21-12-2004 04:37									#1
	Eliminate Social Security - Dont 'Privitize it' Support Apolyton

quote: Eliminate -- don't privatize -- the plundering by Anthony Gregory Guest columnist George W. Bush wants to "reform" and "fix" Social Security, and "privatize" aspects of it. Certain "free market" groups seem to like this idea, though they admit that such reform will be costly, entailing transition costs estimated at between $7 trillion and $8 trillion total before the transition is completed in mid-century. How benevolent of the president to begin reforms that will only take 50 more years to complete! If something goes wrong by the time I retire, I wonder how many of today's Republican lawmakers will still be around to hold accountable. Social Security is among the most tyrannical government programs under which the average wage earner must suffer. And I don't know who is more pitiable, the average employee who pays about 14 percent -- half of which is hidden because his employer must fork it over, and therefore deduct it from what the employee could otherwise earn -- or the self-employed worker, who has to cut the check for that much himself. 14 percent. And we all know it won't be there upon retirement, maybe not even for my parents' generation, and almost certainly not for mine. 14 percent. That's three-fourths of every typical worker's Monday, spent working for a fraudulent system. This is time that parents could spend with their children, teaching them good values and academics or playing ball with them, or time that could be spent working to build up wealth to save or invest in a way that actually produces good for the economy, rather than be thrown down the drain of the largest government agency in the world. For the American struggling just to make ends meet, who buys groceries only when they are on sale and goes to Wal-Mart for its heroically inexpensive quality goods, it is maddening to have to surrender 14 percent of every dollar earned, just to prop up one of FDR's many enduring legacies. Social Security is "regressive," in that the poor pay proportionately more, or, at least, more than the super rich, whose payroll taxes are capped at a certain amount. I don't like "progressive" taxes, but I might even hate "regressive" ones more. Maybe I'm a bleeding-heart libertarian? Why is Social Security in such dire straits? Fifty years ago, the ratio of workers to retirees (those drawing Social Security) was 16 to 1, a ratio that has dropped steadily over the years. Today, only 3.3 workers pay into the system for every person drawing benefits. By the time today's new workers are ready to retire, the ratio will have shrunk even further, to about 2 to 1. For all the talk about how my generation [those under 30]is uncouth, impatient and unappreciative, it's the older generations that must answer for allowing this harrowing institution -- one of the most immoral in America -- to continue and grow. My generation didn't condemn millions to involuntary servitude in this fashion! I apologize if my fellow young Americans are rude at times (or if I am), but it's quite stressful having 14 percent of our money stolen just so the government can maintain this corrupt program of intergenerational plunder. Do I blame my elders? No. Do I wish them ill and suffering? Of course not. I am not a sadist. They, too, would be better off without the socialist retirement system. But they're the ones lobbying to keep it afloat! If economic collapse comes, we all must face the reality that Social Security might fall with it. And good riddance. The sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned. The vital flaws in Social Security could be a great issue for libertarians to focus on; nothing better demonstrates the pure evil of the welfare state, as it attacks the poorest and youngest Americans and distributes money to the wealthiest demographic in the country. Instead of pointing this out, too many "free market" thinkers devise ways to keep the system afloat. Ask many people my age and they'll tell you they understand the system stinks. Bring it up to older generations, and they seem to want to keep the rotten racket going, at least until they're done "benefiting" from it. When I talk to my elders about politics, my stand on Social Security often upsets them more than anything else I have to say. What's the solution? Scrap the whole system! Let's not "privatize" plunder, the way so many free market socialists want to. I don't want an opportunity to give 14 percent, or some fraction of it, to whatever corporations the Bush administration thinks can be trusted with my money better than the government can. Instead of the privatization schemes we usually hear about, I think the best "gradualist" reform would be to reduce the payroll taxes, by whatever amount we can. Just cut them down, and keep cutting until there's nothing left to cut. The older people perhaps deserve something for all they've put into the system, and may indeed have a claim on government assets. The only trouble with this is that if you took all the victims of the U.S. government -- people unjustly imprisoned, people who have had their homes and businesses confiscated through the totalitarian asset forfeiture laws, people who have been regulated into poverty, people killed accidentally by federal cops, not to mention those who have lost property and loved ones to U.S.-led wars of aggression -- I would expect the liabilities would far exceed the assets. Even counting only those Americans who have had to pay taxes all their lives, the government couldn't currently repay them all that has been stolen. The entire U.S. economy couldn't handle it. Maybe Americans who have paid all their lives into the corrupt Social Security system should get close to first dibs on government property to be liquidated, but there's a long line of victims of the U.S. government, and there's no totally fair way to compensate them for even a fraction of what they deserve. What's most important is to stop the stealing. Isn't it? Can any champion of liberty or free markets really justify continuing this mass theft of working people's meager wealth? The first Social Security victims didn't even have to pay 14 percent, and if the miserable pyramid scam continues my generation will be paying 20 or 30 percent before we know it. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh one day when Bush's tax cut was in the news. I always find it quite annoying when liberals whine about the "top 1 percent" of all Americans getting the biggest income tax cuts. Why shouldn't they, when they pay the most in income taxes? This time, the caller actually had a good question, one worth serious consideration. He asked why the administration cut income taxes instead of payroll taxes. He wasn't complaining about the rich getting tax cuts, as much as he was arguing that the poor should get tax cuts. This is a reasonable matter to discuss, isn't it? Libertarians and fiscal conservatives should give it serious thought, shouldn't they? Limbaugh mumbled something about why payroll taxes couldn't be reasonably cut and how people shouldn't demonize the rich, blah, blah, blah. I'm starting to see why some people think Republicans care more about cutting taxes for the rich than for the rest of us. Maybe they do. Some Republicans even think the poor are "under-taxed." Maybe these are the same folks who think that Iraq has been under-bombed. How could anyone be under-taxed? If they are under-taxed, let us not blame the great individualist Ronald Reagan, who raised the payroll tax. Without him, the poor would be extremely under-taxed. Social Security has to go, and soon. If I could push that magical button that Murray Rothbard used to talk about, and get rid of the system immediately, you couldn't keep my finger from it without a fight. Do you think the Republicans would push that button? Would the "free-market" conservative organizations? Would even most Libertarians do it? I say the Ponzi scheme should go, as soon as possible. It's racked up enough unfunded liabilities for 100 governments, and it's at the top of the list of America's worst welfare state programs. End Socialist Security! Am I selfish? Perhaps. But only because I think we should cut taxes for the rich and for everybody else, maybe even starting with the tax that attacks the wage earner who has to work almost all of Monday just so FDR's vile progeny can feel like they're being compassionate.

----
www.lp.org
-----

interesting bits

quote: Some Republicans even think the poor are "under-taxed." Maybe these are the same folks who think that Iraq has been under-bombed. How could anyone be under-taxed? If they are under-taxed, let us not blame the great individualist Ronald Reagan, who raised the payroll tax. Without him, the poor would be extremely under-taxed.

quote: Even counting only those Americans who have had to pay taxes all their lives, the government couldn't currently repay them all that has been stolen.

quote: Social Security is "regressive," in that the poor pay proportionately more, or, at least, more than the super rich, whose payroll taxes are capped at a certain amount. I don't like "progressive" taxes, but I might even hate "regressive" ones more. Maybe I'm a bleeding-heart libertarian?

	21-12-2004 05:21									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

eliminate it

	21-12-2004 05:30									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Berzerker didn't originate that quote.

	21-12-2004 05:30									#5
	Full PM-box? Change here!

14 % !!!! Wow, there are really a killer to free market and suppression of both weak and strong !

That poor sucker has no idea of how easy he gets of. Try starting at 40 and when you starts to make more money, you end up at 60 % - please don't tell that idiot what others pay and still be in the top 10 of the richest countires - he'll just try to put you in a straightjacket, because such insanity can't be true.

	21-12-2004 05:51									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Berzerker didn't originate that quote.

I think Jim Hightower did, but I can't be sure.

Okay LoA, you can't quote people if they didn't invent the phrase being quoted.

The author could have mentioned the fact that black males are the most likely to pay into the system and die before ever seeing their money. Some of that liberal compassion for the black man... Just keep it real, SS is the left's way of saying the rest of us are too stupid to run our own lives...

	21-12-2004 05:54									#7
	Increase Your PM Length

40% is even worse. america has a heritage of free markts and individualism, while europe doesnt. i think thats why many people in europe are ok with getting taxed at 50%. remeber, back in the days of the monarchy, and feudalism, they got taxed even more, and mostly regressivly.

its the poor who are now taking back whats theirs by taxing the rich at huge rates (after all, the nobles took 60% of more for about 500 years, and economists of those days thought that to stimuate the peasants, you should tax them more so they would work harder)

america didnt even have an income tax till WW2. getting rid of midcare, medicaid, medical, mediblah would save consumers millions. privatizing social security would mean that the poor have more money, and cutting foreign aid and pulling troops out of 1st world countries would save millions more (also cutting farm subsidies)

	21-12-2004 06:00									#8
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: america didnt even have an income tax till WW2

We had one nearly 100 years before WW2.

	21-12-2004 06:01									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Social security really is a Ponzi scheme. I don't understand why people refuse to acknowledge this. Actually in a way it's worse than a Ponzi scheme. in most Ponzi schemes the latecomers pay in exactly as much as the earlier payers did but in social security the less you will get out of it, the more you are going to have to shell out.

Last edited by Geronimo on 21-12-2004 at 18:02

	21-12-2004 06:02									#10
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: america didnt even have an income tax till WW2 We had one nearly 100 years before WW2.

that's not quite right.

	21-12-2004 06:05									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

My sig says it all.

	21-12-2004 06:06									#12
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Dissident that's not quite right.

First income tax was during the civil war right? something like 70 years before ww2.

	21-12-2004 06:08									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo First income tax was during the civil war right? something like 70 years before ww2.

I was under the impression that income taxes were instituted in the early 20th century or late 19th century.

	21-12-2004 06:23									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Dissident that's not quite right.

It was first instituted during the Civil War. It only became constitutional much later. I was off by 20 years, actually, but the point stands - LoA doesn't know what he's talking about.

	21-12-2004 06:24									#15
	Got spare money?

Nice little rant... shockingly short on substance though.

	21-12-2004 06:29									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker I think Jim Hightower did, but I can't be sure.

He did. He has a book with a similar title.

	21-12-2004 06:30									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker It was first instituted during the Civil War. It only became constitutional much later. I was off by 20 years, actually, but the point stands - LoA doesn't know what he's talking about.

80 is nearly 100.

	21-12-2004 06:30									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker It was first instituted during the Civil War. It only became constitutional much later. I was off by 20 years, actually, but the point stands - LoA doesn't know what he's talking about.

a quick search solved this riddle

It seems it was instituted during the civil war. but later removed and brought back later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income..._tax_in_the_USA

	21-12-2004 06:44									#19
	Got spare money?

No, they simply rescinded the original. It appears that they immediately, or almost immediately, replaced it with a different one.

	21-12-2004 07:15									#20
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The income tax in previous incarnations was temporary and not defined the way it is now, and the turning point was WWII. That's when the lies told by the Democrats/Republicans responsible for the amendment were exposed - especially the lie that only the "rich" would pay it and the rate would never top 7 or 10%. But the SCOTUS at the time said the amendment gave Congress no new powers, i.e., the Constitution already allowed a tax on income (as defined). The problem as I understand it is that politicians have re-defined "income" to include more and more of our labor when the definition back then limited what kind of "income" would be considered as income subject to the tax.

	21-12-2004 07:17									#21
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

IIRC, the amendment allows Congress to tax income. It doesn't provide any limitations. I don't see why we needed an amendment, since the Constitution grants Congress the authority to levy taxes.

	21-12-2004 07:19									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: The income tax in previous incarnations was temporary and not defined the way it is now, and the turning point was WWII.

Ironically, I remembered the factoid about the income tax from one of DF's rants about Lincoln that he implemented the income tax which was supposed to be a temporary measure but ended up being permanent.

	21-12-2004 07:21									#23
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara IIRC, the amendment allows Congress to tax income. It doesn't provide any limitations. I don't see why we needed an amendment, since the Constitution grants Congress the authority to levy taxes.

It may have to do with this:

quote: Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

	21-12-2004 07:23									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

* chegitz guevara nods to the wise young one.

	21-12-2004 07:26									#25
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo First income tax was during the civil war right? something like 70 years before ww2.

that was ended after the war. Permenant income tax didn't come about until around the time of the first world war.

	21-12-2004 07:29									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

*insert anti-Libertarian rant*

	21-12-2004 07:30									#27
	Support Apolyton

Bush keeps claiming he can privatize social security for $3 trillion but all of the economists seem to believe that $7-$8 trillion is a more realistic number. Bush knows we can't afford $8 trillion when the nation's GDP is only around $12 trillion.

Privatization truly seems like a Republican plot to destroy social security in steps.

	21-12-2004 07:32									#28
	Got spare money?

Old people should go into the Recycling Tanks.

	21-12-2004 07:38									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: IIRC, the amendment allows Congress to tax income. It doesn't provide any limitations. I don't see why we needed an amendment, since the Constitution grants Congress the authority to levy taxes.

I don't read enough of the material from the anti-income tax activists but I think their argument is that "income" was defined in a much more limited manner back then. It might be because of the clause Kuci quoted... Essentially. labor was not considered income. I think the income tax was more related to the rise of corporations...

	21-12-2004 07:40									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Whoha that was ended after the war. Permenant income tax didn't come about until around the time of the first world war.

Wrong.

From the wikipedia article:

quote: In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government issued its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861 as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872). Other income taxes followed, although a 1895 Supreme Court ruling, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., limited the sources of income that Congress could tax without apportionment.

Which obviously means there were income taxes in 1895 (and implies that they were there prior to 1895; the most likely situation is that when they repealed the income tax in 1872 they replaced it with a different one).