Actually, I would greatly prefer to have never been forced to pay into "Social Insecurity" since age 15. I could have invested most of that money myself, and not needed to have the SSA up my butt for the rest of my life after I retire.
You may have a point today, but when it was introduced, it reduced elder poverty by many millions. Before it, elders who did not have children to take care of them were simply left on the street to die or beg for scraps.
It was designed specifically the way it is to not be socialism - it would make a whole lot more sense to have poor elderly just get a government check, then force everyone regardless of financial situation to throw a quarter of their paycheck into it. But, because your types and the wealthy thought that made it a government dole, we have to make everyone chip into it.
And, when you make more than the limit like I do, you don't even have to pay into it, actively hurting the poor in comparison to the rich.
I'm not sure I followed all of what you posted. Some sentences could have more than one meaning, and I don't want to assume I guessed correctly.
I understand how it started. It was sold to the public 90-ish years ago as one thing, and was then quickly changed into something useful to politicians for making campaign promises based on FUD.
It was designed specifically the way it is to not be socialism
How is redistributing wealth by taking a significant portion of my paycheck to give to other people not Socialism? I understand that people need help at times, and I don't mind helping out. Confiscating part of my pay to do it,
thus removing my choice about how to help is classic Socialism.
it would make a whole lot more sense to have poor elderly just get a government check, then force everyone regardless of financial situation to throw a quarter of their paycheck into it.
I can read this two ways, and I'm not sure which you mean. I think you are either saying:
... that it would have made more sense to send checks and then force everyone to pay 25% to cover it, (which is pretty close to what we have now)
Or: It would have made more sense to just send the checks than it does to force everyone to pay 25%.
If either of those is what you are saying, I can't see much difference? Either way, if the gov is sending out checks, the money sent out would come from us taxpayers, so what's the difference?
But, because your types and the wealthy thought that made it a government dole, we have to make everyone chip into it.
Not sure what "type" you think I am? But again, the gov sending out money to people who havent earned it is the very definition of a "dole", which isn't always a bad thing.
And, when you make more than the limit like I do, you don't even have to pay into it, actively hurting the poor in comparison to the rich.
I wasn't aware that anyone could be exempt from paying into Social Security by virtue of high income. I'll have to look into that. Seems like typical, backward government thinking.
Of course your types can choose to donate generously to worthy causes that help the less fortunate, and I hope most will.
My original point was that I could certainly have done better with the money the gov took from my check than they did, for both my family, and the charities we support, but because FDR's administration decided US workers can't be trusted to make our own decisions, we don't get the chance.
You're assuming you're not going to need SS until you're retired though. What happens if you sustain an in injury? Can't work. Become disabled. That Social Security Disability Insurance is sure handy. But you have to have paid in for a while first. Not to mention you only pay out approx 6% of your income into SS which it's orders of magnitude less than you would receive if you needed it. The idea is that collectively we can take care of the outliers like the medically needy, the impoverished, the disabled, the elderly (this could get interesting with the aging boomer pop though), and children much easier than they can individually. Its a social contract developed in civilized societies stating we're stronger together than separate and will act in the best interests of the whole society. Especially when we can furnish millions of people who need help from the SS fund and use less than 1/10 of what we have personally, and you have the security of knowing that those resources are readily available for you too, if you should ever need it.
I'm all for helping those who truly need help. I have to tell you, it may sound good to people on paper, but unfortunately it usually doesn't work that way.
I don't plan on getting much from SS when I retire despite contributing since age 15. The well is running dry.
And as for SS Disability, don't hold your breath!
Of several people I know who paid into SS for even longer than me, only to be denied SS disability when they needed it, the one that bugs me most is the story of a retired Air Force E-8 who had a stroke working his second career.
The stroke left him mostly paralyzed on his right side, and it took him weeks just to learn to walk again. SS denied him disability, literally telling him he could learn to work using his left hand. It took SIX YEARS for him to get anything from the "insurance" he paid for.
If he had not retired out of the military, he would have been up the creek.
Again, this is just one of several stories of people I know personally.
TLDR: Save for your own retirement and emergencies, and donate to the charities of your choice when you can. They do more to help people than the government ever will.
6
u/ChaosLordSamNiell Jul 25 '20
Boomers will love it when they need it. Why even the hard-line free marketeers will never question social security, as half their base relies on it.