|
Post by teancum79 on Oct 25, 2007 13:36:21 GMT -5
So I'm doing my MSW program and by shock people lean to the left here. I'm pretty cool with this, but some people have a extra far left or you are not a real social worked them running in their classes. Anyhow for a class assignment I have to respond to a news paper article. I picked this one.
'link' Here is my response I’m writing in response to Code of Coercion. Hopefully the abuses mentioned are rare. It does raise questions. First should tax dollars fund programs that are politically biased? Social Workers often demand acceptance of different life style choices and value systems. Why do they not accept conservative people and values? It’s a disturbing hypocrisy, but pales in light of the real problem. The stigma of political fringe groups limits their effectiveness. By becoming so politically extreme social work is alienating a large number of people who they need to pay taxes and who might not feel accepted should they need help. Social Work schools must not require a person to buy into a political agenda. It violates their constitutional rights and limits diversity within a profession that clams to celebrate and defend it. Some seeking social work degrees may work in a religious or private practice. They may not have to embrace diversity or be politically active. If a school of liberal activist is needed, fine. Call it that and fund it without tax payer dollars. Social Work schools need to practice what they preach. Accept those who are different. Put the well being of people above political agendas. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Oct 26, 2007 19:51:07 GMT -5
I believe your point is well made. While a large number of liberal and progressive ideas are tied into social work, and some conservative and orthodox ideas (though, I think, less so now) may not exactly jive with social work; the pertinent point is, however, that no individual who holds such beliefs would actually pursue a career in social work. This makes the idea of social work students being thrown out or penalized for essentially ideological decisions rather suspicious. Further, the issues pressed do not appear to have real relation to social work, in that one is not required to advocate or especially strive for any of a number of liberal political causes in one's social work to, in fact, do social work. However, refusing aid to someone based on one's beliefs would breach the concept of social work. Thus, the underlying rule is, I think, that a social worker, while not required to advocate any particular group or cause, no matter their condition (this being, at times, a very relative statement), but is required to give aid to any who needs it (more specifically, that such ideological discriminations, which occur all across the political and social spectrums, must not influence how one distributes aid). By this reasoning, political ideology should only become an issue in the extreme; Justice, after all, is blind.
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on Oct 27, 2007 3:58:20 GMT -5
I agree with both of you. I'm doing a career guidance course at the moment and what I am continually made aware of is that we must ensure 'ethical practice' when engaging with clients. This means, as Amalcus says, we are not to put our point of view across when dealing with a client whose beliefs or point of view we don't agree with.
Certainly, we can challenge any pre-concieved ideas the client has. For example the belief that "people like me don't go to university" or "people like me can't do a particular kind of job" but the line you cross is when you tell someone "this is what I think" or "I'm not helping you because I don't agree with your choices."
Teancum you are also correct though when you say it is wrong for universities or colleges to force its own views on to its students but those students must also be aware that they will come across clients who they feel removed from but who they must, as professionals, try to engage with.
It is an intersting point to raise, Amalcus, when you say conservatives don't often go into social work (or other guidance field). All of my class are left leaning on the political spectrum but as I say, that is irrelevant in the actual practice of guidance work so long as its practioners adhere to an ethical code.
Just as a p.s. my course tutors have never pushed us to hold any particualr view (politically or otherwise) and if they have expressed an opinion have always made sure we know it is only their opinion and not something we necassarily need to share.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Oct 27, 2007 15:00:14 GMT -5
As a note, I did not mean to say that conservatives are less likely to engage in social work, but simply that I suspect, based on the beliefs espoused by certain cross-cleavages, conservatives would not be as likely to do so, this having practical support in that the ideologies held by social workers do, in fact, appear to be left leaning. The specific cross-factor I am thinking of is economic conservatism, and the idea of freedom of opportunity versus freedom of outcome. Individuals of this belief would not find social work to be pointful, I believe, and the ideologies of social and economic conservatism have, often paradoxically, been associated with each other (though it appears this always tenuous relationship is breaking apart). To what degree this association goes down to the individual level, I do not know, but it certainly exists on the political level.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 10, 2007 19:51:12 GMT -5
So I'm off on my next little segment of asking questions the teachers don't like. I figured out that Social security takes about 15% of your paycheck. I ran a calculation on the current system for retirement vs a purely private system. Turns out that at just a hair under 100k a year for 40 years of working a person will get a family max of nearly $4,000 a month from the time they are 68 or whatever until they kick the bucket. That same person sticking their 15% into a retirement package that get say 6% a year will have over 4 million when they retire. I calculate that to be about 83 years at 4k a month. This assumes no further interest (I'm not good enough at math to calculate a declining balance thing). So my question is why does the government have to rob us and give us a pittance in return?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Nov 11, 2007 14:09:04 GMT -5
So I'm off on my next little segment of asking questions the teachers don't like. I figured out that Social security takes about 15% of your paycheck. I ran a calculation on the current system for retirement vs a purely private system. Turns out that at just a hair under 100k a year for 40 years of working a person will get a family max of nearly $4,000 a month from the time they are 68 or whatever until they kick the bucket. That same person sticking their 15% into a retirement package that get say 6% a year will have over 4 million when they retire. I calculate that to be about 83 years at 4k a month. This assumes no further interest (I'm not good enough at math to calculate a declining balance thing). So my question is why does the government have to rob us and give us a pittance in return? because they are getting away with it.
|
|
|
Post by calyrelf on Nov 12, 2007 10:31:18 GMT -5
So I'm off on my next little segment of asking questions the teachers don't like. I figured out that Social security takes about 15% of your paycheck. I ran a calculation on the current system for retirement vs a purely private system. Turns out that at just a hair under 100k a year for 40 years of working a person will get a family max of nearly $4,000 a month from the time they are 68 or whatever until they kick the bucket. That same person sticking their 15% into a retirement package that get say 6% a year will have over 4 million when they retire. I calculate that to be about 83 years at 4k a month. This assumes no further interest (I'm not good enough at math to calculate a declining balance thing). So my question is why does the government have to rob us and give us a pittance in return? In America, the maximum amount of Social Security tax for an employee to have to pay per year is 5,840. (the employer must match it, up to this maximum) This amount is for 2007. For an employee who works for 40 years, that comes out to 233,600 dollars. The maximum benefit is just under 2000 dollars a month (I took it from a 2005 table, so it might be more now). That comes out to enough to cover 116 months, or just under 10 years. I'd say that's a pretty good deal for American retirees.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 12, 2007 11:52:26 GMT -5
I think having the over 2 million dollars that investment would become would be better. That would be a payout of 2k a month for the next 80 years.
This is based on a 6.5% rate with is quite conservative many investments can top 10% (which would top 6 million bucks)
It a shameful deceptive tax on the American people. And joy of joys Obama is talking about increasing it.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Nov 12, 2007 18:20:57 GMT -5
My question is this: from whom (or where) is the money in the investment account coming? Banks have to make money in order to pay you your interest on your investment (as the total investment for 40 years at maximum rate comes out under $500,000), and that money has to come from somewhere, or, more specifically, someone. Of course, some of the money is coming from other businesses, but those businesses in turn get their money from people. Granted, when you consider that most everyone who would be investing this much would also probably be taking out a number of loans, the net interest is reduced significantly (and, depending on how badly one manages one's loans, may very well be negative). By this rationale, capital is not being "grabbed" from someone else, at least, which is a relief, but the reality may still be worrying. While I am not a student of economics, this scenario suggests to me that it would hold two million dollars or so static between the bank and the individual, per capita (or at least per family). On the grand scale, considering all the families in the United States, that makes for a very large amount of essentially static capital, and capital that the individual does not need in its entirety (most people do not live for eighty years after retirement). So, in the first generation, we tie up funds -- a considerable amount, but not too much quite yet -- which eventually fall into the possession of the individual, and presumably still exist in the majority (or at least in a good portion) and the time of the individual's death. Now, let's consider the second generation. The wealth gets distributed among a few children, who, let's hope, wisely decide to invest the money, which causes their own dying fortunes to be a bit larger -- and a good bit, too. Their children, thus, get that much more, and in the family tradition, squirrel it away for retirement and future generations. Everybody wins, right?
This is called a pyramid scheme. It, as alluded to earlier, fails to take into account one crucial fact: there is a limited amount of capital to be had. When you do the math, you find out the government is robbing us blind: everyone (or at least more than are now) could be a millionaire, and their children richer! Except, when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. If such a pattern as this could actually stably exist (which I doubt -- I fear it would probably have much more disastrous economic consequences), all it would serve to do is widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Those who could afford to invest would, in the end, make interest off the backs of those who could not. The tax is more than arguably deceptive, I will concede, but the root of its deception is perhaps also its most important function: it redistributes potential build-ups of "death wealth" to maintain a vital economy.
Now, even assuming this is sound economics, I think you'd be hard pressed to get a politician to admit this. But that is, at times, the nature of politics: doing what people need, and pretending it's what poeple want.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 12, 2007 20:29:35 GMT -5
So let me see if I got this. In order to prevent the middle class from getting richer. The government takes a lot of our money and only gives us and the poor a small portion back. This is a good thing?
Why not let the poor person save their money and give it to their children when they kick the bucket?
I'm also curious where this loan idea comes from? I'm only talking about having people be in control of their finances and retirement. The government could even compel people to have a retirement plan (like car insurance). I'm fine with planing for retirement. Social security however is not a retirement plan its a tax with a chewed slobbered on bone being tossed to try and keep us for getting made at the over taxation.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Nov 13, 2007 21:16:03 GMT -5
To answer your questions largely with questions:
A "small portion" is given back as retirement funds. Is this portion smaller than what we put in, or is it simply equivalent, with no interest? If it is smaller, where is the extra going? The government is not known for being good at keeping money once it's got it (or even before it's got it, for that matter).
If a man is too poor to feed his family or pay his bills, what thought is he giving to investment?
My point about the loans was simply that banks make money by taking out loans -- specifically, by the interest on them. We take out loans to buy our houses, our cars, any for anything else we need. Then, we turn around and place what money we have back in the same bank we took loan from. So where does the interest on this investment come from? The money we paid in interest to them. Of course, this is a broad generalization, and, in the end, may actually support individual investment (as you are at least getting some of that interest back).
I would like to make it clear that I am not specifically supporting government controlled and kept retirement funds, but simply saying that personal investment is not so simple as it first appears. In order to function properly, personal retirement investments would need to be controlled or supervised by the government to a greater degree even just then compulsory existence, I think. To what degree specifically, I do not know; finance is a tricky and murky matter.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 15, 2007 14:15:12 GMT -5
Using the 100k income and the 4k per month benefit (a rather generous benefit as it is a bit higher than the maximum you can get in a family) a person work for 40 years would pay in $600,000. Taking this out at the highest rate 4k per month they would have to live 12.5 years after retirement to brake even. If a person paid in for more than 40 years the time after retirement would of course be much longer. If a person only invested in US savings bonds (3.4%) which is at least as safe as any other part of the government they would have 1.2 million when they retired and have 25 years of retirement money. That leaves are imagery person retire at the age of 70 and die at 95 before they brake even. Assuming they kept the money in savings while they took out their 4k a month. A person would have almost no loss of capital as the interest of 3.4% on 1.2 million would only lose about 5k a year. If a person lived to be oh say 200 they might start to run out of cash.
Long story short the government can't run a decent budget to save its life and is trying to hides its taxes behind token help programs. We would all have more money on hand and moving around the economy creating jobs etc, if the money grubbers would stop robbing us.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Nov 15, 2007 20:08:19 GMT -5
I'll agree that the government can't run a decent budget. I don't think social security was intended to be used to "hide taxes," but it's certainly true that money has been funneled off of social security instead of increasing taxes. A note on bonds, though: bonds specifically pose a problem for mass/mandatory investment, as they introduce new money into the system (they are more rightly a form of control on the supply of money in the economy than a form of investment). Such investment would continually introduce new money into the economy, which is a bad thing, as it would certainly cause accelerated inflation (and might even eventually result in hyperinflation).
Again, I'll ask: where is the money the government is "grafting" off of us going? And, more importantly, where is it really coming from in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 17, 2007 16:50:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure where it all goes. Space programs we can't afford would be a guess.
The money comes straight out of our paychecks. Even if you are a very poor paying 0 in income tax you still "get" to pay into the retirement program. Half the money is hidden as your employer "contributes" half of it, but the money still comes out of what you cost your boss.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Nov 18, 2007 13:59:30 GMT -5
Then the problem is half-way one with how the government spends money, which is certainly valid. Reading it again, I realize I misworded my second question rather badly (with a more than vague pronoun). What I meant to ask was: where does the money for interest on personal retirement investments come from?
|
|