Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you read about it, you would see that the courts generally ruled that the government has no ob ligation to pay anyone.
Oh. Ok. Thank you for clearing that up.It's okay. The adults will handle this. SS is going nowhere. No one is proposing doing nothing to aid it. It's been fulfilling it's obligation(s) for how many years?
SS exists because people make irrational and risky investments based on the appeals of snake oil. When many fail, we have to bail them out, or end up like the shithole Germany/Nazi Germany was after WWI, before WWII.
You are using a CATO opinion article, which references Helvering v Davis, which itself is tied to Steward Machine Company v. Collector of Internal RevenueMaybe you could show me where I went wrong?
MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935, c. 531, 49 Stat. 620, 42 U.S.C. c. 7, (Supp.)), is challenged once again.
In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis,
Helvering v Davis:
The plan of the two titles will now be summarized more fully.
Title VIII, as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an "income tax on employees" and "an excise tax on employers." The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. § 801. The excise tax on the employer is to be paid "with respect to having individuals in his employ," and, like the tax on employees, is measured by wages. § 804. Neither tax is applicable to certain types of employment, such as agricultural labor, domestic service, service for the national or state governments, and service performed by persons who have attained the age of 65 years. § 811(b). The two taxes are at the same rate. §§ 801, 804. For the years 1937 to 1939, inclusive, the rate for each tax is fixed at one percent. Thereafter the rate increases 1/2 of 1 percent every three years, until, after December 31, 1948, the rate for each tax reaches 3 percent. Ibid. In the computation of wages, all remuneration is to be included except so much as is in excess of $3,000 during the calendar year affected. § 811(a). The income tax on employees is to be collected by the employer, who is to deduct the amount from the wages "as and when paid." § 80a(a). He is indemnified against claims and demands of any person by reason of such payment. Ibid. The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. § 807(a). There are penalties for nonpayment. § 807(c).
Title II has the caption "Federal Old-Age Benefits." The benefits are of two types, first, monthly pensions, and second, lump sum payments, the payments of the second class being relatively few and unimportant.
The first section of this title creates an account in the United States Treasury to be known as the "Old-Age
Page 301 U. S. 636
Reserve Account." § 201. No present appropriation, however, is made to that account. All that the statute does is to authorize appropriations annually thereafter, beginning with the fiscal year which ends June 30, 1937. How large they shall be is not known in advance. The "amount sufficient as an annual premium" to provide for the required payments is
"to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 percentum per annum compounded annually."
§ 201(a). Not a dollar goes into the Account by force of the challenged act alone, unaided by acts to follow.
Section 202 and later sections prescribe the form of benefits. The principal type is a monthly pension payable to a person after he has attained the age of 65. This benefit is available only to one who has worked for at least one day in each of at least five separate years since December 31, 1936, who has earned at least $2,000 since that date, and who is not then receiving wages "with respect to regular employment." §§ 202(a), (d), 210(c). The benefits are not to begin before January 1, 1942. § 202(a). In no event are they to exceed $85 a month. § 202(b). They are to be measured (subject to that limit) by a percentage of the wages, the percentage decreasing at stated intervals as the wages become higher. § 202(a). In addition to the monthly benefits, provision is made in certain contingencies for "lump sum payments" of secondary importance. A summary by the Government of the four situations calling for such payments is printed in the margin. [Footnote 1]
Helvering v Davis
You're welcome. Now some might suggest you take what looks and smells like Randian Nitwit Objectivist Libertarian Conspiracy Shit aside, and allow the adults to take care of things. Me? I suggest you sit back and learn, rather than spout what appear to be inanities and nonsense.Oh. Ok. Thank you for clearing that up.
You darn indians and your clinging to welfare. LOL!
Maybe the MAGA wing of the GOP can propose doing to SS what they've done for banking?
SVGYou darn indians and your clinging to welfare. LOL!
You have made your case. I would still be gobsmacked to find out that the US would be forced to pay anyone, anything, frankly.You are using a CATO opinion article, which references Helvering v Davis, which itself is tied to Steward Machine Company v. Collector of Internal Revenue
You probably should base your arguments on he facts of a case, and not on an opinion piece containing a quote taken out of context.
OF course you only mean as far as social security is concerned. The USA is often forced to pay people. The US government would never refuse to pay out the ss benefits. If it did, the government and society would collapse.You have made your case. I would still be gobsmacked to find out that the US would be forced to pay anyone, anything, frankly.
You did not.
You did not.
You attempted to convolute the subject.
The average is the average wage and benefit per SS. Nothing further needed.
The max is the maximum. The maximum wage and the maximum benefit. Nothing further needed.
It is tho.Well except your simplistic approach isn't how the SSA calculates monthly benefits.
Other than that you are fine.
WW
It is tho.
The average is their average.
The max is their max.
Not everyone donates that percentage of their earnings.
Correct. The OP doesn't seem to know that.Everyone "donates" that percentage up to the cap.
This whole system is FRAUD from top to bottom WHO CARES,,,,,,,,go live in a 3rd world country and get a real wake up call,,,,,they get nothing from the government.Virtually all of the aged denizens of this great nation express similar opinions on Social Security regardless of political affiliation, to wit: “I paid into Social Security. It’s MY money. I am entitled to get it back when I retire.”
I know you were “promised” this benefit by the federal government, and that you donated 6% of your gross earnings to this purportedly noble system in good faith. Therefore, you are willing to fight tooth and nail to protect this program. I get it. Your feelings are understandable. It is the fair thing to occur.
However, maybe it is time for older Americans to consider Social Security benefits in a very different light. Instead of viewing Social Security as a good faith pact between contributors (forced contributors) and big daddy government, who knows what’s best for you; perhaps try considering Social Security as an elaborate, government sanctioned Ponzi scheme you were drawn into and fucked by.
There is no real Social Security trust fund. You have been lied to in order to gain your trust. Your SS contributions go into the general federal fund. You pay into a fungible fund, the feds draw from said funds to, inter alia, buy weapons, build roads to nowhere, and to finance tranny education in Pakistan. Then Congress authorizes spending a certain amount of SS funding in its periodic appropriations bills. Thus, the federal government receives your “investment”, spends it on whatever, then will pay you a “return” on your investment as funds are available to do so. When funds are no longer available to pay you a return, then you are fucked and there is nothing you can do about it. This is the heart of all Ponzi schemes.
Moreover, the monthly payments you SS trough feeders are receiving today is not YOUR money. YOUR money was spent decades ago. Your benefits are from the money being forcibly taken from people today. Your benefits are being doled out somewhat loosely based on the amount you have “paid in” (I.e., had taken from you involuntarily) over the years. But that is the only nexus between you and the money the government is giving you.
Social Security theoretically should not “go broke”. Every person is forced to give up 6% of their gross incomes. Recipients become eligible for SS payments at 65 (62 if you agree to reduce the monthly payment to which you are “entitled”. Thus, you have revenue funneled into the system by working folks, then being paid out to old, dying folks. If there was a “trust fund” being administered solely for retirement payments, then they could tweak the system to keep it solvent (e.g., increase contribution requirements; raise age of eligibility; reduce benefits; invest corpus of trust in conservative assets - e.g., municipal bonds - that have low risk but will grow the fund; etc…). But this is not how it works. There is no trustee administrator with a fiduciary duty to payees like there is with a private trust. The effective “administrator” of this fake “fund” is 535 senators and representatives who have no fiduciary interest to manage your Social Security benefits in a manner to ensure YOUR best interests are accounted for. A true trust fund would mot be subject to political interests.
If a real trust fund goes broke, then there is a big problem in terms of law and ethics. Somebody is either going to prison or will be subject to civil liability. However, there is no such redress if the fake SS fund “goes broke”. The only redress is political.
As mentioned, there is actually no trust fund to “go broke”. Rather, it boils down to projected spending. The “contributions” to SS (I.e., the 6% involuntary deduction taken from your gross pay) are going down while the benefits payments are increasing, all based upon changing demographics. Moreover, the out of control federal spending is causing the value of the dollar to decrease. This exacerbates the spending shortfall.
So, the nonexistent “fund” is not running out of money. Rather, projections show that it will be impossible to sustain the Social Security hand-outs -which accounts for a HUGE portion of the federal budget - at current revenue levels. In short, you retired Americans who rely upon this scheme to make ends meet are fucked. Perhaps you should go back to school and learn to code?
Don’t feel bad. I understand your anger. This is not the first time big government has lied to its subjects. Most older Americans are essentially dependent upon their Social Security payments. They are economic slaves on the plantation. They were promised Utopian retirement years, free of all obligations so they could spend their golden years fishing, knitting, and catching the “early bird special” down at the Country Buffet. But in reality they are economic slavery. They are made to fight tooth and nail to keep this financial boondoggle in place. They need their meager SS payment, and the government wants this large source of revenue. This is why it is so taboo, and politically destructive, to talk about common sense solutions to this coming disaster.
Americans need to get over their aversion to admitting that the federal government duped them into the Social Security Ponzi game. You were TAXED involuntarily for SS; you did not “contribute”. It is not “your money”, it’s the federal government’s money and they will spend it according to appropriations bills. And YOU let it happen this way.
When you look at this rationally it is clear that we are going to have to make big changes to this program. It cannot be avoided. SS represents a huge part of our budget. We should not run from this challenge. It fact, it is morally indefensible to ignore this. Politicians have been content to kick the can down the road lest they are portrayed in campaign ads as pushing grandma off the cliff.
There’s ways to address this. You can offset SS payments by giving tax cuts and deductions to families who take care of elder family members, in whole or in part. This costs us nothing. Rather, it can be “paid for” (a very misleading political term in this context) by cutting spending elsewhere. Further, it will make the nursing and assisted living homes more competitive and, thereby, lower costs. Hell, cutting Medicaid grants to states will do this too.
Innovation and capitalism will solve this issue, not big daddy government. But attitudes must change. Social Security is a big old socialist government clusterfuck that is not sustainable. Like most big government socialist clusterfucks it was always doomed to fail. Don’t blame the boomers either. SS is the brainchild of leftist Judeo-Christian guilt-think and is not based upon sound economic principles.
A ponzi scheme works for as long as the dupes believe in it.Social Security works and has been working for over 80 years. No “Ponzi Scheme“lasts that long.
Working Americans and their employers have paid into it and deserve their benefits
The fact of the matter is that if any business ran a pension fund the way the government runs Social Security then that business owner would be in jail
