Conservatives Hate Obama More Than They Love America

[genderhazard]

Originally Posted by qzar9999

Yeah, except that thanks to inflation, you kinda sorta won't...

True it won't have the same purchasing power. The same can be true of any investment using today dollars versus tomorrow's dollars.

Originally Posted by DalekSec

Don't forget longer life spans (Imagine raising the retirement age to 65, the SAVINGS!! Of course the whiners on both sides would FREAK), better quality of healthcare and nutrition.

The Soc Sec system would work fine if we died at 70 and had more kids.

I assume you meant 75 rather than 65. When the Social security system started the 1935 average life expectancy was 61.7 men 59.9 women 63.9 (who were more or less written out of the system.)regardless benefits started at 65. - So if you beat expectations and lived longer than expected (five years for men) then you could start to collect. Until that point you were expected to plan ahead, or rely on other family members for support.

Ida Mae Fuller makes a nice example of how the system was flawed litterally from day 1.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by DalekSec

The Soc Sec system would work fine if we died at 70 and had more kids.

Nope, it would still inevitably spiral into oblivion because it is a ponzi scheme in all sense of the term. The original scam was an investment scam. The guy would take money from investors but rather than invest he, he'd simply spend it on himself. When it came time to pay up, he'd simply look for more investors and use some of the money to pay off the previous ones and then spend the rest on himself.

This is EXACTLY how social security works except the government enjoys the advantage of being able to force you to pay into it. They don't even have to fool you! They just take your money and spend it however they want and when it comes time to pay, they take it from others. The problem is the same as the original scam: The cost to sustain it grows with each cycle and that's exactly what's happening to yours. It has promised money that it won't be able to pay.

[genderhazard]

There is no general legal requirement that individuals join the Social Security program.

Also in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legal right to Social Security: Congress can cut or eliminate Social Security benefits at any time regardless of a worker's contributions.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

There is no general legal requirement that individuals join the Social Security program.

No legal requirement to reap the benefits but there is to pay into it. It's called taxes.

More details here

[genderhazard]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

No legal requirement to reap the benefits but there is to pay into it. It's called taxes.

Exactly. From the Social security web site.

Question
Can I opt out of Social Security?

Can I withdraw taxes that I have paid for Social Security coverage?

Answer

No.

The law also does not permit a refund of Social Security taxes. The authority for the collection of taxes, including Social Security taxes, is found in the Internal Revenue Code, not the Social Security Act. (See sections 3101(a) and 3102(a) of the Code.) We suggest that you direct any questions you may have about tax liability to that Agency for consideration. The address is:

Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20224.

As part of the 1939 Amendments, the Title VIII taxing provisions were taken out of the Social Security Act and placed in the Internal Revenue Code.

The 1935 Social Security Act http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html#TITLE I

This law established two social insurance programs on a national scale to help meet the risks of old age and unemployment:

a Federal system of old-age benefits for retired workers who had been employed in industry and commerce, and a Federal-State system of unemployment insurance.

What should be an insurance premimum is a tax. One I can't opt out of and am not assured payment.

Ain't government wonderful.

And BOHICA with Health care reform.

[Sephie]

Statements made by individual conservatives do not nescessarily reflect the opinion of all conservatives. Statements such as the one present in the title of this thread do not represent all liberals. Please do not make blanket statements.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Such blanket statements can still, however, be worth discussing.

[Sephie]

All Houstonians are liars.

[genderhazard]

even Sam Houston?

[Sephie]

Originally Posted by genderhazard

even Sam Houston?

Esspecially him. He said that the North would win the war after a long hard struggle and that the South would be devestated by the aftermath. What a load of crock.

All dyslexics are lazy.

All Transgendered people are sluts.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Originally Posted by Herr Onymous-Bosch

All Transgendered people are sluts.

Really, they're just immoral and their deviance is a choice.

[Sephie]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

Really, they're just immoral and their deviance is a choice.

All people who use user names that reference long dead dutch painters are evil.