Inequality

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

* difference in size, degree, circumstances, etc.; lack of equality.
* "social inequality"
>> synonyms: imbalance, inequity, inconsistency, variation, variability;

Today in the US we are anything but equal. There are so many aspects of the residents of our diverse country that serve as points of division it's a burden to even remember them all. Race, gender, immigration status, income, politics, religion, and list goes on.

Money should be less of a divider. I'm thinking of Social Security. I'm becoming more concerned about it as I learn more and I'm investigating more as I get older and closer to retirement.

For 2015, wages above $118,500 are not subject to SS withholding. Let's say for example you're doing well and make that amount a year. (That's about $57/hour.) You and your employer each pay $7,347 into the SS fund. Also, for example, there's Tim Cook who had total compensation from Apple of $377,996,537. Tim Cook and Apple, on his behalf, also each paid $7,347 into the SS fund.

Just my opinion but that's a huge disconnect. That amount, $118,500 has been rising with incomes but it just needs to go away. If anything SS is more in need of a floor than a ceiling.

I was able to find a number for 2010 gross wages nationwide of a bit over $6 trillion. If all of those wages were subject to SS withholding, SS would have gotten $745 billion in payments rather than the $670 billion it actually got. That $75 billion more could help folks that need help.

Social Security's outlays in fiscal year 2010 totaled $706 billion.

[MindfulOne]

1. Yes.

Thank you.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. 'All men are created equal'

is one of the most pernicious of lies, a pretense that ignores reality and empowers those 'born on third base' to continue to lord it over those who were born locked out of the stadium.

[jwirr]

3. That shouldn't come as any surprise. It was written by men

who were born on third base.

[Igel]

5. Outside of context, it's gibberish.

All men are created equal. Let's assume "men" is epicene--not specifically "male."

They can lift the same amount?

They're the same height?

They get the same number of sexual partners?

They live to the same age?

In what way are they equal?

Context fills that in. They have the same inalienable rights, meaning "natural rights."

Is this a statement of fact? Well, yes and no. Depends on your assumptions. Are natural rights inalienable and naturally due a person? In which case, yes. That was the view of human existence for educated Westerners. They have the same rights, are born with them; limits are unjustly placed on the exercise of those rights, but exercising a right is not the same thing as having or being due that right. In that sense, it's also an ideal of what a perfectly just society would look like: Everybody with equal opportunity to the enjoyment of their natural rights, before other factors kick in.

For example, if you're hit by a horse at age 3 and killed, you're denied your rights. If you make certain choices or if they're made for you, if you're living 200 miles from the nearest community, if you build and your homestead is washed away then you won't enjoy the same level of rights. Crap happens. Enjoyment depends on circumstances, not just those created by other people.

But that still assumes a certain understanding of what a natural right is. It's not equality of income or ownership. Nor equality of sexual partners, either in number or quality. Nor equality of life span or musculature or reaction time or white matter interconnections in the brain.

As soon as we shift the definition, we put differents words and meanings in the mouths of the framers of those words. That makes it easy to falsify what they meant, because first we change what they meant to something that we know to be false. It's a nice way of engaging in ego self-stroking because then it's not about the speaker, it's all about the person who really matters, the listener.

[Initech]

4. I just heard the most disgusting program on CNBC radio.

I was on a Super Shuttle going to the airport and they had this program on. Literally all the program was about was "This is what people who have more money than you will ever see in five lifetimes spend it on". For example, one rich couple, for their fucking honeymoon, gutted the 65th floor of a hotel and turned it into a palace. Then another guy bought expensive car after expensive car. Then another one spent $750,000 a watch, and another $300,000 on a watch safe to store his collection in. How are theese people not classified as hoarders? They clearly have spending and wealth addiction problems.