Social Security is not “Insurance”

[silverhandorder]

SSi is called "insurance" for a reason.

An example.

A person buys car insurance for a brand new Lincoln, pays for a week, and gets plastered by a drunk driver. Said policy included cost of replacement. Does that person's insurance company get to say "Nuh-uh, you didn't pay enough" and opt out of replacing the vehicle.

No, of course not. The vehicle is paid for out of the funds the insurance company has on hand, built up from the payments collected by other customers and that the above customer will add to in the years that follow.

Don't matter what you call it the effect will be default on one level or another. They can not afford to pay you what they promised. You will not get the young generation jumping to pay for you. They will either pay you with depreciated dollars or cut benefits.

Like car insurance, even voluntary SSi would require sources from outside the system to fund the program.

Car insurance does not require outside sources.

Please expand on "user fees".

Use a road pay the toll, want fire department to send a car to help you pay for service, subscription based or w.e. Allow for private competition.

There are other systems out there besides the progressive (and quite oppressive) tax system we have in place now, systems that would permit smaller taxation per individual while still delivering enough revenue for the g'ment to operate and function.

Even a lean and svelte government would require some form of taxation to operate.

Well lets start with balanced budget amendment.

To be quite frank, no, I would not take it personally at all.

Why would I.

And ethics are simply relative.

Ethics are not relative. A thief wants everyone to respect private property rights except him. Same goes for everything else you either have ethics or don't.

Life is full of choices. You could choose not to pay taxes and get arrested. You could choose to resist arrest as well. Still your fault for breaking the law. Whether said law should be changed or not, one has to work under current laws while engaging in efforts to change said laws.

So what makes what the government does different from the mafia? How are you morally right for supporting them?

 

[AxisMundi]

Don't matter what you call it the effect will be default on one level or another. They can not afford to pay you what they promised. You will not get the young generation jumping to pay for you. They will either pay you with depreciated dollars or cut benefits.

Speculation.

Car insurance does not require outside sources.

Indeed they do, in the States mandating car insurance.

Use a road pay the toll, want fire department to send a car to help you pay for service, subscription based or w.e. Allow for private competition.

Buy anything at the store, chances are you are using roads as that item was shipped in.

And if you cannot afford the fore protection subscription, your home, three dogs, and all your belongings go up in smoke.

Do you have any idea how much an ambulance ride will cost you in a city/area that has private ambulance service? The idea of privatizing such services is easily proven more expensive tot he individual.

When we lived downstate, I was a volunteer fire fighter. We charged nothing for ambulance rides and still supplied superior service to paid outfits.

Well lets start with balanced budget amendment.

Political rhetoric.

Ethics are not relative. A thief wants everyone to respect private property rights except him. Same goes for everything else you either have ethics or don't.

What about a father who steals bread to feed his starving children? Against the law certainly, but unethical?

So what makes what the government does different from the mafia? How are you morally right for supporting them?

We the People makes our g'ment "right". Your mafia example is quite poor, I'm afraid, as the costa nostra is out for pure personal gain.

 

[jclay2]

Just stop feeding the troll. Its clear this guy is a lost cause at this point.

 

[silverhandorder]

Speculation.

A damn good speculation. I came from a society where this happened and I see no difference between America and former USSR. Same attitudes same radicalization.

Indeed they do, in the States mandating car insurance.

Car insurance would be around even if they did not mandate it.

Buy anything at the store, chances are you are using roads as that item was shipped in.

It only needs to be paid for once and that is by the trucking company. I pay for all those mini charges when I pay at the store.

And if you cannot afford the fore protection subscription, your home, three dogs, and all your belongings go up in smoke.

Then you shouldn't own a home.

Do you have any idea how much an ambulance ride will cost you in a city/area that has private ambulance service? The idea of privatizing such services is easily proven more expensive tot he individual.

Not more than car service.

When we lived downstate, I was a volunteer fire fighter. We charged nothing for ambulance rides and still supplied superior service to paid outfits.

Good then stop giving me doomsday scenarios when you are contradicting your self as you speak.

Political rhetoric.

Ah and asking for hand outs in the form of subsidized college and health care is what exactly? What do you support concretely? I support no deficits. I want a mechanism that will enforce it. What do you want? More hand outs?

What about a father who steals bread to feed his starving children? Against the law certainly, but unethical?

Theft is theft. Fortunately that has been eliminated by capitalism. Your social safety net will have us back at that when million of dependent people realize money has ran out and there is not enough shit to feed them all.

We the People makes our g'ment "right". Your mafia example is quite poor, I'm afraid, as the costa nostra is out for pure personal gain.

You and a mob give power to one mafia. This is what you do. The rest of us have to fucking live with that and pay you blood suckers off. Eventually productive people say fuck it and produce so little that you expand more effort trying to take shit from us. Then you starve.

 

[silverhandorder]

Just stop feeding the troll. Its clear this guy is a lost cause at this point.

I like feeding trolls as long as he gets called out often enough no one is going to lose nerves over him.

 

[AxisMundi]

A damn good speculation. I came from a society where this happened and I see no difference between America and former USSR. Same attitudes same radicalization.

In Russia, opinions speculate you!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

In seriousness, however, one cannot compare Soviet Russia, or any other country, to the United States. Not only does our g'mental system tend to be unique, our culture is as well. US Citizens simply would not put up with what you speculate.

Car insurance would be around even if they did not mandate it.

And without g'ment mandating car insurance, do you really think they would be as wealthy and such a powerful lobby group with state legislatures?

It only needs to be paid for once and that is by the trucking company. I pay for all those mini charges when I pay at the store.

Might I suggest you research this a little more? Road taxes are an annual charge, and along with fuel prices are killing many of the smaller owner-operators. Your local taxes pay for the roads and bridges you sue regardless of how you try and twist out of it. Whether you walk, ride a bus, or drive, everyone utilizes public roads. What you pay for in your "mini-charges" go to the company, not the g'ment.

Then you shouldn't own a home.

That sounds a bit like "If you don't like America, move". You apparently do not support taxes, but you are in fact defending taxes in the form of your user fees.

Especially in an urban setting, a fire can spread quickly and get out of hand, involving structures either connected directly with the one of fire, or structures very close by. Say I have my fire "insurance" and the neighbor doesn't. Guess what, my house can burn down because his did because he "shouldn't own a house".

Not more than car service.

The ride alone can cost upwards of $6,000. If you have a life threatening condition and they must utilize a paramedic, the cost can easily soar over $20,000 as you pay for the equipment and materials used to save your life.

Or maybe if we can't afford it, we shouldn't ride in an ambulance, just like we shouldn't own a home?

And what about police?

"911'
"There's a burglar in my home, he's coming up the stairs"
"Sorry ma'am, our records show you haven't paid your user fee".
click.

Good then stop giving me doomsday scenarios when you are contradicting your self as you speak.

Feel free to show what doomsday scenarios and what contradictions.

Ah and asking for hand outs in the form of subsidized college and health care is what exactly? What do you support concretely? I support no deficits. I want a mechanism that will enforce it. What do you want? More hand outs?

Subsidized health care is already in place for our Elders and the infirm. If you are speaking about National Health Care, I do not support that. College loans are loans, repaid by the student. I have returned to school thirty years after graduating high school. I will have to pay back every cent loaned to me by the g'ment after I graduate.

Loans, SSi, Medicaid/Medicare do not contribute to the deficit.

Theft is theft. Fortunately that has been eliminated by capitalism. Your social safety net will have us back at that when million of dependent people realize money has ran out and there is not enough shit to feed them all.

More unfounded speculation.

You and a mob give power to one mafia. This is what you do. The rest of us have to fucking live with that and pay you blood suckers off. Eventually productive people say fuck it and produce so little that you expand more effort trying to take shit from us. Then you starve.

Your reply above makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I stick to my personal motto of not trying to convince people over the age of 35-40. It is a waste of precious time and resources, and by the time we can start to reverse the trend and return to a causal-realist approach, they will be dead. In any event, I have to laugh at the supreme idiocy one partakes in when you say we all use public services at some point -- of course we will, it is a monopolist institution! Stop stealing from people and we won't have to use Government monopolies, it's the whole point of what those of us who value property and liberty stand for, and who abhor thievery and malfeasance. Continue on though....

(PS: You are the quintessential socialist. Your thinking is extremely parallel, and Bastiat rightfully saw you for what you were 170 years ago. Ta-ta)

 

[aGameOfThrones]

1960 Scotus case of Flemming v. Nestor.

It involved Bulgarian-born Ephram Nestor, who was deported in 1956, having been involved in Communist activity in the 1930s. The federal government denied him his Social Security benefits, citing 1954 amendments to the Social Security Act that denied payments to anyone deported for criminal activity after August of that year. Nestor Sued on the grounds that "throughout the history of the Social Security Act, old-age insurance benefits have been referred to as a right of the recipient which he has earned and paid for."

The federal government prepared a legal brief in defense of its position that Nestor was not entitled to his benefits. The brief explained that Social Security was in no sense a federally administered "insurance program" under which each worker pays premiums over the years and acquires at retirement an indefeasible right to receive for life a fixed monthly benefit,irrespective of the conditions which Congress has chosen to impose from time to time.... The "contribution" exacted under the social security plan from an employee...is a True Tax. It is not comparable to a premium under a policy of insurance promising the payment of an annuity commencing at a designated age.

From Thomas Woods JR. 33 questions about American History.

"To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands. It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and [363 U.S. 603, 611] has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of the Act.

...

We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. FLEMMING v. NESTOR, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)"


*******


"The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical assistance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? It is not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power." Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co, 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935)

BTW, SS is voluntary to get.

 

[AxisMundi]

I stick to my personal motto of not trying to convince people over the age of 35-40. It is a waste of precious time and resources, and by the time we can start to reverse the trend and return to a causal-realist approach, they will be dead. In any event, I have to laugh at the supreme idiocy one partakes in when you say we all use public services at some point -- of course we will, it is a monopolist institution! Stop stealing from people and we won't have to use Government monopolies, it's the whole point of what those of us who value property and liberty stand for, and who abhor thievery and malfeasance. Continue on though....

(PS: You are the quintessential socialist. Your thinking is extremely parallel, and Bastiat rightfully saw you for what you were 170 years ago. Ta-ta)

Stealing. Violence. Examples o terms of hysteria.

Good thing I'll be dead, because you people wills crew things up so bad I'll be the lucky one.

Don't let the door hitcha, young'un.

 

[AxisMundi]

1960 Scotus case of Flemming v. Nestor.

It involved Bulgarian-born Ephram Nestor, who was deported in 1956, having been involved in Communist activity in the 1930s. The federal government denied him his Social Security benefits, citing 1954 amendments to the Social Security Act that denied payments to anyone deported for criminal activity after August of that year. Nestor Sued on the grounds that "throughout the history of the Social Security Act, old-age insurance benefits have been referred to as a right of the recipient which he has earned and paid for."

The federal government prepared a legal brief in defense of its position that Nestor was not entitled to his benefits. The brief explained that Social Security was in no sense a federally administered "insurance program" under which each worker pays premiums over the years and acquires at retirement an indefeasible right to receive for life a fixed monthly benefit,irrespective of the conditions which Congress has chosen to impose from time to time.... The "contribution" exacted under the social security plan from an employee...is a True Tax. It is not comparable to a premium under a policy of insurance promising the payment of an annuity commencing at a designated age.

From Thomas Woods JR. 33 questions about American History.

"To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands. It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and [363 U.S. 603, 611] has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of the Act.

...

We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. FLEMMING v. NESTOR, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)"


*******


"The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical assistance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? It is not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power." Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co, 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935)

BTW, SS is voluntary to get.

I would be very concerned if I was born overseas and deported for criminal activities.

 

[Vessol]

So Axis, I got to ask, why are you here? This isn't a purity or whatever question, I disagree with plenty of people here, but we agree on many issues. I've found no issues that you've agreed on with me or anyone else on this forum.

 

[rvkpa]

Getting back to the matter at hand, if I may? There are several problems with Social Security, and these are the ones that stand out to me.

Social Security is "mandatory spending." A government program that is classified as mandatory spending can't be affected by the congressional budget process, and can basically grow infinitely. This is a huge part of the budget. Even defense spending is discretionary and subject to the budget process. If the money isn't there the government has no choice but to raise taxes or borrow the money to pay people.

Social Security is borrowed against by the federal government through treasury bills. No matter how many dollars you borrow from yourself you'll never have more than you had in the first place. When I take money out of the ATM machine I'm not any richer than I was before. The physical dollars continue to be used for other programs making Social Security nothing more than another, horribly regressive, tax.

Since the money isn't there in the first place, current workers are subsidizing current beneficiaries. With the current demographic problem, less workers, more beneficiaries, additional stress is being put on the system.

These 3 simple facts illustrate a system that isn't working. Any change to benefits, retirement ages, etc doesn't impact the systemic issues with the program. The program is essentially holding the federal budget hostage. Medicare works the exact same way.

Until politicians sit on national television have their mea culpa moment and come clean, We'll never be able to move past this. They took your money and borrowed it from themselves for other purposes. There is no trust fund. There needs to be an admission of guilt, an explanation of the problem, and a phase out of the current program. Our current and soon-to-be seniors who are counting on social security do need education on the problem and support in the aftermath, but the country must move forward from this horrible program.

 

[AxisMundi]

So Axis, I got to ask, why are you here? This isn't a purity or whatever question, I disagree with plenty of people here, but we agree on many issues. I've found no issues that you've agreed on with me or anyone else on this forum.

Obviously you and I have not debated on such issues as illegal aliens or TSA policy, among other concerns.

Unless you agree with unlimited immigration and TSA policies?

 

[AxisMundi]

Getting back to the matter at hand, if I may? There are several problems with Social Security, and these are the ones that stand out to me.

Social Security is "mandatory spending." A government program that is classified as mandatory spending can't be affected by the congressional budget process, and can basically grow infinitely. This is a huge part of the budget. Even defense spending is discretionary and subject to the budget process. If the money isn't there the government has no choice but to raise taxes or borrow the money to pay people.

Social Security is borrowed against by the federal government through treasury bills. No matter how many dollars you borrow from yourself you'll never have more than you had in the first place. When I take money out of the ATM machine I'm not any richer than I was before. The physical dollars continue to be used for other programs making Social Security nothing more than another, horribly regressive, tax.

Since the money isn't there in the first place, current workers are subsidizing current beneficiaries. With the current demographic problem, less workers, more beneficiaries, additional stress is being put on the system.

These 3 simple facts illustrate a system that isn't working. Any change to benefits, retirement ages, etc doesn't impact the systemic issues with the program. The program is essentially holding the federal budget hostage. Medicare works the exact same way.

Until politicians sit on national television have their mea culpa moment and come clean, We'll never be able to move past this. They took your money and borrowed it from themselves for other purposes. There is no trust fund. There needs to be an admission of guilt, an explanation of the problem, and a phase out of the current program. Our current and soon-to-be seniors who are counting on social security do need education on the problem and support in the aftermath, but the country must move forward from this horrible program.

One thing you forgot to note. For the 30+ years of my working career, I have been supporting those already receiving SSi benefits. When I am receiving benefits, the younger generation will be supporting the system, and when the younger generation is receiving benefits, the next generation after will be supporting the system. So on and so forth.