I believe there are headlines in the newspaper archives....social security will fail...social security will be broke in 1975....social security will be broke by 1980....social security will be broke in 1985....it's a thorn in the Republican side and always will be ideologically - adjust the tax rates and money issues are fixed - the ideology remains the issue. sammieswife.
Tea Partiers Say They Would Absolutely Abolish Social Security
by sammielee24 108 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
sammielee24
Let's try again - here's a novel idea!
a fix to ensure that benefits end up where they're supposed to needn't be anything radical. You could raise the cap on Social Security taxes, for instance (the tax is only paid on the first $106,800 of income, meaning most people pay it on 100 percent of their salaries, while Alex Rodriguez pays it on less than 4 percent of his salary). If, on the other hand, you think the system is in crisis and is going broke, you're going to favor much more painful solutions.
.....sammieswife.
-
Elsewhere
> I am still not hearing a coherent answer on how to pay for the social programs into the future.
As a Fiscal Conservative, my thoughts on this is very simple: If the people want Social Security, then it must be paid for. It must be paid for using two options... eliminate other programs or raise taxes.
-
sammielee24
Too logical Elsewhere...too coherent....sammieswife.
-
BurnTheShips
adjust the tax rates and money issues are fixed
No, this is a falsehood. Impartial dynamic estimates demonstrate that you cannot raise taxes enough to create the revenues. And if you do, you will strangle the economy, and your revenues will fall despite the higher rates.
You either have to outright kill the thing, or reduce the benefits in some way.
I believe there are headlines in the newspaper archives....social security will fail...social security will be broke in 1975....social security will be broke by 1980....social security will be broke in 1985....it's a thorn in the Republican side and always will be ideologically
Social security is already in the red this year, a decade ahead of schedule. And it isn't "your money", by the way. It isn't an individual retirement account that you own. It goes into the general coffers so that statists of all stripes can use it to pay off constituents. Social Security is the greatest ponzi scheme ever invented. Thanks, FDR.
Keep whistling past the graveyard.
BTS
-
thomas15
Social Security was supposed to be self supporting. It isn't now. SS is/has been broke for years. The reason why it is still going is because it borrows money to pay out benifits. There is a point, somewhere in the future where there is no more money to borrow.
When started, there were 30 workers paying for every person collecting benifits. Today there are 3 workers paying SS tax for every person collecting. If you cannot see how this cannot continue forever, then there is no point in me trying to discuss this with you as reality is not something you care about.
-
Elsewhere
Burns, I don't see how your analogy applies to Social Security.
The amount one gets paid from Social Security is directly proportional to how much money you have earned over your life.
If you do not earn any money, you don't get any social security.
Social Security is NOT a free hand out.
-
JWoods
It goes into the general coffers so that statists of all stripes can use it to pay off constituents. Social Security is the greatest ponzi scheme ever invented. Thanks, FDR.
And here is the problem with the editorial that says - "oh don't worry that is spends more than it takes in this year...it has a huge reserve that will last over 30 years..."
That social security surplus is NOT IN THE BANK. It has been loaned to the government and used for the general fund for decades. The government is in no position to pay it back - except by the delusional printing of more money.
As a Fiscal Conservative, my thoughts on this is very simple: If the people want Social Security, then it must be paid for. It must be paid for using two options... eliminate other programs or raise taxes.
The problem with eliminating "other programs" to save social security is that there are no other programs vast enough to pay for the growing demands of social security. Raising taxes is also problematical, as it confines the economy, which is also in trouble.
-
BurnTheShips
Social Security is a scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff blush. Roosevelt himself said the following about the payroll taxes and the motivations behind this public marketing scheme:
…those taxes were never a problem of economics.
They were politics all the way through.
We put those payroll contributions there so
as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and
political right to collect their pensions and
their unemployment benefits. With those taxes
in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my
Social Security program.Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson arguing before the court in 1937:
…these benefits are in the nature of pensions or
gratuities. There is no contract created by
which any person becomes entitled as a matter
of right to sue the United States or to maintain
a claim for any particular sum of money. Not
only is there no contract implied but it is
expressly negated, because it is provided in
the Act, Section 1104, that it may be repealed,
altered, or amended in any of its provisions at
any time. This Court has held that a pension
granted by the Government is a matter of
bounty, that the pensioner has no legal right to
his pension, and that they may be given, withheld,
distributed, or recalled at the discretion
of Congress.A letter from an individual who lost his social security when Congress changed the law to deny benefits to those who were self-employed making over a certain amount:
My position is that Congress has violated the
sanctity of a contract, to which I am a party, . .
. and it is a well-established principle of law
that no valid contract can be altered or
amended without the consent of both contracting
parties. . . .
Since the inception of the plan I have paid
my premiums by payroll deductions until
April 1947, when it became necessary for me
to retire . . . from that time until January 1951 I
received the benefits to which I was entitled. I
engaged in business promptly thereafter as a
self-employed person . . . as self-employed
persons were not covered by the then existing
statute. I continued to receive my social-security
benefits until the new act.
The people who get social security paid for
it. It is their money, they invested it during all
the years to the social-security fund. The social
security is not a charity. It is a form of insurance.
How has the Government the right to
take the money away or to say how much
these people can or cannot earn?Social Security is a welfare program paid for in current taxes and a redistribution of wealth. The idea that it is a retirement insurance or account in any way owned or controlled or inherently due to the financiers, taxpayers, is a facade that makes it politically untouchable. This lie is compounded by the claim that payroll taxes are kept in a trust fund earning interest to pay beneficiaries. The books are cooked. The funds are used as general funds and replaced with government bonds. In other words, the government borrows money from itself promising to pay itself back with interest. How does the government pay interest…well since all of its money comes from taxpayers, the taxpayers pay the interest and pay back the government bonds or IOUs. All smoke and mirrors in order to protect this coercive and government expanding program.
-
sammielee24
Like the article said - it ain't broke but if you don't like the answer, if you don't like the fix, you'll keep on harping about destroying it. He's right. I don't see much of anything by way of resolution here....makes the writer absolutely correct in his analogy of the Republican mindset. It offends ideologically - plain and simple. sammieswife.