Can the Gov. be sued for stealing Social Security?

[Sematary]

I was talking to my wife the other day and thinking about how the Congress has stolen all of the money they have received in Social Security from us over the last 50 years rather than leaving it in a "trust fund" which is what was supposed to originally happen. Just think, if they had actually done that, there wouldn't even BE a discussion about it because it would essentially be fully funded forever with the interest it collected.
If a company had done to it's employees (stolen their pension funds) what the Congress has done to us, people would be going to prison.
So can the Gov. be sued for Malfeasance (and other charges) under a class action suit filed by the People of the United States?

[Matt Collins]

Two words:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

[ghengis86]

Two words:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

And I suspect they will say the same thing in your TSA issue, in one form or another.

[jkr]

I DID NOT CONSENT TO BE RULED BY CHUCKLE HEADS

no full disclosure, no standing, authority, or consent

[TonySutton]

Read Flemming v Nestor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

No contract exists so they can steal your money and you just have to suck it up.

[AuH20]

Helverling vs. Davis decided it was a tax so there really isn't a legitimate claim to that money from the citizen's perspective.

[tod evans]

G-ahead and ask....

Yup, you've gotta ask "our-government" for permission to sue it. :mad:

[MJU1983]

No. All social security is, is a promise to tax future generations to pay for the current generation.

[pcosmar]

Short answer.
NO.

The system will protect the system.

[seraphson]

I'm curious though. How exactly did the gub-a-ment piss all the SS money away? Does it treat it like some type of checking account? Or even better was there even an "account" in the first place? Is it something totally different? I'd like to know the details a bit more.

[AuH20]

I'm curious though. How exactly did the gub-a-ment piss all the SS money away? Does it treat it like some type of checking account? I'd like to know the details a bit more.

It's essentially a slush fund for government expenditures. Eisenhower started the trend but he was really the only one who payed some of the portion back.

[Sematary]

Back in the day (60's I believe), Congress voted to include Social Security funds as part of the general funds of the United States government.
Now we have this.

[AuH20]

There is nothing "social" or "secure" about a slush fund.


slush fund
n.
1. A fund raised for undesignated purposes, especially:
a. A fund raised by a group for corrupt practices, such as bribery or graft.
b. A fund used by a group, as for entertainment.
2. Money formerly raised by the sale of garbage from a warship to buy small items of luxury for the crew.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
slush fund
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a fund for financing political or commercial corruption
2. (Transport / Nautical Terms) US nautical a fund accumulated from the sale of slush from the galley
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

[erowe1]

rather than leaving it in a "trust fund" which is what was supposed to originally happen.

Says who?

Of course they stole the money. They stole it the moment they garnished it from your wages way back when, just like they stole every other tax they took from you. Should we be able to sue them for taxing us? Sure we should. But don't hold your breath waiting for that day. And even if you could do that, how would the government pay you? By stealing more money from someone else.

[Acala]

The Social Security system was, from DAY ONE, an unsustainable Ponzi scheme. It used "investments" to pay out benefits. Nobody ever had an account with actual depositis. It was dollar in one door dollar out the other door. Like any Ponzi scheme it looked like it was working as long as there was a steady supply of new suckers. The fact that in the case of SS, the new suckers were FORCED into the plan and couldn't escape extended the lifespan, but it was doomed from the beginning even if Congress had not raided the TEMPORARY surplus. The raiding of the surplus just accelerated what the baby boom would have brought down anyway.

But to answer the OP, SS never granted anyone any legally protected rights. So, as with most con games, it is too bad for the people who get into the game late.

[erowe1]

Also, nobody has any right to expect the government to pay them any Social Security. Every penny they get has to be stolen from someone else. That's the way it is now, and the way it always has been. They can't undo the theft that has already happened. But they can and should cease from doing it. The most just and fair thing that could possibly happen with Social Security would be if not a single penny more of it ever got paid out to anyone effective immediately.

[tod evans]

I've only been "contributing" for 40years....

I realistically don't expect to see a plug nickle.



Also, nobody has any right to expect the government to pay them any Social Security. Every penny they get has to be stolen from someone else. That's the way it is now, and the way it always has been. They can't undo the theft that has already happened. But they can and should cease from doing it. The most just and fair thing that could possibly happen with Social Security would be if not a single penny more of it ever got paid out to anyone effective immediately.

[AuH20]

DID YOU KNOW THAT THEY COULD ESSENTIALLY TAX A TAX? THAT'S THE CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT FOR YOU.


Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.

The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).

The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.

President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.


Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.

This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)

Bleh. Reagan, Clinton and Gore.

[erowe1]

I've only been "contributing" for 40years....

I realistically don't expect to see a plug nickle.

Chances are that you will it will last long enough for you to get quite a bit from future tax payers.

[tod evans]

Chances are that you will it will last long enough for you to get quite a bit from future tax payers.

Given the life I've lead I very well might not live that long.:o

[matt0611]

No, they can cancel the whole program tomorrow if they wanted to and you have no recourse.

[jay_dub]

DID YOU KNOW THAT THEY COULD ESSENTIALLY TAX A TAX? THAT'S THE CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT FOR YOU.


Here's another one for you. Cigarettes and liquor are heavily taxed. That's part of the 'price'. When you buy any one of these items, you pay sales tax on the entire 'price'. In the case of cigarettes, taxes are a large part of the price. Tax on a tax every day.

[AuH20]

Here's another one for you. Cigarettes and liquor are heavily taxed. That's part of the 'price'. When you buy any one of these items, you pay sales tax on the entire 'price'. In the case of cigarettes, taxes are a large part of the price. Tax on a tax every day.

Don't forget the ultimate injustice. The estate tax. I know there is a cutoff but how can they seriously tax pre-taxed income and assets??? Why doesn't anyone talk about this type of blatant, in your face robbery during presidential campaigns???? Mollest someone their entire life and then come back to rape the corpse for the good measure.

[ClydeCoulter]

Chances are that you will it will last long enough for you to get quite a bit from future tax payers.

But that's not the fault of the receiver of SSI, it's the governments "borrowing" of the money that they can't pay back. It had surplus and they could not keep their sticky fingers off of it.

edit: Actually, it was planned to be destroyed. I read minutes about it from a builderberg meeting some 10-12 years ago. Not just SSI, but 401k's and other pension plans were targeted for "confiscation".

[erowe1]

But that's not the fault of the receiver of SSI, it's the governments "borrowing" of the money that they can't pay back. It had surplus and they could not keep their sticky fingers off of it.

It was never borrowing. The money they took from him was in order to pay someone else. It was theft when they did it then, and it's theft when they do it now.

Sure, it's not the fault of the recipient. But this myth that SS was originally some kind of savings plan that people paid into in order to get their money back in the future, and then it got raided by Congress, is just a made up excuse to justify a program that people don't want to admit was a Ponzi scheme from the get to.

[heavenlyboy34]

Don't forget the ultimate injustice. The estate tax. I know there is a cutoff but how can they seriously tax pre-taxed income and assets??? Why doesn't anyone talk about this type of blatant, in your face robbery during presidential campaigns???? Mollest someone their entire life and then come back to rape the corpse for the good measure.
"they" do talk about it, but it's empty rhetoric. (it's typically called "The Death Tax" when they're trying to agitate Boobus)

[tod evans]

"they" do talk about it, but it's empty rhetoric. (it's typically called "The Death Tax" when they're trying to agitate Boobus)

Assets are placed in a trust for a reason.

[heavenlyboy34]

Assets are placed in a trust for a reason.
There are no assets in the "trust fund"-only liabilities. I always laugh when people talk about the "SS Trust fund". :D

[tod evans]

There are no assets in the "trust fund"-only liabilities.

No........Personal assets are placed in a trust to protect them from the "death/estate tax".

[heavenlyboy34]

No........Personal assets are placed in a trust to protect them from the "death/estate tax".
Are you just reciting from a government handout? This has long been known to be false. (one of the reasons "social security supplements" were invented) I can't believe anyone on this site believes it. I am disappoint.
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/attarian2.html) So You Think You’ve Got a Trust Fund With Your Uncle Sam . . . (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/attarian2.html)(from 2002)One of Social Security’s greatest myths is that benefits are paid from a trust fund accumulated from taxes held in trust. True, there exist an "Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund" and a "Disability Insurance Trust Fund," usually referred to together as "the Social Security Trust Fund." Sure it’s a trust fund. Why, it says so right here on the label!
Or is it?
The original Social Security Act created an "Old-Age Reserve Account" in the Treasury. Each year, an amount deemed sufficient to pay that year’s benefits would be appropriated to the Account. Appropriations unneeded for benefits would be invested in federal debt, including unmarketable debt issued for this purpose, earning 3 percent. Social Security’s tax rate was to rise gradually, to create a reserve big enough so its interest would help defray future costs. Tax collections would begin in 1937; benefit payouts, in 1942; thus the fund would start accumulating.
Criticism arose. Winthrop Aldrich of Chase National Bank argued that the reserve would be a fiction; the government would just be issuing itself promissory notes. In his famous Milwaukee speech on Social Security during the 1936 presidential campaign, "Alf" Landon likened the reserve to a father taking deductions from his kids’ wages to invest for their old age, "investing" them in "his own IOU," and spending the money, leaving his kids nothing but IOUs, making Social Security’s forced savings "a cruel hoax." Social Security tax dollars, President Franklin Roosevelt retorted, "are held in a Government trust fund solely for the social security of the workers."
After the election, the attacks kept coming. General Hugh Johnson, former head of the National Recovery Administration, and journalist John T. Flynn, pointed out that unlike insurance companies, which invest their premiums to build a reserve to pay claims by their insured, the government was only issuing itself IOUs. So the reserve was worthless. To pay future benefits, Americans would have to be taxed again. Defenders responded that the IOU talk was misleading; aren’t all private instruments, such as stocks and bonds, really IOUs, their value depending on the resources and ethics of the issuing firms?
In 1939 FDR proposed amending Social Security. In the ensuing congressional hearings and debates, the reserve controversy exploded. Critics accused the Administration of "embezzlement" and reiterated that the reserve was just IOUs, so Americans would be taxed twice. No, no, no, defenders shot back; no embezzlement was happening, there wouldn’t be any double taxation, and the IOUs were the safest investment there was – government bonds. By now three years old, the acrimonious controversy was hurting Social Security’s prestige.
The 1939 Amendments created an "Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund" at the Treasury. The record is clear that this was done to end the reserve fund wrangle. Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee on the Amendments, Social Security Board chairman Arthur Altmeyer, when asked what the purpose of the trust fund was, stated, "to allay the unwarranted fears of some people who thought that Uncle Sam was embezzling the money."
Moreover, the texts of the original Social Security Act regarding the Reserve Account and of the 1939 Amendments regarding the Trust Fund are virtually identical. Section 201 of the original Act, "Old-Age Reserve Account," was replaced by a new Section 201, "Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund." The only real change was the elimination of the specific annual appropriation transferring revenues to the Reserve Fund. Instead, a sum equivalent to Social security tax receipts "is hereby appropriated" to the Trust Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, "and for each fiscal year thereafter." In other words, the money now goes into the Fund automatically. The only other new features were a Board of Trustees (Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Labor, and Chairman of the Social Security Board) to manage the Fund; replacement of 3 percent interest with the average rate on interest-bearing federal debt; and paying money from the Fund to the Treasury to defray Social Security administrative expenses.
Otherwise, the Trust Fund operated just like the Reserve Account. In fact it was the Reserve Account; the latter’s assets as of January 1, 1940 were transferred to the Trust Fund. The Account was, according to the Act, "an account in the Treasury," and the Trust Fund, per the Amendments, was "on the books of the Treasury," making the transfer a formality. Essentially, a shoebox full of bonds just got relabeled.
The evidence is clear: Social Security’s Trust Fund is a Treasury account, nothing more. The "trust fund" label was a public relations ploy to reassure the public that Social Security was trustworthy. It worked. The reserve controversy faded away.
Is the Trust Fund the real McCoy? Let’s see. A trust fund is money or other property held in a trust, a trust being "A fiduciary relationship with respect to property, subjecting the person by whom the property is held to equitable duties to deal with the property for the benefit of another person, which arises as a result of a manifestation of an intention to create it." A trust must have a "settlor," who creates the trust and puts property into it; a "trustee" who manages it and holds legal title to the property; a "beneficiary," who has equitable title to the property, and for whom the trustee manages it; "terms of trust," spelling out the trust’s purpose, the duties and powers of the trustee(s); and, of course, property. (Charles E. Rounds, Jr. and Eric Hayes, Loring: A Trustee’s Handbook (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0735531633/lewrockwell/),) 8th ed., pp. 1–2, 5, 79; Gilbert Thomas Stephenson, Estates and Trusts (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0132895463/lewrockwell/), 4th ed., pp. 63–66).
Social Security’s trust fund does not have these defining features.
Congress is not the settlor. A settlor puts his own property into the trust, which Congress did not do. And Section 201 of the Amendments did not even mention the Board of Trustees having legal title to any property. Down go two characteristics of a trust.
Also, Section 201 said nothing about property – because there isn’t any. In Flemming v. Nestor, the Supreme Court ruled that there are no accrued property rights to benefits. If you have no property right to benefits, how can you have property in the trust fund which supposedly pays them? Property in the trust fund implies a property right to benefits, and vice versa. A trust manages property on someone’s behalf. No property, no trust.
Suffolk University law professor and trust expert Charles Rounds aptly summed up: "Despite the term ‘trust,’ the Social Security system contains nothing that remotely resembles the common law trust. There is no segregation of assets, no equitable property rights, no private right of enforcement (all characteristics of the common law trust). It is merely a system of taxation and appropriation sprinkled with trust terms to hide its true nature."
Finally, consider how the Trust Fund operates. Social Security revenues go into Treasury general revenue and are credited to the Fund as unmarketable Treasury bonds. The Treasury pays benefits with general revenue, debiting the Trust Fund an equivalent value of bonds. Any remaining revenue finances general government, with an equivalent value of bonds in the Trust Fund as Social Security’s "surplus." (House Ways and Means Committee, 1998 Green Book, pp. 73, 75, 77). That’s a Treasury account in action, not a trust fund.
Social Security’s Trust Fund is bogus. Meaning the "robbing the trust fund" issue is phony, too. Yet seniors buy it. Last night one of my friends told me he’d tried to straighten out his 77-year-old uncle, but the old boy just wouldn’t believe him. Even my Mom fell for that "robbing the trust fund" baloney. Social Security’s propagandists have programmed many Americans, especially seniors, like Moonies. Deprogramming is imperative.

[tod evans]

HB,

We're talkin' apples-n-oranges....

Here's what I'm talkin' about;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusts_and_estates

[Acala]

It was never borrowing. The money they took from him was in order to pay someone else. It was theft when they did it then, and it's theft when they do it now.

Sure, it's not the fault of the recipient. But this myth that SS was originally some kind of savings plan that people paid into in order to get their money back in the future, and then it got raided by Congress, is just a made up excuse to justify a program that people don't want to admit was a Ponzi scheme from the get to.

Exactly!!!! It was a fraudulent program from its inception. And every politician from either party since then that has supported the program at all is responsible for the fraud.

[Acala]

HB,

We're talkin' apples-n-oranges....

Here's what I'm talkin' about;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusts_and_estates

You are talking about using a trust to avoid estate taxes, not talking about SS being a trust. Right?

[tod evans]

You are talking about using a trust to avoid estate taxes, not talking about SS being a trust. Right?

Exactly..........the "death-tax" is what predicated even mentioning setting up a trust..

[heavenlyboy34]

HB,

We're talkin' apples-n-oranges....

Here's what I'm talkin' about;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusts_and_estates
If you were thinking of that, you definitely don't understand SS. I hope the piece I gave you helps you understand.

[tod evans]

If you were thinking of that, you definitely don't understand SS. I hope the piece I gave you helps you understand.

But But.........I wasn't talking about SSI........Not even a little bit.....I was responding to your post about estate/death tax..

[emazur]

Where is the clause in the "social contract" that specifies the punishment for breaking the contract??? That's what I thought


Chances are that you will it will last long enough for you to get quite a bit from future tax payers.

I'm not so sure - by 2025 (and that's an optimistic number that assumes interest rates stay flat), ALL federal revenue will be consumed by entitlements and interest on debt. I find it hard to believe it will last much longer than that, and if it does, it will be repaid in inflated dollars
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/FINAL%20DRTF%20EXECUTIVE%20SUMMARY_0.pdf
http://i.imgur.com/iaR6g.jpg

[Pericles]

DID YOU KNOW THAT THEY COULD ESSENTIALLY TAX A TAX? THAT'S THE CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT FOR YOU.



Bleh. Reagan, Clinton and Gore.

That is what happens with a compromise in order to get something done.

[Acala]

But But.........I wasn't talking about SSI........Not even a little bit.....I was responding to your post about estate/death tax..

Lol! I snicker at your struggle to be understood!

[erowe1]

Where is the clause in the "social contract" that specifies the punishment for breaking the contract??? That's what I thought



I'm not so sure - by 2025 ....

But somebody who has already been paying taxes for 40 years as of now will be 65 long before 2025.

[Sematary]

Also, nobody has any right to expect the government to pay them any Social Security. Every penny they get has to be stolen from someone else. That's the way it is now, and the way it always has been. They can't undo the theft that has already happened. But they can and should cease from doing it. The most just and fair thing that could possibly happen with Social Security would be if not a single penny more of it ever got paid out to anyone effective immediately.

I absolutely have a right to expect that I should get my money back, with interest. Whether I will or not is up for debate but after more than 30 years of paying in, I want what I earned.

[erowe1]

I absolutely have a right to expect that I should get my money back, with interest.

No you don't. The only money they can ever give you is what they steal from someone else. Taxpayers do not have the responsibility to pay you back what was stolen by someone else.

[Sematary]

No you don't. The only money they can ever give you is what they steal from someone else. Taxpayers do not have the responsibility to pay you back what was stolen by someone else.

I respectfully disagree. Since I have paid in tens of thousands of dollars in my lifetime and I expect interest in return on that, then I expect to be able to receive what I paid for. I understand your point, and I understand how a ponzi scheme works, but if our government "defaults" on it's obligations to those who paid in untold trillions of dollars into this program, there WILL be a revolution.

[erowe1]

I respectfully disagree. Since I have paid in tens of thousands of dollars in my lifetime and I expect interest in return on that, then I expect to be able to receive what I paid for. I understand your point, and I understand how a ponzi scheme works, but if our government "defaults" on it's obligations to those who paid in untold trillions of dollars into this program, there WILL be a revolution.

Does your argument apply to all the taxes you ever paid? Or does it only apply to Social Security? If it only applies to SS, what makes those taxes different than the rest?

At some point the federal government will default on all of its financial obligations, either by not paying them or paying them with worthless money.

[Seraphim]

Buyer beware comes to mind.

You bought into a ponzi scheme, and you believe it to be just that your children and neighbour's children should pay for your mistake?

You got duped on a massive level. Sorry man, it sucks - but to get paid back you will be robbing your own children. Can you live with that?

At some point, the cycle must end. Those willing to face their own reflection and allow the math equation to rebalance will be rewarded, one way or another.


I absolutely have a right to expect that I should get my money back, with interest. Whether I will or not is up for debate but after more than 30 years of paying in, I want what I earned.

[erowe1]

Buyer beware comes to mind.

You bought into a ponzi scheme...

I don't buy Sematary's view. But I don't buy this one either.

He didn't buy into it. He was forced into it.

I don't deny that justice demands he get his money back from those who robbed him. I just deny that he should get that by any means that involves robbing anyone else, which in reality leaves him no way to get it.

[Seraphim]

Complacent behavior is defacto support.


I don't buy Sematary's view. But I don't buy this one either.

He didn't buy into it. He was forced into it.

I don't deny that justice demands he get his money back from those who robbed him. I just deny that he should get that by any means that involves robbing anyone else, which in reality leaves him no way to get it.

[Sematary]

Does your argument apply to all the taxes you ever paid? Or does it only apply to Social Security? If it only applies to SS, what makes those taxes different than the rest?

At some point the federal government will default on all of its financial obligations, either by not paying them or paying them with worthless money.

Social Security is different because, like the medicaid taxes we pay, it comes with an implicit promise of a return on what we paid in. And I agree - eventually, the current system will fail.

[Sematary]

Complacent behavior is defacto support.

And what, in your opinion, is the alternative? Jail? Don't be involved in the economy? Don't raise a family? Don't live my life? Complacency is an argument that holds no water in the face of the brute force that will be levied if those funds aren't "voluntarily" given to the government. I didn't ask that they take the money. I was given no option - just like anyone else who gets a paycheck. If it were truly voluntary then you would have a point.

[Zippyjuan]

Social Security is different because, like the medicaid taxes we pay, it comes with an implicit promise of a return on what we paid in. And I agree - eventually, the current system will fail.

Returns on investments may sometimes be negative and sometimes you lose all of your money. There is no guaranty.

[shane77m]

Don't forget the ultimate injustice. The estate tax. I know there is a cutoff but how can they seriously tax pre-taxed income and assets??? Why doesn't anyone talk about this type of blatant, in your face robbery during presidential campaigns???? Mollest someone their entire life and then come back to rape the corpse for the good measure.

They are too busy talking about gay marriage, birth control, abortion, illegal immigration, and etc....

If only people would get together and not take it any more.

[Seraphim]

And what of the assembly of like minded people?

A majority is NOT required to effect massive, widespread change. Just a tireless minority that is very concentrated on where it's power is directed. Never forget that.

Nowhere did I claim ease as the central tenant of dissent.


And what, in your opinion, is the alternative? Jail? Don't be involved in the economy? Don't raise a family? Don't live my life? Complacency is an argument that holds no water in the face of the brute force that will be levied if those funds aren't "voluntarily" given to the government. I didn't ask that they take the money. I was given no option - just like anyone else who gets a paycheck. If it were truly voluntary then you would have a point.

[Sematary]

Returns on investments may sometimes be negative and sometimes you lose all of your money. There is no guaranty.

Where in the Social Security act does the government refer to Social Security as an "investment" with the possibility of loss? The implicit promise of a return that I spoke of has to do with the fact that the government guaranteed to those who paid in (virtually everyone) that one day, IF they lived to retirement, they would be able to retire and have an income that would, at the very least, keep them from being on the street - which Social Security barely does. I have never in my life expected that I would be able to live comfortably on a social security check, but I did (especially when I was younger and didn't know any better) expect that the money I was paying in would one day come back. Now, of course, that is much less certain than it was 30 years ago but as a person who has spent that much time paying in, I do still expect to get it back because the government forced me to give it to them and it is mine, and yours, and everyone elses who paid in.

[tod evans]

I'd be cool with forfeiting what I've paid in if by doing so there would be an uprising that ended government as we know it today.

In this specific instance I'm very comfortable using the "It's for the children" argument.

I really wish my son could live under the government of my grandfather instead of what we are leaving...


Where in the Social Security act does the government refer to Social Security as an "investment" with the possibility of loss? The implicit promise of a return that I spoke of has to do with the fact that the government guaranteed to those who paid in (virtually everyone) that one day, IF they lived to retirement, they would be able to retire and have an income that would, at the very least, keep them from being on the street - which Social Security barely does. I have never in my life expected that I would be able to live comfortably on a social security check, but I did (especially when I was younger and didn't know any better) expect that the money I was paying in would one day come back. Now, of course, that is much less certain than it was 30 years ago but as a person who has spent that much time paying in, I do still expect to get it back because the government forced me to give it to them and it is mine, and yours, and everyone elses who paid in.

[Acala]

I absolutely have a right to expect that I should get my money back, with interest. Whether I will or not is up for debate but after more than 30 years of paying in, I want what I earned.

All you earned is the right to be pissed off when that outcome which was inherent in the system from the beginning finally comes about. You have no legal standing to sue. No enforceable promise was made. No rights accrued. You paid a tax and the money you paid in was spent. It's gone. You have no right to use force to go beat the money out of your neighbors.

[heavenlyboy34]

Where in the Social Security act does the government refer to Social Security as an "investment" with the possibility of loss? The implicit promise of a return that I spoke of has to do with the fact that the government guaranteed to those who paid in (virtually everyone) that one day, IF they lived to retirement, they would be able to retire and have an income that would, at the very least, keep them from being on the street - which Social Security barely does. I have never in my life expected that I would be able to live comfortably on a social security check, but I did (especially when I was younger and didn't know any better) expect that the money I was paying in would one day come back. Now, of course, that is much less certain than it was 30 years ago but as a person who has spent that much time paying in, I do still expect to get it back because the government forced me to give it to them and it is mine, and yours, and everyone elses who paid in.
Keep in mind that people didn't live as long when SS started, so it was easier to convince people to believe The Big Lie that is SS. It was easier to keep the illusion going then.

[Lucille]

No. It's not an entitlement or govt obligation, and there is no guarantee of benefits (which is stated on the statements the SSA sends out). It's a tax, and they can do what they want with the money, like to SAVE THE BANKS!!!!!!!!! [/CONgress]

Social Security Checks Raided To Pay for Student Loans (http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1184.html)


People thought they could beat the system if the could just make it to retirement. No such luck. The banks just get in line. They get paid first.

[KingRobbStark]

You're going to use the government to sue the government?