Submitted by PM_Ur_Illiac_Furrows t3_11q7ed4 in dataisbeautiful
TracyMorganFreeman t1_jc7i5b1 wrote
Reply to comment by ktxhopem3276 in [OC] US Social Security Fund History by PM_Ur_Illiac_Furrows
People arguing the police murder innocent civilians all the time. They are using the word murder by analogy.
The same goes for theft when tax dollars aren't used for what people want them to.
[deleted] t1_jc7jid1 wrote
[deleted]
ktxhopem3276 t1_jc7jmiq wrote
Because they want to persuade people to believe the actions are illegal. So my question is are you making the argument that social security is illegal bc it is unsustainable? Because it is strongly implied by asserting the analogy to Ponzi scheme just like murder and theft
TracyMorganFreeman t1_jc7kcnp wrote
No they want to persuade people it's immoral because murder is.
I'm making the argument that SS is inherently flawed for the same reason Ponzi schemes are: they're structured in an unsustainable way.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jc7l92c wrote
That’s fair but ambiguous to me. how am I supposed to know if they are inferring immoral or illegal. But it begs the question, is it unsustainable by design. It was designed from the beginning for the tax rate to slowly increase over time as needed based on life expectancy and birth rates. The initial tax rate was only 1%. Birth rates were declining in the 1930s.
TracyMorganFreeman t1_jc7ms2k wrote
They're saying it's murder by analogy.
Murder is the immoral killing of someone, and are implying it should be illegal.
It was not designed for the tax rate to slowly increase over time.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jc7pp3d wrote
> They're saying it's murder by analogy. Murder is the immoral killing of someone, and are implying it should be illegal.
I find that deceptive because not all killing of innocent people is murder. Depends on intent.
> It was not designed for the tax rate to slowly increase over time.
That could be inferred from its design. Tax rate has changed 20 times already to account for life expectancy and birth rate.
TracyMorganFreeman t1_jc7wxye wrote
No, all killing of innocent people is murder.
There are degrees of murder, but involuntary manslaughter is both illegal and immoral.
To say it's inferred by design is to say it's designed to be flawed.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jc8112u wrote
> No, all killing of innocent people is murder.
Imprecise and ambiguous use of words
>There are degrees of murder, but involuntary manslaughter is both illegal and immoral.
Is manslaughter murder? It might depend on context.
> Homicide occurs when a person kills another person.[1] A homicide requires only a volitional act or omission that causes the death of another, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm
> Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought
> Manslaughter is a common law legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century BC.[1]
> To say it's inferred by design is to say it's designed to be flawed.
Laws are subject to modification. Nobody would have assumed social security law as written in 1935 would not need to be updated as life expectancy and birth rates fluctuated. The 1935 law didn’t have any adjustment for inflation until COLA were added in 1975. I think that is going to be a fundamental disagreement between us which is fine. There is value in nailing down the exact and precise disagreement.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments