Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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 arent a matter of economics, theyre straight politics. Social Security Online - HISTORY, FDR Quote from Luther Gulick
a. The implied promise was that ones 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.
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.
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,,
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,,
Your comments are simply baffling. I'm baffled. You expect me to have the entire Constitution memorized? I think few people have it memorized.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, so I'm not claiming to know this definitively, but that quote from the Constitution sounds like taxes must be collected evenly throughout the country. In other words, you couldn't tax people on the east coast 15% while taxing people on the west coast 30%. It has nothing to do with spending the tax money. Are you claiming that welfare in general is unconstitutional? I think the courts would disagree with you.
If someone tells me they're refusing to give me a reference and tell me to go read a whole long document to find it, I'll refuse that unless there's a very good reason.
You guys can say whatever else you want about me, and I'll probably read it, but I'm not going to respond. Arguing with strangers on the Internet is pointless.
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. (willow)
Just call it a payroll tax and the out go welfare of the people payment.
I think you got something there willow, just change the tax to go into the general fund and dole it out as some kind of means testing. say everyone in america gets a set amount which is drawn down by income over a set amount, say 1 dollar less for each dollar you make over 60,000 of total income.
Wow I like your idea willow.
why because it makes sense?
You guys can say whatever else you want about me, and I'll probably read it, but I'm not going to respond. Arguing with strangers on the Internet is pointless.
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.
But in fact, when Ida May Fuller received her first $22.54 benefit payment in January of 1940, this would be the same amount she would receive each month for the next 10 years. For Ida May Fuller, and the millions of other Social Security beneficiaries like her, the amount of that first benefit check was the amount they could expect to receive for life. It was not until the 1950 Amendments that Congress first legislated an increase in benefits. Current beneficiaries had their payments recomputed and Ida May Fuller, for example, saw her monthly check increase from $22.54 to $41.30.
These recomputations were effective for September 1950 and appeared for the first time in the October 1950 checks. A second increase was legislated for September 1952. Together these two increases almost doubled the value of Social Security benefits for existing beneficiaries. From that point on, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation for that purpose.
You guys can say whatever else you want about me, and I'll probably read it, but I'm not going to respond. Arguing with strangers on the Internet is pointless.
If you're going to stick around this board, you'll find soon that certain people will argue with anybody they perceive to be on the other "side" and it doesn't matter if you said it was a fact that the earth revolved around the sun. They'd argue the opposite and call you names while they're at it.
Shoobis -- Meet two: Willow Tree and Allie Babba. And there are more.
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.
PC, this is why your posts always irritate me. You post something that gives the impression that some fact stated, as written, tells the whole story. You are famous for leaving out pertinent parts, such as this (from your link):
But in fact, when Ida May Fuller received her first $22.54 benefit payment in January of 1940, this would be the same amount she would receive each month for the next 10 years. For Ida May Fuller, and the millions of other Social Security beneficiaries like her, the amount of that first benefit check was the amount they could expect to receive for life. It was not until the 1950 Amendments that Congress first legislated an increase in benefits. Current beneficiaries had their payments recomputed and Ida May Fuller, for example, saw her monthly check increase from $22.54 to $41.30.
These recomputations were effective for September 1950 and appeared for the first time in the October 1950 checks. A second increase was legislated for September 1952. Together these two increases almost doubled the value of Social Security benefits for existing beneficiaries. From that point on, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation for that purpose.
Ida Mae got a 77% COLA increase in 1950 and enjoyed every other COLA increase enacted by law thereafter until she died.
Why must you confuse people with half-truths?
uring her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.
