Got let go from work

[Chucktshoes]

The idea that the money you contribute to SS or the unemployment system goes into an account just for you is entirely false. The money you and I are forced to pay into the system is being used to pay benefits to current recipients, and massive amounts of beuracratic overhead.

The money current recipients paid in was squandered long ago, and they should've been keeping a better watch on their elected representatives at that time to fix the damage before it got to this point.

The government has no business in the retirement planning industry; if for no other reason than as we can all see they're pretty terrible at it.

Stealing from one to give to another is wrong, even if the recipient was at one point robbed themselves.

As for it being easy to save of you're not paying taxes or scamming the system, I'm sure it is. That has nothing to do with folks who are playing by the rules but not saving money. That's nobody's fault but their own.

This is what so many don't realize about SS, it isn't in any way shape form or fashion a retirement program. It is really two things. On one end it is a payroll tax just like any other and is deposited into the treasury without any earmark. On the other end it is a welfare program. Neither end creates an accrued property right to the money that was stolen from the folks paying in. If you doubt that, consult the 1960 SCOTUS decision Fleming v. Nestor which stated that nobody has a right to collect SS and Helvering v. Davis (1937), where the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.” Edited October 15, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[GlockSpock]

This is what so many don't realize about SS, it isn't in any way shape form or fashion a retirement program. It is really two things. On one end it is a payroll tax just like any other. On the other end it is a welfare program. Neither end creates an accrued property right to the money that was stolen from the folks paying in. If you doubt that, consult the 1960 SCOTUS decision Fleming v. Nestor which stated that nobody has a right to collect SS and Helvering v. Davis (1937), where the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

 

I'll simplify all of this -- Ponzi Scheme

Edited October 15, 2014 by CZ9MM

[Chucktshoes]

I'll simplify all of this -- Ponzi Scheme

Exactly.

[Luke E.]

The idea that the money you contribute to SS or the unemployment system goes into an account just for you is entirely false. The money you and I are forced to pay into the system is being used to pay benefits to current recipients, and massive amounts of beuracratic overhead.

The money current recipients paid in was squandered long ago, and they should've been keeping a better watch on their elected representatives at that time to fix the damage before it got to this point.

The government has no business in the retirement planning industry; if for no other reason than as we can all see they're pretty terrible at it.

Stealing from one to give to another is wrong, even if the recipient was at one point robbed themselves.

As for it being easy to save of you're not paying taxes or scamming the system, I'm sure it is. That has nothing to do with folks who are playing by the rules but not saving money. That's nobody's fault but their own.

 

 

This is what so many don't realize about SS, it isn't in any way shape form or fashion a retirement program. It is really two things. On one end it is a payroll tax just like any other and is deposited into the treasury without any earmark. On the other end it is a welfare program. Neither end creates an accrued property right to the money that was stolen from the folks paying in. If you doubt that, consult the 1960 SCOTUS decision Fleming v. Nestor which stated that nobody has a right to collect SS and Helvering v. Davis (1937), where the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

 

 

 I don't think anyone here is saying that they think their money that they've been forced to pay in is being held for them in their own account. Chuck, I'm not real concerned with any past supreme court decisions because I am not nor do I plan to try and fight this out in court. What I, and I think most of us, are saying is that SS was sold to the American people as money taken from them in order to be able to pay them a piss poor paycheck once they were to old to work or decided to fall out of the workplace after a certain age. We have not been lead to believe this about any other social program that I can think of. SS is the only program that we have been lead to believe that we will one day start receiving repayment on. By you guys way of thinking, only leeches would draw SS because it was never put into a separate  "retirement" type fund even though it has been sold to the "leeches" as a retirement savings. So if they start stealing more of our money and tell us that it is for any medical care costs we might incur but then they deposit the money in the same place that they deposit the SS money, neither of you are going to allow them to pay your medical expenses? Wouldn't allowing that money to cover your medical expenses make you a leech? 

[mikegideon]

It WAS in a fund. AFIK, the fund still exists. They just raped the fund. The government tells some big lies, but I won't accept the SS lie. If they were going to screw me at that level, they should have let me know so I could have dedicated my life to screwing them back.

[TMF]

If they were going to screw me at that level, they should have let me know so I could have dedicated my life to screwing them back.

I work at it every day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RC3]

You are going to tell your grandma to "suck it"?

Ouch

Long story. But I would rather not get into it.

[broox]

Long story. But I would rather not get into it.

Fair enough

[Murgatroy]

Long story. But I would rather not get into it.

 

 

 

Fair enough

I disagree. If you are going to post inane things like beating up your Grandma on the internet, in a thread where you list in explicit detail how you lost your job, you slander all your former coworkers, then you detail how you are going to steal company documents, I think you should full well be expected to explain yourself.

 

But that is just me.

 

I don't have a problem with sharing. I love being detailed if someone asks, but there are certain things that I keep to myself.

 

So my advice is, if you want to keep something in the closet, don't open the door. ;)

Edited October 17, 2014 by Murgatroy

[Chucktshoes]

I don't think anyone here is saying that they think their money that they've been forced to pay in is being held for them in their own account. Chuck, I'm not real concerned with any past supreme court decisions because I am not nor do I plan to try and fight this out in court. What I, and I think most of us, are saying is that SS was sold to the American people as money taken from them in order to be able to pay them a piss poor paycheck once they were to old to work or decided to fall out of the workplace after a certain age. We have not been lead to believe this about any other social program that I can think of. SS is the only program that we have been lead to believe that we will one day start receiving repayment on. By you guys way of thinking, only leeches would draw SS because it was never put into a separate "retirement" type fund even though it has been sold to the "leeches" as a retirement savings. So if they start stealing more of our money and tell us that it is for any medical care costs we might incur but then they deposit the money in the same place that they deposit the SS money, neither of you are going to allow them to pay your medical expenses? Wouldn't allowing that money to cover your medical expenses make you a leech?

It WAS in a fund. AFIK, the fund still exists. They just raped the fund. The government tells some big lies, but I won't accept the SS lie. If they were going to screw me at that level, they should have let me know so I could have dedicated my life to screwing them back.

It's a real bitch to get told that you got taken, isn't it? When you find out that thing you thought was a good deal was really just a scam.

Luke, you should be concerned with those SCOTUS cases for the simple reason that they explain the truth of what SS really is, and it isn't what you've think you've bought. When I speak of "no accrued property rights", I am not talking about an account somewhere marked with your name on it that you will draw from. I mean that the government can change the criteria for receiving the welfare portion of SS tomorrow, making you ineligible to get it, and you would have absolutely zero legal grounds to contest it. You would have to accept your lumps and move on without it.

Mike, nope. The fund is, and always has been nothing more than an accounting trick. Nothing more than a line item on the ledger that could be (and was!) shifted one place or another as needed. Edited October 17, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[mikegideon]

It's a real bitch to get told that you got taken, isn't it? When you find out that thing you thought was a good deal was really just a scam.

Luke, you should be concerned with those SCOTUS cases for the simple reason that they explain the truth of what SS really is, and it isn't what you've think you've bought. When I speak of "no accrued property rights", I am not talking about an account somewhere marked with your name on it that you will draw from. I mean that the government can change the criteria for receiving the welfare portion of SS tomorrow, making you ineligible to get it, and you would have absolutely zero legal grounds to contest it. You would have to accept your lumps and move on without it.

Mike, nope. The fund is, and always has been nothing more than an accounting trick. Nothing more than a line item on the ledger that could be (and was!) shifted one place or another as needed.

 

The whole damn government is an accounting trick. Doesn't matter what SS really is. It's breach of contract, or it's not. Breach of contract is a rocky path.

[Chucktshoes]

The whole damn government is an accounting trick. Doesn't matter what SS really is. It's breach of contract, or it's not. Breach of contract is a rocky path.

Mike, that's my point, there was never any contract. What SS really is does matter because that is what determined whether a contract was even possible or not, and the answer is "not". SS is two things, a tax and a welfare program. You can't decline consent to the first and have no right to the second. No contract was ever possible. It is all very clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print.

[tnguy]

In some ways, SS is operating the way it would be expected to. You pay into it and the government uses the money to grow the economy and then uses that growth to pay out to recipients as needed.

 

What this misses, however, is:

 

1)Government is fucking useless with money

2)Demographic changes

3)Government is fucking useless with money

 

The demographic issue is likely to affect private pensions also however. It's simple logistics. You have less people producing and more people wanting to be less productive (retiring). It just doesn't go. That's even before the huge stock market bubble that's going to cause problems and government wanting to tax pensions. Private is still better than public, however.

 

Personally, I don't plan on retiring anyway. Seems like a good way to die quickly. I just want the ability to take my foot off the throttle a bit.

[Chucktshoes]

In some ways, SS is operating the way it would be expected to. You pay into it and the government uses the money to grow the economy and then uses that growth to pay out to recipients as needed.

What this misses, however, is:

1)Government is ####ing useless with money
2)Demographic changes
3)Government is ####ing useless with money

The demographic issue is likely to affect private pensions also however. It's simple logistics. You have less people producing and more people wanting to be less productive (retiring). It just doesn't go. That's even before the huge stock market bubble that's going to cause problems and government wanting to tax pensions. Private is still better than public, however.

Personally, I don't plan on retiring anyway. Seems like a good way to die quickly. I just want the ability to take my foot off the throttle a bit.

I would agree with all of this except one very important thing. The original premise regarding SS is faulty. Governments are completely incapable of "growing the economy". Governments can only have negative effects on the economy by retarding growth through taxation. The smaller the government and the less it removes from the economy, the less negative its effects are. Every dollar the government spends was previously removed from legitimate economic activity and carries with it and exponentially large cumulative economic loss due to its absence. Edited October 17, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[mikegideon]

Mike, that's my point, there was never any contract. What SS really is does matter because that is what determined whether a contract was even possible or not, and the answer is "not". SS is two things, a tax and a welfare program. You can't decline consent to the first and have no right to the second. No contract was ever possible. It is all very clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print.

 

Why read the fine print? It wasn't optional. Anyway, I will wind up getting some of mine back if i make it to the age of eligibility. Part of those changing demographics... my generation wasn't raised to accept a screwing like that. It was NEVER presented as a tax, or it would have been voted away. They won't just shut it down.

[mikegideon]

I would agree with all of this except one very important thing. The original premise regarding SS is faulty. Governments are completely incapable of "growing the economy". Governments can only have negative effects on the economy by retarding growth through taxation. The smaller the government and the less it removes from the economy, the less negative its effects are. Every dollar the government spends was previously removed from legitimate economic activity and carries with it and exponentially large cumulative economic loss due to its absence.

 

Completely agree. But, here we are :)

[Chucktshoes]

Mike, it was declared a tax in 1937, just after it's inception. It is the only way that it was able to be declared constitutional. If it hadn't been declared a tax, it wouldn't exist. Does that sound at all familiar to you?


P.S. Government voting away a tax? :lol: :lol: :lol: Edited October 17, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[mikegideon]

Mike, it was declared a tax in 1937, just after it's inception. It is the only way that it was able to be declared constitutional. If it hadn't been declared a tax, it wouldn't exist. Does that sound at all familiar to you?


P.S. Government voting away a tax? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I wasn't even a sperm cell in '37. Doesn't matter. Even Paul Ryan doesn't want to shut it down. It won't go away WITHOUT the votes. Call me a leach if you want

[Chucktshoes]

I wasn't even a sperm cell in '37. Doesn't matter. Even Paul Ryan doesn't want to shut it down. It won't go away WITHOUT the votes. Call me a leach if you want

What's Paul Ryan got to do with fiscal responsibility? :lol:

Like I said before, just because someone stole money from you doesn't justify you stealing it from someone else. If you are cool with enjoying the fruits of theft, that's on you buddy.

[tnguy]

I would agree with all of this except one very important thing. The original premise regarding SS is faulty. Governments are completely incapable of "growing the economy". Governments can only have negative effects on the economy by retarding growth through taxation. The smaller the government and the less it removes from the economy, the less negative its effects are. Every dollar the government spends was previously removed from legitimate economic activity and carries with it and exponentially large cumulative economic loss due to its absence.

 

Agree absolutely.

[mikegideon]

What's Paul Ryan got to do with fiscal responsibility? :lol:

Like I said before, just because someone stole money from you doesn't justify you stealing it from someone else. If you are cool with enjoying the fruits of theft, that's on you buddy.

 

And if you think it's going directly from your pocket into mine, you are smoking the shit that killed Elvis. :)

[MacGyver]

When it comes to Social Security, only two things are certain: 

1. Math.  At some point, a large portion of the population is going to get screwed.  You can try to push it off, but a day of reckoning is coming.
2. All main-party politicians - Republican or Democrat will do anything possible to avoid having to be the responsible voice in the room.  They'll hold hands and sing campfire songs before they admit that we'd send people to jail in any private sector business for doing what they've done with Social Security.

So either you're going to have the political class grow up and do the responsible thing (which is not ever going to happen) or you're going to have the political class pretend to look away and feign surprise as we skip towards a European-style socialist state that consumes a growing percentage of the wealth that it claims to help create. 

 

We've got the consumption part pretty well squared away in this country. We probably also have a moral responsibility to ensure that those who are currently of retirement age (or close to it) don't have to eat dog-food during their golden years.  I'd much rather see local communities, churches and families step up to fill this gap.  But, without sane voices in the government and a plan to wean the people off of the government teat, there's no incentive for anyone to have those conversations.

 

Strange place we find ourselves in.  Empires are hard. 

[tnguy]

It won't go away WITHOUT the votes.

 

Perhaps. But it can't not go away (or at least continue to exist substantially as it is currently). So that leaves us in an interesting place.

 

Unless there's a wide-scale collapse, I strongly suspect that the taxpayer of the future is likely to turn around and say "Enough. We're not paying you any more. You should have solved this problem before you came to rely on it. This is your problem, not ours" and you'll see a lot of people in their retirement years in an awful lot of trouble.

[Chucktshoes]

Perhaps. But it can't not go away (or at least continue to exist substantially as it is currently). So that leaves us in an interesting place.

Unless there's a wide-scale collapse, I strongly suspect that the taxpayer of the future is likely to turn around and say "Enough. We're not paying you any more. You should have solved this problem before you came to rely on it. This is your problem, not ours" and you'll see a lot of people in their retirement years in an awful lot of trouble.

I don't generally vote anymore, but I'd vote or that.

[Chucktshoes]

And if you think it's going directly from your pocket into mine, you are smoking the #### that killed Elvis. :)

Nope, the other leaches in the government get their cut first. It couldn't happen any other way.