Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's "welfare" that you prepaid for. Some people call that "insurance".
Take?
SS is government checks. It is not a savings account with your money in it. If you collect SS you are on old people welfare.
You had a whole lifetime to get ready for this. Why are you relying on the government now?
Originally posted by no1marauderYou didn't sign up for any deal. You were born into it. It was a government program that you had absolutely no say in creating. It is a government program where you get your benefits at the government's whim. That's the way it is.
That's not the deal I signed up for and have paid into for decades.
Is it just for the government to unilaterally change the conditions of SS to reduce or delay someone's benefits AFTER that person has been paying with the understanding that the conditions were X?
If you really had a chance to accept it or not, you'd have a choice in entering the agreement or not.
Originally posted by EladarIt remains fundamentally unjust to alter the conditions of a program after you have been paying into it for decades to reduce what you will receive. SS is "insurance" after all.
You didn't sign up for any deal. You were born into it. It was a government program that you had absolutely no say in creating. It is a government program where you get your benefits at the government's whim. That's the way it is.
If you really had a chance to accept it or not, you'd have a choice in entering the agreement or not.
Public support for SS has been instrumental in its continuation. Support would have been far less if the government had asserted the power to unilaterally reduce benefits whenever they felt like it.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou have no problem raising taxes whenever it suits your whim. There is no promise that eligibility requirements will not change.
That's not the deal I signed up for and have paid into for decades.
Is it just for the government to unilaterally change the conditions of SS to reduce or delay someone's benefits AFTER that person has been paying with the understanding that the conditions were X?
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackWhat does that have to do with anything? Tax rates are prospective; changes in tax rates don't effect income you already made in previous years.
You have no problem raising taxes whenever it suits your whim. There is no promise that eligibility requirements will not change.
By contrast, unilaterally raising the eligibility age of SS actually erodes the net value of prior contributions.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWow you really haven't worked much have you?
Take?
SS is government checks. It is not a savings account with your money in it. If you collect SS you are on old people welfare.
You had a whole lifetime to get ready for this. Why are you relying on the government now?
look at your paycheck next time you get one.
It's called Federal OASDI, THAT'S Social Security. About $200 per month comes out of my pay for it.
It's not "old people on welfare", it's money they've paid into an account for their entire lives.
Jesus buy a clue.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't see why it is "unjust". Some people pay lots of taxes but rarely use any government services. Some people never pay any taxes.
It remains fundamentally unjust to alter the conditions of a program after you have been paying into it for decades to reduce what you will receive. SS is "insurance" after all.
Public support for SS has been instrumental in its continuation. Support would have been far less if the government had asserted the power to unilaterally reduce benefits whenever they felt like it.
Originally posted by no1marauderThere's something called reality. The reality is that there comes a point in a changing world where what the government could do before, it can no longer do. The dynamics change and sometimes those changes are for the worse.
What does that have to do with anything? Tax rates are prospective; changes in tax rates don't effect income you already made in previous years.
By contrast, unilaterally raising the eligibility age of SS actually erodes the net value of prior contributions.
People in places like Greece already know this fact. I think more and more people will come to this realization. The government can't simply print money and pretend that it never has to really pay for anything.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIs it unjust that if a person dies at 64 that he or she will never see the money? Is it unjust that the money won't go on to his or her survivors?
I don't see why it is "unjust". Some people pay lots of taxes but rarely use any government services. Some people never pay any taxes.
If you ask me, the present system is very unjust.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarOK fine then I want all the money back I've paid into social security over the last 45 years, with a reasonable amount of interest and adjusted for inflation.
There's something called reality. The reality is that there comes a point in a changing world where what the government could do before, it can no longer do. The dynamics change and sometimes those changes are for the worse.
People in places like Greece already know this fact. I think more and more people will come to this realization. The government can't simply print money and pretend that it never has to really pay for anything.
I should be a millionaire then and the government can keep it's crappy little monthly payment.
Originally posted by Zapp BranniganPeople generally don't get their money back once a Ponzi scheme gets exposed.
OK fine then I want all the money back I've paid into social security over the last 45 years, with a reasonable amount of interest.
I should be a millionaire then and the government can keep it's crappy little monthly payment.