Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, June 22, 2009
Bill Steigerwald :: Townhall.com Columnist
It's Time for Social Security Choice
by Bill Steigerwald
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


I've hated Social Security since 1964, when I made $547 that summer as a rookie stock boy in the warehouse of a Pittsburgh restaurant chain.

That's when the federal government first started swiping a portion of my paycheck under the pretense that it would put the money aside for my retirement years.

The summer of 1964 - 45 years and a dozen low-paying bartending and newspaper jobs ago -- was also when I heard Barry Goldwater boldly declare that Social Security should be voluntary.

Most people I knew then - and, sadly, most people I know now -- thought Goldwater was a kook for saying such anti-socialist things.

But I dug Barry's voluntary idea at age 17 and I still do, though I've known for a long time that my fellow Americans and I will never live to see it happen.

Now, as I near age 62, I'll finally be getting some of my Social Security money back from the crooks and fools who grabbed it, spent it as fast and stupidly as they could and didn't save a penny of it for me.

Like many other eligible Baby Boomers and more than 40 percent of all recent Social Security recipients, I recently signed up to get my retirement benefits at age 62.

Thanks to the recession -- not to mention well-founded fears of the high inflation that is coming - for many people it makes much more sense to take Social Security at 62 instead of waiting until their official retirement age, which for those in my birth year of 1947 would be 66.

Taking Social Security early means I'll get 25 percent less each month than I'd get in 2013 - or about $1,600 a month instead of about $2,100. But I'll take my chances. By 2013, I could be as dead as GM and the U.S. dollar.

Now, I realize President Obama is very busy trying to win all of America's wars, provide everyone in the USA with free health, save Earth from global warming and fix the economy of the solar system.

But I'd like to offer him and his administration the same sweet deal with my Social Security account that I offered to President Bush four years ago.

In an op-ed column in early 2005, I discreetly asked President Bush, a fellow Boomer, if he could arrange for the Social Security folks to give me back all of "my" Social Security money in one big spendable, investable, inheritable lump.

Adjusted for inflation, between 1964 and 2004 my employers and I put a total of $282,000 in payroll taxes into my Social Security and Medicare accounts. If I retired at 66 and lived another 16 years, which was my life expectancy, I would have collected a total of $352,000.

In other words, without factoring for future inflation - something Washington hardly ever does anyway - the Social Security system could have saved about $70,000 in future payments to me by giving me "my" $282,000 up front.

I promised President Bush then that if he'd accede to my humble request, which he didn't do, the bum, I would never ask for another nickel from the Social Security Administration and that I wouldn't tell anyone.

But I realize today I was being a selfish, unpatriotic libertarian. With the federal government in much worse fiscal shape now than it was then, my great idea - let's call it Social Security Choice -- deserves to be widely publicized.

At 62 every aging Boomer should have the option to make a lump-sum deal with Social Security or receive their SS money in monthly dribs and drabs for the rest of their lives.

I'll leave it to Cato Institute scholars to do the real-world numbers, but surely such an option would be a win-win deal in the long run for individuals and the country.

It would help the Social Security Administration save trillions in future retirement benefits it won't be able to afford to provide anyway.

It would stimulate the heck out of the stalled economy. And it would provide overdue monetary and moral reparation to millions of middle-class Baby Boomers who for their entire working lives were forced to invest in Washington's crummy cross-generational Ponzi scheme.

My Social Security contribution numbers are bigger today, now that I've worked another five years. I and my employer have each kicked in another $25,000 or so, making the 45-year contribution to my retirement roughly $332,000 in current dollars.

But let's not quibble, President Obama. Make me a test case, a pilot program, a guinea pig, whatever you want to call it. Tell Social Security to cut me a check for a lousy $300,000 and we'll call it even. I'll promise to never ask for anything again from the federal government. If I have to, I'll even buy a new Malibu hybrid.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Bill Steigerwald, born and raised in Pittsburgh, is a former L.A. Times copy editor and free-lancer who also worked as a docudrama researcher for CBS-TV in Hollywood before becoming a reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and a columnist Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Bill Steigerwald recently retired from daily newspaper journalism..
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Bill
the short

You want to take money out of the system and then lie to people and say anyone who is retired or anyone nearing retirement will not miss one dime. And the follow-up lie is to proclaim 'no new taxes' for anybody.

Man-up, and face reality with 'Eyes Wide Open!'

bill
the long

I am concerned with reigning in the costs of our runaway entitlement spending programs. It seems to me that we need to tackle this problem with an 'eyes wide open' approach.

Is there an easy answer, such as privatizing social security? Perhaps we should take a closer look at that option.

It seems to me that privatizing social security, even for a fraction of the young people, will mean that there's less money going into the pool of money that's needed to pay seniors their benefits. The benefits of privatization don't really pan out, until those with private accounts, actually retire themselves, perhaps 40 years from now. In the meantime, there is less money in the pool for retirees, because some monies are now sitting in some young person's private account.

Republicans say taxes will not be raised, and no one's benefit will be cut, it seems a more honest way to market the "Privatization of Social Security" might go something like this;

"If we do nothing about Social Security, then seniors will have a cut in benefits of 25% in 10 years. And if we allow some young people not to pay into the system at all (remember, the money is now going into their own account), those very same retirees will now have a cut in benefits of 40% in 10 years."

It seems obvious to me that the 'privatization of social security' can only exacerbate the dearth of funds needed to pay retirees their social security checks that they have earned and that the benefits of 'privatization' will not be REALIZED until the young, who have private accounts, begin to retire, perhaps 40 years from now. Unfortunately, a good many of us will be dead, by then, and it seems to me, that until then, a steep cost will be paid for this, and we will never see the benefits.

Very simple, extremely difficult
My brother was in India during one of their famines which occurred some 70 years ago. His comment was "any American farmer with one hand tied behind his back could solve the immediate problem; Eat Those Cows!

Well, If my math works (even chinese calculators do American old math), even this bad system would work except for the past criminal practices of congress. Follow me on this; You can try this at home!

Here we go. Just talley up the approximate payment to the SSI pot by your employer and yourself by the year.Pay the average interest that the government was paying on the 30 year
treasury notes each year on that amount and let it ride (compound). If this had been done
for my 45 years of payments, I could retire at full salary, living off the interest only, leaving the principal to cover medicare!

In short, the congress robbed you by not paying you the same interest on your SSI contributions that they were paying foreigners
who bought Government bonds during those same years!

Why wait 40 years without change?
And if we don't end this ponzi scheme, what will we have in 40 years if we don't change? We'll have more of the same crap and more whiners that don't want to change. Social Security is too big not to let it fail.

If the government will quit stealing from me so that my children do not have to pay any of their salaries into this fraudulent scheme, I will let the government keep all of the money that they stole from me.

Obama, The Janus

He says that all people will get free health care, but he cannot.

He says that all those making under $95K will not pay taxes, but he lies.

He says that the US should not meddle in Iranian internal affairs, he is a moron and a young woman died buried alive.

He said that we should dialogue with North Korea, but they are ready to nuke Hawaii and Alaska.

He has begged communist China (which employes slave labor) for money, but was laughed out by the country.

He gave $150bn to the IMF, but Russia and Brazil have purchashed gold.

He won Vermont, but they now want to secede.

He said that Global Warning is a crisis, but Fat Al Gore is unable to explain why New Jersey froze in June.

Obama Lied And People DIED.

a better offer
i too first paid "FICA" in 1964. now that i am 60, and have paid ss for 45 years, half of the time at the ever increasing maximum, having had close to 300,000 extorted from me by my beloved democrats, i will make dear leader a better offer. just leave me alone for the rest of my life, and dear leader can have all my "social security" extortionary payments. take it. then get out of my life, out of my wallet, out of my bank account, and leave me alone. that is all i ask. what i expect is a bullet in the head.

Me too!
I've written my Congressmen multiple times telling them I would like the ability to "opt out" of Social Security. If they would let me and my employer no longer take out FICA taxes, I would let them keep all the money they've confiscated over the past 20 years and I would never seek any money from Social Security period. Everyone under 50 should have the same choice.

Of course, all I've ever heard back was that that wouldn't work because they couldn't make payments to people who are retired now.

Well, I don't believe SS will be around when I retire and the promises made are going to be broken eventually anyway, so let's start now. Let everyone be responsible for themselves instead of dependent upon the government.

It looks like the people in Iran have found a way to make their government listen to them...wonder if Americans have the stones to do it too to protect our liberty.

It's time Congress got Soc. Sec.
and were subject to ALL of the laws it condemns us to, like the upcoming *health care* krap, which will never replace Congress' gold-plated medical and retirement goodies.

As a conservative I disagree.
First off, many who invested on their own in 401Ks and such found out in th recent financial crisis that controlling ones own financial futur is not a sure thing. Many seniors accounts were wiped out and their retirement plans have changed dramatically.

Social Security is NOT socialism. It is akin to an insurance policy which we pay into and expect a return upon retirement. The power of investing pooled funds, had the money been left untouched, would have been solvent into infinity. It is because politicians of both parties dipped into the funds for other non-related uses that it is in trouble.

As wefound out recently, all of those invstment managers with whom we would have placed our retirement funds are not much better than the government.
Bernie Madoff comes to mind as one example.
How many lifetime savings did he wipe out?

I was born...
...the same year that SS was born:1935.In the year that I turned 65(2000),you could keep working and not lose SS payments.So I kept on working and got off the overtime list.(The idea of not being penalized Social Security payments by working was a Republican initiative).I even payed it while in the Army and in combat.My wife still works,so we are living pretty good.The both of us are better off than our parents were.

For those who want to cut back or eliminate Social Security,you had better "grandfather" people like us or you will never get our support.We are not about to commit political-financial suicide at our advanced age.

...and by the way...
...will all the children who will kick in and support their parents financially if they lose SS payments please stand up.Hello? Hello?Is there anyone out there?

Soc Sec isn't a retirement program
The error in your thinking is that it's a retirement program-it is not. It is social insurance and it is income redistribution. The whole time you were working, you and your dependents were covered in the event of your death. If you became disabled, you would have drawn benefits and been covered under medicare, regardless of your age. It is and was insurance against lost wages. Higher income earners such as yourself do not see a great retuirn on your tax dollar but lower income earners receive giant returns. The way the formula is weighted, a low income retiree could conceivably receive up to 90% of his pre retirement earnings in SS benefits. You subsidized millions of them. Soc Sec benefits account for 50% or more of the total income for two thirds of the elderly recipients It was designed in the height of the great depression as an answer to poverty and it has accomplished that goal.

No Joel...
...Social Security is NOT contrary to the Constitution.It is only contrary to YOUR interpretation of the Constitution.Unfortunetly,the Supreme Court disagrees with you,and it is THEIR interpretation that counts,not yours.So will you please stop reading the Constitution and start reading opinions of the Court.

Nam65-66
The idea is to phase it out. Current recipients continue as-planned, those not under it currently get a reduced amount based on age. The closer you are to the retirement age, the more you get. Someone my age (28) should be able to fully opt out of paying anything into the system, get what I've paid in back in full and won't be covered at all. If we start this RIGHT NOW, it will still be possible, if we wait so much as 2 years, the entire system will just collapse on itself, leaving you and everyone else with nothing.

The system will go bust in 2016. The so-called trust fund being bandied about is nothing more than a big pile of Treasury Bills, government promising itself money. All the T-bills "invested" in Social Security are entirely worthless since they can't just be called on to pay for the program. 2016 is the year we start cutting benefits and raising taxes, assuming our economy doesn't continue to tailspin with all of these Obama social programs.

I've already accepted I won't get a single penny out of social security, so it collapsing won't have any impact on me. If worse comes to worse, I have a job lined up in New Zealand I can take, they haven't destroyed their nation (yet) and I'm in a position to jump ship without losing anything. I'd rather not, but it all depends on if America collectively gets smarter and realizes Social Security isn't insurance or an investment but a huge pyramid scheme that is on the verge of falling apart.

Insurance is something to hedge against a future, yet highly unlikely event. Social Security isn't insurance since retirement isn't a highly unlikely event.

Name65-66, just for the record..
I would and will if need be support my mother. Right now she is married and supported by her husband, who is not my father. Because she is 71, she collects social security because of my father earnings, who passed away at the age of 50. If her husband passed away and social security went away, she would come live with me and my husband and we would take care of her, that is my responsibility as her daughter not yours. Not all children were raised to be self centered adults. Of course if it was my mother in-law that would be a different story, fortunately my husband has 2 sisters.

Entitlements?
Entitlements, to me are something earned. All of us who have worked for 40 years and were forced to pay into the system are entitled to the benefits owed us.
But then our sorry elected officials have taken trillions out of the fund to blow on their pork projects.
If SS should be cut out then stop taking SS out of my wifes and my paychecks.
And how about cutting off all welfare for people who have never contributed a penny to the system? And some of who have several generations of recipients on welfare.
Wait - is welfare even an entitlement, since they did not earn it?

Curmudgeon-doubt you paid 300K FICA, sir
1944 1.0 3,000 30.00
1945 1.0 3,000 30.00
1946 1.0 3,000 30.00
1947 1.0 3,000 30.00
1948 1.0 3,000 30.00
1949 1.0 3,000 30.00
1950 1.5 3,000 45.00
1951 1.5 3,600 54.00
1952 1.5 3,600 54.00
1953 1.5 3,600 54.00
1954 2.0 3,600 72.00
1955 2.0 4,200 84.00
1956 2.0 4,200 84.00
1957 2.25 4,200 94.50
1958 2.25 4,200 94.50
1959 2.5 4,800 120.00
1960 3.0 4,800 144.00
1961 3.0 4,800 144.00
1962 3.125 4,800 150.00
1963 3.625 4,800 174.00
1964 3.625 4,800 174.00
1965 3.625 4,800 174.00
1966 4.2 6,600 277.20
1967 4.4 6,600 290.40
1968 4.4 7,800 343.20
1969 4.8 7,800 374.40
1970 4.8 7,800 374.40
1971 5.2 7,800 405.60
1972 5.2 9,000 468.00
1973 5.85 10,800 631.80
1974 5.85 13,200 772.20
1975 5.85 14,100 824.85
1976 5.85 15,300 895.05
1977 5.85 16,500 965.25
1978 6.05 17,700 1,070.85
1979 6.13 22,900 1,403.77
1980 6.13 25,900 1,587.67
1981 6.65 29,700 1,975.05
1982 6.70 32,400 2,170.80
1983 6.70 35,700 2,391.90
1984 6.70 37,800 2,532.60
1985 7.05 39,600 2,791.80
1986 7.15 42,000 3,003.00
1987 7.15 43,800 3,131.70
1988 7.51 45,000 3,379.50
1989 7.51 48,000 3,604.80
1990 7.65 51,300 3,924.45
1991 6.20 (OASDI)53,400 3,310.80
1992 6.20 (OASDI)55,500 3,441.00
1993 6.20 (OASDI)57,600 3,571.20
1994 6.20 (OASDI)60,600 3,757.20
1995 6.20 (OASDI)61,200 3,794.40
1996 6.20 (OASDI)62,700 3,887.40
1997 6.20 (OASDI)65,400 4,054.80
1998 6.20 (OASDI)68,400 4,240.80
1999 6.20 (OASDI)72,600 4,501.20
2000 6.20 (OASDI) 76,200 4,724.40
2001 6.20 (OASDI) 80,400 4,984.80
2002 6.20 (OASDI) 84,900 5,263.80
2003 6.20 (OASDI) 87,000 5,394.00
2004 6.20 (OASDI) 87,900 5,449.80
2005 6.20 (OASDI) 90,000 5,580.00
2006 6.20 (OASDI) 94,200 5,840.40
2007 6.20 (OASDI) 97,500 6,045.00
2008 6.20 (OASDI) 102,000 6,324.00
2009 6.20 (OASDI) 106,800 6,621.60

What Bill
misses here is how much money would be in his hypothetical account had it been drawing, say, 5% compounded interest over the past 45 years.

Red Tape
So what is your point, other than you are possibly a number crunching bureaucrat. I am also curious how you know someone else's wages.

Raymond
redtape wasn't making an assumption as to what the salary was, he was making an observation that if you were employed from 1944 through today and made above the Social Security cut-off point, then the most you would have contributed, as an individual, into the Social Security system is $132,272.80 (this year included). Even with employee matching, the most that Government would have generated from Social Security is $264,545.70.

Meaning, without engaging in time value of money and interest payments, there is no way that Mr. Steigerwald could have $332,000 in Social Security taxes. It's physically impossible for an individual to contribute that much.

Nam 65-66:
All power rests with the governed. The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of what The Constitution means. The final arbiter is the people. This is not my opinion. It is the opinion of the framers.

Please stop misleading TH readers. You are damaging our Republic.

Further:
The Constitution means what it says. It does not require interpretation.

The job of the Supreme Court is not interpretation. The job of the Supreme Court is application. The target of the Court's power is the government itself.

redtape
You say you would be covered if you die? Can you say$255.00

again--how do you know someone else's in

Justin:redtape wasn't making an assumption as to what the salary was, he was making an observation that if you were employed from 1944 through today and made above the Social Security cut-off point, then the most you would have contributed, as an individual, into the Social Security system is $132,272.80 (this year included). Even with employee matching, the most that Government would have generated from Social Security is $264,545.70.

I don't know about you Justin, but I have at many times in my life held 2 jobs. I never got a reduced FICA witholding on either paycheck, nor did good old Social Security ever send me a refund for overpayment. It is certainly possible and even likely that Mr. Steigerwald is telling the truth without embellishment.

I know , you haven't hit 30 yet, so your life experience is rather limited, not trying to insult you, but your parents likely worked much harder than you have and for much longer too. few people today are willing to work as hard as their parents and grandparents did. Everyone wants to work in an office and make 6 figures at one job. Some can do it, but most cannot.

Justin --- but ---
I generally agree with your point(s) above, but in the case of crumudgeon, he is saying "close to $300,000". Isn't that's a reasonable way to think of it because if the employer were not making contributions on his behalf, he could have been paid that money instead for purposes of saving/investing?

Re: Steigerwald (the author here) himself, you say "there is no way that Mr. Steigerwald could have $332,000 in Social Security taxes." Is that what he claims somewhere? What he did say as that he and his employers' contributions have amounted to $332k "in current dollars". Is that not a valid observation (assuming he applies the appropriate inflation indices)?

About that job in NZ, my son is looking right now as his employment ends in a few weeks due to a merger and downsizing. He could take that job down under and would agree to turn it over to you whenever you decide to jump ship. He will pay your future Social Security contribution to you in the meantime by cashier's check. Deal?

Brad, al lindro
Brad, the unadjusted amount that anyone can pay is physically capped. For example, this year the cap is $106,000 and at 6.2%, that's $6,572. No one, not Oprah, not Alex Rodriguez, not Warren Buffet, not Tiger Woods, no one will pay more than $6,572, be it $106,001 or $500 billion. It's just a mathematical impossibility.

al, his usage of the inflation factor is a flawed assessment. Mainly, we would have to create some sort of assumption as to what the inflation would be had Social Security not been in place. A major component of inflation is government spending and Social Security is one of the Big 3 (the other two being military and Medicare/Medicaid). Without Social Security (and by extension, no more Medicare since it was a follow-on program), our inflation would be no where near what it was historically. Creating a true inflation adjusted payment is impossible.

Also, I'm likely going to be taking that position by the end of the year. If I wait until after 30, I lose points on the immigration form and I'm currently safely in the no wait category.

Insightful Truth...
..."All power rests with the governed. The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of what The Constitution means. The final arbiter is the people. This is not my opinion. It is the opinion of the framers.

Please stop misleading TH readers. You are damaging our Republic."

Tell you what to do,Insightful,violate their "opinion" and see who gets punished.

I am certain that I am incapable of "misleading" Townhall readers or "damaging our Republic"!You should worry more about the Supreme Court's opinion rather than my opinion.Their opinion has the force of law,not mine.

Ponzi scheme
It started as a floor under the elderly. Through the years Congress has added and added benefits to more and more people. The life expectancy has increased. As for me, I worked full time until I was 75 and didn't "draw" until I had to at age 701/2. Now I am 87, so I have received quite a bit from the system. As far as a lock box, that was only a dream. Where would the money have been put-in stocks and bonds thereby skewing the economy. Imagine the management of the funds by government people.
As to the writer being dead by 2013 that is very unlikely unless he already has a fatal and untreatable disease. Of course, he could get run over by a truck, but it is statistically very likely that he will still be around in 2013. I am planning on being around until then, but then no one can predict the future.
The Congress will eventually have to deal with the entitlements-Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid since economics will force them to.
Donald W. Bales

Yes,Sara c...
...I also would take care of my elders,but everyone wouldn't.That leaves welfare for them,and that is why they support Social Security.

Let me see a politician run for election or re-election on a platform of abolishing Social Security.That will be an unemployed politician.

FDR's ponzi scheme...
I was mad when I received my first paycheck as a carhop in 1972, also. I'm still mad. I can't start collecting any SS for quite a few years and I doubt it will be available to support all the baby boomers who are counting on it. I have also set aside my own retirement money, thankfully. I would have like the opportunity to set aside my total SS payments since I as 15 years old...I could retire now and give my job to a younger person. Ponzi schemes by their very nature will eventually collapse when there aren't enough new "investors" to support the people who are collecting. Given the fact that we have virtually allowed the murder of 50 million potential taxpayers through abortion, we have essentially wiped out a level of the ponzi scheme investors. What now?

I'm interested in the posts...
that describe SS as an insurance policy rather than a socialist ponzi scheme. I don't believe mandatory payroll reductions with employer matching qualifies as an insurance policy. If it's an insurance plan, I would like to opt out and keep my "premiums."

brad-if you pay over the SS max-
If one has multiple jobs & pays over the max, it is refunded if he files an income tax return. See line 65 on the 1040. And Jim, actually, less than 45% of the benefits go to retirees. Most goes to the disabled, survivors, and dependents. Again, the program is two things. It is social insurance that steps in to replace lost wages. It also serves to redistribute income from the haves to the have nots. Most folks (like the author) think it's a retirement plan.

Social Security
Please do not forget that Social Security funds are your money. It is not an entitlement or welfare no matter how much the libs try to lump it with Medicaid and Medicare which you also pay into.

If you are a low income earner, you will get your money back in just a few years; middle income earners need to live to be 90 or more for a return and high income folks will never get it all back. And that's without the 1-2% "return on investment."

It’s not insurance, it’s theft
I understand how the boomer generation feels entitled to get back some of the money social security took from them. However, that money was STOLEN from you and given to the generations that preceded you. For you to accept money now from social security is to STEAL from me and all the generations that follow you. Once crime does not justify the next, even if it is “legal” under the authority of the government. Stealing is a crime. By accepting the social security check, you are participating in that crime. Obviously, you’ll get away with it in this life. The government is not going to prosecute you.

Do you believe in heaven and the supreme judgment of the Lord? Do you believe in his commandment that Thou Shall Not Steal? Do you suppose He is going to find you guilty of stealing from me and punish you accordingly, or do you think He will let you off on the technicality that it was “legal” theft sanctioned by the US government? His commandment is “Thou Shall Not Steal.” Period. It does not read “Thou Shall Not Steal, unless it is legalized by governing bodies sanctioned by mankind.”

The stealing has to stop. You’ve written a clever article. Is that all you are? A clever writer? Or are you willing to take a stand and refuse to accept stolen money? How about you disenroll from Social Security, give back what you’ve accepted so far, repent, and write about that? That would take courage. What will it be? Courage or clever? Heaven or hell? Make your choice.

Social Security
I too am a boomer, born in 1947. I remeber hearing that the SSA would be out of money by the time I was old enough to collect. I was in High School then so this is not a new problem.

I have a good idea. Why don't Obama use part of that stimulus money to replace the Social Security savings which were stolen from us by the Feds?

Steigerwald
I can't believe the stupidity of your column.
Wow.

A very clever plan. Give me all my money, I
will invest it, and make big bucks. Didn't
you say you started Social Security at age
62. Where would all your big bucks be today
if you had done that smart thing.

I turn 66 this year. I probably won't take my
social security until I am 70, because I am
still working and I love to work and I don't
need the money.

Other issues would be that I would be taxed
on my social security income because I am
making salaried income elsewhere. And fruity
as it sounds, the US govt needs that money
more than I do right now. You see, just call
me a real Patriot.


Even better, transfer all
public employees (including Congress) over to Social Security and/or make their retirement programs "defined contribution" rather than "defined benefit" systems. The "civil servants" ought to get the same as the real tax payers...

wrong lola
It's actually not your money. The money that is stolen from one person goes to another person. It is not put into an account or any such, but redistributed. Further, the recipient ends up receiving much more than put in, which as that money is not the result of interest, means that more and more victims are needed to pay the outgoing.

Tammy
Please save us from idiots like you. PATRIOT MY ARSE. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to take our money for Social Security or for that matter anything beyond Article 1, Section 8. That is the government, all else is criminal activity. To be a PATRIOT, one would need to support the rule of law, you do not, thus you are a traitor, and not just to the people of this land , but to humanity.
How might that be? Well government as Jefferson so aptly put it is instituted to protect life, liberty, and property/fruit of labor/the pursuit of happiness. When government goes beyond that it oppresses man and forces one into slavery, YES SLAVERY, because one man is now forced to give of his fruitful labor to provide for another.
As you are not a first time poster I saw no need to refrain from calling you the idiot you are, as you have proven yourself to be an opponent of reason and right. You embrace tyranny and oppression, and deny man his natural rights. You also willfully embrace breaking the law, which in case you've forgotten, the constitution is, and no other law can be passed that is not for the purpose of carrying out the US constitution. This is evil, no matter what false morality you place it under.

Lenard
"or for that matter anything beyond Article 1, Section 8."

Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

"And General Welfare"......like it or not, this phrase is big enough to drive a truck through.


Troy from Texas....
...You are absolutely right! I have been stealing from you by accepting my SS check! I'm going to burn in the everlasting fires of hell because I forgot that the bible told me I was stealing!

Well,if it's any consolation to you,I have a life expectancy of about 10 minutes,,so relax.

Zapdoodat...
...everyone on Townhall interprets the Constitution the way they want to,including Lenard.And Troy from Texas thinks I am stealing because I cash my Social Security check,and that is specifically banned by God!

What's a fellow to do?

Nam65-66
"What's a fellow to do?"

I suspect that when Lenard and Troy become of the right age their mindset will change so that....yes...they can take the SS check and cash it too.

It's Always Been A Lie
Social Security is simply a non-deductible wage tax that was placed on the salaries of non-government workers. After 1983 the gross injustice of exempting federal civilian employees from payment was corrected. Now they too can share their "wealth."

The 1935 Social Security Act was a brilliant example of "newspeak" that preceded Orwell's classic by fourteen years. It evolved into the greatest Ponzi scheme in the history of mankind.

What amazes me most is how "Liberals" defend to the death such a blatant scheme that is shouldered entirely by working, wage earning Americans, while exempting the wealthy from its grasp.

alopekos
"What amazes me most is how "Liberals" defend to the death."

Ronald Reagan was a staunch defender of Social Security.

Communist Ponzi scheme
I turned in my card years ago and won't take a dime. It will be interesting to see how many so-called conservatives do the same.

And Your Point is???
Zap,

Oh my! I might as well concede to your superior logic. Are you saying that Ronald Reagan was really a liberal? Sweet!

Hint. You should refute my argument that Social Security is a non-deductible wage tax that disproportionately burdens the working or self-employed American of modest means. You should explain why so-called "liberal" champions of the working men and women would seek to make that burden even bigger. You should tell me that if FICA is not the participant's money allegedly placed into a retirement account, then why is it added back into the gross income on a W2 form?

Answer wisely. I'm not conservative. I'm a classical liberal, not a collectivist modern "liberal" infatuated with the power of the state.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.