Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GatorB
A) first of all you're not getting rid of Social Security no matter how much you want it to go away, so you have to deal with that reality.
|
I just find it hard to make a solid moral decision based on principles in a system where it is accepted that a part of what everyone earns is socialized and then redistributed according to political whim.
And even though the system is in place currently, it's man-made and can therefore be changed. It's not like the law of gravity, which I would have to accept as a part of nature. I mean, with that attitude I could also just accept that illegal immigrants get benefits they didn't pay for. It's part of reality, too.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GatorB
B) It's not about illegals getting SS benefits. And benefits they would get wouldbe decades away. SS doesn't work that way. They problem is that thew way SS work is that you and me pay SS taxes those monies are not put into some account waiting for the day we retire that are IMMEDIATELY paid out to current retirees. So you have tens of million of retirees get a gauranteed amount of cash that's only goes UP every year and fewer and fewer workers paying into the the system to fund it. Yet those retirees are going to get their money, so where is the extra money need to pay these retirees going to come from? I'll tell you, higher FICA taxes that you get taken out of your paycheck or higher self-employeed taxes for those of us that work for ouselves. You know the same taxes illegals are currently NOT paying.
|
So your basic point is that less people are paying for SS as the non-paying (illegal) part of the economy increases and this raises taxes for the paying rest of society. That's true. But the problem still is not that there are people who are not supporting the system, but that the system is in place to start with.
If there was no system, it would not be endangered by illegal immigrants.
Your arguments make perfect sense. The idea to save the SS system would be to have the illegals pay taxes, too or to keep them out. That would eliminate the problem you've discussed. But it would also increase government control and keeping people from working by force costs money, too, which the taxpayers would also have to pay for.
And that's something I'm against, too. And choosing the lesser evil is not something I get all excited about. I just refuse to defend a mandatory social system, because I think that's the most consistent moral point to make in this issue. (You're still free to call me a dreamer, but the fact remains that this system is man-made.
)
That the farmers get subsidies is yet another issue.