• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we Eliminate Social Security?

Should we Eliminate Social Security

  • Yes, no replacement

    Votes: 13 25.5%
  • Yes, but with a replacement

    Votes: 11 21.6%
  • No, we should wait until it goes bankrupt

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • No, its not going to go bankrupt

    Votes: 22 43.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 7.8%

  • Total voters
    51
How's that? If a class owns 80% of the country's wealth, they should pay 80% of the taxes, if you are seeking equality.

Perhaps you should try READING the Sixteenth Amendment?

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The law says "incomes", not "wealth".

Nor, btw, does the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment establish an exemption to the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of Equal Protection, hence, taxes on incomes should be spread equally among the people, either by percentage or tax paid.
 
Yes, I remember all the rich people being shot during our 80 years of progressive taxes before they were slashed in 1981. LOL!!!

Is there some reason you want to pretend the United States is the only country foolish enough to play with socialism?

In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge killed anyone that owned books.

Re-edit:

The Weaver Family, Ruby Ridge.
 
Last edited:
The system can't work as well with an opt out option. The larger the pool the more effective it is.

And thus is the problem.

Socialism never works unless the crude men with the steel-tipped boots, the clubs, and the machine guns are available to make the unbeleiver stay in line.

And even then, socialism never works, but everyone's part of the losing team.
 
Perhaps you should try READING the Sixteenth Amendment?

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The law says "incomes", not "wealth".

Nor, btw, does the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment establish an exemption to the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of Equal Protection, hence, taxes on incomes should be spread equally among the people, either by percentage or tax paid.

And in order to establish equality, our wise forefathers instituted the progressive tax system which assessed those in the top tax brackets 80 % of their income on average through 80 years that created the middle class.

If a tax class owns 80% of the wealth in the country, why would they expect to be taxed at a lower percentage?
 
Is there some reason you want to pretend the United States is the only country foolish enough to play with socialism?

In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge killed anyone that owned books.

Please provide your proof that our parents and grandparents were more socialistic than we are today since they supported top tax rates much higher than we do.
 
And in order to establish equality, our wise forefathers instituted the progressive tax system which assessed those in the top tax brackets 80 % of their income on average through 80 years that created the middle class.

No, not one of those socialist traitors contributed genetic material for the construction of the Mayor, nor was giving goverment the power to reach straight to a man's wages wisdom.

If a tax class owns 80% of the wealth in the country, why would they expect to be taxed at a lower percentage?

Because the Sixteenth Amendment cites "income", not "wealth".

Because the Fourteenth Amendment mandates equality before the law.

Because even the flaiming socialists who sang this song didn't like socialism when it was applied to them:

Let me tell you
How it will be.
There's one for you,
Nineteen for me,

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Should five percent
Appear too small,
Be thankful I don't
Take it all.
 
Please provide your proof that our parents and grandparents were more socialistic than we are today since they supported top tax rates much higher than we do.

Since the Mayor did not make that claim, you can provide all the proof you wish.

The Mayor's ancestors were Americans and hence anti-socialist.

Look up Snorkum on ancestry.com if you doubt the Mayor's veracity.
 
Please provide your proof that our parents and grandparents were more socialistic than we are today since they supported top tax rates much higher than we do.

Its the Mayor anything he says is true and must go:lol:
 
The people who ARE NOT TOO OLD should not be paying into the system, they should be working and investing on their own to ensure their own retirement.

Then I promise you there will be a huge disaster when these people who were supposed to be saving up on their own weren't saving up on their own because they couldn't save up on their own. And so our government decides it is going to bail out these people and you are going to have to pay for your retirement and the retirement of about three others, too.

Is there anything about your system that prevents this from happening?
 
Then I promise you there will be a huge disaster when these people who were supposed to be saving up on their own weren't saving up on their own because they couldn't save up on their own. And so our government decides it is going to bail out these people and you are going to have to pay for your retirement and the retirement of about three others, too.

Is there anything about your system that prevents this from happening?

And the wise person will have his assets in tangible form, ie, gold coin and bullion,

Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

"Fortunate Son", CCR.

When gold hits $2000 an ounce, a hundred thousand dollars will wiegh about three pounds. Three pounds of gold is about twelve cubic inches of gold.

A roll of quarters is slightly less than two cubic inches, so $100,000 could be disguised as six rolls of quarters.

There's a reason the socialists snuck that 1099 requirement into the Obama Care travesty to force vendors to report all transactions in excess of $600. The government wanted to start tracking who was buying physical gold.
 
If a class owns 80% of the country's wealth, they should pay 80% of the taxes, if you are seeking equality.

Kind of. If you have 1 house and I have 5, I should pay 5 times more taxes than you. But taxing me more just because I've worked my butt to have 5 houses while your butt was sitting on the sofa - that's nonsense. You cannot take peoples money just because they have them. That's called otherwise - "stealing".

Equality means equality in law, not abilities, needs or skin color.
 
Last edited:
I prefer the strong middle class days myself.

ah. so you prefer to live in low tax, free market economic systems like what we had during the 1920's?
 
Last edited:
And the wise person will have his assets in tangible form, ie, gold coin and bullion,

Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

"Fortunate Son", CCR.

When gold hits $2000 an ounce, a hundred thousand dollars will wiegh about three pounds. Three pounds of gold is about twelve cubic inches of gold.

A roll of quarters is slightly less than two cubic inches, so $100,000 could be disguised as six rolls of quarters.

There's a reason the socialists snuck that 1099 requirement into the Obama Care travesty to force vendors to report all transactions in excess of $600. The government wanted to start tracking who was buying physical gold.

Early each day to the steps of Saint Paul's
The little old bird woman comes.
In her own special way to the people she calls,
"Come, buy my bags full of crumbs.

Although you can't see it, you know they are smiling
Each time someone shows that he cares.
Though her words are simple and few,
Listen, listen, she's calling to you:
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag,
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag."

The guys who wrote this had to play it for their boss, Walt Disney, every morning first thing.
It was Disney's favorite song.

I'd make my songwriters play Life on Mars?
 
Last edited:
Social Security is too big to fail. And that's, that.
 
except of course, that if we don't fix it, America fails. and nobody is big enough to bail her out.
 
Yes we should eliminate social security. The federal government has no authority to operate a pension system, let people be in charge of their own retirement.
 
That would be a hoot!

That was unfair. Our military is run by the government. We don't want to privatize the military. Do we? It would be disastrous if the government didn't run retirement programs because it is the only organization that can force saving by law.
 
Yes, it needs to be eliminated. It can't be eliminated in an immediete fashion however. Its gotta be a tiered thing. I suggest the same as I always suggested. Everyone 45 years and up automatically stays enrolled as it is now, paying the tax and getting the benefits. Everyone from 35 years old to 45 have a choice, continue paying the tax and be able to draw on it or opt out. Everyone under 35 is automatically opted out.

Universally, raise the age that you can start claiming SS by 3 years. Additionally institute a 2% sales tax on non-food, medicine, or housing that is not part of the total government revenue but is instead set aside singularly for social security and is rolled over each year. The Tax would have an unbreakable sunset, expiring once the last individual drawing upon SS dies.

Now, here's where I likely break with some of my conservative brethren. I do recognize the importance of mandatory retirement saving. While I dislike the government telling people what to do with their money, I realize that people...especially many young people...have issues truly looking into the future and poor retirement planning can lead to people being in a very bad situation at a point in their life when attempting to fix it on your own is going to be most difficult. How to combat this is still something I'm working on but my rough thought at this point would be the following.

Institutde a mandotory retirement savings program. Every individual, at the time of their birth, is created a government savings account. This GSA is connected to the "G Fund", which I'm sure some federal workers with the TSP would be familiar with. the G-Fund is described as follows:

G Fund

The G Fund assets are managed internally by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. The G Fund buys a nonmarketable U.S. Treasury security that is guaranteed by the U.S. Government. This means that the G Fund will not lose money.

Since its inception the G-Fund has had an average return of 5.97% interest. In the past twelve months its been at 2.7%. I think its safe to assume in general at least a 2% performance of this fund.

Employees would have 5% of their paycheck deducted and put into their GSA every time, with Employers matching that 5%. What this would mean is a slight increase on the employee with a decrease on the employer. This money would go directly into the individuals GSA rather than into some generalized pot of money. Money within a GSA would be untouchable until 65 years of age, but would NOT be taxed once you remove it. If you were to die prior to 65 years of age a dependent would be able to claim that money. At 65 years of age you are able to start removing money from the account, at a maximum of 8% per year, making sure you get at least roughly 12 years of payments from the account. I would also suggest indexing it that every 10 years if the average life span of an American increase by 5 years that the age one begins to draw from the GSA would go up by 3 years. I would also suggest any other money one pays into an official retirement system through their employer should also be tax exempt at the point of investment AND when its removed.

While the above savings account may not be enough entirely for someone to retire on, it should at least give them a good start and if nothing else a decent life preserver for the first decade after retirement. Supplimented by personal, non-government backed, plans in the private sector individuals should be able to successfully take care of their retirement. It also assures that you get what you get your money back that you paid. Taking that money out of the governments hands and no longer having to worry about how it will be funded.
 
Yes, it needs to be eliminated. It can't be eliminated in an immediete fashion however. Its gotta be a tiered thing. I suggest the same as I always suggested. Everyone 45 years and up automatically stays enrolled as it is now, paying the tax and getting the benefits. Everyone from 35 years old to 45 have a choice, continue paying the tax and be able to draw on it or opt out. Everyone under 35 is automatically opted out.

Universally, raise the age that you can start claiming SS by 3 years. Additionally institute a 2% sales tax on non-food, medicine, or housing that is not part of the total government revenue but is instead set aside singularly for social security and is rolled over each year. The Tax would have an unbreakable sunset, expiring once the last individual drawing upon SS dies.

Now, here's where I likely break with some of my conservative brethren. I do recognize the importance of mandatory retirement saving. While I dislike the government telling people what to do with their money, I realize that people...especially many young people...have issues truly looking into the future and poor retirement planning can lead to people being in a very bad situation at a point in their life when attempting to fix it on your own is going to be most difficult. How to combat this is still something I'm working on but my rough thought at this point would be the following.

Institutde a mandotory retirement savings program. Every individual, at the time of their birth, is created a government savings account. This GSA is connected to the "G Fund", which I'm sure some federal workers with the TSP would be familiar with. the G-Fund is described as follows:



Since its inception the G-Fund has had an average return of 5.97% interest. In the past twelve months its been at 2.7%. I think its safe to assume in general at least a 2% performance of this fund.

Employees would have 5% of their paycheck deducted and put into their GSA every time, with Employers matching that 5%. What this would mean is a slight increase on the employee with a decrease on the employer. This money would go directly into the individuals GSA rather than into some generalized pot of money. Money within a GSA would be untouchable until 65 years of age, but would NOT be taxed once you remove it. If you were to die prior to 65 years of age a dependent would be able to claim that money. At 65 years of age you are able to start removing money from the account, at a maximum of 8% per year, making sure you get at least roughly 12 years of payments from the account. I would also suggest indexing it that every 10 years if the average life span of an American increase by 5 years that the age one begins to draw from the GSA would go up by 3 years. I would also suggest any other money one pays into an official retirement system through their employer should also be tax exempt at the point of investment AND when its removed.

While the above savings account may not be enough entirely for someone to retire on, it should at least give them a good start and if nothing else a decent life preserver for the first decade after retirement. Supplimented by personal, non-government backed, plans in the private sector individuals should be able to successfully take care of their retirement. It also assures that you get what you get your money back that you paid. Taking that money out of the governments hands and no longer having to worry about how it will be funded.

All of this requires the government. Aren't you just making adjustments to the program?
 
Then I promise you there will be a huge disaster when these people who were supposed to be saving up on their own weren't saving up on their own because they couldn't save up on their own. And so our government decides it is going to bail out these people and you are going to have to pay for your retirement and the retirement of about three others, too.

Is there anything about your system that prevents this from happening?

Because that's exactly what happened up until the 1930s, right? Oh wait, it didn't!
 
All of this requires the government. Aren't you just making adjustments to the program?

Somewhat, yes. It is simply making adjustments to how the system works to make it as lightly tied ot the government as possible.

In the old system individuals paid in money that goes into the generalized budget that congress can then spend however damn well they please while others are being paid out. The money you pay in is never really meant for you, but is rather more akin to a wager. You're paying now gambling on the notion that they're going to have the money to pay you later. Individuals can very easily end up taking out more money then they put in by the end of it as well.

In this system you're putting money into an account that is essentially buying government trusts. What you put in is what you get back, with a bit of interest. The government can not use your money for anything else, and no one else gets your money (and you don't get anyone elses). Your retirement money is free of all taxes as it goes in before tax and comes out without tax. The only government involvement is the administering of the account.

This is where the realistic side of me comes into play, and I fully admit that. I do not see us significantly and entirely getting rid of entitlement programs across the board in this country. Its just not going to happen. Which means that we're, as tax payers, going to end up having to take care of people who don't take care of themselves in some fashion. So if we're going off that, I think this is a far better way as, while yes the government is telling you what to do with your money, it is still staying as YOUR money that you WILL get and even more than that you'll get without the government actually taking any.
 
SS could easily be replaced with a simple to use investment portfolio spread.
The options could be defaulted as easy for the individual to select and understand, those that want more complex options would have to opt to do so.

A privatized SS system doesn't need a line in the government budget and is self sustaining.

Edit: Hell the retirement age could be set to 55 or whenever you have accrued enough assets to retire on.
It could be based on a formula, would be really awesome in my opinion.

I retired at 57, my wife a few years later. We both timed our retirements with company incentives to leave early. I got 9 months pay, she got about a years worth of pay. It has always been doable, people just have to DO IT.
 
Yes, absolutely, that's the whole purpose of having them in the first place. They are intended for use specifically by those who have put into the system, not as a part of the general fund.

Personally, I don't want the government to have access to those funds in any way, shape or form.

agree, and we should make sure that Wall Street doesn't abuse their stewardship of OUR money while it is in their hands....
 
Just imagine how prosperous it could have been if the rich weren't being robbed.

Robin Hood is the tax man?
I have been poor, the SOB never gave any of it to me.
I am well off now, 6 figure retirement income, about 3/4 mil in assets. My taxes aren't killing me....or maybe Robin Hood hasn't noticed me yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom