I have found the rampant rumors that the Social Security that is taken from my every pay period will not be available when I want it. Therefore I would like to know from you out there who would be interested in being involved in a class action suit that I will try to get started against the government in order to have them put in writing that you will get the money that is being taken from you every pay period or give it all back and let us invest, squander or us that extra few dollars or cents every pay period to live our lives in the present. The media and others state that I/we are paying our parents monthly social security payments and when I reach the ripe ol age of being able to reap those benefits, they will have been depleted and there won't be any more funds to be given out. I am not relying on this money by no means. But it's the principal of the government being so mismanaged and reckless that someone needs to provide me with some assurances that I will either be able to stop the deductions for this non existent social security or guarantee me that these funds that they have taken from me will be available. Write to me if you see my email and give suggestions, attorney names that would be willing to take on this task. Thanks and I hope this can be finalized before I need it.
Hey, I was told that when I was in my twenties, I am now in my fifties. Now they want to reduce my benefits and force me to work into my seventies. And why, because the funds collected for Social Security are being used to offset trade deficits, and war costs. Nothing in life is guarranteed, except that the little man will always have to pay for the elites' excusions in to power and profit. Good luck to you, but I don't think it will fly. When I was in my twenties most employers supplied health care and retirement, now most employers don't consider that their responsibility. Jobs are no longer secure, employees have no recourse. Workers' Comp has been gutted in preference to the employer. But we still keep paying in. Maybe that's why I've entered the realm of shadow employment.
Actually this started when they looked at Generation X compared to the boomers. It was thought that since X was a smaller group their would be continuing problems as each Generation got smaller. Generation Y blew that apart though as there are just as many of them as the Boomers. It could get tight for awhile but as Generation Y enters the workforce it is less of a problem.
But not if they misuse the funds? The whole system could work if Washington didn't consider it just a cash cow, to be used and manipulated. Time to start talking lock box again. Force them to set aside those funds for what they were designed to be for not balancing a budget that doesn't even consider workers.
I'd like to see the program priviatized. I dont trust the gvmt to hold my $$$$, they are busy giving it away to buy votes.
I'd like to see the program priviatized. I dont trust the gvmt to hold my $$$$, they are busy giving it away to buy votes.
I am still requesting that if anyone out there knows of an attorney that would be willing or able to start a class action suit, PLEASE LET ME KNOW!! Time is running short and if I don't get this thing happenin soon then the government will have all that money and spend it recklessly on other covert operations and shit.
Well Mr. Fat I don't know what Ronald Reagan's Ponzi scheme is, so why don't you enlighten me? thanks
Privatization, how many private retirement systems have gone belly up because legislation relaxed the laws and allowed them to bail at the benefit of their executives and the result that those like in the "saving and loan scandals" of the 80s, lost everything they had paid in, while a few ended up extremely rich and invincible to acountability(one of them a Bush brother)? Most poor people don't live to eighty. Ever had a sick relative in the hospital. The bed police swoop in after three days, and if you aren't rich or have legal counsel, you are sent home. No matter if a couple days would save you. If you are over sixty five on Medicare alone, and your three days are up, if you can't go home, they start promoting the use of Morphine for pain control. Not for the comfort of the patient, but because it suppresses bodily functions, and leads to mortality. Patient dies, family thinking everything had been done and the pain was under control. In truth it's a method of euthansia practiced often in the hospitals in the US. Many of the "greatest generation" have been lost to those practices. It freed up social security funds. In case you hadn't been born until afterwards, before you buy into privatization read this: http://www.inthe80s.com/sandl.shtml
There are a lot of misconeptions here. There has never been a social security "fund". The fact that you pay a social security tax doesn't mean there that the money is treated any differently - it goes in the same giant pot as every other tax dollar. It is not set aside, saved, invested, or anything. It is spent like every other kind of tax revenue. And there has never been any guarantee that you will get any particular level of social security benefit - you will get whatever the people in power at the time you retire decide to pay you. It is completely arbitrary. That's why you can't have a class action lawsuit. There is no contract to break. Now if you want your money to be in any sense guaranteed, then you would SUPPORT privatisation.YOUR social security payments would go into YOUR OWN fund, to be invested by you and used by you in your retirement. Nobody could ever touch it or take it (any more than the government can take any of your other wealth through taxation). This is how privatised retirement systems work around the world. Which system sounds better?
That's all well and good Pepik, if the lowly american citizen is allowed to opt out of Social Security altogether. Why pay into a system that isn't guarranteed to pay. Wealthy folks only pay on the first $90,000.00, but they receive full benefits upon retirement. Why not impose payroll taxes on the total of their earnings like the little man pays. I bet that would make the program solvent again. Something maybe you should all read: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguide_socialsecurityfacts
Social Security was being raided far before Regan hit into the pot and after it was really dug into. Regan had set up a means for the funds to be replaced and it also was not used for the sole purpose of the military. The biggest drain has been its misuse for social programs for others than the elderly. The big scam is that if your a teen and working you have to pay for unemployment and disability insurance but are not allowed to collect until your 18, so if you start working at 16 the first 2 years you pay in dont count. Of coarse good luck getting most kids off thier ass in the first place.
Not necessarily true look up savings and loans scandal. Many lost their private retirement funds. Social Security was instituted to protect people against those kind of private losses, now the elite want us to go back to that system. Why do they own stock in them, that they will probably dump before the institutions go belly up on the little man? http://www.inthe80s.com/sandl.shtml
If you want to blame someone for that don't blame Reagan, blame Franklin Roosevelt, since SSA was set up as a Ponzi scheme from the beginning. It had to be in order to start immediately, and it had to start immediately because after the Depression there were so many poor folks getting too old to work. The idea is that the son pays the father's benefits, the grandson pays the son, and so on. It works. What is dangerous is that all that money attracts politicians like a banana draws fruit flies, and there's a harebrained scheme-a-minute to use it for something else. It DOES need to be invested so that interest earned will at least offset inflation, but only in low risk (and therefore low-return) instruments. In that way and only that way I can support privatization of sorts, if very, very carefully done with full and constant public oversight. Most people don't see SS for what it is - not a tax, but rather a mandantory retirement annunity with medical insurance and a disability benefit. It's a damned good deal if you don't try to make it something it isn't. If you don't think it's a good deal, try to buy the same program on the commercial insurance/finance market and see what it would cost you if you can even buy it at all.
If you think thats bad = Britain imperialised 4/5ths of the earths surface it had the biggest empire in history - WW2 comes - suddenly no empire - where did all the cash go? To the USA to pay its war debts - but who owned the war debt in the USA? where did all the moiney go that got paid back? you people in the USA work that one out
Wealthy folk only pay up to $90K, and they only receive up to $90K. What's so unfair about that? And you are confusing defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans. Privatised social security would be DC. With DC plans your assets are held in trust. Even if the insurer/bank/fund manager went bust, your assets would be unharmed. When you hear about retirement funds going under, it is a DB plan. SS is definitely a tax. The reason people think otherwise is because there is a "social security" line on their paycheck. But it is meaningless. It is just tax like income tax. There is no connection between what you pay and what you get. The government decides arbitrarily how much they want to pay when you retire. If you want a guarantee, then privatise social security so they are your assets.
In a choice between Gvmt. controll and priviatization, I'd take privatization all day long. The Gvmt. will just take that money. Just like the original poster is stating.:X
You're out of luck on this one. http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.
