When the money they invested was spent on other things.
2007-09-27 15:04:09 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Social Security is nothing but a state-sanctioned Ponzi Scam which has since become a most effective tool for manipulating voters. If the same thing were to be done in the private sector the officers would be convicted and sentenced to long prison sentences--AND RIGHTFULLY SO. The US Gov't is an ONGOING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE fraudulently operating under the color of law.
But, yeah, EVERYBODY who was taxed deserves to get a return on their (FORCED) "investment."
2007-09-28 04:36:26 · answer #1 · answered by S D Modiano 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the answer is to be "no", then who will determine the criteria by which the trait "financially secure" will be established and applied? Congress? They already did and still do from time to time.
You also add the qualifying phrase: "when the money they invested was spent on other things". I'm going to assume you intended the phrase "money they invested" to mean money left over after they had already paid their social security taxes, since money paid to Social Security is not invested (not in the traditional sense), and placed into other investment instruments or ventures. Whether or not an individual makes, or does not make, a profitable investment or liquidates an investment for reasons of personal spending, is not at all relevant as to the monies that they have paid into the social security system and their eligibility under the current requirements of the law.
The question seems to be asking if those people, judged somehow to be well-enough in terms of their own wealth, should be denied rights to a program in which they were forced by law to participate. As much as I dislike the concept of a coercive social security system, I would have to give a "yes" answer to the question.
Given the current financial state of the system, birth rates and workers :vs: those getting benefits, it's doubtful that I will ever see a penny of my, thus far "alleged", benefits. In people of my age group and younger, there are more who believe in aliens from outer space than who believe that they will ever see any money from the social security system. If true, then your question may be rendered moot after some amount of time.
2007-09-27 22:43:48 · answer #2 · answered by Don C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So why should how the money was spent have anything to do with it. Besides, the money was loaned, not spent.
Social Security is a government run retirement pension program. What you receive depends on what you put into it, just like a private insurance plan. Of course everyone who pays in should receive it.
2007-09-27 22:41:03 · answer #3 · answered by bob h 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If someone pays money into the system according to the rules, then they have the right to draw money out of the system, according to the rules. Now, if we could only keep them from changing the rules. . . .
Why would you even ask such a question? Is the educational system in this country that bad?
2007-09-27 22:39:34 · answer #4 · answered by John H 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If they paid into it they should get it. Otherwise its just another tax. If that is the case, then it should be called what it is, WELFARE.
Social security has very broad spectrum support because it is a savings/retirement program. If whether you get it or not is determined by your net worth, I think that the support for it would disappear.
2007-09-27 22:15:24 · answer #5 · answered by maryjellerson 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If this financially secure individual WORKED, he had SOCIAL SECURITY TAX withheld from his wages just like the rest of us did...... THEREFORE, why wouldn't he be entitled to the money???? He worked for it, he EARNED it and it was withheld from him.... so when he is old enough to collect, it's HIS MONEY isn't it????? and, since he is financially secure, he PROBABLY paid IN a heck of a lot more then any of US did....so why are YOU complaining????? The government taketh and the government giveth away.
2007-09-27 22:20:08 · answer #6 · answered by LittleBarb 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, It has nothing to do with need. SS is taken out of your paycheck your whole life and held in trust by the government. Why would someone not be entitled to get some of it back?
2007-09-27 22:54:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
if you paid in, you are entitled to benefits as long as you meet the minimum earnings requirements. Would you want to open a bank account and someone decides the balance of YOUR money should go to someone else because they decide you do not need it? I don't think so.
2007-09-27 22:12:10 · answer #8 · answered by Mike 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course. They paid into the system and they have a right to expect benefits.
2007-09-27 22:11:39 · answer #9 · answered by Michael M 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, yes. Until the system is made voluntary... or changed in some other manner.
2007-09-27 22:08:57 · answer #10 · answered by David 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋