I won't go into the other population controls that have been enacted by our government because they were almost entirely the work of racists and are rather sickening.
I am curious about these other population controls that have been enacted (not that they happened, but what happened); would you please tell me about them?
You assume that I think that social security is truly fair.
Firstly, social security requires that the product of the population and their after-tax wages is always growing at a fair pace (this is impossible in a finite world, and, no, I don't think we're going to colonize space, at least not any time soon). This at least much of why Europe has social security problems (too many old people being supported by too few young people), and at least much of why America is projected (although I think this is optimistic due to other factors) to lose the ability to pay social security benefits at current rates in 2047 (thereafter, people's benefits will be have to be cut back every year, and/or the retirement age constantly raised (to even past when most people will die).
You may argue that social security could stabilize if population times after-tax wages stabilized, but wages have only increased slightly [in America] since 2001, while employment is down somewhat (I'm counting people the have stopped looking for work as unemployed, unlike the government), while the amount of oil (the lynchpin of the world economy) being pumped (84 million barrels per day) has gone at least very close to as high as it ever will, meaning that America will get less energy per person. Also, taxes per year tend to increase, thus meaning that after-tax wages become smaller, making the social security benefits taken more and more meaningful. For information about why the world can not continuously increase its oil intake every year, and why the world can not function as it is with decreasing supplies of oil, see www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net and www.peakoil.net .
Secondly, social security doesn't pay back those that die before or work past retirement age (unless I'm mistaken) anything at all, thus being an unfair tax on them. Also, those that live to the year in which their country is forced to reduce benefits and/or raise the retirement age get less money than those that paid the same inflation-adjusted amount, thus making social security unfair.
Thirdly, being a government program has made it less efficient and fair. For example, America currently finances part of its national deficit with taxes that were supposed to go into the social security fund (as well as medicare taxes). This ultimately means that taxes people now pay for the social security disappear, and they will receive lower benefits, and/or higher retirement ages, and/or younger people will have to pay higher taxes, and/or the trade deficit will grow as the government sells treasury bonds to make up the difference (and those are ultimately paid back for more than they were worth when sold, thus further burdening younger people). This is also unfair.
In conclusion, social security is an ever increasing burden on the young, and those that die before they get paid enough benefits back (due to working too long or dying too young), which continuously get out less than they put in, thus making it unfair. The possible solutions are people being smart enough to save and invest money for their future (not in America, I know), or people fashioning their society into one that willingly supports their elders (like much of Asia at least used to be).
If you can't agree with my assertions, it would be easier for both of us if we agreed to disagree, because I don't believe that the world can supply an infinite amount of energy, nor support an infinite number of people, or that real money comes out of nowhere, and there's no plausible way (that I can think of) that you could change my mind.
I understand that new people are needed to support social security, but in America, Europe, and Japan (I don't know anything about their social security program) there already aren't enough people being born to support it anyway; so why should the childless have to support those that have children (apparently without being able to afford them, or they certainly don't deserve tax benefits) because of social security?
The guy pointing out that the Constitution grants no such power to the government, that's who. Unless you manage to get a constitutional amendment passed any such measure would be struck down in record time by the courts. Even an incentive means that the folks who choose to have children are being penalized at the expense of their own tax dollars, and this wouldn't pass any sort of constitutional muster.
Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...
The government can tax people, and they don't have to do it equally (lots of goods and "vices" are unfairly taxed, as well as the richer tending to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes). In any case, if you think it's unfair to tax people for having children, why is it not also unfair to give people that have children tax breaks (causing those without to pay higher taxes), and tax those without children for schools?
This puts the United States near the average for the OECD, and far behind countries such as the England and France, which have made rapid progress in broadband adoption.
What about all the poor rodents killed by combines? They outnumber all animals raised for meat, but aren't considered to have any value whatsoever, apparently. Or is it only eating, not killing, the animals that matters?
...overall government spending (budget deficits != trade deficits)...
Actually, budget deficits ultimately mean a mix of a higher future trade deficit and possible higher future taxes. The deficit is paid with treasuries, upon which interest is paid. Most of these are bought by foreigners who end up getting paid back more than they paid. This means money leaves the country (eventually). No, you can't pay back your debt by creating new debt (issuing more treasuries (among other things)) forever; America is trying, but it will fail (currency devaluation) pretty soon. The rest of the treasuries are bought by Americans who get back more than they paid, thus causing the deficit to widen, thus causing a mix of a higher future trade deficit and possible higher taxes.
Sure, those people are breaking the law, but they didn't get a real chance (like having a majority of politicians voted into office be reasonable, benevolent people, as opposed to greedy, duplicitous hellspawn) to vote against the law, which makes no sense, because Tivo isn't being hurt by those breaking the law; they don't even sell their product there.
Slashdot Mirror
World of Slashdot?
Thanks for the link.
Thanks a lot. Also, it seems like he may have stopped arguing with both of us.
Psycopaths are callous, manipulative, impulsive, and quick to anger. These are not exactly charming traits.
But they are manipulative. Corporate psychopaths are the ones that can act charming (manipulate) when they want to be (to bosses and shareholders).
Yeah. I was missing something: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159520&cid=133 61145
I was missing something. I misread the grandparent. In any case, you can just replace roulette with various other games, as other posters have.
So roulette isn't hosted then? Or am I missing something?
At least it's better than someone boxing your wang.
I won't go into the other population controls that have been enacted by our government because they were almost entirely the work of racists and are rather sickening.
3 53686 (no, I have no idea how to make the word "here" into the appropriate link). As a result, he started arguing with me as well. Since I'm following your argument with him, I thought you might be interested in following mine. You can follow both arguments (thus not missing any replies that either of us (or anyone else) might make to him) at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159379&thresho ld=-1&commentsort=0&tid=99&mode=nested&pid=1335232 8 .
I am curious about these other population controls that have been enacted (not that they happened, but what happened); would you please tell me about them?
Also, here is my reply to the grandparent: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159379&cid=13
You assume that I think that social security is truly fair.
Firstly, social security requires that the product of the population and their after-tax wages is always growing at a fair pace (this is impossible in a finite world, and, no, I don't think we're going to colonize space, at least not any time soon). This at least much of why Europe has social security problems (too many old people being supported by too few young people), and at least much of why America is projected (although I think this is optimistic due to other factors) to lose the ability to pay social security benefits at current rates in 2047 (thereafter, people's benefits will be have to be cut back every year, and/or the retirement age constantly raised (to even past when most people will die).
You may argue that social security could stabilize if population times after-tax wages stabilized, but wages have only increased slightly [in America] since 2001, while employment is down somewhat (I'm counting people the have stopped looking for work as unemployed, unlike the government), while the amount of oil (the lynchpin of the world economy) being pumped (84 million barrels per day) has gone at least very close to as high as it ever will, meaning that America will get less energy per person. Also, taxes per year tend to increase, thus meaning that after-tax wages become smaller, making the social security benefits taken more and more meaningful. For information about why the world can not continuously increase its oil intake every year, and why the world can not function as it is with decreasing supplies of oil, see www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net and www.peakoil.net .
Secondly, social security doesn't pay back those that die before or work past retirement age (unless I'm mistaken) anything at all, thus being an unfair tax on them. Also, those that live to the year in which their country is forced to reduce benefits and/or raise the retirement age get less money than those that paid the same inflation-adjusted amount, thus making social security unfair.
Thirdly, being a government program has made it less efficient and fair. For example, America currently finances part of its national deficit with taxes that were supposed to go into the social security fund (as well as medicare taxes). This ultimately means that taxes people now pay for the social security disappear, and they will receive lower benefits, and/or higher retirement ages, and/or younger people will have to pay higher taxes, and/or the trade deficit will grow as the government sells treasury bonds to make up the difference (and those are ultimately paid back for more than they were worth when sold, thus further burdening younger people). This is also unfair.
In conclusion, social security is an ever increasing burden on the young, and those that die before they get paid enough benefits back (due to working too long or dying too young), which continuously get out less than they put in, thus making it unfair. The possible solutions are people being smart enough to save and invest money for their future (not in America, I know), or people fashioning their society into one that willingly supports their elders (like much of Asia at least used to be).
If you can't agree with my assertions, it would be easier for both of us if we agreed to disagree, because I don't believe that the world can supply an infinite amount of energy, nor support an infinite number of people, or that real money comes out of nowhere, and there's no plausible way (that I can think of) that you could change my mind.
I understand that new people are needed to support social security, but in America, Europe, and Japan (I don't know anything about their social security program) there already aren't enough people being born to support it anyway; so why should the childless have to support those that have children (apparently without being able to afford them, or they certainly don't deserve tax benefits) because of social security?
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wpawuwple/990700 1.htm
The guy pointing out that the Constitution grants no such power to the government, that's who. Unless you manage to get a constitutional amendment passed any such measure would be struck down in record time by the courts. Even an incentive means that the folks who choose to have children are being penalized at the expense of their own tax dollars, and this wouldn't pass any sort of constitutional muster.
Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...
The government can tax people, and they don't have to do it equally (lots of goods and "vices" are unfairly taxed, as well as the richer tending to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes). In any case, if you think it's unfair to tax people for having children, why is it not also unfair to give people that have children tax breaks (causing those without to pay higher taxes), and tax those without children for schools?
"You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's megafauna all the way down."
This puts the United States near the average for the OECD, and far behind countries such as the England and France, which have made rapid progress in broadband adoption.
I'm moving to the England.
What if He tells you to eat mental patients?
Then you'd only be following His plan.
An elemental once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
What about all the poor rodents killed by combines? They outnumber all animals raised for meat, but aren't considered to have any value whatsoever, apparently. Or is it only eating, not killing, the animals that matters?
Slashdot is the natural predator of imageshacks.
...overall government spending (budget deficits != trade deficits)...
Actually, budget deficits ultimately mean a mix of a higher future trade deficit and possible higher future taxes. The deficit is paid with treasuries, upon which interest is paid. Most of these are bought by foreigners who end up getting paid back more than they paid. This means money leaves the country (eventually). No, you can't pay back your debt by creating new debt (issuing more treasuries (among other things)) forever; America is trying, but it will fail (currency devaluation) pretty soon. The rest of the treasuries are bought by Americans who get back more than they paid, thus causing the deficit to widen, thus causing a mix of a higher future trade deficit and possible higher taxes.
Sure, those people are breaking the law, but they didn't get a real chance (like having a majority of politicians voted into office be reasonable, benevolent people, as opposed to greedy, duplicitous hellspawn) to vote against the law, which makes no sense, because Tivo isn't being hurt by those breaking the law; they don't even sell their product there.
Barney's been a BAD boy...
Using my demongraphic information to increase my car insurance rates, on the other hand, would not make me happy.
But what if they used that demongraphic information to advertise succubi?
So they would absolutely refuse to hire George W. Betruger?
I'd program her to cry.
Slow down cowboy! I read at +2 sometimes (for unpopular articles).