Here's a Big Start to Fixing Social Security

[Shoobis1]

Social security was created in a time when just giving free money to poor elderly people might have been too controversial, so we created this muse that people are just getting their own money back. People pay into social security their whole lives, and then when they're old, they collect the benefits. The problem with this is that a very large amount of the money goes to people who don't need it and who have plenty of money. In fact, the more wealthy a person is, the more benefits they're eligible for. It's kind of counter-productive.

Let's get rid of the muse that people are just getting their own money back and make social security what it should be--a safety net for elderly people who don't have enough money to survive and who are too old to work. That seems reasonable to me. Only pay benefits to people who are too poor to support themselves. This would hugely reduce the cost of social security, which is an enormous part of our federal budget.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Social security was created in a time when just giving free money to poor elderly people might have been too controversial, so we created this muse that people are just getting their own money back. People pay into social security their whole lives, and then when they're old, they collect the benefits. The problem with this is that a very large amount of the money goes to people who don't need it and who have plenty of money. In fact, the more wealthy a person is, the more benefits they're eligible for. It's kind of counter-productive.

Let's get rid of the muse that people are just getting their own money back and make social security what it should be--a safety net for elderly people who don't have enough money to survive and who are too old to work. That seems reasonable to me. Only pay benefits to people who are too poor to support themselves. This would hugely reduce the cost of social security, which is an enormous part of our federal budget.

Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security Online

Social Security is 20% of the budget, equal to defense.

You'll never be able to get rid of it...but there is an outside chance to privatize at least part of it.

 

[WillowTree]

Social security was created in a time when just giving free money to poor elderly people might have been too controversial, so we created this muse that people are just getting their own money back. People pay into social security their whole lives, and then when they're old, they collect the benefits. The problem with this is that a very large amount of the money goes to people who don't need it and who have plenty of money. In fact, the more wealthy a person is, the more benefits they're eligible for. It's kind of counter-productive.

Let's get rid of the muse that people are just getting their own money back and make social security what it should be--a safety net for elderly people who don't have enough money to survive and who are too old to work. That seems reasonable to me. Only pay benefits to people who are too poor to support themselves. This would hugely reduce the cost of social security, which is an enormous part of our federal budget.

there's a thing in the constitution that says people have to have their taxes distributed fairly. so if you don't want wealthy people collecting social security don't ask them to pay into it. It you want to support the poor call it what it is welfare. Thanks for listening.

 

[Shoobis1]

Social security was created in a time when just giving free money to poor elderly people might have been too controversial, so we created this muse that people are just getting their own money back. People pay into social security their whole lives, and then when they're old, they collect the benefits. The problem with this is that a very large amount of the money goes to people who don't need it and who have plenty of money. In fact, the more wealthy a person is, the more benefits they're eligible for. It's kind of counter-productive.

Let's get rid of the muse that people are just getting their own money back and make social security what it should be--a safety net for elderly people who don't have enough money to survive and who are too old to work. That seems reasonable to me. Only pay benefits to people who are too poor to support themselves. This would hugely reduce the cost of social security, which is an enormous part of our federal budget.

there's a thing in the constitution that says people have to have their taxes distributed fairly. so if you don't want wealthy people collecting social security don't ask them to pay into it. It you want to support the poor call it what it is welfare. Thanks for listening.

Where in the Constitution does it say that? In any case, what's "fair" is open to debate. And you can call it "welfare" if you want, you can call it whatever you want to.

 

[WillowTree]

Social security was created in a time when just giving free money to poor elderly people might have been too controversial, so we created this muse that people are just getting their own money back. People pay into social security their whole lives, and then when they're old, they collect the benefits. The problem with this is that a very large amount of the money goes to people who don't need it and who have plenty of money. In fact, the more wealthy a person is, the more benefits they're eligible for. It's kind of counter-productive.

Let's get rid of the muse that people are just getting their own money back and make social security what it should be--a safety net for elderly people who don't have enough money to survive and who are too old to work. That seems reasonable to me. Only pay benefits to people who are too poor to support themselves. This would hugely reduce the cost of social security, which is an enormous part of our federal budget.

there's a thing in the constitution that says people have to have their taxes distributed fairly. so if you don't want wealthy people collecting social security don't ask them to pay into it. It you want to support the poor call it what it is welfare. Thanks for listening.

Where in the Constitution does it say that? In any case, what's "fair" is open to debate. And you can call it "welfare" if you want, you can call it whatever you want to.

read, you will find.

 

[WillowTree]

Social security was created in a time when just giving free money to poor elderly people might have been too controversial, so we created this muse that people are just getting their own money back. People pay into social security their whole lives, and then when they're old, they collect the benefits. The problem with this is that a very large amount of the money goes to people who don't need it and who have plenty of money. In fact, the more wealthy a person is, the more benefits they're eligible for. It's kind of counter-productive.

Let's get rid of the muse that people are just getting their own money back and make social security what it should be--a safety net for elderly people who don't have enough money to survive and who are too old to work. That seems reasonable to me. Only pay benefits to people who are too poor to support themselves. This would hugely reduce the cost of social security, which is an enormous part of our federal budget.

there's a thing in the constitution that says people have to have their taxes distributed fairly. so if you don't want wealthy people collecting social security don't ask them to pay into it. It you want to support the poor call it what it is welfare. Thanks for listening.

Where in the Constitution does it say that? In any case, what's "fair" is open to debate. And you can call it "welfare" if you want, you can call it whatever you want to.

So you are willing to let those who won't receive opt out?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Social security was created in a time when just giving free money to poor elderly people might have been too controversial, so we created this muse that people are just getting their own money back. People pay into social security their whole lives, and then when they're old, they collect the benefits. The problem with this is that a very large amount of the money goes to people who don't need it and who have plenty of money. In fact, the more wealthy a person is, the more benefits they're eligible for. It's kind of counter-productive.

Let's get rid of the muse that people are just getting their own money back and make social security what it should be--a safety net for elderly people who don't have enough money to survive and who are too old to work. That seems reasonable to me. Only pay benefits to people who are too poor to support themselves. This would hugely reduce the cost of social security, which is an enormous part of our federal budget.

there's a thing in the constitution that says people have to have their taxes distributed fairly. so if you don't want wealthy people collecting social security don't ask them to pay into it. It you want to support the poor call it what it is welfare. Thanks for listening.

Where in the Constitution does it say that? In any case, what's "fair" is open to debate. And you can call it "welfare" if you want, you can call it whatever you want to.

1. FDR, master politician, sculpted the program so it could not be whittled down by economic measures: he called the payroll taxes ‘contributions’…”We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren’t a matter of economics, they’re straight politics.” Social Security Online - HISTORY, FDR Quote from Luther Gulick

a. The implied promise was that one’s ‘contributions’ belonged to him or her, and SS was not simply a tax-funded program that could be cut…thus the designation of a Social Security Trust Fund. Of course that changed in 1983, and since then the funds have been used as general revenue.

 

[AllieBaba]

We created...a...MUSE?

 

[Shoobis1]

there's a thing in the constitution that says people have to have their taxes distributed fairly. so if you don't want wealthy people collecting social security don't ask them to pay into it. It you want to support the poor call it what it is welfare. Thanks for listening.

Where in the Constitution does it say that? In any case, what's "fair" is open to debate. And you can call it "welfare" if you want, you can call it whatever you want to.

1. FDR, master politician, sculpted the program so it could not be whittled down by economic measures: he called the payroll taxes ‘contributions’…”We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren’t a matter of economics, they’re straight politics.” Social Security Online - HISTORY, FDR Quote from Luther Gulick

a. The implied promise was that one’s ‘contributions’ belonged to him or her, and SS was not simply a tax-funded program that could be cut…thus the designation of a Social Security Trust Fund. Of course that changed in 1983, and since then the funds have been used as general revenue.

Of course that's what it says in the social security law, what I asked is where in the Constitution does it say that taxes must be distributed fairly. Willowtree had claimed it said this in the Constitution.

I think we should try to make good on all our past social security obligations if at all possible, but definitely change the law for the future so that it's not just a giant, obligatory, government-controlled savings account. It's a huge nonsensical expense for the government that assumes that people are not capable of saving for their retirement on their own.

 

[Shoobis1]

We created...a...MUSE?

Ha. I guess "ruse" was the word I was looking for.

 

[cutter]

I've paid a lot more than $22 into social security in the last 48yrs. What was that money for? Just an added tax on working people? Don't say it went to pay the benefit of others drawing SS because for the last 30yrs or so it just went into the general fund as a loan to be paid back with interest. It's time to pay back some of that money that was borrowed from SS then SS will be fine. OH I get it . You just don't want to pay those loans back.

 

[Shoobis1]

there's a thing in the constitution that says people have to have their taxes distributed fairly. so if you don't want wealthy people collecting social security don't ask them to pay into it. It you want to support the poor call it what it is welfare. Thanks for listening.

Where in the Constitution does it say that? In any case, what's "fair" is open to debate. And you can call it "welfare" if you want, you can call it whatever you want to.

So you are willing to let those who won't receive opt out?

Not necessarily. I said you could call it welfare if you want.

I suppose the question is, should we have any welfare at all, even for elderly people who have no money and are too old to work? I'm not even suggesting the answer, I'm just saying this is the question.

 

[Shoobis1]

I've paid a lot more than $22 into social security in the last 48yrs. What was that money for? Just an added tax on working people? Don't say it went to pay the benefit of others drawing SS because for the last 30yrs or so it just went into the general fund as a loan to be paid back with interest. It's time to pay back some of that money that was borrowed from SS then SS will be fine. OH I get it . You just don't want to pay those loans back.

I think it's stupid that we created a program like social security where we pledged to pay people decades down the line. We can't predict what will happen in 4 years, let alone 40 years. And now we're stuck with the consequences: we have all these obligations to pay out social security benefits and we can't afford it. Oops!

As I said, I suppose we should try to pay our previous obligations if we can, but now change the law so that in the future we don't put ourselves in this situation again.

 

[WillowTree]

Where in the Constitution does it say that? In any case, what's "fair" is open to debate. And you can call it "welfare" if you want, you can call it whatever you want to.

So you are willing to let those who won't receive opt out?

Not necessarily. I said you could call it welfare if you want.

I suppose the question is, should we have any welfare at all, even for elderly people who have no money and are too old to work? I'm not even suggesting the answer, I'm just saying this is the question.

did you find your copy of the constitution or were you too lazy to go look?

 

[Shoobis1]

So you are willing to let those who won't receive opt out?

Not necessarily. I said you could call it welfare if you want.

I suppose the question is, should we have any welfare at all, even for elderly people who have no money and are too old to work? I'm not even suggesting the answer, I'm just saying this is the question.

did you find your copy of the constitution or were you too lazy to go look?

No, I didn't go read the entire Constitution because someone on a forum asked me to. You referenced something you said was in the Constitution. Shouldn't it be on you to find it?

 

[WillowTree]

Not necessarily. I said you could call it welfare if you want.

I suppose the question is, should we have any welfare at all, even for elderly people who have no money and are too old to work? I'm not even suggesting the answer, I'm just saying this is the question.

did you find your copy of the constitution or were you too lazy to go look?

No, I didn't go read the entire Constitution because someone on a forum asked me to. You referenced something you said was in the Constitution. Shouldn't it be on you to find it?

I already found it. That's why I mentioned it. You disagree. Now show me it isn't there.

 

[AllieBaba]

What Willow is saying is the answer is there, if you were really interested in learning it.

 

[Shoobis1]

I'm not going to read the entire Constitution looking for something because some random person on the Internet asked me to. That's completely unreasonable. In order for that to be worth my time, I'd have to have a really good reason to think it was super important. I read many posts on this forum making many points. There's no reason I'm going to read through the whole constitution because one person wants me to, because he doesn't want to tell me where he's looking for some reason.

 

[AllieBaba]

You still aren't getting it.

If somebody told ME the answer was in the constitution, I think I'd look into it. Maybe even go so far as to ask *where*? So I could see it myself.

Not sit on my ass and pose questions that I expect other people to answer for me because I'm too lazy to look it up, even when I'm told where to find it.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm not going to read the entire Constitution looking for something because some random person on the Internet asked me to. That's completely unreasonable. In order for that to be worth my time, I'd have to have a really good reason to think it was super important. I read many posts on this forum making many points. There's no reason I'm going to read through the whole constitution because one person wants me to, because he doesn't want to tell me where he's looking for some reason.

Are you an American? Did you graduate from high school without reading the Constitution of the United States of America? And are you willfully saying . right here and now it's not worth your time? Well then,, okay lazy person.. I'll tell you what I read.. and then you can argue your ignorance.
Article One Section Eight
Uniformity ClauseThe final phrase of the Taxing and Spending Clause stipulates:

“ but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. ”

Here, the requirement is that taxes must be geographically uniform throughout the United States. This means taxes affected by this provision must function "with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found."[31] However, this clause does not require revenues raised by the tax from each state be equal.







okay lazy boy,,