But but but ...
All the retired LEO that not only get an inflated pension, but take a disability payment tax free from SS on top of it.
We cant make them look bad !
I paid 12% of my income for 25 years. I know eventually the government is going to say I can’t have Soc. Sec. because I was stupid enough to save money and try and advance myself
More statist thievery and lies.
AT LEAST let me opt out entirely
It’s fine if his rich friends do this VOLUNTARILY but to make it public policy would be more thievery.
Government needs that tax money to transport in tens of thousands of well dressed Syrian "refugee" terrorists, all while aiding and abetting tens of millions of illegal aliens.
I hope that The Donald understands specifically ^where^ that unused money goes.
You would think that The Donald would not to back-door fund Fedzilla.
The ideological purist in me winces.
But I know we’ve gone far enough down the road towards Socialism in this country that a right-leaning Populist is the best we can hope for this cycle. Go Trump!
When a presidential campaign talks about encouraging his rich friends to give up SS benefits voluntarily, I think he is preparing the ground for involuntary means testing. At least Christie has been straightforward about his intentions.
Trump has brought about a realistic perspective. He don’t need it, Rush has said he don’t need it, and a very good friend of mine (who makes a HELL of a lot less than those two) said “I Don’t need it.” My friend was harassed by the government until he GOT it, by the IRS. His interest, alone is over $100,000 per year, single no, kids.
Sounds kind of socialistic to me. And what is a few multi-millionaires giving up a maximum of $32000 a year going to do for the SS system. Isn’t class demagoguery a Democrat tactic?
If they pay in they should get the same benefits as anyone else - otherwise just tax ‘em for being rich and save all the paperwork.....
If you are not going to receive it then you should not have to pay into it.
Trump supporters need to get him and his likewise low-information rich friends up to speed on the following arguments concerning the constitutionality, actually the lack thereof, of Social Security and most federal taxes.
To begin with, the 16th Amendment did not change the case precedent established by state sovereignty-respecting justices that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
But as a consequence of the rich being low-information citizens like most citizens evidently are, they do not understand that the most of the federal taxes that they pay are unconstitutional imo, compliments of the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate. Low-Information senators are unsurprisingly not doing their job to kill non-Section 8 compliant House appropriations bills as the Founding States had intended for the Senate to do.
Next, let’s have a look at Social Security which was wrongly established outside the framework of the Constitution imo.
Although it’s not surprising that low-information, FDR-era justices accepted the 74th’s Congress’s likewise low-information interpretation of the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause (GWC; 1.8.1) when Congress used that clause to justify establishing Social Security, Congress made the same mistake in interpreting the GWC that the 14th Congress did when it drafted the public works act of 1817.
More specifically, President Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had indicated in the constitutionally required veto explanation that the GWC which low-information Congress used to justify that bill was not an express delegation of power to Congress, but basically an introductory clause for the clauses which followed it in Section 8 which were express delegations of power.
”To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.” —Veto of federal public works bill, 1817
Also note that both the FDR era 74th Congress that passed the bill that established Social Security without the required constitutional justification, and the 111th Congress which likewise passed Obamacare without the necessary constitutional justification, had also wrongly ignored the Constitution’s Article V requirement to successfully propose appropriate amendments to Constitution to the states before establishing such spending programs. If the states had chosen to ratify such amendments then Congress would have the constitutional authority that it needs to establish these programs.
With all due respect to mom & pop, the bottom line is that Trump, his rich friends and us 99%ers would probably be richer if everybody's low-information parents (what’s wrong with this picture?) had made sure that Trump, his friends and the rest of us were taught about the fed’s limited power to appropriate taxes.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators who help to pass Section 8-unjustifiable House appropriations bills along with it.
This is the first time I’ve disagreed with him. It’s his rich friend’s money so it’s theirs to take back.
I agree, that if you have a large income, you should not get SS.it is not fair but it might help save it.
I have no problem with people VOLUNTARILY opting out of receiving their Social Security benefits. I have huge problem with the government confiscating people’s money by means-testing a benefit you paid for.
He also added, “that it should be their decision” whether or not to accept SS...slime WSJ apparently didn’t find it necessary to disclose the entire quote.
If you make too much money, the Government Taxes whatever SS you receive anyway.
Before they took the money out of your Paycheck to fund SS, they taxed you on it as well.
What a wonderful system.