Thank you for posting the link. I didn't get a chance to read it all but his conclusions at the end are quite comical considering SS is already in the red.
He also seemed to leave out some rather important facts:
Quote:
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands." The Court went on to say, "It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments."
And:
Quote:
The Court's decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5776
So as we can see, according to the Supreme Court, SS is
not old-age insurance at all, there is no trust fund, and you have no right to the money you have paid in.
SS (and Medicare) simply take money from the young (still working) class at gun point and hand it to the voting (elderly) class so as to:
1: buy the votes of those that vote the most.
2: reduce the spending and saving power of the young so as to make them more dependent upon government.
3: reduce the amount of money transferred to the next generation so as to keep them more dependent on government.
So as you can see, it's much better to have private control of your own money vs. having public control over it.
Dave Ramsey fans know that he advocates putting 15% of your income into retirement accounts. SS is 12.4% being put down a drain when it could be building you wealth and people would be far better off than with SS.
