I know. Let's fix Social Security with a tax on the rich.
- Thread starter 2ndAmendment
- Start date
Read what the founders like Jefferson, Madison, and the others said about the Constitution for the answer. The Cliff's Notes version is the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to provide for a retirement fund. The "general welfare" clause that politicians are so prevalent to cite is bounded by the stipulated powers ceded to the federal government by the states. The power to bestow benevolence (charity) was not one of them.Tonio said:
Actually, if you consider viewpoints of all the founders (including Hamilton) you will find that they were just as divided as many are today as to the general welfare provision of the Constitution. Considering that the Social Security Act passed the test of the Supreme Court in 1937 by a vote of 7-2 in Helvering versus Davis it would seem that the broader definition of Hamilton has prevailed.
Still doesn't mean that it is was the actual intention of the Constitution that was passed by the states. The Supreme Court has gotten more liberal with every appointment.Ken King said:
Just because your intellect is better with a picture editor than doing actual research does not mean that you can keep up with the conversation with trite picture edits. Please try to keep up. Would you like us to go slower for you?Charles said:
We can argue constitutionality of the Social Security program all that we want, but that battle was fought a long time ago and it has already been won by the pro-constitutional folks. The debate should revolve around how to increase the solvency of the program. Just my opinion...
Your right except for the "pro-constitutional folks". It was won by the people who want to have government do everything for everybody so they can have control over everything folks.rraley said:
As to the solvency of SS, it will never be solvent in my opinion, so argue your hearts out. SS is dead; people just don't know it yet.
The failure of Social Security doesn't lie so much in the principle, or in the taxation system. It's simply, unavoidable demographics.
We will have two or fewer persons paying IN to SS for every person taking OUT of SS. And it will get worse. You can't tax half the country to pay to the other half. It's impossible.
If I'd realized when I first started paying into this damned thing that I could've been rich just taking 15% of my own money and investing it - instead of dumping it into a hole call SS ..................
We will have two or fewer persons paying IN to SS for every person taking OUT of SS. And it will get worse. You can't tax half the country to pay to the other half. It's impossible.
If I'd realized when I first started paying into this damned thing that I could've been rich just taking 15% of my own money and investing it - instead of dumping it into a hole call SS ..................
Correct if I am wrong but I thought that 7.5% was taking out of your income (up to $89,000) while the other 7.5% was matched by your employer. So it really isn't a 15% tax on your paycheck now is it?
I understand the demographics argument. We can manipulate the program so that those demographics do not hurt the system as much as it will under the current system. Perhaps increase the retirement age with increases in life expectation? Stop paying out benefits to people who have large pensions and investment? Just some ideas, but the demographics issue can be overcome.
I understand the demographics argument. We can manipulate the program so that those demographics do not hurt the system as much as it will under the current system. Perhaps increase the retirement age with increases in life expectation? Stop paying out benefits to people who have large pensions and investment? Just some ideas, but the demographics issue can be overcome.
The employer payment is on behalf of the employee and I see where it could be considered the employees just as easily as I see it being solely an employer contribution. Regardless of that the numbers paying in are dwindling and the numbers receiving benefit are growing. There is a point of breakdown coming and something needs to be done or we will get to a point where the non-planning will never be able to retire or we tax the younger workers to a point of not being able to live.
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
Perhaps a purge of everyone over the age of 85, think of all we will save.
K
Kizzy
Guest
Airgasm said:
I don't think the taxpayers are going to like that answer.
RR,
You said "Stop paying out benefits to people who have large pensions and investment?" well; here is my issue with that. Social Security seems to benefit those who didn't plan for their future, more so, than those who did, is it fair for say someone like me, who will get a pension from the state in another 12 1/2 years, has also set aside funds in a 401K and a deferred compensation program, who paid in the piggy to get nothing at the end whatsoever?
SamSpade said:
No doubt
I've planned for my future without one single consideration to social security in that mix. I just think it is doomed to fail or the benefit will be greatly reduced.
Last edited by a moderator:
What's the difference? Your employer has to 'pay' it, even if you work less than 20 hours a week at minimum wage, whether he has a retirement plan or not. If it did not exist, he wouldn't have to pay it at all. Fact is, 15% percent of the moneys paid on your behalf go into a federal retirement system which pays as we go, rather than invested over time like every other retirement plan in the universe. So we have, effectively, a Ponzi scheme which depends on making sure there are enough suckers at the bottom to keep supporting the top. If the top gets too big in a Ponzi scheme, as it always does, it collapses.rraley said:
Moving the age won't fly in the U.S. - people expect to retire in their 60's. Only a fraction of the U.S. survived to 65 back in the days it was implemented - a comparable age today would be more like 75, just slightly past the average life span. And it's not practical either, because although people live longer, they're not really able to work well past current retirement age, typically.
And although 'soaking the rich' - more or less denying SS benefits to persons above a certain tax bracket has its appeal to the typical class warfare advocate - it becomes another tax to pay the poor on those who pay the most into it. Rather than get something for your taxes, the rich will absolutely get nothing on what they pay into it. And that's just wrong.
And we're having this discussion because the simple, intelligent solution to it all is to create a normal, invested retirement plan, and Democrats want to continue to put it on life support - this crazy, insane scheme which has always been bad. WHY support something insane when a simple solution is so obvious, that nearly everyone who actually plans for retirement does it that way?
You did not say that.rraley said:
What's funny is that rich liberals, who are the most vocal opponents of SS, don't seem to be standing in line to give up their money. Barbra Streisand could sell ONE of her homes, and keep a thousand retirees in the gravy. But she doesn't do that.
Why not?
I'm reminded of a couple of parallels with the advancement of science. If you don't see the connection right away, bear with me a little.
Prior to the modern concept of our solar system, the Church and society at large were horrified at Galileo's assertion that Jupiter had its own moons - that little planets revolved around *anything* but the Earth itself. Even though the science was *obvious*, people would rather believe otherwise. They condemned Galileo even though anyone with a lick of sense knew he was right.
Later, when the planets were observed to move in peculiar paths - around the *Earth*, presumably - this was explained away by little "epicycles" - a kind of Spirograph loop-de-loop that the planets did to explain their apparent backward motion through space. When THAT model didn't explain things adequately, they further postulated that planets like Mars did even smaller and smaller loop-de-loops on the ones it already did. If you were to see the final drawings of what they postulated, you'd split your sides laughing.
Further, once a "geocentric" universe was debunked, people like Copernicus had a difficult time accepting that the universe wasn't "mathematically perfect" - that orbits MUST be perfect circles rather than ugly ellipses. It took Kepler to do that.
The thing is, in each case - and science is *REPLETE* with such idiocy - it was far, FAR simpler to accept a simple model that broke with pre-conceived notions than it was to support something idiotic and complex, but which supported ideas people already held. I mean, which is easier to believe is the truth - Mars orbits the SUN in a clean and completely predictable manner in an ellipse, or that it orbits the Earth in a circle but follows a weird looping pattern that escapes all manner of defining?
WHY do people want to prop up Social Security in the fashion it exists now, when it simply makes sense to create a *real* federal pension plan that actually makes money - in the very same manner that all people who plan for their retirement do? WHY are people even bothering to wonder - should we extend the age? Raise the cap? Raise the taxes? Tax the rich more? Why bother? This is like musing if Mars really wanders around the solar system - when, if you think intelligently - it's SO much more sensible to just accept that it doesn't work that way.
It makes SO MUCH MORE sense to create a pension plan that actually WORKS like a pension plan. We've got people all over the place saying "well it was only meant to be supplemental - you should invest your OWN money". Yeah. And how is THAT done?
What we SHOULD be asking is not the questions I mentioned earlier - we should be asking "What is it going to take to make federal pension plans like all other *successful* plans?".
Bush touched on ONE other concept, which is VEXING the Democrats - in his plan - it's not only your money, your offspring get to keep it. Why? 'Cuz it's YOUR money. Yours. You own it. Right now if you die before you draw any, the government just pockets it.
If everyone who works had a REAL, invested pension plan, there'd be no need for the elderly to be poor. I'm coming to the conclusion that government dependency IS a goal of the Democrats. Nothing else makes sense.
Prior to the modern concept of our solar system, the Church and society at large were horrified at Galileo's assertion that Jupiter had its own moons - that little planets revolved around *anything* but the Earth itself. Even though the science was *obvious*, people would rather believe otherwise. They condemned Galileo even though anyone with a lick of sense knew he was right.
Later, when the planets were observed to move in peculiar paths - around the *Earth*, presumably - this was explained away by little "epicycles" - a kind of Spirograph loop-de-loop that the planets did to explain their apparent backward motion through space. When THAT model didn't explain things adequately, they further postulated that planets like Mars did even smaller and smaller loop-de-loops on the ones it already did. If you were to see the final drawings of what they postulated, you'd split your sides laughing.
Further, once a "geocentric" universe was debunked, people like Copernicus had a difficult time accepting that the universe wasn't "mathematically perfect" - that orbits MUST be perfect circles rather than ugly ellipses. It took Kepler to do that.
The thing is, in each case - and science is *REPLETE* with such idiocy - it was far, FAR simpler to accept a simple model that broke with pre-conceived notions than it was to support something idiotic and complex, but which supported ideas people already held. I mean, which is easier to believe is the truth - Mars orbits the SUN in a clean and completely predictable manner in an ellipse, or that it orbits the Earth in a circle but follows a weird looping pattern that escapes all manner of defining?
WHY do people want to prop up Social Security in the fashion it exists now, when it simply makes sense to create a *real* federal pension plan that actually makes money - in the very same manner that all people who plan for their retirement do? WHY are people even bothering to wonder - should we extend the age? Raise the cap? Raise the taxes? Tax the rich more? Why bother? This is like musing if Mars really wanders around the solar system - when, if you think intelligently - it's SO much more sensible to just accept that it doesn't work that way.
It makes SO MUCH MORE sense to create a pension plan that actually WORKS like a pension plan. We've got people all over the place saying "well it was only meant to be supplemental - you should invest your OWN money". Yeah. And how is THAT done?
What we SHOULD be asking is not the questions I mentioned earlier - we should be asking "What is it going to take to make federal pension plans like all other *successful* plans?".
Bush touched on ONE other concept, which is VEXING the Democrats - in his plan - it's not only your money, your offspring get to keep it. Why? 'Cuz it's YOUR money. Yours. You own it. Right now if you die before you draw any, the government just pockets it.
If everyone who works had a REAL, invested pension plan, there'd be no need for the elderly to be poor. I'm coming to the conclusion that government dependency IS a goal of the Democrats. Nothing else makes sense.
I think that's pretty obvious. Most of them are little Socialists at heart and, if you don't believe me, just listen to them talk.SamSpade said:
An interesting history of Social Security:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html
Sam, I wish that everyone had a real invested pension plan...I really do, but we have to face facts, not everyone does. Along with this facing facts trend, in response to vraiblonde's questioning of my statement about "too much money," that statement has to do with our nation's anemic savings level. It is pathetic how little people in this nation save. Rather, we choose to spend freely regardless of how much money we have, thus meaning that people will have NOTHING to fall back on in case of their retirement. If we did not take that 7.5% of their paycheck and place in its a social insurance program for the elderly that they will be able to collect, spending would be stimulated while savings, already at a low point, would go down once again.
I see Social Security as government-mandated savings, which I believe this nation needs in order to ensure that we do not have an epidemic of improverished elders..
I see Social Security as government-mandated savings, which I believe this nation needs in order to ensure that we do not have an epidemic of improverished elders..
Last edited: