COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[jazzdude]

 With minor exceptions, don't give any money to industries, give it all to the people. That money will trickle up into the industries where it's needed as people keep living their lives, buying food, paying rent, making car payments etc, and you see actual benefits to taxpayers, not corporations who turn around and pay themselves instead of taking care of their people.

This would require those that have power and influence (including landlords and shop owners) to not get greedy and adjust prices based on the additional money consumers have. The plus side though is people can spend the money on what they value (better food with a cheaper home vs cheap food with a nicer home)

It's the same problem we see with college education in the US: money (primarily loans) became more available, so the provider of a service (colleges) raised their prices significantly because students had more access to money to pay higher prices, and the college could do so without incurring any risk to the college financial model (society has pushed college education as a means to move up in economic class, and colleges push this as well, keeping demand high). This instead not only passes the risk to the individual, but inflated the risk because college is now much more expensive. And since more people have degrees, a business may desire someone with a degree over someone who doesn't, even if it has no bearing on the job, creating more demand for college degrees, even if that job doesn't pay for that level of expertise (just like the de facto requirement for a master's degree for promotion to major in years past). So the net effect is more money went to industry (colleges), and individuals were left with the bill.

Not saying that you are wrong, but the economy is complex, and you have to find ways to discourage or prevent greed by individuals within the system, regardless of if you take a top-down or bottom-up approach. Especially in a country where individualism and materialism are strong values.

[SurelySerious]

Mayor Lori Lightfoot Wants To Reopen Restaurants And Bars ‘As Quickly As Possible’

 

Right on Cuomo’s heels with the flip flop. 

[slackline]

10 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Mayor Lori Lightfoot Wants To Reopen Restaurants And Bars ‘As Quickly As Possible’

 

Right on Cuomo’s heels with the flip flop. 

It's no wonder our country is so divided.  Dude was elected back in Nov. Nothing Trump could have done to change it, so for you conspiracy nuts, why wouldn't they have changed immediately after the election was declared for Biden if this was done just to get him elected?  You all sound like the upstanding Patriots that stormed the Capitol!

It couldn't possibly be that while they recognize that the Rona is serious, they also seriously want to get the economy moving again, could it?  Nah, that would be bonkers...

[SurelySerious]

17 minutes ago, slackline said:

It's no wonder our country is so divided.  Dude was elected back in Nov. Nothing Trump could have done to change it, so for you conspiracy nuts, why wouldn't they have changed immediately after the election was declared for Biden if this was done just to get him elected?  You all sound like the upstanding Patriots that stormed the Capitol!

It couldn't possibly be that while they recognize that the Rona is serious, they also seriously want to get the economy moving again, could it?  Nah, that would be bonkers...

After 8 months of showing no concern for people who work for a living, no I don’t believe Lightfoot gives a damn. I’m not implying conspiracy, just inept leadership in NY and Chicago. What I will posit is that I could believe their policies were to spite someone they disliked rather than to try leading their people to the best of their ability.  

[SurelySerious]

32 minutes ago, slackline said:

It's no wonder our country is so divided.  Dude was elected back in Nov. Nothing Trump could have done to change it, so for you conspiracy nuts, why wouldn't they have changed immediately after the election was declared for Biden if this was done just to get him elected?  You all sound like the upstanding Patriots that stormed the Capitol!

It couldn't possibly be that while they recognize that the Rona is serious, they also seriously want to get the economy moving again, could it?  Nah, that would be bonkers...

Also, with respect to your “it’s no wonder our country is so divided,” if the only conclusion you have on why someone might see something differently than you is that they’re Trump supporting QAnon conspiracy theorists...maybe take a look in the mirror and reassess. 

[slackline]

11 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Also, with respect to your “it’s no wonder our country is so divided,” if the only conclusion you have on why someone might see something differently than you is that they’re Trump supporting QAnon conspiracy theorists...maybe take a look in the mirror and reassess. 

Sure thing.  I'll get right on that.  Cause taken in context of the rest of this thread, it's crazy to think anyone might interpret what you wrote that way...

[SurelySerious]

16 minutes ago, slackline said:

Sure thing.  I'll get right on that.  Cause taken in context of the rest of this thread, it's crazy to think anyone might interpret what you wrote that way...

You’ve really been off the deep end on the political stuff for a little while here, and it’s getting worse. Really, you should take some time off of it. 

[brabus]

9 hours ago, Negatory said:

because I’m certain if that “homeboy” doesn’t have money, he’s trying to find a way to get some.

Tons of “homeboys” exist who don’t see full time employment as their preferred option to get money - they prefer govt social programs instead (and only supplement as little as possible with an actual job). That’s the type of people the current system produces, and the type who shouldn’t receive direct payment. The system needs an overhaul, so I guess don’t hate the player, hate the game?

Edited January 15, 2021 by brabus

[tac airlifter]

17 minutes ago, MyCS said:

Going to post this again. Especially for those who don't believe in washing their hands and question the effectiveness.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMJnL2Px4/

Serious question- has anyone questioned the effectiveness of hand washing?  

[jazzdude]

Tons of “homeboys” exist who don’t see full time employment as their preferred option to get money - they prefer govt social programs instead (and only supplement as little as possible with an actual job). That’s the type of people the current system produces, and the type who shouldn’t receive direct payment. The system needs an overhaul, so I guess don’t hate the player, hate the game?

Can you point to studies that back your claim? A quick Google search shows a fairly mixed bag, especially when viewed in conjunction with studies/statistics on the working poor and their mobility in the economy. If you're poor, it makes it hard to take steps to dig out from there-covering immediate needs may hinder longer term investment in training or education to get a better job. Sure, there's some abuse of the system. But there are also financial cliffs where making the transition off of assistance challenging, especially when the jobs they get are not secure whereas government assistance is relatively secure. So how do you separately those whom want to work but can't find work and meet their basic needs for themselves and their family, and those that are just lazy? And if the answer is don't have kids if you can't afford them, how do you enforce that?

But along your line of reasoning...

Why should military members get VA disability when they can work post military service? Especially if they draw retirement? Sure, there are disabled vets who truly can't work anymore. And then there are those that are capable of working a normal job, but maybe have limitations on specific career fields. Why not just provide jobs or skills training in a field they can work in and earn a living instead of paying a stipend each month? (Oh, that job or skills training already exists in the GI Bill). Or if a disabled vet gets a job, that disability check should be decreased at a 1:1 rate. And VA clinics (in theory) could address care for any service related injuries as the vet works in the civilian world.

I'm sure civilians working physical jobs such as construction would love to have a government check for life after no longer being able to work in their field due to injuries, or transition assistance to get trained in another field.

[Negatory]

47 minutes ago, brabus said:

Tons of “homeboys” exist who don’t see full time employment as their preferred option to get money - they prefer govt social programs instead (and only supplement as little as possible with an actual job). That’s the type of people the current system produces, and the type who shouldn’t receive direct payment. The system needs an overhaul, so I guess don’t hate the player, hate the game?

Maybe you could solve this problem by giving everyone money, but subtracting out the amount of benefits you are already receiving. E.g. if you get 20k in welfare and housing, you don’t get 20 more.

I think there are nuanced, not one size fits all, solutions that could address these issues.

[Negatory]

On another note, it’s infuriating to see liberal leaders entirely contradict themselves.

All politicians are hypocrites. I really believe this is a great time to push for overarching governmental reform. Everyone is seeing the system at its absolute worst.

[ViperMan]

11 hours ago, Negatory said:

I think this is a poor representation of the problem, because I’m certain if that “homeboy” doesn’t have money, he’s trying to find a way to get some. Every human in American society has to spend money on food and shelter or else they become destitute. It’s not a “choice” to engage in the American economy for all but the most privileged of people.

While I think I see your theme, and it wasn't my intent to paint all recipients of relief as people who don't deserve or need it, there are plenty of people who fall into the category I identified. And that category is growing.

In any case, my original point was why does a pandemic justify paying someone who didn't have income in the first place? Operable phrase: "Why does the pandemic..." Not: "I wonder if this person who didn't have a job needs or would like government cheese."

So, why does the pandemic justify paying someone unemployment who didn't have income in the first place. If they qualified for unemployment, they should already be getting it. IMO, it's nothing more than a bribe.

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

Maybe you could solve this problem by giving everyone money, but subtracting out the amount of benefits you are already receiving. E.g. if you get 20k in welfare and housing, you don’t get 20 more.

I think there are nuanced, not one size fits all, solutions that could address these issues.

The idea underlying this thought I could get behind. One idea would be to punt their social security collection X months/years into the future. "Oh, I see right here, Mr. Jones, that you needed 8 years of unemployment assistance to get by?" "Yes..." "Cool, well your social security check will start when you're 73...thanks."

Or, you want your social security to start on time? Sweet, then we'll enroll you in a "catch-up" plan to "re-fund" your "early withdrawal" and get you back in good standing.

We cannot continue to act as if there is infinite money. The rest of the world is only gonna let us get away with that for so long.

[jazzdude]

So, why does the pandemic justify paying someone unemployment who didn't have income in the first place. If they qualified for unemployment, they should already be getting it. IMO, it's nothing more than a bribe.
[/Quote]
Thanks for clarifying your stance, I think I agree with you on this point now.

The idea underlying this thought I could get behind. One idea would be to punt their social security collection X months/years into the future. "Oh, I see right here, Mr. Jones, that you needed 8 years of unemployment assistance to get by?" "Yes..." "Cool, well your social security check will start when you're 73...thanks."
Or, you want your social security to start on time? Sweet, then we'll enroll you in a "catch-up" plan to "re-fund" your "early withdrawal" and get you back in good standing.

Social security already penalizes you if you don't work, assuming you qualify. Your entitlement is based off an average of your 35 highest earning years. If you have years where you don't work, that $0 for those years significantly pulls down that average, reducing your benefit. So in your example, 8 years of $0 is really going to hurt that social security payment, and delaying their already reduced payment penalizes them a second time for the same gap in work. Putting numbers to your example, someone earning $70k per year (a decent job in many areas in the country) for 35 years would have a benefit based on their average income of $70k/year. But if they are out of work for 8 years, but earn $70k the rest of the years, their benefit is based on an average income of $54k.

And don't forget that a spouse that stays home to raise their kids, or someone who takes care of a family member full time, or someone that takes a sabbatical to do volunteer work full time while living off their savings are all unemployed for the purposes of social security, and may have their benefit reduced the same amount as someone who was lazy and just didn't want to work.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

Social security already penalizes you if you don't work, assuming you qualify. Your entitlement is based off an average of your 35 highest earning years. If you have years where you don't work, that $0 for those years significantly pulls down that average, reducing your benefit. So in your example, 8 years of $0 is really going to hurt that social security payment, and delaying their already reduced payment penalizes them a second time for the same gap in work. Putting numbers to your example, someone earning $70k per year (a decent job in many areas in the country) for 35 years would have a benefit based on their average income of $70k/year. But if they are out of work for 8 years, but earn $70k the rest of the years, their benefit is based on an average income of $54k.

And don't forget that a spouse that stays home to raise their kids, or someone who takes care of a family member full time, or someone that takes a sabbatical to do volunteer work full time while living off their savings are all unemployed for the purposes of social security, and may have their benefit reduced the same amount as someone who was lazy and just didn't want to work.

If I were to refer to that as a penalty, I would use the adjective just. In actuality (IMO), it's simply a reasonable feature of the system. If you want the lesser time share, fine! Pay the lesser amount! Don't work. No skin off my back. I wouldn't call it a penalty to not have income if I didn't work, I'd call it a consequence.

Social security does actually penalize you, though, for a lot more than that, including:

• Beginning work early in your life - since you pay that tax early and get no interest credit for the time your payment has funded the system. Not to mention the fact that if you begin work earlier, it's notionally at a lower wage, granting you less credit than someone who paid into the system later, but at a higher wage rate.
• Having a lower life expectancy - since different groups (men) live shorter lives, they wind up getting less benefit - especially since this group (as a whole) pays a lot more into the system. The affects minority groups, as well.

In terms of the "spouse that stays home to raise the kids" being penalized, it's exactly the opposite. Lesser-earning working spouses wind up paying a 100% marginal tax rate in some cases due to the earning differences between spouses. Here's the math:

• Al and Alice make $70K and $20K a year, respectively. Because of dependent and survivor provisions, Alice is entitled to social security at the income level that Al paid out.
• Karl and Karen make $70K and $0K a year, respectively. Karen stays home raising the kids. Karen is entitled to Karl's level of social security based on the same provisions.
• Alice and Karen are entitled to the same amount of social security benefits.

Who's making out and who's losing in the above scenario? Karen is winning like a big dog, while poor Alice, slaving away during the night shift emptying bed pans is reducing her earned benefit by one dollar for every dollar she would receive based on Al's contributions to social security. Not to mention the added detriment that she's going to need to hire a baby sitter. Here, not working truly does pay off.

There are a lot of dynamics to taxation that aren't apparent on the surface, but which are absolutely real. Want to maximize your social security income? The best way to do it is to not work and be married to a high-earner. If you can't do that, the best way is to delay your payment into the system as long as humanly possible. Want to maximize your social security "penalty"? Get married to a high-earning spouse and work your ass off at a low paying job.

Edited January 15, 2021 by ViperMan

[brabus]

11 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Can you point to studies that back your claim?

Yeah, 20 years of family business experience in a blue collar/welfare heavy area. Seen hundreds of employees over the years - about 2/3 will do whatever it takes to stay on welfare, including not showing up for work or full up quitting (because they don’t want to go over X hours, which would then make them ineligible for welfare). Even when offered health insurance if they work 40 hrs/wk, they refuse because they’ll just go to the ER sans insurance for everything from a sniffle to actual emergencies. “The hospital is free man, I don’t need insurance!” And those are the people getting a couple grand from the gov and spending it on weed and booze.

The other 1/3 work their ass off and make really good money considering what they do, have health insurance, etc...but they’re not on welfare, and that’s a deal breaker for the other 2/3. Talk to any small business in a blue collar area and you’ll hear similar stories, though I’m sure region drives some differences. Ironically the worst offenders in our family’s experience are 1st Gen Americans; their parents worked their asses off/went through substantial hardship to get their family to America, only to raise entitled, lazy children with no work ethic; blows my mind.

 

11 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Why should military members get VA disability when they can work post military service?

I think there’s tons of abuse of that system. I don’t agree with guys getting disability while continuing to essentially do the same job/pretty much live an unencumbered life. But there are plenty of legitimate cases out there where people have life long effects on their physical ability to do things, are in constant pain, etc. They served their country and will suffer consequences of that service for the rest of their life - that’s legit disability. the construction worker could have chosen a gov job that came with disability options at the end...but he didn’t, so irrelevant in terms of making a “fairness” comparison.

 

Lastly to be clear, I support social safety nets and agree there are lots of people in need who aren’t defined by the 2/3 example above, but our current system breeds the 2/3, so we need to look at ways to discourage said behavior while still having support for people who truly need it. Easier said than done, but the status quo is a shit show.

Edited January 15, 2021 by brabus

[jazzdude]

If I were to refer to that as a penalty, I would use the adjective just. In actuality (IMO), it's simply a reasonable feature of the system. If you want the lesser time share, fine! Pay the lesser amount! Don't work. No skin off my back. I wouldn't call it a penalty to not have income if I didn't work, I'd call it a consequence.
Social security does actually penalize you, though, for a lot more than that, including:

• Beginning work early in your life - since you pay that tax early and get no interest credit for the time your payment has funded the system. Not to mention the fact that if you begin work earlier, it's notionally at a lower wage, granting you less credit than someone who paid into the system later, but at a higher wage rate.
• Having a lower life expectancy - since different groups (men) live shorter lives, they wind up getting less benefit - especially since this group (as a whole) pays a lot more into the system. The affects minority groups, as well.

In terms of the "spouse that stays home to raise the kids" being penalized, it's exactly the opposite. Lesser-earning working spouses wind up paying a 100% marginal tax rate in some cases due to the earning differences between spouses. Here's the math:

• Al and Alice make $70K and $20K a year, respectively. Because of dependent and survivor provisions, Alice is entitled to social security at the income level that Al paid out.
• Karl and Karen make $70K and $0K a year, respectively. Karen stays home raising the kids. Karen is entitled to Karl's level of social security based on the same provisions.
• Alice and Karen are entitled to the same amount of social security benefits.

Who's making out and who's losing in the above scenario? Karen is winning like a big dog, while poor Alice, slaving away during the night shift emptying bed pans is reducing her earned benefit by one dollar for every dollar she would receive based on Al's contributions to social security. Not to mention the added detriment that she's going to need to hire a baby sitter. Here, not working truly does pay off.
There are a lot of dynamics to taxation that aren't apparent on the surface, but which are absolutely real. Want to maximize your social security income? The best way to do it is to not work and be married to a high-earner. If you can't do that, the best way is to delay your payment into the system as long as humanly possible. Want to maximize your social security "penalty"? Get married to a high-earning spouse and work your ass off at a low paying job.

I guess penalty might not be the right word. Agree that what you get should be based on what you paid in, and that's generally fair. (Though you can make an argument that's it's not, since a high wage earned that has paid in more is also more likely to have other sources of retirement income). I was disagreeing that they should also have their retirement age (based on what they paid in) *also* pushed back due to having been in unemployment. Their benefit has already (potentially, if they don't make it past 35 years with income) been reduced to account for the time not worked.

I wouldn't call it being penalized for starting work early: it's insurance (and really that's all social security is). Sure, if someone starts work later at a higher income and only works 35 years, they've paid less into the system while maximizing their benefit. But it assumes no life circumstances arise in say their late 30s that takes them out of the workforce early.

In your Karl and Karen example, it assumes they stay married. Divorce statistics I found seem to range from 29-50%. If Karl and Karen get divorced at 9 years and 11 months, Karen's social security benefit is $0, and she missed out on almost 10 years of qualifying credits (the amount of full time work required to be eligible for social security). If they get divorced at 10 years, then Karen is entitled to 50% of Karl's benefit (it doesn't reduce his benefit though), so long as she doesn't remarry, though if she were to work and her benefit would be higher on her own, she could take that instead. If she remarries, that previous ex spouse benefit goes away, and the clock restarts again for eligibility of the new spouse's benefit. Meanwhile Alice has worked enough to become eligible for her own social security benefits (though small) in the event she gets divorced. So sure, you can try to plan for a certain outcome, but you have to make assumptions about the future that may or may not come true.

Life is messy, and full of risks and unknowns, which require us to make assumptions about the future. I doubt most people make life decisions based on social security benefits, I know I don't. But I also recognize that I'm paid well, and have that option to plan for retirement in the manner that I am.

Just like in an AF career, luck and timing can make all the difference, and people can fall through the cracks in the system through no fault of their own. You could just tell people it sucks to be them, they should've worked harder and known the rules of the game. Or you could make changes in the system to make it better, and maybe fix the rules to avoid unintended consequences.

[jazzdude]

I think there’s tons of abuse of that system. I don’t agree with guys getting disability while continuing to essentially do the same job/pretty much live an unencumbered life. But there are plenty of legitimate cases out there where people have life long effects on their physical ability to do things, are in constant pain, etc. They served their country and will suffer consequences of that service for the rest of their life - that’s legit disability. the construction worker could have chosen a gov job that came with disability options at the end...but he didn’t, so irrelevant in terms of making a “fairness” comparison.
 
Lastly to be clear, I support social safety nets and agree there are lots of people in need who aren’t defined by the 2/3 example above, but our current system breeds the 2/3, so we need to look at ways to discourage said behavior while still having support for people who truly need it. Easier said than done, but the status quo is a shit show.

I'll lead off with I agree with your last paragraph, the status quo isn't good enough, and we need to do better in discouraging abusing the system while making it available to people who need it. So I think we both want to see us get to the same end state. I will however, challenge some of your assumptions, mainly because years ago I held very similar beliefs and viewpoints you did (and that's not to say I'm right now and you're wrong, but I've questioned some of my assumptions when presented with different viewpoints I hadn't considered and it changed my opinion).

You assume that the construction worker could get a job with better benefits: those are likely to be more competitive, and limited. But let's assume they have good work ethic, and don't want to be in unemployment waiting for a "good" job while taking a government handout, so they take whatever job they can to pay their bills. If they then have a workplace accident that results in their leg being crushed and subsequently amputated, then what? "Sorry bro, life sucks and you had bad luck? Thanks for your contribution to the economy in building stores/homes, good luck finding a job with one leg, hope someone donates a prosthetic leg?" Sure, there may be some workers comp available, and that may cover the initial hospital bills, but what happens long term? Being in crutches permanently isn't conducive to many low skill jobs, and while discrimination against disabled is generally illegal, an employer can usually find another reason (plausible deniability) to hire someone else without a disability, especially for low skill or entry level work. And retraining into a new field of work costs money, both for training, and to cover expenses while in training (though admittedly unemployment benefits can help bridge the gap).

I agree that the welfare system should have changes to prevent abuse. But we have to address social and economic barriers to do so. Some of it is practical (those financial cliffs mentioned earlier in the thread). Some of it is learned behavior from multiple sources.

I don't dispute your experience with workers in welfare. All I will say is be careful generalizing based on a small population. Maybe your assessment is correct for the overall population of people on welfare in America, but then again maybe not. The way to draw generalizations needed for policy is to study a relevant portion of that population, while controlling for other factors.

If you have a minimum wage or low paying job with decent (i.e. non high deductible plans) health insurance, great. If you get sick and have to go to urgent care, that $20 copay may mean skipping meals to make ends meet, not to mention the cost of any medicines required. Referred out to specialty care? That's an extra $50 copay, and likely half a day missed from work (increasing the financial pain). Need an operation done? Hope you have the $1-3k available for your deductible and you don't have coinsurance requirements. So while they may have health insurance, you may not be able to practically use it except in an emergency, at which point it may drain any savings you have anyways. And if you don't have paid sick leave, you may just deal with the issue and show up to work anyways because you need the money to make rent. But if you keep hours to the point you remain on welfare, you end up not having to pay those medical costs, and may not have to skip means and go hungry to get medical care. You don't have to work about an emergency wiping out your work because there's nothing really to lose. So there's this painful transition point. If you can get through it and start earning more money (maybe you get a raise after 1 year of work), you can be better off than on welfare. But you've got to get through to that point, and the way welfare is set up doesn't allow for a graceful transition. Maybe an individual has tried to make that jump and failed, and it's now disincentived to try again because of their previous failure. And even middle class workers can be wiped out by a medical event despite having okay health insurance due to deductible and coinsurance requirements. Maybe this speaks more to problems in healthcare, but it's still intertwined with the welfare issue.

On the behavioral point, how do we get people to shift their mindset and actions? Also consider that many factors influence how a person chooses to live: family, race, gender, friends, religion, location, culture, etc. All of which influence your values and your decisions.

You could teach finances in school, though the education system has incentive to focus on standardized testing (which right now doesn't measure financial planning knowledge) for school funding. That testing focused on skills to make the individual more valuable in the workforce, not skills needed to navigate life, with the assumption that the latter will come from the parents (who may not be good examples).

How do you change a social group's norms? Part of it may be showing examples of people that made changes in their life and we're able to "succeed." I used to think it was dumb for all these "firsts" for race/gender/pick you group. To some extent, it still is when it's done for purely political reasons or for virtue signaling (potentially a wrong action for a "right" reason). But if a disadvantaged group can see people from their group be successful, it can provide hope that they too can be successful and escape their current circumstances. So those "firsts" may not mean anything to me as someone outside that group, or just seem like a waste if time, but that doesn't mean it has no meaning to some people within the group. And it doesn't really cost much if anything to recognize people's accomplishments. So it's less about dividing the country based on certain group affiliations, but rather showing a group they are accepted and can succeed within the greater society.

On the flip side, there's the whole crabs in a pot problem, where if someone starts to make progress escaping their circumstances, others around them pull them back down, making it harder to escape. A person trying to escape welfare may be ridiculed or cut off from their friends/family (maybe seen as being "too good" for them anymore), making that transition harder because now it is being done without a social network to support or encourage them.

Do people on welfare spend money on drugs and alcohol because they are pursuing pleasure ahead of essentials (they can't budget right!), or are they using them as tools to escape their life/circumstances for a bit and take the edge off their pain for a while? Put another way, are they poor because they abuse drugs/alcohol, or do they abuse drugs/alcohol because they are poor? The answer may not be the same for everyone, but usually conservatives will assume the former (poor because of drug abuse), I know I did for a long time. It goes back to the belief that if you work hard, there's no way for you to be poor, so if you are poor, you must have a moral failing and poor work ethic. The use of drugs further reinforces the belief that the poor are immoral (regardless of if the person making that judgement also uses drugs, usually with a hand waive of something along the lines of "I've earned it" and the poors are just being financially irresponsible). Compare the response to prescription opioid abuse vs heroin abuse: one is predominantly abused by wealthier people and viewed as them needing therapy to address their underlying issues (get them medical care, not jail time), and the other is abused by poorer people who are breaking the law to get high and should be punished for breaking the law since they should know better (give them jail time, not medical care). Plus, poor people on welfare likely won't have access to treatments for depression, so they self medicate with whatever is available and cheap.

I will say that there are lots of good charities out there that fill some of the gaps our government doesn't cover. And a lot of these issues with being poor are community issues. But I think government money, spent wisely, can help enable charities and communities be more effective in addressing problems.

[VMFA187]

3 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Part of it may be showing examples of people that made changes in their life and we're able to "succeed." I used to think it was dumb for all these "firsts" for race/gender/pick you group. To some extent, it still is when it's done for purely political reasons or for virtue signaling (potentially a wrong action for a "right" reason). But if a disadvantaged group can see people from their group be successful, it can provide hope that they too can be successful and escape their current circumstances. So those "firsts" may not mean anything to me as someone outside that group, or just seem like a waste if time, but that doesn't mean it has no meaning to some people within the group.

Thanks for this. Hadn't really considered that possibility and typically viewed those events as politically driven. I suppose I'm more of a pessimist when it comes to people's actions and I tend to question their motives as opposed to give the benefit of doubt. I've always seen individuals as inherently self-centered and acting as such, with exceptions for close loved-ones.

Suppose their are benefits and drawbacks to each approach...

[Sua Sponte]

18 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Why should military members get VA disability when they can work post military service?

I broke my hand flying, due to a pilot, while at Red Flag in 2009. My ring finger on that hand doesn’t have the same mobility and I get arthritis in that hand a lot. Thankfully it’s not my dominate hand. Being a KC-135 Boom Operator for 3,000 hours ruined my back due to the 1950s ergonomics. Do I work now? Yeah, I’m a contractor working with Boom Operators on the KC-46. 

I didn’t ask for that to happen to me physically, but it was a risk due to the job. The same job the military wanted me to perform. Therefore, the government can pay me the rest of my life for it.

You want to go after fraud, waste, and abuse? Go after all the AFRC/ANG ARTs that double dip and take Mil-leave from their civil service status to get their GS-whatever pay and then get their military rank/allowances pay when activated under Title 10.

Or watch people get falsely accused, and acquitted, of sexual crimes in the military, only for their accuser to claim Military Sexual Trauma and be rated at 100% for life.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

[jazzdude]

Hadn't really considered that possibility and typically viewed those events as politically driven.

What makes all this hard is that sometimes it *can* be politically motivated. If there's one thing both political parties have gotten really good at, it's how to exploit narratives to gain and maintain their power.

[Prozac]

4 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

I broke my hand flying, due to a pilot, while at Red Flag in 2009. 

Fuckin’ zipper suit sun god pilots! 😜🍻

[ViperMan]

10 hours ago, jazzdude said:

I guess penalty might not be the right word. Agree that what you get should be based on what you paid in, and that's generally fair. (Though you can make an argument that's it's not, since a high wage earned that has paid in more is also more likely to have other sources of retirement income). I was disagreeing that they should also have their retirement age (based on what they paid in) *also* pushed back due to having been in unemployment. Their benefit has already (potentially, if they don't make it past 35 years with income) been reduced to account for the time not worked.

Ok, I hear you. I just don't consider their social security as being "reduced." I agree it's less than it would have been had they continued working (and paid more into it), but to consider it reduced, it arguably needs to have had been higher at some point, and then re-gonkulated to a lesser amount.

10 hours ago, jazzdude said:

I wouldn't call it being penalized for starting work early: it's insurance (and really that's all social security is). Sure, if someone starts work later at a higher income and only works 35 years, they've paid less into the system while maximizing their benefit. But it assumes no life circumstances arise in say their late 30s that takes them out of the workforce early.

It's not insurance. I know it's considered insurance, because it's literally titled "FICA tax" (Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax), but you and I both know that just because something is named something doesn't mean it is that thing. I could have car insurance my entire life and never file a single claim - or I could be hopping from claim to claim. Insurance kicks in when you need it to cover unforeseeable, rare, and catastrophic events. Getting older is literally the most predictable thing there is, and SS kicks in for everyone.

None of that seems to me unforeseeable, rare, or catastrophic. It would better be title "welfare for old people" because that's what it actually is, but we can't call things what they are, so we slap an "insurance" moniker on it. If it were to actually function like insurance, there would be some sort of need-based means testing - which we will probably have to go to at some point.

10 hours ago, jazzdude said:

In your Karl and Karen example, it assumes they stay married. Divorce statistics I found seem to range from 29-50%. If Karl and Karen get divorced at 9 years and 11 months, Karen's social security benefit is $0, and she missed out on almost 10 years of qualifying credits (the amount of full time work required to be eligible for social security). If they get divorced at 10 years, then Karen is entitled to 50% of Karl's benefit (it doesn't reduce his benefit though), so long as she doesn't remarry, though if she were to work and her benefit would be higher on her own, she could take that instead. If she remarries, that previous ex spouse benefit goes away, and the clock restarts again for eligibility of the new spouse's benefit. Meanwhile Alice has worked enough to become eligible for her own social security benefits (though small) in the event she gets divorced. So sure, you can try to plan for a certain outcome, but you have to make assumptions about the future that may or may not come true.

Life is messy, and full of risks and unknowns, which require us to make assumptions about the future. I doubt most people make life decisions based on social security benefits, I know I don't. But I also recognize that I'm paid well, and have that option to plan for retirement in the manner that I am.

Just like in an AF career, luck and timing can make all the difference, and people can fall through the cracks in the system through no fault of their own. You could just tell people it sucks to be them, they should've worked harder and known the rules of the game. Or you could make changes in the system to make it better, and maybe fix the rules to avoid unintended consequences.

Yeah I hadn't indicated they get divorced in the example. I agree that circumstances matter and will change things for every couple/person. I'm sure we're both capable of constructing examples that will demonstrate different points. My point was simply to say that lower-earning spouses are paying a 100% marginal tax rate on some portion of their earnings. Having worked or not worked, getting divorced at 9 years and 11 months is an awful financial decision for a low earner. Akin to quitting active duty at 19 years and 10 months. Who does that? No one informed, that's for sure.

[jazzdude]

It's not insurance. I know it's considered insurance, because it's literally titled "FICA tax" (Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax), but you and I both know that just because something is named something doesn't mean it is that thing. I could have car insurance my entire life and never file a single claim - or I could be hopping from claim to claim. Insurance kicks in when you need it to cover unforeseeable, rare, and catastrophic events. Getting older is literally the most predictable thing there is, and SS kicks in for everyone.
None of that seems to me unforeseeable, rare, or catastrophic. It would better be title "welfare for old people" because that's what it actually is, but we can't call things what they are, so we slap an "insurance" moniker on it. If it were to actually function like insurance, there would be some sort of need-based means testing - which we will probably have to go to at some point.

I guess it depends what you think you are insuring against.

If you see social security as insurance against getting old, then yeah, I see your point, it's not insurance and it's just welfare for the elderly.

If you look at it as insurance against losing a defined benefit (pension) retirement because your company's pension fund collapsed, the stock market crashing right before you retire and decimates your 401k account, or you have a major medical expenses requiring you to access and spend your retirement on treatment, then it starts to look a lot like insurance in how we normally view it.

Denying benefits based on an individual's wealth in retirement (needs based) was likely politically distasteful, so it allows everyone that paid in to draw a benefit. Otherwise, you'd have wealthier people lobbying to eliminate it (or be allowed to opt out) so they don't have to pay in because they get no benefit, which then puts the entire program's funding at risk (it's set up like a ponzi scheme). But I agree, we'll probably need to move to a needs based benefit for it to be viable in the future, especially as our population growth has slowed down (reducing funding for those collecting retirement now and in the future). Unless there's going to be another baby boom generation to infuse a bunch of cash into the system when you and I are reaching retirement age.

And like you mentioned earlier, if people suck at managing their money, maybe the government should force people to save for their retirement, which it has done to an extent with social security.

[VMFA187]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

Denying benefits based on an individual's wealth in retirement (needs based) was likely politically distasteful, so it allows everyone that paid in to draw a benefit. Otherwise, you'd have wealthier people lobbying to eliminate it (or be allowed to opt out) so they don't have to pay in because they get no benefit, which then puts the entire program's funding at risk (it's set up like a ponzi scheme). But I agree, we'll probably need to move to a needs based benefit for it to be viable in the future, especially as our population growth has slowed down (reducing funding for those collecting retirement now and in the future). Unless there's going to be another baby boom generation to infuse a bunch of cash into the system when you and I are reaching retirement age.

And like you mentioned earlier, if people suck at managing their money, maybe the government should force people to save for their retirement, which it has done to an extent with social security.

I'd rather everyone gets less to keep it going as opposed to those who have been responsible and put away savings in 401ks, real estate, etc... get shafted because they were responsible and subsequently lose all their entitlement to SS when they are older to help out others who didn't. 

Sounds a lot like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Why would I contribute to a 401k or invest in other areas if I knew I'd be losing all the money I am forced to contribute only to the benefit of others? 

 

***NOTE***

I wouldn't be here on a Friday evening but since dry January failed last Saturday at the ripe age of nine days, I'm trying not to drink except on Saturdays. Amazing how much extra time you find!