Grand Theft

A good friend was buried recently and talk turned to the fact that he would never realize his dream which was to retire and do a little farming and run a few cows. He owned his farm outright but lived in town near his job, never married, no children only heirs are his elderly Mother and one sister. This man was a Vietnam veteran, worked for 45 years, most of those years worked at two jobs, he got off his day job at 5 pm and worked at the last full service filling station in our area from 6-11, six days per week. He paid Social Security all those years, he never drew a nickel of that money, even if you forget about interest and forget about the share his employer paid how is it not theft that the portion he paid in his self is forfeit? His Mother or sister will never see a penny of that money and you can multiply this example by tens of thousands per year. Some might say that is the bargain but is it? People are forced to pay in Social Security, no one is given any contract to agree to. I have paid the maximum in for over 30 years, roughly $165,000 that I have no control over, double if you count my employers share.

LAA,

This a real conunbrum, isn't it? It seems terribly unfair for people to pay in, and then never receive any benefits.

At the same time, there are many retirees who receive benefits that fair exceed the amount that they've paid in.

I don't think that our politicians have the stomach to establish a system that refunds to retirees, or the retirees' heirs, the exact amount that was paid in. And frankly, I don't think it would be a good idea to do so.

Social Security is a tax. And like all taxes, some people are pleased with the way the money is spent, and some people aren't.

Tom in TN

There are others that draw way more out than have paid in, it comes down to statistics.

Social Security is like insurance . Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. It also pays widows with children and many people on disability who haven't paid much in.

I have had fire insurance on my house for 40 years, and it has never burned down. But somebody elses house did burned down, and the insurance company used the money from the premiums to pay for the one big loss. That is the concept of insurance....shared loss. I lost my premiums...but not my house. Fair enough.

I don't expect them to refund all my premiums.

Such notable patriots as Benjamin Franklin founded the American insurance industry so it most be OK under the capitalist system.

Did your friends aged mother and sister get social security benefits?

I am sorry about your friend.

As far as the Social Security side. Most people receive much more in benefits than they ever pay in. It is not uncommon for people to live 20 years drawing SS. So they can easily draw out $400,000-500,000. The average blue collar working guy never paid that much in. Even if you figure interest they still draw more out. Then add on Medicare it is going to be the biggest cost in the Federal Government in just a few years.


The whole Social Security fund was NEVER fully funded. Roosevelt Depended on the fact that when he started the fund people did not live much past the retirement date. Also the population did not have that many retirees. Then LBJ moved the SS into the general budget. There is ZERO money in the fund. It is all IOUs from the Federal Government. As more and more of the baby boomer generation retires the negative cash flow becomes a major problem in just a few years from now.

No one seems to be seriously concerned about that FACT!!! Old people scream "We paid into it. It is OUR money!!!!" Even though most draw out "THEIR" money in under ten years and then they are getting everyones else's money after that. Young kids never think about "retirement" until they are older. So there is zero political will to change anything.

The Social Security system is a big mandatory PONZI scheme. It only worked when the retirees where not a big percentage of the working population. Now there are going to be more people drawing than paying in. Trouble is ahead!!!!

Glad to see that some people do their homework. Well said. Lots of people complain about paying into social security but they all willingly take the checks ....even long after they have exhausted their own investment.

I feel sorry for the young people who are funding our retirement, with little hope of the fund being secure when they get to retirement age.

That is where the fundamental differnce in philosophies comes in, my whole point was if Social Security was a choice a person made then win, lose or draw there would be nothing to gripe about, but since it is a forced tax then I don"t see how it can be differececiated from theft, although I will admit I consider all tax theft.

That's where a 401K system is better, the money goes to the heirs. But, you have to voluntarily contribute, and some people are not disciplined enough to do that. If people do not plan for their own retirement they either have to work until they die or the taxpayers will have to carry them. SS is like mandatory insurance, and most people accept that for vehicle insurance!

I agree 100% that many people beat the system, I don't agree with that side of it either, like all socialist programs it don't pencil out. I also agree that many senior citizens in the USA are slopping at the entitlement hog trough running up bigger and bigger bills for their children and grandchildrens grandchildren to pay. All Roosevelt depended on was buying four terms in the white house.

You chose to buy house insurance or the bank made you to protect their investment if you had a mortgage -- big difference and if you don't know the difference you are defintely part of the problem.

S.S. Windfall Elimination Act. I taught school for 30 years. Not a profitable occupation, but rewarding. In order to make ends meet all those years I always worked at least one part time job. I paid into S.S. for about 45 years from my part time jobs and into Kentucky teacher retirement for my teaching job. Because my main job didn't pay into S.S., the S.S. that I did pay is considered a windfall by the government, and is reduced by about two thirds. I should draw about $700.00/month. That has been reduced to $118.00/month. Ellis

You are absolutely correct regarding people and taxes but Social Security was enacted as an ''excise'' tax and under the constitution of the United States people or businesses can avoid paying an ''excise'' tax by opting out of the program. We the people have been snookered for 78 years and counting.

The tax payers are under no moral or legal obligation to take care of anyone except themselves and their dependents. I think more people would take responsibility for themselves if they were forced to, just like everyone prior to 1935 had to, no unemployment, no Social Security, make it yourself or your family or a charity helped out, thats the way it was for 99.9% of recorded human history. No one considered the system cruel or unfair, that has all happened in the last 80 years -- mostly the last 50.

Absolutely. Our money is taxed once when we earn it, as if government has somehow given us this privilege to work. They then proceed to tax us again when we spend it, and again when we die and will our assets to our families.
How anybody thinks this is ok is beyond me.

Do you know what happened to old people before we had social security? The have been demolishing the old poor houses for some time now.

The big problem that I see with the SS system is that they have been way to willing to give it to people who never paid anything into the system. The big thing now is to get yourself declared disabled and then not only do you get a check but you get one for your dependents too. And if you have a kid who is lacking somehow the kid gets SS for the rest of his/her life. They just use the system for a hidden welfare program.

I could not agree more.
Lets go back to go back 125 years and start over.
No Social Security; no unemployment; no taxes; no free schools; no grants; no medaling in other countries problems; no air force 1 or remodeling of the white house every time someone new moves in.
You want streets so you can drive your car put that as a gas tax and use the money only on streets.
Heck we can do away with big jails also because we hang them in front of the court house the next day.

"....but Social Security was enacted as an ''excise'' tax and under the constitution of the United States people or businesses can avoid paying an ''excise'' tax by opting out of the program."
On what basis do you make that claim?

I am sorry to hear about your friend. My father passed away 2 months before he was elgible for Social Security. Quite a few people I know are passing away in my age group(mid sixties) and this post has got me thinking a little bit.
Posts below indicate the social security is not sustainable. But, so is national debt, deficit, percent of people working for the government, spending, etc.

I make that claim because the Social Security Act of 1935 defined it as an excise tax because the people who wrote the bill new it would not stand up under a constitutional challenge based on 10th amendment federal powers limitations. In other words, the specific taxing powers of the federal government are clearly spelled out in article 1, section 8 of the constitution and they do not include taking money from one citizen to give to another. It has gained acceptance the same way as a lot of other infringements on our liberties, because we the people have allowed it to stand.

Yep
All capitalism has some socialism
and without some socialism all capitalism is communism.

and thank god for iespell :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:

Yes just let kids and widows starve so some one does not need to pay into some thing they might not get anything out of

You ask if I know what happened to old people before Social Security, they survived on what they had and what they could produce. I was born and raised in the deep south as were my parents and Grandparents et. al, my Mother never had a pair of shoes until she was six years old because all of her siblings were much older than her and there were no hand me downs. Both sets of my Grandparents worked on the farm from day light to dark just to provide the basic necessities for their families, my Dad told me they never really noticed the depression because nobody they new had ever had any money to speak of anyway. My paternal Grandfather worked for others most of his life and was finally able to buy his own place at age 56, he worked that place until he died but it was paid for. My Father and a couple uncles went to college on the GI bill after World War II and when my dad bought his home farm in 1948 the bank made him take a 30 year mortgage becaue he only made $160.00 per month at the time. Not a single one of the people I have described ever considered themselves poor or deprived, all of them were proud to walk up right on the land and be able to work and provide for themselves and their families, all of them loved the USA and believed until the day that they died that it was the greatest country on earth with opportunity for all, I share all of those beliefs and thank God for the people who raised me. Having said all that, any one in the United States today that thinks they are poor does not even begin to understand the meaning of the word.

You can pay extra for the kids and widows if you want, they give you the chance right there on the 1040 -- I bet your generous streak only applies to other people money.

Except that you CAN opt to (legally) not pay SS or ANY witholding taxes.......

Consider SS an insurance policy against growing old. If you live long enough, you win the lottery. You die young, TS. It was never intended to be a savings plan.

I would sure like to hear an intelligent explanation as to how Capitalism without Socialism would be Communism. But I don't really expect that you have one. Do you?

Jim

SSI is the governments way of extortion.
"pay into the system or else"
My FIL died 10 years ago at 59, he worked full time starting when he was 18. He didnt get a penny of that money.
A real shame.

(quoted from post at 13:23:39 09/07/13) I would sure like to hear an intelligent explanation as to how Capitalism without Socialism would be Communism. But I don't really expect that you have one. Do you?

Jim

Click to expand...

Well
Here goes
There was a time when just a few like ..ok as an example ran this country...Carnigy Aster Rockefeller just as an exzample..
Made a lot of money..
Controlled a lot of people And paid very little tax...And did what they wanted to the environment and there workers
OK..Not communism but as with communism just a few prosper and the average Jo live under poor condictions..
i always believe in a happy medium and yes i do feel things have gone way to far to the left......but the day is coming

It's a lose, but we all share that same risk of dying before reaching retirement age.

Are you suggesting that the social security system should continue to pay benefits to people's heirs long after they are deceased?

(quoted from post at 14:32:26 09/07/13) It's a lose, but we all share that same risk of dying before reaching retirement age.

Are you suggesting that the social security system should continue to pay benefits to people's heirs long after they are deceased?

Click to expand...

Now thats the best idee i herd all day
I want benafits from Mom..Dad..And all for grand parents :lol: :lol: :lol:
Give me the MOOOONEY

Later boys...Its raining and its pitza night out

Well as I thought you don't have an explanation because you don't know what Communism is. Communism is when the government owns everything and everyone just works for the government which is a far cry from Capitalism.

Jim

His explanation makes complete sense. Not truly communism, but not any better, because the end result is the same. Just alot of people with no hope of a better future. Keep in mind this is exactly why people left Britian. The rich contolled the poor, and hard work would get you no where. As you see it, that"s considered captalism, as I see it, it"s a life that no one deserves. As America is today, for the most part, you will be rewarded for hard work. What is life without that. That"s the ONLY reason people left Britian.

No but his wife will based upon his earnings even if she never contributed to SS

No, Social Security was intended to expand the powers of the federal government and buy votes, Roosevelt knew a give away program would be popular with the majority of voters but he was rightfully concerned about the constitutionality of his scheme, why do you yhink he tried to illegally pack the Supreme court? All of that aside I would buy your argument if people had a choice, there are annuities you can buy from private companies that end at your death, 1 payment or 40 years, luck of the draw, but you buy that type of investment if you want to, you are not forced to by the government or anyone else. Why do you think they take SS out before people get hold of their paychecks?

No, I said nothing of the kind, if you read what I wrote I am talking about just the share that was stolen from his paycheck every week, with no interest.

(quoted from post at 20:08:27 09/07/13) His explanation makes complete sense. Not truly communism, but not any better, because the end result is the same. Just alot of people with no hope of a better future. Keep in mind this is exactly why people left Britian. The rich contolled the poor, and hard work would get you no where. As you see it, that"s considered captalism, as I see it, it"s a life that no one deserves. As America is today, for the most part, you will be rewarded for hard work. What is life without that. That"s the ONLY reason people left Britian.

Click to expand...

Thank you Farmer boy
I'm hoping your way of words helped jim see... But I'm doutful... :wink: :wink: :wink:

So Kentucky teachers didn"t pay into SS? SS is a Federal program. I don"t believe your story for one moment! My wife taught in MN for 35 years......draws 3 times the SS I do by farming.....but I always considered the farm was my retirement- and it is! Good rent, and a bit of SS.I call BS!!!

If you're suggesting the reason Social Security is automatically deducted from your pay is that people wouldn't voluntarily buy it, you are correct. The whole point of SS is for everyone to share the risk of becoming old and destitute. Put into the context of the thirties, when Social Security came into being, it would have been a hard sell to get people to sign up voluntarily, given that most folks were struggling just to keep their families fed. Life expectancy was about 60, and most people expected to work until they died.

I'll add that the demographics of the thirties worked better for SS than do the current demographics. The population was younger and people died younger than they do today. Hence we have the situation where there's not enough money coming in to keep the system solvent, even though plenty of people never collect a nickel from Social Security.

farmer boy and 4010 guy, you two need to re-take 7th grade American History. People left Britain for the new world to escape religious persecution -- a pretty good percentage came here from Britain as indentured servants, basically a slave but with a seven year term. They were still British subjects and the British Crown controlled prices for goods and set production quotas and levied tariffs and taxes, abuse of those powers was the reason for the American revolution. All you Socialists love to blame everything on the "rich" when in reality it is the various government programs supposedly intended to make things "fair" that are always to blame.

(quoted from post at 21:14:46 09/07/13) [b:54fd7c99e9]No, Social Security was intended to expand the powers of the federal government and buy votes, Roosevelt knew a give away program would be popular with the majority of voters[/b:54fd7c99e9] but he was rightfully concerned about the constitutionality of his scheme, why do you yhink he tried to illegally pack the Supreme court?

Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!! I was about to write the same thing. anyone who thinks FDR and his party were out to help anyone but themselves with SS is bonkers. The minor side of the SS program was to put additional money into the Depression era economy, but it was mainly a vote buying scheme put in by FDR who had no intention of ever leaving the WH or ever dying.

While I'm not one who favors going back 150 years and leaving people to starve int he streets, neither do I have any illusions about the wisdom and legality of most of our Federal and many of our State programs. Most are patently illegal at the Federal level. But people enjoy getting "free" money by having someone else steal it for them, take their cut and then buying votes with it. It's not communism or socialism. It's not capitalism either. It's crooked, but I don't know what to call it anymore.

Good morning...And LLA...Thank you for your reply
First of all..I am NOT a socialist...Far from it..
And as far as being rich or poor i just feel no matter how rich i may become i just feel i should not have the right to dictate or run rough shod over the lives of who ever may be farther down the food chain from me...
In short when we are out there working for the man we should have the chance to prosper and succeed from the fruits of our labor and management
Not be born poor and forced to STAY ther...
Thank you
Replies welcome.. 8)

The reason people left Britain was Socialism I know because I know some that are here. They are good folks.

Jim

Britian was not socialist back then. It's fair to say that they, and every developed country, with-holding the USA, are socialist today. Britian had a manorial system, in which there were lords, barons, peasants, etc. There was no reward for hard work. This form of government was INTENDED to work this way, by design. The problem with captalism, is that companies like Wal-Mart, GM, etc. continously grow, until there is a huge gap between the rich and poor. Left unregulated, this is the end result. You have people that are very well off, and people that by no fault of their own, are left dirt poor. There is no good answer to this, all that can be said is that short of GOD being in charge, there is no perfect form of government. I think that given the choices, captalism is the best choice, however, it's not perfect.

Ellis is right,a lot of states teachers never did pay SS,just into State Teachers Retirement Funds.Today they do pay SS,but not 10-15 Yrs.ago.

Yes just let kids and widows starve so some one does not need to pay into some thing they might not get anything out of

(quoted from post at 15:07:18 09/08/13) [b:1ea6d45c0a]Britian was not socialist back then[/b:1ea6d45c0a]. It's fair to say that they, and every developed country, with-holding the USA, are socialist today. Britian had a manorial system, in which there were lords, barons, peasants, etc. There was no reward for hard work. This form of government was INTENDED to work this way, by design. The problem with captalism, is that companies like Wal-Mart, GM, etc. continously grow, until there is a huge gap between the rich and poor. Left unregulated, this is the end result. You have people that are very well off, and people that by no fault of their own, are left dirt poor. There is no good answer to this, all that can be said is that short of GOD being in charge, there is no perfect form of government. I think that given the choices, captalism is the best choice, however, it's not perfect.

Click to expand...

Britain was not socialist "back then" when? The socialist movement in Britain goes back tot he 1830's at least and don't forget Marx and Engles worked in Britain and Marx lived out this life there from around 1850 or so till his death in the mid 1880's. That was the base of communist/socialist/anarchist thought in the day. The modern "social safety net" in Britain got it's start in the 1920's and 30's and even Churchill, then with the Labour Party, voted for reforms in the 20's or 30's. The whole shebang came into play in '45 when Britain gave Churchill the boot once the War was won. The "Lord and Manor" system was dead and gone for all extents and purposes at the end of the Medieval period, although it continued on is ever shrinking form until the late 1700's and it was really no different than share cropping or renting land here or buying it for that matter. Britain was at the heart of the industrial revolution from the late 1700's and was the worlds first industrial economy. Capitalism has been the driving force in the UK since it was an agrarian economy long ago. I don't understand what you think was going on over there that would drive people out, but it wasn't any different in any other nation on earth until after WW2.

As far as the rest of your claims about the dirt poor here, open your eyes. The "dirt poor" here suffer from chronic obesity, are housed, fed , clothed, have medical care, a pension of sorts even though they never worked, etc. Our "dirt poor" are among the wealthiest of the worlds citizens when you compare apples to apples world wide. Are we all Warren Buffet or Bill gates? Nope, but there is nothing stopping any of us from succeeding in this life. I barely made it out of high school, worked hard, got a decent job and have just about everything a man could possibly except more money and more toys. The same opportunities exist today as when I was 18, but just like then you have to open your eyes, find a viable trade and pursue it with enthusiasm or you'll just sit in a cubicle for the rest of your life. If I can make a decent living, anyone can because I'm most certainly no exception to any rule. You have to do different things today than you did 30-40 years back to make it, but you can do it. Walmart isn't keeping anyone down, neither is GM. If anything is keeping people down it's over reaching, intrusive gov't and the growing tax costs we are facing. Only 63% of us of working age work or are trying to work. That figure is dropping even lower. Why? Is it "the man" keeping us down or is it things like external_linkcare that are making full time jobs into 29 1/2 hr a week or less part time jobs? Is it the fact it's easier and more profitable to take 99 weeks of unemployment and then go on welfare or enter the black market or drug trade and live tax free than it is to take menial job after menial job because it's "beneath me"?

You were dead on about one thing- capitalism, with impartial over sight, is the best system for a free society. The problem is we aren't in a capitalist system anymore. We're in a form of socialist system and have been for some time. In our form of socialist system the gov't doesn't own the major industries, it just regulates them and taxes them to what ends up being about the same thing. Until we get gov't straightened out, that is- much smaller and less intrusive, we're going to continue on like this until we simply collapse.