The DNC KenyanCommieMooselimbDidn'tBuildIt MegaThread!

[Jaron]

Its quite possible. It doesn't have to be a bank heist.

It can be stealing from loved ones, enticing others to steal to feed/clothe them, or computer crimes.

[Eddie Teach]

And if they don't get away with the crime, the state ends up paying even more.

[grumbler]

Disabled people getting away with crimes?

Disabled people cannot commit crimes?

[Razgovory]

Disabled people getting away with crimes?

Disabled people cannot commit crimes?

Nope.  It's against the law.

[DGuller]

They can, if their victims are ADA-compliant.

[Admiral Yi]

Care to expand on this?  How do employees get credited for their "contribution" to corporate taxes?  How do employees of a nonprofit differ from employees at a profit-making company running in the red?

I could repeat that it's Max and Crazy Canuck's argument, not mine, but I doubt that will do much good.

[Admiral Yi]

I would have thought this to be rather obvious.  Social Security taxes pay disabled people enough that they don't have to resort to begging or crime to obtain their daily needs.  Medicare taxes reimburse healthcare providers so that those in locales with large numbers of old folks don't get driven out of business by being forced to provide emergency care for old people who cannot afford to buy medical care and drugs on their own.

Feel free to explain why you didn't realize this.

I concede the point about Social Security Disability.  Medicare is not a contribution to the common good for the same reason the bulk of Social Security is not--in return for payments into the system you obtain a claim against the system.

[Jacob]

I concede the point about Social Security Disability.  Medicare is not a contribution to the common good for the same reason the bulk of Social Security is not--in return for payments into the system you obtain a claim against the system.

So? If you contribute to medicare you contribute to the health of your fellow citizens.

[Admiral Yi]

So? If you contribute to medicare you contribute to the health of your fellow citizens.

The so is the part I already mentioned.  If you make a contribution, then recieve a service or payment back which equals that contribution, you are not making a net contribution to anyone else's welfare.

[DGuller]

So? If you contribute to medicare you contribute to the health of your fellow citizens.

The so is the part I already mentioned.  If you make a contribution, then recieve a service or payment back which equals that contribution, you are not making a net contribution to anyone else's welfare.

You know full well that it doesn't really work that way.  First of all, SS and Medicare are effectively pay-as-you-go systems, even if for political reasons they are not classified as such.  Second of all, even taking the classification of such programs at face value, there is still a redistributive element to them.  While your benefit payouts scale with the contributions you made, they don't scale linearly.

[Admiral Yi]

You know full well that it doesn't really work that way.  First of all, SS and Medicare are effectively pay-as-you-go systems, even if for political reasons they are not classified as such.  Second of all, even taking the classification of such programs at face value, there is still a redistributive element to them.  While your benefit payouts scale with the contributions you made, they don't scale linearly.

Agreed, they don't scale linearly and there is a redistributive element.  But that just compounds my existing argument; Social Security redistributes money from the top of the income distribution to the bottom.

There is also a gigantic redistributive component from singles to marrieds, but that's a whole nuther discussion.

[grumbler]

The so is the part I already mentioned.  If you make a contribution, then recieve a service or payment back which equals that contribution, you are not making a net contribution to anyone else's welfare.

Medicare and Medicaid are defined-benefit programs, I believe.  They are insurance programs in that sense, not savings accounts.  One can argue that redistribution is bad, but one can't argue that contributions equal paybacks for the participants.

[dps]

You know full well that it doesn't really work that way.  First of all, SS and Medicare are effectively pay-as-you-go systems, even if for political reasons they are not classified as such.  Second of all, even taking the classification of such programs at face value, there is still a redistributive element to them.  While your benefit payouts scale with the contributions you made, they don't scale linearly.

Agreed, they don't scale linearly and there is a redistributive element.  But that just compounds my existing argument; Social Security redistributes money from the top of the income distribution to the bottom.

There is also a gigantic redistributive component from singles to marrieds, but that's a whole nuther discussion.

SS transfers wealth from the young to the old more than it does from the rich to the poor.

[Jacob]

The so is the part I already mentioned.  If you make a contribution, then recieve a service or payment back which equals that contribution, you are not making a net contribution to anyone else's welfare.

Ah, I think I see the disconnect.

You seem obsessed with dividing everything into "givers" and "takers" as some sort of moral imperative. That's not the point. The point is to participate in the system by both giving and taking as appropriate, and thus both prosper and ensure that others have the best chance of prospering as well. It's about making sure that society as a whole prospers by doing your share when you can, and knowing that others will do theirs when you cannot. It's not about tallying up plusses and minuses in columns and making sure they balance out on an individual basis.

[sbr]

The so is the part I already mentioned.  If you make a contribution, then recieve a service or payment back which equals that contribution, you are not making a net contribution to anyone else's welfare.

Ah, I think I see the disconnect.

You seem obsessed with dividing everything into "givers" and "takers" as some sort of moral imperative. That's not the point. The point is to participate in the system by both giving and taking as appropriate, and thus both prosper and ensure that others have the best chance of prospering as well. It's about making sure that society as a whole prospers by doing your share when you can, and knowing that others will do theirs when you cannot. It's not about tallying up plusses and minuses in columns and making sure they balance out on an individual basis.