This SS issue is really a sticking point for me. Politicians like to refer to it as an entitlement these days, it is not. Working people and their employers have been paying an equivalent to 13 % of wages into this system since it was created.
I don't recall anyone asking my permission to confiscate that money and the expectation is that some of that is coming back to me and my spouse after we retire.
I began paying in at 12 or 13 and if I stop working at 65 I will not live long enough to put a dent in the amount that I have personally paid in.
So is the libertarian plan to cut me a check for every dime I've personally paid in plus 6%? What about the portion that my employers paid on my behalf? Do I get that as well?
If this is the plan I could likely get behind it ,I just don't see it happening.
Make no mistake I view this money as mine, if it wasn't confiscated from me I would have invested it and it would be worth far more than what I'll eventually draw in SS benefits.
When SS was originally passed by congress, it was challenged (and rightly so) in the Supreme Court. The original bill was rejected as unconstitutional, because the Federal Government does not have the authority to operate an insurance plan. Which is why Obama care could never be called insurance and why the Federal Government couldn't offer their own plan in any of the exchanges. It's settled law. Also, why Obamacare was always a stepping stone to single payer.
Anyway, in order for SS to be constitutional it has to be a tax for the general treasury. All payouts must come from the general treasury, through a bill which originates in congress. So, yes, it is entitlement spending through and through. It was all designed by nefarious parties in order to trick people into taxing them more.
People were never intended to live long enough to actually draw from their social security. At the time the bill was passed, the age where you could collect was HIGHER than the average age you could expect to live.
Hurray for FDR....
Last edited: