Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmed Gunman
Bullshit.
What kind of account - a savings account at 1%? How does that translate to millions? Or do you expect all citizens to be stock picking geniuses? Stocks don't always go up...
The fact is, many people are functionally retarded. They would not/could not properly manage their own money, which would result in them being poor, sickly and dependent on taxpayers anyway, but without hope.
Having a majority of your citizens sick and begging in the streets would not work out well for anyone. For instance, if I mismanaged my own money and ended up penniless with no hope for the future, I would probably put a gun in your face and take your shit. But if I knew I had a small stipend coming every month I might behave considerably better.
I don't know if you know what the true face of crime looks like, but it isn't pretty. Come visit Detroit, I'll show you around....
|
Stocks don't always go up, but that's why you have a diversified portfolio. Regardless, even a very modest private account would make more in the long run than social security. And just because some people are "functionally retarded" doesn't mean those of us who aren't should suffer for their lack of intelligence. At the very least we should be able to opt-out of social security for our own private plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweak50
Try telling that to the millions of people in the rest of the world who have universal health care, I'm sure they would agree with you.
|
But do they all actually need it? No, most of them don't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tweak50
Yup, if only that were true. Instead they give very little and put it in all the wrong places. Things like cancer and places like Africa get billions but poverty and hunger in our own country go unanswered.
|
As someone else mentioned, the U.S. leads the world in charitable donations. Why should the government take the hard-earned money of the rich and give it to the poor? They shouldn't. I do, however, think the rich have a social responsibility of sorts to aid in things like poverty and hunger and whatnot. They do, but I believe it would be much more if the government stayed out of it. Think about it - I'm helping the poor already through a mandatory "donation" to welfare through taxation. I mean, not once have I gotten a thank you from someone in the checkout line with food stamps, despite the fact that my hard earned money may be helping them buy what they need. Moreover, many people who get welfare don't need it. Those who do need it, they should get it. But those who don't yet get it anyway, they should be out applying for jobs. Additionally, it doesn't matter if the rich get tax benefits by donating; if they do that's just beneficial to both parties.