Are Social Security "Privitization" Schemes Unconstitutional?

NigelTufnel said:
Wrong about what? You personally stand to gain a great deal if in addition to non-social security funds, you also handled your clients' social security funds.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about SS being an investment so now you are trying to change the subject into 'you could make money off of privatization'. As I said, you are diverting from the topic.

Fargle Bargle.
Click to expand...

Translation: 'True, I have no evidence to back up my assertion so I will simply act like an idiot.'
 
NigelTufnel said:
Here's another chart. I'm sure we're seeing correlation where no causation is present:

w10466.jpg


And the conclusion of the study where I found said chart:



http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04/w10466.html
Click to expand...

see... that wasn't too hard now was it?

Imagine that... giving people more money helps them stay out of poverty?

Ok... now show us what this has to do with what we were discussing in terms of SS being an investment vehicle or not.

WHY did you post these charts? Has anyone argued that SS should be eliminated?
 
Superfreak said:
see... that wasn't too hard now was it?

Imagine that... giving people more money helps them stay out of poverty?
Click to expand...

You seemed to have difficulty grasping the concept.


Superfreak said:
Ok... now show us what this has to do with what we were discussing in terms of SS being an investment vehicle or not.

WHY did you post these charts? Has anyone argued that SS should be eliminated?
Click to expand...

I agreed to disagree with you on the investment point. I don't care to argue it anymore. My point was that, looking at SS as an investment program, it has met it's investment objective - keeping seniors out of poverty.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I agreed to disagree with you on the investment point. I don't care to argue it anymore. My point was that, looking at SS as an investment program, it has met it's investment objective - keeping seniors out of poverty.
Click to expand...

But But But ... you said its NOT an investment!!!

Which is it?

I know you don't care to argue any more. You are wrong and it sucks to be on the wrong side of an argument knowing you are wrong. Which is WHY you tried to divert the thread topic.

It is an investment. That is not debatable. It is a fact. You put money in, so that it grows, so that you have money to live off of in retirement. It is not a safety net that you MIGHT use. It is an investment that you WILL use.
 
Superfreak said:
But But But ... you said its NOT an investment!!!

Which is it?

I know you don't care to argue any more. You are wrong and it sucks to be on the wrong side of an argument knowing you are wrong. Which is WHY you tried to divert the thread topic.

It is an investment. That is not debatable. It is a fact. You put money in, so that it grows, so that you have money to live off of in retirement. It is not a safety net that you MIGHT use. It is an investment that you WILL use.
Click to expand...


I was assuming that it was an investment for purposes of argument. Hence, "looking at it as an investment" as opposed to "it is an investment."
 
FuzzyBunny said:
The problem started when the Safety Net became an entitlement. I have no problem with Saftey nets. I have huge problems with Entitlements.
Click to expand...

An entitlement, I guess I don't understand the definition as you use the word, being that Social Security is a type of insurance against poverty in old age and one has to pay into Social Security to receive its benefits.

I have always thought of an entitlement was receiving something for nothing, like insurance benefits for the rest of your life after serving in Congress or as the President for a short time! Their benefits should be based on time of service and not lifetime! The benefits one can receive for being a one term Congress person is beyond belief! it is ridiculous!
 
the best thing they could do is turn SS INTO an insurance policy.....if you're already making twice poverty level you get nothing......if you have nothing, you get enough to keep you above poverty level.....graduated payments in between.....we could finance that on current contribution levels for a hundred years....
 
Rana said:
An entitlement, I guess I don't understand the definition as you use the word, being that Social Security is a type of insurance against poverty in old age and one has to pay into Social Security to receive its benefits.

I have always thought of an entitlement was receiving something for nothing, like insurance benefits for the rest of your life after serving in Congress or as the President for a short time! Their benefits should be based on time of service and not lifetime! The benefits one can receive for being a one term Congress person is beyond belief! it is ridiculous!
Click to expand...

When did SS stop being an insurance against poverty and become an Automatic Retirement supplement? My dad still works and gets his SS check.

When SS program was started, it was pegged to the life expectancy. Very few payouts. Today you can retire at 67 with a life expectancy of 77. That is a Retirement program, Not Poverty insurance.
 
FuzzyBunny said:
When did SS stop being an insurance against poverty and become an Automatic Retirement supplement? My dad still works and gets his SS check.

When SS program was started, it was pegged to the life expectancy. Very few payouts. Today you can retire at 67 with a life expectancy of 77. That is a Retirement program, Not Poverty insurance.
Click to expand...

It was originated to keep widows from poverty for those whose husbands did not have a pension plan. It originally covered unemployment, too.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the best thing they could do is turn SS INTO an insurance policy.....if you're already making twice poverty level you get nothing......if you have nothing, you get enough to keep you above poverty level.....graduated payments in between.....we could finance that on current contribution levels for a hundred years....
Click to expand...

Sorry Charlie...I didn't pay into SS for over 35 years now just to be told I make too much to get anything back when I retire...especially when someone who makes $5 million a year only pays SS taxes on the first Hundred K or so.

We need to pick a date...say Jan 1 2035(or one you like if need be)...and anyone born after that date won't have to pay SS...but they won't get anything when they retire either.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Sorry Charlie...I didn't pay into SS for over 35 years now just to be told I make too much to get anything back when I retire...especially when someone who makes $5 million a year only pays SS taxes on the first Hundred K or so.

We need to pick a date...say Jan 1 2035(or one you like if need be)...and anyone born after that date won't have to pay SS...but they won't get anything when they retire either.
Click to expand...

You lie!
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Sorry Charlie...I didn't pay into SS for over 35 years now just to be told I make too much to get anything back when I retire...especially when someone who makes $5 million a year only pays SS taxes on the first Hundred K or so.
Click to expand...

and THAT'S why they call them "entitlements".....how about if, instead, we tell you that even though you paid into SS for over 35 years the government spent it on other things and we can't give anyone anything?......if SS was supposed to be a safety net, why do we give money to people who haven't fallen, as well as not give enough to those who have....
 
Last edited:
ZappasGuitar said:
Sorry Charlie...I didn't pay into SS for over 35 years now just to be told I make too much to get anything back when I retire...especially when someone who makes $5 million a year only pays SS taxes on the first Hundred K or so.
Click to expand...

How would that make a difference? They wouldn't get the money they paid into SS either. You envious piece of shit
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and THAT'S why they call them "entitlements".....how about if, instead, we tell you that even though you paid into SS for over 35 years the government spent it on other things and we can't give anyone anything?......if SS was supposed to be a safety net, why do we give money to people who haven't fallen, as well as not give enough to those who have....
Click to expand...

Because this isn't like welfare where we provide it only to those in 'need'.

Social Security is a contract with the US government. While you work... you pay in to the system. When you retire, you are guaranteed a certain payment per month. If you don't work...and don't pay in... no benefits (other than spousal/survivor potentially).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top