# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Is Social Security Welfare?

## lx43

I agree with the article that Social Security is welfare for the reasons stated below.     This program should be ended or at the very least the process should be started to end it, along with all other welfare programs.


http://fff.org/explore-freedom/artic...urity-welfare/

Most Americans would never consider Social Security to be welfare because they think that they paid, or are paying, into the system their whole working lives and therefore earned, or are earning, their benefits and are just receiving, or will be receiving, their contributions back with interest.

Social Security is welfare because there is no connection between the taxes paid and the benefits received. Take two men who are the same age and have identical incomes. One works for exactly 35 years, reaches full retirement age, and then retires. The other works for 45 years, reaches full retirement age, and then retires. Since Social Security benefits are based on the average of a worker’s 35 highest years of earnings, as related above, the benefit amount that these two men receive every month will be substantially the same. The fact that each man paid vastly different amounts into the system yet received basically the same benefits is irrefutable proof that there is no connection between Social Security taxes and benefits.

Social Security is welfare because Congress may, at will, change the Social Security benefit schedule at any time. According to Title XI, section 1104 of the Social Security Act, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress.” That means that Social Security taxes can be changed at any time with no change in Social Security benefits; conversely, Social Security benefits can be changed at any time with no change in Social Security taxes. According to the Social Security Administration website,


Social Security should be considered welfare because it is not an investment with a rate of return. Roosevelt falsely promoted Social Security to Americans as a “savings account for the old age of the worker” with contributions made by employers and employees through payroll taxes “held by the government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age.” The first beneficiary to receive a Social Security check was Ida May Fuller in 1940. After paying in just $24.75 in Social Security taxes, she went on to collect $22,888 in benefits. According to a 2002 Congressional Research Service report on “Social Security Reform,” workers who retired at full retirement age in 1980 got back all they paid into Social Security, with interest, in 2.8 years. On the other hand, someone can pay into the system his whole working life and, if he dies upon retirement without dependents, his “savings account” dies with him. Even George W. Bush recognized the nature of the system:

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Yes, it's welfare.  But it's not going to change in any of our lifetimes.  It's called the "third rail of politics" for a reason.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes, it's welfare. .


I believe Ponzi Scheme is more accurate. But welfare will do.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Well, a lot of people paid into the program their entire life and were promised it, so I'd say the government is pretty damn obligated to give them it. The system is unstainable and will definitely not be around when I would be eligible to receive so I would love to not have my money taken. (that I need in the present, not when the dollar is determined to be ample $#@! paper) Quite honestly, the whole damn system is so big it will collapse and many, many people will die. (Particularly the eldery who rely on the benefits and have no means of providing for themselves elsewise) I don't want to see it happen any more than the next man but it is inevitable. As Ron Paul has stated, "Those that live above their means are destined to live beneath their means." It's a sad topic actually, and there really isn't a solution in sight. Other than, printing more money, which is not a solution at all. As to whether or not it's welfare, in my opinion I do not think so.


ETA: Ponzi scheme is a very good analogy.

----------


## loveableteddybear

Yes. Anything that pays people not to work and encourages irresponsibility is bad.

----------


## lx43

> Yes, it's welfare.  But it's not going to change in any of our lifetimes.  It's called the "third rail of politics" for a reason.


How do you change that though so people start to want to end it?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

My wife and I both get our checks every month. They are a pittance compared to the annuity we have set up for ourselves as well as the income stream we still receive from rental properties. Nonetheless, I do not consider it to be welfare - a bad idea from the start for sure, but not welfare in the traditional definition of the word.

----------


## lx43

> My wife and I both get our checks every month. They are a pittance compared to the annuity we have set up for ourselves as well as the income stream we still receive from rental properties. Nonetheless, I do not consider it to be welfare - a bad idea from the start for sure, but not welfare in the traditional definition of the word.


Would you be willing though to start the process of ending it?   If so, a person who is on Social Security how would you want it to be ended?

Also, what about my right to keep the money I make?   I have more of right to the money I earn than someone who just votes for a living.  By that I mean I physically had to earn my money by actually doing the work in my opinion trumps your right to take what some elected official promised you.

----------


## loveableteddybear

Everyone is libertarian besides the stuff they like that the gov't gives 'em.

----------


## erowe1

> How do you change that though so people start to want to end it?


What you're doing here is a good start.

We need to shift the rhetoric when it comes to Social Security. There shouldn't be anything controversial about calling it welfare. That's what it is, period, with no asterisk. So we need to call it that often enough that the label gets accepted and then taken for granted. Along the same lines we need to attack the mentality that people are owed it. They aren't. It's not their money, and it's not paying them back for anything they paid into it or did. It's money taken from one group of people and given to another. When SS recipients lobby against any cuts in SS, they're being greedy and immoral. They should be called out on that.

Also, one rhetorical move I think we should make with this, and really with any other government program, is to say we don't want to cut it, we want to voluntarize it, meaning the people who pay for it should be allowed to continue to pay for it if they choose to, as long as they aren't being forced to, and as long as they aren't promised that they will be paid back anything in the future.

----------


## lx43

> Also, one rhetorical move I think we should make with this, and really with any other government program, is to say we don't want to cut it, we want to voluntarize it, meaning the people who pay for it should be allowed to continue to pay for it if they choose to, as long as they aren't being forced to, and as long as they aren't promised that they will be paid back anything in the future.


I could live with this.  Let anyone who wants to stay on SS stay on it and let those who want out get out on the condition they forfeit all the money they paid into the system and cannot enroll in it when they become eligible.   


In all honesty, I want the option of opt-outing of paying all taxes and then you'd really see how much support taxpayers gives to these govt programs

----------


## erowe1

> I could live with this.  Let anyone who wants to stay on SS stay on it and let those who want out get out on the condition they forfeit all the money they paid into the system and cannot enroll in it when they become eligible.


Actually, I meant something more extreme than that. People currently receiving SS would only get as much as those paying in voluntarily choose to give them.

----------


## lx43

> Actually, I meant something more extreme than that. People currently receiving SS would only get as much as those paying in voluntarily choose to give them.


Even better IMO, but I doubt any politician or beneficiary would agree with this unless you have more people opting-out than wanting to stay in the system.   Then the tide would be in our favor.   

Are there any politicans brave enough to propose a bill to allow people to opt-out?  I doubt even Rand, Amash, or Massie are that brave to propose something like that.

----------


## James Madison

Yes, it's welfare. Yes, it should be ended.

You work everyday of your life and lose a sizable portion of your paycheck evert pay period in the hopes of getting your money back in your old age. Oh, you just qualified for SS? That's good. But you're gonna die of cancer within six months? Well, that's the breaks. All that money you paid won't be going to you or your family. Have a nice life.

----------


## lx43

I had an uncle that passed away several years ago before receiving a cent of his SS.  He paid in the maximum amount and received nothing in return.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Would you be willing though to start the process of ending it?   If so, a person who is on Social Security how would you want it to be ended?
> 
> Also, what about my right to keep the money I make?   I have more of right to the money I earn than someone who just votes for a living.  By that I mean I physically had to earn my money by actually doing the work in my opinion trumps your right to take what some elected official promised you.


I think Paul's proposal to phase it out was a decent one.  I'd like to see it privatized for a certain portion of upcoming retirees, along with an opt out option for younger workers.  Keep in mind, we paid our SS tax from the first day we worked, so for 46 years I paid the tax, and nearly always paid the maximum since for most of my working life I was a high earner.  

The issue is though, that there are a lot of folks my age who depend on it wholly or in part for their survival.  The fact that they were taxed on their income for the SS program all those years made it difficult for many to save adequately for retirement.  Between the employee and employer it's 15% if I recall.  That's a lot of cash that can be saved and invested had not the gov't been funding the ponzi scheme. So pulling the rug out from those people is not just.

And it really is unfair to say that you "physically earn your money" do you think that all of us did not?  46 years of paying that tax, and even today I am still taxed to death.  My tax liability for 2012 will be in excess of $200K, so while I do get that small check every month we are paying a ton of our income in taxes.  When you think about it, the SS check we get every month, is really just a deduction on the overall tax that we pay, and not that large of a percent to be honest.

Something needs to be done, but we need to do something that gradually phases out the program as people pass on, privatize it for people in the middle and phase it out for younger workers.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> ETA: Ponzi scheme is a very good analogy.



I don't think it's an analogy... but more of a definition.

----------


## dinosaur

People were sold on the lie that it is just their own money that they are getting back.  Well, guess what, your money was spent, and the money that you are getting back is someone else's money.  

There has been a huge societal change in that elderly parents and children live apart.  Maybe we can't afford the luxury of living apart anymore.  Maybe families need to take care of their own from now on.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> People were sold on the lie that it is just their own money that they are getting back.  Well, guess what, your money was spent, and the money that you are getting back is someone else's money.  
> 
> There has been a huge societal change in that elderly parents and children live apart.  Maybe we can't afford the luxury of living apart anymore.  Maybe families need to take care of their own from now on.


So to all those people who worked their whole lives and had 15% of their income confiscated by the federal government -- $#@! em all, go live with your kids?  

The gov't were the ones that screwed up, not the people.  I worked my whole life and did well for myself.  We get about 4 grand from SS each month - so all that money I paid 15% of both our incomes for a lot of years amounts to a measly 4 grand a month.  Conversely I generate over 1 million per year from my assets and investments.  I was fortunate enough to have money well over and above to set myself up, but the milkman, carpenter and store clerk that worked their whole lives weren't as fortunate as I was.  They shouldn't be punished for the government's screw up.  There are a ton of things we can cut out of the budget and gradually phase the SS system out.  

But attitudes like the one you have - good luck selling that.

----------


## dinosaur

> So to all those people who worked their whole lives and had 15% of their income confiscated by the federal government -- $#@! em all, go live with your kids?
> 
> Good luck selling that.


I'm not suggesting that anyone try to sell that.  

But what about all the people who are now working, or are not even old enough to be working yet, that will have to pay off the previous generation.  Aren't the older generation saying **** you to them?  The point is the money was spent.  It wasn't supposed to be, but people failed to stop them from spending it.  Why is it ok to then put it on the national credit card for their grandchildren to pay?

----------


## truelies

For 70 years SS has been presented to four generations of Americans as an insurance program. Now it may well be that the politicians were committing fraud all along but it would be unjust to chance the goal posts for folks for whom it is to late in life to make other arrangements. Still the younger generation caught by the scheme is also being harmed by the taxes.

My Solution-

1) Immediately end the 6.2% tax for employees and the 12.4% tax for the self employed. Corporations would continue to pay the 6.2% tax which would be extended to 100% oc corporate payroll including perks, bonuses and stock options.

2) Give current taxpayers over age 60 the option of receiving SS under the current rules OR a lump sum payout of their accrued 'contributions' plus interest to be calculated at T-bill rates for the appropriate years. Payout to be made in 10 equal yearly installments. Payments to be funded thru the medium of treasury notes in lieu of federal reserve notes. So banks no more TARP for at least 10 years. Treasury notes to be backed by the public land assets of the USA.

3) Current taxpayers age 30 - 60 to receive a lump sum payout of their accrued 'contributions' plus interest to be calculated at T-bill rates for the appropriate years. Payout to be made in 10 equal yearly installments starting in 10 years or at age 67 whichever is earlier.

4) Current taxpayers under age 30- $10,000 T-bill plus interest which accrues payable at age 60

----------


## UpperDecker

> I'm not suggesting that anyone try to sell that.  
> 
> But what about all the people who are now working, or are not even old enough to be working yet, that will have to pay off the previous generation.  Aren't the older generation saying **** you to them?  The point is the money was spent.  It wasn't supposed to be, but people failed to stop them from spending it.  Why is it ok to then put it on the national credit card for their grandchildren to pay?


This is a very good point.  It is a $#@! you to the younger generation that those who will actually get money from social security aren't willing to budge to help them out.  They are taking the money from the younger generation who aren't going to get social security, which is crap situation.

----------


## truelies

> So to all those people who worked their whole lives and had 15% of their income confiscated by the federal government -- $#@! em all, go live with your kids?  
> 
> ........................................But attitudes like the one you have - good luck selling that.


Captain I think you will find that the SS is welfare crowd are largely the ungrateful children of those who paid the SS taxes. Children who feel the need to be excuse from their student loans and who will never admit that their education from kindie on has been by their Rules - 'welfare'.

----------


## truelies

[QUOTE=UpperDecker;4818194]................ They are taking the money from the younger generation who ..................QUOTE]

was given life and sustinence for 18 - 25 years by the older generation. Pay that back with interest & there will be no need for SS.

----------


## dinosaur

> Captain I think you will find that the SS is welfare crowd are largely the ungrateful children of those who paid the SS taxes. Children who feel the need to be excuse from their student loans and who will never admit that their education from kindie on has been by their Rules - 'welfare'.


Attack the argument, not my character.  I have never defaulted on a loan, and have paid into the system for 20 years.  I don't want anything back for that. I just want us to stop spending more than we have for the sake of the generation after me.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

[QUOTE=truelies;4818202][QUOTE=UpperDecker;4818194]................ They are taking the money from the younger generation who ..................


> was given life and sustinence for 18 - 25 years by the older generation. Pay that back with interest & there will be no need for SS.



Some things cannot be repaid.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I'm not suggesting that anyone try to sell that.  
> 
> But what about all the people who are now working, or are not even old enough to be working yet, that will have to pay off the previous generation.  Aren't the older generation saying **** you to them?  The point is the money was spent.  It wasn't supposed to be, but people failed to stop them from spending it.  Why is it ok to then put it on the national credit card for their grandchildren to pay?


It's not we need to phase it out, which is why I liked Paul's proposal for it.  But there are so many other areas of the budget that can be cut before we say to the 85 year old widow living in a one bedroom apt that the check she gets every month in gone.  We're Americans, we clean up our mistakes the right way.

----------


## erowe1

> was given life and sustinence for 18 - 25 years by the older generation. Pay that back with interest & there will be no need for SS.


Exactly. Or, better yet, reverse the order. Get rid of SS, and let people decide for themselves how to go about helping their parents. Cut out the middle man of the government.

----------


## erowe1

> People were sold on the lie that it is just their own money that they are getting back.


When were they sold on this? And who sold it to them? The law never told them this. I doubt that any official government literature did. The people who have been spewing this propaganda have been the AARP and others of their ilk. The American taxpayer has no duty to make good on those make-believe promises.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Exactly. Or, better yet, reverse the order. Get rid of SS, and let people decide for themselves how to go about helping their parents. Cut out the middle man of the government.


For folks like myself who continue to earn an income after retirement and/or draw off a pension or annuity, elimination of SS equates to a massive tax increase.  Personally (and I know many folks like myself that aren't at the income level I am at) we pay more to the gov't in taxes than we get in SS payments annually and for others its a wash.

----------


## acptulsa

> Couldnt bother to read 33 pages of this. Why is this such a controversial and debated topic on the ron paul forums?


If you could be bothered to read just a couple of the thirty-three pages, you wouldn't have to ask.  Many long threads on this forum consist of one page of pro, one page of con, and thirty-one pages of refuting ad hominems and undisguised insults.  This is one of them.

----------


## truelies

> ...........But I still don't see how you conclude that 90% of all seniors get 50% or more of their income from SS from those facts.
> 
> ......................................


Kid you are hopeless. You have been shown the Facts and you choose to ignore them. Doesn't matter really. Rant as you will. You're still going to pay those SSi taxes. LMAO

----------


## truelies

> Ah, typical insult ....................


No just a statement of Reality

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No just a statement of Reality


 LOLZ!!  Keep dreamin, pal.  Just about rverything else you've posited is based on wishful thinking and unsupported opinions, so might as well enjoy the dreams while you can.  Don't let me disturb you, but don't say I didn't warn you when you are rudely awakened.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If you could be bothered to read just a couple of the thirty-three pages, you wouldn't have to ask.  Many long threads on this forum consist of one page of pro, one page of con, and thirty-one pages of refuting ad hominems and undisguised insults.  This is one of them.


Indeed.  I'm getting the feeling that truelies is Travlyr in disguise.  They both share a lack of substance and preference for insulting people and being condescending rather than dealing with the issue at hand.

----------


## Danke

Sorry if already been asked, but truelies, what should be my punishment if I neither want to pay into SS nor collect from it?

----------


## acptulsa

> Indeed.  I'm getting the feeling that truelies is Travlyr in disguise.  They both share a lack of substance and preference for insulting people and being condescending rather than dealing with the issue at hand.


I recall Travlyr as having a vocabulary and some style.  So, I don't see it.

----------


## beaven

Elsewhere I posted, "When the State perverts the free market, State assistance is not a "benefit" - it is a messed up apology."  Is Social Security welfare?  Certainly.  But so are public schools.  They are education welfare.  Most farmers are on welfare.  And every corporation is on welfare.  We don't have a free market, we have National Socialism.  A reasonable person will reject the system but won't put himself at relative disadvantage by rejecting the State's screwed-up apology.

----------


## truelies

> Sorry if already been asked, but truelies, what should be my punishment if I neither want to pay into SS nor collect from it?


sport cry me a river- until you manage to persuade a majority of Americans to end SSI (which ain't likely to happen any time soon) you will simply have to accept the deduction from your wage. You are of course free to be a fool & never accept a payment when the time comes.

As to penalties fore tax evasion- consult your attorney.

----------


## truelies

> LOLZ!!  Keep dreamin, pal.  ......................


I just state the Facts. You are the kiddy buttwipe who stamps his wittle feet & squeals that Reality is not fair.

Maybe you should try holding your breath until the mean bad SSI goes away. LMAO

----------


## tod evans

> I just state the Facts. You are the kiddy buttwipe who stamps his wittle feet & squeals that Reality is not fair.


Golly! 

What an obnoxious sycophant and an extremely poor representation of _my_ generation.

Are you ready for that beer I offered to buy?...................*Boy.*

----------


## driller80545

If the next generation must pay for my SS, then I suppose that I have been paying for the generation before me for the last 40 years. All that is basically irrelevant to me. My biggest issue is that my wages have been taxed for all of these years, with the promise that my money would work for me when I get old (rapidly approaching). I don't need SS to retire, but would be a lot better off now if I had been able to invest over the years this money that was taken (stolen) from me. I don't blame the younger people for not wanting to have their wages stolen, too, and I don't have any problem understanding older people wanting the returns on the money they supposedly invested in SS. The issue to me is-who stole my money and what are we going to do about that. First step would be to stop the tax, second step would be to figure out what to do with the old people who were forced to invest in their retirement through the gov SS taxes that have been stolen. I also understand that people use more money than they have invested in SS. Would that be the case had the money been invested wisely over the 30 to 40 years that it has been being contributed. The answer is that there would be a nice little retirement nest egg had the money been used wisely. I guess that the only answer is that somebody is going to get screwed. First, stop stealing the wages now. Second, the people who were forced to pay into this fiasco will have to be helped by family and friends on a local basis until the damage done can be overcome with time. I am lucky because I never trusted the gov to take care of me in retirement, but not all of my peers are in the same boat. One other thing, it is not right to insult people who have been paying into this scheme for decades. It was not by choice and the money was hard to come by!

----------


## erowe1

> my wages have been taxed for all of these years, with the promise that my money would work for me when I get old


What promise?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I just state the Facts. You are the kiddy buttwipe* who stamps his wittle feet & squeals that Reality is not fair.*
> 
> Maybe you should try holding your breath until the mean bad SSI goes away. LMAO


Actually, that would be you.  I'm not deluded into believing politicians' obvious lies and demanding today's kids pay my retirement and "stamping my feet that reality is not fair" when the kids decide they don't want to pay my way, as you would put it.

----------


## smithtg

> What promise?


agreed.  The original post also complained about the money being stolen from him.  what about the other 25-50% in other taxes you paid over your lifetime too?   Gawd if I had that I would be retired at age 40.   Yeah and we are all screwed when a bunch of no nothings spend the stolen purse on wars and give handouts to foreign governments, insurance companies and banks

----------


## driller80545

> What promise?


 Surely you are not that dense! I suppose young people will never understand what it is like to pay into something for decades until they have done it. Then, I suppose, it will mean something to them. Just human nature I guess. I was once young and right too.

----------


## erowe1

> Surely you are not that dense! I suppose young people will never understand what it is like to pay into something for decades until they have done it. Then, I suppose, it will mean something to them. Just human nature I guess. I was once young and right too.


I suppose I am that dense. Really, what promise? Is this promise in writing somewhere? Do you pay those taxes under the impression that you were putting money away for your future? If so, where did you get that idea? Not from the law itself.

I have paid into it for decades, btw.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Surely you are not that dense! I suppose young people will never understand what it is like to pay into something for decades until they have done it. Then, I suppose, it will mean something to them. *Just human nature I guess. I was once young and right too.*


So you admit you were naive and incorrect when you were young.  Thank you!   For future reference, you don't need to spend 10+ pages insulting people to admit I'm right.

----------


## tod evans

> So you admit you were naive and incorrect when you were young.


Hell dude I started getting stupid around 30, by 40 I knew I was an idiot......I'm well past 50 now and can't even grasp what I *don't* know....

But between 15 and 25 I had all the answers..

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Hell dude I started getting stupid around 30, by 40 I knew I was an idiot......I'm well past 50 now and can't even grasp what I *don't* know....
> 
> But between 15 and 25 I had all the answers..


I was never quite that bad about that, but the 15-25 bracket was approximately my "know it all" stage too. (those were my Republican years too) It is my awareness of my (and everyone's) profoundly limited knowledge that made me realize the epic fail of centralized authority/planning.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> neither or anger nor hate little man. You are not even hardly worth that much influence on my BP.


 Oh, well good to hear it!



> Just a healthy dose of contempt for whiny obligation dodging pissants.


 Ahh, not hatred, just contempt.  Thank you for clarifying.  Of course someone of great importance, such as yourself, would think of me as a pissant.  I cannot fault you for that.  You were born to be a ruler and an elite, I was born to be your pissant.

"Pissant is an epithet for an inconsequential, irrelevant, or worthless person, especially one who is irritating or contemptible out of proportion to his or her significance."  Of course this describes me perfectly.  Interestingly, though, while you find _me_ to be worthless and insignificant, you do not think the same of my _money_.  To the contrary, my _money_ is highly significant to you.  Well, I am disturbed that you are feeling deprived or uncomfortable in any way, my lord.  Please, reply with your address that I can send the check to, and how much money you will require to once again feel the comfort to which you are accustomed.   A person of your stature deserves at least that.




> Still livin' in mum's basement ain'tcha.


 No, but thank you for asking, my liege.  Do you have any other questions your humble pissant servant might help you with?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> One other thing, it is not right to insult people who have been paying into this scheme for decades.


 The only group being insulted in this thread are the young.  There is a (presumably old) poster who has "contempt" for any "kiddies" who oppose the SS's thievery and slavery.  All insulting going on has been completely one-sided.  Just a note.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Oh, well good to hear it!
>  Ahh, not hatred, just contempt.  Thank you for clarifying.  Of course someone of great importance, such as yourself, would think of me as a pissant.  I cannot fault you for that.  You were born to be a ruler and an elite, I was born to be your pissant.
> 
> "Pissant is an epithet for an inconsequential, irrelevant, or worthless person, especially one who is irritating or contemptible out of proportion to his or her significance."  Of course this describes me perfectly.  Interestingly, though, while you find _me_ to be worthless and insignificant, you do not think the same of my _money_.  To the contrary, my _money_ is highly significant to you.  Well, I am disturbed that you are feeling deprived or uncomfortable in any way, my lord.  Please, reply with your address that I can send the check to, and how much money you will require to once again feel the comfort to which you are accustomed.   A person of your stature deserves at least that.
> 
>  No, but thank you for asking, my liege.  Do you have any other questions your humble pissant servant might help you with?


+rep

----------


## Lucille

Supreme Court Rules: Social Security is NOT a Binding Contract
http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/...ding-contract/




> This post was prompted by all-too-common opinions expressed in Randall Holcombe’s recent “Federal Government Debt Undermines the Programs It Finances” blog. The respondents passionately insist that Social Security is a contract, whatever you do to the budget, do not touch Social Security. “I paid in and it is a contract. They owe me.”
> 
> The Supreme Court settled this issue in 1960! Even more to the point, *the Social Security Administration mocks those who think it is a binding contract*. On the SSA’s own web site, it states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Supreme Court Rules: Social Security is NOT a Binding Contract
> http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/...ding-contract/


+rep

----------


## truelies

Kiddies just what gives you the idea that IF and thats a mighty big if SSI were to be cut off and the elderly left to perish that even one penny more would end up in your pockets, eh?

----------


## Danke

> Kiddies just what gives you the idea that IF and thats a mighty big if SSI were to be cut off and the elderly left to perish that even one penny more would end up in your pockets, eh?


"Kiddies?"

You really don't want a discussion, do you?

----------


## erowe1

> Kiddies just what gives you the idea that IF and thats a mighty big if SSI were to be cut off and the elderly left to perish that even one penny more would end up in your pockets, eh?


It's mathematically certain.

When all forms of taxation are included, the amount we are taxed is always exactly equal to the amount the government spends. A cut in spending is a cut in taxation.

----------


## truelies

> It's mathematically certain.
> 
> When all forms of taxation are included, the amount we are taxed is always exactly equal to the amount the government spends. A cut in spending is a cut in taxation.


LMAO-dream on , spending ain't going down and the tax cuts ain't going to you

----------


## erowe1

> LMAO-dream on , spending ain't [sic] going down and the tax cuts ain't [sic] going to you


Well, right, yeah, if you're making a prediction that SS isn't going to get cut any time soon, then I'm sure you're right.

But that's not what you said. What you said was based on the premise of "if it were cut," and given that premise, then yes, if it were cut, we'd all be wealthier for it. If the government weren't allocating those resources for the people, then the people would be allocating them.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Kiddies just what gives you the idea that IF and thats a mighty big if SSI were to be cut off and the elderly left to perish that even one penny more would end up in your pockets, eh?


 I just want more pennies to end up in _your_ pockets, Master Truelies.  Please: send me your address!  I can't bear to see you like this -- deprived, neglected, suffering.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

"It’s in your selfish best interest to provide the maximum amount of value to the maximum number of people – that’s how Apple became the giant company it is. Conversely, it is not altruistic to help other people. I want all the people around me to be strong and successful. It makes life better and easier for me if they’re all doing well. So it’s selfish, not altruistic, when I help them.

"To weaken others, to degrade them by making them dependent upon generosity, is not doing those people any good. If you really care about others, the best thing you can do for them is to push for totally freeing all markets. That makes it both necessary and rewarding for them to learn valuable skills and to become creators of value and not burdens on society. It’s a win-win all around." -- Doug Casey

----------


## erowe1

> "It’s in your selfish best interest to provide the maximum amount of value to the maximum number of people – that’s how Apple became the giant company it is. Conversely, it is not altruistic to help other people. I want all the people around me to be strong and successful. It makes life better and easier for me if they’re all doing well. So it’s selfish, not altruistic, when I help them.
> 
> "To weaken others, to degrade them by making them dependent upon generosity, is not doing those people any good. If you really care about others, the best thing you can do for them is to push for totally freeing all markets. That makes it both necessary and rewarding for them to learn valuable skills and to become creators of value and not burdens on society. It’s a win-win all around." -- Doug Casey


The level to which truelies has been degraded is one where, not only does he depend on others' generosity, he doesn't even consider it generosity. What's theirs is his.

----------


## Lucille

In short:



It has been ruled thus, and the fedgov can take the "benefit" away from anyone (or everyone) at anytime, and still collect the tax.

----------


## klamath

[QUOTE=Lucille;4836417]In short:



It has been ruled thus, and the fedgov can take the "benefit" away from anyone (or everyone) at anytime, and still collect the tax.[/QUOTE
As told to my father in the middle 1960's, when he told an IRS agent that he didn't want to belong to the SSI insurance program and didn't want to pay the payroll deductions. "*Mr ----,it is a TAX, you know it is a TAX and you are damned well going to pay that TAX!"*

----------

