Is Social Security Welfare?

lx43

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
2,148
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/article/is-social-security-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:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 shit 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 -- fuck 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.
 
Last edited:
So to all those people who worked their whole lives and had 15% of their income confiscated by the federal government -- fuck 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?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top