Yes, in this particular case. But we're not talking about the government taking a property (or social security benefit) from a single individual or an entity as in this case. We're talking more about the entire friggin' social security program that applies to every US citizen. That would be classified as a "contractual agreement" IMO.
Should Your 401(k) Be Eliminated to Save Social Security Benefits?
- Thread starter ajacobson
- Start date
No because those exact people vote for deficit spending their whole lives.
People wanna have it both ways, they wanna run up the credit card bill their entire working lives and then pretend that they actually saved something through pure accounting fantasy.
The best thing we could do is give people the option to contribute more to their 401k in lieu of social security.
I don't mind disability for people who are no bs disabled, but SS in general needs to be replaced with actual separate real 401k accounts that cannot be so easily robbed.
%%
MAYbe it applies, maybe not.
As you noted , new court;
+NEVER obey an unlawful order or illegal order
Nestor was a crooked commie if i remember right, serves him right
When enough people switch to Roth, there will be a switch to a consumption tax, which will cause people to pay more taxes on money that was supposed to be tax free. The government is always concerned with taxes and no concern with continuous massive spending that has no connection with peoples taxes so it is considered "free money".
everyone votes for deficit spending. The only debate is what the spending should be on.
Re: 401k vs SS. The problem is that you pay SS now to support the old guys today and in the future the young generation will pay SS to support you. that’s the scam.
Re: 401k vs SS. The problem is that you pay SS now to support the old guys today and in the future the young generation will pay SS to support you. that’s the scam.
Social programs cannot be voluntary. if you can opt out it collapses. 2-3% of funding comes from mofos who die before cashing in with no spouse/ex. Same with universal health insurance. Those under 40 won't pay the premiums. Look at European socialism for analogs.
Seniors cannot afford health insurance when they need it (hence Medicare) and the young don't need it when they can afford it.
You need to stop posting so much.
Not sure what you mean here. A social program CAN be voluntary. A great example is the RR benefits system.
When you hook into one of those unions, you no longer pay into the Fed SS, but rather the union's retirement SS, as it were.
Let us take a vanilla example, on the SS side.
If you opt-out of SS when you turn 18, then ideally you would have been socking away that money for medical needs as they arise throughout your life, into a fund that exceeds the COLA of a government-based social plan, which can NEVER keep up with inflation. When you turn 65? Then you are TSOL if you did not, unless you paid into a private health insurance plan, OF YOUR OWN CHOOSING.
When you retire, any benefits you claim would be with the money you saved (and invested), so you pay out-of-pocket.
ETA: "You need to stop posting so much."
Dude...Man? I have now been posting the least frequently ever in the 10 years I have been here.
Flom!
Last edited:
sure, if you opt out to be a member of the society and join the clergy, preferably to vatican, you will be taking care of, with a boyfriend. alternatively you can join english church, you may have a good wife. all on the church’s dime. long live the communism.