21

Ayn Rand and Social Security

Posted by overmanwarrior 10 years ago to Government
106 comments | Share | Flag

Social Security was a stupid idea, and it never should have been enacted. It is an insult to stick the government in between Americans and their so-called retirements. I resent every deduction taken from my paycheck as a theft stolen from me, because the government will never be in a position to pay me back all the money I have “invested” under coercion. I have personal friends who hate Social Security so badly they have essentially given up their citizenship over the issue. One of those friends had began plotting his deferral from the Social Security system in the 5th grade—no kidding. He was a very smart kid and while the other kids were talking about the rock band KISS and the new show on television called The Dukes of Hazzard, he was planning on how to legally refuse his obligations toward Social Security. As an adult, he gave up his citizenship after years of legal entanglement—but—he doesn’t pay into the system, because as he was always right, Social Security is stolen money not granted by an infant when they are issued a card after being registered by their parents. His argument was that his parents didn’t have a right to commit him to a life obligation into such a contract with the government.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by Mamaemma 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Honey, I'd be very happy if they just gave me back the money I put in! If I had my SS and Medicare money and the money I've paid through the years for medical insurance for myself and my employees, I'd be a millionaire a few times over!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You're quite right, ML.

    The actual example is that if you are average Joe, worked for around 40 years, invested the SSI amount at the then current CD interest rate over the years, today you would have well in excess of $1mm, and here's the key...YOU would own it. It would continue to accrue in retirement, unlike Social Security, and if you've invested prudently, your heirs would inherit that amount or significantly more.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I really like that. You are absolutely correct that the term 'entitlements' as used by the Government is overused and morally offensive and wrong.

    . The short version being: "By right, I'M entitled to claim money that YOU earned."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 10 years ago
    The easiest way to figure out when the Government is involved in "Legal Plunder" is if you would personally be tracked down, arrested, and punished for doing the exact same thing the Government has done.

    I.E. Bernie Madoff structured his "Retirement Fund" exactly the same as Social Security. Ask him how it's working out for him and his investors.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 10 years ago
    I have a slightly different opinion on the Social Security.

    If and I say IF it had been implemented as it had been sold to the people, and maintained as such, The money pulled from your income would have been placed in YOUR account and you would draw based ONLY on what YOU put in.

    Galveston TX. The ONLY place to actually implement properly.

    Having said that when the US Government decided to start writing IOU's (Clinton Era to "balance budgets") Social Security breathed it death sigh.

    BUT, having said all that, my root belief is we should be responsible 100% for our financial security, and ONLY each of us, so if we starve it is OUR fault only. (Ant and Grasshopper)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 10 years ago
    I'm 68 and SS supplements my monthly retirement payments at a state worker of 21 years,
    I never heard of Ayn Rand until the first AS flick came out.
    I even called her "Ann" up until the second AS movie.
    OK, who wants to hurt my precious little feelings?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago
    Chile and several other countries have converted their transfer payment retirement programs into real investment accounts with amazing results for all. A truly free society would not coerce me to save for retirement, but if we are going to have a system it should be a real retirement system.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, no one can read his mind, it is a real mystery. I've read that he was going to vote against it, and the cave was last minute. I'm sure many, many people would love to know why.

    Still, a mystery. I hope all of the current challenges fare better, as we aren't go to get a repeal with this current moron in the WH, or god forbid, another Democrat President.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Agreed. I believe several 'opting out' programs are being suggested by (relatively) more rational politicians. Hopefully they eventually succeed.

    I don't remember the exact numbers, but I remember a simple investment analysis done years ago that showed if you could opt out of SS from the start of working, and invested what would have been your SS deduction, even at a fixed, very low rate of interest, you would have at least a $1M, or more, nest egg at 65.

    I also know, as probably all of us do, if you look at your annual summary of your cumulative lifetime SS contributions, you will NEVER get that amount of money back, unless perhaps your name is Methuselah.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RobertFl 10 years ago
    It IS an entitlement. You are entitled to get YOUR money back from the government. The problem here is, liberals have redefined "Welfare" to be an "entitlement". This is wrong because you are not entitled to someone else's money (so the producers believe, we know what the parasites think). This "entitlement" definition is what trips people up when is come to SSI, or Welfare - the libs want them to both be the same thing. Vilify one, vilifies the other.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    People who get into a Ponzi scheme early make out well. You are at the trailing end of people who are going to get what was promised (although that's not a good investment return).

    In the very near future Social Security will stop being a cash cow that the government uses to get funds and becomes a liability

    Expect that it will be under fire from the same liberals who value it so highly when it cuts into thei money for the programs they use to buy voters.

    Suddenly means testing our retirement account will become the popular thing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Turfprint 10 years ago
    I was 12 years old when my dad took me to the SS office to register. He said "You will be forced to pay into this your whole life. When it's your turn to collect there won't be any money to pay you." I asked, "Why not?" Dad said, " They will take the money and use it for other things, that's what the government always does."

    That was 59 years ago. I remember it perfectly. I always believed he would be proven correct. So each and every time I get a check I am surprised. But I frgging paid into that fund every paycheck since I was 12. It is not an entitlement!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Mama, there was an attempt to rein in FDR and his fellow Socialist cronies, but that attempt failed for Social Security, probably because it was presented as an "investment" scheme instead of the confiscation it was.

    Obviously I believe all such programs should have been declared unconstitutional.

    I know some of the even more outrageous programs were declared unconstitutional, hence FDR's failed attempt to "pack" SCOTUS by adding justices sympathetic to more Socialist schemes. My guess is if the court-packing hadn't failed then, Obama would have tried it by now.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    My point exactly. Had they offered me a choice as little as ten years ago, I would have agreed that they could keep everything that I had put in if they would allow me to opt out and invest the money as I see fit going forward. Of course, they'd never offer that because anyone with opposable thumbs would have snatched that deal up in a heartbeat.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    How much is optional in the US today? SS should have been declared unconstitutional, since it was.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 13
    Posted by SaltyDog 10 years ago
    Sadly, it gets worse.

    If you file for and receive Social Security "benefits" (and please note that they no longer use the word 'entitlement), then have more than $18,500 in earned income, your SSI benefits can be taxed at 50%!
    To top it all off, when you pass away, SSI STOPS. Period. Your estate gets nothing. It all returns to the government, even if you died prior to receiving your first payment. If you tried to set up a retirement plan for your employees using that model, they'd put you in jail, and rightfully so.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    They weren't stupid. It was deliberate, knowing and evading exactly what it was. You _can_ fix evil, but not easily.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Good intentions? It was conceived as a way to buy votes with money that would be collected into the system from others later. It was Bernie from the beginning.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    It was never optional. It has always been required to work. The only "option" was when someone started to work.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo