Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (144271)	10/30/2008 5:02:35 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"Government is not society, and most of it isn't necessary for the existence of a functioning society." Government is necessary for society to exist and is very much part of society. Government is simply the collective we and the rest of society is the individual. You cannot have a group of people live together without some form of government. How much is, again, opinion. "Society benefits you" is next to meaningless as an argument for having a big expensive interventionist government, esp. because when government gets very big it causes society to benefit me less." Now THAT is hyperbole. You choose to live in society rather than out in the wilderness (try Alaska or maybe Utah) because living in society is sufficiently beneficial for you to choose society. Taxes are, again, one of the costs of living in society. "Neither is necessarily part of government, and if we are going to have government do them, both together are a minuscule part of government spending. We don't spend well over $5tril on sidewalks and storm drains, or on all the examples you list put together." More hyperbole. I never said we spend well over $5 trillion on sidewalks and storm drains. That is a silly statement. Again, why don't YOU suggest to your town that you will make all the streets private (it does happen) and the individual owners can take care of sidewalks and storm drains...good luck. You will have to put up toll booths. So, all you care about is total cost. If something is not necessary you don't care if we have it as long as the total cost isn't too high. So what is the optimum amount of government spending? Who then decides how to spend that amount? Are you saying that you are for or against the bailout? You didn't like the idea of AIG receiving a bill for the bailout money so you aren't making any sense. Yes, SS can always be self-funding. We simply need to eliminate the contribution income cap. The baby boom generation (I'm sure I've told you this before) is a demographic anomaly. There is a baby bust after that and a smaller boom thereafter. That's the way it goes. "Also note that "self funded" is irrelevant, and in an important sense simply false." WHAT? Now you're just arguing semantics. I am saying that the tax designated as SS tax provides enough money (remove the income cap) to pay out benefits designated under the SS system. "That would be an enormous tax increase, and would have quite negative results." No, those who make more money have been getting away without paying their fair share. They wouldn't be given a bill for the past but would simply be paying their fair share for the future. There is no reason the SS tax should be so regressive.