Posted on 01/27/2013 5:24:56 PM PST by Libloather
**SNIP**
Social Security: 'Chained CPI'
Savings: $112 billion
The idea is to change the way the government figures out how much more seniors should get in Social Security benefits each year to account for changes in their cost of living.
This new formula — a tweak to the consumer price index — would assume that people switch their buying habits when prices rise, rather than just buying the same things over and over. So, for example, if the price of ground beef goes up, someone might buy chicken or fish instead.
The result: Social Security benefits will rise more slowly.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
And when those go up, someone will buy pet food, and when pet food goes up . . . and the downward spin of quality of life continues.
If you don’t participate,
You cannot legislate!
IOW, since the Congress has opted itself out of SS for its own private pension plan, they should have NO SAY over SS.
And, once losing their cpntrol over SS, oversight of the program should be handed over to a citizens committee of actual taxpayers who do participate in SS.
Gotta save that money for welfare and food stamps and new government housing.
Yep. Matter of fact, I believe the New York Times has had that hiring policy for at least a decade. (Or maybe that was "straight people"..?)
It winds up that the president’s wealthy, Northeastern liberal base will go BALLISTIC if he lifts the cap on Social Security earnings (i.e., increases their marginal tax rate by 6.2, right off the top, no deductions or offsets). These are the people that make combined incomes of $200k to $300k and go running around screaming and yelling when the see a cap gun on television. They are CONVINCED that they’re just making ends meet on their income, and given the way they live, they’re probably right. The Republican base, on the other hand, generally doesn’t exceed the earnings cap (as they tend to live in Red States), and thus would be less affected by the move.
That is why this ‘reform’ will never pass.
And the Supreme Court has given them the authority to do that. Social Sceurity is not an entitlement, insurance program, earmark nor earned right. It is a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other.
Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
Nestor sued, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying “To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.” The Court went on to say, “It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”
The Court’s decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”
In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other.
Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington. Congress has cut Social Security benefits in the past and is likely to do so in the future.
Very well stated. And, as I like to put it, the fact that the older people have spent all of their tax money (including SS) and then some (actually a lot, as in $16T) DOES NOT give them the right to make my children into debt slaves for their now-unfunded retirement.
If they want money when they retire, they should have saved their own money. If they didn’t do that, then they should ask THEIR children first (not have the government put a gun to the head of my children). If neither is available, then they should be able to go to the state and take my kids’ money, but only to the point of what is needed to survive.
And don’t give me any crap about an “implied contract”. I started working 30 years ago myself, and EVERYONE back then knew that Social Security money was being spent faster than it came in, on all kinds of stuff beyond Social Security. As you said, it is a payroll TAX, just like an income TAX, it all went the same place and it was ALL spent at that time, and that WAS NOT a state secret.
One significant item draining SS funds is supplemental social security benefits given to seniors who immigrate to US. They have never worked in US and therefore never “contributed” FICA tax. Yet they are given lifelong monthly benefit checks.
“One significant item draining SS funds is supplemental social security benefits given to seniors who immigrate to US. They have never worked in US and therefore never “contributed” FICA tax. Yet they are given lifelong monthly benefit checks.”
No one has contributed to Social Security...they only paid a tax called Social Security. It is a welfare program, or a transfer program (to use a less provocative term, if you will), and the fact that tens of millions of people who never paid that tax (or have paid next to nothing) are cashing in on it only proves it further.
Sorry, one other comment...there is no fund to drain. It is EMPTY, ZERO, ZILCH, WIPE-OUT. All that there is are promises from the Treasury to tax MY KIDS to pay for tomorrow’s (really today’s) ‘benefits’.
Unfortunately one of the largest organizations in the country (40 million members) has spent decades brainwashing people just the opposite.
AARP
“Unfortunately one of the largest organizations in the country (40 million members) has spent decades brainwashing people just the opposite.”
Yes they have. And the feds have done the same, especially with their annual “Social Security Benefit Statements”.
You can see just how effective it is, when you read some of the usual responses to my comments, ON THIS SITE. These are people that honestly know better, they vote conservative EVERY TIME - but have been so conditioned that any substantial reform is a lost cause, and the country WILL go down...big time.
But President Obama, the people have no bread.
“Then let them eat cake” or crap or whatever.
My favorite theoretical question, a litmus test for conservatives is this: Would you roll our government back to its limited constitutionally activities even if you have to give up Social Security? I rarely get a yes and usually hear a litany of excuses as to why that person, who claims to be in favor of limited, small, constitutional, low tax, stay out of my life government, is owed, or earned, or promised, or sacrificed, or served in the military, is owed their check and how most everyone else did not.
Many of them are on this forum.
“Many of them are on this forum.”
Yes they are, and I hear the same, angry, lines from them. As I often point out, they are in STRONGLY in favor of welfare to the OTHER GUYS, but not to themselves (such as means-testing Social Security).
It is really sad. These are the people that we need to support freedom in this country, but FDR was able to buy them off...even 70 years after his death.
The huge numbers getting classified as disabled when unemployment runs out is a greater drain. More people are classifying as disabled and getting Social Security Disability than getting jobs many months.
I think the liberal base is primed to ‘sacrifice for the common good’.
Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
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.