Haha luckily our young people vote for people who will probably do whatever it takes and tax whomever they can to save them.except themselves.
except themselves.
Social(ist) Security and Medicare are both predicated on taxes that, because there's a cap on how much an individual can be taxed, the solvency is based less on national economic health and more on how many people are paying in comparing to drawing out. During the latter part of the 20th century, because of the baby boom, the system worked great. Such was the surplus SS was drawing that the overall budget was balanced for a brief time in the 1990s, an extremely rare achievement.
But now, by and large, they've stopped having kids. So fewer people are paying into the system as the Boomers flip to the other side of the ledger... and that's how we're where we are at.
So what's the solution?
Perhaps stiff penalties for those who get to retirement age without having children to replace them in the workforce.
"Rich auntie" might think twice about spurning that "incel" to avoid the responsibilities of marriage and family if it's her retirement at stake.
I read an interesting comment elsewhere that postulated the problems currently with Social Security are due to the unusual "demographic bulge" created by the baby boomer generation -- and that once the boomers die off, the problem will resolve itself.
From the article….
In America, politicians who even hint at such solutions get screamed at by misinformed seniors: "Don't touch my retirement funds! You took money from my paycheck for years; that's my money I'm getting back!"
Ha!!
How many times is that myth repeated even on this forum ?
I read an interesting comment elsewhere that postulated the problems currently with Social Security are due to the unusual "demographic bulge" created by the baby boomer generation -- and that once the boomers die off, the problem will resolve itself.
@Fishrrman
It's not the Baby Boomers as much as it is SS money being spent on illegal aliens,and who knows what else?
@LMAO
Ok,so what do YOU call a mandatory retirement system where people work their whole lives and pay into it after being told this money will be returned to them in the form of SS retirement or disability checks once they get too old and/or too feeble to work?
@LMAO
Ok,so what do YOU call a mandatory retirement system where people work their whole lives and pay into it after being told this money will be returned to them in the form of SS retirement or disability checks once they get too old and/or too feeble to work?
You are ok with the government stealing money from citizens as long as you aren't one of that citizens group?
What would YOU have elderly AMERICANS who worked and paid into the system their whole lives do,starve to death in the streets or die because they couldn't afford medical care?
The dems/socialists(okay they are the same) have a fix already in place, it's called open border and letting millions of workers(my ass) in to work all those open jobs and pay just oodles and oodles of taxes into social security and medicare.
This is probably one of the unsaid reasons the government is opening the border. They believe that illegal immigrant workers will make up the demographic shortfall for paying into SS and Medicare.
From the article….I believe the complete sentiment is that before that is taken, how about shutting down some of the money going to people who never paid in, never worked, still don't, many of whom don't even belong here.
In America, politicians who even hint at such solutions get screamed at by misinformed seniors: "Don't touch my retirement funds! You took money from my paycheck for years; that's my money I'm getting back!"
Ha!!
How many times is that myth repeated even on this forum ?
False
Demographics is a huge factor in the SS and Medicare insolvency issue
Were is it written that you will get the money you paid into SS and Medicare back?
QuoteA bait and switch. Face it, you were lied to.
That's odd. Everybody I know that paid into it got a monthly check when they retired. Even me.
QuoteConsidering that SS and Medicare were socialist programs originally dreamt up by liberals/progs, why would you be in the least bit surprised about the fact you were lied to?
Blah,blah,bullshit squared. You are PROBABLY mad because your income is so high that you won't qualify for SS payments after you retire.
After all,it is ALL about YOU,right?
This is probably one of the unsaid reasons the government is opening the border. They believe that illegal immigrant workers will make up the demographic shortfall for paying into SS and Medicare.
@LMAO
BullBush! You can't possibly be THAT freaking foolish,so what is motivating you to claim that crap?
I believe the complete sentiment is that before that is taken, how about shutting down some of the money going to people who never paid in, never worked, still don't, many of whom don't even belong here.
As for Social Security, I have been paying in for 53 years and the only money I got so far is a $225 death benefit when my wife died. She never collected a dime, either.
@LMAO Where is it written that we WON'T?
@Smokin JoeI am of full retirement age, and can do both. I will work for as long as I can, because the money is worth less each day, and a combination of bad investments and misfortune have depleted my savings. I have to rebuild my 'nest egg' at this late date.
So retire and start collecting it.
You don't really expect to collect SS and continue working for pay,do you?
During the latter part of the 20th century, because of the baby boom, the system worked great. . . . But now, by and large, they've stopped having kids. So fewer people are paying into the system as the Boomers flip to the other side of the ledger... and that's how we're where we are at.
Such was the surplus SS was drawing that the overall budget was balanced for a brief time in the 1990s, an extremely rare achievement.
So what's the solution?
I am of full retirement age, and can do both. I will work for as long as I can, because the money is worth less each day, and a combination of bad investments and misfortune have depleted my savings. I have to rebuild my 'nest egg' at this late date.
That's odd. Everybody I know that paid into it got a monthly check when they retired. Even me.
Blah,blah,bullshit squared. You are PROBABLY mad because your income is so high that you won't qualify for SS payments after you retire.
After all,it is ALL about YOU,right?
So because the law doesn't specifically say that you won't get back everything you paid into SS that means, by default, you're owed that money?? That's the argument you're going with???
LOL!!!!! :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
I am of full retirement age, and can do both. I will work for as long as I can, because the money is worth less each day, and a combination of bad investments and misfortune have depleted my savings. I have to rebuild my 'nest egg' at this late date.
Get government's greedy hands off of it and turn it into a personal retirement account for all workers - one that actually invests the money instead of handing it over to government to spend on other stuff immediately. Short of that, one obvious solution would be to stop paying out Social Security benefits to anyone below retirement age. This is where 30% of all Social Security payments go.
I'm in the same boat, sort of. I didn't start working a real job with a 401(k) plan until my mid-40s. So I have a lot of catching up to do. Planning to stay at this new job until age 70 or more.
:mauslaff:
You do realize, don’t you boy, that social security is not means tested, so even the richest billionaires get it.
No, I doubt you do; rational thinking isn’t your strong suit.
@LMAO
Why not,since it is the truth?
And you don't' care about the truth. What you REALLY care about is the money YOU are having to pay into the system because you think you are earning or will earn enough money that you won't need it.
AKA: Selfish self-interest.
I am betting your opinion would change quickly if you were somehow injured and unable to work.
How about instead of hurling insults you prove me wrong. Show me in the Social Security law where it says that you must get back everything you put in. Show me where it says the government must return everything that you’ve paid in your Social Security.
I’ll wait.
You told me I was ignorant when I said the driving force behind Social Security insolvency is demographics. I gave you a link to the Social Security administration itself that proves my point. That’s how you prove your point.
So instead of attacking other members on this issue that you’ve decided that you want to remain clearly ignorant on, put up or shut up. Link me to the Social security law itself and highlight were it says, in fact, you are owed that money.
I’ll save you time. You won’t find it. The government could announce today that they’re using all the Social Security money for green energy and you couldn’t do squat about it except bitch about it in a political forum.
And it doesn’t matter what my opinion is or what it would be if something were to happen to me. My opinion does not supersede the law.
The law, economics, mathematics, demographics, and even a supreme court ruling are not in your favor on this issue regardless how many times you lash out at other members
@LMAO
Why not,since it is the truth?
And you don't' care about the truth. What you REALLY care about is the money YOU are having to pay into the system because you think you are earning or will earn enough money that you won't need it.
AKA: Selfish self-interest.
I am betting your opinion would change quickly if you were somehow injured and unable to work.
@Smokin JoeI am just thankful that I am still able to work.
I am sorry to hear that.
Unfortunately,there seems to be many,many people in the same boat as you these days.
Inflation is killing us all.
I am just thankful that I am still able to work.
Many I know and have known are not.
I contend it keeps me young.
A blessing straight out of heaven, I'll tell you what. I would love nothing more than to die with my boots on.I have had a few chances to do so, but have so far resisted that call.
A blessing straight out of heaven, I'll tell you what. I would love nothing more than to die with my boots on.
Even better, to have Yeshua show up at your door and tell you to put your boots on.
QuoteHow about instead of hurling insults you prove me wrong. Show me in the Social Security law where it says that you must get back everything you put in. Show me where it says the government must return everything that you’ve paid in your Social Security.
The ONLY reason you are making that request is because it is a Bull-Bush request,and you know it can't be proven unless someone has kept EVERY pay stubb they have gotten their whole life,as well as EVERY SS check. Who the hell does that? If someone does,you just know that anal people are making fun of him or her for being obsessive.QuoteI’ll wait.
Cool beans! Might I suggest you try holding your breath while you are waiting?QuoteYou told me I was ignorant when I said the driving force behind Social Security insolvency is demographics. I gave you a link to the Social Security administration itself that proves my point. That’s how you prove your point.
Ok,I will type this slowly so that you might "get it". Demographics is NOT SUPPOSED to have one single damn thing to do with SS,because ONLY citizens who have paid into the system are supposed to get payments FROM the system.
The "Driving Force behind SS insolvency" is politicians from BOTH the left and the right,as well as a few from the middle,stealing money from the SS Trust Fund to buy the votes of illegal aliens and useless scum who have never held a single steady job in their whole lives.
IF the SS Trust Fund were to have been managed properly,there probably wouldn't be any problem with it today. Lots of people like to blame it on the illegal aliens,but the truth is they just get the money,they don't determine WHO gets it or how much.
The people to blame are weasel politicians and political appointees. You can't really blame the illegals for getting it if it is given to them.
QuoteSo instead of attacking other members on this issue that you’ve decided that you want to remain clearly ignorant on, put up or shut up. Link me to the Social security law itself and highlight were it says, in fact, you are owed that money.
No.QuoteI’ll save you time. You won’t find it. The government could announce today that they’re using all the Social Security money for green energy and you couldn’t do squat about it except bitch about it in a political forum.
And what would YOU do about it,bubba,continue to have hissy fits?QuoteAnd it doesn’t matter what my opinion is or what it would be if something were to happen to me. My opinion does not supersede the law.
The same can be said about anyone's opinion.Even the opinions of lawmakers.QuoteThe law, economics, mathematics, demographics, and even a supreme court ruling are not in your favor on this issue regardless how many times you lash out at other members
Don't let it worry you. Just try holding your breath until you turn blue.
@sneakypete
I stand with these fellows.
I am injured, and now back on disability.
Yet I stand with them.
Ask why.
I am just thankful that I am still able to work.
Many I know and have known are not.
I contend it keeps me young.
A blessing straight out of heaven, I'll tell you what. I would love nothing more than to die with my boots on.
Been there done that. happy77
And grateful for every step I have made since 2012 when he got me out of that cursed wheelchair...
But now he's gonna have to do it again.
The ONLY reason you are making that request is because it is a Bull-Bush request,and you know it can't be proven unless someone has kept EVERY pay stubb they have gotten their whole life,as well as EVERY SS check. Who the hell does that? If someone does,you just know that anal people are making fun of him or her for being obsessive.
Cool beans! Might I suggest you try holding your breath while you are waiting?
Ok,I will type this slowly so that you might "get it". Demographics is NOT SUPPOSED to have one single damn thing to do with SS,because ONLY citizens who have paid into the system are supposed to get payments FROM the system.
The "Driving Force behind SS insolvency" is politicians from BOTH the left and the right,as well as a few from the middle,stealing money from the SS Trust Fund to buy the votes of illegal aliens and useless scum who have never held a single steady job in their whole lives.
IF the SS Trust Fund were to have been managed properly,there probably wouldn't be any problem with it today. Lots of people like to blame it on the illegal aliens,but the truth is they just get the money,they don't determine WHO gets it or how much.
The people to blame are weasel politicians and political appointees. You can't really blame the illegals for getting it if it is given to them.
No.
And what would YOU do about it,bubba,continue to have hissy fits?
The same can be said about anyone's opinion.Even the opinions of lawmakers.
Don't let it worry you. Just try holding your breath until you turn blue.
@roamer_1
Because you live like you are in the 18th century and live in a shack in the wilderness? Truth to tell,you probably don't need the money because of the truth in a common truism,which states "How much money you make isn't as important as how much money you NEED." (Emphasis is mine)
Here’s some advice.....
"blah,blah,blah,squared."
Lol
@happy77
Yeah, I figured that would be your reply. I don’t blame you and I accept your surrender.
But your reply still doesn’t change the facts. I can understand someone not understanding a subject and willing to learn more about it. It’s the choosing to remain ignorant despite the facts being presented that’s the problem. And what’s worse, you’re proud of your ignorance on this subject
@LMAO
Yuh,weeze jist por dum rednecks whut doan no whuts gud fur us,n need edumaticated beyond ur bility ta comprehinde thunkers lak u ta show usins de way!
Macho grassyass,amaco!
Judging by your responses on this issue, presenting you with facts was an exercise in futility
@LMAO
Your problem is you confuse selfish self-interest with facts.
55% of non-citizen households in the USA used one or more welfare programs in 2018.
In comparison, only 32% of native households participated in welfare programs in the same year. Also, the immigrants on welfare statistics point to significantly higher use of food assistance programs among non-citizen households. Namely, 39% of these households needed food assistance compared to 19% of native households. Immigrant households that have lived in the USA for more than ten years participate more (50%) in welfare programs. By contrast, about 44% of those who moved to the country within the last ten years receive governmental assistance.
The largest share of SSI funds in August 2022 went to the visually impaired and disabled.
Out of $4,982,125 paid in SSI in August 2022, 88.6% went to the visually impaired and disabled eligibility category. Welfare statistics show that people from this category received a total of $4,414,744 against $567,381 that went to the aged. In the United States, most people who receive public assistance are aged 18–64. This age group got a total of $2,997,752. Americans aged 65 or older received $1,194,039 in SSI funds, while the remaining $790,333 went to those under 18.
@sneakypete
Again...
I am disabled.
I am living off social security.
I stand with these fellows.
Ask why.
Interesting. On the one hand, posters assert there is no separate Social Security fund. THat the "lockbox" the Congress stuffed full of IOUs to fund other social programs (welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing) never existed and that those funds were always part of the general fund. Just another tax.
On the other hand, it is asserted that the billions being spent on providing the services the alleged 'lockbox' was raided for, now to millions of illegal aliens, as well as the usual suspects and their great grandchildren and every generation between, have no effect on the solvency of the program the money was stolen from.
If there is/was no separate fund, then anything taken from the budget to pay for something else is, in fact raiding funds which could go to pay back the Social Security/medicare payments. No way it doesn't have an effect, because trillions have gone down the proverbial rathole to subsidize poverty, supporting some with services that those footing the bill for decades have only intermittently been able to secure for themselves out of what is left when the government is done sucking the life out of a paycheck.
Look at your social security card. Does it say "For social security and tax purposes only--not for identification" on it? Mine does. I understand the newer ones don't say that.
But the older ones do, and I must ask: Why differentiate between Social Security and tax purposes if the two are just the same?
The answer, of course is that they are not. The government in the 1960s would not have bothered to differentiate if Social Security was 'just another tax' to be spent however it pleased, and it wasn't until someone in Congress came up with the whole IOU angle to raid the funds to spend more money than would have been available without running a deficit that the cards got changed, and the lines blurred.
According to the HHS' figures over 487 billion go to Medicaid and CHIP services.
Another 460 billion, to interest on the National Debt, for perspective, from the Treasury Dept.
That isn't Social Security.
The SSA is a whole different Agency. To be sure, the budget for the SSA approaches 1 trillion dollars, but again, people paid into it, continue to do so, whether young and just starting work, or whether they've been working for decades. Congress raided it to buy votes, and hasn't paid 'the fund' back. Increasingly, seniors are continuing to work, and ironically, paying into the fund even as they collect benefits.
As for just another tax, please explain why social security earnings (for the purpose of levying the tax) have a cap, when there is no cap on taxable earnings for income taxes. You could make $300K, and be taxed on most of that for income tax purposes, but only pay Social Security tax on a fraction of that (approaching half, now). Granted, that cap is a moving target, and goes up every year, but why have a cap at all if it is just another tax?
If you die, like my wife did before collecting any benefits, your benefits will be limited to the paltry "death benefit" Social Security pays out. (Not enough to pay for a decent container for your loved one's ashes, much less a funeral or coffin.) Nothing else is guaranteed.
Although Medicaid and Medicare are lumped together pretty often in budget numbers, kindly keep in mind that Medicare Part B is not free, and that if one really wants good coverage you find an Advantage plan, Parts C and D, or similar coverage on your own. While the cost may be reduced compared to full on health insurance, you have been picking up the tab all along.
That budget doesn't include Indian Health (feather not dot), which thankfully picked up all but a very small fraction of the hospital bills associated with my wife's passing.
But Indian Health is a treaty obligation, not an "entitlement". Six million acres of shortgrass prairie and prime farmland 'bought' that. The tribe got screwed out of another four million acres later.
My point, though, is that administrative agencies for Social Security and other "entitlements" are separate. The one group is administered by HHS, the other by the SSA. Given the inertia of Federal Agencies, it is apparent that the two are not the same, nor were intended to be, otherwise, one (SSA) would have been absorbed by another agency, or absorbed the functions of the other entitlements.
The key problem is that those on Capitol Hill have been playing fast and loose with our money for decades, neither exercising fiscal restraint, nor abstaining from purchasing votes with the money they spend. This leads to inefficiency, waste, fraud, and outright theft. Had that restraint been employed where there were no obligations to provide funding, be it research grants, funding universities with huge endowments, waste in government contracts (especially DOD, but others as well) and the half a trillion every year shelled out to the 'poor' who neither work for that money and benefits, nor pay into those programs, and include the illegal aliens being imported into America in record numbers.
According to https://balancingeverything.com/welfare-statistics/ (https://balancingeverything.com/welfare-statistics/)
I'd say that makes a dent. The only Social Security non-citizens qualify for is SSI.
From the cited source,
It did not differentiate between citizen and alien.
There are lots of places to bring the budget in line without reducing Social Security benefits, and one would be to deny them to non citizens, another, to raise the earnings cap on the tax.
But there are lots of sacred cows in the Federal budget that could be led to market before cutting Social Security to those who have their qualifying number of work years paid in.
You never paid into Social Security. If you worked, you were subjected to an additional, regressive, income tax, the funds from which were transferred to the general fisc. The Social Security Administration is then funded therefrom.
READ
THE
bleep
LAW
Jesus, people, you are acting like a bunch of bleep liberals on this one. Why?
You never paid into Social Security. If you worked, you were subjected to an additional, regressive, income tax, the funds from which were transferred to the general fisc. The Social Security Administration is then funded therefrom.Kindly explain why Social Security/Medicare earnings are capped for taxation purposes, then.
READ
THE
bleep
LAW
Jesus, people, you are acting like a bunch of bleep liberals on this one. Why?
The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]
An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.
TITLE II-FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT
Section 201. (a) There is hereby created an account in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the Old-Age Reserve Account hereinafter in this title called the Account. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Account for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, an amount sufficient as an annual premium to provide for the payments required under this title, such amount to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 per centum per annum compounded annually. The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit annually to the Bureau of the Budget an estimate of the appropriations to be made to the Account.
(b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States. For such purpose such obligations may be acquired
(1) on original issue at par, or
(2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of special obligations exclusively to the Account. Such special obligations shall bear interest at the rate of 3 per centum per annum. Obligations other than such special obligations may be acquired for the Account only on such terms as to provide an investment yield of not less than 3 per centum per annum.
(c) Any obligations acquired by the Account (except special obligations issued exclusively to the Account) may be sold at the market price, and such special obligations may be redeemed at par plus accrued interest.
(d) The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Account shall be credited to and form a part of the Account.
(e) All amounts credited to the Account shall be available for making payments required under this title.
(f) The Secretary of the Treasury shall include in his annual report the actuarial status of the Account.
OLD-AGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS
SEC. 202. (a) Every qualified individual (as defined in section 210) shall be entitled to receive, with respect to the period beginning on the date he attains the age of sixty-five, or on January 1, 1942, whichever is the later, and ending on the date of his death, an old-age benefit (payable as nearly as practicable in equal monthly installments) as follows:
(1) If the total wages (as defined in section 210) determined by the Board to have been paid to him, with respect to employment (as defined in section 210) after December 31, 1936, and before he attained the age of sixty- five, were not more than $3,000, the old-age benefit shall be at a monthly rate of one-half of 1 per centum of such total wages;
(2) If such total wages were more than $3,000, the old-age benefit shall be at a monthly rate equal to the sum of the following:
(A) One-half of 1 per centum of $3,000; plus
(B) One-twelfth of 1 per centum of the amount by which such total wages exceeded $3,000 and did not exceed $45,000; plus
(C) One-twenty-fourth of 1 per centum of the amount by which such total wages exceeded $45,000.
(b) In no case shall the monthly rate computed under subsection (a) exceed $85.
(c) If the Board finds at any time that more or less than the correct amount has theretofore been paid to any individual under this section, then, under regulations made by the Board, proper adjustments shall be made in connection with subsequent payments under this section to the same individual.
(d) Whenever the Board finds that any qualified individual has received wages with respect to regular employment after he attained the age of sixty-five, the old-age benefit payable to such individual shall be reduced, for each calendar month in any part of which such regular employment occurred, by an amount equal to one month s benefit. Such reduction shall be made, under regulations prescribed by the Board, by deductions from one or more payments of old-age benefit to such individual.
You never paid into Social Security. If you worked, you were subjected to an additional, regressive, income tax, the funds from which were transferred to the general fisc. The Social Security Administration is then funded therefrom.
READ
THE
bleep
LAW
Jesus, people, you are acting like a bunch of bleep liberals on this one. Why?
Kindly explain why Social Security/Medicare earnings are capped for taxation purposes, then.
If it was "just another tax" there would be no cap.
We have had far too many Democrat administrations to leave that cash cow standing.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html#PREAMBLE (https://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html#PREAMBLE)
and ...
Bullshit. READ. THE. F-UCKING. LAW.I did. I even provided it.
It is a tax, pure and simple. Putting a cap on the amount of income subject to the tax does not change the essential characteristic of the imposition as a tax.
READ. THE. F-UCKING. LAW.
And you didn't pay into anything because YOU. DON'T. OWN. ANY. PROPERTY. RIGHT. IN. SOCIAL. SECURITY. WELFARE. BENEFITS.
You can say you paid into a private retirement plan because you have a vested property right, a right that can be levied on, by the way, or subjected to a divorce decree.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT SUBJECT TO LEVY OR ASSIGNMENT BECAUSE YOU DON'T OWN ANYTHING THAT COULD BE LEVIED UPON OR ASSIGNED.READ. THE. F-UCKING. LAW.
Every qualified individual (as defined in section 210) shall be entitled to receive, with respect to the period beginning on the date he attains the age of sixty-five, or on January 1, 1942, whichever is the later, and ending on the date of his death, an old-age benefit (payable as nearly as practicable in equal monthly installments) as follows:
I did. I even provided it.
:shrug:
Bullshit. READ. THE. F-UCKING. LAW.
It is a tax, pure and simple. Putting a cap on the amount of income subject to the tax does not change the essential characteristic of the imposition as a tax.
READ. THE. F-UCKING. LAW.
And you didn't pay into anything because YOU. DON'T. OWN. ANY. PROPERTY. RIGHT. IN. SOCIAL. SECURITY. WELFARE. BENEFITS.
You can say you paid into a private retirement plan because you have a vested property right, a right that can be levied on, by the way, or subjected to a divorce decree.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT SUBJECT TO LEVY OR ASSIGNMENT BECAUSE YOU DON'T OWN ANYTHING THAT COULD BE LEVIED UPON OR ASSIGNED.READ. THE. F-UCKING. LAW.
Is it truly necessary to curse in big bold letters? Get a grip!
"Kindly explain why Social Security/Medicare earnings are capped for taxation purposes, then."
@Smokin Joe because it provides the illusion that it is something that it isn't. What you "get back" is also capped. A naked pyramid scheme that would put any other entity in prison is not a defendable position. There is no "investment" providing returns that are paid out. The returns are set by law, not economic outcomes.
It only works because younger people in a normally expanding base transfer their tax dollars to the smaller older generations that are collecting it higher up the pyramid.
Have young people stop paying SS and see how long the program can continue for the ones collecting now... If it were in some lockbox or investment those collecting SS would have already paid the cost of what they are collecting through their life of paying into it. That's not the case.
It's truly fascinating how a lie first told by FDR - the consummate liberal/progressive - about a particular government charity benefit - continues to be swallowed, whole cloth, by those who claim to be oh-so conservative.
At a certain point, yes, it is. When supposed conservatives start acting like starry-eyed liberals, and pouting about how - in contradistinction to every other government welfare benefit - that there is something special about social security that makes it "YOUR" money.
It isn't your money, it is nothing more than government-funded charity, that can be yanked at any time by a Congressional act that repeals it.
Actually, there are those obviously, who don't share your opinion nor do they agree with the 'laws' unfairly enacted. Law is law I get that, but government overreach and bureaucracy isn't necessarily acceptable.
Calls for abolishing the IRS and auditing the FED has been ongoing especially by both Ron Paul and his son Rand, and IMHO with good reason.
Entrenched beliefs
And those don’t go away easily just because you present the facts. It’s part of being human
Entrenched beliefs
And those don’t go away easily just because you present the facts. It’s part of being human
Fact: Money is taken out every paycheck and designated to FICA and Medicare. Where it goes, what is done with the money or what laws are written -- EVERYONE has that money deducted. Most if given a 'choice' would obviously keep that money. They are being taxed on their labor period.
Fact: Social security benefits have been paid out to those who qualify for a certain period at a certain age for decades. It is mandated that everyone get on to Medicare at age 65.
So again, try to tell millions of people that the money that was arbitrarily taken out of their checks and made to jump onto Medicare don't have a right to that $$$. Law or no law -- monies were taken out period -- not by choice but by force.
Go ahead, cuss in big bold letters and tell me to read the law. It makes no difference to my opinion; ABOLISH THE IRS and Audit the Fed!
At a certain point, yes, it is. When supposed conservatives start acting like starry-eyed liberals, and pouting about how - in contradistinction to every other government welfare benefit - that there is something special about social security that makes it "YOUR" money.I quoted the law.
It isn't your money, it is nothing more than government-funded charity, that can be yanked at any time by a Congressional act that repeals it.
Fact: Money is taken out every paycheck and designated to FICA and Medicare. Where it goes, what is done with the money or what laws are written -- EVERYONE has that money deducted. Most if given a 'choice' would obviously keep that money. They are being taxed on their labor period.
Fact: Social security benefits have been paid out to those who qualify for a certain period at a certain age for decades. It is mandated that everyone get on to Medicare at age 65.
So again, try to tell millions of people that the money that was arbitrarily taken out of their checks and made to jump onto Medicare don't have a right to that $$$. Law or no law -- monies were taken out period -- not by choice but by force.
Go ahead, cuss in big bold letters and tell me to read the law. It makes no difference to my opinion; ABOLISH THE IRS and Audit the Fed!
My GOD!!!!See the law, post 63, this thread. That's why.
The regular income tax is also taken out of your paycheck - each and every paycheck - does that mean you still have a vested ownership interest in that money? No, it does not.
Why are you so hellbent on believing liberal lies about social security?
Lol
I don’t recall me cussing at all
But you’re right. Reforms are going to be difficult because of the misconceptions people have when it comes to both programs. I’m very well aware of the politics when it comes to both programs
But the fact is there is no right you have to that money once taken out of your check. The law and at least two court rulings confirm that
See the law, post 63, this thread. That's why.
My GOD!!!!
The regular income tax is also taken out of your paycheck - each and every paycheck - does that mean you still have a vested ownership interest in that money? No, it does not.
Why are you so hellbent on believing liberal lies about social security?
I think you would be hard pressed to find many who would voluntarily hand over that money given a choice.
:mauslaff:
You still haven't shown me a single statute that gives you a vested property interest in the funds in the U.S. treasury that derived from the social security income tax imposed on you, nor have you shown a single statute that gives you a property right to be paid social security welfare benefits that cannot be taken away with a simple Congressional act.
By contrast, if you do have a property interest in something, that interest generally cannot be taken away without due compensation.
So, no, you haven't shown jack-shit. All you have shown is that you, too, are willing to throw your conservative principles overboard for the sake of a liberal/progressive lie that flatters you.
Former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas called the recent IRS fiasco troubling — but writes that the only way Congress can protect the freedoms of Americans from a long pattern of suspected IRS abuse is to “shutter the doors” of the agency “once and for all.”
:yowsa: And the only way to do that is to get rid of the Marxist income tax.
I've paid the maximum limit into SS for about 38 years. Something less than maximum for the prior 8 years. With a good number of those years being self employed meaning I paid the full amount and not split between me and the employer. Even when not "self employed" the vast majority of those years it was paid by my own business which was still me. Just last year was over $18k in social security taxes paid. So I've paid a small fortune into SS over the last 46 years.