What Was the Point of Winning the Election?

[Hoodat]

SS wasn't meant to be a tax, so employing a legal fiction to say that it is is dishonest.

SS was meant to be a ponzi scheme from Day 1.

[Cyber Liberty]

SS was meant to be a ponzi scheme from Day 1.

This is what we state in our knowledge and wisdom born in the fullness of time, but it really wasn't meant to be that way in the beginning.  To pass constitutional muster, it had to square with the "reserve clause" of the Constitution (the 10th Amendment):  powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States or the people.  It took several years for the SCOTUS to distort the principals of the SS Act, in a manner that would have made John Roberts proud.

Horse's Mouth:
https://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

[Suppressed]

This is what we state in our knowledge and wisdom born in the fullness of time, but it really wasn't meant to be that way in the beginning.

 :thumbsup2:

[Hoodat]

This is what we state in our knowledge and wisdom born in the fullness of time, but it really wasn't meant to be that way in the beginning.

Yes, it was.  Here are FDR's own words:

We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits.  With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.

This by definition is a ponzi scheme.  Those at the top have a moral right to draw from a fund filled by those at the bottom.

[truth_seeker]

How the hell long @truth_seeker do we "relax"?   

They've had eight long years to think about this and have been under the gun to define a solution for eight months--- since the Republican victory in November.  Not doing it and doing it now is inexcusable and justifies throwing this whole damn political party into the dustbin of history.

Relax ...  :talkhand:

Making sausage, takes as long as it takes. If watching upsets anybody, then don't watch. I merely stated the democrats took far longer to craft their disaster.

No matter what the GOP comes up with, the dems and the media will claim it will kill many people. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes, it was.  Here are FDR's own words:

We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits.  With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.

This by definition is a ponzi scheme.  Those at the top have a moral right to draw from a fund filled by those at the bottom.

I'm not going to disagree with you, but I'd point out this is exactly the case that inspired FDR to attempt to pack the Court.

[Oceander]

SS wasn't meant to be a tax, so employing a legal fiction to say that it is is dishonest.

And yet, it IS a tax.  Here's the FICA tax:  IRC sec. 3101(a): "In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to 6.2 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by the individual with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b))."

That's the way it was enacted essentially.  It's a tax.  Furthermore, it's a very regressive tax on wages, i.e., only on the income of workers, who generally aren't near the top of the income pile. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I read up on it some @Oceander, since I last mentioned it (see my link above).  It is a tax, as ruled by the SCOTUS in 1937.  Very similar to the way the SCOTUS recently ruled Obamacare is a tax.

Fortunately for me, I'm in the category of people who are more likely to believe in flying saucers than believe SS will be there for me when I get older.

[Hoodat]

And yet, it IS a tax.  Here's the FICA tax:  IRC sec. 3101(a): "In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to 6.2 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by the individual with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b))."

That's the way it was enacted essentially.  It's a tax.  Furthermore, it's a very regressive tax on wages, i.e., only on the income of workers, who generally aren't near the top of the income pile.

Social Security also exacerbates the cycle of povery hitting generation after generation after generation.  Any potential of an inheritance being handed down to future generations is swallowed up by Social Security.

[Oceander]

I read up on it some @Oceander, since I last mentioned it (see my link above).  It is a tax, as ruled by the SCOTUS in 1937.  Very similar to the way the SCOTUS recently ruled Obamacare is a tax.

Fortunately for me, I'm in the category of people who are more likely to believe in flying saucers than believe SS will be there for me when I get older.

I don't believe in it either.   

But as far as the S.Ct twisting it goes, I don't think so.  There is a tax in there and it's a regressive tax on wages.  And it isn't tied to benefits in any meaningful way: benefits are only marginally tied to tax collections, and benefits can be repealed without repealing the tax. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't believe in it either.   

But as far as the S.Ct twisting it goes, I don't think so.  There is a tax in there and it's a regressive tax on wages.  And it isn't tied to benefits in any meaningful way: benefits are only marginally tied to tax collections, and benefits can be repealed without repealing the tax.

At the link I read at SSA, the legal argument was about the "reserve clause" of the 10th Amendment.  IIRC, a SCOTUS Justice said in dissent the 10th is pretty much a dead letter because of that decision.  It was not lightly done.

As for it being regressive, it is if you consider the benefits as not tied to tax collections.  This has been a source of argument for some time as well.  I've seen the argument made it's not regressive, because the benefits ARE tied to collections.  I think that's an inaccurate view of it, and one of the few things I disagreed with William F Buckley about.

[Oceander]

At the link I read at SSA, the legal argument was about the "reserve clause" of the 10th Amendment.  IIRC, a SCOTUS Justice said in dissent the 10th is pretty much a dead letter because of that decision.  It was not lightly done.

As for it being regressive, it is if you consider the benefits as not tied to tax collections.  This has been a source of argument for some time as well.  I've seen the argument made it's not regressive, because the benefits ARE tied to collections.  I think that's an inaccurate view of it, and one of the few things I disagreed with William F Buckley about.

Ok

[DCPatriot]

Complaining about there even an iota of socialism in the US system is kind of pointless as there are already components that would be called socialist baked into the cake.  To take one easily gored ox: social security.  How many of those here who complain about socialism are just as opposed to social security?  How many plan to turn down their SSA benefits?

'Shirley', you can't be THAT stupid!!

Social Security benefits are the taxpayers' monies, paid during a lifetime of employment so that you can have a little something set aside for retirement years.

Conflating Socialism with receiving SS benefits is intellectually (and I being generous with you) dishonest.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Making sausage, takes as long as it takes. If watching upsets anybody, then don't watch. I merely stated the democrats took far longer to craft their disaster.

No matter what the GOP comes up with, the dems and the media will claim it will kill many people.

I agree with you @truth_seeker that no matter what the GOP comes up with, the medial will claim it will kill people.

That wasn't my point.  My point is they've had seven years (or eight months to be kind) to come up with something they can agree on to move the needle of Obamacare in the right direction.  They should have made the sausage, cooked it and served it by now.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree with you @truth_seeker that no matter what the GOP comes up with, the medial will claim it will kill people.

That wasn't my point.  My point is they've had seven years (or eight months to be kind) to come up with something they can agree on to move the needle of Obamacare in the right direction.  They should have made the sausage, cooked it and served it by now.

They should have done what the Dems do: had it ready to go if their guy won. Apparently they decided during the primaries that 'their guy' (whichever GOPe guy that was) had already lost.

[Cyber Liberty]

They should have done what the Dems do: had it ready to go if their guy won. Apparently they decided during the primaries that 'their guy' (whichever GOPe guy that was) had already lost.

I think it's more likely they decided in years past they had no intention of ever fixing it, in hopes they'll never see a President willing to sign.

[INVAR]

'Shirley', you can't be THAT stupid!!

Social Security benefits are the taxpayers' monies, paid during a lifetime of employment so that you can have a little something set aside for retirement years.

Conflating Socialism with receiving SS benefits is intellectually (and I being generous with you) dishonest.

I was waiting to see if anyone was going to mention the fact that as originally 'sold' to the people, SoSec was their own money - paid back what they paid into it with interest as a guaranteed pension of sorts.  Not Socialism at all.

But then.... Socialism came in by the hand of Government when Congress decided to take the revenue designated for the "SS trust fund" and reapportioned it into the general fund - essentially taking the money of the producers and redistributing it to whatever it was the government wanted to spend it on.

Call it Thievery.  Grand Theft.  Ponzi Scheme.

What was sold to the people was not Socialism, because it was supposed to be their own money held in trust, paid back.

But of course with every little thing the government touches - it steals and redistributes, which is of course the operative form of Socialism.

And that "trust fund" is broke.  Empty. 

So we now write IOU's that they dump into the same "fund" to the tune of trillions and soon the revenue stream from what is currently employed will not be enough to pay out to retirees as promised.

THAT will be fun, watching the consequences of Socialism play out.

[Fishrrman]

Donald Trump (and at least some in his administration) is actually acting like he won. Many of the policy issues and "corrections" addresed so far are clearly an indication of that.

The rest of the Republicans in Congress... well, not so much.

[Jazzhead]

And yet, it IS a tax.  Here's the FICA tax:  IRC sec. 3101(a): "In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to 6.2 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by the individual with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b))."

That's the way it was enacted essentially.  It's a tax.  Furthermore, it's a very regressive tax on wages, i.e., only on the income of workers, who generally aren't near the top of the income pile.

Yes, it's a tax.   Yes, it's a regressive tax on wages.  But the benefits funded by FICA are also regressive, providing the primary means of retirement income security for most Americans.   

The most likely way SS will be reformed to pay for the boomers is to provide regressive benefits by means of progressive taxation - that is, by removing the wage cap and taxing benefits for folks with higher income levels.   

[Oceander]

Yes, it's a tax.   Yes, it's a regressive tax on wages.  But the benefits funded by FICA are also regressive, providing the primary means of retirement income security for most Americans.   

The most likely way SS will be reformed to pay for the boomers is to provide regressive benefits by means of progressive taxation - that is, by removing the wage cap and taxing benefits for folks with higher income levels.   

Why not means testing benefits?

[Jazzhead]

 SoSec was their own money - paid back what they paid into it with interest as a guaranteed pension of sorts.  Not Socialism at all.

That was never the deal.  It was always a defined benefit,  with current taxpayers funding the benefits of retirees.  The young supporting the old.   

[Mom MD]

Yes, it's a tax.   Yes, it's a regressive tax on wages.  But the benefits funded by FICA are also regressive, providing the primary means of retirement income security for most Americans.   

The most likely way SS will be reformed to pay for the boomers is to provide regressive benefits by means of progressive taxation - that is, by removing the wage cap and taxing benefits for folks with higher income levels.

Actually its not a regressive tax.  Its one of the few taxes where everyone pays at the same rate regardless of income.  One of the few fair taxes we have.  (don't get me wrong I hate the whole FICA system).  If all taxes were that way most Americans would hopefully wake up and put a screeching halt to the bloated government that steals from its productive citizens to perpetuate its own stinking carcass.

[Cyber Liberty]

Why not means testing benefits?

Because it screws people who actually planned ahead for their retirements?

[bolobaby]

Every conservative knows that we DIDN'T actually win the election - some reality show fake conservative chimp did... and he's not capable of leading a conservative revolution any more than McCain would be.

[Jazzhead]

Why not means testing benefits?

Yes, by means testing I assume you mean denying SS to folks with higher incomes, notwithstanding that they paid in, too.    The resistance to this idea is psychological -  it would transform SS into just another welfare program.

SS is based on a convenient fiction.  Folks who receive it feel virtuous - they "paid in" and therefore "earned" the benefits they are now receiving.  Means testing will explode that idea.