Posted on 05/14/2010 7:18:01 AM PDT by Washi
Pretty good, but a little bit misleading.
The comment on the original tax rate is incomplete and could lead one to think that proponents said that 1% would be the permanent rate. In their orginal propaganda, SS proponents openly acknowledged that the rate would escalate to 3% per year, and that would be “the most you would ever pay.” See http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssb36.html for the official 1936 Government Pamphlet on Social Security.
The e-mail also would lead the reader to believe that Democrats have only cut the benefits to deserving recipients through taxation, but this is also incorrect. Democrats have also passed legislation that greatly increased benefits. As originally set up, SS had no escalator for inflation. It was a Democratic Congress that enacted the 1972 COLA legislation to inflation-adjust Social Security payments to recipients. COLA severed the last connection between SS and any resemblance to an actuarially sound pension system. However, with COLA, the Democrats awarded SS recipients with ever larger checks and assured that AARP would be in their coalition of special interests for decades to come.
The e-mail critique is generally correct, but it does not address the chief flaw of SS: it is a coercive Ponzi scheme. As such, it not a pension system but rather a welfare program. Regardless of what “contributions” are called, they are taxes according to the Supreme Court. The same court has also ruled that “entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractural right”, and further “the noncontractural interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity”. In other words, SS is a welfare program. That’s the real disgrace of SS: the Democrats seduced the once fiercely independent and individualistic Americans to fall in love with a welfare program and to become dependent upon Leviathan for their welfare in old age.
you mean it’s not in Algore’s lockbox?
” . . . But, pros and cons of the FairTax are sort of off topic here. Perhaps we can discuss it further on one of the FairTax threads.”
We are duty-bound to make the applications as they come up and as we are aware of them.
ONE VALID APPLICATION: Fair Tax! What they did with their power to set and then increase and increase some more, the rates in the matter of Social Security, they will do with ANY system -— tax or otherwise. So what is the rate Mr. Boortz says should be the national sales tax rate?
Whatever it is, were it to become law, our modern congresses would increase it incrementally-—and add a VAT. The rate would never remain the same, it would continuously increase. And the returns from the Fair Tax system would be be modified down to nothing as well.
You say you have a problem with the FairTax, but your problem seems to be really with legislators who will abuse any tax system. It is up to the voters to put a stop to it.
Having a transparent tax system would help, which is a good reason to like the FairTax. Under the FairTax voters and taxpayers would see how much the government takes with every purchase they make as contrasted to the hidden costs and forced compliance with other tax schemes. So, what don’t you like about the FairTax that is not a problem with other tax schemes and how does that relate to the topic of this thread?
“You say you have a problem with the FairTax, but your problem seems to be really with legislators who will abuse any tax system. It is up to the voters to put a stop to it.”
1. I have a problem with ALL tax systems.
2. This is what will happen-——
If the Fair Tax (or something like it) is passed: (1) the rates will continuously rise; (2) The electorate won’t stop it, nor turn congress out, because by that time the majority of the electorate will consist of alien residents who grew up on socialism or under other dictatorships and native born, college-brainwashed progressives.
(3) The government (sliding into Marxism as it now is) will begin creating special grocery outlets or depots where the “poor,” “underprivileged,” and minorities will not have to pay the “Fair” Tax; the rest of us will have to pay, and at a higher rate each month. These kinds of food depots for oils, grains, eggs, and many staples, were present in China (until about 1993), and they were also part of the Soviet system. This is also a way to control the movement of the population, just as the “secure driver licenses” in various states are intended to do.
“Having a transparent tax system would help, which is a good reason to like the Fair Tax.”
What I pay in taxes is perfectly transparent to me. I don’t understand the transparency argument. Do you mean that you don’t see each pay period how much government is taking from your pay check? It’s not transparent to you? Who doesn’t receive a stub with an income tax and FICA report on it?
” . . . how does that relate to the topic of this thread?
The topic of the thread is to teach a lesson, by using the Social Security System, how that once Government creates or adopts a program, it gets distorted, twisted, and abused.
The same will happen to the Fair Tax, and so I am using it as an illustration of a potential future tax scheme to which the same lesson should apply. That’s how it relates.
Think of ANY — ANY — bar none — tax scheme you can conceive, this federal government is going to distort it.
Far too many people can't see beyond their tax refund and they have no understanding of what they actually pay. This current system has too many hidden taxes and compliance costs and is way too complex. I know this from my experience as a CPA and tax accountant.
If the Fair Tax (or something like it) is passed:
I pretty much agree with what you say about how legislators can and will abuse any tax scheme. In particular, the three reasons you give. i.e., continual rising rates, inaction by the electorate, and government cronyism, can corrupt any tax scheme. I just wonder why you singled out the FairTax in Post 12 since all tax schemes are subject to the same kinds of abuses.
It was doomed from the start.
Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.
You are right. There is no magic potion. What there is though is a lot of hard work to turn this country around, if that's even possible.
Do you ever participate in the FairTax threads? They get pretty heated sometimes with a lot of "romanticising" on both sides.
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.