But...but...it's statist!

Yeah, who cares if millions lose their jobs and the GDP decreases?! As long as a Republican is in the White House to blame.

.....

How about 'damn those liberals for taking political advantage of our failed policies!'?

GM's management faces higher costs than its competitors in other countries because it has to pay its employees' healthcare costs and Toyota and Volkswagen don't. GM's workers are no better off: their pension benefits are at risk because their continued existence depends on the health of one company, rather than the health of an entire country. So who benefits from this lopsided system?

Obviously the company and the workers. Unfortunately you don't understand basic economic. The first rule of economics is TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. If the employers don't pay for the health care and pensions who will? If the government pays for it, this requires taxes. Paying more taxes hurts the economy and hurts workers and business due to the weaker economy.

A better solution would be to eliminate both government and employer management of health care and pensions and have the workers control their own health care and pension. This is what Bush was trying to do with his Personal Accounts and his Health Savings Account. As Bush stated

Link

"The President has proposed voluntary personal accounts for younger workers that would allow them to build a nest egg for retirement that they would own and control, and could pass on to their families. The President's vision for Social Security includes a permanently strengthened Social Security system, without changing benefits for those now in or near retirement, and without raising payroll taxes on workers. Inheritance rights in personal accounts would especially help widows who depend on Social Security."

If we pass Bush's plan than health care and retirement security would be achieved and we can do this without the state mandated socialism which you are endeared to so much.

the bleatings of trolls on this subject, at least, is irrelevant. there is no way out but single payer plans of some sort, insurance company profits be damned.

it has reached tipping point in corporate america, and once the bottom line is calculated, and we have employers demanding state-supported medical, it will teeter into inevitible.

only a matter of time.

Yep, single payer is an inevitability, but probably 20 years away. Anyone who has worked in the medical insurance biz can see it coming.

No, most executives of "young" firms don't care about it because they believe they'll cash out long before the shit hits the fan, and because it's so far off and anyway there's not much they can do about it.

In GM's case, oddly enough, the same dynamic works, though to a lesser extent. Waggoner makes his salary and bonus based on metrics he and his buddies on the board cook up. And stock options aren't much better, since stock price volatility makes it more likely to hit occasional peaks, which is what stock options are designed to take advantage of.

Of course, for GM the matter is more urgent than it is for Google. Brin is a billionaire while Waggonner is only a multi-millionaire. Boo fucking hoo.

Al,

I know you are a troll, but take your little troll head and stick it up your little troll ass.

You clearly do not know anyone who has a preexsisting condition, and can not buy insurance at any price.

Actually, a company like GM will likely have or be involved in something like 40-100 different employee benefit plans, and, of those, a sizeable chunk of them (both healthcare and pension (both defined benefit and defined contribution) plans) will be multiemployer plans. (Since the post revolved around plans benefiting workers, we can leave out all the single-employer executive comp plans.) Multiemployer plans are separate Taft-Hartley funds to which GM would be but one contributing employer. Therefore, there already IS an element of risk-sharing in the current pension system. Of course, the point is still well taken because the multiemployer world is dying a slow death right now (speaking as some practicing in this area). Years of benign neglect under Clinton and outright hostility to these plans under Bush (they involve unions, you see) has put the system on the precipice of disaster. Pension plans have to keep merging (and thus growing asset pools) just to survive, and health plans are slashing benefits and still having trouble holding much of a reserve - if any. There's merit to what Kevin says, but the picture is a bit more complex then what he paints it to be.

Socialism is only scary when it's the workers who benefit. Socialism for the rich is perfectly fine.

"Conversely, young companies like Google ignore the whole issue because they figure they'll always be young and fast growing."

I am not sure that's a fair characterization. Isn't it possible, even likely, that the biggest reason google doesn't make huge deals on health care because their workers don't expect it? After all, what company is going to go out of its way to possibly screw itself?

So whomever is "being" Al this week clearly does NOT understand anything about biology, chemistry & physics (nor capitalism or "economics" for that matter)

The point of Industrial Capitalism (which is what "We the people..." have) is to avoid all costs (dump them on the folks that can`t retaliate) and hoard all possible benefits for one`s own; maximize costs accounted as "externalities" in econospeak

As for me, I am hoping that GM bites the big one before Ford because GM really, really deserves it in sooooo many ways; worse management would be difficult to find (except maybe in the White House...)

"The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness of our fears and prejudices." - James Carter

Isn't it possible, even likely, that the biggest reason google doesn't make huge deals on health care because their workers don't expect it?

No, I really don't think that's likely, or even possible.

A generation of being told "you're on your own" however, may have dulled their sense of outrage. I guess we're just going to have to learn the lessons of the Thirties all over again...

Oh, come on. Let's cut straight to the chase and just nationalize the car companies. End of health care problem.

In which Kevin endorses corporate welfare.

Google Benefits

Google Benefits.

Ah, it's so good to be right...again!

The funny thing is that 1) MNCs like to invest in companies where the government pays for things like health insurance and 2) the experience of countries like France and Taiwan (countries which have experienced success with such systems) have seen their economies become more efficient with such systems than if they lacked them. The Taiwanese saw their medical costs go down and efficiency go up when they switched to such a system.

Your taxes may go up - and/or spending on other areas can be cut to go towards paying for public health insurance, but the average person sees the amount they pay on health insurance go down, often to a high enough amount to more than offset rise in taxes brought about by the implementation of such a system. Going around scared like a chicken with its head cut off whenever anything that even suggests the word tax is not going to solve a problem. A simple cost-benefit analysis actually adds nuance to the picture. However, nuance is kryptonite to Al.

My guess is that the reason we don't see such a system is that it is the Anglo-Commonwealth countries among the rich industrial nations - the UK, Canada, Australia - that have inferior public healthcare systems while those that do well are either the French, whom the right and the pundit class on TV must never praise for anything but their prowress in head-butting and car-burning (a good night out), or obscure to such people like Taiwan and Singapore.

I think the nasty little problem that the gung-ho free capitalists never want to admit is this: EVERYBODY needs health care at some point, and it's usually at a point where you can't take the time to run around and figure out the lowest cost provider.

Considering how much we pay in health costs, I'd just as well have it taken away from me in the form of taxes and used to run an efficient health care system rather than supporting the insurance companies which go around looking for reasons to deny payments.

It would be nice is the problem with GM management and others was just that they are afraid of being thrown out of the country club. It's not that at all. And it's not an irrational fear of creeping socialism. It's much deeper and more intractable than that. It's pure, unadorned elitism.

Corporate executives see themselves as part of the ruling class, just like Republican politicians and mainstream journalists. It's the divine right of CEOs (and CFOs, and corporate board members, etc.). Workers are just that. Their destiny is to work. They are a commodity to be used up and discarded. They should shut up and stop whining and just be thankful that they have jobs. This obsession with “benefits” is just a holdover from dark unionized days of old 20th century.

aa

How do we get from here to there? Even the doctors are terminally frustrated with having to deal with every different health plan.

I almost think that we're almost to the point that any Democrat could run on a single payer platform and win.

Maybe he'd also have to save Social Security, but anyone could do that with a nudge and a wink and a few slides (since it's pretty solid, unlike health care).

两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 黄色电影 最新电影 性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 裸露美少女 av美女 色情电影 同志图库 成人视频 美女漏点 两性写真视频 美女阴部 少女乳房 自拍裸照 强奸视频 裸体美女 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 色情图片下载 激情图片 激情小电影 性感写真 淫荡妹妹 做爱小电影 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 性爱文学 偷拍走光图 漂亮美眉图片 泳装写真 乳罩内裤图片 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片 性交电影下载 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说下载 成人小说下载 乱伦图片 七彩铃音 经典铃声 飞利浦手机铃声 西门子铃声 东信手机铃声 手机铃声图片 诺基亚手机铃声 qd铃声下载 手机彩铃 彩铃下载 移动彩铃 免费彩铃 手机炫铃下载 移动炫铃 联通手机彩铃 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通手机炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通彩铃 联通彩铃网站 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃网站

"You clearly do not know anyone who has a preexsisting condition, and can not buy insurance at any price."

You fail to grasp the magic of the free market. If the market punishes people with pre-existing conditions, then people will just stop having them! Insurance just leads to moral hazard, anyway . . .

Workers must be kept fearful and insecure, at any cost.

They pay membership dues, not just to the country club but to their conservative cabal. What is the chamber of commerce, the AEI, Heritage, except unions for the corporate elite.

Malcolm should read his own book. Experience should tell him that older workers are not better workers and are more costly. Experience by itself is not an asset and experience is gained quickly when the opportunity is given. The value of additional experience diminishes very quickly.

Delaying transition costs and shortening the useful life of young worker by denying them experience is not value added.

The problem is one of propaganda. It is not with employers but with most of the mass media not presenting the issue properly:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=1319

As always, blogs -- and the Washington Post -- catch out the mass media. Yay!

Most (or far too many) publically traded companies think very short term. The current quarter or maybe as far as the next quarter. A good example is General Motors. Over 20 years ago, it was obvious that GM was in trouble. Not necessarily from it's health care but from its' lack of imagination in designing automobiles.

We simply cannot rely on company provided health care benefits unless all companies pay approximately the same amount per employee.

Wagoner's aversion to reducing GM's healthcare and pension costs which average aprox. $1700 per car if I remember correctly is also contorted because the UAW is intimately involved in the companies which provide the healthcare. Thus no incentive for the union or GM to push for national healthcare. Its certinly an unfortunate situation...........

Today, GM has some control over its healthcare costs.

If they go with public funded health care they will still be paying for it. They may even be paying more - I suspect that employers of lower paid workers (most of whom are not in the auto industry) will be subsidized. And they will have very little control of that cost.

I'm not surprised they don't like that.

How about people pay for their own healthcare? Separate healthcare from employment and let people choose what they want to do, and the market will shake things out. This of course runs counter to the "nanny state" mentality of the left.

I want single-payer healthcare. Having said that, if GM knew squat about making cars that people are willing to buy without getting a steep discount, they'd have no trouble paying for their employee benefits.

Also, I remember reading somewhere that GM is one of many companies whose benefit costs in reality are dominated by the bennies of white-collar workers. (By the way most companies work overtime to avoid providng white / blue breakdowns on such things, which is revealing in iteself.) So how come, amidst all the union bashing, that little issue so rarely gets discussed?

Can one of the trolls answer this: if we're all supposed to take responsibility for ourselves, why do the execs get all their benefits paid for? Some of these guys have their dry cleaning paid for by the shareholders. How is that justifiable? They make millions, and can't pay their dry cleaning bills?

And I used to work in health insurance. Do you think that the CEO has a co-pay when he goes to the doc, or fills a prescription?

And it doesn't stop when they retire. So, why is that OK, but god forbid that the workers benefit?

Does Google have pension plans? If all they have is a 401k, what do they have to worry about? They provide healthcare, but not after your employment is over(or at least only 2 years through COBRA if you choose it).

Google has explicitly chosen a different health and pension benefits than GM.

So who benefits from this lopsided system? No one except the insurance and financial services industries that administer these plans.

And guess who funded the Harry and Louise ads? It's insanse for coprorations to enable other corporations to leech off of them, but this phenomenon -- along with spiraling CEO salaries -- just enhance the point in this post, that upper-echelon corporate managers seem to be concerned by -- and rewarded by -- their position in the clib more so than their role as entrepreneur.

For the Preemption Doctrine to apply, you have to (you guessed it) actually preempt the troll.

And since Charlie/Cheney/"Don P"/Thomas/Sharon seems to obsessively refresh-monkey Drum's blog in order to post his unwelcome dishonesty, the odds are slim, as we've seen.

Hey is our postal system socialized? Or our water system...ok there must be something...

Kevin
It's going to take more than a few bankruptsies to wake people up. The auto industry is just starting to get the same treatment that the steel industry got in the late '70's and for much the same reason -- nearsighted management that only worried about next quarter's margins. And, barring a major economic crash, they'll blame it on the unions again and get away with that bald-faced lie. The steel industry was esentially still using 40's tech right up to the end of the 70's and investing it's profits in stock speculation and oil. Do you remember the lies and double-talk that surrounded the name change from USSteel to USX? Pittsburgh ended up with double digit unemployment for nearly a decade and the greater Pittsburgh area lost more than half it's population (in some districts nearly 90% left by '86). Detroit is next folks.
The problem is bigger than health care (which wasn't a factor in the collpse of the US steel industry). The problem is that the way companies are run today there is no penalty for hollowing out a company's assets and leaving it to collapse under a mountain of debt. Marketing has become vastly more important than product quality (due to lax advertising oversight). And, judging by the salaries and benefits, the most valued skill in corperate America. As a result our economy's investment priorities are being driven by salespeople whose success is purely determined by their ability in separating people from their hard-earned cash by any means they can get away with.

Oh, don't forget that the USG already bailed out the auto industry once (not long after the steel industry collapse). With the deficit the way it is now, I doubt THAT will happen again.

And what exactly makes you think the government does a better job of financing these things than GM has done? I hate to tell you this, but the government has already promised so many future benefits that it is almost certainly bankrupt based on generational accounting.

However, I guess the financing is so fantasy-land by this juncture that another 100 trillion in future obligations is irrelevant.

How about people pay for their own healthcare? Separate healthcare from employment and let people choose what they want to do, and the market will shake things out. This of course runs counter to the "nanny state" mentality of the left.

The only reason I'm open to a single payer type program is the number of uninsured in this country. Paying for their health care by giving them a free ride when they visit the ER (most costly place to get care) and then spreading that cost onto me just seems grossly inefficient.

Yancey,

Here are a couple reasons why I think government could be better than GM.

First, the government is bigger and could negotiate better prices with the providers. Second, the government (or at least portions of it) could take a longer term view and look further out than the next quarter. Third, at least in theory, we the people could select who we want to hold government office. Since much of company stock is held not by individuals but by other corporations there is rarely a time when a CEO is 'voted out of office' by the shareholders.

I'm not going to guarantee those things would happen, I'm saying they are possible benefits. Clearly the current system of corporations (and hence markets) being controlled by a relatively small cardre of elites has problems.

Has anyone here been to the Mayo Clinic? It is rated second in the country behind John's Hopkins for medical treatment.

Attending the Mayo Clinic is like visiting a combination holy shrine and lavish Vegas Casino. I'm talking marble and expensive wood paneling. Every examining room has the same standard equipment, some of which has probably not been used for years but is there 'just in case.'

It is gorgeous, no doubt, but is it efficient? C'mon. Who paid for all that glamour? When you visit a lavish Vegas casino you know it is the gamblers paying the bill, right? You also know who is wasting some of their health care money on mahogany paneling and crystal chandeliers.

Can one of the trolls answer this: if we're all supposed to take responsibility for ourselves, why do the execs get all their benefits paid for? Some of these guys have their dry cleaning paid for by the shareholders. How is that justifiable? They make millions, and can't pay their dry cleaning bills?

And I used to work in health insurance. Do you think that the CEO has a co-pay when he goes to the doc, or fills a prescription?

And it doesn't stop when they retire. So, why is that OK, but god forbid that the workers benefit?

Top flight CEO talent is extremely difficult to find. Benefits like health insurance and on site dry cleaning attract top executive talent, which is of massive importance to the company. A factory floor worker, however, needs to be merely competent, and there's a surplus of people who can do the job. The rare, important worker gets lots of benefits, and the one who is easy to replace does not.

Naturally, universal healthcare is simply yet another method in which liberals want to force the most productive to pay for the least productive.

Ignore previous post, should have been formatted like this:

Can one of the trolls answer this: if we're all supposed to take responsibility for ourselves, why do the execs get all their benefits paid for? Some of these guys have their dry cleaning paid for by the shareholders. How is that justifiable? They make millions, and can't pay their dry cleaning bills?

And I used to work in health insurance. Do you think that the CEO has a co-pay when he goes to the doc, or fills a prescription?

And it doesn't stop when they retire. So, why is that OK, but god forbid that the workers benefit?

Top flight CEO talent is extremely difficult to find. Benefits like health insurance and on site dry cleaning attract top executive talent, which is of massive importance to the company. A factory floor worker, however, needs to be merely competent, and there's a surplus of people who can do the job. The rare, important worker gets lots of benefits, and the one who is easy to replace does not.

Naturally, universal healthcare is simply yet another method in which liberals want to force the most productive to pay for the least productive.

Top flight CEO talent is extremely difficult to find. Benefits like health insurance and on site dry cleaning attract top executive talent, which is of massive importance to the company.

You clearly do not know anything about business.

Yancey Ward wrote: And what exactly makes you think the government does a better job of financing these things than GM has done?

Well, I admit that letting Republicans anywhere near the levers of power runs the risk of disaster, but that aside, I'd say, um, that most of the rest of the major industrial powers manages to provide better health care for more people at a lower cost?

Given that, is there anything exactly, apart from your Libertarian faith, that makes you think the government can't do a better job of financing these things than GM has done?

Sometimes it seems to me that Libertarians oppose single-payer health care, despite the obvious competitive benefits to US industry, because they don't want to risk having their faith in their worldview shaken by positive results. And then I remember, no amount of real-world data can sway a Libertarian from his/her world view.

So well put American Hawk. George and I know many CEO's and they work hard. It's hard work and distressing to have to worry about the little people. So why should I waste my beautiful mind. After all many of these people are underprivileged anyway and things are working out very well for them. Especially the illegal immigrants. It's a win-win situation. Our CEOs simply cannot afford to pay additional monies for these people's healthcare so we hire more and more illegal immigrants. There's no shortage there. I assure you many of our best servants have become ill and they simply show up at the nearest ER and let the government pay. It simply works out well for all concerned. Sometimes a worker may become very ill and lose what few assets they have but (LOL) they don't have much to begin with, do they?

Babs

Top-flight coporate talent is extremely difficult to find?

Are you insane?

The claim that CEO compensation reflects competition for their services is one of the greatest, most successful PR scams of all time.

Now that (some) big institutional investors are finally starting to take closer and more skeptical looks at CEO compensation, we will see just how much of a market there is for big shot, self-important CEOs.

Tripp,

I have seen no evidence that the government plans well long-term for anything.

Going to single payer for healthcare may get you some savings in overhead, but I doubt the rate of inflation in healthcare expenditures will be lowered to any extent afterwards since I don't think it is the fragmented system that causes it in the first place.

As for increasing the government's role in pensions, this would just be a disaster since the government has already spent all of the social security money that was supposed to pay future benefits. If GM ran its pension plan the way social security is run by the government, the executives would be behind bars. And now Kevin thinks GM's plan and other companies plans should be run by the government as well?

mhr, you are so right when you state what a failure socialism has been. George and I have travelled extensively in Europe and it is horrid to witness. There even the lowliest NOCDs have 6 weeks vacation, health insurance, paid higher education and nursing home care. These NOCDs and common people have nothing to strive for. Even the poorest of the poor can obtain the very best education, healthcare and vacations. It's simply not fair. Look what a mess our own Medicare system has been. I'll have you know George I rightly opposed this from the beginning.

"The only reason I'm open to a single payer type program is the number of uninsured in this country. Paying for their health care by giving them a free ride when they visit the ER (most costly place to get care) and then spreading that cost onto me just seems grossly inefficient."

How would single payer type plan eliminate unnecessary visits to the ER?

"Lefties are forever insisting that Cuba has great health care and public education."

There is a reason why Cuba is the destination of choice for the super rich when they have health issues. When money is no object, why settle for anything but the best?

How would single payer type plan eliminate unnecessary visits to the ER?

Single payer is expected to 'eliminate' unnecessary visit to the ER, it is ecpected to significantly reduce them, by making primary care more available.

Yancey,

I'd be very interested in hearing your views about the 'yard sale' models of economics which show that even in a completely fair market wealth condenses until ultimately one person has everything and everyone else has nothing.

Since, as you point out, the government does no long term planning and as I point out neither do corporations and individuals do not have the means to do it on a scale big enough to have an effect then I guess we are totally screwed. Our current situation will accelerate until we have become a banana republic with a handful of incredibly rich and the rest poor paupers.

"Young" companies don't offer lifetime pensions and healthcare. They give you money for your 401k but once you're gone they aren't responsible for you anymore. This makes costs a lot more manageable and puts workers in control of their own retirement (rather than having them worry that the company is going to default on pensions).

Freedom Fighter, do you really have much familiarity with the healthcare system here? With single payer people will not end up in the ERs because they will go to their doctor or clinic. Under our current system doctors will not see you unless you have insurance or can pay an exhorbitant fee.

Although you may not be aware of it, many middle class people are now having to leave this country to obtain medical treatment and travel to the third world. So much for the best system in the world BS.

digamma,

workers in control of their own retirement

What an illusion. Realistically even with a 401k workers have no control over their own retirement. As Yancey points out they cannot trust the government and they also cannot trust the financial markets. Even if they completely diversify they have no real control, they can just spread the risk around.

Latest Bush Comics By H.L.

Master of Disaster
And
George Bush is Evel

+a Giant list of Political Comics featuring, Cheney, Rush, Condi, Rummy, and even Bill Clinton at
HLs Comics

Also some cool vids.
See it here.

Your article does not just apply to retirement benefits, but to any long term cost of labor. Companies that do right by their employees while others do not go out of business. And you can add environmental responsiblity to the list. Add this to the reasons your article cited yesterday about income distribution. Companies that pay their employees less do well -- as long as they can keep replacement labor cheap. Hence Republican's two-sided talk about immigration. It's terrible, except that it keeps labor costs down so its wonderful.

I have seen no evidence that the government plans well long-term for anything.

If you were going by the example of the Bush regime, with its multiple 9/11, Iraq, and Katrina fuckups, then that would be true.

But when looking at past competent governments consider Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the federal highway system, the moon landings, the US Army, the US Navy, the US Marine Corps, the US Air Force, the Coast Guard, the TVA, rural electrification, the National Institutes of Health, the Peace Corps, etc. etc....

"Magical Capitalism" is a reductionist philosophy and is entirely different from simple capitalism. Capitalism is simply the freedom to make contracts. It promises nothing because there's nothing there. "Magical Capitalism", otoh, has all the accrued intellectual baggage of the battle with Communism and all the narcissism and crushing "optimism" of gasbags like Ayn Rand.

Magical Capitalism has replaced Christianity, and we can't move beyond it until there's a cataclysm of some sort. We can't have a humane society because we've come to define "humane" abstractly in terms of dollars.

Even if they completely diversify they have no real control, they can just spread the risk around.

Fair enough, but my point stands - giving workers 401k money is a better deal for everyone than the traditional pension.

As for increasing the government's role in pensions, this would just be a disaster since the government has already spent all of the social security money that was supposed to pay future benefits.

Future benefits are not paid by current account balances but by the taxes of future young workers. Therefore Social Security can never "go broke" -- it may exhaust its trust fund, but future payroll taxes will continue to be paid into the system, meaning that it will continue to take in money and pay out benefits.

Freedom would you show who it was (Other than yourself)that said Cuba had great Healthcare.Or is one of them strawman thingy's

digamma,

Fair enough, but my point stands - giving workers 401k money is a better deal for everyone than the traditional pension.

That is an interesting assertion. May I ask your age and your familiarity with traditional pensions?

One of the dirty little secrets in this issue is that until big companies starting reneging on their pension promises, workers were more than happy to have a non-government program. A good pension was considered an employment perk, and there wasn't a lot of concern for the large numbers of people who were never covered by a corporate pension plan.

Magical Capitalism . . . . .
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on August 22, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

"CapitalIST Fundamentalist Extremist" - not "Capitolofascist".

If GM ran its pension plan the way social security is run by the government, the executives would be behind bars.

Why? Social Security works, it works well, it continues and will continue to pay out guaranteed benefits. What on earth would anyone go to jail for?

Tripp,

Individuals can plan for their futures if they understand that it is up to them to do so. Sure, some will not and some cannot, but that is true even today with the government's univeral entitlements. If they think "government" is going to do it for them, or that GM is going to do it for them, then it should not be a surprise to find that they don't save enough for retirement or future medical needs, and that they don't take care of their physical well being.

If GM goes bankrupt, which is likely, then all the promises of future benefits that the workers of the past took instead of higher pay will disappear. They will have been hoodwinked, and mislead into not making alternate plans. The government has done basically the same thing, but it has the option of simply inflating its obligations away, and it will do so, but the people who have had their incomes taken away over a lifetime of work in exchange for a promise of a real benefit in the future, will be in the same boat as the GM retirees- tricked into not preparing for the future and having the means to have done so confiscated along the way.

The fix for the long run problem is to means test the benefits, and make it crystal clear to everyone that this is the policy. It isn't the perfect solution, but it will encourage more people to plan ahead, and it will remove some of the moral hazard we have created.

NOTICE TO ALL TROLLS !!(SEAN HANNITY SAYS THE DEMS WILL WIN BACK THE HOUSE AND MOST LIKELY THE SENATE) So keep up the great work and keep posting. America needs to see just how out of touch your side is. My special thanks to AL for all the help he has given us dems.You will not be forgotten in the next Dem leadership.Thanks!!

Stefan,

GM's plan wouldn't be in trouble either if it could go out and force third parties to part with their money at the point of a gun in order to fund it. However, if GM tried that the executives would be behind bars, wouldn't you agree?

Yancey,

Individuals can plan for their futures if they understand that it is up to them to do so.

It depends what you mean by 'plan'. If you mean to do something like investing money or making some othre provisions (perhaps getting a better education or choosing a job that has no set retirement age) you are incorrect.

To some degree what you say is true but even if we ALL had the same understanding and wits and abilities we do not all have the same capability (money) to prepare for our retirement.

As the yard sale simulations show, those that start out behind, even in a perfectly fair and equitable market, will fall farther behind because they lack the financial resources to invest.

Sheesh. Is this so hard to understand? Trust fund babies will always have a leg up. It takes money to make money.

GM's plan wouldn't be in trouble either if it could go out and force third parties to part with their money at the point of a gun in order to fund it. However, if GM tried that the executives would be behind bars, wouldn't you agree?

Ah, the mask slips and the crazed wingnut "taxation is armed robbery!" lunacy emerges.

See, Yancey, here in America we have this thing called "society," and in order to run this "society" we have a freely elected "government." That "government," in order to do things that the people of this country would like it to do, like maintain public order, defend us, provide for the common good, etc. needs this thing we call "money" to do so. The way that the government -- operating as an agent by the free consent of the governed -- gets this "money" is through "taxes." These "taxes" then pay for the goods and services that American citizens want their government to provide.

So yes, you can say that the government gets taxes by forcing people to part with their money at the point of a gun -- but you can also say that the government prevents me from raping and killing my neighbors, and parking in a no-parking zone, and running red lights, and dumping poison in the water supply, at the point of a gun too.

Stefan,

That is true about how all SS benefits are payed by taxes (or borrowing) at the moment of payout, but then why did the government take more Social Security money than was necessary to pay for present benefits? And why were those additional monies spent by the government rather than assigned to individual accounts with the investments diversified across the many different classes of income generating assets?

Look, I have no problem with SS being a pay as you go system, but the fraud being perpetrated induces people to depend too heavily on the benefit when they retire. In other words, they end up depending on future taxpayers too heavily, and I suspect they are going to find the future taxpayers won't tolerate as much of it.

Yancey Ward wrote: "If GM goes bankrupt, which is likely, then all the promises of future benefits that the workers of the past took instead of higher pay will disappear." Not true. GM's pension fund obligations are backed by an independent multibillion-dollar pension fund that is actuarily sound and calculated to be sufficient to pay the pension benefits as they come due.

He continues, "The government has done basically the same thing," and he's correct, more or less, in a very loose way. The Social Security systemis financially sound. Under the Social Security Administration's optimistic scenario, the system can keep on going for at least 500 years, and even under the Social Security Administration's ludicrously pessimistic "medium" scenario, very modest payroll tax increases now can make the system stable forever.

A good post, but I don't think this point here is correct:

"GM's management faces higher costs than its competitors in other countries because it has to pay its employees' healthcare costs and Toyota and Volkswagen don't."

Hmm, where is the data supporting this? I'm not at all sure that the costs of an hour of work is higher in the US than in Germany. Remember, we germans have a system with lots of other payments the employer has to share on top of what he pays his workers as wages. And Volkswagen even offers an additional rent, supplementing the 'legal' one. Of course, this also has some tax advantages for VW, that's the way politics paves the way for socially preferrable behaviour here.
http://www.vw-personal.de/www/de/arbeiten/personalpolitik/vw-pensionsfonds.html
Of course, the balast of 'old' pension plans is an issue, and you're right that auto industry managers should be interested in supporting a policy that would reduce this burden.

However, imho an equally problematic issue is still that US automotive works need more manhours to complete a car than their foreign counterparts. Less hours, less workers, less problems with the costs of the workforce. The US competitors ignored this side of the equation for too long, now they face the consequences.

Stefan,

Just because you are happy paying the taxes assessed to you does not mean that everyone is or has to be. And it isn't just crazed wingnuts that resent the amount the government takes.

However, I will ask you. How much tax bite would it take to make you unhappy with it? Unless you would be happy with a 100% rate, then spare me your patronizing attitude.

Yep, single payer is an inevitability, but probably 20 years away.

Try 'never'.

Our polity counts among its members fifty million voters -- some of whom troll here -- who would each volunteer to live with their family in a cardboard box under a bridge and eat sparrows toasted on an old curtain rod, provided only that the boss guarantees that the black-gay-Mescin in the next box over doesn't even have a curtain rod, and will burn his fingers.

Unless this changes, you'll never see national health care.

Remember that when Social Security first came in -- and it took a depression -- domestics (black women) and agricultural hired help (black men) were excluded, until the mid-1950's.

If you could craft a national health service that could legally, constitutionally, exclude black and brown people, Congress would have the bill passed by Friday afternoon.

> Future benefits are not paid by current
> account balances but by the taxes of
> future young workers.

True, but all those stocks and bonds the Radical right-wingers are stashing away can only be cashed out if (1) the same young future workers exist and keep working (2) the future young workers agree to honor the social compact that underlies the pieces of paper we call "stocks and bonds".

It is somehow perfectly imaginable to the Radicals that the government might repudiate its Social Security promise, but somehow _un_imaginable to them that that generation Z+2 might repudiate the "stock and bond" promise. Here's some bad news for you guys: they could.

Cranky

Wow...I guess with this thread, the strain of suppressing his loony libertarian leanings in comments here got to be too much for ol' Yancey.

Just because you are happy paying the taxes assessed to you does not mean that everyone is or has to be. And it isn't just crazed wingnuts that resent the amount the government takes.

If you really really don't want to pay taxes, I can recommend a tax haven you might enjoy: Somalia. There's no central government, so there's a zero percent tax rate.

However, the fact that there's no government means you might have to pay out of your own pocket for things that taxes normally pay for: for one thing, you'll need your own private bodyguards to prevent armed marauders from breaking in, stealing everything you own, and murdering you and your family. You'll also have to arrange for your own private water supply, garbage pickup, electrification, etc. Of course, if anyone cheats you in a business deal you really will have to collect at the point of a gun, because there's no court system to do it for you. And forget about travelling overseas, because there's no government to issue you a passport. All in all, I think you'll probably have to pay more up front than you'd ever pay here in taxes.

However, I will ask you. How much tax bite would it take to make you unhappy with it? Unless you would be happy with a 100% rate, then spare me your patronizing attitude.

Well, I'll ask you: how many tax-funded services would you be willing to do without? The US military? The public roadways? The sewers? Running water? The police? The fire department? The FBI? The air traffic control system? The border patrol? Federally funded medical research? The court system? The SEC? The FDIC? The FDA? The NIH?

Life isn't free, you know. I know that in the libertarian paradise the rivers will flow with chocolate, but here in the real world you actually have to pay for things.

> However, I will ask you. How much tax bite
> would it take to make you unhappy with it?
> Unless you would be happy with a 100% rate,
> then spare me your patronizing attitude.

A ration of 3 oz of water per day will kill you.

A ration of 30,000,000 oz of water per day will kill you.

Unless you are happy with a water rater of 30,000,000 oz/day, then spare me your patronizing attitude about the "right amount" of water.

While I am squirting you with this firehose.

Cranky

"Does Google have pension plans? If all they have is a 401k, what do they have to worry about? They provide healthcare, but not after your employment is over(or at least only 2 years through COBRA if you choose it)."

Yep. Google isn't piling up any long term liabilities. Sure, most of the workers at even a highly educated company like Google will do poorly under the 401k system, but it isn't Google's problem (and even less is the problem of executives who will, on average, do much better in thier 401k's than less business savvy employees).

Healthcare is an ongoing cost, not a liability that is piling up. Google, as a tech company, probably also has a much higher average salary than GM so healthcare costs won't be quite as big of a deal to it. Still a significant factor, but when you are paying somone 80k a year the 5-10k for healthcare isn't as big of a deal as if you are paying them 40k.

Who knows how many of Google's executives would support national health care? I have no idea. It is pretty unlikely that they would be outspoken about it. They have already dodged the pension bullet though, and most of the workers that will be taking that bullet probably won't notice it until it is too late.

Cobra isn't a significant liability either. The employee has to pay the entire cost if they want to continue coverage that way, and the company is free to cancel the plan any time they want. It can't cost Google more than a trivial amount of administrative overhead for a couple years.

Corporate welfare bailouts by Republicans and Democrats will prevent the harsh realities of high medical costs for working people from entering the board room.

It will take more than corporate bankruptcies to change American social welfare policies from elimination to implementation. Bill Clinton, in today's op-ed in the NY Times, takes pride in the bi-partisanship he oversaw in order to end welfare. The corporations and neo-cons are grateful, but the working poor are, of course, without medical coverage, just as they were when they were on welfare.

President Clinton, you have betrayed the weakest amongst us. President Clinton, you are a Lieberman.

Joel,

The system is pay as you go, despite what the government tells you. Adjusting the payroll tax now is pointless since the system is in surplus (and I use that word with a bit of sarcasm), unless you mean to adjust it downward. The tax rates will have to be raised in the future or the benefits cut, and this is the only way that the system is "financially sound". We could abolish the payroll tax tomorrow and raise income tax rates to compensate, and do away with the trust fund accounting, and it would make no difference to the stability of the Social Security system. The only thing that matters is the ability to tax or borrow in the future. I don't mean to pick on you, but when you write about the financial stability, you leave the impression that the trust fund has something to do with this. It does not. The projections suggest that the present payroll tax will eventually only be able to pay 75-80% of the promised benefits. However, it is misleading to suggest that there is no problem until the trust fund runs out (and feel free to correct me if this is not what you are suggesting). The problems will start the day the payroll tax surplus starts declining in real dollars. At that point the government will have to find new revenue or new borrowings.

Stefan,

Why not answer the question? What rate would be too much to you?

On your other point, why should I leave if I am unhappy with the rate. It is more beneficial to me to stay and oppose the tax increases, or see to it that the taxes that I pay do more good than harm. Or would it just make as much sense for you to leave since you are unhappy that we don't pay more taxes? In other words, you are making a silly argument. One I would expect from someone like Gregory rather than you.

Conversely, young companies like Google ignore the whole issue because they figure they'll always be young and fast growing.

Apologies if someone already mentioned it upthread, but wouldn't the fact that Google has a non-unionized workforce be at least as important as their perception of limitless growth on their analysis of the need for pension and healthcare reform?

Why not answer the question? What rate would be too much to you?

i'm willing to pay a 40% rate for the following means-tested benefits:

state-funded college educations for all those who meet admissions standards

a national health care system that is as good or better than that offered in germany and france

4 weeks mandated paid vacation in addition to the standard holidays

3 months guaranteed paid leave for family and medical emergencies or the birth of a child

subsidized childcare for working parents and early childhood education for all children 3-5 years old

disability payments that are actually generous enough to pay for basic needs: shelter, food, utilities and clothing

social security benefits for those who are too old to work but do not have the finanacial resources to support their basic needs: shelter, food, utilities and clothing

Yancey,

How much tax bite would it take to make you unhappy with it

More than the rate that is necessary to prevent us from turning into a Banana Republic.

The yard sale models you refuse to look at show that there is a certain amount of 'wealth re-distribution' from rich to poor required to keep the economy from collapsing into an extremely rich/extremely poor banana republic.

That is the rate I support. I take it you support a zero rate.

It penalizes companies for doing what they ought to do..

As though a magazine writer knows what companies ought to do.

GM is losing out to American auto manufacturers, financed from abroad, who have lower production costs. Toyota of the US exports to Japan. Why are those companies obligated to bail out GM, Ford, Chrysler and the UAW?

Whether the costs are nominally paid by workers or nominally paid by the companies, healthcare is part of the total compensation package. If workers pay out of earnings, it's generally through insurance or HMOs; if companies pay then it's generally through insurance or HMOs.

There is a lot of utility in thinking about different arrangements than what we have, but to say that companies "ought" to provide health care, or that the government "ought" to provide health care, is foolish.

It's not clear what it will take to get everyone to start thinking straight about this.

Well, Yancey is proving that nothing -- but nothing -- will induce him to abandon his loony libertarian faith and start thinking straight about this (or anything else).

Yes, yes, Yancy, we know -- government bad -- booga booga! -- taxes doubleplusbad, you're a rugged induvidualist, and there's no such thing as a social contract. Whenever someone like you sounds off about government collecting taxes at the point of a gun, I marvel that someone who obviously belives so much in his rugged induvidual superiority could be so ignorant about political philosophy dating back to John Locke.

But Stefan was quite correct to point out Somalia as a Libertarian Utopia. There, as Locke observed, life is nasty, brutish, and short. And it seems that you have no cogent response to that argument -- which is the kind of non-response I'd expect from a dishonest idiot like Charlie.

Or a Libertarian.

Well, Yancey is proving that nothing -- but nothing -- will induce him to abandon his loony libertarian faith and start thinking straight about this (or anything else).

it's possible to change his mind, but you're not going to get anywhere with this sort of response.

he's right in his claim that a monopoly on force is what makes it possible for a government to collect taxes. if it did not have that monopoly, it would not be able to collect taxes. the fact that we elect our government allows us to view the money it collects from us as 'taxes' as opposed to 'tribute'.

it's possible to change his mind

Oh, really? With Yancey doing nothing but reciting the libertarian Creed, saying he refuses to believe the government could do a good job, and refusing to address Stefan's point about the Libertarian Utopia of Somalia? Yancey offers precious little evidence of anythign but his Libertarian faith, and he offers no evidence whatsoever he's prepared to abandon that faith.

he's right in his claim that a monopoly on force is what makes it possible for a government to collect taxes.

Well, duh. Locke was right about that back in the 1600s -- but Locke, at least, acknowledged the social contract, an intellectual feat that seems beyond the Rugged Individualist True Believer Yancey.

> There, as Locke observed, life is nasty,
> brutish, and short.

That was Hobbes I believe.

Cranky

Tripp,

Where have I ever written that the best tax rate is 0%? I have on many occasions written of my support for progressive taxation, and I have often written on Political Animal of my support for increasing the progressivity by abolishing the payroll tax, by treating all income equally, and by means testing the entitlements.

What is really hilarious is that most libertarians consider me an apostate for my belief that anarchy is not possible for human beings, yet I have caricaturists like Gregory who attack my reticence to propose a government solution to every problem under discussion. I guess I will have to be happy stuck somewhere in the middle.

As for tax rates, I would be happy with about any rate as long as the money were being used to do more good than harm. However, I see a lot harm being done with universal entitlements, most of which I am perfectly willing to do without even if I support them with my taxes. Need is not universal, and such entitlements create dependency which is extremely unhealthy. There is much moral hazard being created that can have only a bad ending.

I don't buy into your yard sale economics because it seems to assume that wealth is static and it all can be hoarded. History has shown that extreme concentrations of wealth is almost always accumulated through the utilization of state power-usually corrupt state power, not free-markets with appropriate property rights. I would offer as an example the land ownership situation in South America- South America is no free-market when compared to the United States, and yet it has extreme wealth concentration in most of the countries.

In any case, Tripp, you have always treated me with courtesy, and I do enjoy debating/discussing things with you.

Gregory,

As I wrote before, if you are unhappy with the state of things in the US, then you may also leave to find what you desire. I would not usually stoop to the level of making such a stupid argument, but I think one good turn deserves another.

spacebaby,

Do mean that you would means test vacation?:~)

By the way, thank you for the books. I am about half-way through the one on politics. I manage to read about 3 pages a day.

Oh, really? With Yancey doing nothing but reciting the libertarian Creed, saying he refuses to believe the government could do a good job, and refusing to address Stefan's point about the Libertarian Utopia of Somalia?

somalia is an absurdly extreme example. what is to be gained from talking about it, addressing it, or otherwise wasting time on it here? we all know that none of us wants to live in a place like somalia. demanding that he address somalia was a cheap shot.

he _has_ criticized (rightly in my opinion) our elected congresscritters' habit of dipping their grubby hands into the pool of money collected for social security to pay for other things. that's a legitimate point, not a faith-based assertion.

he is also correct in stating that the US government can inflate away its obligations. that erodes the value of everyone's savings and earnings and is not a trivial objection to allowing the government to take on even greater obligations. the fact that the government has that unique power means that it operates under very different rules than a private enterprise.

Yancey offers precious little evidence of anythign but his Libertarian faith, and he offers no evidence whatsoever he's prepared to abandon that faith.

do you deny that either of his two points i restated above are untrue? if not, do you deny that they are important and compelling concerns to take into account when contemplating big, expensive programs?

he's right in his claim that a monopoly on force is what makes it possible for a government to collect taxes.

Well, duh. Locke was right about that back in the 1600s -- but Locke, at least, acknowledged the social contract, an intellectual feat that seems beyond the Rugged Individualist True Believer Yancey.

okay, so you concede that the government's monopoly on force is what allows it to collect taxes. so, what is loony and faith-based about his statement that the authority of the government to collect taxes is backed up by the point of a gun? it may be hyperbolic phrasing, but it is essentially true.

he is also not the embodiment of the parody randroid you think he is. he worked hard for everything he has. we grew up in an appalachian working class family. our father is a disabled coal miner, and our mother did not graduate college until i was in the fifth grade.

he didn't have the rich and luxurious support of wealthy parents to fall back on. take that into account when you mock and deride his attitude towards high taxes. when you're trying to convince someone to part with their money to pay for something they don't personally need or even want, it would behoove you to avoid scolding, shaming and guilting.

he earned his money by working for it. he probably will not be relying on social security for his financial support in old age. he can afford his own health care. if you actually take the time to understand that, you'd be in an astoundingly better position to argue for the programs you support.

Do mean that you would means test vacation?:~)

sorry. i'm _AWFUL_ at proofreading, especially when dividing my attention between testing software and dishing it up on the blogs. i didn't mean we should means-test vacation or that it should be a government benefit.

i think my original intent was to do separate lists of government bennies i support and labor legislation i would like to see. my brain farted and i pushed 'Post' all too soon.

By the way, thank you for the books. I am about half-way through the one on politics. I manage to read about 3 pages a day.

that's a good one. you will be getting a copy of Sophie's World soon. amazon didn't have the edition i ordered in stock, so delivery was delayed a few weeks.

Yancey Ward: I see a lot harm being done with universal entitlements, most of which I am perfectly willing to do without even if I support them with my taxes. Need is not universal, and such entitlements create dependency which is extremely unhealthy.

That moral hazard argument doesn't apply to health care. Almost everyone needs health care at some point, and the amount they need isn't easily predictable. Yes, avoiding unhealthy habits is a good idea, but the strongest incentive for that is to stay healthy, not to reduce your possible future medical bills.

As for Social Security, the moral hazard would be in means testing it. Those who save nothing for their retirement would be getting a free ride, analogous to traditional welfare plans. By forcing people to prepay for their retirement, we avoid the need to give them welfare when they're too old to work.

> okay, so you concede that the government's
> monopoly on force is what allows it to collect
> taxes. so, what is loony and faith-based about his
> statement that the authority of the government to
> collect taxes is backed up by the point of a gun?
> it may be hyperbolic phrasing, but it is
> essentially true.

Because that observation takes up about 3 pages of Hobbes' _Leviathan_, which is a 450 page book that discusses the rest of the issues that the glibertarians conveniently ignore.

I guess I missed something: why is it wrong to point to a non-governed region that decayed into a state of nature exactly as Hobbes predicted and call glibertarianism into account for it? Sure, it is an "extreme" example. That is the point. All those gun-toting former citizens should have been able to use contracts to replace all the government services, and hire their neighbors to create courts that everyone would agree to use. That is the basis of the glibertarian creed. Why didn't it occur when the occasion presented itself? Lack of guns? I don't think so.

Cranky

As a small-business employer in a low-wage industry, the current health-care environment gives me two choices; I could provide health care coverage to all my employees and go out of business, or I can fight a constant battle to provide some sort of benefits to at least some of our people and be eternally frustrated. I've chosen the latter course.
I often ask why it's my resposibility as an employer to provide health care. That's certainly not my area of expertise. However, I don't mean I just don't care. I would gladly trade today's "system" for a tax-funded, single-payer system. I don't think I would see 25% annual permium increases, ever higher deductables and tighter and tighter eligiblity requirements.
Then I could go about running my company with healthier employees who weren't stressed by their lack of health care and who weren't ready to jump to another place of work with better benefits. I could plan my company's health-care tax payments as part of the cost of doing business.
The current lack-of-system is terrible for employees and employers alike.

Why not answer the question? What rate would be too much to you?

Sorry, I was away, furiously working to pay for those taxes that support our government....

But seriously, that's my choice? I can support 0% taxes or 100%? Why? And in that case why shouldn't I ask whether you'd be willing to do without any taxpayer-funded services at all?

I'm in the highest tax bracket, and sure I'd like to pay less in the abstract, but on the other hand there aren't too many services I'd like to give up either. In fact, I'd be happy to pay more if, like my European cousins, I got more services (universal health care, education, etc.) in return for those taxes instead of always having to dip into my own pocket.

okay, so you concede that the government's monopoly on force is what allows it to collect taxes. so, what is loony and faith-based about his statement that the authority of the government to collect taxes is backed up by the point of a gun? it may be hyperbolic phrasing, but it is essentially true.

True, yes, but so basic as to be meaningless. You're making this argument as if the fact that the government's monopoly on force is what allows it to collect taxes somehow invalidates it's right to do so -- but the government's monopoly on force is what allows it to enforce any law, rule or regulation, from the ordinances against littering all the way up to the laws against rape and murder. If I said "you concede that the government's prohibition on murder is backed up by the point of a gun" then most would say yes, and thank God for that gun. Does that governmental monopoly on force somehow invalidate the laws against murder? Or even the laws against littering?

jrw: I often ask why it's my resposibility as an employer to provide health care.

It shouldn't be. I wish that more business owners would see UHC for what it is - a pro-business measure.

Admittedly the "it's good for GM" argument is lacking, since GM has many problems of its own making, which aren't related to health care at all. More importantly, it's good for most businesses, not just GM.

Anyone remember a while back when Toyota cited, as one of the reasons for putting a new plant in Ontario instead of down South, Canada's UHC?

I guess I missed something: why is it wrong to point to a non-governed region that decayed into a state of nature exactly as Hobbes predicted and call glibertarianism into account for it?

because the example betrays a fundamental misrepresentation of his actual views. he has not indicated a desire for a state of taxless anarchy. he did not put forth the faith-based argument that taxes are inherently bad. he has voiced support for progressive taxation in this very thread. it is a false dichotomy to propose that we must choose between a universal benefit for retirement and health care or no government services at all.

Sure, it is an "extreme" example. That is the point. All those gun-toting former citizens should have been able to use contracts to replace all the government services, and hire their neighbors to create courts that everyone would agree to use.

i've read the entire thread and he didn't make a single post saying that he believed any of this would happen in the scenario you describe. he also said that he didn't think anarchy was a great system.

As for Social Security, the moral hazard would be in means testing it. Those who save nothing for their retirement would be getting a free ride, analogous to traditional welfare plans. By forcing people to prepay for their retirement, we avoid the need to give them welfare when they're too old to work.

how is that? the taxes are deducted from one's paycheck. even if one doesn't save for retirement, one still has to pay into the system that provides financial support for the elderly who cannot support themselves. we could have a means-tested social security benefit while still requiring pre-payment into the system. politically, of course, it's a harder sell as a non-universal entitlement.

social security benefits are not all that generous. for many people, it provides a subsistence-level benefit. most people want more than that, and i think they're willing to save money in order to have that.

True, yes, but so basic as to be meaningless. You're making this argument as if the fact that the government's monopoly on force is what allows it to collect taxes somehow invalidates it's right to do so -- but the government's monopoly on force is what allows it to enforce any law, rule or regulation, from the ordinances against littering all the way up to the laws against rape and murder.

but, pointing it out doesn't make him a loony libertarian. there is value in maintaining a healthy skepticism towards the ability of politicians to wisely manage other people's money. the transfer of money from citizens to goverment is not as freely negotiable as transactions between private individuals.

If I said "you concede that the government's prohibition on murder is backed up by the point of a gun" then most would say yes, and thank God for that gun.

yes. nevertheless, i don't acknowledge that anyone has the right to rape and murder, but i _do_ believe in property rights.

Does that governmental monopoly on force somehow invalidate the laws against murder? Or even the laws against littering?

i don't think his argument was that the monopoly on force makes the authority to tax illegitimate. it wasn't my argument either. the point was that taxation is not negotiable, and all new taxes will impose unwanted burdens on someone.

spacebaby: we could have a means-tested social security benefit while still requiring pre-payment into the system.

If the system was means tested, then the overall amount of money collected would be much less. As such, a person who received payments would have only pre-paid a small part of the costs of their benefits.

The moral hazard is that only people who choose not to save for their retirement would receive benefits. Obviously, nobody lives high on the hog on Social Security. Nevertheless it's a moral hazard. If you can't save much for your retirement, then maybe you shouldn't save any at all - just collect the welfare checks.

This would create tremendous resentment on the part of people who do sacrifice in order to save for their retirement, and who pay into Social Security but receive nothing in return. The resentment would be well justified.

social security benefits are not all that generous. for many people, it provides a subsistence-level benefit. most people want more than that, and i think they're willing to save money in order to have that.

As intended, and as it should be.

social security benefits are not all that generous. for many people, it provides a subsistence-level benefit. most people want more than that, and i think they're willing to save money in order to have that.

And nothing stops them from doing so. Social Security is merely intended to be a baseline below which one cannot fall.

yes. nevertheless, i don't acknowledge that anyone has the right to rape and murder, but i _do_ believe in property rights.

Which puts you in company with about 99% of all other Americans.

i don't think his argument was that the monopoly on force makes the authority to tax illegitimate.

Actually, I think it sort of was. Otherwise why mention it?

it wasn't my argument either. the point was that taxation is not negotiable, and all new taxes will impose unwanted burdens on someone.

Which, again, is true of every single law, rule or regulation enacted or enforced by the government. The laws against littering impose unwanted burdens on some as well. There's nothing unique about taxation here.

Look, I have no problem with SS being a pay as you go system, but the fraud being perpetrated induces people to depend too heavily on the benefit when they retire. In other words, they end up depending on future taxpayers too heavily, and I suspect they are going to find the future taxpayers won't tolerate as much of it.

Yancey: There's no "fraud" being perpetrated. There is, perhaps, some artful terminology in use ("trust funds" etc.) but it's a stretch to say such language is fraudulant.

In fact, most people have a pretty good idea of how Social Security works. They comprehend that workers pay a tax, and that the monies raised by this tax fund the checks of retirees who themselves paid this tax while they were working.

We can debate whether or not the program's benefits outweigh its costs, but using words like "fraud" hardly contributes to the discussion.

Now, maybe what you're referring to is your belief that Social Security "won't be around" in 30 or 40 years, or that Social Security will face "drastic cuts". But I'd say such beliefs are highly questionable. If history tells us anything, it's that cutting Social Security benefits is nearly impossible. The fact that a growing percentage of the electorate receives Social Security benefits (and this percentage is likely to continue growing for at least another half century) only reinforces this near impossibility.

Far more likely than drastic cuts is the prospect of a two or three point increase in the proportion of GDP consumed by Social Security. Funding such an expansion may not even require tax increases or increases in the government's take of the overall economy. Who knows, in 40 years' time we may spend less of the economy on education, say, or defense -- and we may shift these savings into the politically popular Social Security system.

That was Hobbes I believe.

D'oh! Of course it is. I stand corrected. I was thinking of Leviathan as I wrote that. I must have gotten my synapses crossed.

As I wrote before, if you are unhappy with the state of things in the US, then you may also leave to find what you desire.

No, thanks. I'll just work to throw out the Republicans, who are the source of many of the ills you mentioned anyway. Of course, they're also the ones who cut taxes, if not spending, so despite everything they get your vote, don't they? Or do you stick to your faith-based principles and vote Libertarian? That's at least intellectually honest, and it has the delicious benefit of demonstrating to you what a minority of cranks your loony libertarian viewpoint belongs to.

I would not usually stoop to the level of making such a stupid argument, but I think one good turn deserves another.

Well, what you're stooping to is the intellectual dishonesty of avoiding Stefan's and my citation of Somalia as the Libertarian Utopia. Of course, intellectual dishonesty is the foundation of loony libertarian thought, so it's hardly surprising. But I'll rephrase the question: Do you or do you not agree that Somailia is in fact a country that embodies the ideal of your loony libertarian philosophy?

yet I have caricaturists like Gregory who attack my reticence to propose a government solution to every problem under discussion.

Ah, the dishonest paraprase -- where would the loony libertarian be without it? Alas for him, the comments in a thread remain as constant reputations and exposure of his intellectual dishonesty. As Yancey is well aware, I am attacking his faith-based insistence that the government couldn't possibly do a better job with a single-payer system than the current capitalist mess, despite the real-world evidence of most of the G8. Yes, Yancey, we know you don't believe it -- government bad! Booga booga! -- but your professed lack of belief simply reveals you as as much of a faith-based, fact-avoiding crank as the creationist crowd. Color me impressed.

there is value in maintaining a healthy skepticism towards the ability of politicians to wisely manage other people's money.

Ah, but Yancey didn't express "heathly skepticism;" he stated that he flat-out could not believe that the government could do a good job, despite the examples of most of the G8, as I've already pointed out.

he earned his money by working for it.

Yes, yes, yes, we're all in awe of Yancey's rugged individualism I'm sure.

Others have already disposed of most of "spacebaby's" other arguments, including the dishonest dismissal of the Somalia analogy.

Holbrooke is a guy with a ton of credibility. When he says that diplomacy has to be backed up by a credible threat of force, he obviously means it: he recommended military action twice in the Balkans during the 90s. At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too: he devoted uncounted thousands of hours to serious, toughminded diplomacy during the same period. Some of it worked and some of it didn't, but his dedication to the cause is hardly questionable.And despite his continued unwillingness to flatly face the reality that we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer, he had by far the better of the argu

"...because single-payer government systems are plagued by chronic shortages and underfunding..."

GOP, please document that assertion for me.

"That's one of you"? Nice try, but it may make you feel more comfortable.

I guess a system that's underfunded is really, really bad compared to a non-system that leaves millions with no health coverage whatsoever.

I'm always amused when things like the wait times for a procedure in Canada are compared to the wait times in the US. What's always left out of the comparison is the wait time of "forever" for people here without insurance. But, for most of the folks who trumpet ours as the "best system in the world", those without insurance really don't count, anyway.

Others have already disposed of most of "spacebaby's" other arguments, including the dishonest dismissal of the Somalia analogy.

gregory, if you think i'm a sockpuppet for my brother, just come right out and accuse me of it.

my dismissal wasn't 'dishonest'. i just think it's irrelevant to the discussion that was actually taking place. pardon me. you have a nice day, now.

I don't know anything about Germany, but I am an American who lives in Japan and have worked for a major Japanese employer (larger than Toyota), a small company, and have been self-employed.

Japanese have health insurance fees and national pensions fees deducted from their paychecks, and a matching amount is paid by corporations (I was a manager for the large corporation, and the matching amounts were displayed in my budget materials). If you are self employed, you need to pay the city and the national goverment for your health insurance and pension payments, respectively.

The specific amount that corporations contribute per person is in the range of about 25,000 yen per month. If you pay the city directly, you have to pay about double that, but it varies by city. There is an equivalent of the COBRA program that allows you to stay on a company's plan (with the subsidy) for two years if you are between jobs.

And yet, as Gladwell points out, America's corporate chieftans remain reluctant to endorse the common sense notion that the risk associated with healthcare and pensions ought to be spread as widely as possible and administered as cheaply as possible.

Oh, for heaven's sake - GM would be thrilled if Congress would be willing to (a) pass a government sponsored plan; (b) void GM's existing obligations to the UAW, and (c) let GM reclaim its contributions to its current health care plans.

But guess what - no one is willing to offer that. And for whatever reason, GM is not thrilled with the deals it might be able to get from Washington as an alternative to a massive government takeover of its health care problem. Maybe they will have more luck negotiating with the Hillary Administration.

That, in a nutshell, is my theory, which strikes me as more plausible than the "country-club" theory.