REFERENCE:
Libertarian Party
Thomas Jefferson

Lysander Spooner
F. Bastiat: The Law
USA Constitution
Merriam-Webster 
Encyclopedia, Almanacs
Find Law
Dec of Independence Federalist Papers
Cato Institute
Language Translator
Legal Information


SEARCH:
Search with GoTo
Power Search

RANTINGS:
Corruption
Gun Control
Income Tax
Social Security
The Drug War

Sponsors:
Health
Internet
Make Money
Music
Search
Shopping
Top 10
Travel

Entrepreneurs

INTERNET/ COMPUTERS
FREE INTERNET

MORE LINKS

Sprinks- Small Business
  Marketing
  Lawyer
  Advertising
  Health Insurance
  Home Business
powered by  About- The Human Internet



Return Autonomy to the Individual

Is Social Security Worth Saving?

Click Search to below to visit our Sponsors

Social security can be saved by privatizing it. It is probably the only practical long-term solution. But is it really worth saving at all? Politicians will never be able to resist the temptation to spend SSI revenues for other purposes. It's a gravy train for them. It represents 1/4 of tax receipts. The proportion of public resources allocated to Social Security has grown exponentially since its inception. It started in the "30s as a 2% tax. It was touted as a progressive means to provide supplemental income to aging citizens. Its Constitutionality was questionable then. Now things are considerably worse. SSI has turned in to a 15+% compulsory ponzi scheme rip-off that (among other things) pays drug addicts for their addictions. It discourages many people from pursuing an honest living by penalizing them for working. It forces one group of people to make payments to another group by circumventing the judicial process (which requires due process and just compensation). That's not justice. That's nutty!

No one, especially an agent of the government, can rightfully demand that one party give up his money to another party soley on the basis that the beneficiary is "old" or "sick". Unless one person has wrongfully taken something from the another, a reasonable process is due before a citizen can be separated from his property. The requirement for due process is not met when a 51% majority of legislature says it is. When the government capriciously takes from innocent parties on the basis of their age or health, it's not merely discrimination, it's flagrant injustice. It's manifestly uncivil organized crime; legislative plunder abetted via a corrupt executive and judicial body. It's wrong despite what politicians, bureaucrats, and corrupt judges et al would like you to believe.

Social security now, for the most part, is not much different from all the other compulsory federal welfare programs. It's just much bigger. Politicians can't resist tinkering with benefits. It is a highly effective tool used to buy votes. And the base of voters is continually expanding.

Let's abolish it, privatize it, or make it optional. These are proper and just solutions. I see no good reason for government bureaucrats to jam social security down everyone's throat whether they want it or not. It's a bad deal for most people. Particularly young people.

Those who make 68k or more per year are the one's who both fare the worst and need enrollment in the SSI program the least. For those who are mainly concerned about the welfare of poor sick old people, here's an idea: Eliminate the social security program altogether including the 15% ad hoc levy in favor of it, and institute old age welfare payments to those who really need it. Those who have already collected their contributions with interest would be cut off. Those who can demonstrate extreme hardship can collect old age welfare. I believe this would be a far more equitable, and much less intrusive on those who are able to save for their own retirement. This would allow more freedom to invest privately and bolster capital markets with newly added resources.

One might wonder why I would suggest installing a new unconstitutional act to replace an old one. Well, my answer is that I think that politically, it's a necessity. Simply pulling the plug on SSI and the letting chips (or burdens) fall where they may, may not be a palatable or practical way to end the program. But ultimately it must be phased out entirely. It isn't a legitimate function of government in a free society. Compulsory subscription to such a thing has no place this land of Liberty and Justice.