Get rid of social security?

Why do "the billionaires" owe you, or anyone over 62, anything?

 

This is false. In the past the US government borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for general expendatures. Now general taxation is paying for those prior expendatures by redeeming the Treasury securities in the Trust Fund. General revenues are not being used to pay for Social Security or Medicare but instead are being used to repay previous borrowing that was used for general expendatures.

Of course general taxation isn't even being used. Instead the US government is merely issuing T-Bills to redeen the Treasury Securities held in the Social Security Trust Fund. It is nothing more than a shell game of moving the debt from the Trust Fund to the public. We borrow from Peter to pay Paul.

 

General taxes revenues are not used for either Social Security or Medicare. These are exclusively funded by FICA/Payroll taxes. Increasing the income tax rates does not provide even one dime of revenue to either Social Security or Medicare.

Of course the belief that there is "UNDERtaxation" is an unsupported political opinion. If anyone is UNDERtaxed it's the 38% of households that pay no income taxes at all and/or receive refunds for taxes they never paid. The problem isn't that the government doesn't collect enough in taxes but instead that it spends too much.

Currently the US government is spending between $25K-$30K/yr/household. There is no rational justification for this level of spending. If we made the simple hypothetical assumption that every household received the median income of about $50K/yr could every household afford to pay $25K-$30K/yr in taxes to support current government expendatures?

 

General taxes revenues are not used for either Social Security or Medicare. These are exclusively funded by FICA/Payroll taxes. Increasing the income tax rates does not provide even one dime of revenue to either Social Security or Medicare.

Of course the belief that there is "UNDERtaxation" is an unsupported political opinion. If anyone is UNDERtaxed it's the 38% of households that pay no income taxes at all and/or receive refunds for taxes they never paid. The problem isn't that the government doesn't collect enough in taxes but instead that it spends too much.

Currently the US government is spending between $25K-$30K/yr/household. There is no rational justification for this level of spending. If we made the simple hypothetical assumption that every household received the median income of about $50K/yr could every household afford to pay $25K-$30K/yr in taxes to support current government expendatures?

 

Just the way things ought to be (according to 2/3 of the American people) in our democratic republic. One could just as easily ask why do the working class owe the billionaires billions of dollars that they take, which those workers worked for ? (including seniors, all their lives)

 

FALSE ! The past 30 years have a period of UNDERtaxation relative to all of the past 94 years. For most of that time span, top bracket rates were never lower than 70%, and were as high as 94%. That thereby constitutes the norm, with today's 35% relatively very low. With the rates since 1981 much lower than the overall group.

As for level of spending, its a viable subject but not the one of my post.

 

If we review the relationship between US tax revenues and GDP then we can see that prior to WW II the taxes revenues were equal to less than 10% of GDP. It wasn't until after WW II that federal taxes expanded dramatically rising to a high of over 20% in 2000. While I'm not going to take the time to calculate the average tax from the link below from a rough review I would estimate that since 1934 the average US tax revenues have been around 15% of GDP. With the recession starting in 2008 those revenues have dropped to 14.9% which would be close to the overall average.

What many seem to forget is that when the tax rates were reduced from a high of 90% to the highest rate being in the high 30% range this was accomplished by also eliminating tax deductions. The reform of the tax codes and rates was intended to result in roughly the same revenues so it was a balance between the elimination of deductions which allowed the reduction in the rates. If we were to reinstate the deductions and raise the rates there wouldn't be an substantial increase in federal revenues.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

This is still unrelated to Social Security that is exclusively funded by FICA/Payroll taxes. The FICA/Payroll tax rates have been increased repeatedly since it's inception and Social Security/Medicare are still projected to fail financially. The FICA/Payroll tax rates have been doubled and tripled and still failure looms on the horizon for Social Security/Medicare. Even if we lifted the cap on the Social Security portion of FICA/Payroll taxes (like the Medicare portion) the FICA/Payroll taxes would still have to be increased to over 20% of earnings for Social Security to continue to pay poverty level benefits for retirement.

 

How do the billionaires get their billions, theft? taxes? Or, did they make a lot of other people money along the way?

If 2/3's of the population decided to re-institute slavery, does that make it OK? How is it that wanting someone to give up much of the money they made significantly different?

There are a lot of people getting ready to retire with net worths or more than $1M, because they saved, invested and planned for their retirement. Why not share their wealth with those that didn't save a penny, because they have SSI?

 

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Since people cannot renegotiate all of their old employment contracts for the equitable just compensation of private pensions or wages due to no ex post facto laws, therefore, getting rid of Social Security without "just compensation" or fulfilling the social contract of Social Security with perfect good faith would be unconstitutional, consequently, getting rid of Social Security would give a windfall to the silver spooned inheritors of the principle means of production that benefited from Social Security.

 

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Since people cannot renegotiate all of their old employment contracts for the equitable just compensation of private pensions or wages due to no ex post facto laws, therefore, getting rid of Social Security without "just compensation" or fulfilling the social contract of Social Security with perfect good faith would be unconstitutional, consequently, getting rid of Social Security would give a windfall to the silver spooned inheritors of the principle means of production that benefited from Social Security.

{had a glitch, for some reason my last post did not seem to show up to me}

 

This post makes absolutely no sense.

Why can't people renegotate an employment contract? I've done so repeatedly during my career so to say it can't be done is obviously false.

Social Security is a government welfare program unrelated to employment compensation except that a specific tax is imposed for it. No one has a vested interest in this welfare program and it can be terminated by a simple act of Congress at anytime. There are no Constitutional protections for it as there was never a Constitutional amendment to create it. The US government has no contractual obligation to provide Social Security benefits. It merely has a legal obligation under current laws and those laws can be changed at any time.

Social Security by either it's existance or non-existance has virtually nothing to do with the wealthy. It's existance or non-existance has no significant relationship to the wealthy. The costs to the "means of production" imposed by the Payroll tax are merely transferred to the consumer today. It can be argued that ending the payroll tax would reduce the cost of goods and services which would result in greater production of goods and services. That new demand would result in more jobs for average income individuals but that is about all.

Of course no one is arguing for the complete elimination of Social Security but instead the arguments are for converting it to a privatized system where the middle and low income workers would realize more in benefits than they do today with Social Security being a "pay as you go" welfare program.

Instead of being a welfare program it would be a program of insurance, investment and a safety net but it would still be Social Security. It would just typically pay 150% or more in retirement benefits for low and middle income earners.

 

I said, "their old employment contracts." {period}

<<< Mod Edit: Flamebaiting >>>

 

Why would they need to? Social Security is unrelated to an employment contract.

 

By quoting Marx's delusions, you have answered any question I could have had.

Here are a few of the delusions:

So the miner and farmer are not capitalists?

Make that houses instead of yarn.....

Marx is looking at laborers as Kings looked at their surfs, or slave owners their slaves. Those with an education know the employer needs the employee more than the employee needs to work for that employer. The trade of money for services has a balance Marx couldn't recognize.

Even doctors can choose to stop accepting Medicare patients when the government reimbursement is too low.


If you like reading old writers that studied human nature, and got it right, try this:

Adam Smith "The Theory of Moral Sentiments"

The entire book is here, just click on the sections listed on the left side of the page:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS.html​

The book is in old English. For an introduction and analysis in everyday English (any word not is common usage is defined when used), here are podcasts.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/04/klein_on_the_th.html
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/04/klein_on_the_th_1.html
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/04/klein_on_the_th_2.html
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/04/klein_on_the_th_3.html
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/klein_on_the_th_4.html
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/klein_on_the_th_5.html​

 

You haven't been following government application of eminiment domain, have you?

Cute attempt to apply the law. Except a contract is a 2 way document, I give you this, you give me that, that both parties sign. Therefore SSI isn't a contract.

But lets say the 9th circuit court of appeals (way left of Pelosi) defines it as a binding contract:

If it was a contract, that I didn't sign, then I can offer a counter contract stating I choose to not participate, in contribution and in payout. Who exactly do I get to sign off on that?

If the government runs out of money and renegs on the SSI "contract", who do you sue, government, in government run courts. Good luck on that.

If all doctors refuse Medicare without supplimental insurance, you can't sue the government because they provided the service they agreed to. The doctor has no contract with you to provide service.

 

So it is not acceptable for the government to stop providing Social Security because that would be "taking private property for public use" but taking income from private citizens to fund Social Security isn't "taking private property for public use"?

 

Social Security is figured into just about every employment contract, whether there is paper or not, whether it is a waitress working for an hourly wage with no benefits or someone with benefits. My current pension is lower because Social Security existed.

The private property was taken for the public use of all employers in not having to pay higher wages and pensions for their employees.

The biggest beneficiaries of the taking were small businesses who do not have pension plans.

BBB and Sons Roofing out of Texas, with offices in two other States not including Georgia where they were working after a storm, and the BBB said they had only two employees (to keep from paying workman's compensation), paid lower wages and benefits due to Social Security being there.

If Social Security is gotten rid of without just compensation, the silver spooned inheritors of BBB and Sons Roofing, and every other company, now has a windfall because no ex post facto claim for just compensation from the silver spooned inheritors of those old companies can exist.

Some of my old employers do not exist now, but their sons and daughters inherited the wealth from them. And they will have a windfall, if there is no just compensation of their estate's former employees.

Since calculating the just compensation from the silver spooned inheritors would be impossible, should Social Security be gotten rid of, the people would just have to vote for a congregation working toward economic parity. Basically, we hit reset and all start over with a clean slate.

Now if you are claiming that if Social Security did not exist employees would not demand higher wages or more benefits from their employers, then your posting makes absolutely no sense.

 

I did not say Social Security was a binding contract, I said, "the social contract of Social Security."

<<< Mod Edit: Off Topic Flamebaiting >>>

 

Taking income from private citizens to fund Social Security is "taking private property for public use." The beneficiary of the taking was the business that did not have to pay more in wages and benefits.

 

Iassume you get a defined amount, reduced by the SSI you get. Then if SSI goes away, doesn't the contract you did sign, require the employer to increase their payout by that amount?

I haven't worked for a company with any pension program other than 401k for 30 years. Many have been pretty big.

Did those old employers provide a pension? What happened to the old company, acquired, or bankrupted?

I don't understand, did the children get the pension fund in the inheritance?

Do employees demand a higher wage for 401k? Employees push for the highest wage they can get. They will leave a low paying employer for a higher one, but almost never the reverse. They get education, develop skills that allow them to advance.

Very few executives come from any silver spoon class. Most come up through the ranks. the VP of Sales, started in Sales, VE of Engineering, Engineering, VP of manufacturing from Manufacturing.

 

Then a social contract isn't binding?

 

protectionist; First this notion, millionaires and billionaires even make enough to pay taxes in the first place is never addressed. People that fall into those tax brackets, year to year, are few and at least to date, we don't tax wealth. Second, if you had earned money in your working career and invested it, which those MA/BA did, those invested funds already had been taxed, that 15% gains tax, then in addition.

Since no one is suggesting, you at 65 or anybody over 50-55 would be effected (I would disagree), people under 50-55, could plan ahead to whatever age is determined for their retirement and probably should have long before.


With the idea of privatizing SS and I strongly feel Federal Healthcare should be included, it could be set up to let people take retirement at near any age, say over 40, but in accordance to what had been paid in. Study a little on IRA's, 401K's or most any retirement fund and SS &/or what is now "payroll taxes" could be worked/adjusted according to your contribution, to fit the individuals expectation of needs at any age.

 

If that was the case there would be no problem. Most of those who would be hurt by ending Social Security never signed any contract; I refused to join the Union until long after I was hired, but I had a contract negotiated by the Union. I doubt any such provision could exist because when the company sent the wing section to South Korea and the contract was over, it was over, so we cannot renegotiate those sales. Just as no sales can be renegotiated.

If say for instance BBB equipment, who paid minimum wage for an illegal electrician (better to work that get unemployment) to wire their equipment and company--so they could sell the Filipino cook the formerly "burned a restaurant down fryer" that the Aviation Electronics "electrician" said would cause a fire due to the company not giving the electrician the new parts he asked for, or the Pizza oven could not be used because the timer was rusted since the oven sat outside for an ungodly amount of time and could only go up to 20 minutes before staying on forever (my grandpa was a watch repairman, and I tried my best)--was to be passed down to the son, how can any of the employees, and the widow of the former electrician who got electrocuted because of poor working conditions, get just compensation from the son for the loss in income that would have been higher had no SS existed?

All the children who inherited any business, or whose investment income was from said principle means of production, benefited from not having to pay more for wages and benefits; doing away with those benefits of SS would be a windfall only to them and not to their former employees left holding the worthless bag.

Sales of services and products were lower for small business, resulting in their ability to become larger, due to the inherent nature of the Social Security "ponzi" "welfare" scheme.

I shifted my 401K into bonds right after the protectionist legislation against Japan during Raygun, and warned my coworkers, and when Black Monday happened I still had my $30,000, but a lady from the old Bell Bomber days had to early retire that week to keep hers intact (there was a delay).

At some point it might be nice to get into how Social Security could be with the consent of Congress transfered to the States as a State Compact, and then eventually Libertarian States that want to opt out could slowly divest themselves. But, first we have to deal with the fulfilling already formed engagements of a social contract with perfect good faith or else the Obamanator returns for a reign of terror. And still, since all States are not equal in natural and unnatural resources we still have the problem of revenue sharing.

Social Security never should have happened in the first place, that we both might agree on. But, now that it has and if you do not want a return of the Obamanation, better deal with it in perfect good faith.