BooneCountyGirl
skyler the weird
Rick Barton
Joe
Wiley Coyote
Social Security Scuffle
Politics is a curious study and there are many ways of participation. For those of more than a cursory interest there have always been breakfast and lunch and evening get-togethers where friends discuss issues and people of interest. Today there is the internet with blogs, websites and email, which brings me to my tale. There is in Charlotte a group of self-described fiscal/social conservatives who meet weekly for lunch to discuss whatever moves them. There is no agenda that I am aware of and not being an attendee or even being welcome, although I have attended a few times, my direct knowledge is limited. However, occasionally I am included in emails discussions that include some of them. Last week the subject of the end of Social Security was broached.
As anyone should know, Social Security in its current state is not financially viable. Especially with the economy slow, those things which made it appear solvent have gone by the way side. In the near future one of three things must occur: benefits must be reduced, taxes must go up, or the age of eligibility must be raised (which is itself a reduction in benefits). The solutions are simple enough and being one who believes the young already pay too much in Social Security taxes, I made the following proposal to the email group: Raise the age of retirement almost immediately so that those who are 65 can’t collect until they are 67 and those 64 can’t collect until they are 68. Those 63 don’t become eligible until 69 and continue this until the retirement age reaches 75. This, by itself, would fix Social Security; but I went further and recommended making Social Security means tested. No numbers were attached, just the idea.
At that point an eruption occurred which, in retrospect, was somewhat amusing but, even more, sad. I was strongly attacked for being a socialist. I was told to join the Democrats where I belonged. My political philosophy was questioned, as if my fiscal conservatism was not established. It was humorous, except those opposing my idea were all lawyers. Those agreeing were not. There is a lesson here I’m sure.
THE LAWYERS, I shall call them, pointed out that Social Security is a trust fund with specific obligations made to those who pay in. THE LAWYERS also pointed out that they wanted ‘their’ money back. They made clear that means testing the Social Security payout is socialist in nature and they abhor socialism. They went on. I was astounded. Here we are, the United States of Overspending, much of it because of government transfer payments and THE LAWYERS, rich beyond the dreams of most, said they wanted their payment too. One even said he would rather the US collapse than the obligation not be fulfilled. And that is one of the reasons we are in the financial position we are in.
THE LAWYERS, tort lawyers of one sort or another, are typical of their class. I call it the political/lawyer/banker class (and by the way I was accused of class envy). They produce nothing and make their living taking from those who do. They are no different than the politicians to whom they are sure to donate in order to maintain their free ride in the court room. Yet they rationalize they are capitalists and freedom-lovers and hate socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are not capitalists. They are leaches. They prey on capitalists. They don’t love freedom. They use the force of law to extract penalties from their opponents. They live on the transfer of hard-earned profits to their bank accounts.
Small wonder they see Social Security as another way to transfer from the many to the few, to THE LAWYERS. And they rationalize their immorality by saying ‘its legal’. If they actually cared about freedom and capitalism they would seek to reform tort law into a reasonable method to punish those who inflict harm and care for those who are harmed. They do not.
Their true colors come out when someone runs for office who actually stands for the things they profess. THE LAWYERS do nothing. Talk is their stock in trade. Action would require standing to be counted. No, Mammon is their god. Not freedom. Being tort lawyers, THE LAWYERS are practiced at manipulating words to suit themselves and make themselves believe they are what they are not. During the course of the email exchange, one of them asked me my politics. He stated he thought he knew me. I answered thus: I am a capitalist, populist and anarchist. My true beliefs come from Boy Scouts where I obtained the rank of Eagle. For those of you who know I register Libertarian, know that it is a political party, not a philosophy.
I am a capitalist because I know man does best when he works for himself. I am a populist because I know we are all in this together, no one man more important than another. I am an anarchist because I know government is more often a problem than a solution. Being an Eagle Scout I learned to work with and be kind to my fellow man.
The Scout Slogan: Do a Good Turn Daily
The Scout Law: A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brace, Clean and Reverent.
The Scout Motto: Be Prepared
The Scout Oath: On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; TO HELP OTHER PEOPLE AT ALL TIMES; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and MORALLY straight.
Small wonder the questioner never wrote back: these are not traits of THE LAWYERS.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=2450
Recent Posts by Lewis Guignard |
I’m a long way from retirement, but I’ve been working and paying payroll taxes for about 16 years. I would gladly jump at the opportunity to forfeit any claim I have to social security in exchange for just being let out of the system. They can keep all the money I’ve paid in. I just want to be able to invest for myself moving forward.
Likelyhood of that happening? Survey says, “XXX”.
Here’s my solution that probably would have a chance in real life, at least in that it doesn’t totally forfeit monies paid in nor totally jip the current and near retirees from any money….
We need to pick a certain date by which no one born on or after that date will collect from the system. Just shut it down. That then gives us a finite number of people with whom we have to deal…shuts off the leak so to speak.
Then, starting with those about to enter retirement and moving down in age increments, the promised benefits need to be cut. (Stick with me…)
I’d say if you’re 55 or older, you have no change.
Five years younger, promised benefits cut by a percentage.
10 years younger, promised benefits cut by a larger percentage.
Etc. until we reach the “ground zero” date mentioned above where no benefits are promised.
But now we do something a bit more radical.
Rather than everyone continueing to contribute via the payroll tax system at the current rate, which would induce screams from those to whom we’re now promising fewer benefits (and rightfully so), we need to abolish the entire income tax code in favor a retail level sales tax, like the FairTax.
The ponzi scheme of social security falls flat because we have fewer and fewer workers contributing payroll taxes to a larger and larger retirement age population. Obviously, that is unsustainable.
Under the FairTax, social security is paid out of the general fund which is being contributed to by the entire population…not just current workers, and not even just by American citizens who will eventually qualify, but everyone who spends money in this country…including illegals.
As those fully in the system pass on, with the next group behind them having been promised fewer benefits, the cost to the general fund will decrease, and thus the tax rate necessary to sustain it will also decrease. As the “date zero” babies reach retirement age, the group just above them receiving very little benefit, the tax rate requirement will be next to nothing.
And then Social Security is no more…
It creates a sliding scale. Someone like myself, aged 33, will be collecting less in benefits when I retire (I’d just assume abolish my participation all together) but so too will my contributions drop because every year I approach 65, there are fewer and fewer people collecting full payments (because they have passed on) and that obligation will be gone.
I’m no expert, but that sounds fair to me. To fully grasp the concept you’d also have to be familiar with the other benefits of the FairTax. It all goes hand in hand with creating a more efficient tax collection method which would itself save hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Christian, I’m not the biggest fan of the FairTax, but I definitely agree that Social Security (which was and always has been a bad idea) has to be phased out in a controlled manner, rather than limp along until it abruptly implodes. A more constitutional (read: defense-oriented) foreign policy would result in a lot of savings, which could be used to shore up the system in the short-term.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are always efficencies that can be found in any government spending…including military spending…but as a percentage of GDP, military spending today is lower than it was through much of the second half of the 20th century. Current entitlement spending dwarfs military spending, and that divide is going to grow exponentially over the next decade or two if nothing is done.
We’ve talked much on our differences in this department.
I’m actually more curious about your objections to the FairTax. Keep in mind that it is a revenue collection bill, not a spending bill. I’ll join you in most fights to cut government spending, but be sure your objection isn’t rooted in the fact that the FairTax premise is rooted in a revenue neutral tax collection. Most libertarians I’ve talked to voice that as their concern, so I just wanted to “preemptively strike”. (haha) It’s not a “one or the other” idea. We can do both.
There is no doubt that the FairTax itself could be considered a spending cut since it so radically changes the revenue collection system of the United States so as to allow for billions of dollars in savings on just the collection expense alone by streamlining the system, which is currently nothing short of a national embarrasement.
I’d love to hear your objections.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0