@@sinebar insurance from abject poverty is not the same as a retirement plan. You were expected to be dead by the time you received social security when it was created.
Write me a check for the amount the government took from me my entire life and keep your social security. I do consider it part of my retirement because I was told by the government that I would get all the money I loaned the government back a little at a time. I have an idea, let’s take every dime from all the politicians and their families that caused this mess.
Thieves (politicians) told you something and you believed it? My friends all went to jail. I was the only one that didn’t go to jail. I would never believe a word they say much less a financial promise they made.
I would be fine with the idea of cutting what I've got coming to me in half when I retire if it means that younger people will no longer have to pay into SS and that the system would be totally phased within a couple of decades. Would such a change sting considering that I've paid into the system for close to 40 years with the promise of a return? Yes. It WOULD hurt. BUT if things continue as they are now the whole things could collapse anyway! I say find a reasonable way to phase it out.
Curtis Rupp buddy, that’s already happening..so where are the riots? The government spends every dime you put in every paycheck with a IOU to SS. If you believe living off of SS is the proper way to retire you obviously saved wrong and/or someone lied to you. It’s supposed to supplement not replace your income.
So you would be ok financially. But what about the single mother living paycheck to paycheck each week and she has paid into Social Security all her working adult life? She has paid into ss all her working life but should have to suffer as soon as they start to phase out?
@@pjbcoastalyes. She is a single mother and therefore made bad choices and should suffer. She won’t of course because her kids will be grown and will take care of her unless they also get pregnant out of wedlock like their mom did. Bad decisions should be punished to stop people from making more bad decision.
Please recall the following about social security. 1. It was never intended to be a pension. 2. The retirement age was selected when most people are dead so they did not have to payout. 3. It was a scheme to get people to agree to a federal income tax.
Spot on. As always, voluntary exchange is the solution. Retirement isn’t right for everyone. If they want to retire but haven’t made their own arrangements they can’t. If they’re infirm, philanthropy is the only possible alternative
I ask you this. What about the people that work making minimum wage for 30-50 yrs and with the rise in costs of living and inflation? Companies are not going to start paying people more just because they are paying less in taxes
See that's the difference between objectivists and libertarian, Chicago style economists like Friedman and Hayek. Objectivists will always find a way to say "too bad for the infirm, life sucks." They won't say it like that of course, but they might as well be saying "let them eat cake." Philanthropy? Doesn't that go against your entire value system btw? But even the most conservative economists have a caveat in their policies for those in dire need.
@@pjbcoastal Less then 3% of workers in America work for minimum wage, and that 3% always changes. Sure there will be some losers, but that is their problem.
Sweden's pension system was at one time close to what our Social Security is. They privatized it and not only did it take it away as a tool for politicians to get votes it is actually people putting money back for retirement. I'm not saying we should do everything Sweden does but look to others mistakes and try to avoid making those same mistakes.
Right on man! This clip should be played on Radio & TV as an "Info-Mercial" every 15 minutes, every hour, every day, 'til the end of time or until the ABOMINATION of Social Security is TERMINATED!
Where to hell did he come from??? People who live on Social Security are living on money that was deducted from their paychecks, so they did save even though the government took it without their permission.
But it is current people who pay in that keeps the system afloat. The social security tax money from the current retirees is long spent by the government.
@ 2:53 "This is a massive pyramid scheme." Comment: Social security is worse than a Ponzi scheme or a pyramid scheme because social security is forcibly mandated. Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes are voluntary, and when it comes to these schemes, if one does not know the scheme and is only told how much they will make from their investment, then consider the "it is too good to be true" as a reason to avoid it.
You clearly don't know what a Ponzi or a Pyramid scheme even is. Only the guy at the top of the Pyramid gets the money. A Ponzi Scheme is when one or a handful of people get the money where the majority of investors give them money and they get nothing in return. The main line Republican and Conservative Pundits are lying. In the 2030's Social Security won't be bankrupt, but if the payroll tax is not increased it will not being paying at out 100% but less. Some of these guys that want to get rid of Social Security have a net worth in the millions.
Fox News is against SS ect.. but here is what was the biggest Ponzi Scheme ever and it's straight from Fox News. Bernie Madoff with billions with his phony Stock Broker scheme. www.foxnews.com/us/bernie-madoff-ponzi-scheme-everything-you-should-know
@@attilathehun0 he means that the schemers fool you into giving your money voluntarily. The govt taxes it, ie takes it, by vote of majority, which does not make an act moral. We have a beautiful country and every state can manage voluntary funds, which can surely, over time, reduce the burden on the tax funded social security.
You should be able to opt out of SS under the understanding you won’t receive it. People should have choices in a so called free country. In a true free country other people don’t have a moral claim against my life.
jeep23862 “everybody who has enough wealth....”. What you’re saying is people who aren’t wealthy are irresponsible and are incapable of saving for retirement. Well I don’t agree with that comment. If a person really believes they aren’t responsible enough to save they can continue to pay into SS. Everyone else can take that 12% that they pay into SS and deposit it into a retirement plan THEY control, which won’t have a negative rate of return like SS. This is not about “rich & poor”, or “duty to society”. Everyone who works pays into it already, so your whole premise is bs. This is about choices for those who want it. Of course SS would need to be a real plan and not a Ponzi Scheme. “the rich who benefited from society....”. You are saying no one else benefits from society. The middle class and the poor haven’t benefit from society. That’s an ignorant statement if I’ve ever heard one! Everyone benefits, some more than others because they contribute more. Some create opportunities for others. FYI, under our current tax system the top 50% of income earners pay 98% of the federal tax budget, if you want to talk about who benefits from society. “I’ve never read or heard....”. ‘from each according to his ability; to each according to his need’. This statement of collectivist ideology is saying other people’s needs gives them the right to take from others, in some sort of twisted moral right. Now you’ve read it.
4 роки тому
@@MrMJpilot Regarding your:- “I’ve never read or heard....”. ‘from each according to his ability; to each according to his need". You almost scored a brownie point but as usual you choose to miss out the context on which I based my comment:- You said:- ""In a true free country other people don’t have a moral claim against my life."? I simply pointed out that in a "FREE" country nobody is claiming there is a moral claim against your life and there isn't. There is a lawful Constitutional claim on that money the law degrees should be paid by you as your contribution to maintain the welfare of society. Something you're in disagreement with. That's your problem not the laws certainly not mine. Your problem is you must accept those duties and responsibilities of citizenship and while if your where born in the USA or wherever you can claim the right to complain about it Rand having chosen of her own freewill to become a citizen of the US by default accepts the laws, rules and Constitution that governs the US or wherever .
jeep23862 jeep23862 Again you miss represent the meaning of my words because you don’t listen. I never said people shouldn’t contribute to society. I said that some people contribute more than others. A lot more. You say no one has a moral claim but what’s “that money”? What you call “that money” is other people’s talent, effort, sweat, and time away from their family. That’s a claim against their life because people don’t live forever. It’s easy to say others need to contribute more when you don’t contribute. When you’re one of the wolves deciding what’s for dinner. It’s the people who contribute the most who keep charity alive because the government sucks at it. Freedom and charity is voluntary not coerced. I’m done with this conversation. This is not a debate. You have your opinion and I have mine. I’ve said all I’m gonna on this subject. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the authority to take from some for the sole purpose of redistribution. If you want everyone to contribute like you say start by support for changing our tax code to a flat tax where everyone contributes.
I wonder how many would take an opt-out that, say, cut their payment in half, or shunted half into their 401k, while forfeiting their right to receive social security payments later.
They took much more than your social security without your consent. And you don’t even own your house by the way. If you don’t pay property taxes: the government will kick you out of your house.
I was in class today, and we had a guest speaker come in. She talked about how she works helping drug addicts get off the street and get housing and get social security. She herself did this, she got an apartment by getting social security after she decided to stop using methamphetamine and so forth. I was supposed to sign a survey so that her organization can keep receiving funds from the government. Everyone just signs the paper. I did not. Part of the reason I didn’t sign it is because it required me to say that my ethnicity is either “hispanic” or “ non-hispanic”- which is utterly ridiculous in itself. There is no way I support their organization or what she is doing. I have rented a room, worked overtime, gone to a junior college, all on my own to make it- meanwhile paying unbelievable amounts of taxes. I thought what she has done and is doing is an utter scam, and today listening to her was a slap in the face. If I were to say what I think out loud in class I probably would be shunned.
Start by reducing the huge military budget that eats up 25% of the federal budget. We don't need to be spending more than the top 19 countries in the world, 90% of which are friendly to us.
@@attilathehun0 Marxist capitalism is business-dominated govt and includes controls, so you are correct in this context. Ayn Rands capitalism is individual rights, with no controls, so you are wrong in this context. Re Rand, US capitalism ended in the Progressive, late 19th century. Its now virtually impossible, whether rich, middle class or poor, to escape govt economic controls. Dems and Reps are committed to increasing controls. But they will be fascist regulations, not communist ownership. There is no mainstream advocacy of individual rights. Both sides are committed to altruism. Both are terrified by mans independent mind. Your screen name screams that terror of self-responsibility shared by Marxists, religious conservatives and Nazis.
@@TeaParty1776 Ayn Rand did collect Social Security when she got old. Capitalism is still alive in this country today. US Capitalism did not end in the late 19th Century. There is nothing Progressive about the late 1800s. You must be thinking of run away Capitalism no minimum wage, no medical and dental insurance, no overtime and no pension. Back in 2004 the Bush Administration hammered through over time reform which resulted in more work and less pay. In the 1980's traditional pensions replaced by 401k. Some people did good with the 401k and some did not, because when it comes to the stock market there is high risk high gain and low risk and low gain, but there are no guarantee. If the Republican politicians kill Social Security. They will pass a law where employers will no longer have to pitch in to the employees 401k.
@@attilathehun0 The US is a mixed economy: socialist, fascist and capitalist, with fascism dominant. Capitalism as the principle guiding govt policy ended in the Progressive late 1800s. "The Progressive Era (1896-1916) was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States of America that spanned the 1890s to the 1920s." [Wikipedia] The 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act was one of the first big P laws. Bush, of course, is one of many Reps who supported Dem economic controls since the late 19th century. Eg, his big drug program. He also joined w/Obama for a huge recession relief. You evade long-term Rep support for big govt. Trump wanted bigger Covid relief than Biden. The last important capitalist politician was Goldwater in the early 1960s. Reps now are fully committed to controls and subsidies. Your mind is in a Leftist bubble. Your evasion of Rands ideas confesses that you know she is correct. The first sacrifice of altruism is the mind. Lie for altruism!
the concept of saving is completely lost on Americans. all the comments are wondering if the government's going to pay them or if they have to rely on their children.
Inflation punishes savings & spons from artificially low interest rates. Which makes it even less profitable to save. Blame the fed for that. It's literally their stated goal to discourage saving. Social security is funded through deficit spending, which causes even more inflation. You also cannot understate the government's regulatory involvement in ruining the cost of living. With the money stolen to fund SS, people would've invested into productivity & private savings, which would be lent out to productive ventures. That not only decreases the cost of living, but brings up wages, benefits, & increases innovation. Most of our history we didn't have it. It is not at all necessary or good.
I completely agree with you all. Having the government forcefully take money out of your paycheck so that they can save for you is the most insane thing ever invented. Government is where money goes to die oh, and the idea that they're going to somehow be a good steward of your financial future is the most laughable thing I've ever heard
If the government was really worried about retirees they should make a law that stated that you have to provide evidence say every 5 years that you are contributing 5% of your income to your future retirement. But they're like no will take the money from you and just trust us 😅😓
What about the Singapore model? You are forced to save a certain amount of your income while you work. You also have control over how that money gets invested (it's a true savings account). But you can only withdraw it on retirement.
If they unwind this, educational programs should be installed about saving for retirement, and insurance purchasing for long term disability. This is a common sense curriculum and should be mandatory, maybe taught in home Ed. classes in high school. But there needs to be teeth on the financial institutions that lose the money.
You obviously don't know what the interest rate is and you have not done the math on how much it costs to live 20 years on a fixed income. I am happy for you Chris but your lack of humanity and common sense is staggering.
@@carlkolchak4437 My lack of humanity? Well I guess I had a modicum of that when I voted Libertarian the past two Presidential Elections. But since then I found my self now on SSDI for a long term. I was throwing out a possible solution if they somehow managed to eliminate Social Security. I now rely on it so I am not interested in seeing it go away. I have to remain in bed to remain healthy. I am not adequately educated to perform at another job type. And I tried.
Ending welfare is a means, not an end. It should be gradually ended to cause the least pain. Objectivism is a realistic philosophy of life, not suffering duty to unrealistic ideals.
This would cripple the economy. You would see entire industries die. You would see people die. You would see bussnesses close. Probably an increase on murder and suicide as well. You'd also probably have a riot of elderly people with guns.
A while back, Chile required people to make investments in some subset of an approved set of stocks, and insured the investments by some amount. The result was a boom in their economy with all this money pouring into Chilean companies. I don't know what the long term results are or how much the government paid out during recessions; but it sounds at least more productive than the American ponzi scheme.
If the government can send billions to other countries they can afford to pay me my ss that I worked 40 yes for . Also ipayd for the old folks so they got ss.
The problem is the currency. You can't have Capitalsm without some sort of socialistic security net. Whether it be in the form of a private or federally funded pension plan. If we were still on the gold standard we all would be making less and but our money would go further. Inflation on currency is a tax and the lower income earners have been taxed into oblivion. Average inflation on currency is 23% a year.
The federal government is "We the people", so we own many public lands and other public assets. We have already paid enormous taxes to fund these defunct programs. Do we also need to have a garage sell of our public assets to give money to a only a few who have paid in. What about all those forced to pay in that will never get a return on their "investment"?
If you don't get rid of the Federal Reserve and the fact all money is leant into existence, then any money saved is devalued by the time you need it. Two thirds of Americans live pay check to pay check if they have a job, and not due to excessive lifestyles but due to the fact inflation has made the cost of living higher than a large number of people's earning potential. We will have to start using rejuvenation centers like in Logan's Run.
The irony is Ayn Rand got SS and Medicare at the end of her life, she had to have someone else apply for her but she got it. I bet the Institute doesn't teach that.
If one took their own SS contributions, and ones mandatory employer's matching SS contributions (which reduces your take home pay BTW), and instead put that money in a bucket and buried it in your backyard, you'd have more money at your disposal, even without adjusting for inflation, that one can ever expect to retrieve from SS in one's lifetime.
or you could have kids and rely on family to take care of you in your old age. Might sound like an indignity, but Social Security is fundamentally stealing from your kids so you don't have to ask for their help when you get old. it's a lot more moral than the current system.
It doesn't matter if you give a damn or not. If you want it to go away, you either wait until it gets phased out, or leave like Ragnar and form a free society.
Agree with your explanation of how to handle it; phase it out. Problem is, these people will likely not be able to "save" due to cost of living factors among other things.. Sucks to be me (if I don't save & protect my future purchasing power).
The "employer" portion could be shunted into a 401k. That's still more compulsion or interference than an objectivist would likely approve; but it would be savings that aren't left in tempting reach of Congress.
My SS isn't being cash flowed by other people. do the math $400/mo for 30years at 7%= ~$500K. a 5% payout is $2000/month The problem is low wage earners. they get 90% of the first $926 of AIME it drops to 32% for the next increment. My wife and I get a pension, so we pay tax on 85% of our SS, It is subtle means testing, of the $24K SS, the government get $3K of it, back in taxes
Immediate withdrawal from statism will obviously harm many people, but i don't believe it serves no rational purpose. the people who benefit from the limited market access the state provides will suffer in a stateless society but the people who will benefit from the quality and availability created by competition will surely benefit. The question is, who decides who should suffer and who should benefit? The Market (free individuals)? The Congress? Obama? Which is the moral system?
I think the best system is to rely on your children to care for you when you're too old to work. not only would that solve the problee of declining birthrates in the west but it would also mold families together. of course, it's less comfortable than to let government care for your parents, but its clearly the better system
Wrong wrong wrong. We should not be paying the government 15% (including the employer’s contribution) of our income to provide income for when we’re old. We should be SAVING THAT OURSELVES! It is NOT the government’s responsibility to care for us when we are old, it’s OUR responsibility to plan ahead for ourselves.
Man's free will is the only cause of ideas. Concrete situations cannot cause ideas, whether in all or only some of the people in them. Prison sentence lengths are rationally related to specific crimes re the destructiveness of the crimes. The big problem of repeat offenders shows that many prisoners choose irrational lessons from jail.
The way to do that is have the amount of a person's lump sum based in large part on his/her age. A person at the standard retirement age of 65 would get the most. Those older would get progressively less with 80 being the upper age cutoff. Those younger, who still have earning years left, would also get progressively less.
You can't go that way, noone would ever accept that. People need to change the way they look at things gradually. You cannot say: "No more social security" and expect people to like that... but if it happens in tiny steps over a long period of time, then it does not hurt so much. And the economy need to be rebuilt, which also happens over time.
My concern is with seeing this socialism never repeated again. Yes, your basic concern is negative, the end of socialism, rather than the benefits to man of a gradual shift to capitalism along with a philosophical defense of capitalism. Your economic determinism, ie, Marxism, is false. And religion, ie, the alleged transcendental duty to suffer, still guides your thinking. People are guided by ideas, not concrete situations.
@@generalsalami8875 the price of money doesn't rely on gold but on service or work depends how we get currency whatever currency we get. Instead having a society based on coin we get one based on service. It has to start locally first and our current coin will still be with us for sometime but when we get used to serving each other that will change the world. I will ponder on this more and make a video on it and upload it on my channel.
No, but the principle are the same. This is how nature works, and you cannot go against nature - if you do you will feel pain. There are not fast solutions man! Everything in life takes time to make it work.
Im unclear on your meaning. Eg, I didnt advocate a stateless society. But you may mean, and I agree, that there is not a precise guide to a transition to capitalism. But we should do it anyway because all will benefit in the long run. The longer a delay, the sooner the destructive long run from our current short-range economy will arrive.
I don't know about 2013 when this was put out but as of right now I know from personal experience that not everyone can save especially with the cost of living. I was raised by my great grandmother, woman was great at saving and worked 2 jobs all her life owned her own diner and she wound up relying on social security for her living anyway. Charity is an unreliable and a terrible way to live. and morals are gone family will not take care of you. The same great grandmother has dementia, fortunately the meds control it, but before the meds I was facing loosing my job to take care of her because our family wouldn't even watch her so I could go to work. Her social would have been all we would have had to live off of. Nursing home? I would never do that to her but even if I was willing how the hell would we have paid for it? Her social would never cover it nor would my paycheck. and again family was no where to be found to help financially either. Social Security is a necessity like it or not. Only the rich can afford not to have it.
Inflation punishes savings & spons from artificially low interest rates. Which makes it even less profitable to save! Blame the fed for that. It's literally their stated goal to punish savers. Social security is funded through deficit spending, which causes even more inflation. You also cannot understate the government's regulatory involvement in ruining the cost of living. With the money stolen to fund SS, people would've invested into productivity & private savings, which would be lent out to productive ventures. That not only decreases the cost of living, but brings up wages, benefits, increases innovation. Most of our history we didn't have it. It is not at all necessary or good. That's simply wrong.
Except that your characterization of SS is entirely inaccurate. It does not force anybody to save. People don't pay into a retirement fund for themselves. Their money goes into general revenue and is used to pay part of the outlays to current recipients. The SS system is in debt massively. There is no SS fund. Payouts are already larger than collections.
Youre dropping the context of anarchy, dictatorship and national poverty that would follow from immediate withdrawal from govt subsidies and controls. The purpose of capitalism is basically life and happiness, not, basically, punishment of evil. You are interpreting Objectivism from the perspective of duty. Objectivism is not a duty to ideals regardless of what happens to individuals. Its a guide to life and happiness for individuals.
If you spent a lifetime contributing and paying for others to retire then surely you are entitled to the same. It's true that it's a pyramid scheme but if it weren't for the fact that modern industry, economics, politics and the law make it impossible to keep the family as a unit and forces us against our wishes into the workplace instead of sustaining ourselves by our own means then are we supposed to work ourselves to death. I have no problem with concepts of capitalism but you can't kick us in the balls and expect us to be happy about it.
Inflation punishes savings & spons from artificially low interest rates. Which makes it even less profitable to save. Blame the fed for that. It's literally their stated goal to discourage saving. Social security is funded through deficit spending, which causes even more inflation. You also cannot understate the government's regulatory involvement in ruining the cost of living. With the money stolen to fund SS, people would've invested into productivity & private savings, which would be lent out to productive ventures. That not only decreases the cost of living, but brings up wages, benefits, & increases innovation. Most of our history we didn't have it. It is not at all necessary or good.
The Masters of mankind. all for ourselves nothing for every one else. That twenty year old may some day reach 65. If he can afford private medical insurance. To hate your fellow man, to be indifferent to human suffering to condemn the weak because they are weak. It is a perversion of moral philosophy to say, to claim, to proclaim, to believe that social security is evil.
Parents have a responsibility to raise their children to grow into responsible self-sufficient adults, to show them love etc. If your parents did a good job raising you, you have a good relationship with them, you have extra money & time... Then it is your responsibility to help take care of them, depending on details - how good were they at parenting, how much $ do they need, what & do you really have extra, do you have children, do you live near them etc
So if you're parents are irresponsible drunkards, or say they have some bad illness, or they die when you're young, etc... You're whole life is fucked. Good system, strongly advocate that.
Whee! You didn't watch the vid, did you? YB covered that. Simply withdrawing it will leave people stranded, people who have planned on it being there. Such actions are not moral. How much time people need to replan is another thing. I don't know if I'd allow people as long as 25 years to replan, as YB suggests.
The federal government owns many assets, including about 650 million acres of land. Much of that could be sold and the revenue given to the elderly and near-elderly as lump sum buyouts. There may not be enough for a complete buyout, but it can certainly make a significant dent.
(1) If a thief stole from you, would it be right to get what was stolen back? Likewise, the government stole money from Rand via taxation, and social security was her means getting some of that money back. (2) Suppose it was hypocritical--how is that relevant to the argument?
5 років тому
@@JohnDavis-im1oy Medicare tax started only in 1966, i don't think she paid much between 1966 - 1974 as her main works we before that. Most likely she was net loss for medicare.
5 років тому
@Bill Randall Different tax, different users. If your neighbour A takes from you and you steal back from B, it doesn't go right, does it?
This is great when you are young and healthy as you think you will always feel that way but once your health goes you will think different. It's easy to say save but a bout or two with cancer and you are at square one. Lastly it is your money you paid in not a gift.
The main argument for social security is LUCK. No one goes through life with things ALWAYS working out for them . NOR do they go through alone. But too many think as if people do. Shit happens and it could happen to any of us. Having a social safety net mitigates social problems. People advocating getting rid of this social safety net are people experiencing hubris...may karma bite them in the butt...and may they make some sort of effort to check their premises.
Sid Kaskey social security isn't a social safety net. It's theft
5 років тому
@@dmo4scho364 You breathing air is a theft because you do not have contract with world about common use of air. Pollution etc. same thing. Consumerism on grand scale, same thing etc. etc. It's line drawn in water and then making argument for it. Your value judgement on it is as good as anyone's.
@ no one owns the world or thr air. Life is an inalienable right I agree with you on pollution though
3 роки тому
@@MrDanielfff777 Air was extreme case, the idea stands, how do you get ownership of natural resources? Why the following generations would honor previous system that has provided much of the natural resources to the aristocrats and robber barons in history and now owned by their descendants. It's not like they were shared fairly and everyone had equal opportunity.
Youre still concerned basically w/punishment rather than life. Chosen ideas, not events, cause people to learn. Millenia of statism taught people nothing. People need new ideas of morality and politics. Immediate withdrawal from some statism will greatly harm many people. That harm serves no rational purpose. You drop the context of individual rights, ie, life. Objectivism is a philosophy for life and happiness, not, basically ,moral condemnation. You still have some religious ideas.
I understand that people don't have the right to OPM but the government's been doing that because we let the government do that. The solution to the problem of the economy is not found in getting rid of one program, but in looking at the whole picture like seeing there are low income people living in this economy, who can't save like others could because all their money is going into living in the present.
Inflation punishes savings & spons from artificially low interest rates. Which makes it even less profitable to save. Blame the fed for that. It's literally their stated goal to discourage saving. Social security is funded through deficit spending, which causes even more inflation. You also cannot understate the government's regulatory involvement in ruining the cost of living. With the money stolen to fund SS, people would've invested into productivity & private savings, which would be lent out to productive ventures. That not only decreases the cost of living, but brings up wages, benefits, & increases innovation. Most of our history we didn't have it. It is not at all necessary or good.
Has anyone told this guy that people that collect social security have paid into it for perhaps their entire lives along with the employer that they worked for contributing on their behalf. So U wanna cut somebody off & steal their hard earned & invested dollars. Just because the Government squandered the investments of millions of people does not mean that the people are to blame & deserve to be stolen from any more than your scenario suggests
+friendsoffreedom2012 No, he wants to make it very clear to everyone that their dollars have been stolen by the federal government and already spent. This is why he doesn't want the crooks in the federal government to take any more.
I'm a conservative. Let's start there. However, the views expressed in the video are the typical, regurgitated views of both economists and Republicans, many, not all, for I, myself lean heavily Republican. These views, in my opinion, are coming from a man who has studied the system from books and educators who themselves have studied from books and educators who all have been whitewashed and homogenized to just look at numbers, statistics, etc., never really sitting back, with an open mind and exploring the whole matter as if doing a "Thought Experiment" as Einstein had done. These views, are very wrong in my opinion. There are two reasons why, and here they are: Let's get the subtle, mushy one out of the way first. It is the least important of the two: We are a society. We are, "supposedly" no longer animalistic - I mean we're all "human/humane," correct? We've come a long way from the question posed by Cain of the Bible - "Am I my brother's keeper?" Well, if we do indeed consider ourselves in a cooperative society, non-animalistic, governed by laws, not nature, and we consider ourselves humane, then the answer to that question is indeed, "Yes, WE are our brother's keepers." Whether it be strangers or the closest loved ones of family or friends: We would not want to see them suffer or go through hardship or indeed die due to not having the means of helping themselves for various reasons both good and "bad." Would we? I think not - not as a society - and if the answer to that is "yes," then I'm sure that this is not the society we should be building for ourselves or our posterity. What is proposed, "...depending on charity/family..." is nice, but not practical. This is by no means a "theory" - it is not practical today as it is - There are many people homeless, without funds of any sort, without medical insurance, etc., and many of these people are living very poor and sad lives and are dying in their infirmities. Charities, friends, and family are all failing them. And there are those too who would ONLY have charity as they no longer have any friends or family. -- As a "humane," "non-animalistic," society - We cannot, nor should let this happen on our watch. -- Yet we do - even now, today, there are people dying like this. Charity can and should be improved. However, this is a morals and ethics issue. It's a whole other can-of-worms. Charity needs to be taught. Morals and ethics need to be taught and we as a society have been very lax in that teaching. This can be improved, especially nowadays with the age of the Internet - sites could be set up by BOTH secular society AND the government to accept charities for various causes. Advertisement of such charities and causes should be part of the funding that does come in so that the word can spread more easily. Indeed do we really need a tax system at all? Or can the government also be run like a charity? I, philosophically, think it can and should. Let's get back to the most important of all issues: The complete wrong thinking in this matter of "Is it really government's responsibility to take care of people?" -- YES! UNEQUIVOCALLY, YES!!!! And here's why: People's self-sustaining means to provide for themselves has been horribly eroded by government. A bit more than a century or so ago, for example, people "lived off the land." They took what they wanted and needed from their environment - this was the "norm." They hunted, gathered, fished, took furs, planted and harvested, chopped trees, built homes, etc., etc... etc... All from the environment. All without limitation or government's meddling. Yet nowadays, all this has been put to a stop. There are hunting and fishing "seasons" with creel limits, etc. You must buy a hunting or fishing license - which, by the way, can easily cost more than what could be harvested. How many hunters or fishers have pursued their activity - fully paid up on the license - and came home empty? -- The same goes for harvesting fur bearing animals. There are housing regulations and permits - no more free wood to chop or building of "log cabins" without the government's getting it's hand-out! The land is no longer free - eminent domain vs. allodial title, the latter is very nearly extinct. The case is made. The government has stifled people in more ways than I have mentioned. Therefore, IT IS the government's responsibility to take care of people. You simply cannot have it both ways. You cannot regulate self-sufficiency to death AND then say it's not the government's responsibility to take care of people. This is at the least a horrible oversight and at the worst very twisted thinking or even purposely engineered to once again bring in the aristocracy - who are indeed the ones engineering it, if so. Pick one. Not both. Get rid of all laws, licences, regulations to ALL activities that I have mentioned and others along the same lines and THEN and ONLY THEN consider removing government from the responsibility of taking care of those in need --- or -- continue to take care of those in need, even better than what is being done now. Because, essentially, this is government theft, disguised as environmentalism amongst other euphemisms. We - the people - of society are being robbed blind. Give us our DUE handouts or stop robbing us. ... Essentially. ;) --RackAttack
RackAttackGamer: You wrote "I'm a conservative." Comment: I always laugh at the identity politics used. Some politicians say "I'm a gun owner." as if they support the 2nd Amendment, then proceed to propose gun bans, waiting periods, and all sorts of other traps for the law abiding. I just hope the people are recognizing identity politics and don't fall it.
You cannot make a flower grow fast by pouring water over it... it needs time. It is the same with everything in life. Let's say a guy has low self-esteem, he cannot love himself immediately, it takes time and it is the same with the economy.
How is that relevant in this context? I don't see why there would be less investment if you invested in your own retirement compared to the government doing the same. You'd rather be more careful and invest better and smarter. Or did I misunderstand your comment?
I challenge you to give a single valid argument for social security. You seem so hellbent on your dogma, maybe you can defend it? Or maybe you're just a bad faith, arrogant, p*ssy? I'm betting on number 2
I agree the system isn't working but what you're saying is not the total truth as always. There is a tremendous amount of capital being generated by the community publicly funded research and the fruits that they produce are being appropriated privately. We need to make sure that doesn't happen. and make sure publicly funded research that develops technologies like gps, the Internet, 3-D printers and so on are protected with patents that make money that we can return to the community
Social security was never intended to be a retirement plan. Government over promised and mis managed as usual
Yes it was. In fact Social Security is an insurance policy that protects the elderly from abject poverty.
@@sinebar insurance from abject poverty is not the same as a retirement plan. You were expected to be dead by the time you received social security when it was created.
Who taught you this? I hope you didn't pay them.
I'm all for abolishing SS. That's a good $1200 a month that can go into investments so I can have a decent retirement.
Write me a check for the amount the government took from me my entire life and keep your social security. I do consider it part of my retirement because I was told by the government that I would get all the money I loaned the government back a little at a time. I have an idea, let’s take every dime from all the politicians and their families that caused this mess.
Thieves (politicians) told you something and you believed it? My friends all went to jail. I was the only one that didn’t go to jail. I would never believe a word they say much less a financial promise they made.
I would be fine with the idea of cutting what I've got coming to me in half when I retire if it means that younger people will no longer have to pay into SS and that the system would be totally phased within a couple of decades.
Would such a change sting considering that I've paid into the system for close to 40 years with the promise of a return?
Yes. It WOULD hurt.
BUT if things continue as they are now the whole things could collapse anyway!
I say find a reasonable way to phase it out.
Curtis Rupp buddy, that’s already happening..so where are the riots? The government spends every dime you put in every paycheck with a IOU to SS. If you believe living off of SS is the proper way to retire you obviously saved wrong and/or someone lied to you. It’s supposed to supplement not replace your income.
So you would be ok financially. But what about the single mother living paycheck to paycheck each week and she has paid into Social Security all her working adult life? She has paid into ss all her working life but should have to suffer as soon as they start to phase out?
@@pjbcoastalyes. She is a single mother and therefore made bad choices and should suffer. She won’t of course because her kids will be grown and will take care of her unless they also get pregnant out of wedlock like their mom did. Bad decisions should be punished to stop people from making more bad decision.
Please recall the following about social security.
1. It was never intended to be a pension.
2. The retirement age was selected when most people are dead so they did not have to payout.
3. It was a scheme to get people to agree to a federal income tax.
We need all dollars in the USD to be taxed for social security. Most of it is untaxed funds. The poor cant fund this place forever.
Yes it was.
Spot on. As always, voluntary exchange is the solution. Retirement isn’t right for everyone. If they want to retire but haven’t made their own arrangements they can’t. If they’re infirm, philanthropy is the only possible alternative
I ask you this. What about the people that work making minimum wage for 30-50 yrs and with the rise in costs of living and inflation? Companies are not going to start paying people more just because they are paying less in taxes
@@pjbcoastal how do you know?
@@libertybellgaming6551 because its not in their best interest.
See that's the difference between objectivists and libertarian, Chicago style economists like Friedman and Hayek. Objectivists will always find a way to say "too bad for the infirm, life sucks." They won't say it like that of course, but they might as well be saying "let them eat cake." Philanthropy? Doesn't that go against your entire value system btw? But even the most conservative economists have a caveat in their policies for those in dire need.
@@pjbcoastal Less then 3% of workers in America work for minimum wage, and that 3% always changes. Sure there will be some losers, but that is their problem.
For the ones who have productive children.. for the one's who don't, charity would be sought.
Good point..
Sweden's pension system was at one time close to what our Social Security is. They privatized it and not only did it take it away as a tool for politicians to get votes it is actually people putting money back for retirement. I'm not saying we should do everything Sweden does but look to others mistakes and try to avoid making those same mistakes.
Right on man! This clip should be played on Radio & TV as an "Info-Mercial" every 15 minutes, every hour, every day, 'til the end of time or until the ABOMINATION of Social Security is TERMINATED!
Thats just calling for mandated propaganda.
Where to hell did he come from??? People who live on Social Security are living on money that was deducted from their paychecks, so they did save even though the government took it without their permission.
But it is current people who pay in that keeps the system afloat. The social security tax money from the current retirees is long spent by the government.
@@4.0gpa44 The surplus is invested US Government Bonds. You don't know that?
sure are a lot of know it alls on here for things to be in such a damn mess
@ 2:53 "This is a massive pyramid scheme."
Comment: Social security is worse than a Ponzi scheme or a pyramid scheme because social security is forcibly mandated. Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes are voluntary, and when it comes to these schemes, if one does not know the scheme and is only told how much they will make from their investment, then consider the "it is too good to be true" as a reason to avoid it.
You clearly don't know what a Ponzi or a Pyramid scheme even is. Only the guy at the top of the Pyramid gets the money. A Ponzi Scheme is when one or a handful of people get the money where the majority of investors give them money and they get nothing in return. The main line Republican and Conservative Pundits are lying. In the 2030's Social Security won't be bankrupt, but if the payroll tax is not increased it will not being paying at out 100% but less. Some of these guys that want to get rid of Social Security have a net worth in the millions.
Fox News is against SS ect.. but here is what was the biggest Ponzi Scheme ever and it's straight from Fox News. Bernie Madoff with billions with his phony Stock Broker scheme. www.foxnews.com/us/bernie-madoff-ponzi-scheme-everything-you-should-know
@@attilathehun0 he means that the schemers fool you into giving your money voluntarily. The govt taxes it, ie takes it, by vote of majority, which does not make an act moral. We have a beautiful country and every state can manage voluntary funds, which can surely, over time, reduce the burden on the tax funded social security.
You should be able to opt out of SS under the understanding you won’t receive it. People should have choices in a so called free country. In a true free country other people don’t have a moral claim against my life.
jeep23862
“everybody who has enough wealth....”. What you’re saying is people who aren’t wealthy are irresponsible and are incapable of saving for retirement. Well I don’t agree with that comment. If a person really believes they aren’t responsible enough to save they can continue to pay into SS. Everyone else can take that 12% that they pay into SS and deposit it into a retirement plan THEY control, which won’t have a negative rate of return like SS. This is not about “rich & poor”, or “duty to society”. Everyone who works pays into it already, so your whole premise is bs. This is about choices for those who want it. Of course SS would need to be a real plan and not a Ponzi Scheme.
“the rich who benefited from society....”. You are saying no one else benefits from society. The middle class and the poor haven’t benefit from society. That’s an ignorant statement if I’ve ever heard one! Everyone benefits, some more than others because they contribute more. Some create opportunities for others. FYI, under our current tax system the top 50% of income earners pay 98% of the federal tax budget, if you want to talk about who benefits from society.
“I’ve never read or heard....”. ‘from each according to his ability; to each according to his need’. This statement of collectivist ideology is saying other people’s needs gives them the right to take from others, in some sort of twisted moral right. Now you’ve read it.
@@MrMJpilot
Regarding your:-
“I’ve never read or heard....”. ‘from each according to his ability; to each according to his need".
You almost scored a brownie point but as usual you choose to miss out the context on which I based my comment:-
You said:-
""In a true free country other people don’t have a moral claim against my life."?
I simply pointed out that in a "FREE" country
nobody is claiming there is a moral claim against your life and there isn't.
There is a lawful Constitutional claim on that money the law degrees should be paid by you as your contribution to maintain the welfare of society.
Something you're in disagreement with.
That's your problem not the laws certainly not mine.
Your problem is you must accept those duties and responsibilities of citizenship and while if your where born in the USA or wherever you can claim the right to complain about it Rand having chosen of her own freewill to become a citizen of the US by default accepts the laws, rules and Constitution that governs the US or wherever .
jeep23862
jeep23862
Again you miss represent the meaning of my words because you don’t listen. I never said people shouldn’t contribute to society. I said that some people contribute more than others. A lot more.
You say no one has a moral claim but what’s “that money”? What you call “that money” is other people’s talent, effort, sweat, and time away from their family. That’s a claim against their life because people don’t live forever. It’s easy to say others need to contribute more when you don’t contribute. When you’re one of the wolves deciding what’s for dinner. It’s the people who contribute the most who keep charity alive because the government sucks at it. Freedom and charity is voluntary not coerced.
I’m done with this conversation. This is not a debate. You have your opinion and I have mine. I’ve said all I’m gonna on this subject. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the authority to take from some for the sole purpose of redistribution. If you want everyone to contribute like you say start by support for changing our tax code to a flat tax where everyone contributes.
jeep23862
Hahahaha boy you’re dumb! All of that is YOUR opinion.
I wonder how many would take an opt-out that, say, cut their payment in half, or shunted half into their 401k, while forfeiting their right to receive social security payments later.
I just want what was taken without my consent. Just what I earned.
They took much more than your social security without your consent. And you don’t even own your house by the way. If you don’t pay property taxes: the government will kick you out of your house.
I was in class today, and we had a guest speaker come in. She talked about how she works helping drug addicts get off the street and get housing and get social security. She herself did this, she got an apartment by getting social security after she decided to stop using methamphetamine and so forth. I was supposed to sign a survey so that her organization can keep receiving funds from the government. Everyone just signs the paper. I did not. Part of the reason I didn’t sign it is because it required me to say that my ethnicity is either “hispanic” or “ non-hispanic”- which is utterly ridiculous in itself. There is no way I support their organization or what she is doing. I have rented a room, worked overtime, gone to a junior college, all on my own to make it- meanwhile paying unbelievable amounts of taxes. I thought what she has done and is doing is an utter scam, and today listening to her was a slap in the face. If I were to say what I think out loud in class I probably would be shunned.
People do save, social security takes 12.6 percent of most people's income. The problem is the funds are gone.
Just remember - this attitude caused Mitt Romney - when he picked Paul Ryan as V.P, to lose the election.
Start by reducing the huge military budget that eats up 25% of the federal budget. We don't need to be spending more than the top 19 countries in the world, 90% of which are friendly to us.
A gradual shift to capitalism would produce more for less, increasing the value of your money/
This Country is already Capitalist.
@@attilathehun0 Marxist capitalism is business-dominated govt and includes controls, so you are correct in this context. Ayn Rands capitalism is individual rights, with no controls, so you are wrong in this context. Re Rand, US capitalism ended in the Progressive, late 19th century. Its now virtually impossible, whether rich, middle class or poor, to escape govt economic controls. Dems and Reps are committed to increasing controls. But they will be fascist regulations, not communist ownership. There is no mainstream advocacy of individual rights. Both sides are committed to altruism. Both are terrified by mans independent mind. Your screen name screams that terror of self-responsibility shared by Marxists, religious conservatives and Nazis.
@@TeaParty1776 Ayn Rand did collect Social Security when she got old. Capitalism is still alive in this country today. US Capitalism did not end in the late 19th Century. There is nothing Progressive about the late 1800s. You must be thinking of run away Capitalism no minimum wage, no medical and dental insurance, no overtime and no pension. Back in 2004 the Bush Administration hammered through over time reform which resulted in more work and less pay. In the 1980's traditional pensions replaced by 401k. Some people did good with the 401k and some did not, because when it comes to the stock market there is high risk high gain and low risk and low gain, but there are no guarantee. If the Republican politicians kill Social Security. They will pass a law where employers will no longer have to pitch in to the employees 401k.
@@attilathehun0 The US is a mixed economy: socialist, fascist and capitalist, with fascism dominant. Capitalism as the principle guiding govt policy ended in the Progressive late 1800s.
"The Progressive Era (1896-1916) was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States of America that spanned the 1890s to the 1920s." [Wikipedia] The 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act was one of the first big P laws.
Bush, of course, is one of many Reps who supported Dem economic controls since the late 19th century. Eg, his big drug program. He also joined w/Obama for a huge recession relief. You evade long-term Rep support for big govt. Trump wanted bigger Covid relief than Biden. The last important capitalist politician was Goldwater in the early 1960s. Reps now are fully committed to controls and subsidies. Your mind is in a Leftist bubble. Your evasion of Rands ideas confesses that you know she is correct. The first sacrifice of altruism is the mind. Lie for altruism!
@@TeaParty1776 you're right, how can I learn more
Answer: The world would get better and people will be more free.
It would be helpful if medically-assisted-dying were legal for everyone. This would take care of several problems people have.
Take away Social Security that's fine by me but the government will have to pay me back my $200,000 that they took out since I've been working
the concept of saving is completely lost on Americans. all the comments are wondering if the government's going to pay them or if they have to rely on their children.
Government is not going to pay them!!!! We have put money every week from our small paychecks which apparently has been stolen by the government!!!!
Inflation punishes savings & spons from artificially low interest rates. Which makes it even less profitable to save.
Blame the fed for that. It's literally their stated goal to discourage saving.
Social security is funded through deficit spending, which causes even more inflation. You also cannot understate the government's regulatory involvement in ruining the cost of living.
With the money stolen to fund SS, people would've invested into productivity & private savings, which would be lent out to productive ventures. That not only decreases the cost of living, but brings up wages, benefits, & increases innovation.
Most of our history we didn't have it. It is not at all necessary or good.
I completely agree with you all. Having the government forcefully take money out of your paycheck so that they can save for you is the most insane thing ever invented. Government is where money goes to die oh, and the idea that they're going to somehow be a good steward of your financial future is the most laughable thing I've ever heard
If the government was really worried about retirees they should make a law that stated that you have to provide evidence say every 5 years that you are contributing 5% of your income to your future retirement. But they're like no will take the money from you and just trust us 😅😓
Justice is a virtue for life, not a duty for punishment.
What about the Singapore model? You are forced to save a certain amount of your income while you work. You also have control over how that money gets invested (it's a true savings account). But you can only withdraw it on retirement.
Uk now have something similar
Better, but just let them save as much as they want.
Force is evil. You have no right to force anyone to do anything.
It's 2022. You can open a Roth IRA and invest in cheap index funds within minutes. We do not need Social Security anymore.
Sell federal assets to pay the people and give tax credits. To younger people. Anyone under 40 should be refunded in tax credits
If they unwind this, educational programs should be installed about saving for retirement, and insurance purchasing for long term disability. This is a common sense curriculum and should be mandatory, maybe taught in home Ed. classes in high school. But there needs to be teeth on the financial institutions that lose the money.
You obviously don't know what the interest rate is and you have not done the math on how much it costs to live 20 years on a fixed income. I am happy for you Chris but your lack of humanity and common sense is staggering.
@@carlkolchak4437 My lack of humanity? Well I guess I had a modicum of that when I voted Libertarian the past two Presidential Elections. But since then I found my self now on SSDI for a long term. I was throwing out a possible solution if they somehow managed to eliminate Social Security. I now rely on it so I am not interested in seeing it go away. I have to remain in bed to remain healthy. I am not adequately educated to perform at another job type. And I tried.
Ending welfare is a means, not an end. It should be gradually ended to cause the least pain. Objectivism is a realistic philosophy of life, not suffering duty to unrealistic ideals.
This would cripple the economy. You would see entire industries die. You would see people die. You would see bussnesses close. Probably an increase on murder and suicide as well.
You'd also probably have a riot of elderly people with guns.
Of course he's right, but there will be no phase out. It will be a train wreck of disaster, reckoning to failed fiscal behavior.
A while back, Chile required people to make investments in some subset of an approved set of stocks, and insured the investments by some amount. The result was a boom in their economy with all this money pouring into Chilean companies.
I don't know what the long term results are or how much the government paid out during recessions; but it sounds at least more productive than the American ponzi scheme.
If the government can send billions to other countries they can afford to pay me my ss that I worked 40 yes for . Also ipayd for the old folks so they got ss.
"Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does." --William James
The problem is the currency. You can't have Capitalsm without some sort of socialistic security net. Whether it be in the form of a private or federally funded pension plan. If we were still on the gold standard we all would be making less and but our money would go further. Inflation on currency is a tax and the lower income earners have been taxed into oblivion. Average inflation on currency is 23% a year.
The federal government is "We the people", so we own many public lands and other public assets. We have already paid enormous taxes to fund these defunct programs. Do we also need to have a garage sell of our public assets to give money to a only a few who have paid in. What about all those forced to pay in that will never get a return on their "investment"?
Reimburse us all... 🤨
If you don't get rid of the Federal Reserve and the fact all money is leant into existence, then any money saved is devalued by the time you need it. Two thirds of Americans live pay check to pay check if they have a job, and not due to excessive lifestyles but due to the fact inflation has made the cost of living higher than a large number of people's earning potential. We will have to start using rejuvenation centers like in Logan's Run.
The irony is Ayn Rand got SS and Medicare at the end of her life, she had to have someone else apply for her but she got it. I bet the Institute doesn't teach that.
She received her stolen money back. I will be doing the same.
👍👍👍
Punishment and justice are means to an end, life, not out-of-context duties.
If one took their own SS contributions, and ones mandatory employer's matching SS contributions (which reduces your take home pay BTW), and instead put that money in a bucket and buried it in your backyard, you'd have more money at your disposal, even without adjusting for inflation, that one can ever expect to retrieve from SS in one's lifetime.
or you could have kids and rely on family to take care of you in your old age. Might sound like an indignity, but Social Security is fundamentally stealing from your kids so you don't have to ask for their help when you get old. it's a lot more moral than the current system.
It doesn't matter if you give a damn or not. If you want it to go away, you either wait until it gets phased out, or leave like Ragnar and form a free society.
I love how our economy has become SO intertwined with the stock market.
Well um...um....well yeah
Expect Social Security isn’t tied to the stock market
@@TreGraves_ Nigga what
Blame the fed for that
Agree with your explanation of how to handle it; phase it out.
Problem is, these people will likely not be able to "save" due to cost of living factors among other things..
Sucks to be me (if I don't save & protect my future purchasing power).
Inflation punishes savings & spons from artificially low interest rates, which makes it even less profitable. The fed sucks.
The "employer" portion could be shunted into a 401k. That's still more compulsion or interference than an objectivist would likely approve; but it would be savings that aren't left in tempting reach of Congress.
My SS isn't being cash flowed by other people. do the math
$400/mo for 30years at 7%= ~$500K. a 5% payout is $2000/month
The problem is low wage earners.
they get 90% of the first $926 of AIME
it drops to 32% for the next increment.
My wife and I get a pension, so we pay tax on 85% of our SS,
It is subtle means testing, of the $24K SS, the government get $3K of it, back in taxes
That’s one cold son of a bitch ....
I will Not Be enrolling my children in social security
Immediate withdrawal from statism will obviously harm many people, but i don't believe it serves no rational purpose. the people who benefit from the limited market access the state provides will suffer in a stateless society but the people who will benefit from the quality and availability created by competition will surely benefit. The question is, who decides who should suffer and who should benefit? The Market (free individuals)? The Congress? Obama? Which is the moral system?
I think the best system is to rely on your children to care for you when you're too old to work. not only would that solve the problee of declining birthrates in the west but it would also mold families together.
of course, it's less comfortable than to let government care for your parents, but its clearly the better system
***** thanks, I know your socialistic ideology, how about some arguments if you really want to discuss?
That's quite a lot of questions.
I'll try to give you my opinion on them when I find the time.
I respond when i find the time. no excuses.
I agree. I don't have to take care of my grandparents but I chose to help them out.
Wrong wrong wrong. We should not be paying the government 15% (including the employer’s contribution) of our income to provide income for when we’re old. We should be SAVING THAT OURSELVES! It is NOT the government’s responsibility to care for us when we are old, it’s OUR responsibility to plan ahead for ourselves.
Brilliant defense of the logic of absolute selfishness.
Social security dies no good. Explain how it does.
Man's free will is the only cause of ideas. Concrete situations cannot cause ideas, whether in all or only some of the people in them.
Prison sentence lengths are rationally related to specific crimes re the destructiveness of the crimes. The big problem of repeat offenders shows that many prisoners choose irrational lessons from jail.
The way to do that is have the amount of a person's lump sum based in large part on his/her age. A person at the standard retirement age of 65 would get the most. Those older would get progressively less with 80 being the upper age cutoff. Those younger, who still have earning years left, would also get progressively less.
You can't go that way, noone would ever accept that. People need to change the way they look at things gradually. You cannot say: "No more social security" and expect people to like that... but if it happens in tiny steps over a long period of time, then it does not hurt so much. And the economy need to be rebuilt, which also happens over time.
This is the equivalent of pilullikg a bandaid off slowly. Just hurts more for longer. Downright abolish as soon as possible. No comprise BS
My concern is with seeing this socialism never repeated again.
Yes, your basic concern is negative, the end of socialism, rather than the benefits to man of a gradual shift to capitalism along with a philosophical defense of capitalism. Your economic determinism, ie, Marxism, is false. And religion, ie, the alleged transcendental duty to suffer, still guides your thinking. People are guided by ideas, not concrete situations.
what if we evolve into a money-less system? some say we're heading that way.
How would getting rid of a medium of exchange help anyone? That's just stupid lol
@@generalsalami8875 the price of money doesn't rely on gold but on service or work depends how we get currency whatever currency we get. Instead having a society based on coin we get one based on service. It has to start locally first and our current coin will still be with us for sometime but when we get used to serving each other that will change the world. I will ponder on this more and make a video on it and upload it on my channel.
@@podcastbard nevermind, we agree. Sorry, misunderstanding lol.
No, but the principle are the same. This is how nature works, and you cannot go against nature - if you do you will feel pain. There are not fast solutions man! Everything in life takes time to make it work.
Im unclear on your meaning. Eg, I didnt advocate a stateless society. But you may mean, and I agree, that there is not a precise guide to a transition to capitalism. But we should do it anyway because all will benefit in the long run. The longer a delay, the sooner the destructive long run from our current short-range economy will arrive.
I don't know about 2013 when this was put out but as of right now I know from personal experience that not everyone can save especially with the cost of living. I was raised by my great grandmother, woman was great at saving and worked 2 jobs all her life owned her own diner and she wound up relying on social security for her living anyway. Charity is an unreliable and a terrible way to live. and morals are gone family will not take care of you. The same great grandmother has dementia, fortunately the meds control it, but before the meds I was facing loosing my job to take care of her because our family wouldn't even watch her so I could go to work. Her social would have been all we would have had to live off of. Nursing home? I would never do that to her but even if I was willing how the hell would we have paid for it? Her social would never cover it nor would my paycheck. and again family was no where to be found to help financially either. Social Security is a necessity like it or not. Only the rich can afford not to have it.
Expect the money that was taxed could have been invested over time and could have made even more then was social security pays
Inflation punishes savings & spons from artificially low interest rates. Which makes it even less profitable to save!
Blame the fed for that. It's literally their stated goal to punish savers.
Social security is funded through deficit spending, which causes even more inflation. You also cannot understate the government's regulatory involvement in ruining the cost of living.
With the money stolen to fund SS, people would've invested into productivity & private savings, which would be lent out to productive ventures. That not only decreases the cost of living, but brings up wages, benefits, increases innovation.
Most of our history we didn't have it. It is not at all necessary or good. That's simply wrong.
Except that your characterization of SS is entirely inaccurate. It does not force anybody to save. People don't pay into a retirement fund for themselves. Their money goes into general revenue and is used to pay part of the outlays to current recipients. The SS system is in debt massively. There is no SS fund. Payouts are already larger than collections.
Youre dropping the context of anarchy, dictatorship and national poverty that would follow from immediate withdrawal from govt subsidies and controls. The purpose of capitalism is basically life and happiness, not, basically, punishment of evil. You are interpreting Objectivism from the perspective of duty. Objectivism is not a duty to ideals regardless of what happens to individuals. Its a guide to life and happiness for individuals.
If you spent a lifetime contributing and paying for others to retire then surely you are entitled to the same. It's true that it's a pyramid scheme but if it weren't for the fact that modern industry, economics, politics and the law make it impossible to keep the family as a unit and forces us against our wishes into the workplace instead of sustaining ourselves by our own means then are we supposed to work ourselves to death.
I have no problem with concepts of capitalism but you can't kick us in the balls and expect us to be happy about it.
TheCompleteGuitarist No, you simply aren't entitled to have other people forced to support you.
Inflation punishes savings & spons from artificially low interest rates. Which makes it even less profitable to save.
Blame the fed for that. It's literally their stated goal to discourage saving.
Social security is funded through deficit spending, which causes even more inflation. You also cannot understate the government's regulatory involvement in ruining the cost of living.
With the money stolen to fund SS, people would've invested into productivity & private savings, which would be lent out to productive ventures. That not only decreases the cost of living, but brings up wages, benefits, & increases innovation.
Most of our history we didn't have it. It is not at all necessary or good.
You never speak about the massive redistribution of wealth to the the rich.
Americans just don't get it. Always talk about the individual and never 'us' or 'we'.
Inequality is irrelevant. It's also fueled by government intervention & the fed's monetary policies.
The Masters of mankind. all for ourselves nothing for every one else. That twenty year old may some day reach 65. If he can afford private medical insurance. To hate your fellow man, to be indifferent to human suffering to condemn the weak because they are weak. It is a perversion of moral philosophy to say, to claim, to proclaim, to believe that social security is evil.
Stop it with your vague, vacuous, moralistic bullsh*t. It's not good for anyone.
If you wanna talk morals, why is theft permitted?
Parents have a responsibility to raise their children to grow into responsible self-sufficient adults, to show them love etc. If your parents did a good job raising you, you have a good relationship with them, you have extra money & time... Then it is your responsibility to help take care of them, depending on details - how good were they at parenting, how much $ do they need, what & do you really have extra, do you have children, do you live near them etc
So if you're parents are irresponsible drunkards, or say they have some bad illness, or they die when you're young, etc... You're whole life is fucked. Good system, strongly advocate that.
@@wernerbkerner9690 charity
They can save. It's not our responsibility. And go f*ck yourself for thinking you have the authority to steal my property.
Whee! You didn't watch the vid, did you? YB covered that. Simply withdrawing it will leave people stranded, people who have planned on it being there. Such actions are not moral.
How much time people need to replan is another thing. I don't know if I'd allow people as long as 25 years to replan, as YB suggests.
The federal government owns many assets, including about 650 million acres of land. Much of that could be sold and the revenue given to the elderly and near-elderly as lump sum buyouts. There may not be enough for a complete buyout, but it can certainly make a significant dent.
But Ayn got all the Social Security she had coming!!!
(1) If a thief stole from you, would it be right to get what was stolen back? Likewise, the government stole money from Rand via taxation, and social security was her means getting some of that money back.
(2) Suppose it was hypocritical--how is that relevant to the argument?
@@JohnDavis-im1oy Medicare tax started only in 1966, i don't think she paid much between 1966 - 1974 as her main works we before that. Most likely she was net loss for medicare.
@Bill Randall Different tax, different users. If your neighbour A takes from you and you steal back from B, it doesn't go right, does it?
@@oneblueorange you have no choice dumb@ss.
Not an argument. They stole from us, we simply want it back & for them to stop stealing.
This is great when you are young and healthy as you think you will always feel that way but once your health goes you will think different. It's easy to say save but a bout or two with cancer and you are at square one. Lastly it is your money you paid in not a gift.
The main argument for social security is LUCK. No one goes through life with things ALWAYS working out for them . NOR do they go through alone. But too many think as if people do. Shit happens and it could happen to any of us. Having a social safety net mitigates social problems. People advocating getting rid of this social safety net are people experiencing hubris...may karma bite them in the butt...and may they make some sort of effort to check their premises.
Sid Kaskey social security isn't a social safety net. It's theft
@@dmo4scho364 You breathing air is a theft because you do not have contract with world about common use of air. Pollution etc. same thing. Consumerism on grand scale, same thing etc. etc.
It's line drawn in water and then making argument for it. Your value judgement on it is as good as anyone's.
@ no one owns the world or thr air. Life is an inalienable right
I agree with you on pollution though
@@MrDanielfff777 Air was extreme case, the idea stands, how do you get ownership of natural resources? Why the following generations would honor previous system that has provided much of the natural resources to the aristocrats and robber barons in history and now owned by their descendants. It's not like they were shared fairly and everyone had equal opportunity.
@ no one owns the air
Youre still concerned basically w/punishment rather than life.
Chosen ideas, not events, cause people to learn. Millenia of statism taught people nothing. People need new ideas of morality and politics. Immediate withdrawal from some statism will greatly harm many people. That harm serves no rational purpose. You drop the context of individual rights, ie, life. Objectivism is a philosophy for life and happiness, not, basically ,moral condemnation. You still have some religious ideas.
A phased ending of welfare would increase production and the value of even govt "money."
I understand that people don't have the right to OPM but the government's been doing that because we let the government do that. The solution to the problem of the economy is not found in getting rid of one program, but in looking at the whole picture like seeing there are low income people living in this economy, who can't save like others could because all their money is going into living in the present.
Inflation punishes savings & spons from artificially low interest rates. Which makes it even less profitable to save.
Blame the fed for that. It's literally their stated goal to discourage saving.
Social security is funded through deficit spending, which causes even more inflation. You also cannot understate the government's regulatory involvement in ruining the cost of living.
With the money stolen to fund SS, people would've invested into productivity & private savings, which would be lent out to productive ventures. That not only decreases the cost of living, but brings up wages, benefits, & increases innovation.
Most of our history we didn't have it. It is not at all necessary or good.
Has anyone told this guy that people that collect social security have paid into it for perhaps their entire lives along with the employer that they worked for contributing on their behalf. So U wanna cut somebody off & steal their hard earned & invested dollars. Just because the Government squandered the investments of millions of people does not mean that the people are to blame & deserve to be stolen from any more than your scenario suggests
+friendsoffreedom2012
No, he wants to make it very clear to everyone that their dollars have been stolen by the federal government and already spent. This is why he doesn't want the crooks in the federal government to take any more.
Yaron Brook is one cold SOB
I'm a conservative. Let's start there. However, the views expressed in the video are the typical, regurgitated views of both economists and Republicans, many, not all, for I, myself lean heavily Republican. These views, in my opinion, are coming from a man who has studied the system from books and educators who themselves have studied from books and educators who all have been whitewashed and homogenized to just look at numbers, statistics, etc., never really sitting back, with an open mind and exploring the whole matter as if doing a "Thought Experiment" as Einstein had done. These views, are very wrong in my opinion. There are two reasons why, and here they are:
Let's get the subtle, mushy one out of the way first. It is the least important of the two: We are a society. We are, "supposedly" no longer animalistic - I mean we're all "human/humane," correct? We've come a long way from the question posed by Cain of the Bible - "Am I my brother's keeper?" Well, if we do indeed consider ourselves in a cooperative society, non-animalistic, governed by laws, not nature, and we consider ourselves humane, then the answer to that question is indeed, "Yes, WE are our brother's keepers." Whether it be strangers or the closest loved ones of family or friends: We would not want to see them suffer or go through hardship or indeed die due to not having the means of helping themselves for various reasons both good and "bad." Would we? I think not - not as a society - and if the answer to that is "yes," then I'm sure that this is not the society we should be building for ourselves or our posterity.
What is proposed, "...depending on charity/family..." is nice, but not practical. This is by no means a "theory" - it is not practical today as it is - There are many people homeless, without funds of any sort, without medical insurance, etc., and many of these people are living very poor and sad lives and are dying in their infirmities. Charities, friends, and family are all failing them. And there are those too who would ONLY have charity as they no longer have any friends or family. -- As a "humane," "non-animalistic," society - We cannot, nor should let this happen on our watch. -- Yet we do - even now, today, there are people dying like this.
Charity can and should be improved. However, this is a morals and ethics issue. It's a whole other can-of-worms. Charity needs to be taught. Morals and ethics need to be taught and we as a society have been very lax in that teaching. This can be improved, especially nowadays with the age of the Internet - sites could be set up by BOTH secular society AND the government to accept charities for various causes. Advertisement of such charities and causes should be part of the funding that does come in so that the word can spread more easily. Indeed do we really need a tax system at all? Or can the government also be run like a charity? I, philosophically, think it can and should.
Let's get back to the most important of all issues: The complete wrong thinking in this matter of "Is it really government's responsibility to take care of people?" -- YES! UNEQUIVOCALLY, YES!!!! And here's why:
People's self-sustaining means to provide for themselves has been horribly eroded by government. A bit more than a century or so ago, for example, people "lived off the land." They took what they wanted and needed from their environment - this was the "norm." They hunted, gathered, fished, took furs, planted and harvested, chopped trees, built homes, etc., etc... etc... All from the environment. All without limitation or government's meddling.
Yet nowadays, all this has been put to a stop. There are hunting and fishing "seasons" with creel limits, etc. You must buy a hunting or fishing license - which, by the way, can easily cost more than what could be harvested. How many hunters or fishers have pursued their activity - fully paid up on the license - and came home empty? -- The same goes for harvesting fur bearing animals.
There are housing regulations and permits - no more free wood to chop or building of "log cabins" without the government's getting it's hand-out! The land is no longer free - eminent domain vs. allodial title, the latter is very nearly extinct.
The case is made. The government has stifled people in more ways than I have mentioned. Therefore, IT IS the government's responsibility to take care of people. You simply cannot have it both ways. You cannot regulate self-sufficiency to death AND then say it's not the government's responsibility to take care of people. This is at the least a horrible oversight and at the worst very twisted thinking or even purposely engineered to once again bring in the aristocracy - who are indeed the ones engineering it, if so.
Pick one. Not both. Get rid of all laws, licences, regulations to ALL activities that I have mentioned and others along the same lines and THEN and ONLY THEN consider removing government from the responsibility of taking care of those in need --- or -- continue to take care of those in need, even better than what is being done now. Because, essentially, this is government theft, disguised as environmentalism amongst other euphemisms.
We - the people - of society are being robbed blind. Give us our DUE handouts or stop robbing us. ... Essentially.
;)
--RackAttack
RackAttackGamer: You wrote
"I'm a conservative."
Comment: I always laugh at the identity politics used. Some politicians say "I'm a gun owner." as if they support the 2nd Amendment, then proceed to propose gun bans, waiting periods, and all sorts of other traps for the law abiding. I just hope the people are recognizing identity politics and don't fall it.
Absolutely right, but irrelevant and academic discussion because we will never ever get rid of Social Security.
DougDstudiocreations When it implodes and collapses we sure as hell won't rebuild it.
Not with that terrible mindset. You reinforce the problem with your neverending compromises.
You cannot make a flower grow fast by pouring water over it... it needs time. It is the same with everything in life. Let's say a guy has low self-esteem, he cannot love himself immediately, it takes time and it is the same with the economy.
Eliminate social security as soon as this guy is done using it. How self serving.
Not an argument. It does no good.
Who thinks this guy is good at political analysis😂🤣🤣
Is it a good idea to stop money from circulating?
What?
like saving money and not investing them
How is that relevant in this context? I don't see why there would be less investment if you invested in your own retirement compared to the government doing the same. You'd rather be more careful and invest better and smarter. Or did I misunderstand your comment?
tax on the savings or inflation, if you invest by yourself you risk losing everything, do you even watch this guy's videos?
I honestly do not know what you are talking about.
A con artist. A con artist who speaks with passion and conviction, but is hollow like an air bubble.
I challenge you to give a single valid argument for social security. You seem so hellbent on your dogma, maybe you can defend it? Or maybe you're just a bad faith, arrogant, p*ssy? I'm betting on number 2
I agree the system isn't working but what you're saying is not the total truth as always.
There is a tremendous amount of capital being generated by the community publicly funded research and the fruits that they produce are being appropriated privately. We need to make sure that doesn't happen. and make sure publicly funded research that develops technologies like gps, the Internet, 3-D printers and so on are protected with patents that make money that we can return to the community