Um ... why do you think? I'll give you a hint. It's why I pay all taxes...
Two ways to fix our "Democracy"
- Thread starter kaz
- Start date
Um ... why do you think? I'll give you a hint. It's why I pay all taxes...
You don't see the difference between withdrawing money from a bank which has money, and government going out with guns (hint to the last question) and getting it from someone else to give you you? Seriously?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
How is that?
Correct. It's a wealth redistribution scheme and a welfare program. A bank would have assets, not guns.
Social Security would be Jesse James, the "bank" would be taxpayers.
Government taking money from one citizen and giving it to another is robbery. You should read "The Law" by Frédéric Bastiat, it's a great piece
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/bastiat/the_law.html
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
So you don't have any idea, you're full of shit. got it
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
So your internet challenged and also inept.
Glad you are able to admit it.
I asked you to back up your own crap. you can't, got it
Yes the receipts go to the benefits but that does not mean you didnt pay in. But as Congress keeps exempting special interests from having to follow a formula regarding pay in to pay ot (they are getting fully vested) then yes, taxpayers are on the hook for that shortfall.
And yes, it was designed from the start to have an increasing pool of pay ins relative to the pool of pay outs. FDR didnt have a plan for when the expansion ceased but was OK with that pretty long kick of a can down the road. So its sorta kinda a pyramid just without the Ponzi part.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Deflection. You made the ridiculous claim, you back it up. Go google it is worthy of a liberal, which you are not
How do you "pay into" a fund which saves no money? That doesn't make sense.
And of course it's got the "Ponzi." Today's elderly paid less and jacked up their own benefits and didn't account for their living longer. And the workers paying them can't be supported the same way. It's a non-sustainable system
Just because I'm not pandering to you, doesn't mean I can support my comment.
It just means that I love allowing those like you, show how ignorant you truly are.
If you don't want to be part of SS, then don't pay into it. The opportunity is there for you to grasp.
Obviously I can't earn a living and not pay social security taxes. I'm a business owner and spent my career in financial services. If you're offering I live in a shack off the grid, you're just being a liberal
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
C'mon Kaz; show everyone how intelligent you are, by proving yourself in error.
Unless you just want to admit that you're denying something, you knew nothing about in the first place.
I stand corrected. I thought you were actually a good guy
christiefan915
Catalyst
It's not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. Stop falling for that RW BS, even if you don't like SS."...what is a Ponzi scheme? The term originates with Charles Ponzi, a Boston swindler who conned investors out of millions in 1920 by promising returns of up to 100 percent in 90 days on investments in foreign postal coupons. After first-round investors harvested those profits, others flocked to Ponzi, unaware his "profits" consisted of money paid in by other investors.
That strategy is unsustainable.
In contrast, Social Security is more like a "pay-as-you-go" system transferring payroll tax payments by workers to retirees. A 2009 Social Security Administration online post stated: "The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi's scheme lasted barely 200 days."
Mitchell Zuckoff, a Boston University journalism professor who has written a book on Ponzi, noted three critical dissimilarities between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. We will summarize Zuckoff’s comments from an earlier fact-check:
• "First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled," Zuckoff wrote in a January 2009 article in Fortune. "Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns."
• Second, he wrote, "A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted." While Social Security faces a huge burden due to retiring Baby Boomers, it can be and has been tweaked, and "the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."
• Third, Zuckoff wrote, "Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme. ... At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see 'Social') resolved to create a safety net (see 'Security') in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones. That might rankle, but it's not fraud."
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ck-perry-carlos-curbelo-calls-social-securit/