re: Rand Paul wants you to be 70 before you can draw Social Security

EABOD, Rand. I’ve been paying in since my first job nearly 40 years ago. You can’t change the rules in the fourth quarter.

Rand wants to sink the MAGA movement in the midterms with this rhetoric.

quote:

---

You couldn't be more wrong.
---

truth hurts not his money

---

No. The truth is you're ignorant as to the structure of SS, and what differentiates SS contributions from normal tax policy.

You believe nothing is owed in personal SS obligations. You claim each gen pays the way of the previous one. Both of those are false in terms of SS structure.

I challenged you to run your premise back to the origin of SS, along with the original rationale and declarations. You ducked, understandably so. The reason you ducked is because beginning at the inception of SS undercuts your entire argument.

As you say, truth hurts, and for someone like me who'd like to see SS privatized, or eliminated as a phased opt-out for those who will never need it, the truth that SS is not going anywhere (and is likely to grow more) is rough. But for that to truth to fully register, you first have to know what it is you are talking about. Unfortunately, you don't.

quote:

---

.... I'm 61, put into it since I was 14.

---

FWIW, you will find as a constant throughout the 90yr lifespan of SS, any changes to SS payouts will only affect those >10yrs from retirement. i.e., 55y/o or younger.

Legislators might intimate they're acting out of altruistic goodness in sparing retired or near-retired individuals from cuts in "benefits." They aren't.

SS is uniquely structured. Individual SS payroll contributions are not sent straight to the Treasury General Fund as other taxes are. Instead, they are first converted into debt obligations. As with any other US debt obligation, the transactional money is then transferred to the Treasury General Fund to be spent however the government sees fit. But it comes with a corrospondent IOU.

Regarding inherent obligations of that IOU, let's draw comparison to individuals buying treasuries in a bond ladder. Government cannot change its obligation on bonds already purchased in the ladder thru term to maturity or tenor. However, it can set different obligations on any bonds yet to be purchased.

SS is little different. SS can be changed, requiring higher contributions or lower payouts, just as would be the case in the bond ladder above. However, as those 55y/o and over, have already contributed the majority or all of their front-loaded payments, the Feds subsequently altering the obligation could be shown to constitute a breach in debt obligation, and therefore of the 14th A. So the Feds would run into major legal issues if they attempted to unilaterally alter US debt obligations to retired or near-retired SS recipients.

quote:

---

terminate the program

---

I'd be all in.

But, as long as the US remains in debt, it will never happen.

Why? Because:

SS is NOT A RETIREMENT PROGRAM
SS is FEDERAL BORROWING INSTRUMENT

SS is a forced loan with terms set by the borrower. Individual workers are the lenders. Uncle Sam is the recipient. It's similar to a mafia racketeering protection scheme. Just as the mob won't terminate protection racketeering, the feds won't terminate SS.

In fact, it is almost a certainty the feds will try to expand it through payroll tax increases. They need the loan.

quote:

---

Are you aware of what the life expectancy was when they instituted social security l?

---

61?

quote:

---

Once taxed, that was no longer your money.
False.

---

Okay, prove it. Go get it.

quote:

---

There will be nothing left by the time the last boomer dies, which is why Rand is trying to raise the age.

---

You are really screwed then. Because you will be affected and the boomers won't.

quote:

---

No it’s not. You were a sucker and fell for the spin. Once taxed, that was no longer your money.

---

I guess if you're not a sucker, I take you're unemployed?