It's not your Money:The truth about Social Security

Sierra Times ^ | 12. 13. 02 | By Robert Greenslade

[Bigun]

Searched for this and didn't find it so I posted it as it is TRUTH which cannot be stated more clearly!

[Bigun]

This is one you all MUST READ and understand!

[Torie]

The article is accurate. That is why I like social security. It is just a social safety net, that mitigates in old age the consequences of those that led a laissez les bon temps roulez life. The phony "surplus" which is being spent is a "problem" that will soon take care of itself, when the cash flows turn negative in a few years. Then Congress will have less to spend, and you will be happy, no?

[gieriscm]

I treat my SS taxes as money gone to the gov't, with no return expected. My husband and I do not include SS "benefits" as part of our retirement planning.

[Torie]

Well, cutting benefits would be less spending would it not?

[Bigun]

Then Congress will have less to spend, and you will be happy, no?

Not until we have an HONEST tax system which exposes ALL the costs of government will I be truly happy my friend!

[Bigun]

My husband and I do not include SS "benefits" as part of our retirement planning.

You are wise folks!

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[lewislynn]

Not until we have an HONEST tax system which exposes ALL the costs of government will I be truly happy my friend! ...LOL!

Then you can expect to live a miserable life.

[Bigun]

Then you can expect to live a miserable life.

So YOU say. I choose to think otherwise!

[KC_for_Freedom]

If my wife and I ever see any social security money, we plan to contribute a share of it to politicians working to privatize social security. We will probably give some to the Boy Scouts too.

[Deuce]

If Congress was (sic) truly concerned about the retirement of seniors as they claim in their pleas to save Social Security, they would phase out this fraudulent tax and welfare scheme and allow the American people to create their own retirement program.

There is no fraud. It is openly a social contract between the currently productive and formerly productive members of society. Therefore, the fix IS NOT privatized accounts which merely MISDIRECT the funds from the elderly in need to the heirs of the account holders. Instead, all we have to do is::

1: base it on need (e.g. for every dollar earned through all other sources above $X, reduces SS benefit by, say, $.20;

2. to the extent more is needed to make the system viable, slightly adjust the level of promised benefit, retirement age, and or tax and tax base to achieve viability.

[Bigun]

It is openly a social contract between the currently productive and formerly productive members of society.

No it isn't! It IS a government run PONZI scheme which should be done away with ASAP!

[StriperSniper]

it would also be the honorable thing to do.

That means 'Not a chance'.

[AvgWhiteMale]

Where do you even start in response to this?

[headsonpikes]

It is disastrous in theory, but workable in reality.

Remember, there is no 'Trust Fund'; it's simply a rationalized social welfare scheme. If presented as an investment, of course it's a Ponzi-like scheme, but it's not an investment at all-- it's just another tax.

When a sense of entitlement is as pervasive as folks' attitude toward SS is, then the Government has the sheeple in their hands-- the flock always hangs around for the next feeding.

SS is the bedrock of American socialism.

[MarkL]

No it isn't! It IS a government run PONZI scheme which should be done away with ASAP!

You left out a very important word.. Your line should read "It IS a FORCED government run PONZI scheme"

I agree with you 100%. The key difference between a "criminal" ponzi scheme (i.e. one that's not run by the government) and SS, is that if you work, the government forces you to pay. People who invest in ponzi schemes get to make a choice, usually driven by greed.

Mark

[MarkL]

Remember, there is no 'Trust Fund'; it's simply a rationalized social welfare scheme. If presented as an investment, of course it's a Ponzi-like scheme, but it's not an investment at all-- it's just another tax.

Also, over the last few years there's been a concerted effort to get rid of the phrases "FICA tax" or Social Security tax," and replace it with "payroll tax." The liberals don't want to use the former, since this might imply that low earning workers might actually be contributing to the "pay as your go" system! Instead, they call it a payroll tax, in order to show that this is a tax that everyone pays, and that the "working families" are getting screwed over by this tax. By wanting to cut "the payroll tax," they're going to shift the burdon of social security to higher wage earners. I wonder how a plan floated by the dems would go if they used the term "cut social security taxes," vs "cut payroll taxes." Hmmm... The sheeple might see the first as the government cutting back on SS, while the second is "more fair" to "working families."

Mark

[Bigun]

"It IS a FORCED government run PONZI scheme"

I accept your amendment.

It is mind boggling to me the furor being raised over what Trent Lott said while no one makes mention of what the left has DONE!

Social Security is patently RACIST and anyone who doesn't think so need only look at an actuarial table and compare the AVERAGE lifespan of blacks to that of whites.