19 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYou didn't have a choice. It's a tax, not a contract. You paid SS tax because the government made you, not because you agreed to put the money away for yourself in exchange for a promise of future benefits.
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?
While 80 is extreme, raising the retirement age to 68 or 69 (or even 67) is a good way to help solve the obvious problems that social security is headed for very, very soon.
I suppose you could build in some sort of health exception for people who are physically or mentally incapable of working...
19 Jul 11
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?
I think conditions X was the condition that if you didn't pay it, you'd go to jail.
19 Jul 11
Originally posted by sh76I disagree. Sure it was a COLLECTIVE decision, but still it was a decision that involves mutual, reciprocal obligations between individuals and the government. That's a "contract" (similar to the concept of the "social contract" itself).
You didn't have a choice. It's a tax, not a contract. You paid SS tax because the government made you, not because you agreed to put the money away for yourself in exchange for a promise of future benefits.
While 80 is extreme, raising the retirement age to 68 or 69 (or even 67) is a good way to help solve the obvious problems that social security is headed ...[text shortened]... ome sort of health exception for people who are physically or mentally incapable of working...
19 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarYes, you were obligated to pay X % of your income into the system.
[b]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?
I think conditions X was the condition that if you didn't pay it, you'd go to jail.[/b]
In return, the government was obligated to pay an amount to you starting at a certain age.
Mutual, reciprocal obligations. That's a "contract".
19 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderTell that to Greece and any other country that's had to cut back on its social safety net or increase its retirement age. I think France did it.
I disagree. Sure it was a COLLECTIVE decision, but still it was a decision that involves mutual, reciprocal obligations between individuals and the government. That's a "contract" (similar to the concept of the "social contract" itself).
19 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is no such obligation, other than in your head.
Yes, you were obligated to pay X % of your income into the system.
In return, the government was obligated to pay an amount to you starting at a certain age.
Mutual, reciprocal obligations. That's a "contract".
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by Zapp BranniganThat money goes to taking care of people who are old while you're working. The Feds aren't saving that money for you. They're spending it on old people. Now you are relying on people like me, and like Paris Hilton, to contribute enough taxes to take care of you, in hopes the next generation will do it for us...etc.
Wow you really haven't worked much have you?
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.
But somehow there is no tax money flowing.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOf course, prior years' contributions have exceeded payouts by $2.5 trillion.
That money goes to taking care of people who are old while you're working. The Feds aren't saving that money for you. They're spending it on old people. Now you are relying on people like me, and like Paris Hilton, to contribute enough taxes to take care of you, in hopes the next generation will do it for us...etc.
But somehow there is no tax money flowing.
20 Jul 11
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat money is MY Social Security Account, I get a statement every year regarding it's disposition and payout expected according to my contributions.
That money goes to taking care of people who are old while you're working. The Feds aren't saving that money for you. They're spending it on old people. Now you are relying on people like me, and like Paris Hilton, to contribute enough taxes to take care of you, in hopes the next generation will do it for us...etc.
But somehow there is no tax money flowing.
You wouldn't know that because you haven't worked long enough to get a statement have you?
My God you really are clueless.