kenvin
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,667
- Reaction score
- 336
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
No, one is a group that has paid into retirement insurance all their lives.
Social security isn't a pension or 401 k. Current benefits are paid by current tax payers.
If these home test kits worked business would use them, but they don't. I know I have only ever done lab tests. Anyone here taken a non lab test for pre employment?
A counter-argument says that money given to wealthy citizens and corporations gets spent in ways that benefit the rest of the economy, and all people, including charitable donations.
Yet money that is given to the very poor also gets spent: locally, in ways that benefit the grocer and the landlord and other small businesses.
If these home test kits worked business would use them, but they don't. I know I have only ever done lab tests. Anyone here taken a non lab test for pre employment?
Says you. Thanks anonymous internet guy, but I will go with the experts.
No, he's not. What is done with the tax money is totally uncool, but that does not negate the fact that people are taxed separately and specifically for the money to be used for them (and others, too) later in life. It is not the same as other programs where you can pay zero and still get a benefit.He's nutshelling it, but he's right.
I have taken them yes. Buck showed you proof that they can work. Your argument is that since they aren't 100% foolproof (and neither is lab work) that they are worthless is just wrong. These tests would help them find who is doing what. Some people will beat it. Noone is arguing that. And there would be a few false positives (thus the lab confirmation if a test is failed).
Nothing about this is unreasonable.
Just like any other insurance policy.
No, he's not. What is done with the tax money is totally uncool, but that does not negate the fact that people are taxed separately and specifically for the money to be used for them (and others, too) later in life.
It is not the same as other programs where you can pay zero and still get a benefit.
Money "given" to wealthy citizens by government is illegal. Find me someone around here who promotes this illegal behavior.
For one thing, BS. The poor shop cheap more than local (who are more expensive). So discount superstores benefit disproportionatey, which means... The money's back in the hands of the rich again. But that's not the important part.
The important part is the COST of taking the money from somewhere else to give it to the poor negates the added benefit. Subtract the money from one place and adding to another place is not a real net benefit.
Social security isn't insurance. The first generation of recipients never paid in. It has always been welfare. Just because you paid a tax your whole life doesn't make it insurance.
No, you do not get back the exact same literal money that you paid in. I never expect to get the literal same $10 bill back that I deposit into my bank account, but I know that I still get $10 back.Incorrect. It is mostly PAYGO. Our current taxes go straight out to current retirees. Our ability collect later depends on our ability to tax younger folks later. It's not "our" money we're getting back.
Social security is insurance against being destitute in old age after retirement. Which candidate is proposing to do away with SS anyway???
The first recipients of any insurance companies are treated no differently. If you take out policy to insure you for accidents, and have an accident a month later, other than excluding any fraud on your part, you are paid in full for your coverage, even though you have been a customer for only a month.
That's how insurance works.
Ok then I bet granny is going to ne mad when she is told to pee in a cup to get her check.
Granny can be mad. Doesn't change anything. She wants the check, piss in the cup.
I need to speak up about Social Security. It is incorrect to equate this to welfare.
The figures below are loose estimates, on the low side, but it is accurate enough to make my point.
I currently receive $2244.00 monthly. I am 68 years old. By the year 1960, I had paid in at least $1000.00. If the USG bought a 52 year treasury with MY money at 4% (actual rates were higher but I'm trying to make a point without being called out for exaggeration) that $1000 would be worth $3080.00.
Over my lifetime, I paid in about $180,000.00. If I had received the going interest rate of each period, my account value would probably be AT LEAST $360,000.00.
I started collecting at age 67. I'm projected to expire at age 77 (using annuity tables). So, I'll get back $250,000.00 by the time I toddle off to The Rainbow Bridge. The USG will take a $100,000.00 profit on the deal.
I have savings. I could probably support myself without Social Security. However, I'm entitled to it because I PAID FOR IT. It's not welfare. It's just a form of savings. I provided all the money being used for my monthly check.
So, please don't equate Social Security to Welfare.
Now, I think the Social Security system should be remodeled and I'm full of brilliant ideas about this but that's off topic so eventually I'll post this wisdom in an appropriate thread.
<<stretches fingers, rubs eyes, goes to take shower>>
Social security is a tax. The opposition in congress called it welfare because that's what it is. The first recipients never paid one premium.
However, I'm entitled to it because I PAID FOR IT.
You didn't prove anything by posting this. All you did was find another person who spouts and opines what you want to hear.You dont want to think of it as welfare because you collect it and it would hurt your feelings, but the fact is that when the law was passed it was called welfare.
The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Why Social Security is WelfareWe don't call Social Security "welfare" because it's a pejorative term, and politicians don't want to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social Security as something else when it isn't. Here is how I define a welfare program: First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it's pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people's own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.
Let's start with its $2.6 trillion trust fund. Doesn't this prove that people's payroll taxes were saved to pay for future benefits, disconnecting them from our larger budget problems? Well, no. Since the 1940s, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go program. Most benefits are paid by payroll taxes on today's workers; in 2010, those taxes covered 91 percent of benefits. The trust fund's $2.6 trillion would provide only 3.5 years of benefits, which totaled about $700 billion in 2010.
The trust fund serves mainly to funnel taxes to recipients, and today's big surplus is an accident, as Charles Blahous shows in his book "Social Security: The Unfinished Work." In 1983, when the trust fund was nearly exhausted, a presidential commission proposed fixes but underestimated their effects. The large surplus "just developed. It wasn't planned," the commission's executive director said later. Even so, the surplus will disappear as the number of retirees rises.
Similarly, Congress has repeatedly altered benefits. From 1950 to 1972, it increased them nine times, including a doubling in the early 1950s. In 1972, it indexed benefits to inflation. People didn't complain when benefits rose, but possible cuts now trigger howls that a "contract" is being broken. Not so. In a 1960 decision ( Flemming v. Nestor ), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that people have a contractual right to Social Security. It cited the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress." Congress can change the program whenever it wants.
All this makes Social Security "welfare."
Robert J. Samuelson - Why Social Security is welfare
Apparently, institutions like banks and insurance companies are engaging in welfare because they take money, use it for a different purpose, then give you "different" money back later when necessary. Or, is it just the government that is guilty of welfare because the government is the "bad guys"?That's the way insurance works. If you think it should be repealed I suggest you start a political party wishing to take your view as their platform.
That's the way insurance works. If you think it should be repealed I suggest you start a political party wishing to take your view as their platform.
Quote Originally Posted by kenvin View Post
You dont want to think of it as welfare because you collect it and it would hurt your feelings, but the fact is that when the law was passed it was called welfare.
He doesnt think of it as welfare because it is something he invested money into. It is something he has worked to receive. He explained that pretty well. He earned it. He didnt just show up at an office and say gimme. SS is not welfare.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?