Social insecurity

They give with one hand and take with another," said Abe Goldberg, 72

You're still one up on me Abe. Since I was 15 they've been taking with both hands.

Senators Approve Own Raise
For a Fifth Straight Year
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted itself a pay raise for the fifth straight year, boosting the annual salary to about $158,000 in 2004.
The House also agreed last month to accept an increase in the annual cost-of-living allowance, which gives all members of Congress a boost of about 2.2% in their take-home pay starting in January.
Sen. Russell Feingold (D., Wis.), who every year stands up against pay increases, said that with the economy still weak and many Americans finding it hard to make ends meet, it was "the wrong time for Congress to give itself a pay hike."
"This automatic stealth pay raise system is just wrong," he added.
Mr. Feingold said that with an annual increase of about $3,400 slated for next year, an election year, members of Congress will have received a $21,000 raise in their pay over the past five years.
The Senate, by a 60-34 margin, tabled or killed his amendment to a pending appropriations bill.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R., Alaska) said it was a mistake to call the adjustment a pay raise, and that lawmakers were merely receiving a cost-of-living increase being given to other federal workers and military personnel. "This increase is required by law," he said.
The pay issue was taken up as part of a $90 billion spending bill for fiscal 2004 for the departments of Transportation and Treasury. It includes a 4.1% raise for both civilian and military employees. Under a complicated formula, that translates to about 2.2% for members of Congress. This year, rank-and-file members will receive $154,700 each.
That is slightly less than the average wage increase in private business. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, wages among all nongovernment workers rose an average 2.7% from July 2002 through June 2003.
The 2.2% increase also applies to the vice president, congressional leaders and Supreme Court justices. President Bush's $400,000 salary is unaffected by the legislation.

Wall Street Journal - 10/23/03

These guys vote themselves raises, increase our taxes, and do not pay into a social security system they created because it isn't good enough for them. American Taxpayers need another tea party.

This SS scam should never had been started in the first place. Thank you Roosevelt! Just a method for the politicians to beat us over the head with every election year so as to get re-elected.

End the concept of income-based taxation. It doesn't work. It is bound to collapse under its own weight, just like any socialist scheme.

For America to survive as we know her, the income tax must be eliminated.

$11,000/year for an 70-yr old widow with an unwed pregnant teenage granddaughter living with her. Poverty line is $12,353 for this scenario (U.S. Census Bureau). That's compassion? About as compassionate as giving the homeless drunk a cardboard box to sleep in.

Just think what her deceased husband could have done with his hard-earned income over his decades of work if he had been able to take those SS taxes and invest them in the company pension plan.

Gad, I wish the would "let my people go" from this daily-looted ponzi scheme.

Just think what her deceased husband could have done with his hard-earned income over his decades of work if he had been able to take those SS taxes and invest them in the company pension plan.

It's like cutting off a healthy leg and replacing it with a cheap prosthesis.

Why don't we just cancel Social Security-Maybe we use the retirement system that the Congress has - Contribute 7% of our income - then retire after 10-12 years of "service" with an retirement of 60 to 70 thousand annually. Looks good to me.

For America to survive as we know her, the income tax must be eliminated.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Social Security is, and always has been, a PONZI scheme. The fact that it is a government run Ponzi scheme in no way makes it immune to the laws of nature and It WILL fall of it's own weight eventually. There is NO way around it.

They should cancel the Earned Income Tax Credit which is promoted by the left as a rebate of the payroll taxes. It makes no sense to rebate payments into a pension/retirement system yet not decrease their future claims on Social Security and Medicare. They get the same credit for quarters worked even if they don't pay in the tax.

The other thing is that with Medicare premiums growing 10 to 15 percent per year it's only a matter of 10-20 years where retirees pay a quarter or more of their Social Security check just to keep Medicare.

"They give with one hand and take with another," said Abe Goldberg, 72

About one-third of Americans 65 and older count on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income

The government, and the politicians that run it, has gained more power over us as more Americans depend on it for their income. We have slowly sacrificed our independence for the promise of future care as we grow old. As a result, we have become wards of the socialist state in our contract with them called Social Security.

My suggestions, complete with offsets below. It's not ideal, but might be generally acceptable to left and right. It's a terrible thing to have to correct this mess, but someone needs to do it. And it must be done with ONE overriding objective: allowing people to create their own wealth and future. When the Founders said "freedom" - they meant we were to be free to be prosperous through productivity and thrift, but they never meant we were to be guaranteed freedom from want.

1. Freeze congressional salaries and benefits, as well as staff size for the next 10 years.
2. Keep the promise to seniors for SS payments who are on it now, and those who are 50 or older as of 1/1/04 and want to be a part of this bad investment.
3. Exempt folks in category #2 above who have a current net worth of over $1M. They must continue to pay (if working) taxes into the system, but they will never see any of it in benefits.
4. Allow singles still in the SS scheme to elect a beneficiary to receive (in one non-taxable lump sum) exactly what they put into the system if the taxpayer dies before they are eligible to receive benefits.
5. Raise eligibility age to 67.
4. Allow those under 50 as of 1/1/04 to extract themselves completely, requiring them to place the equivalent amount (pre-tax) of what they would have paid in SS taxes into any sound investment instrument of their choosing via direct deposit or other transfer.

It WILL fall of it's own weight eventually...

Very soon, in fact.

Wage-earners are forced to forfeit 15.3% of their labor value to the govenrment - with a "promise" of returning the money at a 0% return - some decades in the future. Of course, you'll only get the money if you live long enough, and if the money is there (and if the Senate doesn't vote itself so many pay raises as to deplete it!).

Why would it be bad to allow individual Americans to keep 100% of their paycheck, with no federal deductions? They could then spend, save, or invest as they see fit. Why does government think they can do better??? - I know, I know, they don't think so... they just know that they can use the income tax code to steal as much of our money as they want - when they want it.... then they use our stolen money (a great portion of it) to buy votes to retain power.

Ending the income tax would end this power grab.

Everything you have said is true but half measures or no longer in order. The ONLY long term cure is the one suggested by the poster Principaled. Get them OUT of our paychecks entirely!

May I be so bold as to rephrase

"For America to survive as we know her, the income tax must be eliminated."

to:

For America to survive as we know her, the income tax must be replaced with a National Retail Sales Tax and the IRS abolished!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

You've taken it a step further, Taxman. You proposed a solution!

How will a national retail sales tax affect social security?

My suggestions, complete with offsets below.

Not bad. I'd recommend some sort of sliding scale so you don't have a hard cutoff at 50, something like:
- Those under 30 (which includes me) will receive no benefits. No great loss as polls show most of us never expect to receive them anyway.
- Those between 30 and 50 will receive a percentage of the (fraudulently) promised benefits, e.g. a 35 year old would receive 25%, a 45 year old would receive 75%, and so forth.

But those are just details. Social Security has resulted in a staggering debt in the form of promises to retirees and current workers (some of which can be broken, but much of which can't), and we must fix it as soon as possible. It gets worse every day we delay.

BTTT............HUA !

Of course Chief Negotiator will want to read this too.........:o)

Stay Safe !

What is good for the politicians is not good for the Peon's.

Good question, Principled.

Initially, no significant effect. Both the Fair Tax and the Tauzin NRST keep SS in place and fully fund the benefits.

My sincere belief is that over time, when working men and women see how much faster their private "retirement nest egg" grows in the FRee market than the government ponzi scheme that is "Social Security," they will demand that SS be totally privatized.

It is obvious to all but the most biased observers that SS and MediCare are government scams and neither can be sustained much longer.

I just hope I live long enough to see the implosion!