If Tax cuts create jobs

InCognition said:

A raise on the cap & age just demonstrates a lack of due-diligence committed when establishing SS. This lack of due diligence just gave millions of baby-boomers the exclusive right to retire earlier off the backs of the generation below them. It's quite a simple concept to grasp. Unfortunately you're either unable to grasp such a concept based off sheer ignorance, or simply do not want to acknowledge the exploitation of such alterations in SS, based on what's stated above.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's true but it doesn't change the fact the age should raised. SSI was initially pitched to the country as insurance, not an entitlement. It's even named that way. Back then not many people remained productive after the age of 65. Life expectancy was shorter by a few years but more importantly, productive life expectancy was MUCH shorter back then. I think we had 13 workers per 1 recipient (not sure, but close) back then and it's closer to 2 to 1 today.

It was not supposed to be the retirement plan entitlement it's turned into, it's an insurance plan in case you live long enough to where you can't make a living anymore. Raising the cap doesn't make sense based on the intent of SSI but raising the age absolutely does.

I have a great Idea
Lets get rid of medicare and let nature kill off the baby Boomers faster

ginwilly said:

Unfortunately it's true but it doesn't change the fact the age should raised. SSI was initially pitched to the country as insurance, not an entitlement. It's even named that way. Back then not many people remained productive after the age of 65. Life expectancy was shorter by a few years but more importantly, productive life expectancy was MUCH shorter back then. I think we had 13 workers per 1 recipient (not sure, but close) back then and it's closer to 2 to 1 today.

It was not supposed to be the retirement plan entitlement it's turned into, it's an insurance plan in case you live long enough to where you can't make a living anymore. Raising the cap doesn't make sense based on the intent of SSI but raising the age absolutely does.

Click to expand...

Laws protecting the aging are completely ineffective in our current society. Older workers are seen as a liability to group insurance policies. Older workers are seen as less productive and unable to cope with a quickly changing workplace so corporations do all they can to let those folks go. They easily come up with reasons that can be shown to the government as being legal when in fact they are not. An older worker tends to make more than his younger counterpart which is more than enough reason to figure a way to let them go. Further, corporations tend not to hire older workers and never need to use the worker's age as a reason (which is illegal). Extending the age of elegiblity will cause a great deal of hardship in a country that no longer throws a party and gives a watch to their 65 year old workers.

Here is the long and short of it
if you can afford to buy a senator
You dont need a tax break

ChesusRice said:

Hey Rob Boy

What do you do for a living?

Crying about the injustice of life dont pay much that's for sure

Doesnt get taxed much either

Click to expand...

I'm in the blowup love doll business. Your order has been delayed, due to the extra small openings you requested.

UncleBuck said:

OMFG so you are forced to keep signing W4s that you voluntarily signed? you are forced to keep running a business that you voluntarily chose to start?

rethink your entire philosophy and start again.

Click to expand...

My philosophy relies on consensual interactions and does not afford exceptions for people that claim a monopoly on the use of force. I realize by your responses that you are eager to discredit my philosophy. Okay. What is your core philosophy based on ? Is it consistent ?


As far as being forced and your blathering away about magic government forms like w-4's etc. Of course many people that "voluntarily" sign them are not in actuality volunteering jackshit. They are signing it because if they don't they are aware what will happen, they will be harmed. You fail to recognize certain realities and accept that the "way things are" makes them right because they are commonly done. The reason they continue to be done that way is because people fear the consequences, that doesn't mean they ENDORSE the method now does it ?

Rob Roy said:

My philosophy relies on consensual interactions and does not afford exceptions for people that claim a monopoly on the use of force. I realize by your responses that you are eager to discredit my philosophy. Okay. What is your core philosophy based on ? Is it consistent ?


As far as being forced and your blathering away about magic government forms like w-4's etc. Of course many people that "voluntarily" sign them are not in actuality volunteering jackshit. They are signing it because if they don't they are aware what will happen, they will be harmed. You fail to recognize certain realities and accept that the "way things are" makes them right because they are commonly done. The reason they continue to be done that way is because people fear the consequences, that doesn't mean they ENDORSE the method now does it ?

Click to expand...

I didnt voluntarily help pay for your public education but I did anyways
Dont want to participate in our society. Then find one that will suit you better. Maybe some third world country would be more to your likeing rob

Rob Roy said:

My philosophy relies on consensual interactions and does not afford exceptions for people that claim a monopoly on the use of force. I realize by your responses that you are eager to discredit my philosophy. Okay. What is your core philosophy based on ? Is it consistent ?


As far as being forced and your blathering away about magic government forms like w-4's etc. Of course many people that "voluntarily" sign them are not in actuality volunteering jackshit. They are signing it because if they don't they are aware what will happen, they will be harmed. You fail to recognize certain realities and accept that the "way things are" makes them right because they are commonly done. The reason they continue to be done that way is because people fear the consequences, that doesn't mean they ENDORSE the method now does it ?

Click to expand...

More of the ominous "they will be harmed". You seem to represent government as mofia and taxation as illegal and unethical extortion. No one is going to break your legs if you don't sign your tax forms Rob.


BTW, if you don't mind? what state do you live in?

ChesusRice said:

I didnt voluntarily help pay for your public education but I did anyways
Dont want to participate in our society. Then find one that will suit you better. Maybe some third world country would be more to your likeing rob

Click to expand...

Well, thanks for admitting that you didn't voluntarily do something that your Uncle Buck buddy keeps insisting is voluntary.

I don't want to continue to enable a "society" that relies on involuntary measures. Involuntary measures are the cornerstone of thugs and bandits. Why would YOU support that?

Don't you want to participate in a society that uses moral means to achieve moral ends? You seem to accept that there must always be some shit in the salad....aren't you interested in changing that ?

UncleBuck said:

ya mean, the profession you voluntarily chose? did you grow up in communist russia where they assigned you a profession?

sorry, caanabineer. my stance here is firm. no one is ever forced to pay taxes.

Click to expand...

Oh ... I see. It's turtles all the way down. cn

canndo said:

More of the ominous "they will be harmed". You seem to represent government as mofia and taxation as illegal and unethical extortion. No one is going to break your legs if you don't sign your tax forms Rob.


BTW, if you don't mind? what state do you live in?

Click to expand...

Of course nobody will break your legs if you don't sign silly forms, not right away anyhow. They go thru a series of steps first, all of the steps having an increasing threat for noncompliance. Eventually they may break your legs or take your house, your liberty etc. . Of course you can say the action on their part is for "noncompliance" or some other b.s., but it all is connected to the original act of disobedience for failing to sign a form or give them money for something isn't it ? The biggest crime is disobedience, ultimately if you disobey any of their edicts your legs can be broken, literally or figueatively.

Of course government is unethical. Their very existence is based in it. Are you really going to defend the institution that is responsible for most of the death in the world ? So they plow the roads, are you saying roads can't be plowed by non government cooperation ?

I live deep in the forest in British Columbia and eat roots and berries. I thought my avatar would have tipped you off.

Rob Roy said:

I'm in the blowup love doll business. Your order has been delayed, due to the extra small openings you requested.

Click to expand...

Then you should be a staunch champion of fiat currency! It provides ... an inflationary environment. cn

cannabineer said:

Then you should be a staunch champion of fiat currency! It provides ... an inflationary environment. cn

Click to expand...

Fiat ? Not a big fan of them Italian cars.

Rob Roy said:

Fiat ? Not a big fan of them Italian cars.

Click to expand...

Way to let the air out of a pun there. cn

Rob Roy said:

Of course nobody will break your legs if you don't sign silly forms, not right away anyhow. They go thru a series of steps first, all of the steps having an increasing threat for noncompliance. Eventually they may break your legs or take your house, your liberty etc. . Of course you can say the action on their part is for "noncompliance" or some other b.s., but it all is connected to the original act of disobedience for failing to sign a form or give them money for something isn't it ? The biggest crime is disobedience, ultimately if you disobey any of their edicts your legs can be broken, literally or figueatively.

Of course government is unethical. Their very existence is based in it. Are you really going to defend the institution that is responsible for most of the death in the world ? So they plow the roads, are you saying roads can't be plowed by non government cooperation ?

I live deep in the forest in British Columbia and eat roots and berries. I thought my avatar would have tipped you off.

Click to expand...

We can argue forever about who is "responible for more deaths in the world" - religion is a player, ego is certainly a contender, greed, or corporate activities is right up there and of course your government, although I belive if we examine it, it isn't government at all but government being manipulated by individuals.

No one is going to break your legs, or even put you in jail for failing to sign a form Rob. although the concept is handy for your narrative involving the big bad old government abusing you personaly and keeping you from truely being "free"

I am saying that without the order that government imposes upon the people it governs, there can be little of anything else. About your living in BC, that is great, though I had thought that sasquach lived as far south as Oregon.

ginwilly said:

Unfortunately it's true but it doesn't change the fact the age should raised. SSI was initially pitched to the country as insurance, not an entitlement. It's even named that way. Back then not many people remained productive after the age of 65. Life expectancy was shorter by a few years but more importantly, productive life expectancy was MUCH shorter back then. I think we had 13 workers per 1 recipient (not sure, but close) back then and it's closer to 2 to 1 today.

It was not supposed to be the retirement plan entitlement it's turned into, it's an insurance plan in case you live long enough to where you can't make a living anymore. Raising the cap doesn't make sense based on the intent of SSI but raising the age absolutely does.

Click to expand...

The fact is, one should be responsible for saving for their own retirement, and only their retirement, period.

No one has a right to have a family, a house, cars, insurance policies, vacations, college educations (kids included), that they can not afford. If one chooses one of these via their practice of financial irresponsibility, they should suffer the repercussions.

Raising the age only makes sense, in the sense that it needs to be done in order for the program to be sustainable, even though it's currently broken well beyond any degree of "sustainability". Ultimately raising the age is a robbery committed by the government, which benefits the baby-boomers, while the generations that are below them suffer the consequences of this robbery.

Raising the age is a solution to possibly fixing the already broken program, but it's still not ethical based on the pure fundamentals of what's stated above. What would be ethical, would be to just disassemble SS all together. Save for your own retirement, or suffer the consequences... it's no one else's job to foot the bill of retirees, especially if they have squandered their money prior to retirement. That's called a subsidization of irresponsibility which always leads to problems.

Disassemble social security and make dog food more nutritious sounds like a republican plan to me

ChesusRice said:

Disassemble social security and make dog food more nutritious sounds like a republican plan to me

Click to expand...

If you can't come up with a decent rebuttal, then tell us what republicans would gain from restructuring SS.

beenthere said:

If you can't come up with a decent rebuttal, then tell us what republicans would gain from restructuring SS.

Click to expand...

Tax cuts for the rich and a giant piggy bank for wall street

canndo said:

We can argue forever about who is "responible for more deaths in the world" - religion is a player, ego is certainly a contender, greed, or corporate activities is right up there and of course your government, although I belive if we examine it, it isn't government at all but government being manipulated by individuals.

No one is going to break your legs, or even put you in jail for failing to sign a form Rob. although the concept is handy for your narrative involving the big bad old government abusing you personaly and keeping you from truely being "free"

I am saying that without the order that government imposes upon the people it governs, there can be little of anything else. About your living in BC, that is great, though I had thought that sasquach lived as far south as Oregon.

Click to expand...

I'll address each of your points in between bites of delicious lemmings and various roots and leaves.

You say that the deaths aren't attributable to government. I sort of agree with you, INDIVIDUALS, and sometimes individuals acting in concert with others that use the government business model to acquire power over others are ultimately responsible for causing those deaths. So if that is true, aren't those that support a particular government culpable in some way for aiding and abetting the killings? You might consider that the next time you hear of an innocent person victimized or killed by your government.

Any institution that has a monopoly on the use of force and can initiate aggression under color of law, will eventually use that power and use it often. The fact that they provide a little bread to go with the circus, doesn't justify their killing and maiming people does it ?

Nobody is going to break legs? Well I think you offer no good rebuttal. OF COURSE they will break your legs, shoot your dog, steal your house, suck your bank account dry and stick you in a cage. It happens everyday. The chain of events prior to the "leg breaking" can run several different courses, but if you fail to comply WHAT will happen ultimately ? I'd like you to answer that question CARRIED ALL THE WAY OUT....if you can. What WILL happen (ultimately) if a person fails to comply ?

Government imposing order? Thank you for acknowledging that government "imposes". Is it "order" when government imposes and enforces bad laws or is that chaos?
Just so you know and to head off any strawman responses, I do not oppose order. I oppose an entity that "imposes order" on people that ARE ALREADY being peaceful. When THAT happens, the disorder is coming from you know who isn't it ?...(government) .