It’s an abomination.
I have to chuckle.
Clicked on the link and right in the middle of the story is a pop-in for a Social Security disability lawyer outfit.
Gregory Duncan
54 Years Old
Chronic Fatigue
“The process was very simple. Within a few days, my application was submitted by an experienced attorney and I didn’t pay a dime.
Christie is dead to me.
SS is basically Mr. Christie, a TAX we are forced to pay for our entire working lives so people like you can redistribute it to every louse in the country, every faker, and all the new illegals you people can force onto us....
Christie, keep your filthy communist paws off our Social Security. Its bad enough that the feds are now taxing it (confiscating part of it).
We paid for this miserable pension. We paid...most of us involuntarily... for years and yaers and years.
STAY AWAY from our social security, you da*ned Thief!
(if you insist on confiscating more Soc Security pension payments, start doing it with the NEW enrollees, not with the rest of us who’ve already been paying in. It is DISHONEST in the extreme to tell us what we will receive all these years, while taxing us for it........and then take what you promised away from us. Crooked thieves!
I assume that Fat Boy will run in the Democratic primaries if he decides to run.
BOTH!! Dammit
I am just a lousy retired lifelong taxpayer.
If I can see it, figure it out and document it, why can't our elected criminals of both parties??
Christie speaks like a committed liberal. Social Security is an abomination of the general welfare clause, and has NO place in American society.
That being said, getting us out of the whole SS program starts with giving people control over their contributions, which means FedGov stops using it as a petty cash account, to be tapped whenever the spirit moves them.
Then, we need a stepped reduction in the contribution rate to keep pace with the declining demographics of the last generation to draw from it. I would suggest that people at age 50+ should be assured full benefits. Then, sliding that back by 5% of benefits for each year younger than 50, at the time of adopting such a plan as this; down to zero. So, those at 30 years of age or less, would know that they need to take care of their own planning. The offset would be that Americans once again have to take charge of their own retirement planning.
A return to personal responsibility is not a bad thing.
Just as you are about to retire and get the money you paid high taxes for and with little return, the corrupt politicians raise the retirement age. They are not affected because they have pensions they never put money into.
YOU get to help pay for their retirement.
Mr. Christie, it may be many things...but punishing those who earn, sacrifice and save, because they have...is not “fair.”
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
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?