A Question for the Socialists
September 5th, 2008 by jack
Here’s a simple question for our Socialist/Marxist friends:
Does someone who retires at 65 with $500k in the bank deserve as much government assistance as someone the same age who has worked at minimum wage jobs, 40 hours a week, from the age of 18?
Why or why not?
This entry was posted on Friday, September 5th, 2008 at 2:43 pm and is filed under Campaign 2008, Economics, Socialism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
That certainly is a simple question; simple minded that is. More details, please.
Who is getting the government assistance? What KIND of assistance? Assistance for WHAT?
Personally, I wish NOBODY who has reached 65 would have to find himself in a position to need government assistance.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
P.S.
Do you HAVE Socialist/Marxist friends?
September 5th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Point me to all the socialists and marxists running around America and I will be glad to ask them.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
BTWP, I would suggest Denver, but it’s a week too late.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
the socialists are where in StPaul until yesterday.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
What details does the government have when they give out our money, Lovisa?
You have what I have told you. One man retires with half-a-million dollars, and the other retires with nothing, having worked only minimum-wage jobs his entire life. Both are 65 years old.
(Last I heard, which was about the year 2000, fewer than 3% of the U.S. population has a net worth over $500k.)
September 5th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Oh, sorry, I forgot. We’re talking about our usual Social Security and Medicaid. There is talk of making Social Security means-tested, and even now, Social Scurity benefits are taxed, and of course, the tax rates are escalated with income level.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Maybe my thinking on this is totally screwy, but I don’t view SS so much as government aid as $ that is due to us … any of us who worked have paid into it. Of course, for those of us in their 20s, 30s, 40s, it’s not quite gonna work out that way.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
You are wrong, Linda. It is a Ponzi scheme — nothing more. You do not have an account with your money in it, and the law can change at any time. Furthermore, people who have never paid into Social Security can still receive benefits:
As for Medicare, you must be damn near broke before it will pay for long-term care. Should the aforementioned man who retires with nothing receive free long-term care while the one with half-a-million has to pay for it himself? Is that “fair”?
September 6th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Hey Jack, I can’t get this can open, can you help me?
http://i7.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/cc/cb/29e9_1.JPG
September 6th, 2008 at 12:31 am
but seriously. it’s a moot point. No one is suggesting anything like that in this country. Maybe some similar scheme would go over great in Sweden, and that’s wonderful. but not here, it’s not how America works.
But there’s this idea floating around out there about the basic dignity of human beings, and the the notion that in America no one should go without essential health care in their old age.
The 1/2 millionaire didn’t make money in a vacuum. The American economic system that he was operating within allowed him to make it, and gives it it’s value beyond the paper it’s printed on. That system depends on some people working at low wages. As a society, we’ve decided that those who come up short when all the cards are on the table are still owed a thanks for playing.
or
a socialist, strictly speaking, believes in government ownership of businesses (means of production/distribution) That leaves some room to agree or disagree on how wages should be distributes.
the marxist creedo is “from each according to their capacity, to each according to their need” So they wouldn’t necessarily support the two guys having the same government assistance unless they happened to need the same amount. That’s unlikely, since the guy earning low wages has likely been exposed to a lot more physical stress, toxic chemicals, etc.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Thank you, puffalump — I knew at least one Marxist here would fall for the trick question.
Both men had the same income. The one with half-a-million dollars merely invested 10% of his income in the stock market. The one who is broke spent all that he made.
Tellingly, only about 55% of those who are eligible participate in their company’s 401(k) plan. EBRI Issue Brief #311
Perhaps the credo should be changed to: “From each according to his prudence, to each according to his foolishness.”
September 6th, 2008 at 9:00 am
“No one is suggesting anything like that in this country.”
No one is suggesting means-testing Social Security?!
In 1994, former Senators Paul Tsongas and Warren Rudman proposed it.
If that is too far removed historically, Bush proposed it as part of his partial privatization plan.
Furthermore, Supplimental Security Income is means tested.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:44 am
oh my god