It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why do people think Social Security is aid?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:53 PM
Social security is not government aid. Every working American pays into it every single pay check. When you retire, you SHOULD get social security.. you paid for it! While I don't take government aid of any type, I for darn sure will take my social security check when I retire.

Social security is an entitlement in the TRUE sense of the word. It is NOT aid.

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 08:03 PM
You would be correct.

To bad there will not be any in the next 20 years when I want my money back.

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 08:47 PM
I consider it aid because not everybody who has paid into it is entitled to get back what they contributed.

you might find this interesting.

You worked hard your whole life and paid thousands of dollars in Social Security taxes. Now it's time to retire. You're legally entitled to Social Security benefits, right? Wrong. There is no legal right to Social Security, and that is one of the considerations that may decide the coming debate over Social Security reform.

Many people believe that Social Security is an "earned right." That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as "contributions," as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.

I feel that if this was really an entitlement, the money collected would never be touched by politicians because it isn't there money.Some people compare social security to what Madoff did.

Legitimate investment vehicles take investor funds and invest them in businesses, real estate, and other assets. These investments are intend to generate returns for shareholders. Madoff didn't do this. He paid off early investors with cash from subsequent investors. Investment assets were never purchased.

Similarly, Social Security has no investments. It pays retirees benefits with cash deposited by younger workers. What’s worse is that Social Security has taken in a surplus of funds over the years. Instead of investing the extra funds legitimately, the government spent it on other programs. Now Social Security is completely unfunded -- something that's illegal for companies to do but not the government.

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 08:58 PM
It seems to be more of a way to create dependancy and reliance on the government rather then a form of saving for ones future .

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 08:58 PM
It should be seen as aid simply because no one can actually live on SS income alone.

Funny, we provide supplemental aid in the form of social security to elderly people who may be unable to work for additional income, and soon there may be none left for the next generation of elderly.

Perhaps in the new world order a global system of extermination for nonproductive elderly and/or disabled/retired people would be a much more cost effective approach to the inevitable collapse of social security funds.

In fact maybe I'll send this in the form of a suggestion to the Obama administration and the teleprompter people.

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 09:08 PM
you work from say age 18 to 65 and then retire and collect SS

Your SS payment is calculated by the average of what you earned the LAST 10 Working Years.

so what about all that money you paid in from 18 to 55?

That goes into .gov wasteful spending AND to SSI payments for those who never managed to get enough "work credits" to qualify for SS when they became "disabled"

it's not aid, it's theft

new topics

top topics

log in