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.
Originally Posted by hnsq:
Anyone who thinks that SS is a good thing for citizens (from a financial point of view) is nothing short of ignorant.
I can easily find millions of seniors who would disagree.
Yes, those already retired are at the TOP of the Ponzi Scam, and put in far less than they will get back from this system. I suppose many of them are so short-sighed and selfish that they are happy to have robbed their children and grandchildren, so that their fat pensions could be subsidized by Social Security checks after they retired at age 62.
As to all us "losers" in the massive Ponzi Scam as it collapses from sheer demographic reality, I doubt many of us are so unsophisticated as to think Social Security is a "good deal" for those of us 50 and younger. We paid the elevated SS/Medicare tax rates resulting from the 1983 changes from the very first year we entered the work force, and already they have raised the retirement age to 67 for us. Who knows what it will be in 15 years, when we actually approach retirement age. With the average life span only 77, that doesn't leave a lot of years to recoup the tax rates that paid for not only the existing Social Security recipients, but the $2.6 trillion dollar Social Security Trust Fund that was subsequently stolen and spent by Washington politicians.
We would find out exactly how many people think Social Security is a good idea if we simply made it voluntary, as it was supposed to be. The fact that (without major Ron Paul-style reform) this will never happen, should tell you that politicians KNOW the vast majority would now opt out.
Well you have to remmeber that Boomers took increases in payroll SS taxes as well as raised retiremnt years. That is all that is required to fix it again.SS was never voluntary likie mnay other programs.But SS is not the real probelm as medicare and medicaid are.
I found no real way for the average citizen to get out of this failing Ponzi Scam:
"There is no legal requirement for individuals to join or participate in the Social Security program. However, the FICA taxes imposed are mandatory on covered workers and the self-employed who are covered. Employers are required to report wages to Social Security for processing Forms W-2 and W-3. There are some specific groups which are not required to pay into the Social Security program.
Commendable that you looked it up.
However, they omitted several facts that most Americans would not notice.
1. Form SS-5, application for an account and number, is limited to "U.S. citizens / U.S. residents". American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled in the USA are not eligible to participate. http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf
In case you've not been informed that there ARE American nationals / non-citizens, who have NOT consented to be citizens, here's something to read:
https://www.pcip.gov/PreExistingConditionPlan_EnrollmentForm_082310_508 .pdf (broken link)
On Page 1, Section 3: Quote:
[] I am a noncitizen national of the United States
(*And they are NOT required to enter a SSN onto the form)
2. "Covered workers" are those who are "persons liable" (those who consent).
3. "Employer" is oddly defined:
IRC Section 3401 Definitions (a) Wages. For purposes of this chapter, (Ch. 24 - withholding at the source) the term "wages" means all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; (c) Employee. For purposes of this chapter (Chapter 24 - Collection of Income Tax at Source on wages), the term "employee" includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, or of any political subdivision thereof, or of the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation. (d) Employer. For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person,
An employee appears to be someone who works for the government (a revenue taxable privilege) or an officer of a corporation (also a revenue taxable privilege). Therefore, an 'employer' appears to be the government or corporations.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius - The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes a particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, 6th ed., p. 763
In the definition for employee and employer, it "includes" certain categories, thus must exclude those not listed. If the authors / lawyers wanted it to mean "all workers" they could have used "employee means any worker, government official, and / or corporate officer."
4. The term "person" excludes the sovereign.
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).
"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
5. The government is not sovereign. It is the servant of the sovereign people.
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Restating - there is no law compelling ALL Americans to enroll and participate, nor is there any law punishing ANY American who does not participate. And I can find no law punishing any American business that hires an unnumbered American.
But don't believe me - go read the law yourself. Write to your congressman and ask for copies of the law.
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise [tax] cannot be imposed."
Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.
"The liberty mentioned in that [14th] amendment means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelyhood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned."
Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 673, at 539 (1897).
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 946.
"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 491.
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, at 113 (1943).
" The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry."
48 Am Jur 2d, Section 2, p. 80
" Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a right, this would enable the state to destroy rights guaranteed by the constitutions through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the right of travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legitimate object of state taxation. The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of the taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the High Court. The right of the states to impede or embarrass the constitutional operations of the the U.S. Government or the Rights which the citizens hold under it, has been uniformly denied."
McCulloch v. Maryland 4 Wheat 316.
Of course, if one VOLUNTEERS to be a "person liable", all bets are off.
For someone who is in their 20's and doesn't understand much of Social Security yet, I was curious; why do some people believe that Social Security is considered a Ponzi Scam?
For someone who is in their 20's and doesn't understand much of Social Security yet, I was curious; why do some people believe that Social Security is considered a Ponzi Scam?
In it's original intent it was not.
A group of people could 'join', have individual policies and pay into their own insurance policy. If left alone it would have been sustainable.
Those who wanted to join did, those who did not want to join did not.
To be eligible to receive a benefit from this insurance plan you had to first pay into it.
Later 'they' opened it up for folks who had never paid into it. Then the government itself began to draw funds from it.
Eventually the fund was drained and it came to be seen as a tax revenue for the federal government.
For someone who is in their 20's and doesn't understand much of Social Security yet, I was curious; why do some people believe that Social Security is considered a Ponzi Scam?
Actually, it was more of a tontine scam ... The only recipients would be the "survivors" who reached retirement age.
In the 1930s, the average life expectancy of men was 54-56, so the bulk of taxpaying workers would have died before receiving one dime in benefits. (Women were the primary beneficiaries, if you consider that benefits went to surviving spouses. And the faire sex certainly voiced their support!)
The increase in life expectancy exposed the unsound financial nature of FICA, as did the tendency of Congress to expand the socialist bribery emitted under its auspices. The original tax rate has ballooned to over 15% (counting the employer's share).
And if you think about it - a recipient was more likely to enjoy far more than what was paid in - which is not quite right.
Ida May Fuller was the first beneficiary of recurring monthly Social Security payments. By the time of her death, Fuller had collected $22,888.92 from Social Security monthly benefits, compared to her contributions of $24.75 to the system.
So "contributors" worked and paid her $22 thousand, while she only paid in $24. WHAT A DEAL!
But it was a tragedy for the thousands who worked, paid and died, without receiving anything of value.
Is that not suspect?
A wee bit crooked?
A scam?
Naked bribery?
Of course, since it is 100% voluntary, the peons have no grounds to complain.
--------------
BTW - it was NEVER insurance for the "human resources" who signed up. They were underwriting the bankrupt government - the real beneficiary of FICA. https://www.city-data.com/forum/20226796-post1.html
Last edited by jetgraphics; 08-17-2011 at 11:37 PM..
Reason: Added link to first post.
Once again I ask - when my oldest starts working next year, when they ask for SS#, how does she tell her employer they are not to take out SS taxes?
Why ask us?
Ask the "employer" where HIS authority is, to TAKE out anything from a paycheck?
What LAW grants a private employer the POWER?
What clause of the Constitution delegates such a power to the government?
What's the definition of "employer"?
What revenue taxable activity is the reason for the tax, measured by its income?
Ask a judge to issue you a ruling that a "dollar bill" is a "dollar". I did. He demurred. So if there are no "dollars", what ARE they taxing as dollars?
Are they asking us to sign a false statement, under penalty of perjury?
"It has been well said that, 'the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property.' Butchers' Union Co., supra, at 757. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property partaking of the nature of each is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property."
Coopage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14 (1915)
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.
You nailed it on this part of your post.
The rest of it is trying to justify the government defaulting on their obligation to us.
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.
