Eliminate Social Security - Dont 'Privitize it'

[Dis]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Bush keeps claiming he can privatize social security for $3 trillion but all of the economists seem to believe that $7-$8 trillion is a more realistic number. Bush knows we can't afford $8 trillion when the nation's GDP is only around $12 trillion.

Privatization truly seems like a Republican plot to destroy social security in steps.

Kudos to republicans in this case.

get rid of it.

But the sad fact is all the money I put in will be lost . Damn ponzi scheme!

So because of this, I'm forced to hope this system can struggle on another 40 years or so.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I don't read enough of the material from the anti-income tax activists but I think their argument is that "income" was defined in a much more limited manner back then. It might be because of the clause Kuci quoted... Essentially. labor was not considered income. I think the income tax was more related to the rise of corporations...

The 16th Amendment repealed the clause I quoted, Berz.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dissident
But the sad fact is all the money I put in will be lost . Damn ponzi scheme!

Just like all the taxes you pay. SS is a tax, not a retirement investment.

[Jaguar]

This is a libertarian thread. If anything, your argument made me like it less.

[chequita guevara]

That's fine. It's a terribly regressive tax. It ought to be abolished and funded from general funds.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Just like all the taxes you pay. SS is a tax, not a retirement investment.

Yeah, social security has never been an investment it has always just been a dedicated tax.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Jaguar
This is a libertarian thread. If anything, your argument made me like it less.

me too

[Spiffor]

Re: Eliminate Social Security - Dont 'Privitize it'

Good idea. We should also eliminate old people. Do you imagine? No drain on resources at all!

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's fine. It's a terribly regressive tax. It ought to be abolished and funded from general funds.

Progressive taxes:
Regressive taxes:

Libertarians:

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Just curious: if we were to eliminate it, what do we do about all those people -- like, say, my mother -- who are living on Social Security now?

After all, they have no savings precisely because they expected social security to be there. Are they just SOL? Are we just going to dump them on their children -- or, if they have no children, on the street?

If so, please, please initiate the drive to eliminate social security; I can't imagine anything bringing the Dems back to power more quickly.

[OzzyKP]

Very true Rufus. I do agree with privatizing it or eliminating it, but I agree that we need to honor our commitment to our seniors depending on it.

At what age is someone young enough to find alternative sources of retirement income that we can cut them off? I dunno.
How to cover the trillions of dollars of funds needed to pay seniors while letting younger workers out of the system? I dunno.
How to appease/steamroll the liberals to get it passed? I dunno (but i bet it'll be expensive....)

Eliminating Social Security
Privatizing Social Security
Spending 8 Trillion to do it

[Agathon]

If anyone can find a better solution to providing an income to the elderly, I'd like to see it.

Of course a free market solution would do what it always does: make sure that large numbers of the elderly lived in misery and died younger. That's what it was like in industrialized countries before SS schemes.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Just curious: if we were to eliminate it, what do we do about all those people -- like, say, my mother -- who are living on Social Security now?

How about you take care of her, you lazy ****? You lived in her for 9 months, and yet she's so poor that she lives off social security?

Way to repay her, *******.






This post were in jest, obviously, as you can see by the smiley.

[Whoha]

Kuciwalker:

from the constitution:"The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration." That is the 16th amendment, and it was ratified in 1913. I don't disagree that there were income taxes(hence the permenant modifier in my statement), but the income tax as we know it today began with the 16th amendment.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Jaguar


How about you take care of her, you lazy ****? You lived in her for 9 months, and yet she's so poor that she lives off social security?

Way to repay her, *******.






This post were in jest, obviously, as you can see by the smiley.

I know it's in jest, but it raises an interesting point.

The fact is, you could yank my mom's social security tomorrow, and she'd be okay. My sister and I would need to send her ~$500/month each, and that would make up for it. Or we could split the bill $750-$250, and whoever pays the $750 would get to claim Mom as a dependent on their taxes.

But the point is that we can do this because my Mom has a couple of kids, because those kids make a good living, and because her house is paid for and she carries no debt of any sort.

Mom would be okay. I can't say the same for the working class or the poor.