Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky
I understand the principle of this, but frankly, there are people around me who would die of need were the checks to stop coming.
I understand the argument that nobody should be compelled to take care of another. We live in socially bankrupt times, however. Few can count on safety through social contract, rather than law. But, sometimes the cost of neglecting or abandoning large parts of society can be even greater than the cost of taking care of them. And are we such a poor society that taking care of the few who are ill is unaffordable?
|
Nobody would die if the checks stopped coming. We already have homeless with mental issue and drug addictions living on the streets, and they are overfed and don't die of malnutrition or exposure.
If some sort of UBI is implemented to replace SS, it needs to come from the general fund, not workers today paying for retired people today. The ratio of workers to non-workers is not a constant.
I made no comments regarding healthcare or other assistance to those who have mental or medical conditions that require extra care. I realize SS funds some of those scenarios, but it should be part of the general fund, not the "retirement" fund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsko
All the major philosophies and religions suggest we should take care of the disadvantaged. It is also apparently hardwired into our social awareness. How come everybody doesn't do this automatically, particularly the people espousing this position? How come there are people that go the opposite direction, effectively saying those people are not deserving to live?
|
The reason people don't tend to those in need is because we expect uncaring government programs to take care of everyone's needs. Rather than take responsibility for the need we see, it's way easier for 3 people to collude to pass a law saying the 4th person should be financially responsible to fulfill the need.