Court: Feds can take Social Security

[MeekAndMild]

Make that +3 for DonR101495.

BTW a little known fact about SSI is that only a small fraction of the cases are approved initially on the merits of evidence presented by the applicant. People who are disapproved then hire a lawyer to argue for them who sorts through multiple medical reports to find the ones most favorable to their case. The lawyer then submits an appeal on the basis of the evidence they present without any consideration for contrary evidence. When the case is won the attorney collects a substantial portion of the back pay settlement.

I find it extremely interesting that the SSI administrative law courts are set up so that the 'other side' i.e. We The People have no right to have an attorney present to vigorously defend our rights to not pay this money out. So the cases can be adjudicated without presentation of adversarial argument nor requirement to look at contrary evidence.

I'd love to hear any attorneys here who think this presents a basis for filing a 'Lincoln Law' suit.

 

[RickD]

A co-worker was paid several thousand dollars in SSI for a disabled child with a terminal disease which he adopted from third-world country. SSI then told him they made a mistake and demanded repayment of several thousand dollars because he didn't tell them about his small IRA investment. Unable to hire a lawyer, he showed them (her) the law and code which stated that such funds were exempt. The SSI clerk then denied the claim on another basis. When he found out what the basis was, he discovered that the figures were totally made up by her. She admitted it to him when he had her cornered in her office.

This has been going on for two years.

Rick

 

[Rob P.]

Funny how some so-called "civil libertarians" defend SSI.

Ordinarily I'm not one to knock someone's beliefs, but PLEASE KNOCK THIS OFF. I am not a "so called" anything so please stop insulting those who disagree with your self-centered outlook. Your bigotry is really choking you and the puke & slime is starting to get everywhere. It's disgusting and you should know better.

Please do explain how being forced, by threat of violence by the state, to participate in a retirement scheme that you cannot opt-out of, is "good" for me?

It's good for you because in the unfortunate event that your investements in Enron go sour you have a backup plan.

Did you know that less than 30% of Americans have ANY retirement savings? What are these people going to do when they hit that mandatory retirement age without social security? Die? Sponge off their relatives? Panhandle? Live with you?

Explain how the federal government can dictate to me, or rather coerce me, on how to plan for my retirement?

It's called a "mandatory insurance" plan. The program is, after all, Social Security INSURANCE. If the State can require you to carry car insurance, why can't the fedgov require you to carry retirement insurance. The fact that there's only one insurer is irrelevant. It's the job of the govt to make sure that all the citizens are taken care of to a minimum std. Soc Sec is the program that does that.

 

[mvpel]

Did you know that less than 30% of Americans have ANY retirement savings?
Maybe if our income wasn't slashed by 15% to fund a pile of government IOUs backing the Social Security Ponzi scheme, and then slashed some more by layer after layer of bloated, overweening government, more people could afford to save for retirement.

Have you ever contemplated the notion of how much of that loaf of bread you buy in the grocery store is simply taxes of one kind or another? Taxes on wages, taxes on fuel, taxes on electricity, taxes on profits, taxes on revenue, taxes on fees, taxes on taxes, etc... Not to mention the unseen tax of inflation.

It's very simple for the government to meet their Social Security obligations: We defined a benefit of $1,000 a month, you say? Well then, simply print up a batch of $1,000 bills that will buy you a month's supply of cat food each.

 

[Rebar]

Your bigotry is really choking you and the puke & slime is starting to get everywhere. It's disgusting and you should know better.

I think it says a lot more about you to describe someone with a well thought out and valid opinion on a subject in such rediculous terms.

It's good for you because in the unfortunate event that your investements in Enron go sour you have a backup plan.

Who are you, or anyone, to force me to have any plans for anything? If I don't plan out my retirement, why should other people be punished for that? So they can punish others if they get old enough? That's absurd.

You'll rail against mean old Bush listening in on terrorist phone calls, yet think it's a swell idea for the federal government to force all of us into a retirement scheme against our wills, under threat of violence. I don't want to be in social security. I will accept the full consequences of that. So exactly why can't I opt out? Are we children who need to be told what to do, for our own good of course?

 

[GooseMn]

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme

Ida May Fuller was a 60 yrs old secretary when SS was 'created'. She paid 1% payroll tax for 3 yrs, then retired just as SS began paying benefits. In Jan 1940, check #00-000-001, SS's 1st monthly check was issued to Ida May for $22.54. Ida May lived to age 100 and collected $22,889 in SS payments. She and her employer paid in just $49.50.

My dad retired in 1967. He lived to be 92. He told me (1978-?), "I don't know how this SS is going to work for you, I've collected well over 8 times what I paid in. (He didn't mention his employer's 'contribution'.)

I retired some years ago. I paid $22,420 into SS, and my employer also paid $22,420 into this scheme for a total of $44,840. Through Dec. 2005, I've collected $170,520. Of course the gov'mint "has their ways" to recoup their losses. My wife worked most of her life...paid in maybe $4000-? (8 kids). Her employer paid $4000-?....for a total of $8000 paid in for her 'retirement'. She died. I received a "Death Benefit" check for $255 from SS.
Need I say more about this scheme?

 

[MeekAndMild]

I don't want to be in social security. I will accept the full consequences of that. So exactly why can't I opt out?

If I recall correctly you can either work for the government in a job which has been exempted from SS or be a memberof a religious group which objects to SS.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-16es.html
http://arbyte.us/blog_archive/2005/07/Opt_Out_Reality.html

I was surprised to learn members of Congress still have to pay SS unless they were in office before 1983 and chose to remain outside the SS system. http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

 

[johnbt]

"I find it extremely interesting that the SSI administrative law courts are set up so that the 'other side' i.e. We The People have no right to have an attorney present to vigorously defend our rights to not pay this money out. So the cases can be adjudicated without presentation of adversarial argument nor requirement to look at contrary evidence."

Not quite. The administrative law judge is a lawyer hired by Social Security to look out for, as you put it, "our rights." There are published medical standards and the claimants have to meet them by providing evidence. It isn't enough to get a doctor to write a report saying you are disabled and can't work. It just doesn't work that way. The lab results, x-rays, etc. have to meet the listings. From what I've seen, the system borders on being too strict in many cases.

Anyway, I've never seen so much misinformation and complete misinterpretation in one thread, starting with the claim that only a small percentage of claims are initially allowed benefits. Just isn't so, unless small is defined as 30 to 50%.

John...speaking from 30+ years of actual experience working with people on SSDI and SSI, or trying to get it, being thrown off it, getting billed for overpayments, waiting, waiting and waiting some more.

 

[USAPatriot]

I was disabled by cancer in 1999. After working for 30 years my total monthly income is now less than $900.00/month.

Until now, only the IRS could get ahold of someone's disability, so I find this disturbing.

I don't know a thing about the man's case. If he walked away from a loan, there's some culpability, yes. Then again, if he became disabled and then was unable to pay back, that's something to be considered. What I don't know is what happened between the time he took out the loans and the time he became disabled. I have less sympathy if he had over a decade of good health and just didn't bother.

Bush is right...student loan defaults have gotten out of hand. THAT is wealth redistribution, when we just allow kids to walk away from their debts.

SSDI is not wealth redistribution by any stretch of the imagination. What I get from SSDI is based solely on how long I worked and how much I paid in. If I had company (or military) retirement bennies as well, that would be reduced by the amount of the SSDI. SSI works the same way.

To those that think this is all just wrong, all I can say is I HOPE you never become disabled yourself. Me, I'm about as hard-core as they come politically. I was one of those that just knew I'd never, ever see a penny of the money that was taken from my checks all those years. Cancer proved me wrong. For some people it's drunk drivers. Bad luck. Or other diseases. When it happens, that's it. You suck at the public tit with what little money you earned and hope for the best. I was lucky. I started working when I was 14...so 29 years. Imagine some kid that gets paralyzed at 25? He gets squat. It's a little SSDI, some state aid, food stamps, handouts from churches. And he very likely hopes he'll die very young.

Retirement sucks. Especially when you're only 43 at the time. I'm now 49. On my best day I can go shooting for maybe 2 hours. In the past 12 months that's happened 2 times. If ya think SSDI is some sort of a gift, think again. It's a curse, but nonetheless I earned it, all the way around. -Rod-

 

[mtn. man]

Well i've paid into the system for quite awhile now but have some other plans and investments too.
Any retirement plan in whitch you get back exactly what you put in is pretty sorry.
My investments have at least made some progress and some have done very well.
Sadly the majority who have paid into the program through an active working life.
Will never receive the amount paid in let alone the amount it might have grown in invested wise'ly.
However there seems to be a growing no. of receipients who have contributed very little or nothing.
So if the SS program were to be shut down i dont want exactly what i paid into it.
I want that amount plus what it would have grown if the gov. had'nt taken it from me to begin with.

 

[RickD]

Recall the town in Texas that exempted itself from SS back in the early 1980s before the loophole was closed. I wish Phoenix had done the same.

This socialist Poinzi scheme causes my family (including employer's portion) to pay in $11,000 per year to the SS "trust fund" which doesn't really exist.

Imagine the private insurance I could buy with that? Short and Longterm disability. $1,000,000 worth of life insurance, as well as fully funding my retirement at mutual fund or muni-bond rates of return.

Instead, I have my money taken from me at the point of a gun for my own good and I get a rate of return in the vicinity of 1%.

Tell me, if you had some extra money to invest, would you put it in something that returns as little as SS?

It's called a "mandatory insurance" plan. The program is, after all, Social Security INSURANCE. If the State can require you to carry car insurance, why can't the fedgov require you to carry retirement insurance. The fact that there's only one insurer is irrelevant.

These are supposed to be arguments that would cause us to be swayed, on a gun board? I don't think so.

1) It is not insurance. It is a Ponzi scheme designed when the Intelligencia in America were fawning over the efficiencies of the political systems in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. As such, it also has a little socialist wealth redistribution thrown in for good measure.

2) I don't think the state *should* require car insurance.

3) The fact that there is only one insurer is pricely the point. No competion and no reason for fed.gov to do better. Ask Senator Kennedy how his SS account is doing...oops, he doesn't have one.

If a person who was a burger flipper for his entire life was able to invest the 12.4% in an average performing mutual fund, he would have hundreds of thousands of dollars in his account at the end of his life at Burger World. Something that SS can't come close to.

Figure it out for yourself.

http://www.ici.org/cgi-bin/calcs/SAV14.cgi/investment_company_institute

It's the job of the govt to make sure that all the citizens are taken care of to a minimum std. Soc Sec is the program that does that.

Utter nonsense.

US Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Arizona Constitution:

"2. Political power; purpose of government
Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights."

 

[deanf]

What are these people going to do when they hit that mandatory retirement age

What "mandatory retirement age"?

(I detect faint hints of Suprynowicz in this thread, and I like it.)

 

[USAPatriot]

If a person who was a burger flipper for his entire life was able to invest the 12.4% in an average performing mutual fund, he would have hundreds of thousands of dollars in his account at the end of his life at Burger World. Something that SS can't come close to.

How many kids actually invest money? Virtually none. They piss it all away. Someone bright enough to invest 12.4% very likely is not going to be flipping burgers. Given the truth in that statement, we have a choice: We can force them to invest via SS, or we can pick up the tab anyway when they can no longer work due to age or disability and haven't bothered to save a penny. At the very least SS protects those too dumb to protect themselves. And ideally, it really shines through when it comes to disability. I should know. -Rod-

 

[Dex Sinister]

It's called a "mandatory insurance" plan. The program is, after all, Social Security INSURANCE. If the State can require you to carry car insurance, why can't the fedgov require you to carry retirement insurance. The fact that there's only one insurer is irrelevant.

Okay, so let's give you one concrete example:

My father, who's now in his 70's, worked for SSDI for about 30 years from 1965-'95ish - meaning that when he started working there it was illegal for him to participate in SS "insurance." Therefore, naturally, SS federal employees had to participate in a different retirement plan, which he wisely failed to opt out of in '83 when federal employees were brought into the SSI fold.

Strangely, he participated in one of those "mythical and unthinkable" programs that Senators and Congressman always tell us couldn't possibly work if we were to scrap Social Security and go private. You know, the one's the federal employees used to participate in.

Anyway, my father retired at 62.

His retirement income is 2/3 of the average of his annual salary (averaged over his last 3 years) for the rest of his life. He was making ~$69,000 a year when he retired. [IIRC, it would have been 3/4 if he had retired at 70.]

Now, he didn't pay any more or less of his salary than anyone else in America into his retirement - but his retirement benefits are in the neighborhood of $3,800/month.

According to the SSI calculator, he passed up the sterling opportunity to retire at age 70.5 at a little more than 1/2 his current retirement income: "Your estimated monthly benefit amount, beginning at age 70 and 7 months in January 2006, is $1,864.00."

Hmmmmm:
$3,800/mo at 62 or $1,864/mo at 70.5: Damn, what a hard choice!

Now, I do realize that I'm a fairly unique American in actually having a work-a-day relative who wasn't caught in the clutches of that stupid program, but who'd like to step up and claim that SSI is a good deal?

It's not really a question of whether the fedgov can require you to provide for your old age - it's a question of whether they can require you to do it in an idiotic way that results in you being poor instead of comfortable in your old age.

BTW, this calculation of course neglects the economic advantages to society at large of using all that retirement income as investement capital in the intervening years, rather than just running it through the SSI re-distribution mill.

Dex

 

[Glock 31]

Pay your debts, then you won't have to worry.

 

[Rob P.]

Utter NONSENSE???

lets discuss this shall we?

US Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Arizona Constitution:

"2. Political power; purpose of government
Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights." (emphasis added)

Hokay, so it's "utter nonsense that the govt' is supposed to ensure that the citizenry is protected and "taken care of at a minimum std"? Your own words refute your supposition.

Check out the bold wording in the quote from your post. Pay attention to the part that says "promote the general welfare".

It is the CONSTITUTIONAL decree that the govt ensures that the populace is protected and taken care of. That is the "general welfare" the Constitution is talking about. It means that govt has to try to make everyone healty, happy, and live harmoniously together.

The Arizona Constitution is the same (in addition to the requirement that it follow the same rules as Fedgov [see: 14th amendment].) "Protect and maintain individual rights" tells me that Ariz is required to do what it can to promote the general welfare and those inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I'm not sure what direct impact the Ariz Constitution has on the ability of Fedgov to mandate SSI but the job of Ariz govt is to ensure that it's people live to the best std possible.

Or would you have our govt be more like Zimbabwe and have thousands of starving children and elderly while those in charge live like kings?

 

[FirstFreedom]

Did you know that less than 30% of Americans have ANY retirement savings? Maybe if our income wasn't slashed by 15% to fund a pile of government IOUs backing the Social Security Ponzi scheme, and then slashed some more by layer after layer of bloated, overweening government, more people could afford to save for retirement.

Exactamundo.

 

[RickD]

I detect faint hints of Suprynowicz in this thread, and I like it.

With a dash of Walter Williams.

Here is one of Walter's strongest arguments (and mine too). Under SS, when you die, the money is gone. Under private investment, that money goes to whomever, whatever you want.

We can force them to invest via SS, or we can pick up the tab anyway when they can no longer work due to age or disability and haven't bothered to save a penny.

Gee, no third option? What a boring life you must lead. USA Patriot see a problem with people keeping their own money and spending it on things they want. It is the ultimate in arrogance to support an intrusive system that not only steals a month's salary from every worker, but then spends any amount more than that needed to support current payees on other government programs. SS = theft *and* fraud. Can't get much better than that.

He says, "How many kids actually invest money?"

Teens? When did I say "teens?"

And, heck if you want to be government-thug-light, you could support congress mandating 12% investment... as long as it is private investment and not part of SS Ponzi schemes or union/state defined benefit program, which is another form of rip off. Would you rather that money go in mutual funds or a black hole that is SS?

At the very least SS protects those too dumb to protect themselves.

Problem is, you force us smart people to contribute to this Ponzi scheme, thus robbing the economy of wise investment, which SS, utterly, is not.

And ideally, it really shines through when it comes to disability.

As I frickin' said before -- with all of the money that is stolen through SS, A person could purchase private short term and long term disability insurance, a hefty term life insurance plan, and still have oodles of money left over for retirement investment. USA-P, if you're not going to read and understand my posts, I'll have to disengage from you because you are wasting my time (what you do with *your* time is your own business. I won't send over any fed.gov goons to plan your day for you.)


Rob P. That was one of the top-ten dumbmest posts every directed at me.

Pay attention to the part that says "promote the general welfare".

It is the CONSTITUTIONAL decree that the govt ensures that the populace is protected and taken care of.

I'm guessing you'll have difficulty finding a quote from a Founding Father that supports income redistribution as a central tenent of the Constitution. Since the Constitution was written in 1787 and "Welfare" wasn't created until LBJ (or 1935 under FDR), why would you equate "promote the general welfare" with a program created 180 years later that just happens to be referred to as a "Welfare program?"

"Protect and maintain individual rights" tells me that Ariz is required to do what it can to promote the general welfare and those inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It sounds like you're giving me the liberal line that people have a "right" to a retirement and so *I* have to pay for it. Or, people have a "right" to medical care so my medical care has to be less than what I can actually afford.

These are not rights because they are created by or taken away by legislative acts. If you don't understand the difference between capital-R Rights and mere "positive rights" (more 1930s theory from FDR leftists), you and I are going to waste a lot of time.

Or would you have our govt be more like Zimbabwe and have thousands of starving children and elderly while those in charge live like kings?

If you think that Zimabwe's problems stem from not enough socialism, you've got major problems. You wanna talk wealth redistribution?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19067

In an act bordering on naked aggression, Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has overruled his own black majority and begun the process of seizing white-owned farmland in Zimbabwe...

...Their fears seem to be coming true. Mugabe has encouraged masses of Marxist operatives and citizens to simply squat on the farmland in question. In fact, so many squatters have taken up residence on white-owned farms that the rural farming areas of the nation "are on the verge of collapse," said one Zimbabwean official.

Welcome to your Socialist Paradise.

Rick

 

[Rob P.]

So, based on your positon in this, you'd rather see someone invest their hard earned money in the stock market where they can realize something like 12% cap gains instead of the 1-3% SSI does.

Assuming of course that the stock market goes up and all these folks don't lose their shirts in "bad" investments. Or some of them, or just a few of them, or even a minor portion of them.

And for those who do lose out, what then? How about a local TAX of about 15% to pay for a program to help the disadvantaged survive. Or would that hurt your feelings too?

As for being a dumb post, how smart is it to quote STATE law/constitution in a federal issue?

Teens? When did I say "teens?"

So you want to exclude "teens" from your assertions? Or do you want to include them? Make up your mind one way or the other (not that it matters because your position is indefensible). If teens are included then your theory of savings goes out the window. Teens don't have the disposable income necessary to be able to save let alone the mindset. So including teens in the argument that people should invest on their own shows that it won't/can't happen.

Discarding teens in your arguement shows that you'd have private retirement investment only for those with sufficient income to support that investment. Unfortunately, Soc Sec is a program designed to help those not so fortunate. Thus be excluding them you prove the need for Soc Sec.

You believe that it's exhtortion to be required to pay into soc sec. What you fail to understand is that IF you ever need it, it's there to help you for the rest of your life. Unlike that nifty ninjafied range bag.

For example: The son in law of a friend of mine was involved in a head-on collision. Not his fault at all. Left him alive but totally paralyzed unable to feed, care, etc for himself and needs 24 hr care. He's 21 with a wife and 2 kids. Apparently no insurance and no assets except his own.

Under your theory he and his family should be left to fend for themselves because you and others like you apparently are too stingy and self centered to pay insurance premiums to Soc Sec in the event that it could have been you or one of your kids in the same situation.

Of course there's always the private insurance issue. Unless your 21 and a pizza delivery driver making minimum wage and footing your own expenses. Then the idea of having private insurance to be able to pay for a catastrophe like this sort of disappears.

BETCHA real money if it HAD BEEN you or one of your kids that somthing like the above happened to you'd be singing a different tune. And saying it's not so in a hypothetical is assinine - hope/pray it doesn't happen to you but if it does, I'd want to see you deny yourself benefits. PUBLICALLY. Otherwise I'd serve up some healthy portion of Crow if I ever found out about it.

It's not wealth redistribution and it's not a Ponzi scheme and it CERTAINLY isn't some sort of "liberal" socialist program. Those who think so bought into some crapola by those who want to control you mind, body and soul.

 

[Twycross]

Teens don't have the disposable income necessary to be able to save let alone the mindset.

Your statement is a sweeping generalization and I'd like to see some actual data.

Under your theory he and his family should be left to fend for themselves because you and others like you apparently are too stingy and self centered to pay insurance premiums to Soc Sec in the event that it could have been you or one of your kids in the same situation.

So now anybody who doesn't like Soc Sec is "stingy and self-sentered?"