Eliminate Social Security - Dont 'Privitize it'

[David Floyd]

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?

Sounds like her, and maybe your, problem.

[Berzerker]

When will all of these 'libertarians' stop using their tax-payer funded roads?" -Monkspider

When we're no longer forced to fund them with our taxes? Seems the question answers itself...

"I would much rather my mom was a whore than a libertarian." -kidicious

If your mom was a whore, we wouldn't trash her, jail her, stone her to death, or burn her at the stake, but we might want to **** her. What does she look like?

"I refuse to become a libbie. That operation where they remove your heart and half your brain is just too much." -chegitz guevara

I'd consider the advice of a halfwit over someone who thought with their heart.

[Berzerker]

Btw, Chile has a privatised SS system and from what I've heard it works very well - puts ours to shame.

[Agathon]

Btw, Chile has a privatised SS system and from what I've heard it works very well - puts ours to shame.

I'll bet the 21% of Chileans who live in poverty and especially the native population would have some issues with your assessment.

All the world's most developed societies have some form of SS - because it's cheap and it works at providing services the market will not and cannot provide on a country wide basis.

It's all very well to mount some precious moral argument about Social Security, but the arguments for it are mostly practical ones.

[MikeH]

Eliminate Social Security?

Why not just execute all the poor people?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I'd consider the advice of a halfwit over someone who thought with their heart.

So you admit that libertarianism is completely heartless?

[Jaguar]

[Sikander]

Social security should be a need based welfare program rather than an entitlement. That would ensure its solvency immediately at no cost to the government.

[Agathon]

But Mike, the market will miraculously make everyone well off and healthy, just like Victorian Britain did.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Agathon
But Mike, the market will miraculously make everyone well off and healthy, just like Victorian Britain did.

[Felch]

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

Amen. Single working mothers spend a bigger portion of their income on SS than the super-wealthy and are just as unlikely to see any benefits.

Besides the old have had their whole lives to build wealth. Why should the wealthiest demographic be subsidized by those who are trying to get themselves established?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Felch
Besides the old have had their whole lives to build wealth. Why should the wealthiest demographic be subsidized by those who are trying to get themselves established?

Because all the old people have been paying into the system for years... As it is, none of us expect to get back anywhere near what we have put into the system.

So stop your whining

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ming


Because all the old people have been paying into the system for years... As it is, none of us expect to get back anywhere near what we have put into the system.

So stop your whining

this is a fine reason to stop whining but it is not a reason to continue regressive payroll taxes.

[the_ceebs]

Calling it a tax

is only one way of describing it,

If instead you look at it as an investment scheme, which was how it was originally sold to people, then by privatising the scheme theand pulling out of paying it the government is in effect committing theft. at the very least it should be privatised for people from this point on, but the government should be comitted to paying out to people who have paid in for many years, how it makes the money to fund this is its problem.

By getting rid of social security a political party becomes the ringleaders in a massive fraud. The party has taken advantage for many years of the system. Now the bills have arrived they've decided they don't want to pay. Is this the political equivalent of doing a runner from the restaurant ?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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.

No, it began much sooner. It was just unconstitutional.