Should individual tax payers have the ability to opt out of social security?

Posted by: Haroush

Vote
16 Total Votes
1

Opt out

9 votes
3 comments
2

Must pay social security tax for themselves

7 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Haroush says2015-07-31T21:48:52.9558363Z
Tell me why is that I need the government to save money for myself when they are spending my damn money!
Haroush says2015-07-31T21:50:25.0359135Z
I should be able to invest into my retirement or investments on my own terms.
TBR says2015-07-31T22:13:08.3910529Z
@Haroush - Because you are part of a society. If you prefer living outside the society, so be it. I, however, am happy to be an American.
Haroush says2015-07-31T22:14:09.2938433Z
No. I don't have to pay for you..
Haroush says2015-07-31T22:15:36.3892016Z
If you want to create a country in your own mind where people have to help other people go ahead but if I am willing to not get support once I become old and gray from the government that is my choice, not yours.
TBR says2015-07-31T22:16:11.5050267Z
Every time I hear you talk, you sound like you don't like America or americans much. You might be happier elsewhere.
Haroush says2015-07-31T22:17:27.1031113Z
The social security tax was to pay for yourself, not other people. Paying for other people under the social security tax is unconstitutional.
TBR says2015-07-31T22:18:09.6757842Z
Please show me how it is unconstitutional.
TBR says2015-07-31T22:26:45.7114921Z
Tell you what Haroush. I will help you out a bit. You can start with article 1 of the US constitution, and then read the SCOTUS dicision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis then answer my question.
Haroush says2015-07-31T22:34:37.3489124Z
"The reason the federal government “must not be encouraged to interfere” was because it lacked the constitutional authority to interfere. Not only had the States not surrendered these powers, but they did not vest the federal government with any general authority over them."
Haroush says2015-07-31T22:36:14.3819359Z
"after becoming President, Roosevelt quickly changed his tune and pushed for an unparalleled expansion of federal power. Following his election in 1932 and the implementation of his New Deal policies, much of Roosevelt’s legislation was challenged as unconstitutional and struck down by the Supreme Court. A majority on the Court, who had been appointed by Republicans, began declaring cornerstones of the New Deal unconstitutional in 5-4 decisions. The New Dealers were frantic. In 1934, Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins expressed concern to Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone that the social security system they were devising would be declared unconstitutional. Stone replied — “[t]he taxing power of the Federal Government, my dear, the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need.”
Haroush says2015-07-31T22:36:34.4606662Z
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/13/is-social-security-constitutional/
Haroush says2015-07-31T22:36:56.0824048Z
It's called taxation without representataion
TBR says2015-07-31T22:37:14.5827233Z
Glad you are reading it. Now, what was the decision?
TBR says2015-07-31T22:41:29.5195575Z
Common Haroush - its the next sentence AFTER the ones you copy/pasted. It IS constitutional. Again, you just don't seem to like how America works.
TBR says2015-07-31T22:42:11.8156465Z
Sure as he11 has NOTING to do with taxation without representation. That is junevial.
Haroush says2015-07-31T22:48:03.1987083Z
Yeah, and the SCOTUS doesn't have the power to tell the states what they can and can't do when it comes to social programs. It's called state's rights for a reason and our founding fathers warned us of a government overly oppressive like this. That is why the constitution was set up for state's rights, not government's rights. The government is meant to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies, not to baby sit how we spend our money. I can baby sit myself.
Haroush says2015-07-31T22:53:06.0172572Z
Being patriotic is being independent, not dependent.
TBR says2015-08-01T14:17:40.1987737Z
@Haroush - You are going to have to face some reality at some point. 1) You don't know sh1t about the constitution, and how it works. 2) The country is for ALL Americans, not just the ones you like. 3) The country you desire may not be the country you live in.
Haroush says2015-08-01T20:15:07.6218563Z
At this point you are just being emotional. Secondly, Americans are about independence in ALL aspects of life. Our founding fathers wanted to create inventors, teachers, and geniuses, not followers who listen to what the government tells them. The purpose of the constitution was to limit the government, not the people. In all honesty, who gets more freedom out of the social security act; the government or the people? You and I both know it is the government while the individual who works their *ss off get penalized for being a hard worker. How is that fair? Isn't it ironic disabled people rather not rely off of the government than be independent on their own? Who out there rather the government spend and use their money the way they want versus the people being able to do what they want with their money? Nobody, except for those who don't know their American History. As far as you are concerned, I'm pretty sure you'd like to live in a country called France. Socialism is not the way and is anti-American in all aspects. Perhaps Germany? Anyways, the idea of socialism comes in direct conflict with United States constitution. Remember when the constitution was originally written, "general welfare" was not meant as " to look out for the basic needs of all people" general welfare meant something more along the lines of this; "The general welfare clause, being but a part of a general provision of the Constitution, applies solely to the States “in their united or collective capacity.” If the Constitution had established a social compact or union between the American people, and they were the object of the general powers delegated to the federal government, then it would have been an absurdity to reference the States, in their united capacity, as the object of the general welfare phrase. In addition, if the Constitution had been established for the well being of the American people, then that same people would have been the “whole group” referenced in the general welfare phrase." To add on to this; "Even Supreme Court Justice Story, whose 1833 commentaries on the Constitution helped form the basis for the 1937 decision upholding Social Security referenced above, recognized that the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to establish these programs. In his analysis of the general welfare provision, Justice Story stated that the federal government had not been granted the authority to meddle with the “systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws, of the states.”
TBR says2015-08-02T00:48:19.0081115Z
@Haroush - Let me ask just one question. Do you think the 2nd amendment means you have a right to a gun?
Haroush says2015-08-02T09:48:43.5783782Z
No, no, no.. What do you think the second amendment stands for? Go right ahead and tell us..
TBR says2015-08-02T22:40:01.4594690Z
I think the second amendment has been tested by the SCOTUS several times, and at this point, the CONSTITUANILITY of owning a gun entirely for the purpose of self-defense has been established. Now, the fact that none of theses rulings say 'control' is unconstitutional is another matter, but I accept that the constitution and out system has set this matter to rest. Me not liking it has nothing to do with the facts, and the facts say 'the constitution insures individuals have a right to (many types) of guns for personal self defense. Now, the point of the question, the point you simply cant do is, are you willing to accept the constitution as it works, or are you simply un-American - bitch1ng about how our great country works?
58539672 says2015-08-04T05:27:47.5631766Z
The Constitution is a framework to build upon, not a document that holds the answer to every problem will ever have to deal with (its only a 3 page document after all). They even put in the 9th and 10th amendments, which say you have more rights than are what is listed in the constitution and that anything not in the constitution is left up to the states respectively, are two of the vaguest statements one can put into a legal document. So saying that something shouldnt exist because it isnt in the constitution is a bit narrow-minded.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T10:56:34.8229164Z
@TBR Noticed yet that it doesnt seem to matter how many times it gets tested in court ... When culture changes, somehow things begin to flip flop from unconstitutional to constitutional and vice versa. Thats the real problem we have to contend with. That someone could say the constitution spells it out specifically ... And yet just a few short years later decide that the past generations were reading it wrong. It helps a president interpret what their doing as constitutional when theyre hand picking the ones getting to read the damn thing.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T11:01:09.1194747Z
No stability, thats the real problem here. They should all be interpreting the same thing, from the same document. A split decision in the Supreme court shows somethings wrong. There should be alot more unanimous-ness as far as high court rulings and amendments go.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.