Yup, those Founding Fathers who got rid of the Articles of Confederation just so the federal government could have broader powers in all shapes and forms, including taxing citizens more than before.

You always seem to tie collecting taxes and spending taxes together. All socialists do this.

It's ok for the government to collect 90% in taxes, if that's what it takes to protect you. It's there job to protect you. It's not ok for them to collect 1% in taxes, if that's what it takes to take care of you.

It's not the governments job to take care of you. At least not the US governments.

You will never convince me that what we are today, is what our founding fathers wanted. What we have today, is what they fought against.

akuma - When you become well-to-do as a lawyer, making over $100,000/yr, I hope you realize that when the federal government takes 35% of your taxes, that they do so to give it to incompetent fools in many cases that did nothing to deserve your blood, sweat, and time spent on learning such a great practice.

Why weren't you in my thread I created concerning the failure that is Social Security? Do you realize that SS pays out almost no interest? Why should the government create a system that pays out almost no interest? How is that a 'good' program? At 1.23% interest per year (after inflation), I tend to think that is not a very good investment for anyone. You can go to most banks and get a CD that earns higher interest rates than what SS pays out.

Thank God for alternative retirement methods. Social Security is the biggest waste of money ever created. Argue all you want, Akuma, about how it helped people, but the fact is that any retirement system would have done the same, or better.

Better yet, I advise you to look up retirement plans by various States that offer far better rates of interest than Social Security. How is it fair that a state or city worker gets 10% a year interest, is exempt from paying into SS, while everyone else is forced into such a horrible system?

I understand the need to require people to save, but this is the absolute worst way to do it.

What will chap his hide even more, are the people who are more competent then him, smarter then him with far more potential, who decided they would live a far better life working less, spending more time with there family, and living off Akuma's money.

It will be nice for him to go to work, realizing that every single bit of effort he puts into his life for January, February, March, and part of April is taken from him, so part of it can be given to someone less deserving.

I will be curious to see how he feels then. 

You know, growing up in a conservative family in the middle of a very liberal town has taught me to think things through.

I have to say that Social Security is not a good program, and I agree with TheRealMafoo that this is not the government our founding fathers wanted. The people created the Articles of Confederation in the first place because they were scared to death that the new government would become oppressive like the Britain government had become.

Social Security = bad. Okay, maybe not quite like that, but it sure is similar. =/

insomniac -

Social Security, like most social programs in the US, were founded on good intentions. But have gone horribly awry, and has given the government more control than it deserves, and needs.

A mandatory pension system is a fine thing, and may be needed (personally, I don't agree with it, but I understand how stupid many people are about retirement). However, it's a different story on who controls it.

If the government decided that they were going to hand over the entire social security system over to Citibank, and let them collect the payments from everyone's income, set their own interest rate, and pay it back when they feel like it, would you mind such a system? Yet we've done the exact same thing by allowing the government to have such a system. There's no competition, everyone is forced to join (well, everyone but the government and self employed people), and any option outside of SS is paid above & beyond your current SS contributions.


For example, I was a public employee of Ohio for about 2 years. I waived my rights to Social Security during those times. Had I of stayed with the job, I would have retired at age 48, and earned roughly $4,000 every month for the rest of my life. Now back on Social Security, I earn more money per year, but will only make around $2,000-$2,500 at age 60. How is that fair, or competitive? The fact is, I (like many other Americans) could easily find a more effective program than Social Security, yet we are forced to do it on our own dime, continuing to throw money into a program I may never, ever get my money out of, according to Mafoo.

My opinion is that the government needs to allow all US citizens an individual pension account - one that is tied to them, and only them (with designated beneficiaries). Whatever they put in is what they get back, plus interest. Allow for directed investment options that allow the end user to choose how they want to invest - mutual funds, high-growth investments, stocks, T-Bills, or a government-led traditional program. It's similar to what OPERs does, and earns almost 10 times the interest rate. Yet we can't have that because SS is a sacred cow, and God forbid we have a better system that risks some people's savings.

@mrstickball

My problem with it is not that it necessarily is a pyramid scheme, but that it is similar in that those who have put in money earlier get more back than those who come later. The later generations get screwed is what I was trying to say with that, and that is just wrong.

Basically, I also think we need a new system. Or, if people weren't so dang stupid about spending money, maybe we wouldn't need one at all.

 Well, it is called social security insurance. You usualy only collect insurance if you need it.

I really do wish that instead of a giant Social Security system, the government just forces you to have an IRA and that money that would have gone in to SS would just go into that IRA.

And within that IRA, you can invest whatever you want.

 Liberalism is based on making you appreciative when the government gives you your money back. How could they possible buy votes under your plan?