Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
What the hell are you talking about? I don't promote Marxism. I'm a socialist capitalist.
Babyboomers become homeless
- Thread starter Dutch Uncle
- Start date
What the hell are you talking about? I don't promote Marxism. I'm a socialist capitalist.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The government can only help out by taking my money to do so. I'm solidly against that. But I see that you are are all for the government taking my money and giving it away in the government's name. You're so very philanthropic.
They wouldn't be in need if they would earn the money they need by adding value in some way. But I see that you are perfectly fine with confiscating wealth from those who earn it, presumably as a punishment for daring to add value to society, and redistributing that wealth to those who would not earn it, presumably as a reward for not adding value to society.
All the while I was in junior high and high school, I saw other students who had no desire to learn anything, no desire to improve themselves any and no drive to make anything of themselves. They goofed off, disrupted the class, never did any homework and weren't interested in getting good grades. I knew that these particular students were going to have difficulty finding jobs in the future, would not be adding much value to society, if any, and would be very lucky to land a job asking people if they would like fries with their order.
Until you can show me that the people you want to help did not throw away their educational opportunities, I reject your concerns, I do not support your ideas and I generally frown upon your virtue signaling over your desire to redistribute everybody else's wealth. You're not a philanthropist; you're a detriment to society.
... but you aren't forming a queue and handing out your cash to those who "have real need" as you say, to the point they can get a job. Why not? Why aren't you emptying your wallet and bank accounts as it "makes sense" to you?
Dispense with the Marxist "we." You need to write that in some circumstances you just need to support them and accept that they will never get a job. Leave me and my money out of it.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I don't believe you. How can anyone have trouble with being allowed to control one's own wealth as opposed to having the government confiscate it and much later return only a small fraction?
Individual retirements should be controlled by the respective individuals, not anybody else and certainly not the inefficient, wasteful, bureaucratic government that can't be bothered with worrying about the shittiness of anyone's ROI.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
"Socialist Capitalist" is just a euphemism for "socialist" which makes you a Marxist. We can clear this up right now: List the top three specific differences between "socialist capitalists" and socialists.
When you can't list any differences because there aren't any differences, the matter will be clarified.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
A "socialist capitalist" economy is one where you can own your own business, but you can only do what the government lets you do with it...
This is not something you either believe or do not believe. While the 401k did come about in 1978(before Reagan), it was not pushed until the Reagan Presidency. The IRA was invented in 1982. The 1980's is when you start seeing pensions completely disappear.
Social Security still exists, but if you want anything beyond that, you have to do it yourself. It has not always been that way, but it is that way now. There are a few fields that are exceptions, but even they are disappearing.
Actually, the government returns more money to Social Security recipients than it took from them. Not a small fraction, as you claim. More importantly private pensions were sometimes insured by the government, but were rarely government "confiscations", or even government controlled.
Who would have a problem with individual pensions? That is a simple answer. Anyone who does not have a lot of money in them. This could be caused by not putting money in, not investing well, or just bad luck.
Before you ask, I am VERY HAPPY with my individual retirement accounts.
Then don't whine about the effects of it. If retired people cannot afford homes, just say you do not care, and move on.
Seriously.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Yep.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Learn to read. I'm saying that your Marxist virtue-signaling doesn't make you look like you care; it reveals you for the society-HATER that you are. Your goal is obviously to kill capitalism and make everybody equally broke and miserable, not just the fringe onesies-twosies. You're not a philanthropist. You're a villain whose weapon is attempted bullying of those who don't go along with your Marxism and your HATRED for humanity. You remain poised to accuse anyone who does not amplify your virtue-signalling of "not caring." Fuck you. I want solutions that actually work and will reduce/eliminate homelessness, not your Marxism that dog-whistles to other Marxists and merely exacerbates the problem of homelessness, as well as all the other problems.
Go destroy your own finances and leave everybody else's alone. Seriously.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You don't get to depict the class of "pensions" as simply "disappearing." Someone has to do something to make a pension disappear. So go down the list, and for each one specify who did what to make it disappear. Then we'll talk about each and every specific case.
This is the problem. Social Security is nothing more than the government stealing the wealth that people will need in retirement. The government takes substantial chunks out of paychecks, money that could/would be so much better invested by the individuals from whom the money is being stolen, but then returns a paltry percentage. Many of the people who can't afford to live off of Social Security would be living just fine if they had been able to invest their money instead of having it stolen.
Incorrect. That will only work with stupid people who don't realize, or understand, that you are not including the necessary "net present value" conversions ... and of course, you are only talking about the money that was taken, and not the money that was taken and dropped into an index fund over the working years, and with all net present value conversions performed. That's sizeable wealth that is stolen, and only a flake of it is returned, with the expectation that the recipient be ever so gracious and appreciative.
No, thank you. I'll take the "Let me invest my own money for my own retirement" option, thank you. I want the government to keep its thieving hands off my money.
Nope. Your logic fails. Everyone is inherently responsible for his own wealth management and for his own financial situation. If we extend your argument, the government should simply confiscate all of everyone's wealth and just dole out only the bare minimum needed for one to subsist (Soviet Union anyone?) to protect the people from themselves, because the people might invest poorly, they might not spend their money well, and they might have bad luck. The government obviously needs to step in and save the people from the terrible fate that would befall them if they were to control their own finances, right?
I'll just tell you that I do not agree with your perspective. The government has no business with my money. I neither need nor want the government to be seizing control of my retirement plan (to my serious detriment, in the name of providing me a "safety net" that I would otherwise not need), and I certainly don't want the government stealing my wealth.
I wasn't going to ask. I'm not particularly interested in your virtue-signaling. I also don't believe you. Just so you are aware, my assumption is that you are poor, and a loser. If you wish to continue making the case for Social Security, realize that I won't be taking you on your word for anything, either stated or implied.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Like I said, there's no difference. What you just described can happen under socialism, e.g. four year plan. Remember that dictators get to make it up as they go along.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
There's no such thing.
Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
Three examples? I'm too lazy. I'll do one.
Pharmaceuticals!
Capitalism: A company will mass produce a life-saving drug cheaply and then sell it at an extreme markup. Profits baby!
Socialism: The government will finance and control the drug industry.
Socialist capitalism: A company will mass produce a life-saving drug cheaply and then sell it at a reasonable price determined by the government (with "reasonable price" being determined as one that allows a company to make profits while also being affordable to the public).
How exactly does it "distort the market?"
ROFL
"Socialist Capitalist."
^^^ - how to say "I don't grasp economics" without saying it.
Are you also a libertarian authoritarian? An octogenarian toddler?
^^^
Watching Down Under dumbasses try to act smart is always fun.
Sorry, no. That is National Socialism.
So you are a follower of Mussolini.
State control of business' with private ownership to provide some profit incentive.
The system you promote is simply called "fascism."
...of which you are an expert, just like spousal abuse.