Posts: 1684
From: Columbus, GA USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 11, 2010 09:38 PM         

---

Social insecurity and the other programs are socialism. There is no trust fund. The government pools all the money together and makes transfer payments. If I were to write myself an I.O.U. and go to a bank to borrow on it, I would get laughed out of the door. That's exactly what the government does with social insecurity.

IP: Logged

Posts: 1521
From: Gaia
Registered: Apr 2010

posted November 11, 2010 10:03 PM         

---

That might be the case, however, I don't think it's a bad program. I think about my grandmother, who never worked a day in her life, because she came of age when women didn't work, and she at least had that when my grandfather died. I don't begrudge my taxes towards that one bit.

IP: Logged

Posts: 1684
From: Columbus, GA USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 12, 2010 01:07 AM         

---

I'm not saying to stop it for current seniors. Just that it's an illegal Ponzi scheme, we were sold one idea and lied to, and it is broke. We need to eliminate it for people entering into the workforce before it crumbles.

IP: Logged

Posts: 5627
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 12, 2010 11:09 AM         

---

the fact is SS was not meant to be a "retirement fund" but an "emergency fund" mostly for widows and orphans. the fact that it has paid so WELL is how it came to be seen as a retirement fund. and i know people who basically are living on theirs. not that they didn't save anything else, but they put enough into it over the years to make a decent return.

and SS is supposedly fine for decades to come.

but to quote a facebook friend, here we go again, give the rich a break and cut into the seniors' meager allowance to cover the deficit? what a crock. sorry. but in times of need those who have disposable funds up the yin-yang should be THROWING them at the problem, not complaining about losing some chump change. because that is what that 1.whatever% they are quibbling about is to the rich. chump change.

in eisenhower's time the top bracket was at 90%. in kennedy's time it was 70% or more. even reagan found that lowering it below a certain point was unworkable...and clinton raised it just a bit and achieved - SURPLUS!

capital gains, etc, which many people are able to live off and leave their principal sitting pretty, is taxed at 15%!

but it still boggles that SS and medicare are to be provided for by FAIR TAX and that is a good thing, but when they are taken out of income tax they are a socialist burden? please someone explain THAT bit of two-faced thinking?

IP: Logged

Posts: 5627
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 12, 2010 11:12 AM         

---

@juni i was asking what the difference between VAT and sales taxes were? since my experience of VAT was basically - it is a sales tax. doesn't apply to basic necessities but to everything else! what IS the difference please?

as to medicine being a necessity, i suppose for some it is, but many kinds of medicine (generally the "alternative" kind) are not recognized as such, but as luxuries for the fringe-livers...i haven't had a drop of "medicine" for years thanks to massage, nutrition and herbs, none of these are considered necessities by the government, though some are edging into the mainstream system.

IP: Logged