No social security check anymore (Clinton, solution, insurance, dollar)

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by saganista

I believe the purposes of payroll taxes to be rather clearly spelled out in the enabling legislation.

If you meant to refer to general income taxes, which are also no longer yours once you pay them, the Congress regularly debates and then decides upon the purposes to which these and other funds shall be put. You have a personal representative within those debates whom you might seek to influence by petition in one direction or another as you see fit.

As to levels of taxation, I have no a priori inclination toward either more or less, but I would have one toward sufficiency. At the federal level in this country, receipts and outlay are functionally separate magisteria, so I might focus myself more on getting the level and mix of outlays right, then be concerned over tinkering toward better levels of sufficiency on the receipts side.

You seem to be arguing that Social Security taxes are directed solely to Social Security retirement benefis (which is the topic of this thread). Surely you are aware of the -- ahem -- "enhanced" use of SS taxes, as Congress has skillfully expanded them. While the phrase "separate magisteria" is an elegant way to describe the current obfuscatory system of confiscation and reward, it also diverts attention from my basic argument, which is the need to provide a little "magisterium" to the true "magisters": the taxpayers, who need, and deserve, and (hopelfully) will get the ability to establish private investment accounts with a portion of their SS taxes.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

You seem to be arguing that Social Security taxes are directed solely to Social Security retirement benefis (which is the topic of this thread).

I believe I have referred frequently to disability and survisor benefits as well.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Surely you are aware of the -- ahem -- "enhanced" use of SS taxes, as Congress has skillfully expanded them.

Please enumerate a couple.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

While the phrase "separate magisteria" is an elegant way to describe the current obfuscatory system of confiscation and reward...

Nothing especially current nor obfuscatory about it. Governments are not households. Credit to the late Stephen Jay Gould for popularizing the concept, btw.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

...it also diverts attention from my basic argument...

You asked about tax increases. I stated a position. If it was diverting, you might have considered the fact before raising the matter.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

...which is the need to provide a little "magisterium" to the true "magisters": the taxpayers, who need, and deserve, and (hopelfully) will get the ability to establish private investment accounts with a portion of their SS taxes.

Evidence for any needing or deserving has not been forthcoming. Neither has any reason why SS funds (actually belonging to others) should in particular be targeted as the means for addressing the unestablished need. Why not excise taxes on diamonds and furs? Why not tariffs on mules and hinnies not imported for immediate slaughter?

[amichel]

Originally Posted by saganista

Correct. Just like the original SS question, each goes to the point of whether services that are routinely provided under such circumstances should be withheld if the potential recipient does not have his immigration papers in order.

I'm not surprised at the general reluctance to address them, though...

They are two entirely different things. How else would you like me to address it? Social security is a cash payment, not a service. You are completely over-simplifying the matter.

[Greatday]

I wonder what would happen if enough Americans simply did not pay into the "system"? There are plenty of independent contractors out there - self employed -

Hmmm????

The phrase "Tax Revolt" comes to mind

Oh, it probably would not happen -

But, then again ......

[Ben Screwed]

WoW! now i think i have heard it all. grew-up 3rd culture gthere is some thing that your generation needs to understand and that is that each generation has responsiablities for their elders, see thats the problem in the U.S. today. No one wants to accept this fact. so if you youngsters don't want to get involved but want us ( elder citizen ) to take less so you might have some , remember this we worked and payed into a fund that our government promised would be there when we reached the age of 65. Now it your turn , take the responsiability . ALSO teach your children their responsiablity because they are the ones that will be paying in the fund for your SS in the future . Our parents did their job now you do yours , and stop crying ! AND as far as liquidating part of our military , your right we would be in a better position . WE WOULD ALL BE DEAD! Are you saing that you don't want to fight for your country, you want somre one else to do that to ?!!!!

[saganista]

Originally Posted by amichel

They are two entirely different things. How else would you like me to address it? Social security is a cash payment, not a service. You are completely over-simplifying the matter.

There are three things, actually, and each of them would typically be provided on the spot, de rigeur, with no further questions asked, the recipient in each case having met all established qualifications and requirements for being a recipient --

1. A Social Security applicant with a work and salary history qualifying for a benefit would be provided with that benefit.
2. A citizen reporting a fire in his or her home would be provided with a prompt response by local fire personnel.
3. A person having ordered and paid for a sofa would be provided by the merchant involved with a sofa.

A question as been raised as to whether an illegal alien involved in Scenario-1 should not be denied his benefit. I have enquired as to whether that same principle should hold in Scenarios-2 and -3. I still await an answer...from anyone...

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Greatday

I wonder what would happen if enough Americans simply did not pay into the "system"? There are plenty of independent contractors out there - self employed -

Well, that would be an excellent way to qualify for the ultimate in social security -- the roughly $28,000 per year that it takes to support each inmate at a federal penitentiary...

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by saganista

1. A Social Security applicant with a work and salary history qualifying for a benefit would be provided with that benefit.
2. A citizen reporting a fire in his or her home would be provided with a prompt response by local fire personnel.
3. A person having ordered and paid for a sofa would be provided by the merchant involved with a sofa.

A question as been raised as to whether an illegal alien involved in Scenario-1 should not be denied his benefit. I have enquired as to whether that same principle should hold in Scenarios-2 and -3. I still await an answer...from anyone...

An illegal alien, in my view, should be denied the SS benefit. This will probably go against the grain of some of the more liberal posters.

I also think the money withheld should be returned to him, assuming he had the money withheld from his paycheck. And this will probably go against the grain of some of the more conservative posters.

And in scenarios #2 and #3, if the service was found to be performed for an illegal alien it should be reported and they should be deported. The service should still be provided, the house can go to another legal resident, and they can take to sofa back to their home country, if they pay the shipping.

An answer nobody would support, it is tough to be an independent...

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by saganista

I believe I have referred frequently to disability and survisor benefits as well.


Please enumerate a couple.


Nothing especially current nor obfuscatory about it. Governments are not households. Credit to the late Stephen Jay Gould for popularizing the concept, btw.


You asked about tax increases. I stated a position. If it was diverting, you might have considered the fact before raising the matter.


Evidence for any needing or deserving has not been forthcoming. Neither has any reason why SS funds (actually belonging to others) should in particular be targeted as the means for addressing the unestablished need. Why not excise taxes on diamonds and furs? Why not tariffs on mules and hinnies not imported for immediate slaughter?

My goodness. You mean that there actually is a "lock-box" of money for SS somewhere besides AlGore's imagination? Hurry and tell us where it is. Otherwise, we'll assume that Congress has raided SS, treated it like part of the geenral budget, and left a basketful of IOUs for future generations.

Again, you tack away from my central question of why you and I deserve private retirement accounts (you especially, since I infer that you nurse from some of the more generous dugs of Mamma Federama, there in ONC), yet deny even a sliver of one to the greater public.

Diverting? Yes. Persuasive? Nah.

[dreamofmonterey]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Well, at least we don't have to worry about the cost of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit mushrooming into something unmanageable for today's young folks to cover. The estimates I've seen anticipate an unfunded cost of only 73 trillion or so in the next four decades.

As someone nearing retirement age, I would like to epxress my heartfelt gratitude to all you younger folks for heeding the President's call and providing such a windfall for us geezers in our declining years.

And I mean that from the bottom of my (cough cough) heart. No,wait. I'm okay. I'll be around for years and years.

And years.

No one is "heeding this president"..............believe me.................