.
17 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
So if there was no safety social net and you lost your investments after you could no longer work, you'd what? Lay down and die? I'm really curious to know what your exact expectations of those with no money and limited ability to earn more are.
This has nothing to do with "compassion," I'm asking about the practical consequences if we all adopted this as a matter of policy.
If I couldn't work and/or couldn't enjoy my life, then why not die?
What is the benefit to keeping around a host of people who cannot care for themselves?
We have the technology to keep people "alive" but are they living? I told my daughter that if I'm 100 and want black coffee and bacon for breakfast, I don't want her suggesting to me or others that I cannot have black coffee and bacon for breakfast.
I believe we spend the most on health care at the end of life for most folks. For what? A few more months of low quality life?
I'd rather have a nice scotch, some beautiful surroundings, and maybe something to ease my pain.
If all I am is a burden to others, maybe it's time to let me move on.
So yeah, if I screwed the pooch with my portfolio and can no longer work, I'm so broken in body and/or mind that I need adult supervision and support, it's time to let me go. There are 7+ billion on this planet, I'm not irreplaceable.
I think it's a leap to suggest that one is incapable of enjoying life just because one can no longer work. My grandmother is retired and she appears to enjoy her life (not being inside her head, I cannot tell for certain).
I don't think the right of someone else to live is dependent on whether or not they provide a tangible "benefit" to me.
This discussion is independent of technology to keep people alive or spending money on end of life health care.
So you would like to die if you no longer had resources. I don't think that's a majority opinion.
It's coming across that you think of humans as interchangeable work machines who have no value apart from what they can produce economically. That may not be what you're trying to communicate, but it's hard for me to read your words without picking up that impression.
Do you think there is value in a human life that doesn't produce anything economically?8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
The only answer people seem to have for that is "Charity". But honestly if there was a Charity that was large enough and distributed enough to do what the government does with social security then how exactly would it not have the same logistical and financial issues and need for everyone to contribute?
But what caused Charity to atrophy? I suggest it's because, with government social safety nets, we all became Scrooge and think it's someone else's job to care for the poor. The modern day version of "are there no poor houses" is "the government should take care of this."
Charity has atrophied because everyone believes they are being charitable by paying their taxes and letting those who buy votes with taxpayer (and borrowed) money decide what constitutes charity.
My heartburn is more about those whose re-election is up for grabs making the choices of what constitutes helping others and then using money taken from others to fund their vision of the greater good.
If you have a vision of the greater good, band together with like minded people and voluntarily give YOUR time, YOUR talent and YOUR treasure to do so.
I have ZERO problem with that. I do that.
I have no problem with helping others. I believe government is a largely inappropriate vehicle to accomplish those ends. Even worse is when those who are elected get involved. I think of Alexis de Tocqueville and his observations on how our great experiment in self governance will work until our Congress learns it can bribe the electorate with the electorate's money.
I believe we are witnessing the unraveling of this great republic today. The more we suggest is a burden society must bear and government must do it, the weaker our republic and freedoms become.4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
So if there was no safety social net and you lost your investments after you could no longer work, you'd what? Lay down and die? I'm really curious to know what your exact expectations of those with no money and limited ability to earn more are.
This has nothing to do with "compassion," I'm asking about the practical consequences if we all adopted this as a matter of policy.
If I couldn't work and/or couldn't enjoy my life, then why not die?
What is the benefit to keeping around a host of people who cannot care for themselves?
We have the technology to keep people "alive" but are they living? I told my daughter that if I'm 100 and want black coffee and bacon for breakfast, I don't want her suggesting to me or others that I cannot have black coffee and bacon for breakfast.
I believe we spend the most on health care at the end of life for most folks. For what? A few more months of low quality life?
I'd rather have a nice scotch, some beautiful surroundings, and maybe something to ease my pain.
If all I am is a burden to others, maybe it's time to let me move on.
So yeah, if I screwed the pooch with my portfolio and can no longer work, I'm so broken in body and/or mind that I need adult supervision and support, it's time to let me go. There are 7+ billion on this planet, I'm not irreplaceable.
Well someone has certainly been reading his Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. What a bleak *kitten* view of existence to have and foist upon others.15 -
the mere mention of gvt and its words words words words...just like the gvt.
7 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
The only answer people seem to have for that is "Charity". But honestly if there was a Charity that was large enough and distributed enough to do what the government does with social security then how exactly would it not have the same logistical and financial issues and need for everyone to contribute?
But what caused Charity to atrophy? I suggest it's because, with government social safety nets, we all became Scrooge and think it's someone else's job to care for the poor. The modern day version of "are there no poor houses" is "the government should take care of this."
Charity has atrophied because everyone believes they are being charitable by paying their taxes and letting those who buy votes with taxpayer (and borrowed) money decide what constitutes charity.
My heartburn is more about those whose re-election is up for grabs making the choices of what constitutes helping others and then using money taken from others to fund their vision of the greater good.
If you have a vision of the greater good, band together with like minded people and voluntarily give YOUR time, YOUR talent and YOUR treasure to do so.
I have ZERO problem with that. I do that.
I have no problem with helping others. I believe government is a largely inappropriate vehicle to accomplish those ends. Even worse is when those who are elected get involved. I think of Alexis de Tocqueville and his observations on how our great experiment in self governance will work until our Congress learns it can bribe the electorate with the electorate's money.
I believe we are witnessing the unraveling of this great republic today. The more we suggest is a burden society must bear and government must do it, the weaker our republic and freedoms become.
Can you give a single example throughout all of time and space where there was a society that had no tax paid government social security or safety net but yet had no issue with homelessness or illness or poverty due to charitable giving? I'm not seeing one so to me this sort of thinking is just dreaming of some utopic vision that shows no signs of actually having ever existed.10 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I get the feeling people act like the reason that social security doesn't pay out as well as a 401k is because a 401k is privately managed and is efficient while SS is government slow and lumbering and inefficient and wasteful.
That isn't why. A 401k pays out more because when you put into the 401k that is your money which then comes back to you plus whatever interest. When you "put in" to social security it is a tax to support a welfare system that the entire nation is supported by.
Lets take Bob as an example. Bob was born in 1953 and is 65 years old, he is now retired. He worked from the age of 20 as a sewer maintenance worker. He never married or had children, he just worked that one job all of his life. He made inflation adjusted to 2018 $26k every year during that time. Making that much he contributed $1612 every year to social security. Given his after tax income was something like $20k which is $1600 a month, that he had very budget food ($300), rent ($800), health insurance ($300) and car insurance ($50) and car maintenance/gas ($50) to pay he was not able to save basically any money other than about $100 a month. He doesn't have a phone or internet or really any money at all for entertainment or any other such "extravagance."
When he retires social security will pay him $879 a month which is $10,548 a year...about 8 times more than he put in at $1612 a year. If he lives to 85 that would be 20 years of SS payout compared to 40 years worked so he'd get 4x the amount he invested in return. That with the $100 he squirreled away every month responsibly is just about enough to get a rent controlled studio and rice and beans for meals. Medicare covers his basic medical needs.
The fact that Bob gets 4 times more than he put in (or a 400% return even accounting for inflation) on his SS "investment" is why you and I don't get nearly as good of a "return" on our SS investment compared to something like a 401k that doesn't give a cent to Bob. That fact is also what allows Bob to survive and for us to continue to have a labor force paid at those rates that support our infrastructure.
Without social security Bob would have 20 years of unemployment with at maximum $48,000 in savings to survive off of which would be $100 a month. Chances are he'd have less than that given he would likely have had expenses along the way like having to buy another car or maybe buy some clothes now and again. How exactly would he have a roof over his head and food for that? Is that his fault? His failings? His problem?
I understand the math and understand that the reason SS doesn't pay as well is multifaceted:
1) First, your return is subject to two bend points where you get 90%, 32% then 15% of portions of your indexed monthly income: https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf
2) It's not invested. It has nothing to do with public vs private. It has everything to do with the funds are not invested in such a fashion to even outpace inflation, let alone grow. So as we are moving towards some of the lowest labor participation rates since the 1970s, SS doesn't (or won't soon) collect enough to pay benefits. So all those IOUs stored in Al Gore's "lock box" must be cashed in soon. (Hopefully Tipper isn't getting them if they divorce.)
The system started taking less than 2% of a worker's wage, and has increased to 6.2% today, as well as the "contribution" by the employer. Not to mention, full retirement age is being moved out. For the Baby Boomers, it's 65 years of age. Funny how they are making it even later for those who follow. For me, it will be 67 years. So I have pay into the system two additional years to get to full retirement age, and then half my indexed income will be paid back in a monthly benefit at $0.15/indexed dollar earned.
So it's sold as "your retirement savings" or benefit, or something of the sorts, but the "benefit" is greatly diminished for high earners and those who had the misfortune of being born outside the baby boom.
And all of this set by policies and politicians for whom I was too young to vote when they decided to do this.
Yet, I'm stuck with the consequences of their choices and told I should be happy and more charitable about it.
Sorry, bad decisions made by a previous generation or two do not constitute an obligation on my part.
1 -
-
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
So if there was no safety social net and you lost your investments after you could no longer work, you'd what? Lay down and die? I'm really curious to know what your exact expectations of those with no money and limited ability to earn more are.
This has nothing to do with "compassion," I'm asking about the practical consequences if we all adopted this as a matter of policy.
If I couldn't work and/or couldn't enjoy my life, then why not die?
What is the benefit to keeping around a host of people who cannot care for themselves?
We have the technology to keep people "alive" but are they living? I told my daughter that if I'm 100 and want black coffee and bacon for breakfast, I don't want her suggesting to me or others that I cannot have black coffee and bacon for breakfast.
I believe we spend the most on health care at the end of life for most folks. For what? A few more months of low quality life?
I'd rather have a nice scotch, some beautiful surroundings, and maybe something to ease my pain.
If all I am is a burden to others, maybe it's time to let me move on.
So yeah, if I screwed the pooch with my portfolio and can no longer work, I'm so broken in body and/or mind that I need adult supervision and support, it's time to let me go. There are 7+ billion on this planet, I'm not irreplaceable.
I think it's a leap to suggest that one is incapable of enjoying life just because one can no longer work. My grandmother is retired and she appears to enjoy her life (not being inside her head, I cannot tell for certain).
I don't think the right of someone else to live is dependent on whether or not they provide a tangible "benefit" to me.
This discussion is independent of technology to keep people alive or spending money on end of life health care.
So you would like to die if you no longer had resources. I don't think that's a majority opinion.
It's coming across that you think of humans as interchangeable work machines who have no value apart from what they can produce economically. That may not be what you're trying to communicate, but it's hard for me to read your words without picking up that impression.
Do you think there is value in a human life that doesn't produce anything economically?
I was asked what I'd do, and I answered it.
It's not my place to put a value on the life of another. I don't want that responsibility. If you feel responsible, then pony up. But don't feel obligated to support me. I'd rather people NOT try to keep me around if I cannot support myself.
If others feel otherwise, make plans. Just don't sign me up for your values and expect me to provide my time, talent and treasure to support your vision of the greater good just because those are your values.5 -
pinggolfer96 wrote: »Curious on people’s opinions here. Never have I ever taken an anabolic steroid or an illegally obtained supplement for bodybuilding. We have had anabolics, sarms, prohormones, marijuana, dhea....etc all banned for the sake of our “health”, yet we are written a prescription like it’s nothing for medication daily that comes with more adverse side effects than the compounds I listed above. Everything that big pharma can’t sell gets banned or isn’t passed. I’m sick of the govt telling me what we can and can’t put in our body unless it makes THEM money. Like I said, I don’t take these, and it extends to a lot of other products as well, but listed those as examples. The fact we have more people dying from obesity related illnesses and we worry about a simple precursor to testosterone production or a compound that “may” potentially have negative effects makes me have zero support for our regulation system. It’s all a money game.
I just can't agree more pinggolfer. I don't want to throw the thread off track, but just lately I've been wondering if the claims of cancers being cured simply by eating right, are true;) I see our biggest battle is against the "so called" legal drugs (being handed out like candy at Halloween). What person isn't tempted to just "take a pill"?? Damn hard not to try some of the so-called fixes I see on commercials. And notice how many new "legal" drug advertisements are on cable now.
Good thread, excellent thread!!
Just want to add here, I am 65, and older people rate right up there with drug addictions many claim are mostly young people:( I don't take anything either, not even vitamins for now because I want to get what I can from food, as long as I can still do that the way some are growing/producing/selling what we eat and drink.
Dang, gotta add this too, sorry, but what if everyone got on the health-wagon?? How many businesses, doctors, hospitals would be out of work?? I know the answer to that one.
8 -
There certainly is a worldwide issue with maintaining retirees above the poverty line for this fundamental reason:
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&iconSize=0.5&uniSize=0.035#!ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&pit=-305658000000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false
(drag the bar to the left then hit press play.
That is world births per woman versus life expectancy versus time that I just slapped together with the census data explorer. It is actually a 5 dimensional graph, X axis is life expectancy, Y axis is fertility, Z axis is time, bubbles are regions and bubble size is population of the region.
Life expectancy world wide is climbing while birth rates are declining which means fewer and fewer able bodied working adults are supporting a larger and larger retired population. The change that has occurred globally just in the past 50 years is dramatic and yet our economic systems haven't really adapted to compensate. Don't get me wrong, life expectancy increasing while birth rate decreases is actually a real sign of economic and developmental progress world-wide which is excellent, but it does mean we probably have to change how we handle retirement.
(on a side note looking at the graph again just shows how absolutely f***** Cambodia was in 1977 and Rwanda in 1993)
2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
So if there was no safety social net and you lost your investments after you could no longer work, you'd what? Lay down and die? I'm really curious to know what your exact expectations of those with no money and limited ability to earn more are.
This has nothing to do with "compassion," I'm asking about the practical consequences if we all adopted this as a matter of policy.
If I couldn't work and/or couldn't enjoy my life, then why not die?
What is the benefit to keeping around a host of people who cannot care for themselves?
We have the technology to keep people "alive" but are they living? I told my daughter that if I'm 100 and want black coffee and bacon for breakfast, I don't want her suggesting to me or others that I cannot have black coffee and bacon for breakfast.
I believe we spend the most on health care at the end of life for most folks. For what? A few more months of low quality life?
I'd rather have a nice scotch, some beautiful surroundings, and maybe something to ease my pain.
If all I am is a burden to others, maybe it's time to let me move on.
So yeah, if I screwed the pooch with my portfolio and can no longer work, I'm so broken in body and/or mind that I need adult supervision and support, it's time to let me go. There are 7+ billion on this planet, I'm not irreplaceable.
I think it's a leap to suggest that one is incapable of enjoying life just because one can no longer work. My grandmother is retired and she appears to enjoy her life (not being inside her head, I cannot tell for certain).
I don't think the right of someone else to live is dependent on whether or not they provide a tangible "benefit" to me.
This discussion is independent of technology to keep people alive or spending money on end of life health care.
So you would like to die if you no longer had resources. I don't think that's a majority opinion.
It's coming across that you think of humans as interchangeable work machines who have no value apart from what they can produce economically. That may not be what you're trying to communicate, but it's hard for me to read your words without picking up that impression.
Do you think there is value in a human life that doesn't produce anything economically?
I was asked what I'd do, and I answered it.
It's not my place to put a value on the life of another. I don't want that responsibility. If you feel responsible, then pony up. But don't feel obligated to support me. I'd rather people NOT try to keep me around if I cannot support myself.
If others feel otherwise, make plans. Just don't sign me up for your values and expect me to provide my time, talent and treasure to support your vision of the greater good just because those are your values.
Ayn Rand is great up until the point you have empathy and realize that bad things can happen to good hard working people.
Look, person A might look at a situation where if you kill 100 people you greatly enrich the lives of 200 and think that is practical because those enriched 200 people will help build a better world where in the future those 100 people would have been much better off (if they hadn't died). Person B might think that is atrocious and would want to help and save those 100 people even if it hurt the 200 economically. Person A thinks Person B is an overly emotional bleeding heart who is screwing us in the long run and Person B thinks Person A is some sort of monster and blah blah blah argument that goes no where.
I get both sides, it isn't an easy thing to answer. I'd just ask for some recognition that the answer isn't somehow obvious and that there is a way of doing things that is just best for everyone...because there isn't. Pretending that if we all give up our money everyone would be taken care of (pure communism) or that if we all kept our money everyone would be taken care of (pure libertarian capitalism) is just kind of silly. The answer has to be a compromise and there is no answer that is perfect.
For me that compromise is a free market capitalist society that values innovation and technological and social development and rewards merit combined with a bare minimum social safety net that doesn't allow people to needlessly die or be relegated to absolute poverty and provides a foundation level where anyone regardless of birth circumstance has the possibility of climbing that ladder.7 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »I was asked what I'd do, and I answered it.
It's not my place to put a value on the life of another. I don't want that responsibility. If you feel responsible, then pony up. But don't feel obligated to support me. I'd rather people NOT try to keep me around if I cannot support myself.
If others feel otherwise, make plans. Just don't sign me up for your values and expect me to provide my time, talent and treasure to support your vision of the greater good just because those are your values.
Ayn Rand is great up until the point you have empathy and realize that bad things can happen to good hard working people.
Look, person A might look at a situation where if you kill 100 people you greatly enrich the lives of 200 and think that is practical because those enriched 200 people will help build a better world where in the future those 100 people would have been much better off (if they hadn't died). Person B might think that is atrocious and would want to help and save those 100 people even if it hurt the 200 economically. Person A thinks Person B is an overly emotional bleeding heart who is screwing us in the long run and Person B thinks Person A is some sort of monster and blah blah blah argument that goes no where.
I get both sides, it isn't an easy thing to answer. I'd just ask for some recognition that the answer isn't somehow obvious and that there is a way of doing things that is just best for everyone...because there isn't. Pretending that if we all give up our money everyone would be taken care of (pure communism) or that if we all kept our money everyone would be taken care of (pure libertarian capitalism) is just kind of silly. The answer has to be a compromise and there is no answer that is perfect.
I can be very empathetic. In fact, I contend that it's MORE empathetic to not put the burden on society to care for me.
Empathy is fine. I have no problem with people being empathetic, or charitable. My problem is as you describe, governments tend to choose one size fits all solutions and as you have so eloquently made my point, there is no one size fits all that is the right answer.
This is why I say let people choose. If you want and/or believe that Social Security is the program that fits your needs and values, be part of it.
Those who don't should have the same freedom to say no thanks, I'll go my own road.
I think that is what our founders had in mind. Not DC calling all the shots. After all, what works in Maryland may not be well suited for Montana. Therefore, shouldn't most decisions be made locally, by the people of Maryland or Montana, rather than being decided inside the capitol beltway?6 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I have no problem with the concept of possessing personal freedom to be reckless , as long as the person who engages in this doesn't become a liability to the government as a result.
For example, go ahead and abuse steroids and drugs or refuse to wear motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, but if this decision results in an impairment to your health, the ensuing medical treatment and other costs associated with the health problem (lost work, for example) are completely on you, not the government. You can't ask the government to butt out of your life when it suits you and then scurry over and ask for government assistance when the *kitten* hits the fan...
Well said, can't add a thing!! Just wish there was a HUGE thumbs-up Icon here;)2 -
Services that I think benefit from broad collaboration - national highways, all railroads, utilities, pensions, communication networks, and health care.2
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »For those who advocate minimal government, I wonder how they propose completing national collaborative projects? And if another agency is used, how is it any less bureaucratic than the government?
Take roads for instance. An enterprising citizen may be able to take care of the pot-hole outside their property, but what about a nation spanning highway or railway? Such projects demand collaborative effort.
There is a difference in a collaborative effort in providing infrastructure and the government (city, state, national) telling you that you can no longer buy a Big Gulp soda because that's too much sugar.
There is also a difference between a government telling you that sugary drinks are illegal and a government that imposes additional taxes on unnecessary foods and drinks tied to the obesity epidemic as a means of helping to offset additional health care costs that they result in.
Making things adults choose to use that harm their own health illegal in the sense of jailtime I think is extreme and inappropriate. Discouraging their use through additional taxes or fines in order to offset the actual monetary cost they place on the society as a whole just makes financial sense.
I don't want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is applauded. I want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is tolerated but there are consequences to that sort of behavior.
Then why don't we just go ahead and legislate or tax morality/ sexuality as well? Government is taking care of people who get and spread AIDS and other diseases due to lifestyle choices in this area too. So should the government place extra Taxes on people who are gay? Or single and sexually active? What other inappropriate behaviors should the government TAX in order to try and control that behavior? And who gets to decide which behaviors to tax or not tax? Does this also make sense to you?
I'm not saying I am fine with the government taxing things into oblivion because some people don't like them, I am saying I am fine with the government taxing things to recoup costs that those specific things place upon the society. I am for personal freedom of adults, I just think it is silly to act like there should be absolutely no cost or consequences for ones decisions imposed by the society in which you live.
The financial cost of drinking alcohol on society is fairly evident in increased incidences of death, liver disease and crime. There is an additional tax placed on alcohol to help offset this cost as well as to discourage its use. I don't have a problem with that.
What is the financial cost of being gay?
You totally missed my point!!
You stated that you think it's fine for government to tax inappropriate behaviors by "reckless jerks" in order to deter that behavior and offset monetary costs to society. You said this makes financial sense.
So I presented another scenario to you. Who else should government place special taxes on based on reckless behavior?? Just people who drink alcohol? Or drink sugary Soda? Or does this tax get placed on any and all reckless behaviors? Do you not understand my analogy of placing a tax on a gay person, who might get aids, because some may see their behavior as "inappropriate or reckless"?
And who gets to choose what is and is not appropriate behavior? The government?? They could call anything inappropriate behavior. And what would this tax called? A reckless tax? Sin tax?
Do you not see what a slippery slope this would be? If not, perhaps you are using faulty logic.13 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »For those who advocate minimal government, I wonder how they propose completing national collaborative projects? And if another agency is used, how is it any less bureaucratic than the government?
Take roads for instance. An enterprising citizen may be able to take care of the pot-hole outside their property, but what about a nation spanning highway or railway? Such projects demand collaborative effort.
There is a difference in a collaborative effort in providing infrastructure and the government (city, state, national) telling you that you can no longer buy a Big Gulp soda because that's too much sugar.
There is also a difference between a government telling you that sugary drinks are illegal and a government that imposes additional taxes on unnecessary foods and drinks tied to the obesity epidemic as a means of helping to offset additional health care costs that they result in.
Making things adults choose to use that harm their own health illegal in the sense of jailtime I think is extreme and inappropriate. Discouraging their use through additional taxes or fines in order to offset the actual monetary cost they place on the society as a whole just makes financial sense.
I don't want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is applauded. I want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is tolerated but there are consequences to that sort of behavior.
Then why don't we just go ahead and legislate or tax morality/ sexuality as well? Government is taking care of people who get and spread AIDS and other diseases due to lifestyle choices in this area too. So should the government place extra Taxes on people who are gay? Or single and sexually active? What other inappropriate behaviors should the government TAX in order to try and control that behavior? And who gets to decide which behaviors to tax or not tax? Does this also make sense to you?
I'm not saying I am fine with the government taxing things into oblivion because some people don't like them, I am saying I am fine with the government taxing things to recoup costs that those specific things place upon the society. I am for personal freedom of adults, I just think it is silly to act like there should be absolutely no cost or consequences for ones decisions imposed by the society in which you live.
The financial cost of drinking alcohol on society is fairly evident in increased incidences of death, liver disease and crime. There is an additional tax placed on alcohol to help offset this cost as well as to discourage its use. I don't have a problem with that.
What is the financial cost of being gay?
You totally missed my point!!
You stated that you think it's fine for government to tax inappropriate behaviors by "reckless jerks" in order to deter that behavior and offset monetary costs to society. You said this makes financial sense.
So I presented another scenario to you. Who else should government place special taxes on based on reckless behavior?? Just people who drink alcohol? Or drink sugary Soda? Or does this tax get placed on any and all reckless behaviors? Do you not understand my analogy of placing a tax on a gay person, who might get aids, because some may see their behavior as "inappropriate or reckless"?
And who gets to choose what is and is not appropriate behavior? The government?? They could call anything inappropriate behavior. And what would this tax called? A reckless tax? Sin tax?
Do you not see what a slippery slope this would be? If not, perhaps you are using faulty logic.
Being gay is just who someone is...it isn't an action. The reckless action that leads to the spread of a sexually transmitted disease such as AIDS is unprotected sex. Now it might very well be true that there is a lot more unprotected sex in the gay community especially in the 80s that lead to a high burden or incidence of AIDS within that community and so the risk for contracting AIDS when having unprotected sex is higher in that community than in the heterosexual community but that does not change the fact that the action that is reckless is the unprotected sex.
Therefore I would take issue with the government trying to tax people simply because they are gay. I would not, however, take issue in principle with health care companies or the government raising your medical insurance premium on the basis of how much unprotected sex you were having regardless of your sexuality. Now, that raises a separate issue though which is privacy. It is easy enough to put a tax on alcohol because people purchase alcohol, people do not purchase unprotected sex....therefore there is no public record of it that a tax could be applied to. So instead of that we can incentivize protected sex by having clinics provide prophylactics for free or have medical insurance pay for them....which we already do. That is just the other side of the same coin.
By analogy taxing people simply because they are gay rather than providing some sort of disincentive for unprotected sex would be like giving people tickets for an area where lots of people are speeding instead of ticketing the people who are speeding. Sure...if you are in an area where lots of people are speeding then you might be at higher risk of an accident, but it is the people committing the reckless action that should recieve the financial punishment.
If we could somehow know the amount of unprotected sex everyone was having without it being a gross invasion of privacy then having that increase your insurance premium would be okay with me in principle...but its pretty much impossible to get around the privacy issue. Taxing someone just because they are gay though is pretty indefensible.13 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »For those who advocate minimal government, I wonder how they propose completing national collaborative projects? And if another agency is used, how is it any less bureaucratic than the government?
Take roads for instance. An enterprising citizen may be able to take care of the pot-hole outside their property, but what about a nation spanning highway or railway? Such projects demand collaborative effort.
There is a difference in a collaborative effort in providing infrastructure and the government (city, state, national) telling you that you can no longer buy a Big Gulp soda because that's too much sugar.
There is also a difference between a government telling you that sugary drinks are illegal and a government that imposes additional taxes on unnecessary foods and drinks tied to the obesity epidemic as a means of helping to offset additional health care costs that they result in.
Making things adults choose to use that harm their own health illegal in the sense of jailtime I think is extreme and inappropriate. Discouraging their use through additional taxes or fines in order to offset the actual monetary cost they place on the society as a whole just makes financial sense.
I don't want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is applauded. I want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is tolerated but there are consequences to that sort of behavior.
Then why don't we just go ahead and legislate or tax morality/ sexuality as well? Government is taking care of people who get and spread AIDS and other diseases due to lifestyle choices in this area too. So should the government place extra Taxes on people who are gay? Or single and sexually active? What other inappropriate behaviors should the government TAX in order to try and control that behavior? And who gets to decide which behaviors to tax or not tax? Does this also make sense to you?
I'm not saying I am fine with the government taxing things into oblivion because some people don't like them, I am saying I am fine with the government taxing things to recoup costs that those specific things place upon the society. I am for personal freedom of adults, I just think it is silly to act like there should be absolutely no cost or consequences for ones decisions imposed by the society in which you live.
The financial cost of drinking alcohol on society is fairly evident in increased incidences of death, liver disease and crime. There is an additional tax placed on alcohol to help offset this cost as well as to discourage its use. I don't have a problem with that.
What is the financial cost of being gay?
You totally missed my point!!
You stated that you think it's fine for government to tax inappropriate behaviors by "reckless jerks" in order to deter that behavior and offset monetary costs to society. You said this makes financial sense.
So I presented another scenario to you. Who else should government place special taxes on based on reckless behavior?? Just people who drink alcohol? Or drink sugary Soda? Or does this tax get placed on any and all reckless behaviors? Do you not understand my analogy of placing a tax on a gay person, who might get aids, because some may see their behavior as "inappropriate or reckless"?
And who gets to choose what is and is not appropriate behavior? The government?? They could call anything inappropriate behavior. And what would this tax called? A reckless tax? Sin tax?
Do you not see what a slippery slope this would be? If not, perhaps you are using faulty logic.
Being gay is just who someone is...it isn't an action. The reckless action that leads to the spread of a sexually transmitted disease such as AIDS is unprotected sex. Now it might very well be true that there is a lot more unprotected sex in the gay community especially in the 80s that lead to a high burden or incidence of AIDS within that community and so the risk for contracting AIDS when having unprotected sex is higher in that community than in the heterosexual community but that does not change the fact that the action that is reckless is the unprotected sex.
Therefore I would take issue with the government trying to tax people simply because they are gay. I would not, however, take issue in principle with health care companies or the government raising your medical insurance premium on the basis of how much unprotected sex you were having regardless of your sexuality. Now, that raises a separate issue though which is privacy. It is easy enough to put a tax on alcohol because people purchase alcohol, people do not purchase unprotected sex....therefore there is no public record of it that a tax could be applied to. So instead of that we can incentivize protected sex by having clinics provide prophylactics for free or have medical insurance pay for them....which we already do. That is just the other side of the same coin.
By analogy taxing people simply because they are gay rather than providing some sort of disincentive for unprotected sex would be like giving people tickets for an area where lots of people are speeding instead of ticketing the people who are speeding. Sure...if you are in an area where lots of people are speeding then you might be at higher risk of an accident, but it is the people committing the reckless action that should recieve the financial punishment.
If we could somehow know the amount of unprotected sex everyone was having without it being a gross invasion of privacy then having that increase your insurance premium would be okay with me in principle...but its pretty much impossible to get around the privacy issue. Taxing someone just because they are gay though is pretty indefensible.
Ok, not totally sure you got my point, but ok. Yes. There is definitely a privacy issue here, as there would be with many behaviors deemed inappropriate. You don't want the government to start trying to legislate morality. And if they start to apply this type of tax to one private, personal behavior, they may extend their reach into MANY personal, private behaviors that they have no business getting into.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »For those who advocate minimal government, I wonder how they propose completing national collaborative projects? And if another agency is used, how is it any less bureaucratic than the government?
Take roads for instance. An enterprising citizen may be able to take care of the pot-hole outside their property, but what about a nation spanning highway or railway? Such projects demand collaborative effort.
There is a difference in a collaborative effort in providing infrastructure and the government (city, state, national) telling you that you can no longer buy a Big Gulp soda because that's too much sugar.
There is also a difference between a government telling you that sugary drinks are illegal and a government that imposes additional taxes on unnecessary foods and drinks tied to the obesity epidemic as a means of helping to offset additional health care costs that they result in.
Making things adults choose to use that harm their own health illegal in the sense of jailtime I think is extreme and inappropriate. Discouraging their use through additional taxes or fines in order to offset the actual monetary cost they place on the society as a whole just makes financial sense.
I don't want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is applauded. I want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is tolerated but there are consequences to that sort of behavior.
Then why don't we just go ahead and legislate or tax morality/ sexuality as well? Government is taking care of people who get and spread AIDS and other diseases due to lifestyle choices in this area too. So should the government place extra Taxes on people who are gay? Or single and sexually active? What other inappropriate behaviors should the government TAX in order to try and control that behavior? And who gets to decide which behaviors to tax or not tax? Does this also make sense to you?
I'm not saying I am fine with the government taxing things into oblivion because some people don't like them, I am saying I am fine with the government taxing things to recoup costs that those specific things place upon the society. I am for personal freedom of adults, I just think it is silly to act like there should be absolutely no cost or consequences for ones decisions imposed by the society in which you live.
The financial cost of drinking alcohol on society is fairly evident in increased incidences of death, liver disease and crime. There is an additional tax placed on alcohol to help offset this cost as well as to discourage its use. I don't have a problem with that.
What is the financial cost of being gay?
You totally missed my point!!
You stated that you think it's fine for government to tax inappropriate behaviors by "reckless jerks" in order to deter that behavior and offset monetary costs to society. You said this makes financial sense.
So I presented another scenario to you. Who else should government place special taxes on based on reckless behavior?? Just people who drink alcohol? Or drink sugary Soda? Or does this tax get placed on any and all reckless behaviors? Do you not understand my analogy of placing a tax on a gay person, who might get aids, because some may see their behavior as "inappropriate or reckless"?
And who gets to choose what is and is not appropriate behavior? The government?? They could call anything inappropriate behavior. And what would this tax called? A reckless tax? Sin tax?
Do you not see what a slippery slope this would be? If not, perhaps you are using faulty logic.
Being gay is just who someone is...it isn't an action. The reckless action that leads to the spread of a sexually transmitted disease such as AIDS is unprotected sex. Now it might very well be true that there is a lot more unprotected sex in the gay community especially in the 80s that lead to a high burden or incidence of AIDS within that community and so the risk for contracting AIDS when having unprotected sex is higher in that community than in the heterosexual community but that does not change the fact that the action that is reckless is the unprotected sex.
Therefore I would take issue with the government trying to tax people simply because they are gay. I would not, however, take issue in principle with health care companies or the government raising your medical insurance premium on the basis of how much unprotected sex you were having regardless of your sexuality. Now, that raises a separate issue though which is privacy. It is easy enough to put a tax on alcohol because people purchase alcohol, people do not purchase unprotected sex....therefore there is no public record of it that a tax could be applied to. So instead of that we can incentivize protected sex by having clinics provide prophylactics for free or have medical insurance pay for them....which we already do. That is just the other side of the same coin.
By analogy taxing people simply because they are gay rather than providing some sort of disincentive for unprotected sex would be like giving people tickets for an area where lots of people are speeding instead of ticketing the people who are speeding. Sure...if you are in an area where lots of people are speeding then you might be at higher risk of an accident, but it is the people committing the reckless action that should recieve the financial punishment.
If we could somehow know the amount of unprotected sex everyone was having without it being a gross invasion of privacy then having that increase your insurance premium would be okay with me in principle...but its pretty much impossible to get around the privacy issue. Taxing someone just because they are gay though is pretty indefensible.
Ok, not totally sure you got my point, but ok. Yes. There is definitely a privacy issue here, as there would be with many behaviors deemed inappropriate. You don't want the government to start trying to legislate morality. And if they start to apply this type of tax to one private, personal behavior, they may extend their reach into MANY personal, private behaviors that they have no business getting into.
Yeah I don't want taxes (a type of force) to be used to legislate morality and I would oppose any tax or law that tried to do that. That said I don't think that is a reason we shouldn't have taxes or laws that try to decentivize "reckless" actions that have a clear objective financial cost. I'll agree with you that there is a slippery slope in terms of defining "reckless" and trying to make some vague case for financial harm. Therefore I'd say it is better to error on the side of caution and not support such laws unless there is a really clear financial harm.
I think cigarettes and alcohol it is pretty clear there is a burden those things place on our health care system and that justifies the added taxes. I don't think that evidence is there for sugary drinks. Why? For this simple reason. If I smoke a pack of cigerretes I just increased my chance for lung cancer, there pretty much is nothing I can do to reverse that. If I drink a bunch of alchohol I caused some damage to my liver, there is pretty much nothing I can do to reverse that. If I drink a sugary drink I can go for a run and not gain weight. I can balance that action out with other actions in my life. There is nothing about drinking a sugary drink that GUARANTEES you are going to be obese and therefore it would be inappropriate to tax the consumption of sugary drinks.
I mean I feel like I am being consistent here, if I am not feel free to call me out on it.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions