Posted on 01/18/2005 12:36:09 PM PST by hinterlander
One of the best analysis I read so far about the subject. Great post!
ping
Actually Medicare is the more frightening monster. The sum of the cost of Social Security plus Medicare will continue to consume an ever-increasing share of GDP until benefits are cut. Exactly when that will happen is an open question. We'll be able to look at other countries with worse demographics (i.e. European countries & Japan) for a preview.
I can't tell you his name, but his initials are "Ted Kennedy". :)
This post fails to place the blame back on our politicians who heralded only two children because of a supposed population explosion. It also fails to address the theft by the politicians through spending the monies leaving IOU's that can not be met. Further, it fails to address the politicians that changed the rules to receive SS.
I do not believe the common man was at fault for any part of the plan not working. It could have worked if our former presidents and politicians had left it alone. But then they can't leave the Constitution alone either and look what has happened.
I sure wish I could find a series of articles I once read. I can’t even remember where I originally read them – probably some newsletter/magazine or something.
Anyway, the author went into painful detail concerning every little thing you’d ever want to know about SS.
It was a series of six or eight articles. By the time he was through and concluded the series, he had “demonstrated” that the U.S. government had absolutely no legal obligation to ever pay you a single cent. (At least as of that time, maybe 15 years ago or so.)
That was his determination after looking into the legal particulars concerning how it was originally set up, what changes had been made over time, and more importantly, what glaring loopholes were in the language.
That’s what his verdict was anyway – that if you think they made a “promise” that they (legally) have to keep, or if you think they are obligated to return a single cent to you, you are simply mistaken.
I’ve looked around trying to locate an on-line version but haven’t been able to. I can’t even remember the authors name… something will jog my memory eventually.
Unfortunately, early recipients did not pay in the system and our elderly are living longer because of new medical breakthroughs. The promise was simple enough: you pay into the system and you can withdraw upon retirement. That was later amended to include people like spouses who didn't pay into the system could draw a percentage based upon the working spouse even though the non-working spouses never paid into the system. Amendments like these are tended to bankrupt the social security system. Then on top of that problem comes SSI. Every jane, joe, offspring and illegal alien can figure out a way to draw SSI. Further draining the social security system. And this list keeps on getting bigger and bigger thanks to our Washington politicians and bloated bureaucracy.
Bingo! And Medicare was never a part of the SS plan.
I do not believe the common man was at fault for any part of the plan not working. It could have worked if our former presidents and politicians had left it alone. But then they can't leave the Constitution alone either and look what has happened.
6 posted on 01/18/2005 12:49:39 PM PST by Trout-Mouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Fine. Keep your SS dollars but stop taking my 'share' out of my pay and let me do what I will with it.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that you are entitled to exactly jack squat from SS.
.......................the 'CFR'....?
It's an insurance arrangement. One could argue the "theft" between all sorts of classes of premium payers and ultimate recipients. By far the largest "theft", or disparity, is between those who die early versus late. Morbid, but already attempted by the Bush Admin. It has expressly floated the idea to the black community that since blacks averagely die earlier than whites they should climb on board the privatization plan.
SS is incredibly advantageous "investment" if you live long. What the median age for receiving more than paying I don't know. Someone does, but it probably doesn't help their position so I guess we won't hear it.
Now women live longer than men, should men be courted with this wedge issue?
What Promise?
I never heard one, I have heard over my lifetime the Wailing demands of the gimme crowd.
In my opinion the most fair thing to do is return all money, with compound interest to people who've paid it. Current retirees are an issue. Converting their balance, as calculated above, less payments and converting it to annuity would be straight forward.
My system is "you get what you earned, nothing more". Then of course we could have another program called "Gift of Current Taxpayers to Old People who Did not Earn Enough to Live Comfortably". All contributions to is (whether voluntary or involuntary) should be tax deductable as it is clearly charity, and should be identified as such.
SS is incredibly advantageous "investment" if you live long. What the median age for receiving more than paying I don't know. Someone does, but it probably doesn't help their position so I guess we won't hear it.
Now women live longer than men, should men be courted with this wedge issue?
14 posted on 01/18/2005 1:00:20 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
the national 'vested-interest'......?
/'CFR'
There are "conservatives" on this site who defend this Ponzi scheme.
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.