Social Security is a rip off

Private companies would happily deliver to the 90% or so that they can make a profit at, and the feds could step in and serve the remainder.

Plus I don't know about you but 95% of what comes in my mailbox is junk anyway. Out of ten pounds of mail I may have 4 or 5 sheets of paper that are worth something, and those could be delivered by email or fax. This is the subject for another thread, but in reality the Post Office could essentially be eliminated, saving billions per year in fuel and paper. Of course that will never happen because the Post Office is a government program, and we all know those are never eliminated or cut back. ;)

Um, no, it couldn't be replaced. Fed Ex and UPS are profitable and efficient because their drivers do not have to go to every single home in the US six days a week. The infrastructure is too large for them to handle. Their business models do not hold up for daily delivery. The reason they are efficient is because they focused on a niche. They charge a lot more than the post office and provide varying guarantees as to time of delivery. They would not deliver mail for $0.42. It is not cost effective.

Do you honestly believe they haven't studied it to see if they could take away a piece of that pie from the Post Office? There is a reason they do not do it.
 
My daughter.............?

Just make sure that you post a picture of his GF along with it. :pke:

:D


I already did..it was the family pic of her and he and my grandson...after ya take a look at steve I will return the original photo...:D

Then again I will post a short pic of my two daughters being silly...then back to the original photo...anyone who wants a quick look betta hurry...no close ups though cause y'all :cof1:could not handle the truth.......
 
Last edited:
Um, no, it couldn't be replaced. Fed Ex and UPS are profitable and efficient because their drivers do not have to go to every single home in the US six days a week. The infrastructure is too large for them to handle. Their business models do not hold up for daily delivery. The reason they are efficient is because they focused on a niche. They charge a lot more than the post office and provide varying guarantees as to time of delivery. They would not deliver mail for $0.42. It is not cost effective.

Do you honestly believe they haven't studied it to see if they could take away a piece of that pie from the Post Office? There is a reason they do not do it.

Again, The PO has the deliver points (mail boxes) legally locked up, even through they are owned and mainained by private citizens, so UPS/ FedEx are forced to a less efficient delivery method. That increases cost to them, and guarantees a market for a GuvCo program.

The size of the infrastructure is not too big. When they began FedEx delivered to a few locations. Then Nationwide. Now worldwide (or nearly so). They could easily continue to grow, and still compete head to head with UPS.
 
Again, The PO has the deliver points (mail boxes) legally locked up, even through they are owned and mainained by private citizens, so UPS/ FedEx are forced to a less efficient delivery method. That increases cost to them, and guarantees a market for a GuvCo program.

The size of the infrastructure is not too big. When they began FedEx delivered to a few locations. Then Nationwide. Now worldwide (or nearly so). They could easily continue to grow, and still compete head to head with UPS.


Again, you are completely ignoring WHAT Fed Ex delivers and WHAT they charge to do so. They CANNOT deliver the small individual mail pieces for $0.42 on a daily basis. They DO NOT WANT to do so. They understand that it is not cost effective as it is not a profitable endeavor. If it is not profitable, they WILL NOT DO IT.
 
I already did..it was the family pic of her and he and my grandson...after ya take a look at steve I will return the original photo...:D

Then again I will post a short pic of my two daughters being silly...then back to the original photo...anyone who wants a quick look betta hurry...no close ups though cause y'all :cof1:could not handle the truth.......


Five more minutes and counting...then the pics of the Daughters being silly are gone..ya snooze ya lose....that is for darla et al...the fatso geeks without a clue!:cof1:
 
Again, you are completely ignoring WHAT Fed Ex delivers and WHAT they charge to do so. They CANNOT deliver the small individual mail pieces for $0.42 on a daily basis. They DO NOT WANT to do so. They understand that it is not cost effective as it is not a profitable endeavor. If it is not profitable, they WILL NOT DO IT.

yep and the govt would be stuck with all the highcost rural deliveries, probably costing nearly as much as it does now to deleiver to everyone.
 
Again, you are completely ignoring WHAT Fed Ex delivers and WHAT they charge to do so. They CANNOT deliver the small individual mail pieces for $0.42 on a daily basis. They DO NOT WANT to do so. They understand that it is not cost effective as it is not a profitable endeavor. If it is not profitable, they WILL NOT DO IT.

You may be right; I don't know and in fact I don't think you do. However you have ignored my salient points:
1. The PO does not allow anyone else to use "their" mailboxes, which increases costs of competitors; and
2. Very little of what the PO delivers is useful. Most important stuff could be delivered electronically for less cost.
 
Hey man--SSN is just one more liberial program to help everybody out. Of course, we did not feel a need for it before the crash of 29. What kind of great new programs are going to be shoved down our throats during this economic threat? Oh yea---health care.

The bottom line is--SSN can not copmete with a good mutual fund--because it is a social program that has nothing to do with a free type market.

Drew Carry (the commedian) said it best I thought. "If SSN was such a good deal--why don't they let us invest into it ourselfs, instead of hilding a gun to our heads?"

Well said Drew.

Yea, it is a rip off, and a SSN number is used for everything big brother wants. It is a fact though, that you do not have to have a SSN to work and live in th United states. You can refuse your new born childs SSN if you want, but you won't even be able to get a JC penny credit card without one.

It is a felony to try to coerse a SSN out of somebody---but that law is not inforced at all.
 
Um, no, it couldn't be replaced. Fed Ex and UPS are profitable and efficient because their drivers do not have to go to every single home in the US six days a week. The infrastructure is too large for them to handle. Their business models do not hold up for daily delivery. The reason they are efficient is because they focused on a niche. They charge a lot more than the post office and provide varying guarantees as to time of delivery. They would not deliver mail for $0.42. It is not cost effective.

Do you honestly believe they haven't studied it to see if they could take away a piece of that pie from the Post Office? There is a reason they do not do it.

FedEx is great - there are some great rides in the business. People in UPS seriously need fucking performance enhancing drugs like Viagra and Estrogen Pills. And a makeover. Hopefully this upcoming merger will improve the stock of Brown!
 
From an email

Your Social Security

Just in case some of you young chuckleheads (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it
to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it
doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as
income.

Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democrat Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------


Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democrat Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
 
I don't know if earlier on I posted, "No fricking duh!" So I'll do it here. This is like saying that Catsup is made from tomatoes...
 
From the Social Security website:

CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary

Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.


Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

(The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year

There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.

(The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.)


Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. (The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.)

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department. (A detailed explanation of the 1983 Amendments can be found elsewhere on our website.)

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
 
Back
Top