Txdigest.com

kent wrote:

GFB wrote:

kent wrote:
I beg to differ, it IS my money. For the past 40 years, I have had nearly 8% taken out of my check along with the employer paying 8%. that's my money. Yes, it was used to fund older folks, fine. The problem is, Congress "borrowed" the SS money to fund their pet, feel good projects.

Democrats don't like the revamping of the tax code because it doesn't punish corporations or "the rich"; it doesn't set earning limits.

As for outsourcing jobs, it's pretty interesting that the same people complaining about that are FOR open borders and illegals getting full government benefits!

This is why it is an entitlement.

You and LL believe it is your money, and are entitled to it.

It could be cut at any time to whatever Congress thinks it should be.

and they would be stealing the money they took from my paycheck. Simple.

They already did that..and are still doing it if you’re still working.

GFB wrote:

kent wrote:

GFB wrote:

You're wrong there..about SS not being an entitlement because it's "your money."

There is no pot of money with "Library Lady" printed on it. Your checks continue to flow in because there are younger people working and paying for you to receive them.

They could be cut at any time. That doesn't happen simply because Congress fears the wrath of older people and groups like AARP.

I think we can expect SS to be cut this coming year for people who are not yet collecting it.

I beg to differ, it IS my money. For the past 40 years, I have had nearly 8% taken out of my check along with the employer paying 8%. that's my money. Yes, it was used to fund older folks, fine. The problem is, Congress "borrowed" the SS money to fund their pet, feel good projects.

Democrats don't like the revamping of the tax code because it doesn't punish corporations or "the rich"; it doesn't set earning limits.

As for outsourcing jobs, it's pretty interesting that the same people complaining about that are FOR open borders and illegals getting full government benefits!

This is why it is an entitlement.

You and LL believe it is your money, and are entitled to it.

It could be cut at any time to whatever Congress thinks it should be.

You can call a pig a turtle but it's still a pig.

Social Security and Medicare are earned benefits.

Is your life insurance policy an entitlement? Chances are you'll never pay in premium what you will receive in benefit.

Is your personal retirement portfolio an entitlement? Hopefully, you will be able to take out a lot more than you contributed.

Social Security has been a pay as you go program since day 1. Money is taken from current workers to make payments to current recipients. There has never been any social security accounts with individual names on them.

I'll add that Social Security is blatantly unconstitutional.

You do not "own" your SS Benefts, it would be great if you did, but that is not how FDR's Intergenerational Ponzi scheme works.

Red Oak wrote:You do not "own" your SS Benefts, it would be great if you did, but that is not how FDR's Intergenerational Ponzi scheme works.

Just curious, do you think that you will be able to draw SS?
Actually, the question is intended for all.

I've probably been on SS longer than anyone here. It's a scam. Your biggest check will be the first one and the purchasing power will go down every month from then on. I see a lot of things that cost 4 times what they did when I first started drawing SS. And what's worse is that a lot of pensions are tied to SS. So, you only get a tiny increase every year regardless of what pension plan you have. You could take your money out of an IRA or 401k. But, you will not likely get much more than 1% in any kind of savings account.

grouchy wrote:

Red Oak wrote:You do not "own" your SS Benefts, it would be great if you did, but that is not how FDR's Intergenerational Ponzi scheme works.

Just curious, do you think that you will be able to draw SS?
Actually, the question is intended for all.

That all depends entirely on how much of a stomach future legislators have for debt. It absolutely can not be sustained without either incurring massive debt or implementing confiscatory tax policies on future generations.

Here is another question for all: If Social Security existed in the free market alongside other retirement investment products, how many would choose Social Security?

If Social Security is such a great deal, then why does the government have to make it mandatory?

If Social Security is such a great deal, then why does the government have to make it mandatory?

SS was never intended to be a retirement plan. It was a plan to keep people from actually starving--such as what happened in the depression.
It was intended to be a way for someone to have food/shelter and not be on the streets.

It is mandatory so that there is enough money to fund the system.

LibraryLady2 wrote:

If Social Security is such a great deal, then why does the government have to make it mandatory?

SS was never intended to be a retirement plan. It was a plan to keep people from actually starving--such as what happened in the depression.
It was intended to be a way for someone to have food/shelter and not be on the streets.

It is mandatory so that there is enough money to fund the system.

Then why are the payments made whether the recipients need them or not?

Mark wrote:

LibraryLady2 wrote:

If Social Security is such a great deal, then why does the government have to make it mandatory?

SS was never intended to be a retirement plan. It was a plan to keep people from actually starving--such as what happened in the depression.
It was intended to be a way for someone to have food/shelter and not be on the streets.

It is mandatory so that there is enough money to fund the system.

Then why are the payments made whether the recipients need them or not?

Bada bingo!

Grouchy - to answer your question I will probably receive some SS payments, I may live long enough to see the collapse of SS, and probably long enough to see the means testing and reduction in SS benefits that are certain to occur.

Most people that earned around the average income, and have retired in the last 5 or 10 years will receive less from SS adjusted for inflation that what they paid in, and this gap increases for every year that passes.

Don't confuse Federal Taxes with SS, they are not directly connected.

Mark wrote:

LibraryLady2 wrote:

If Social Security is such a great deal, then why does the government have to make it mandatory?

SS was never intended to be a retirement plan. It was a plan to keep people from actually starving--such as what happened in the depression.
It was intended to be a way for someone to have food/shelter and not be on the streets.

It is mandatory so that there is enough money to fund the system.

Then why are the payments made whether the recipients need them or not?

Simple. Because everyone contributes. Same as Medicare.

Money taken from you under color of law is not a "contribution"

Red Oak wrote:Money taken from you under color of law is not a "contribution"

That’s for DAMN sure!

Y'all are confusing the word "contribution" with the word "donation".

Contributions can be voluntary or involuntary.

"I want a chart to show how the government programs to pay the military will be funded when all the cuts for business kick in.
The gov't will be taking in less money so how does Congress expect to pay for the improvements to infrastructure (roads/bridges) that Trump has promised?"

Library Lady, my mantra is "We'll see."

"They" can't back up much of anything and ddt keeps saying "Believe me."

But, we will see. On lotsa whangie dangie dang dang.

Wonder if ddt has shuttered the UN Bldg yet.

We'll see.

Wonder when that dissembling nincompoop will honor his promise to release his 1040 whatever.

We'll see.

kent wrote:

GFB wrote:

kent wrote:
I beg to differ, it IS my money. For the past 40 years, I have had nearly 8% taken out of my check along with the employer paying 8%. that's my money. Yes, it was used to fund older folks, fine. The problem is, Congress "borrowed" the SS money to fund their pet, feel good projects.

Democrats don't like the revamping of the tax code because it doesn't punish corporations or "the rich"; it doesn't set earning limits.

As for outsourcing jobs, it's pretty interesting that the same people complaining about that are FOR open borders and illegals getting full government benefits!

This is why it is an entitlement.

You and LL believe it is your money, and are entitled to it.

It could be cut at any time to whatever Congress thinks it should be.

and they would be stealing the money they took from my paycheck. Simple.

That already happened. Now the money has to be stolen from somebody else.

I did talk to someone today who is adversely affected by the tax bill. My parents three bedroom, 1800 sq ft frame home in University Park (built in 1938) is well over the limit for the property tax deduction. It comes at a particularly bad time, because they bought another house last year, with the intent to move into it and tear down the old one, then build a posh abode.