Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most Americans are led to believe that they 'pay into' a trust fund, and that they are 'owed' entitlements.
Worse, they will fight to the death in opposition of any reduction in what they believe they are entitled to.
But that's based on a BIG LIE.
It has long been law that there is no legal right to Social Security. In two important cases, Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits.
==============================
Socialist InSecurity was and is nothing but a scam, a tontine, a means to raise taxes in the midst of the Depression, while creating a self interest bloc that will madly fight for their share of the treasury regardless of the consequences to the nation. In short, they're recipients of a bribe, paid by current taxpayers, dispensed by the jolly Congress - masters of bribery. It is abominable that parents are misled to enroll their infants into FICA before they even leave the hospital.
There is no way to reform SocSec. The only viable solution is to withdraw from it.
Of course, you do know that participation is 100% voluntary. If there was a law compelling participation, it would be involuntary servitude and unconstitutional in the United States of America.
Don't believe me - go read the law. Or write a polite questionnaire to your congressman:
1. What law compels all Americans in the USA to enroll in FICA?
2. What law punishes any American who does not participate in FICA?
3. What law punishes any American business that hires unnumbered Americans?
4. If participation is voluntary, what is the official procedure to withdraw from FICA?
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Most folks only receive silence.
(Is that "Hotel California" playing in the background?)
Led to believe? By whom? The SSA makes no hidden claims. It's right on the website.
I don't know where you get your facts from but they are universally wrong.
Q: Did FDR promise that Social Security would be voluntary? Did Democrats end tax deductions for Social Security withholding?
A: Social Security has never been voluntary and taxes paid to support it have never been deductible from federal income taxes. A widely e-mailed "history lesson" gets nearly all its facts wrong.
Flemming v. Nestor:
In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported.
Without investing any more time, I'm just going to move on as this is just another wacko thread on C-D.
Naw, you're not suggesting that poorly educated people who didn't do well in school now think that they're political and economic geniuses are you? Surely that can't be true.
Last edited by CaseyB; 07-30-2011 at 06:03 PM..
Reason: off topic
Led to believe? By whom? The SSA makes no hidden claims. It's right on the website.
I don't know where you get your facts from but they are universally wrong.
From Fact Check.org:
Flemming v. Nestor:
In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported.
Without investing any more time, I'm just going to move on as this is just another wacko thread on C-D.
To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands.
We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments....
NO RIGHT IN BENEFIT PAYMENTS - NO ACCRUED PROPERTY RIGHTS
All entitlements are at the discretion of CONgress.
To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands.
We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments....
NO RIGHT IN BENEFIT PAYMENTS - NO ACCRUED PROPERTY RIGHTS
All entitlements are at the discretion of CONgress.
America, you have been PUNKED.
I read the court case. Somehow I miss what you are offended by. SSA originally had no provision for widows, orphans or money for dependent children. Now it does. Congress can decide to raise benefits. If it has the power to increase benefits it surely has the power to lower them. So?
Naw, you're not suggesting that poorly educated people who didn't do well in school now think that they're political and economic geniuses are you? Surely that can't be true.
Social Security, based on current law and the current tax structure, has the funds to pay 100% of benefits for the next 25 years and 77% of benefits thereafter. In other words, relatively modest adjustments are needed to keep the program sustainable. But there will not be major changes for those now in shouting distance of retirement.
The last major changes to Social Security occured in 1983. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Moynihan [D] NY. Most of the changes dealt with increasing the ages to receive full benefits. The age changes are starting to occur now and there's a whole lot of people unaware of the increased ages.
If you were born 1943 to 1954 the age for full benefits is 66
If you were born 1960 or later the age for full benefits is 67
You can still apply for benefits at age 62 but the benefit amount is drastically reduced.
When politicians talk about increasing the retirement age, they say 'increase the age', you never hear them say 'increase the age to 68 or 69'
SSA.gov
Of course, you do know that participation is 100% voluntary. If there was a law compelling participation, it would be involuntary servitude and unconstitutional in the United States of America.
Don't believe me - go read the law. Or write a polite questionnaire to your congressman:
1. What law compels all Americans in the USA to enroll in FICA?
2. What law punishes any American who does not participate in FICA?
3. What law punishes any American business that hires unnumbered Americans?
4. If participation is voluntary, what is the official procedure to withdraw from FICA?
Again, how do I keep my daughters out of SS?
Should they just tell their future employers they withdraw and not to take money out of their check?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about some facts?
