Posted on 05/03/2016 5:32:04 AM PDT by rktman
In my retirement planning, I am not even planning on getting any. If I do, great, if I don't, I view it simply as money stolen from me to be given to others in the many forms of government handouts.
I don't blame you (FrankR) for seeing it the way you do since that is all we ever hear. But the government has said (on its own website) the following: "...The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years..."
In reading this on the Social Security Administration's website, this means there is no guarantee of any kind you will ever see any of those tens of thousands of dollars (if not hundreds of thousands) you have put into the system during your life. They say the obligation is "true enough in a moral and political sense".
Think about that statement. Does that fill a thinking person with confidence? No, a thinking person understands that "a moral and political sense" and $4.50 will buy you a buck of Starbucks coffee, if that.
from occupied ga is completely correct. We are borrowing money from people who hate and despise us in order to pay out Social Security now, and the money that should have been used for those things was pissed away in the form of political goodies.
Make no mistake-we will see means testing for Social Security, and soon. And if you are one of the 48% (soon to be revised downwards again) of the patsies who pay taxes, guess what?
If you pay taxes, then that means you have "means" and will get a smaller and smaller piece of Social Security, eventually, none at all.
Mark my words.
This id why they have made both systems so complicated that you need help to figure out how to navigate it. (Poor, minorities, children and women affected most)
How about people who use a Tax Service to do their income Taxes? Or a Financial Advisor to do investments?
Was his name NOY FB?
And that makes it OK?
This is just the first step: Establish the authority to ban groups of ‘undesirable’ people. Then let the good times roll.
Did I say that? Like I said, I don't think there was a problem in the first place. There's no evidence that those folks are going out and buying guns. It's a "solution" to a non-problem.
“and now we collect the annuity from those payments.”
There is no annuity! There are only more taxes from others. A Ponzi scheme if there ever was one.
As I said, it is the beginning of another way to try to solve the problem of an armed populace.
It’s not the beginning. It’s been illegal for mentally incompetent to own firearms since 1968. It’s a shortcut to putting people into that category without a court declaring them incompetent. I’m not for it, but it’s not the beginning of anything. And there certainly wasn’t big problem of these folks buying guns. I’m much more concerned with their attempt to ban all vets with PTSD from owning guns. And I don’t like the fact that pot smokers are banned from owning guns either, especially medical users. Let me be clear, people should only be banned from owning guns if a court rules them incompetent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.