Trump Shreds DeSantis: He ‘Can’t Win the General Election’ Because of Record on Entitlement Programs

[libertybele]

Again, show me the contract where you paid into that therefore it’s your money that you’re entitled to get back. I’m not talking about what a politician promised. I’m talking about a contract with the government you made that you will get that money back in full one day.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1960  that is not your property that you’re entitled to get back because you paid into it. I’ll post the ruling if you’d like.

It doesn’t matter what you think it is or what anyone will convince you of. What matters is what the law says

What matter is the $$ is arbitrarily taken out and payroll check stubs indicate what those deductions are for.  I don't need a flippin' contract.

Again, one last time.  Regardless of ruling ... IT IS MY MONEY.

They also ruled for gay rights, etc....so are we supposed to bow down now and let them change the sex of our children -- because of law -- laws that have run amuck.  Just one example.  SCOTUS rewrote law rather than ruling on the constitutionality.

Nope.  Not going to convince me otherwise.

Next.

[LMAO]

What matter is the $$ is arbitrarily taken out and payroll check stubs indicate what those deductions are for.  I don't need a flippin' contract.

Again, one last time.  Regardless of ruling ... IT IS MY MONEY.

They also ruled for gay rights, etc....so are we supposed to bow down now and let them change the sex of our children -- because of law -- laws that have run amuck.  Just one example.  SCOTUS rewrote law rather than ruling on the constitutionality.

Nope.  Not going to convince me otherwise.

Next.

Well, you’re entitled not to be convinced. It’s just the law says otherwise. What you believe or what politicians told you doesn’t matter. What matters is what the law says. Show me the part of the law that says that what you pay in the Social Security and Medicare you’re entitled to get back. And the Supreme Court did not rewrite the law in 1960. They just reaffirmed it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

Claiming something doesn’t make it so. No one’s denying that it’s your money that you’ve earned that the government is taking out of your check. It’s just once the government takes that money out, there  is no law whatsoever says you’re entitled to get that back. If you don’t like the law, then you try to work to change it. You don’t just simply say the law doesn’t apply because your personal opinions matter more.




I could make the argument that I’m entitled to go 20 miles over the speed limit on my local road because I pay taxes for those roads and I pay license fees but the law says I can’t.

[DB]

What matter is the $$ is arbitrarily taken out and payroll check stubs indicate what those deductions are for.  I don't need a flippin' contract.

Again, one last time.  Regardless of ruling ... IT IS MY MONEY.

They also ruled for gay rights, etc....so are we supposed to bow down now and let them change the sex of our children -- because of law -- laws that have run amuck.  Just one example.  SCOTUS rewrote law rather than ruling on the constitutionality.

Nope.  Not going to convince me otherwise.

Next.

It stopped being "your money" the moment the government collected it. S.S. is and always has been a Ponzi scheme. When it was first started most people didn't live long enough to collect much if any of what they paid in. Why do you think it is both state and federal employees don't have to pay into S.S. and instead have pensions based on actual investment funds?

[Kamaji]

No, I was never told it was some sort of insurance program.  Come on.  This is getting ridiculous.

On a payroll check stub it shows how much $$ is being deducted for SS, Medicare/SSI.  So you tell me  ... if it shows on paycheck stubs where the money is supposed to go and it's arbitrarily taken out of one's check, whose money is it?  It certainly isn't their checks that $$ is being taken out of.

IT. IS. MY. MONEY.

Next.

IT.  IS.  NOT.  YOUR.  MONEY.

The money is withheld from your paycheck because the Internal Revenue Code requires employers to withhold the employee portion of the payroll tax from the employee's wages and remit the tax to the IRS.  IRC § 3102.

All taxes collected and remitted to the government are to be "collected by the Secretary and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal-revenue collections."  IRC § 3501.

Finally, the tax imposed on the employee is an income tax:  "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))."  IRC § 3101(a).

So, what the law - the binding, enforceable at the wrong end of a gun, if you like, rule - says is that (a) if you're an employee, an additional income tax is imposed on you (a tax on your income), IRC § 3101, (b) that tax is withheld from your wages by your employer and remitted to the government, IRC § 3102, and (c) the taxes remitted by your employer are to be collected by the Secretary of the Treasury (or his delegate, i.e., the IRS) and paid into the U.S. Treasury as internal revenue, IRC § 3501.

That is the law; all the rest of it is empty labeling and lies that were told to you to get you to swallow this regressive new tax.

[LMAO]

This is what’s going to be the major obstacle to any meaningful reforms. The idea that people believe that it was their money that was taken out of their check to be given back to them in the future.

[Kamaji]

This is what’s going to be the major obstacle to any meaningful reforms. The idea that people believe that it was their money that was taken out of their check to be given back to them in the future.

That is why FDR and the progressives started the lie in the first place, when the law was enacted in the 1930s.  And it is why the dems/libs are absolutely opposed to making it a means-tested program - as if Jack Welch really needed that extra $1,800 each month - because it simply maintains and reinforces the false narrative that social security is some sort of vested retirement benefit, like the one a person gets when they pay into their employer's private pension plan or 401(k) plan.

[Bigun]

WE don't have ANY money! What we do have is a fiat currency backed by NOTHING other than the FULL "faith and credit" of our government!

Since the advent of the income tax in 1913 we have seen tax rates as high as 90%!

[LMAO]

That is why FDR and the progressives started the lie in the first place, when the law was enacted in the 1930s.  And it is why the dems/libs are absolutely opposed to making it a means-tested program - as if Jack Welch really needed that extra $1,800 each month - because it simply maintains and reinforces the false narrative that social security is some sort of vested retirement benefit, like the one a person gets when they pay into their employer's private pension plan or 401(k) plan.

You’re not even promised to get back everything that you invested in an IRA or 401(k). The market determines that. Why  is it that people believe that empty promises from politicians, in total defiance of the law itself, has more weight?

[Kamaji]

You’re not even promised to get back everything that you invested in an IRA or 401(k). The market determines that. Why  is it that people believe that empty promises from politicians, in total defiance of the law itself, has more weight?

Yes, but you have a vested property interest in your IRA or 401(k) plan that you do not have in social security.  A participant in one of the old-school defined benefit pension plans also had a vested property interest in the plan that entitled the participant to a certain level of benefits (subject, of course, to whatever language was in the pension plan contract documents themselves).

The interest one has in one's IRA or 401(k) is not an empty promise from a politician; by contrast, the interest one has in so-called social security is.

[Smokin Joe]

Yes, you were told that it was for some sort of "insurance" program.  You were also told that "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" - did you believe that lie, too?

Well, while we are at it, my Social Security card says "Not for Identification purposes" right on the card.

[Kamaji]

Well, while we are at it, my Social Security card says "Not for Identification purposes" right on the card.

And ....?

[DB]

Well, while we are at it, my Social Security card says "Not for Identification purposes" right on the card.

Wink wink...

[bigheadfred]

Social Security numbers were first issued in 1936 -- "for the sole purpose" of tracking the earnings history of workers for benefits, according to the Social Security Administration.

So this is taxation without representation. I think someone started a revolution to-ahem-stamp out this practice. But I don't remember who or when...

I was a paper boy for forty years. They withheld five cents per year. I want my two dollars. I WANT MY TWO DOLLARS!!!

JG Wentworth, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

You can't get a drivers license without your SS card. 

[Kamaji]

So this is taxation without representation. I think someone started a revolution to-ahem-stamp out this practice. But I don't remember who or when...

I was a paper boy for forty years. They withheld five cents per year. I want my two dollars. I WANT MY TWO DOLLARS!!!

JG Wentworth, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

You can't get a drivers license without your SS card. 

Sure you can, depending on what state you're in.

In terms of the original function of the social security number - it is there to limit your benefits, it does not act as a guarantee that you would get any benefits at all.

[libertybele]

WE don't have ANY money! What we do have is a fiat currency backed by NOTHING other than the FULL "faith and credit" of our government!

Since the advent of the income tax in 1913 we have seen tax rates as high as 90%!

Exactly.  Full faith and credit of our government.  Our economy is collapsing.  Our dollar is becoming devalued.

We need to go back to the gold standard.

[Hoodat]

Again, one last time.  Regardless of ruling ... IT IS MY MONEY.

YOUR MONEY got spent the second it hit the US Treasury.  Good luck finding it.

It was tax money.  The government took it.  The government spent it.  End of story.

[Hoodat]

I want my two dollars. I WANT MY TWO DOLLARS!!!

Cash.

[roamer_1]

What matter is the $$ is arbitrarily taken out and payroll check stubs indicate what those deductions are for.  I don't need a flippin' contract.

Again, one last time.  Regardless of ruling ... IT IS MY MONEY.

@LMAO is right. It WAS your money. You were TAXED. Now it is Uncle Nanny's money.
That's how taxes work. 

[Kamaji]

@LMAO is right. It WAS your money. You were TAXED. Now it is Uncle Nanny's money.
That's how taxes work. 

Basically.

[roamer_1]

Well, Social Security and Medicare are part of the picture. COVID didn't kill us geezers off, so that was not the solution and if anyone was suspicious of the jabs, it was boomers.

But Social Security and Medicare are only part of the so-called entitlement picture. Folks paid into those and should get something back.

Well that's what folks think, but legally, it is a tax. And that's all it is, bifurcated from the pay-out side. The payout could be stricken from the books and not effect the tax.

There is another big chunk of the budget that goes to welfare, all sorts of food programs, and to medicaid, subsidized housing, etc. An awful lot of those recipients haven't paid in.

And then there are the unaccountable fortunes being spent on Millions of illegal aliens just during this administration.

I think there's a lot of fat to trim before people come after granny's Social Security check.

It's all the same. It all fosters dependency, limits rugged individualism, and brings the people under the direct power of the government. Indirectly, the end game is the destruction of the middle, and the establishment of peasantry. Because that is what it always does.

[berdie]

What matter is the $$ is arbitrarily taken out and payroll check stubs indicate what those deductions are for.  I don't need a flippin' contract.

Again, one last time.  Regardless of ruling ... IT IS MY MONEY.

They also ruled for gay rights, etc....so are we supposed to bow down now and let them change the sex of our children -- because of law -- laws that have run amuck.  Just one example.  SCOTUS rewrote law rather than ruling on the constitutionality.

Nope.  Not going to convince me otherwise.

Next.

I totally agree! If it were a "general tax" it would have been rolled into FICA. There would be no confusion.

Did the Feds lie since the 1930s? Most likely. But as I have said before, this is the freakin' Federal Government...not Bernie Madoff. They need to stand behind their promises. There are plenty of other areas that can stand reform. That being said...SS/Medicare need to be reformed in some way that is fair to all.

[berdie]

Yes, but you have a vested property interest in your IRA or 401(k) plan that you do not have in social security.  A participant in one of the old-school defined benefit pension plans also had a vested property interest in the plan that entitled the participant to a certain level of benefits (subject, of course, to whatever language was in the pension plan contract documents themselves).

The interest one has in one's IRA or 401(k) is not an empty promise from a politician; by contrast, the interest one has in so-called social security is.

The major difference being...a person chooses to participate in an IRA/401K. SS is not a choice.

[Kamaji]

The major difference being...a person chooses to participate in an IRA/401K. SS is not a choice.

Not relevant.

An IRA or a 401(k) is a property interest - the contributor has a contract with the custodian (bank or other financial institution) pursuant to which the beneficiary has the right to withdraw the value of the account, with certain tax consequences applying depending on, for example, the age of the beneficiary at the time of the withdrawal, and depending on vesting rules for the employer portion of any contribution.

The money that is withheld from an employee's wages for social security is payment of a tax that is due and imposed on the employee.  The benefits under social security legislation are nothing more than a welfare benefit granted to individuals who have worked for a certain number of years - i.e., no benefits until you have a certain length of work history - but there is no vested property interest in those benefits.

[roamer_1]

Now... If the collected monies were held in bonds, in your name... That would not be a tax.

[berdie]

Not relevant.

An IRA or a 401(k) is a property interest - the contributor has a contract with the custodian (bank or other financial institution) pursuant to which the beneficiary has the right to withdraw the value of the account, with certain tax consequences applying depending on, for example, the age of the beneficiary at the time of the withdrawal, and depending on vesting rules for the employer portion of any contribution.

The money that is withheld from an employee's wages for social security is payment of a tax that is due and imposed on the employee.  The benefits under social security legislation are nothing more than a welfare benefit granted to individuals who have worked for a certain number of years - i.e., no benefits until you have a certain length of work history - but there is no vested property interest in those benefits.

I'm sorry, but I consider it relevant.