Posted on 04/20/2015 5:05:31 PM PDT by Sean_Anthony
If anything needs cutting or confiscating is the politicians' power and insatiable desire to spend the taxpayers' money
The Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, gave a speech on Tuesday, April 14, 2015, in which he proposed, among other things, raising the retirement age from 67 to 69. He stated that, “We should remember that Social Security at its core should be retirement insurance. I’m suggesting that Americans pay into the system throughout the course of their life, knowing that it will be there, if they need it, to support them in their later years, so seniors will not grow old in back-breaking poverty. But, if you are fortunate enough not to need it, you will have paid into a system that will continue to help Americans, neighbors, friends, who need it the most… It is fair, and it is what we must continue to do. We can only do that by changing Social Security.”
According to our government’s website, “The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.” It is important to note that it is a TAX, not an insurance premium, and it is not an insurance program.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Mr. Christie, it may be many things...but punishing those who earn, sacrifice and save, because they have...is not “fair.”
I’ve assumed for years that my SS will disappear into some form of means testing, and those of us who saved and planned will be expected to give it up for the good of those who did NOT plan and save.
I just didn’t expect the GOP to take the lead in proposing it...
What does being "fortunate" have to do with it?
I worked hard for decades. My family and I lived below our means. For most of my life I owned two pairs of shoes.
One of the cars I owned I drove for over twenty years.
What I've accumulated to support my wife and me in retirement is not the result of "good fortune", it is the result of "good sense".
The next step for politicians after deciding that I don't need Social Security, is to decide that I don't need some of what I accumulated despite having contributed to Social Security during my entire working life.
We see now the inevitable end of socialism happening in Greece. Any municipality wise enough to have put something aside for a rainy day, is now finding the central government confiscating the money because the municipality obviously doesn't need it as bad as the central government.
This will not end well. I see dead people.
And contrary to this author's belief it is, subsequent laws which govern Social Security withholding clearly indicate what the payments are. FICA, the Federal INSURANCE Contributions Act, under which OASDI, Old Age, Survivors, and Disability INSURANCE are collected. Everybody may call them taxes, but the language of the laws say otherwise.
Why do all this? IIRC, there was some brouhaha over ObamaCare being taxes or insurance - something about government assessing taxes without benefit of Congress' doing. Other times when Democrats want to complain about the 'high' taxes for the poor (those who even get EITC - credit for money they never earned towards taxes they never paid) they cite the infamous 'payroll taxes'.
To me the point of the matter is that government and their ilk use the terms interchangeably using one over the other when they are trying to get around something legally. In the end, the withholding from your check is clearly indicated as a contribution to insurance, not a tax.
Bookmark
bookmark
So why bother saving, if we’re just going to get penalized for it, and we’ll get a check if we haven’t saved anything?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.