re: Joe really touched some nerves

quote:

---

NC_Tigah

---

You're a smart motherfricker.
No homo.

quote:

---

What you payed in is long gone and spent paying out benefits to others.

---

Which by definition is a ponzi scheme.

Your statement

"Does the insurance companies pay you back everything you send them?"

WTF does this have to do with the government stealing my money related to me voluntarily purchasing insurance?

You tying SS to insurance (voluntarily purchased) argument is disingenuous and stupid.

So what you said is blatantly incorrect. I'm sure you'll move the goalpost again to defend your idiocy.

quote:

---

Ok. But if we do it kills it off for the elderly too.

---

Learn to be sufficient and stop counting on the nanny gubment to survive.

I don't give a shite if all welfare is killed off, except for those who are not able.

quote:

---

Which by definition is a ponzi scheme.

---

All government taxes and spending are ponzi schemes.

Huh?

quote:

---

Tell the police when they pull you over that you don't have insurance because it's voluntary baw. Let em know

---

quote:

---

Car insurance/health insurance/life insurance/SS - all the same to you.

---

Yep...this idiot thinks everyone drives a car! I guess we have to make everyone who rides subways, busses, etc. to work now purchase insurance!

quote:

---

It’s a safety net not a retirement plan. Tough luck if you don’t get everything you paid in, be glad.

---

This one tops the list of dumbest things posted on this site.

quote:

---

Sociel Security is not a retirement fund or an investment. It is a tax and an entitlement.

---

It's actually none of the above.

FDR needed to raise revenue. As the country/world was in Depression, wide-base tax increases were not a political option. A large revenue bond drive was not a feasible option. FDR & Co explored various ways to incentivize bond purchase (as they later did during WWII). But nothing along those lines was realistically practicable in the mid-1930's economy.

So various mandates were explored instead. The one arrived at was a 50:50 employer:employee contributional mandate. Essentially it was a corporate tax, and workers' forced participation in a bond-like government borrow-repayment program. Pay-in would occur over an employee's entire work life. Allocated pay-out would only occur beginning at retirement (65y), and terminating at death (life expectancy 58y M, 62y W). At a ~15X worker to retiree ratio, the program drew in far more revenue than it paid out.

It was perhaps the slickest political move in US history. FDR got his needed funding. Meanwhile, by labeling SS a retirement security benefit, he was hailed as a workers' hero.

People aren’t forced to have health insurance, but the majority of us have it.

If SS wasn’t mandated, how many people would actually voluntarily contribute to it…at the rate the Feds require? SS was never meant to be your sole retirement plan, and yet, because 401Ks are not mandatory, many people don’t have them and eventually only have SS to live on.

If SS wasn’t mandated, many people would have absolutely nothing to live on when they got too old to work, and would become dependent on family or others. SS isn’t the best retirement plan for sure, but many depend on it to survive. People have to save in one form or the other.