Is Social Security Welfare?

[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..:o

 

[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..:o

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...es-social-security-is-not-a-binding-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:

“There has been a temptation throughout the program’s history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense.”

The SSA cites the Flemming v. Nestor (1960) decision and even posts it in its entirety. The Social Security Administration defends the inevitable default on payments (for some Americans, not all) by summing up that case:

“In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.”

[...]
I don’t agree with R. Holcombe that the program is “doomed.” The program will be means-tested (prediction) for “those who do not need it,” including those who saved, had long work histories, and generally did all the old-school things that our destroy-the-wealth State frowns upon. In fact, if Social Security were a binding contract, what is the stated rate of return? There is none! But anyone who has studied the history of Social Security knows that past and present formulas give a much higher payout to those with lower incomes and spotty work records. If you pay in the maximum amount your entire career, then you will get the lowest rate of return. This is all done behind the curtain of Oz.

Mark my words. The slicing of Social Security will retain the benefits for the less productive wage earners and simply skew the formula ever more against those who work and pay the maximum amount.

Postscript: The person who appealed to the Supreme Court for his right to benefits was a Communist. Further proof that if those you dislike lose their rights, we all lose. There is a certain irony, though, with a Communist claiming a contractual property right to Social Security. History is funny that way.

And remember: we aren’t talking about the Super Rich or even the 1%. If you are working upper middle class, you pay on wages (not investment income) up to $110,000. But don’t expect much if anything in return. You are not entitled. The Court has spoken.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Supreme Court Rules: Social Security is NOT a Binding Contract
http://blog.independent.org/2013/01...es-social-security-is-not-a-binding-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.