Broomstick was wrong - social security is not taxpayer funded, other than whatever has been stolen from the program to pay for welfare or wars or whatever.
Social Security is an inter-generational transfer of wealth, mandated by federal law. Money is taken from the workers and redistributed to the old and disabled, with a promise that yours will be there when you need it. It’s a form of welfare.
Welfare;
-
statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need…
-
financial support given to people in need.
And, Social Security is given to all of those who paid in, regardless of need. And, regardless of need, if you didn’t pay in you don’t get any. Therefore, it doesn’t qualify as welfare given your own definition.
It just amazes me that because the feds have badly mishandled the social security fund, somehow those of us who take out what we put in are now at fault and lumped in with those who cannot be bothered to be responsible.
If you run a business and cant afford to pay your employees $15 an hour + benefits, maybe your just not a very good businessperson.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
n/m
And how, exactly, did you reach that conclusion?
Because I see businesses that do that all the time and are very successful.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, your opinion is your cite. That’ll work.
Sent from my MSi laptop using English.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought you said that only those people who paid into the SS fund were eligible to claim benefits from said fund. How does that reconcile with your post above??
And as we’ve been over UMPTEEN times before curlcoat, you, as an individual, have pulled MANY MORE DOLLARS out of your SS fund than you ever put in. That’s how most social security safety-nets work.
Do you comprehend this notion, or are you so blinkered that you’re oblivious to the fucking obvious??
I have no idea what you have misunderstood here. I paid into SS for over 35 years.
Amazing how you think you know that. You have no idea how much I put in, how much interest it was supposed to have earned, nor how much I’ve received in benefits, yet you assume that I have to have pulled MANY MORE DOLLARS out than I paid in.
What I comprehend is that you are pulling things out of your ass and calling them facts, and that like so many of the mindless idiots out there, when you see something you like the sound of, you decide it must be true. And go forth to force others to agree. You should stop just repeating things other folks say and do some thinking for once.
Because every business has the same cost structure form Apple on down to 7-11. Yeah, that makes sense…
That’s complete horseshit. A system (the touchscreens) which were first trialled in 2009, and who knows how long the decision and development cycle was before that, is in response to a issue that hit the headlines in 2015?
Some places have been using touchscreens long before that. Sheetz expanded their business from your standard gas station to a viable place to eat in the early 2000s. (The place they opened in Altoona is massive for a gas station and would be closer in size to a lot of smaller truck stops.) They’ve always used touchscreens to order food. Order, pay at the normal cashier (no loss of job there), wait for food to be made by employees in the back (new jobs), eat. They’ve expanded by building a commissary in Claysburg, PA and another one in Burlington, NC (even more jobs).
How many actual fast-food jobs would actually be lost by converting to touchscreen? My experience is that the cashier is rarely just running the register.
Don’t confuse her with facts.
-
People get SS benefits who have never worked! Example, children draw on their deceased parents account.
-
Social security is welfare because there there is no connection between the “taxes” contributed and the “benefits” received.
-
SS is a system of taking money from the workers and funding programs and support for the old and disabled. An inter-generation money transfer mandated by the Feds.
-
Curlcoat likes to ride her high horse instead and pretend she didn’t suck the public boob under a disabled claim, then and that’s fine (if it makes her feel better.) What’s not, his her categorizing those receiving welfare as irresponsible.
-
Having worked for the XXX XXXXX County Department of Public Welfare after graduation from college, (my first real job) I can assure you that all welfare recipients do not lack responsibility, nor are they worthless, instead they are humans in need with no where else to turn.
-
And yes, there are those who are too lazy to do anything but even their children deserve food and medical attention. Kids are rarely responsible for their position in life.
Not really. Of course corporations are investing, long term, in automation systems. When they decide to deploy them is going to be largely driven by financial issues. Something planned for 2020 under the current financial analysis might easily deploy earlier if the analysis changes.
But the point is not a literal one anyway. The point is that higher labor costs often results in loss of jobs due to automation. Are you disputing that? And a mandatory doubling of the labor cost is a disruption to the system that we have not seen before.
Everyone forgets about the rise of self serve gas. Labor costs obviously played no part in that.
Well, everyone except the folks in Oregon. 
The rest of us actually subsidize those corporations that pay low wages, because their employees need things like SNAP, housing and child-care assistance paid for by our taxes to get by. Their low low prices are a false economy.
Please, not this BS argument again. You start with the implicit assumption that if I hire someone, I am now responsible for all his needs. You may think that, but I don’t, and there is no objective reason for you to say you are right. Besides, one could just as easily say that the company is offsetting some of the cost to society if that person didn’t have a job at all.
Quibbling about the notion of “earned” aside, where WOULD the money actually come from?
Even if you divide the entire 3.7 trillion dollar federal budget by 300 million citizens, we’re still talking a paltry $12,333 per head, which is hardly anyone’s idea of a livable income, never mind any economic effects due to a basic income.
Doubling or more the tax rates isn’t going to make anyone who actually pays taxes very happy at all.