No, social security is a product of not being able to differentiate between those who cannot find work and those who don't want to work, socialism does not have that problem because it offers everyone a job and those who choose not to work receive nothing.
Thought I'd find you here. Nice picture, what about the ones who can't work or can't find a job?
Figured I should make it clear here, facts being facts and all that. Simple fact is in a truly socialist system there would be no unemployment no social security payments so obviously the program is not socialist. Logic.
How does everyone have a job? what if they don't have the right skills? do they get to choose their own jobs? What if they are paralyzed? Do you choose from a hat?
#1) Public investment allows creation of near unlimited jobs #2 Everyone can do something unless they are disabled #3Yes, but if they are unemployed then they will be assigned a job which suits their skills #4 disability is different not enough space
What if they get assigned a job they hate.
Then they can look for a better one which opens up or look to trade jobs with someone else or they can simply quite, but if they quite the governemnt does not provide for them.
How does the public know what to invest in? Where does the public investment come from before jobs are created? How much money do I get to keep after taxes?
The money come from the wealth of the country. The public employs experts to decide what to invest in, you get to keep a lot more money. This conversation is to complex for the word limit.
How do they get to keep a lot of their money if they have to support the system?
Simply put because most of what a person makes working for others does not go to him, it goes to taxes and in much larger proportion it goes to the person he works for, socialism cuts out the middle man so you only pay taxes, thus more money for you.
It distributes wealth from one part of the population to another. So if that is your definition of socialism, then it is socialism. But socialism, in a Marxist sense, is a system in which the government controls the means of production. Everyone works for the government, and the government decides how to distribute the fruits of their labor. Social security, in itself, does nothing to change the fundamentals of the system. Private enterprise still represents the bulk of the economy, with a relatively small percentage of people's income used to finance the program. So if this is socialism, it is a very watered down definition.
Good answer, I didn't mean the whole system, I just meant is it a socialist type of program.
how when the people PAID FOR IT. it the Feds that's robbing from it. it not wealth distribution for ALL GET IT REGARDLESS OF INCOME.you put in you get out save for what the Feds steal out of it
NO, It is not a socialist program because they may tell you it's your money? But, My generation will probably never see a penny of it.
True socialism would have no social security or welfare or food stamps. In socialism the basic needs of people would be easily provided for, leaving a surplus of labor for people to use as they see fit. Our social welfare programs are a necessary buffer to the intentional design of Capitalism which requires risk-taking, cheap labor (which forces poverty), and defines people by their capital productivity. Capitalism is designed to have people climb high and fast and be somewhat brutal. In such a system it is common for people to fall. Safety nets are cheaper than letting people fall all the way, allows for people to be made productive again, and ensures risk-taking. They are all necessary programs for Capitalism, not socialism.
Social security is just a way to take care of useless old people. But they are only useless to Capitalism. Socialism would have no such problem. All people are useful.
So is everyone paid equally in a socialist country? Do government officials make more money?
Yes, they are all paid with the same respect all human beings deserve because of who and what they are rather than how much money they can generate. We don't have to use money as our currency.
So, then there isn't money? do you use a currency?
I would like to point out that it isn't necessary that people be paid exactly the same, I think certain pay variations are reasonable for jobs people don't want for example a 15% higher wage seems reasonable, things like sewer workers etc.
Money is useful as a medium for the exchange of goods. It doesn't have to be the metric for measuring the value of all things or of people (which Capitalism, as it has been formulated, tends to do).
it was to be an retirement program but the Feds use it as a cash cow all the time reducing the benefit of the people and making it like a social program. the United States owe more to social security than they do the 16 trillions in debt taxes that they ran up. the program works. the Federal Government is robbing it blind.
So through all I have learned today about socialism, I have taken a few things out of it.
In socialism people are paid almost all the same. Government takes in all the money and run the businesses. There are no private owners. Everyone is taken care of equally.
So who is to say the people in government aren't pocketing the money. It sounds like there would still be two classes. The powerful government controlling the money, and the workers with very similar salaries.
Since everyone is provided a job, they don't really need to think about anything that interests them. The people have no incentive to be innovative. Most inventions were accidents. If you give a person complete system to do what he wants, he might end up doing something that benefits many people. If this same person is in a system where a job is provided to him the same events may not occur.
In a capitalist society there is an incentive to achieve more. People work harder to gain more. In a socialist society they don't have to worry about becoming more everyone is the same.
With that being said, I know the United States is corporatist not socialist. What I would like is a free society with basic laws.
Communism, according to Marx, was the climax of socialism. In it, there would be NO state, and the vast majority of a person's productive labor was entirely theirs to do with as they please. A powerful gov't is a fatal flaw (e.g. Russia).
If there is no state who controls the money and how are jobs allocated? How are the benefits distributed?
Property (money) and productivity (jobs) are not un-managed, they are just managed through some form of worker cooperative rather than a central state. No doubt these are difficult issues, which is partly why Marxism has remained a theory.
If property is money, am I bartering for goods? Who decides what type of business or job you create?
See for these questions you can read Das Kapital there are a bunch of redacted version if you lack patience. If a workers cooperative they would democratically decide what sort of business to run and simply exchange what they produce.
In theory, communism was a system of superabundance of basic goods, so beyond that, productive labor could be used for simple pleasure or for advancing social good. Money might still exist, but only as a medium of commodity exchange.
I don't know this system sounds complicated, sounds too good to be true. To me freedom works, and sound money. You might not get equal pay, but you get opportunity, and money of value such as gold and silver. Today we don't have any of those.
With a 7 billion person planet, I think everything is complicated. The rising tide that lifts all boats of Capitalism sounds a bit too good to be true as well. I certainly don't have any grand magic solution.
Social security is socialist in nature, yet a product of a democracy represented in the United States. It came about with Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" and this was in 1936 that it took place. He took the reigns in the worst of the depression and pulled the country up by the bootstraps to become a stronger nation. He is considered by many to be one of the greatest presidents of all time and one in which we can take much pride.
Social Security is a defined benefit program. You and your employer contribute to it. When you retire, your benefit will be based on your age, your years of employment and your annual income over those years. Do not say that you cannot get a lump sum instead of monthly benefits. Many defined benefit programs do not allow the taking of a lump sum, because it puts too much burden on the fund that is used to pay the retirement benefits. It does have a survivor benefit like most defined benefit program. The only difference is that the spouse can get up to half of the other spouse's monthly payment, even though the first spouse has not paid into the system.
That is Social Security, do not confuse it with Disability Security Income, Supplemental Security Income and other offshoots.
by SparklingJewel 9 years ago
I would be interested to hear opposition to the stated "facts" in this video...Has anyone done an extensive research on the origins of Social Security?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4BjLrTq … r_embedded
by BakerRambles 9 years ago
Has the united states ever commit acts of socialism in any form?
by ga anderson 5 years ago
*Thread credit should go to Credence2 for his Bernie Sanders enthusiasm - which prompted a look at his platformLooking at presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' website was a real eye-opener. Great sounding programs - paid for by the greedy rich, and the evil corporations of America.Many of...
by Petra Vlah 8 years ago
Through our working years we all paid for Social Security and Medicare, so why are they considered entitlements when in fact we contributed our own money into the system?
by Brian 10 years ago
I was talking with a group of friends the other day. and I suggested that there should be a national tax, where the money collected should be distributed evenly among every U.S. citizen, and I was labled as a socialist.I don't understand what would be so wrong about distributing that kind of money...
by Ralph Deeds 7 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opini … ef=opinionSocial Security, Present and FutureBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDPublished: March 30, 2013 6 Comments"In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security has so far been untouched. That may soon change.Today's Editorials"In last...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|