Originally posted by KazetNagorra
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.

Do you understand the actual way SS works?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually, they do get a survivors' benefit.

A 64 year old's adult children and grandchildren get survivor's benefits?

Originally posted by Eladar
A 64 year old's adult children and grandchildren get survivor's benefits?

Learn something: http://ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html

Originally posted by Eladar
People generally don't get their money back once a Ponzi scheme gets exposed.

Especially if there are people like you claiming they should pay even longer and wait until just before they die to collect a few dollars back.

Originally posted by Eladar
People generally don't get their money back once a Ponzi scheme gets exposed.

We've dealt with that absurd claim on this board before; SS is certainly not a "Ponzi scheme".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Learn something: http://ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html

•Your unmarried children who are younger than age 18 (or up to age 19 if they are attending elementary or secondary school full time) also can receive benefits. Your children can get benefits at any age if they were disabled before age 22 and remain disabled. Under certain circumstances, benefits also can be paid to your stepchildren, grandchildren, stepgrandchildren or adopted children.



No, adult children do not see a penny of the money that a parent puts into SS if the parent dies before the age of 65.

If a couple dies in a car accident and both people worked from the age of 21 until the age of 64, their surviving children (probably about 30-45ish) won't see a single penny. The government keeps the money. That was the plan since the start.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

Your distinction is irrelevant. The government changes tax rates all the time and it effects the expected values of investment or the expected vaue of an employment deal. You might not have sign an employment contract or make an investment deal if you knew tax rates would increase. But there is no protection for your expectation.
Why do you belive the government has no right to erode the net value of your Social Security benefits but has the right to erode the value of everything else?

Originally posted by quackquack
Your distinction is irrelevant. The government changes tax rates all the time and it effects the expected values of investment or the expected vaue of an employment deal. You might not have sign an employment contract or make an investment deal if you knew tax rates would increase. But there is no protection for your expectation.
Why do you belive th ...[text shortened]... value of your Social Security benefits but has the right to erode the value of everything else?

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Other contracts aren't with the government. Even a right wing loon like yourself should be able to distinguish between the party to an agreement unilaterally changing the conditions in its favor from a risk from a third party that both parties are aware of.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Other contracts aren't with the government. Even a right wing loon like yourself should be able to distinguish between the party to an agreement unilaterally changing the conditions in its favor from a risk from a third party that both parties are aware of.

Where's this contract?

I know I've never signed a SS contract.

Originally posted by Eladar
Where's this contract?

I know I've never signed a SS contract.

No need to sign a contract, just look at your paycheck.
You pay into social security, like it or not.
And that is YOUR account, despite what you say.

Originally posted by Eladar
Where's this contract?

I know I've never signed a SS contract.

Don't be dense. One doesn't have to sign a contract to have mutual obligations. You pay into the system, the system provides benefits. That's a "contract".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Don't be dense. One doesn't have to sign a contract to have mutual obligations. You pay into the system, the system provides benefits. That's a "contract".

Eladar wants everyone to work until they are 75 or 80, lets see how he feels about it in another 20 years when he's 60.

Originally posted by Zapp Brannigan
No need to sign a contract, just look at your paycheck.
You pay into social security, like it or not.

Exactly, it is a taxed forced upon everyone who makes money and pays taxes. (Well, at least to a point, once you make enough money you no longer pay FICA tax)

There's no contract.

Originally posted by Eladar
[/b]•Your unmarried children who are younger than age 18 (or up to age 19 if they are attending elementary or secondary school full time) also can receive benefits. Your children can get benefits at any age if they were disabled before age 22 and remain disabled. Under certain circumstances, benefits also can be paid to your stepchildren, grandchildren, stepg ...[text shortened]... won't see a single penny. The government keeps the money. That was the plan since the start.

Yes that would be true. Perhaps you could care to provide the number of married couples who died in a single incident at age 64 to substantiate your complaining about the supposed "injustice" of the system.

Originally posted by Eladar
Exactly, it is a taxed forced upon everyone who makes money and pays taxes. (Well, at least to a point, once you make enough money you no longer pay FICA tax)

There's no contract.

Do you know what the term "contract" means? Apparently not.

A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties with mutual obligations.