The USA path towards socialism and redistribution of wealth...

[kmcrawfo]

So, as tax day approaches it is estimated that just under 50% of americans will pay no tax.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_bi_ge/us_no_taxes

Many, in fact, will receive tax credits (i.e. wellfare) beyond paying zero taxes. How did our country ever get to the point where this has become acceptable? When will the wealthy decide it is no longer worth working their tails off when the money is sucked up by the government and given to those who have not earned it?

This quote eloquently summarizes what is happening in our country:

“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 – November 15, 2005)

It is sad when people actually believe they have a God given right to something they have not worked for at the expense of others who have. Remember, if you have a job it is likely because a "rich person" decided to hire you. That included government jobs because a "rich person" is funding your job with their tax payments.

That is all....

[joebba]

So, as tax day approaches it is estimated that just under 50% of americans will pay no tax.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_bi_ge/us_no_taxes

Many, in fact, will receive tax credits (i.e. wellfare) beyond paying zero taxes. How did our country ever get to the point where this has become acceptable? When will the wealthy decide it is no longer worth working their tails off when the money is sucked up by the government and given to those who have not earned it?

This quote eloquently summarizes what is happening in our country:

“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 – November 15, 2005)

It is sad when people actually believe they have a God given right to something they have not worked for at the expense of others who have. Remember, if you have a job it is likely because a "rich person" decided to hire you. That included government jobs because a "rich person" is funding your job with their tax payments.

That is all....

I saw that article and was very disgusted about it.

[nickgyp]

I am sick of the socialism that now has me paying over to $2000.00 to the IRS due to the fact that IRS regulations kept my wife's employer from deducting the proper tax from her paycheck. I believe in charity but it is not charity to take from my pocket and giving it to someone else when I have no say over who gets it. The donor in this case has no opportunity to feel good about the donation and the recipient has no one to express whom to express gratitude (in fact if you want to cheat someone it is only the government not some hard working taxpayer).

Ultimately, the initiative of the hard worker is depressed while the initiative for the laggard is never stimulated. Rather than raising the masses, it sinks overall output while it levels the playing field far lower than where it once was found.

Over the centuries, great civilizations have come and gone.

Just "slip, sliding away" or so it seems.

[blobfan]

It's beyond me how people can look at the mess that our welfare programs have become, including social security, and decide the answer is to try to do more. If I screw up at my job I don't get more responsibility. I get less or I get fired. If your child puts gum in his hair every time he gets a piece, do you respond by giving him two?

I can't think of a single government run program that has worked over time. Even defense is messed up, with congress passing funding for items the Pentagon doesn't want because it benefits their individual districts.

Sometimes I think we need to strip all laws from the books, go back to the original constitution and start over.

[kmcrawfo]

Most who live in St. Louis will know who Dave Glover is. His "rant" today inspired me to start this thread. It is a great 10-15 minute listen:

http://media.971talk.com/Podcasts/118/4-8-10PodcastC.mp3

The link above is the third hour of the show on podcast. His rant in which he uses this quote starts about 10-15 minutes in.

The "rant" is a about a 10-minute segment.

[GuyFawkes38]

The health care reform law is also a major redistributive force (although not for a few years).

[bobbiemcgee]

It's beyond me how people can look at the mess that our welfare programs have become, including social security, and decide the answer is to try to do more. If I screw up at my job I don't get more responsibility. I get less or I get fired. If your child puts gum in his hair every time he gets a piece, do you respond by giving him two?

I can't think of a single government run program that has worked over time. Even defense is messed up, with congress passing funding for items the Pentagon doesn't want because it benefits their individual districts.

Sometimes I think we need to strip all laws from the books, go back to the original constitution and start over.

I've paid Social Security taxes for almost 50 yrs....still paying...don't see it as a "welfare" program.

[Jumpy]

I've paid Social Security taxes for almost 50 yrs....still paying...don't see it as a "welfare" program.

It is for my generation because I can guaran-damn-tee that I won't see a penny of my government run retirement fund.

[kmcrawfo]

It is for my generation because I can guaran-damn-tee that I won't see a penny of my government run retirement fund.

It is welfare because I guarantee that the vast majority of people collecting on social security are receiving far more than they actually "put-in". This is not because the government made great investments with the originally money; but rather, because Social Security is being funded now by transfering the wealth from the upper-middle and upper class to those who are collecting social security.

This is not how social security was suppose to work. It was suppose to be a collection of money that was put aside/invested by the government that and individual would collect upon retirement. Sounds great, except, as usual with the government things never quite work out as promised. The government over spent and over promised and drew on the nest egg to pay for other things. Hence, Now Social security is also a welfare system and method of redistributing wealth from one group to another.

[Snipe]

Lyndon Johnson started the Great Society programs and declared an unconditional "war on poverty". His stated goal was to actually end poverty. His poverty czar, Sargent Shriver "predicted that The Office of Economic Opportunity would end poverty by 1976".

Trillions of dollars later, I wonder how that is working out.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
- Margaret Thatcher

[bobbiemcgee]

It is for my generation because I can guaran-damn-tee that I won't see a penny of my government run retirement fund.

Something else to blame Mom and Pop for. Maybe they can cut you a check back for your welfare "share" every month.

[blobfan]

It is welfare because I guarantee that the vast majority of people collecting on social security are receiving far more than they actually "put-in". This is not because the government made great investments with the originally money; but rather, because Social Security is being funded now by transfering the wealth from the upper-middle and upper class to those who are collecting social security.

This is not how social security was suppose to work. It was suppose to be a collection of money that was put aside/invested by the government that and individual would collect upon retirement. Sounds great, except, as usual with the government things never quite work out as promised. The government over spent and over promised and drew on the nest egg to pay for other things. Hence, Now Social security is also a welfare system and method of redistributing wealth from one group to another.
Thanks km. That's the reason I included Social Security among welfare programs. If it worked as originally designed, like insurance, it would be fine. Instead it's run more like an unfunded pension plan.

Lyndon Johnson started the Great Society programs and declared an unconditional "war on poverty". His stated goal was to actually end poverty. His poverty czar, Sargent Shriver "predicted that The Office of Economic Opportunity would end poverty by 1976".

Trillions of dollars later, I wonder how that is working out.

And our governments answer is to throw more money at the programs that didn't work or replace them with larger programs, rather than addressing the underlying problems with the exisiting programs, many of which the government created. We aren't making the problem better.

[Kahns Krazy]

It is for my generation because I can guaran-damn-tee that I won't see a penny of my government run retirement fund.

While it sounds fun to say that, it isn't reality. The reality is that social security will never go away, and it shouldn't. What will have to happen at some point is that some generation will have to take responsibility for returning social security to a self funded, actuarially neutral program.

In 1935, when the age at which benefits started was chosen to be 65, the average life expectancy was about 62 years. Today's average life expectancy is around 78 years, and the full benefit age is 67.

Who sees the problem here?

[muckem muckem]

Kahn's, I think Social Security will go away, at least for some. It is not too far away from it being needs based. Folks that have maxxed out and supported this cesspool will not be allowed to collect a dime because they have also been responsible and planned for themselves for retirement.

[Kahns Krazy]

I don't see anyone voting for that. I can see reductions in benefits, delays in benefits starting, etc, but the complete elimination of benefits for anyone who has already paid into the system would be suicide for any politician to suggest. Moreover, it's not necessary to balance the budget. I would also think you would have legal challenges to any proposal that would eliminate benefits for any group.

[Snipe]

George Bush proposed a progressive indexing plan where benefits began to phase out for middle and upperclass Americans. It was not popular.

At some point they will have to both raise social security taxes and cut social security benefits. They won't be cutting the benefits to the elderly poor. Soc Sec already is a redistributive program, it will only become more so as time passes. One of the things that holds it together is that everyone gets a check. Once that stops it will become just another welfare program in the eyes of many.

People talk about what a great program it is, but we haven't had to pay the bill yet. They also talk about how efficient it is. All the government does is cut checks to everyone. I can see why it is popular.

If you are entering the workforce today, you are going to pay more and get less. It is a raw deal for them. Over the next few decades we are going to see a huge transfer of wealth from the young to the old, and because people tend to accumulate wealth during their lives, from the relatively poor to the relatively wealthy. The bill for social security and medicare is going to be a bitch to pay off, and the people enjoying it right now won't have to pay it.

Another thing is that their is no longer a social security surplus. Covering the cost of social security eats into the annual budget. That means less schools, less head strart programs, less of everything in place of paying off entitlements. As David Walker projected and increasing amount of our annual budget is going to be dedicated to fixed entitlement payments. At some point the government will exist just to print entitlement checks and pay off interest on the debt. Essential and nonessential government services will have to be cut to do this. If you are just entering the workforce today the prospect is daunting.

[Snipe]

I don't see anyone voting for that. I can see reductions in benefits, delays in benefits starting, etc, but the complete elimination of benefits for anyone who has already paid into the system would be suicide for any politician to suggest. Moreover, it's not necessary to balance the budget. I would also think you would have legal challenges to any proposal that would eliminate benefits for any group.

Social Security is not a right, it is just a government program. It could be abolished in whole or in part at anytime. You could have legal challenges, but they would have no merit.


Americans actually have no property rights to their Social Security "contributions." Unlike private pension funds, which actually belong to workers, Americans have no legal claim on the money Uncle Sam theoretically salts away for their golden years.

This startling news broke 39 years ago in the case of Fleming v. Nestor. Bulgarian immigrant Ephram Nestor was deported in 1956 for being a Communist in the 1930s. After Congress prohibited Social Security benefits for deportees in 1954, Nestor sued. He claimed title to his FICA tax payments between 1936 and 1955. The Supreme Court disagreed. As it ruled, "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands."

This decision reflected the Court's precedent in Helvering v. Davis. In 1937, it ruled that Social Security taxes "are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."

link (http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/06-22-99.html)

and


By 2030, the Concord Coalition estimates, Social Security and Medicare will consume 34 and 24 percent of federal revenues, respectively (compared to 22 and 12 percent in 1998), with just 42 cents-per-tax-dollar remaining for the Pentagon, the FBI and Yosemite.

As Baby Boomers age, Social Security will ravage the budget. Meanwhile, life spans will rise thanks to medical advances and improved health-consciousness. This may force Congress to cut Social Security benefits, in essence denying seniors at least some retirement "assets" which they mistakenly believe they own.

If this sounds paranoid, consider how Washington already has re-written Social Security's "contract" with America. Hiking the retirement age, delaying cost-of-living adjustments and taxing benefits are among the ways Congress and the White House repeatedly alter the rules for millions of pensioners. While some reforms have made economic sense, those who felt defrauded had no right to seek justice in court.

Since Congress has changed its end of the bargain while FICA is in the pink, why wouldn't it chop benefits once the so-called Trust Fund hemorrhages red ink?

[Smails]

I don't see anyone voting for that. I can see reductions in benefits, delays in benefits starting, etc, but the complete elimination of benefits for anyone who has already paid into the system would be suicide for any politician to suggest. Moreover, it's not necessary to balance the budget. I would also think you would have legal challenges to any proposal that would eliminate benefits for any group.

I once thought it would be political suicide for a Presidential candidate to openly say that it's time to 'spread the wealth around a little bit.'

While I don't see any scenario where SS will completely dry up, these days I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities for our Government to start picking and choosing who gets what based on wealth. Legal battles would most certainly commence, but I can definitely see it being put on the table.

[Snipe]

Legal battles would be fruitless. The issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court. They can cut your benefits. They can increase your taxes. They can take away every last bit of your social security. They can do whatever they want. Change is coming.

link (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5776)


Many people believe that Social Security is an "earned right." That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as "contributions," as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.

Ephram Nestor was a Bulgarian immigrant who came to the United States in 1918 and paid Social Security taxes from 1936, the year the system began operating, until he retired in 1955. A year after he retired, Nestor was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party in the 1930s. In 1954 Congress had passed a law saying that any person deported from the United States should lose his Social Security benefits. Accordingly, Nestor's $55.60 per month Social Security checks were stopped. Nestor sued, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits.

The Supreme Court disagreed, saying "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands." The Court went on to say, "It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments."

The Court's decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."

In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington. Congress has cut Social Security benefits in the past and is likely to do so in the future. In fact, given Social Security's financial crisis, benefit cuts are almost inevitable. Several proposals to cut benefits, from increasing the retirement age to means testing, are already being debated.

[dc_x]

Social security is just a giant government-run ponzi scheme.

I love getting my annual social security statement that shows me how much I am entitled to receive when I retire (in 35 years)...until I read the fine print saying that based on current projections I will only get 70 cents on the dollar because social security taxes won't cover the benefits.

At least social security is easy to fix...medicare/medicaid is a disaster.

IMO, the issue is that our government is structured to focus on the short-term. Congress and the president are on 2-6 year terms. What is their incentive to fixing long-term problems? Anyone elected official that tries to fix social security is probably going to be out of job.

[chico]

IMO, the issue is that our government is structured to focus on the short-term. Congress and the president are on 2-6 year terms. What is their incentive to fixing long-term problems? Anyone elected official that tries to fix social security is probably going to be out of job.

I'm torn on the term limit thing but this is definitely an argument for term limits. If you know you won't be running again you might have more incentive to get something done and leave some sort of positive legacy.

[Kahns Krazy]

Social security is just a giant government-run ponzi scheme.
.

In some ways yes, but because of the added element of time, barring a substantial decline in population, it is a "ponzi scheme" that can continue in perpetuity.

[bigdiggins]

In some ways yes, but because of the added element of time, barring a substantial decline in population, it is a "ponzi scheme" that can continue in perpetuity.

I would happily give up today any future benefits/payments from social security and feel ok about giving up what I have paid into it thus far if they would let me simply stop making payments.

Heck, any lawyers out there no if it is possible to cancel your social security # and quit paying knowing you will never receive any payments.