Politics

10176 readers

24 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

189

Dems' Wealth Tax Bill Would Extend Social Security Solvency by 75+ Years: Analysis (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 1 year ago by irongamer to c/politics

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"This bill shows that Social Security is fully affordable—as long as the wealthiest among us pay their fair share," said one advocate.

Legislation recently introduced by a pair of Democratic U.S. lawmakers to save Social Security for generations to come would extend the vital social program's lifespan by at least 75 years, according to a federal analysis published Tuesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Snipe_AT@lemmy.atay.dev 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This is primarily where the moral argument and thus division appear. Is it fair to ask a person to pay more than their share? I would argue no, it seems a majority here would argue yes. I'm ok with being wrong and learning, but I have a hard time shifting what I believe to be moral foundations.

edit: I appreciate you revisiting your statement and it makes a lot of sense. Something I'll be thinking about a lot more.

[–] circularfish 6 points 1 year ago

Good grief. Actual adult conversation and intellectual growth on the internet. It is sad that things have gotten so bad that this sort of exchange stands out, but FWIW you are both awesome.

[–] middlemuddle 5 points 1 year ago

I think the initial divergence in our thinking is how we define a person's fair share. The U.S. has this pervasive myth that individual perseverance leads to achievement. That is, if you work hard enough then you can get rich and that's the result of your own efforts. I'm not trying to discount the hard work that many people put into their success, but the reality is that they are benefiting from so many different things that they have no direct control over. The family you're born into, the physical location where you're born, your race/ethnicity, etc. These are all more significant contributors to success than individual effort.

A prosperous society supports all its citizenry in some way, but some people need a lot more support than others, and it's through no fault of their own. People who are individually more prosperous should expect to contribute a proportionally greater amount to support society because they've already reaped the benefits of that society themselves.