Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → How would you like to contribute more to other people's retirement than they do?
1234
How would you like to contribute more to other people's retirement than they do?
2008-06-14, 1:26 PM #41
There are very few truly homeless people in this country. Most people who are 'homeless' still have a place to go. They shack up with relatives, they sleep in cheap motels, they go to shelters. The vast majority of the truly homeless - those people you see living in cardboard boxes in New York City - are addicted or mentally unstable. And there are STILL shelters for them, if they would just GO TO THEM!
2008-06-14, 1:26 PM #42
Also, the homeless are like...what...1% of the entire US population? If that?
Warhead[97]
2008-06-14, 2:21 PM #43
Originally posted by JLee:
Why? Do you also think it's fair that my taxes pay for people to live on welfare - people who don't try to get jobs - or people who are careful not to work too much, else they lose 'their benefits' from the government?



And roads you'll never use. Firemen you'll never meet. Guns you'll never use for Cops you don't know.
2008-06-14, 2:23 PM #44
Originally posted by Rob:
And roads you'll never use. Firemen you'll never meet. Guns you'll never use for Cops you don't know.


Are you equating the welfare system with public services?
woot!
2008-06-14, 2:36 PM #45
Doesn't your job come with a slogan? "To Serve and Protect."

Isn't that a fancy way of saying you help people? Why is this any different?
2008-06-14, 4:41 PM #46
Originally posted by Rob:
Doesn't your job come with a slogan? "To Serve and Protect."

Isn't that a fancy way of saying you help people? Why is this any different?


Back to my original statement..do you think it's fair that my taxes pay for people to live on welfare - people who don't try to get jobs - or people who are careful not to work too much, else they lose 'their benefits' from the government?

Do I mind helping people who need it? No. Do I think we should subsidize Social Security so those who don't pay into it still reap the benefits? No. I don't feel entitled to a Social Security check because I'm not paying into it. Why should anyone else get more?

There's a difference between charity and socialism.
woot!
2008-06-14, 4:46 PM #47
Are you really so butthurt over the loss of this money that you can't eat, drink, and be merry?
2008-06-14, 5:37 PM #48
If you take extra money from me to give to someone who's not going to use it to better themselves....yeah, I'll be pretty ****ing pissed. If you're suggesting that you aren't going to care when someone takes more of your hard earned money and throws it away, then I'm calling bull****. :-/

I'll give extra through charity and I'll allocate it such that I can be sure it's going to good use. I don't trust the countless jackasses in DC to know what the hell they're doing with it.

Understand? It's a straightforward point, right? I hope? :P
2008-06-14, 5:47 PM #49
Originally posted by Rob:
Are you really so butthurt over the loss of this money that you can't eat, drink, and be merry?


uh..what?

In case you missed it, I don't pay Social Security. As such, this doesn't affect me at all. I still think it's wrong.

If you have no issue with giving money away to people who haven't earned it, I'll give you my paypal address and you can knock yourself out. :D
woot!
2008-06-14, 5:48 PM #50
Originally posted by IRG SithLord:
If you're suggesting that you aren't going to care when someone takes more of your hard earned money and throws it away, then I'm calling bull****. :-/


I'm not going to complain, even when I make it to the high pay I so crave.

BUT THE POOR IS SO LAZY! AND EVIL SMARTS ABOUT BEING POOR!
2008-06-14, 5:49 PM #51
Originally posted by Rob:
I'm not going to complain, even when I make it to the high pay I so crave.


/me calls bull****.


:P
2008-06-14, 5:57 PM #52
Originally posted by Rob:
I'm not going to complain, even when I make it to the high pay I so crave.

BUT THE POOR IS SO LAZY! AND EVIL SMARTS ABOUT BEING POOR!


I make less than $40k/yr, and the median home price in the town where I work is one of the highest in the country - look for Hanover, NH. More links.

So am I poor and lazy? :P
woot!
2008-06-14, 6:11 PM #53
Move somewhere else if you can't afford to live there.

Thats what I have to do.
2008-06-14, 6:31 PM #54
Originally posted by Rob:
Move somewhere else if you can't afford to live there.

Thats what I have to do.


I didn't say I can afford to live there, nor did I say that I can't. However, I can't buy a house.
woot!
2008-06-14, 6:59 PM #55
Originally posted by JLee:
Back to my original statement..do you think it's fair that my taxes pay for people to live on welfare - people who don't try to get jobs - or people who are careful not to work too much, else they lose 'their benefits' from the government?

Is it fair for my taxes to pay for the imprisonment of people who were wrongfully convicted? Let's let everyone out of jail
2008-06-14, 7:06 PM #56
I think he's pissed because of a certain individual's desire to increase the tax burden for more entitlement programs. That same individual has already proposed over $1,000,000,000,000 (that's correct, trillion) in new government programs/spending, and he hasn't stepped foot into his desired role. It's bad enough that we spend more than a third of the year working just to pay off the government, and most of us get jack **** in return.

Whether or not you agree with what he's saying or not, I think some people are just missing JLee's point.
Current Maps | Newest Map
2008-06-14, 7:19 PM #57
Originally posted by JLee:
Back to my original statement..do you think it's fair that my taxes pay for people to live on welfare - people who don't try to get jobs - or people who are careful not to work too much, else they lose 'their benefits' from the government?

Do I mind helping people who need it? No. Do I think we should subsidize Social Security so those who don't pay into it still reap the benefits? No. I don't feel entitled to a Social Security check because I'm not paying into it. Why should anyone else get more?

There's a difference between charity and socialism.


What's so wrong with a little socialism? Seriously.
-=I'm the wang of this here site, and it's HUGE! So just imagine how big I am.=-
1337Yectiwan
The OSC Empire
10 of 14 -- 27 Lives On
2008-06-14, 8:53 PM #58
[You saw nothing :ninja:]
2008-06-14, 9:01 PM #59
ITT American church nazis cement the third world status of their country.
VTEC just kicked in, yo!
2008-06-15, 2:58 AM #60
Originally posted by Yecti:
What's so wrong with a little socialism? Seriously.


nothing... if everyone is working equally as hard as everyone else, all contributing EXACTLY the same amount to the society then hey, whatever, nothing is wrong with socialism. because hey, if everyone is working and contributing the same amount and everyone gets the exact same amount back out of it, then well, the system works pretty spiffy like.

(i know this next part does not apply to all the lower class or poor or homeless, but a fair amount...yes.)

BUT!... if i am working my *** off and MY money is being taken and "redistributed" to someone who isn't even willing to make whatever sacrifices it takes to better their own life then **** no i'm not ok with my money being given to them.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2008-06-15, 9:24 AM #61
Originally posted by Yecti:
What's so wrong with a little socialism? Seriously.

I'm a greedy *******.

Edit: More relavant post
Socialism doesn't play well in a very materialistic society like ours. Americans want the brightest, biggest, and newest toy on the market. We'll drop thousands on seemingly insignificant things. It also doesn't play with our highly competitive nature. In socialism we'd all be in a pretty much level playing field. There is no need or reason to compete. Everyone's equal. Also all products would be worth the same. There isn't a better product or a cheaper product. Thirdly, I absolutely, do not, 100%, trust our government to do anything wisely, especially fiscally. I do not trust 535 people to put the money where it belongs instead of their own pocketbooks or pet projects.
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2008-06-15, 11:33 AM #62
Originally posted by JediGandalf:
I'm a greedy *******.

Edit: More relavant post
Socialism doesn't play well in a very materialistic society like ours. Americans want the brightest, biggest, and newest toy on the market. We'll drop thousands on seemingly insignificant things. It also doesn't play with our highly competitive nature. In socialism we'd all be in a pretty much level playing field. There is no need or reason to compete. Everyone's equal. Also all products would be worth the same. There isn't a better product or a cheaper product. Thirdly, I absolutely, do not, 100%, trust our government to do anything wisely, especially fiscally. I do not trust 535 people to put the money where it belongs instead of their own pocketbooks or pet projects.


My point wasn't that socialism as a whole is good, or that in the society we live in would it be practical or possible. My point was that this is a relatively minor change that could have benefits to society. Frankly, flat tax doesn't work. There are far to many ways to move large amounts of money around so that even though ideally if the same 6% were applied to everyone thus rich == pay more; it often doesn't happen. So increasing tax on those who claim an income of $250,000 a year is not outlandish. It helps eliminate "smart" bookkeeping by enforcing a higher percentage at the base. So even if you do move money around the tax increase will force more of a payment to be made. TFB top 3%.
-=I'm the wang of this here site, and it's HUGE! So just imagine how big I am.=-
1337Yectiwan
The OSC Empire
10 of 14 -- 27 Lives On
2008-06-15, 11:52 AM #63
****ING POOR PEOPLE I GOT YOUR TAX BREAK RIGHT HERE $1087 WORTH OF TAX-DEDUCTIBLE BULLETS FOR EVERY FAMILY IN THE BARRIO
:master::master::master:
2008-06-15, 12:02 PM #64
Originally posted by Yecti:
There are far to many ways to move large amounts of money around so that even though ideally if the same 6% were applied to everyone thus rich == pay more; it often doesn't happen.


What?
2008-06-15, 12:04 PM #65
Originally posted by Yecti:
My point wasn't that socialism as a whole is good, or that in the society we live in would it be practical or possible. My point was that this is a relatively minor change that could have benefits to society. Frankly, flat tax doesn't work. There are far to many ways to move large amounts of money around so that even though ideally if the same 6% were applied to everyone thus rich == pay more; it often doesn't happen. So increasing tax on those who claim an income of $250,000 a year is not outlandish. It helps eliminate "smart" bookkeeping by enforcing a higher percentage at the base. So even if you do move money around the tax increase will force more of a payment to be made. TFB top 3%.


Yecti, with all due respect, wtf are you talking about? People don't move any income around when it comes to the payroll tax. If you are employed by someone else then it is deducted before you ever see your paycheck. If you are self employed then you are responsible to pay it. This thread is about Social Security, not income tax which very few people seem to understand.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-06-15, 12:08 PM #66
Originally posted by Wookie06:
Yecti, with all due respect, wtf are you talking about? People don't move any income around when it comes to the payroll tax. If you are employed by someone else then it is deducted before you ever see your paycheck. If you are self employed then you are responsible to pay it. This thread is about Social Security, not income tax which very few people seem to understand.


Yes. This.
woot!
2008-06-15, 1:57 PM #67
A tax is a tax. I don't see the problem with "penalizing" the upper echelon of our society with a little higher percentage in any tax. :-/
-=I'm the wang of this here site, and it's HUGE! So just imagine how big I am.=-
1337Yectiwan
The OSC Empire
10 of 14 -- 27 Lives On
2008-06-15, 2:07 PM #68
Originally posted by Yecti:
A tax is a tax. I don't see the problem with "penalizing" the upper echelon of our society with a little higher percentage in any tax. :-/


Social Security IS NOT A TAX.
woot!
2008-06-15, 2:20 PM #69
Originally posted by Yecti:
What's so wrong with a little socialism? Seriously.


Social Security is retarded socialism that most of society will see much less benefit from than they put into it. If you're going to do a social services, do it in such a way that it will do the most good for the most people.
2008-06-15, 3:04 PM #70
The rich white people, amirite?
2008-06-15, 3:40 PM #71
Originally posted by Rob:
The rich white people, amirite?


Are you suggesting the rich black folks squander their money on malt liquor and drugs?

You racist pig.

:P
2008-06-15, 3:43 PM #72
No, I'm suggesting we tax the evil darkies more!

78% TAX ON GRILLS YO
2008-06-15, 4:17 PM #73
Originally posted by JLee:
Social Security IS NOT A TAX.


Hm, money taken out of my paycheck before it even gets to me. For all intents and purposes it is a tax.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2008-06-15, 4:20 PM #74
Originally posted by Rob:
No, I'm suggesting we tax the evil darkies more!

78% TAX ON GRILLS YO


Foreman tax?

:ninja:
nope.
2008-06-15, 4:36 PM #75
Originally posted by Baconfish:
Foreman tax?

:ninja:


HAHAAHA



But seriously, I don't see why you guys are all so butthurt. None of you seem to be starving.
2008-06-15, 4:44 PM #76
Originally posted by Rob:
HAHAAHA

But seriously, I don't see why you guys are all so butthurt. None of you seem to be starving.


Dude.

Like I said before.

I don't even pay Social Security. That still doesn't mean that this is a good idea.
woot!
2008-06-15, 4:48 PM #77
Originally posted by JLee:
I don't even pay Social Security.


So why are you so butthurt?
2008-06-15, 5:05 PM #78
...you're appealing to emotion and thus, your question holds no relevance to this topic. It's not applicable. The only value it holds is to flame someone simply in the manner that you are presenting it (if you consider that "value").

:colbert:
2008-06-15, 5:07 PM #79
You're appealing to silver-spoonery and thus your opinion holds no relavance to the butthurtedness at hand!
2008-06-15, 5:12 PM #80
I appeal to logic. That is no opinion. It's simple logic.
1234

↑ Up to the top!