Zone1 Social Security Scam

[rightwinger]

Actually it prevents people from accumulating real wealth.

The poor struggle to survive day to day
They do not accumulate wealth

 

[Blues Man]

The poor struggle to survive day to day
They do not accumulate wealth

If they had control over the 12.4% of their lifetime income stolen for the SS scam they would

 

[rightwinger]

If they had control over the 12.4% of their lifetime income stolen for the SS scam they would

Prior to Social Security, that money was never set aside for retirement

 

[Blues Man]

Prior to Social Security, that money was never set aside for retirement

Which is why I have told you over and over and over that we can leave the mandated contributions in place but put that money in private accounts that the fucking government cannot touch

 

[Couchpotato]

Actually, it allows poor people to accumulate benefits that they can eventually retire on

Prior to Social Security, the poor worked until they died or lived off of family
SS allowed them to retire

1. It's not 1935. We are far more prosperous as a nation and individually than people in 1935 could have dreamed of. The opportunity for people to be upwardly mobile far exceeds what was possible in 1935. SS is an impediment to that. Certainly, it's an impediment to passing on wealth intergenerationally. BTW this "disproportionately effects" black and brown folks, who pay in and don't live nearly as long on the back end to collect.

2. SS doesn't "allow" people to accumulate "benefits". It forces people to send their money to Washington to be spent in the general fund while Washington hopes they don't make to retirement age.

3. Here's an idea teach retirement and monetary planning in school. A skill people will actually use in their lifetime, and which will make them a better more responsible citizen. We can drop the trans/sex/gay/crt etc instruction to make room for it.

 

[flan327]

are you sure about that? If you die at 64 y/o what happens to YOUR money?


The government keeps it. That’s what

I’m 66 years old

 

[flan327]

Which is why I have told you over and over and over that we can leave the mandated contributions in place but put that money in private accounts that the fucking government cannot touch

No one likes being LECTURED

 

[Couchpotato]

I’m 66 years old

SMH. If you and your spouse die in a car crash later today, will your children, or whoever you have willed your estate to inherit your SS money that the Government is holding in "trust" or will the Government just go ahead and keep that cash?

 

[rightwinger]

SMH. If you and your spouse die in a car crash later today, will your children, or whoever you have willed your estate to inherit your SS money that the Government is holding in "trust" or will the Government just go ahead and keep that cash?

That money is distributed to retirees as soon as it is collected. There is no trust fund
Your children will receive their own SS

 

[Grumblenuts]

Which is why I have told you over and over and over that we can leave the mandated contributions in place but put that money in private accounts that the fucking government cannot touch

The irony here is that S.S. was intended to be kept safe from the private, corporate "robber barons" of the day. Similar to the massive private interests bent upon sucking it all dry today. They are not "the government." We are. It is our collective responsibility to get angry and active until all potential for monetary gain from private interests are removed from politics on the federal level at the very least. That said, I would blame, not "government," but our supposed representatives for reneging on the deal by raising the age when collection begins rather than simply adjusting the tax rate to meet actuarially projected needs. The question then becomes who first bribed whom to propose raising the official retirement age? And, for example, what has Biden's excuse been for frequently putting Medicare, etc. "on the table" other than "to compromise" and with whom exactly?

Far as protecting our retirement savings, ERISA became law in 1974 and was significantly updated in 2006. Its track record has been mixed to terrible, but better than nothing for most workers. Still yet another gift to the insurance industry robber barons:

A major limitation is placed on the insurance exception, known as the "deemer clause", which essentially provides that state insurance law cannot operate on employer self-funded benefit plans. The Supreme Court has created another limitation on the insurance exception, in which even a law that regulates insurance is preempted if it purports to add a remedy to a participant or beneficiary in an employee benefit plan that ERISA did not explicitly provide.
{...}

The result of ERISA preemption is that the only remedy available to a covered person who has been denied benefits or dropped from coverage altogether is to seek an order from a federal judge (no jury trial is permitted) directing the Plan (in actuality the insurance company that underwrites and administers it) to pay for "medically necessary" care. If a person dies before the case can be heard, however, the claim dies with him or her, since ERISA provides no remedy for injury or wrongful death caused by the withholding of care.

Even if benefits are improperly denied, the insurance company cannot be sued for any resulting injury or wrongful death, regardless of whether it acted in bad faith in denying benefits.[21] Insurers operating ERISA plans enjoy several immunities not available to other types of insurance companies. ERISA preempts all conflicting state laws, including state statutes prohibiting unfair claims practices and causes of action arising under state common law for insurance bad faith.[22] There is no right to a jury trial in ERISA benefits actions.[23] Although Americans normally take for granted the right to testify on their behalf, plaintiffs have no right to present live testimony in ERISA bench trials, in which the judge simply reads through the documents that formed the record originally before the ERISA plan administrator and performs de novo review.[24] Finally, punitive damages are not allowed in actions for ERISA benefits.[25]

It has been argued that in the case of health benefits, the effect of all of this may paradoxically have been to leave plan participants worse off than if ERISA had not been enacted.

How does the insurance industry gain such exemptions? Legal bribery. Corruption. Get angry and active about that.

 

[flan327]

SMH. If you and your spouse die in a car crash later today, will your children, or whoever you have willed your estate to inherit your SS money that the Government is holding in "trust" or will the Government just go ahead and keep that cash?

Obviously YOU know everything

Social Security provides a small death benefit
I claimed THAT when my first husband was killed

 

[Couchpotato]

That money is distributed to retirees as soon as it is collected. There is no trust fund
Your children will receive their own SS

LOL so now it's just old people welfare? I thought people were "accumulating benefits" for their retirement. You need to get your story straight.

In Flan's original post he stated:

Social Security is MY money

Every single paycheck, I contributed

It’s not rocket science

So which is it? Is it YOUR money or is it just welfare for the elderly?

Get your story straight and get back to me.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

They have certainly failed to "ensure domestic tranquility".
No death penalty, no tranquility.

Government Off the People, Buy the People, and Force the People

The rulers' sacred-cow Constitution failed to prevent the Civil War, the Great Depression, the Vietnam War, and many other disasters they preached it would save us from. The Gettysburg Address pretended that the South wasn't a "government of the people" and that the war saved our own freedoms.

Until we reject this 18th Century mishmash of ignorant and elitist ideas, we're going straight downhill, just as the Roman Republic did.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

And all those things that arent in there the Federal Gvernment isn’t supposed to be doing.

Straitjacket Stifling Progress

As long as instead of asking whether proposed legislation is good for the country, we first have to ask whether it is Constitutional, the Constitution is not good for the country.

 

[Couchpotato]

Straitjacket Stifling Progress

As long as instead of asking whether proposed legislation is good for the country, we first have to ask whether it is Constitutional, the Constitution is not good for the country.

Then why even have a Constitution? If we are only going to follow it when it's convenient for the current "ruling party" then abolish it so there's no pretense that it means anything. The entire point of the Constitution is to limit the Government's power, not enable it.

 

[Couchpotato]

Government Off the People, Buy the People, and Force the People

The rulers' sacred-cow Constitution failed to prevent the Civil War, the Great Depression, the Vietnam War, and many other disasters they preached it would save us from. The Gettysburg Address pretended that the South wasn't a "government of the people" and that the war saved our own freedoms.

You're list of disasters are products of us not following the Constitution you know that right?

Until we reject this 18th Century mishmash of ignorant and elitist ideas, we're going straight downhill, just as the Roman Republic did.

Exactly how is the Constitution a mish mash of elitist ideas?

 

[flan327]

LOL so now it's just old people welfare? I thought people were "accumulating benefits" for their retirement. You need to get your story straight.

In Flan's original post he stated:


So which is it? Is it YOUR money or is it just welfare for the elderly?

Get your story straight and get back to me.

I AM A WOMAN

ALWAYS HAVE BEEN

CAPISCH?!!!!!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Then why even have a Constitution? If we are only going to follow it when it's convenient for the current "ruling party" then abolish it so there's no pretense that it means anything. The entire point of the Constitution is to limit the Government's power, not enable it.

Making the People Feel Wee

The Constitution is unnecessary; it is a naysayer hanging over everything, as if we needed some dictator's approval. It should have been a temporary start-up document, to be superseded by all subsequent legislation.

It is the same as being tied down by first impressions. Suppose you had a sales territory and felt you had to concentrate your efforts on the big cities. Then you discovered they were shut off from you by monopolies, would you have to appeal to some higher power to get the go-ahead to instead concentrate on the smaller municipalities?

Only blowhard political bullies push this obsolete narrow-minded dictatorship doctrine on us. They are lowlifes who desperately need to feel associated with a higher power in order to put the vast majority of us in our place.

 

[Woodznutz]

They get a portion, maybe. But they don’t get that persons wealth. Again trading dollars for cents.

Women outlive men, therefore as a survivor the wife is likely to get more than her husband would have had he lived. SS isn't wealth per se, although it does represent a financial 'estate'. Ordinary wealth is passed on through the Will.

Also shouldn’t the person who actually made the money get to decide where that money goes once their dead?

As stated above the decedent does that through the Will. Upon death the qualified survivors and/or dependents receive the benefits of SS.

 

[Woodznutz]

Government Off the People, Buy the People, and Force the People

The rulers' sacred-cow Constitution failed to prevent the Civil War, the Great Depression, the Vietnam War, and many other disasters they preached it would save us from. The Gettysburg Address pretended that the South wasn't a "government of the people" and that the war saved our own freedoms.

Until we reject this 18th Century mishmash of ignorant and elitist ideas, we're going straight downhill, just as the Roman Republic did.

No document or contract can stand up against human nature. Recall back in the day when California asked residents to use less water; the rich proceeded to use more.