User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 7:04:23 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you wont be signing up when the time comes, providing your eligible? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have long held the belief they understate the actual inflation rate by a small amount and have been doing so since at least the 80's. .3-.5 is easy enough for the numbers to look plausible, but over time it adds up. Also, it is welfare for old people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 7:13:28 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He will be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 7:14:53 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sure you would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 7:15:09 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you wont be signing up when the time comes, providing your eligible? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have long held the belief they understate the actual inflation rate by a small amount and have been doing so since at least the 80's. .3-.5 is easy enough for the numbers to look plausible, but over time it adds up. Also, it is welfare for old people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 7:19:15 PM EDT
[#5]
The SS trust fund isn't real. It's an accounting fiction, same as if I took my money and 'invested' it into bonds I issued myself, and used those bonds to buy hookers and blow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 7:21:05 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that intended to refute his statement? Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 7:28:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dont know the facts on inflation, but disagree its welfare for the old, they paid into it, i dont know why that fact is dismissed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dont know the facts on inflation, but disagree its welfare for the old, they paid into it, i dont know why that fact is dismissed. Quoted:
Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance Do you believe it morally permissible to steal from others just because somebody unrelated previously stole from you in all cases, or does this one specifically get a special pass for some reason? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 7:30:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dont know the facts on inflation, but disagree its welfare for the old, they paid into it, i dont know why that fact is dismissed. Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is that intended to refute his statement? Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:03:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nobody paid into anything. There is nothing to pay into. It isn't a bank account, nor a retirement plan. Taxes are collected, and revenues are used to make payments to beneficiaries. You even admit it yourself here. Nothing was paid into - your money was taken, as taxes, and then paid out to others. You now want to take from yet others, as some form of reparations. Do you believe it morally permissible to steal from others just because somebody unrelated previously stole from you in all cases, or does this one specifically get a special pass for some reason? So, if your eligible, your going to forego signing up for SS ? they took a part of my pay called SOCIAL SECURITY TAX. They tax me, take that money and do what they do with it and pay current participant , how is that not paying into the system?. I didn’t choose to participate but certainly gonna sign up first chance, no moral dilemmas there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:04:17 PM EDT
[#10]
SSI isn't Social Security.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:07:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ask the current crop if they feel any “morals” about taking SS, i bet 100% will say they dont feel a thing. they took a part of my pay called SOCIAL SECURITY TAX. They tax me, take that money and do what they do with it and pay current participant , how is that not paying into the system?. I didn’t choose to participate but certainly gonna sign up first chance, more moral dilemmas there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:08:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SSI isn't Social Security. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:13:30 PM EDT
[#13]
Get rid of B, C and D classes of social security beneficiaries and also get rid of SSI for anyone under 65.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:25:30 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, if your eligible, your going to forego signing up for SS ? I understand that I am in the vast minority, but that is the truth. (As another exception to a commonly stated "universal truth" regarding taxes, I am one of the few that actually pays their use tax every year, albeit using an approximation.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:30:00 PM EDT
[#15]
So you have SS taken out of your check ? Would you be eligible?
Why wouldnt you sign up? I dont know all the disqualifying factors, maybe you got millions and arent eligible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:31:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you understand that there it was a tax that paid the current beneficiaries but still think you “paid into it”? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that intended to refute his statement? Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly I pay my insurance premium. If my house burns down, I expect my insurance company to pay to rebuild it. I don't really care whether they fund my house rebuild with "savings" from the dollars I have "paid in" or from dollars they are currently earning from other customers' premium payments. The obligation for them to rebuild my house is the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:33:34 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sure you would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:35:32 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you have SS taken out of your check ? Would you be eligible? Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you have SS taken out of your check ? Would you be eligible? Quoted:
Why wouldnt you sign up? I dont know all the disqualifying factors, maybe you got millions and arent eligible. SS, being a Ponzi scheme (though compulsory and "transparent", so it's not LUL), is effectively stealing from current taxpayers in order to redistribute their wealth to the current beneficiaries. I believe this practice is immoral and will have no part in perpetuating it by becoming a beneficiary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:37:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes. Because stealing is immoral. Just because somebody stole from me does not make it right for me to steal from somebody else. SS, being a Ponzi scheme (though compulsory and "transparent", so it's not LUL), is effectively stealing from current taxpayers in order to redistribute their wealth to the current beneficiaries. I believe this practice is immoral and will have no part in perpetuating it by becoming a beneficiary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:40:01 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I actually believe that people want out. Unfortunately for them - they are never going to get out..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:45:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Where's the part about the government selling bonds (IOUs) to the SS fund so the government can spend that SS money on anything else? Essentially another way for the government to borrow more money against itself that it then has to pay interest on.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 8:58:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SS disability is a whole’nother animal. Many ppl do treat that as welfare as they never worked and just collect , some may be legit but many arent Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
SSI isn't Social Security. The government states it's funded by "general tax revenue" rather than social security payments deducted from paychecks. "Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes): ?It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and ? It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:09:59 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Purely semantics. It's irrelevant. I pay my insurance premium. If my house burns down, I expect my insurance company to pay to rebuild it. I don't really care whether they fund my house rebuild with "savings" from the dollars I have "paid in" or from dollars they are currently earning from other customers' premium payments. The obligation for them to rebuild my house is the same. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that intended to refute his statement? Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly I pay my insurance premium. If my house burns down, I expect my insurance company to pay to rebuild it. I don't really care whether they fund my house rebuild with "savings" from the dollars I have "paid in" or from dollars they are currently earning from other customers' premium payments. The obligation for them to rebuild my house is the same. Your argument is invalid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:10:30 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Way to avoid the question Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Probably won't have to even make that decision.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:14:29 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm 47, same. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am 42 and have been working and paying in since I was 15. I would gladly forfeit any benefits I might get if they would just let me quit paying anything more going forward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:19:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The obligation for your insurance company to pay is contractual. In 1960 the Supreme Court in Flemming v. Nestor ruled that you have no contractual relationship with the government for Social Security. Your argument is invalid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that intended to refute his statement? Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly I pay my insurance premium. If my house burns down, I expect my insurance company to pay to rebuild it. I don't really care whether they fund my house rebuild with "savings" from the dollars I have "paid in" or from dollars they are currently earning from other customers' premium payments. The obligation for them to rebuild my house is the same. Your argument is invalid. I would hate to hear your opinion on the validity of the NFA.... because muh Supreme Court rulings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:23:55 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, no I would hate to hear your opinion on the validity of the NFA.... because muh Supreme Court rulings. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that intended to refute his statement? Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly I pay my insurance premium. If my house burns down, I expect my insurance company to pay to rebuild it. I don't really care whether they fund my house rebuild with "savings" from the dollars I have "paid in" or from dollars they are currently earning from other customers' premium payments. The obligation for them to rebuild my house is the same. Your argument is invalid. I would hate to hear your opinion on the validity of the NFA.... because muh Supreme Court rulings. In short your argument is that you disbelieve the factual evidence that doesn't suit your position. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:28:23 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The NFA is currently law and valid as much as I personally disagree with it. The fact that Social Security was found constitutional in the first place is abhorrent to me, yet I accept it the same as the tides. In short your argument is that you disbelieve the factual evidence that doesn't suit your position. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that intended to refute his statement? Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly I pay my insurance premium. If my house burns down, I expect my insurance company to pay to rebuild it. I don't really care whether they fund my house rebuild with "savings" from the dollars I have "paid in" or from dollars they are currently earning from other customers' premium payments. The obligation for them to rebuild my house is the same. Your argument is invalid. I would hate to hear your opinion on the validity of the NFA.... because muh Supreme Court rulings. In short your argument is that you disbelieve the factual evidence that doesn't suit your position. I reject that the Supreme Court is correct in their rulings. This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Your opinion may differ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:32:40 PM EDT
[#29]
If I could opt out and NOT get a cent paid in I would.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:32:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are confused. I don't disbelieve that the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no contractual relationship (i.e. the factual evidence). Nor do I disbelieve that the Supreme Court has upheld the NFA. I reject that the Supreme Court is correct. This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Your opinion may differ. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that intended to refute his statement? Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly I pay my insurance premium. If my house burns down, I expect my insurance company to pay to rebuild it. I don't really care whether they fund my house rebuild with "savings" from the dollars I have "paid in" or from dollars they are currently earning from other customers' premium payments. The obligation for them to rebuild my house is the same. Your argument is invalid. I would hate to hear your opinion on the validity of the NFA.... because muh Supreme Court rulings. In short your argument is that you disbelieve the factual evidence that doesn't suit your position. I reject that the Supreme Court is correct. This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Your opinion may differ. As for whether you disagree with the Supreme Court or not is irrelevant. Just as I don't believe the NFA is constitutional, it's irreverent. The legal fact is that you have no contractual relationship with regard to Social Security. Your feeling is that you do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:34:02 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Purely semantics. It's irrelevant. I pay my insurance premium. If my house burns down, I expect my insurance company to pay to rebuild it. I don't really care whether they fund my house rebuild with "savings" from the dollars I have "paid in" or from dollars they are currently earning from other customers' premium payments. The obligation for them to rebuild my house is the same. Insurance works like this: You agree to pay $X to somebody on the condition that if (bad thing) happens, they will provide restitution of an agreed upon amount. They, meanwhile, are betting on it being the case that (bad thing) happens with a calculated, low frequency. A frequency such that, when having received $X from Y people, the total amount to be paid will be, on average, less than $X*Y for the period of the premium. Because they are in it to make money. Note that no payouts are guaranteed - if (bad thing) never happens to anybody who is paying the premiums, then the insurance doesn't pay anybody and keeps all of the premiums. Also note that payouts need not occur in the same timeframe of premium collection - that is, they may need to accumulate many premiums, not just from many people, but across multiple periods of time, in order to pay out just one claim. Again, they are betting that their statistical calculations are correct, and that (bad thing) indeed occurs at a rate that requires them to pay claims out at a rate of less than $X*Y per time period. Contrast that with SS: Taxes are collected and immediately used to make payments to the beneficiaries. Payouts are guaranteed to be made - there is no unlikely (bad thing) that has to occur, people automatically become eligible simply by virtue of existing and having previously paid taxes. It is basic redistribution of wealth, plain and simple. Take from those that are currently working, and give to those that are no longer working. In no way does that resemble insurance. Nobody is hedging their bets one way or another, which is really what insurance is all about (you have decided the cost is better than taking the risk of , and the insurance company is betting that (bad thing) doesn't happen very often). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:34:20 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryThis, in spades. 1960 Supreme Court Case, proves it is a TAX and you aren't entitled to a single red cent you paid in, period. Amazing how many people argue this point when it was settled before I was born.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:35:58 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This, in spades. 1960 Supreme Court Case, proves it is a TAX and you aren't entitled to a single red cent you paid in, period. Amazing how many people argue this point when it was settled before I was born. Quote HistoryQuoted:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:41:51 PM EDT
[#34]
Old people need to die
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:41:52 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you please post the text of your contract with the Social Security Administration? As for whether you disagree with the Supreme Court or not is irrelevant. Just as I don't believe the NFA is constitutional, it's irreverent. The legal fact is that you have no contractual relationship with regard to Social Security. Your feeling is that you do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that intended to refute his statement? Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly I pay my insurance premium. If my house burns down, I expect my insurance company to pay to rebuild it. I don't really care whether they fund my house rebuild with "savings" from the dollars I have "paid in" or from dollars they are currently earning from other customers' premium payments. The obligation for them to rebuild my house is the same. Your argument is invalid. I would hate to hear your opinion on the validity of the NFA.... because muh Supreme Court rulings. In short your argument is that you disbelieve the factual evidence that doesn't suit your position. I reject that the Supreme Court is correct. This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Your opinion may differ. As for whether you disagree with the Supreme Court or not is irrelevant. Just as I don't believe the NFA is constitutional, it's irreverent. The legal fact is that you have no contractual relationship with regard to Social Security. Your feeling is that you do. I'll reiterate, it is irrelevant that the Social Security Administration doesn't put your contribution in a savings account to later be returned with interest and instead pays out of current contributions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:43:40 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, these are entirely different systems. SS is not a form of insurance. Insurance works like this: You agree to pay $X to somebody on the condition that if (bad thing) happens, they will provide restitution of an agreed upon amount. They, meanwhile, are betting on it being the case that (bad thing) happens with a calculated, low frequency. A frequency such that, when having received $X from Y people, the total amount to be paid will be, on average, less than $X*Y for the period of the premium. Because they are in it to make money. Note that no payouts are guaranteed - if (bad thing) never happens to anybody who is paying the premiums, then the insurance doesn't pay anybody and keeps all of the premiums. Also note that payouts need not occur in the same timeframe of premium collection - that is, they may need to accumulate many premiums, not just from many people, but across multiple periods of time, in order to pay out just one claim. Again, they are betting that their statistical calculations are correct, and that (bad thing) indeed occurs at a rate that requires them to pay claims out at a rate of less than $X*Y per time period. Contrast that with SS: Taxes are collected and immediately used to make payments to the beneficiaries. Payouts are guaranteed to be made - there is no unlikely (bad thing) that has to occur, people automatically become eligible simply by virtue of existing and having previously paid taxes. It is basic redistribution of wealth, plain and simple. Take from those that are currently working, and give to those that are no longer working. In no way does that resemble insurance. Nobody is hedging their bets one way or another, which is really what insurance is all about (you have decided the cost is better than taking the risk of , and the insurance company is betting that (bad thing) doesn't happen very often). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Purely semantics. It's irrelevant. I pay my insurance premium. If my house burns down, I expect my insurance company to pay to rebuild it. I don't really care whether they fund my house rebuild with "savings" from the dollars I have "paid in" or from dollars they are currently earning from other customers' premium payments. The obligation for them to rebuild my house is the same. Insurance works like this: You agree to pay $X to somebody on the condition that if (bad thing) happens, they will provide restitution of an agreed upon amount. They, meanwhile, are betting on it being the case that (bad thing) happens with a calculated, low frequency. A frequency such that, when having received $X from Y people, the total amount to be paid will be, on average, less than $X*Y for the period of the premium. Because they are in it to make money. Note that no payouts are guaranteed - if (bad thing) never happens to anybody who is paying the premiums, then the insurance doesn't pay anybody and keeps all of the premiums. Also note that payouts need not occur in the same timeframe of premium collection - that is, they may need to accumulate many premiums, not just from many people, but across multiple periods of time, in order to pay out just one claim. Again, they are betting that their statistical calculations are correct, and that (bad thing) indeed occurs at a rate that requires them to pay claims out at a rate of less than $X*Y per time period. Contrast that with SS: Taxes are collected and immediately used to make payments to the beneficiaries. Payouts are guaranteed to be made - there is no unlikely (bad thing) that has to occur, people automatically become eligible simply by virtue of existing and having previously paid taxes. It is basic redistribution of wealth, plain and simple. Take from those that are currently working, and give to those that are no longer working. In no way does that resemble insurance. Nobody is hedging their bets one way or another, which is really what insurance is all about (you have decided the cost is better than taking the risk of , and the insurance company is betting that (bad thing) doesn't happen very often). Edit: I'm not a big fan of Social Security, but it at least loosely ties benefits to contributions (note the word loosely). Most programs of this nature mean that tax payers foot the bill and that those who receive benefits pay in nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:45:41 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you point me to the text where I claim to have a legal contract with the Social Security Administration. My insurance example wasn't to illustrate contractual law, but rather the irrelevance of where the payments came from. I could have illustrated this same concept numerous other ways. I'll reiterate, it is irrelevant that the Social Security Administration doesn't put your contribution in a savings account to later be returned with interest and instead pays out of current contributions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that intended to refute his statement? Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly I pay my insurance premium. If my house burns down, I expect my insurance company to pay to rebuild it. I don't really care whether they fund my house rebuild with "savings" from the dollars I have "paid in" or from dollars they are currently earning from other customers' premium payments. The obligation for them to rebuild my house is the same. Your argument is invalid. I would hate to hear your opinion on the validity of the NFA.... because muh Supreme Court rulings. In short your argument is that you disbelieve the factual evidence that doesn't suit your position. I reject that the Supreme Court is correct. This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Your opinion may differ. As for whether you disagree with the Supreme Court or not is irrelevant. Just as I don't believe the NFA is constitutional, it's irreverent. The legal fact is that you have no contractual relationship with regard to Social Security. Your feeling is that you do. I'll reiterate, it is irrelevant that the Social Security Administration doesn't put your contribution in a savings account to later be returned with interest and instead pays out of current contributions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:45:41 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure you would. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not reading all that. All I know is that if there was a box where I could opt out of it and get back everything I've put in so far I'd check it in an instant. I'd goddamned forfeit everything I have put in to far if I got to opt out now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:47:58 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what did you "pay into" then? A tax? Do you say that you "paid into" foreign aid to Guatemala or does the phrase only get used with this not an insurance, not a contract relationship, just an intergenerational welfare program? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that intended to refute his statement? Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly I pay my insurance premium. If my house burns down, I expect my insurance company to pay to rebuild it. I don't really care whether they fund my house rebuild with "savings" from the dollars I have "paid in" or from dollars they are currently earning from other customers' premium payments. The obligation for them to rebuild my house is the same. Your argument is invalid. I would hate to hear your opinion on the validity of the NFA.... because muh Supreme Court rulings. In short your argument is that you disbelieve the factual evidence that doesn't suit your position. I reject that the Supreme Court is correct. This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Your opinion may differ. As for whether you disagree with the Supreme Court or not is irrelevant. Just as I don't believe the NFA is constitutional, it's irreverent. The legal fact is that you have no contractual relationship with regard to Social Security. Your feeling is that you do. I'll reiterate, it is irrelevant that the Social Security Administration doesn't put your contribution in a savings account to later be returned with interest and instead pays out of current contributions. Here, I'll quote myself: "Purely semantics. It's irrelevant." It's also in the thread above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 10:55:07 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As I said, the word "pay into" is semantics. Here, I'll quote myself: "Purely semantics. It's irrelevant." It's also in the thread above. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that intended to refute his statement? Someone never working a day in their life getting it and never paid into it, that is welfare. Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance. If its not there when time comes, ive planned accordingly I pay my insurance premium. If my house burns down, I expect my insurance company to pay to rebuild it. I don't really care whether they fund my house rebuild with "savings" from the dollars I have "paid in" or from dollars they are currently earning from other customers' premium payments. The obligation for them to rebuild my house is the same. Your argument is invalid. I would hate to hear your opinion on the validity of the NFA.... because muh Supreme Court rulings. In short your argument is that you disbelieve the factual evidence that doesn't suit your position. I reject that the Supreme Court is correct. This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Your opinion may differ. As for whether you disagree with the Supreme Court or not is irrelevant. Just as I don't believe the NFA is constitutional, it's irreverent. The legal fact is that you have no contractual relationship with regard to Social Security. Your feeling is that you do. I'll reiterate, it is irrelevant that the Social Security Administration doesn't put your contribution in a savings account to later be returned with interest and instead pays out of current contributions. Here, I'll quote myself: "Purely semantics. It's irrelevant." It's also in the thread above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:09:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just having a hell of a time understanding what your position to support it continuing is then. Because you hand wave everything under the guise of semantics when they don't fit your assertions. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:14:10 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Happy to explain further. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:20:17 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If your stated goal is "To take care of the elderly" then why tie it to previous contributions? That doesn't seem logical. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Happy to explain further. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) What makes you think I am ok with some elderly people dying in the streets? No one dies in the streets in America. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:23:36 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My goal is to take care of the elderly while minimizing free ridership. Social security does this by requiring contributions (it is effectively a "pay it forward" model). What makes you think I am ok with some elderly people dying in the streets? No one dies in the streets in America. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Happy to explain further. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) What makes you think I am ok with some elderly people dying in the streets? No one dies in the streets in America. ETA: And I made the logical leap since you are down with SS as the safety net, but it doesn't apply to everyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:25:34 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If your stated goal is "To take care of the elderly" then why tie it to previous contributions? That doesn't seem logical. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Happy to explain further. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) In GD. 
How dare you! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:33:00 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even those not eligable for Social Security don't die on the streets? ETA: And I made the logical leap since you are down with SS as the safety net, but it doesn't apply to everyone. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Happy to explain further. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) What makes you think I am ok with some elderly people dying in the streets? No one dies in the streets in America. ETA: And I made the logical leap since you are down with SS as the safety net, but it doesn't apply to everyone. They cost taxpayers more on a net basis than those who contribute to social security do. For simplicity, imagine: Benefits received -contributions paid in = Net cost to taxpayers Social security payments are "funded" by future beneficiaries, unlike other welfare systems where the beneficiaries pay nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:37:33 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nobody paid into anything. There is nothing to pay into. It isn't a bank account, nor a retirement plan. Taxes are collected, and revenues are used to make payments to beneficiaries. You even admit it yourself here. Nothing was paid into - your money was taken, as taxes, and then paid out to others. You now want to take from yet others, as some form of reparations. Do you believe it morally permissible to steal from others just because somebody unrelated previously stole from you in all cases, or does this one specifically get a special pass for some reason? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I dont know the facts on inflation, but disagree its welfare for the old, they paid into it, i dont know why that fact is dismissed. Quoted:
Yes, i was robbed, they took my money to pay current participants, so fuck yea, the next group can pay me. Dont like it, dont particulate when the time comes, i plan to sign up first chance Do you believe it morally permissible to steal from others just because somebody unrelated previously stole from you in all cases, or does this one specifically get a special pass for some reason? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:41:26 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Old people need to die That is the fate we all face. Youngsters need wisdom and respect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:47:48 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those not eligible for Social Security (and in poverty) typically receive other forms of welfare. They don't often die in the streets (in America). They cost taxpayers more on a net basis than those who contribute to social security do. For simplicity, imagine: Benefits received -contributions paid in = Net cost to taxpayers Social security payments are "funded" by future beneficiaries, unlike other welfare systems where the beneficiaries pay nothing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Happy to explain further. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) What makes you think I am ok with some elderly people dying in the streets? No one dies in the streets in America. ETA: And I made the logical leap since you are down with SS as the safety net, but it doesn't apply to everyone. They cost taxpayers more on a net basis than those who contribute to social security do. For simplicity, imagine: Benefits received -contributions paid in = Net cost to taxpayers Social security payments are "funded" by future beneficiaries, unlike other welfare systems where the beneficiaries pay nothing. All that (and the fake account information bullshit) does is saddle us with the "fuck you, pay me" mentality that exists. It's all just taxes that go in and welfare that goes out. The rest is just advertising. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2019 11:51:31 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who the fuck cares if they are "funded" by future folks stuck in the cycle? All that (and the fake account information bullshit) does is saddle us with the "fuck you, pay me" mentality that exists. It's all just taxes that go in and welfare that goes out. The rest is just advertising. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Happy to explain further. I could colloquially say "I've paid into social security, so I expect to receive it when I retire" OR I could say "With the understanding that I will one day in turn receive social security retirement benefits, I have contributed a portion of my salary to fund the prior generations' social security retirement benefits". The difference is semantics. The difference does not provide a basis for discontinuing social security. A separate question is "what [my] position to support it continuing it", which you have asked above. It is not a perfect system and could certainly stand to be improved. But it loosely attempts to match payments with contributions (note the word "loosely"). Most programs of this nature allow a person to contribute nothing to the system, and yet still receive benefits. They are in effect free riders. The current system, flawed that it is, ensures that there is not complete free ridership by making contributions mandatory. As I stated before, we will never be a society that does not provide some measure of support for its elderly. I've visited countries like that; it's not pretty. So, that leaves us with a choice: 1) a program like social security, that requires some level of contribution, to decrease free ridership; or 2) a program like "the dole", that does not require contribution, and yet we (being taxpayers) still fund. Out of those two choices, I opt for one that at least loosely ties contribution to benefit. I'm happy for it to be an improved system and not social security. I'm unhappy to end it completely and still end up supporting people. Why are you okay with some elderly people dying on the streets but not all? (Or, you know family or faith groups taking care of them) What makes you think I am ok with some elderly people dying in the streets? No one dies in the streets in America. ETA: And I made the logical leap since you are down with SS as the safety net, but it doesn't apply to everyone. They cost taxpayers more on a net basis than those who contribute to social security do. For simplicity, imagine: Benefits received -contributions paid in = Net cost to taxpayers Social security payments are "funded" by future beneficiaries, unlike other welfare systems where the beneficiaries pay nothing. All that (and the fake account information bullshit) does is saddle us with the "fuck you, pay me" mentality that exists. It's all just taxes that go in and welfare that goes out. The rest is just advertising. The delta between what you fund and eventually receive is smaller than the cost of funding welfare payments sans the existence of a SS-like system. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
