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.
They can "take" your house by giving you compensation.
They can take your Social Security and give you nothing.
Check it out....
You worked hard your whole life and paid thousands of dollars in Social Security taxes. Now it's time to retire. You're legally entitled to Social Security benefits, right? Wrong. There is no legal right to Social Security, and that is one of the considerations that may decide the coming debate over Social Security reform.
Many people believe that Social Security is an "earned right." That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as "contributions," as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
Is There a Right to Social Security? | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary
I have posted this before, but I think you might appreciate it....
The happiest place on earth - Denmark
Disney World claims the distinction of being "the happiest place on earth," but if you're really in search of human bliss, you'd be surprised where you'll find it.
Is there a place where people facing the daily grind of life are somehow nudged by their surroundings or their values or their government into being the happiest people on the planet?
You might expect that place would be a tropical paradise with warm sand and soft breezes. Or a Mediterranean village with sun-kissed vineyards. Or the United States -- land of the free and home of the brave. But if you use social science techniques, you'll find some surprises. A paradise like Fiji comes in more than 50 spots below Iceland in happiness rankings. For all its style and cuisine, France and Italy rank well below Canada. And while the United States may be the richest and most powerful country, when it comes to happiness, it is only No. 23.
For the past decade, social scientists and pollsters have given elaborate questionnaires to hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. Two of the largest studies that rank the happiness of countries around the world are the World Map of Happiness from the University of Leiscester and the World Database of Happiness from Ruut Veenhoven of Erasmus University Rotterdam. All the happiness surveys ask people basically the same question: How happy are you?
The answer you get is not only how they feel right now, but also how they feel about their entire life," explained Dan Buettner, who has studied happiness and longevity around the world through his Blue Zones project Buettner said that if you mine all the databases of universities and research centers, you'll find that the happiest place on earth is ? Denmark. Cold, dreary, unspectacular Denmark.
Denmark is a place where stoic locals wear sensible shoes and snack on herring sandwiches. Sure, they produce the occasional supermodel, but its most famous countryman may be the late entertainer Victor Borge.
Could the Danes really be the happiest people in the world? When ABC News anchor Bill Weir traveled there to find out, he asked random Danes to rate themselves in terms of happiness, on a scale of one to 10. Many people rated themselves at least an eight, and there were several nines and 10s. Finally, one grouchy Dane came along who said she didn't believe Danes were so happy. But then she quickly conceded that she herself felt rather content with her life, and said Danes in general had very little to complain about.
Danes do have one potential complaint: high taxes. The happiest people in the world pay some of the highest taxes in the world -- between 50 percent and 70 percent of their incomes. In exchange, the government covers all health care and education, and spends more on children and the elderly than any country in the world per capita. With just 5.5 million people, the system is efficient, and people feel "tryghed" -- the Danish word for "tucked in" -- like a snug child.
Those high taxes have another effect. Since a banker can end up taking home as much money as an artist, people don't chose careers based on income or status. "They have this thing called 'Jante-lov,' which essentially says, 'You're no better then anybody else,'" said Buettner. "A garbage man can live in a middle-class neighborhood and hold his head high."
Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News
Fantastic.....Great post.....I would have never guessed even close to that. You reminded me that I was a teenager in the 1950's and those were my family's happiest moments. Guess what rich people were paying then.......anyone who earned more than $300,000 per year paid 91% of the excess to the IRS. Of course we were paying for WW2 but everyone seemed happier then....the rich people too.
I remember when the first people began to draw a pittance from social security...about 1942, 43. The act was initiated about 1935 and guess what........
The Cato Institute spends a lot of time complaining about every thing FDR did.You're confusing an unconstitutional taking with an "entitlement" that can be erased today.
It's not a contract.
Its not unconstitutional for the Congress or a state legislature to force you to sell them your property. Its called eminent domain. Without it, they wouldn't have been able to knock down poor peoples houses to build highways.
You have no Social Security account with your name on it. Sorry.
LOL! I get a statement every year. It tells me what my benefit levels are. I'm guessing you don't check your mail or you've never been employed
They can "take" your house by giving you compensation.
They can take your Social Security and give you nothing.
Check it out....
You worked hard your whole life and paid thousands of dollars in Social Security taxes. Now it's time to retire. You're legally entitled to Social Security benefits, right? Wrong. There is no legal right to Social Security, and that is one of the considerations that may decide the coming debate over Social Security reform.
Many people believe that Social Security is an "earned right." That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as "contributions," as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
Is There a Right to Social Security? | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary
I remember when the first people began to draw a pittance from social security...about 1942, 43. The act was initiated about 1935 and guess what........
Dude you are so old I bet you fart dust.
Isn't it about time you off yourself & quit burdening the system?
They could change the law tomorrow and decide I have to sell them my house, too, but that doesn't mean my house isn't MINE. The fact they are able to renege on their obligation doesn't mean they don't have an obligation.
You're confusing an unconstitutional taking with an "entitlement" that can be erased today.
It's not a contract.
Its not unconstitutional for the Congress or a state legislature to force you to sell them your property. Its called eminent domain. Without it, they wouldn't have been able to knock down poor peoples houses to build highways.
You have no Social Security account with your name on it. Sorry.
LOL! I get a statement every year. It tells me what my benefit levels are. I'm guessing you don't check your mail or you've never been employed
.............................
I think you're the one getting paid...
Time for your next 'persona'
I think you're the one getting paid...
I worked 41 years at the plant which produced the highly enriched uranium which was used in "Little Boy" You remember reading about that I'm sure. The bomb killed about 70% of the population of Hiroshima, Japan. For the first ten years I was there I was a process operator. I walked in that shit in my street shoes and tracked it home to the carpeting on which my infant children were crawling. Luckily I managed to transfer to the data processing facility in 1961 and get away from the actual process.
I think you're the one getting paid...
I worked 41 years at the plant which produced the highly enriched uranium which was used in "Little Boy" You remember reading about that I'm sure. The bomb killed about 70% of the population of Hiroshima, Japan. For the first ten years I was there I was a process operator. I walked in that shit in my street shoes and tracked it home to the carpeting on which my infant children were crawling. Luckily I managed to transfer to the data processing facility in 1961 and get away from the actual process.
PunkoTard thinks that there are people being paid just to make him look like an idiot.
Time for your next 'persona'
Yeah well........I'm not ashamed of much that's happened to me during my life. .
I worked 41 years at the plant which produced the highly enriched uranium which was used in "Little Boy" You remember reading about that I'm sure. The bomb killed about 70% of the population of Hiroshima, Japan. For the first ten years I was there I was a process operator. I walked in that shit in my street shoes and tracked it home to the carpeting on which my infant children were crawling. Luckily I managed to transfer to the data processing facility in 1961 and get away from the actual process.
PunkoTard thinks that there are people being paid just to make him look like an idiot.
LOL....never thought of it that way.
PunkoTard thinks that there are people being paid just to make him look like an idiot.
LOL....never thought of it that way.
Well, he seems to think that other people are being paid. He's accused me of being a "Democratic Plant" because I don't support Romney, even though I've supported first Perry and now Gingrich.
Somewhere, in his diseased brain (and seriously, the guy has issues) he really thinks that someone with money is going to pay good money to people to post on a message board which only has 30,000 members and probably only a couple hundred post regularly, most of whom have already made up their minds on issues.
(People on the left and right both think this, for some reason. I've never understood the logic.)
Weeeeaaaaaall.......I wouldn't want to be forced into a situation where I totally agreed with him but anyone who doesn't believe these rags come equipped with Fox news types should review their thinking.
See..the deal is this. A whole lot more of folks who earn in the upper half are Republicans because they don't want to pay their fair share, i.e. Ronald Reagan. He was a Democrat and the head of a union until his B movies began to make some serious dollars. Then he converted to Republican, proceeded to be elected Gov. CA, then president of the U S, cut taxes for the rich and quadrupled the national debt. It's why I'm no longer a Republican.
Weeeeaaaaaall.......I wouldn't want to be forced into a situation where I totally agreed with him but anyone who doesn't believe these rags come equipped with Fox news types should review their thinking.
See..the deal is this. A whole lot more of folks who earn in the upper half are Republicans because they don't want to pay their fair share, i.e. Ronald Reagan. He was a Democrat and the head of a union until his B movies began to make some serious dollars. Then he converted to Republican, proceeded to be elected Gov. CA, then president of the U S, cut taxes for the rich and quadrupled the national debt. It's why I'm no longer a Republican.
I don't think he ever made all that much money as an actor, really. I think he made more money as a TV spokesman.
And who gets to decide what is a "fair share"? I think a fair share is something that should be worked out between employers and employees. Its not something the government should be doing. Because they'll just mess it up. They always do.
