The Violence Of Socialist Security

Socialist security is a regressive tax, much like cigarette and alcohol taxes. Income earned over the $106,800 dollar mark does not face socialist security taxes.

The 2010 socialist security tax rate for those earning under $106,800 a year is 12.4% of a person’s total wages, 6.20% paid by the employee and 6.20% paid by the employer.

A person earning $30,000 a year would be making $33,720 without socialist security taxes being imposed on them. At current rates, if that same person were to invest the money saved from not paying socialist security into 2.7 oz. of gold bullion a year over a period of 40 years, they would retire with 109 oz. of gold, or $149,000.

A person earning $60,000 a year would be making $67,440 and could retire with 218 oz. of gold or nearly $300,000 if they were allowed to keep their own earnings.

Corporate profits are not taxed under socialist security, so those people savvy enough to get paid through corporate contracts or stock options do not pay into the socialist security system. Steve Jobs, the former CEO of Apple, takes an annual paycheck of $1.00 a year, which means he pays 12 cents into socialist security annually, yet he will be entitled to receive full benefits when he reaches retirement age.

Socialist security is run in exactly the same manner as a Ponzi scheme, the very same scheme that Bernie Madoff was arrested and imprisoned for. This is admitted to by a member of the socialist security trust’s own board.

In order for socialist security to be imposed on the public, the government must use threats of violent force against employers and payroll companies. Private citizens do not have the option of not paying into the Ponzi scheme. Any employer who does not confiscate their employees pay for socialist security faces heavy fines and possible imprisonment. Any private citizen who privately contracts for employment and does not pay into socialist security faces heavy fines and imprisonment.

The socialist security system is also bankrupt. Currently expenses exceed revenues, and this divergence will accelerate into the future as the population ages. Eventually every two working people will have to support one retiree through socialist security. This is impossible. Despite what the liberals claim, the system cannot be made sustainable through tax increases. According to the Congressional Budget Office, every taxpayer would have to pay 13% more in taxes just to make sure that all Social Security benefits currently promised will be paid. This would amount to a 25% regressive payroll tax.

The money that was taken from you in socialist security taxes was not saved by the government for your retirement; it was spent as soon as it arrived in Washington. The socialist security system could not close out its accounts and pay everyone that paid into the system. Any attempt by the young to get out of the Ponzi scheme will be met with totalitarian violence from the government.

Rand Paul proposes some solutions to end the violent brutality of government:

For the love of god it is SOCIAL SECURITY, you sound like an idiot calling it socialist security every line or 2. Other than that, good article, but i couldn't get past you repeating socialist security like a glen beckian or something. (Playful sarcasm)

As I've stated in the past, I'm not counting on it, relying on it, planning for it.
Silver and gold. I've also started investing in lithium batteries.

I don't WANT the government to determine where I live, how I live, what I buy, what I eat, by how much of my money they are giving back to me.

Originally posted by beezzer
I don't WANT the government to determine where I live, how I live, what I buy, what I eat, by how much of my money they are giving back to me.

Too bad.

The government has more weapons than you.

Originally posted by KevinB
For the love of god it is SOCIAL SECURITY, you sound like an idiot calling it socialist security every line or 2. Other than that, good article, but i couldn't get past you repeating socialist security like a glen beckian or something.

(Playful sarcasm)

It is a socialist Ponzi scheme.

It is ridiculous to call it anything else.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Too bad.

The government has more weapons than you.

They may be better armed, but I'm smarter.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Too bad.

The government has more weapons than you.

They may be better armed, but I'm smarter.

edit on 9-2-2011 by beezzer because: srft

Good luck, and may the force be with you.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Too bad.

The government has more weapons than you.

They may be better armed, but I'm smarter.

edit on 9-2-2011 by beezzer because: srft

Good luck, and may the force be with you.

Thank you Obi-won.
The government's main disadvantage is it's size. It is a monolith. It moves with the same "Peter Principles" at that speed.
Imagine the old Soviet Union. (if you're an old-timer like me) before ANYTHING could be decided, it had to go through beaurocracies, chains of command, heirarchies.
And the good ol USA is looking much the same lately.

The worst part, as you've mentioned, is that you HAVE to pay into it.
Forced taxes and robbery is exactly what builds a tyrannical gov't.
Especially when the earned money is used to pay-off bankers, and run wars for oil.


I don't think the public should've EVER let it get this far.
But because of our apathy, we helped them build the technology to do it.
We've financed their ability to stay hidden, underground, for decades.
In the name of 'The American Dream'.

Great thread.

I expected a vigorous defense of violent brutality from the liberals since this is one of their favorite socialist programs.

I am surprised by the lack of responses.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I expected a vigorous defense of violent brutality from the liberals since this is one of their favorite socialist programs.

I am surprised by the lack of responses.

You provided an argument too well. Theys is askard.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It is a socialist Ponzi scheme.

It is ridiculous to call it anything else.

What ever you call it, "it" sustained my granny who worked until she was 74 doing minimum wage jobs.
I allowed her to have some dignity and it let her be my caretaker while my parents worked. Now that money is
there for my mother and it serves her well too. Now I really wish YOU and others could opt out, I do, I don't think it is fair to you.

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It is a socialist Ponzi scheme.

It is ridiculous to call it anything else.

What ever you call it, "it" sustained my granny who worked until she was 74 doing minimum wage jobs.
I allowed her to have some dignity and it let her be my caretaker while my parents worked. Now that money is
there for my mother and it serves her well too. Now I really wish YOU and others could opt out, I do, I don't think it is fair to you.

Your granny was sustained by her electing a politician, who then held a gun to my head.

So you can thank me for supporting YOUR grandma.

News flash:

It is not MY job to support YOUR grandma - it is YOUR job slacker.

I'd also like to add that your grandma could have saved for her own retirement if she wasn't looted by a gang of criminal thieves herself.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I think that our Social Security program definitely has some problems but it's a far cry from being "Socialist."

One of the biggest problems, which is the fact that income above a certain level is exempt from the tax, is quite clearly demonstrated in your opening statement. If the tax base were expanded to include all income levels, then S.S. would be stable for quite some time to come.

On another note, If S.S. were discontinued, do you really think that your employer is going to give you that 6.2% that he's been matching? If you do, then I have some swamp land in LA. you might be interested in too.

FYI, In the eyes of your employer, the 6.2% of gross payroll that he's been matching over the years never was your money and it never will be. That new windfall will go directly into your employers pocket without so much as passing "GO" on the way there. Employers who speak out against payroll taxes are not doing so out of concern for you, they could care less how much "you" have to pay. The only thing they really care about is that portion that they are required to match and they damn sure aren't giving it to you if it's discontinued.

Based on that reality, I believe that all of your mathematical calculations are incorrect. I think it would be fair to say that your figures should be reduced by 50%. On top of that, I'm curious as to how you calculated extra earnings over a 30yr. period into ounces of acquired gold. Acquired at what price and in what 30 year period? Or for instance, did you include in you calculations things like; Extra earnings from a given year based on the S.S. tax rate for that year, converted into gold purchased at the going rate of gold for that year? This seems like it would require that you continually adjust your calculations based on fluctuations in gold prices and every time the tax rate changed as well.

IMO, You clearly identified the biggest problem plaguing our S.S. program in your statement regarding the fact that it has been run like a Ponzi scheme. As someone who has served on the Board of a multi-employer benefit trust fund, I know that revenues to the trust must be invested over time in order to produce the funds necessary to meet the future obligations of the trust to it's beneficiaries.

The particular trust fund that we managed were "not for profit" and fell under the guidelines as set forth under the ERISA act. As such, we were not allowed to utilize trust funds for any purpose other than to administer the trust and provide benefits to it's beneficiaries. No dipping into the trust for any other purpose whatsoever, lest the entire funds would lose their tax exempt status. Social Security should be run under the very same guidelines.

I'm retired now but the trust fund that pays my pension is fully funded and quite healthy to this day. IMO, Just like the new Health Care reform laws, S.S. needs a few adjustments to correct some inadequacies but there is no reason to discontinue the entire program as it would eliminate the only safety net in place for workers who have no other retirement package and it would cause great harm to this nation as a whole.

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I think that our Social Security program definitely has some problems but it's a far cry from being "Socialist."

Socialism:

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

So publicly owned and operated retirement accounts are a "far cry" from being socialist?

They are the very definition of socialism.

Of course, your argument fails to address the weapons involved in the program.

Originally posted by Flatfish
the biggest problem plaguing our S.S. program in your statement regarding the fact that it has been run like a Ponzi scheme.

You are absolutely correct. There is nothing wrong with the Social Security system in theory, and nothing wrong with it in practice that could not have been avoided by the simple act of the US gov't (as implemented by both parties through the years) not stealing from it for decades.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by Flatfish
the biggest problem plaguing our S.S. program in your statement regarding the fact that it has been run like a Ponzi scheme.

You are absolutely correct. There is nothing wrong with the Social Security system in theory, and nothing wrong with it in practice that could not have been avoided by the simple act of the US gov't (as implemented by both parties through the years) not stealing from it for decades.

There is everything wrong with socialist security in theory.

The use of violence against the innocent is immoral.

Anything that is good for someone does not have to be forced upon them with weapons.

reply to post by mnemeth1


There is a wide difference between the theory behind why the Social Security system exists and how it (is supposed to) works and the fact that governments tend to use force to get their way.

On the government's use of force inappropriately, we are in agreement.

I also want to add a note about how people spend money privately.

Obviously, it is not necessary that a person only invest in gold bullion should they be allowed to keep their own money.

In a free economy, if a person where to buy a very expensive house at an early age, they could then sell that house when they retire and move into a cheap retirement community, pocketing the difference. Indeed, this was the plan of many people who bought homes during the artificial housing boom created by the Federal Reserve and Fannie Mae.

Any number of long term asset purchases, such as jewelry, fine art, collectibles, baseball cards, or anything else that retains value over time, can serve as an adequate retirement investment vehicle.

When people are allowed to keep their own money, they make many more purchases of hard assets that retain value which can then be used to fund their retirement later in life.

In a free economy, wealth and jobs would be so plentiful that even those who absolutely refused to save for their own retirement could easily be cared for by their own family or charity organizations.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

There is a wide difference between the theory behind why the Social Security system exists and how it (is supposed to) works and the fact that governments tend to use force to get their way.

On the government's use of force inappropriately, we are in agreement.

While there is a wide difference between how it is supposed to work and how it actually works, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

It doesn't matter, because the private sector can manage retirement accounts without any violence at all.

If people are not violently forced to put money into a Ponzi scheme, then why should government be involved in retirement planning at all?

If the violence is removed, then the private sector can manage it all own its own.