OREGON: REVOLUTION has begun - SS OPTIONAL - Always has been
pe...@thenavy.com
OREGON: The Revolution has begun -
SS is OPTIONAL Always has Been !
This is NOT the entire article, please go to:
http://TeamInfinity.com/~ralph/or.html
for the entire article.
OREGON - the REVOLUTION has begun - SS is voluntary AHB - ALWAYS has BEEN
=========================================================================
Ok folks this is MEGA IMPORTANT what you are about to read. Before
reading it please realize that there are a couple of erroneous statements
therein.
Most importantly the impression is given that all us citizens MUST
participate in the voluntary entitlement program known as social security
when in fact NO US Citizen or RESIDENT Alien can be forced to participate
in Social Security against their will and in fact CANNOT be denied a job
based on NOT having a SSN or NOT participating in SS. This is NOT my
opinion it is the LAW. Please see below this otherwise excellent
editorial where I will show you the pertinents. Also please realize that
the events in Oregon are simply REVOLUTIONARY and if catalyzed properly
could spread nationwide QUICKLY. I encourage all of us to jump ALL OVER
this ONE. Please let me know if you would like to help out. I can get
you the contacts and templates you need. Please read this ENTIRE message
as it contains the actual resolution, press releases, a letter I recived
from SSA confirming a SSN is NOT required to work in the US for Citizens
and RESIDENT aliens, as well as an actual court case. Also, Stop by Taco
Bell Some time and look at their Team Member Application, where it says
Social Security Number the word OPTIONAL NOW Appears !!!
SPREAD the WORD !!
To join forces contact ra...@TeamInfinity.com and ask how.
Opting Out in Oregon
====================
Editorial Washington Times 5/12/1997
If you think you are more likely to see a UFO that a retirement check from
the Social Security Administration, you are'nt the only one who is worried
about it. Last week the state of Oregon FORMALLY announced it wanted out
of the system and so notified its congressional representatives.
"The Congress of the United States," said state lawmakers in a resolution,
"is urged to enact legislation amending the Social Security Act to allow
the [brought to you by:ra...@TeamInfinity.com ] issuance of waivers to the
states that will permit the design and implementation of alternatives to
Social Security." The vote was not even close for so controversial a
measure. The measure passed the Oregon Senate 20-8 back in March and
31-22 in the Oregon House May 5 1997 !!!
Oregon lawmakers, like many other people, are getting increasingly nervous
as Social Security's drop-dead date, approximately 2012, approaches. That
is the year the Social Security Administration begins paying out more
benefits than it collects in revenues, meaning it has to dip into the
Social Security trust fund. But there is NO TRUST FUND. The feds have
already spent the money. There is nothing in the trust fund but IOUs !!!!
The program's looming bankruptcy is not all that troubles the Oregon
legislature. The "investment return on Social Security contributions made
by many workers today is significantly below that available from other
sources," complains the resolution. So the system denies Oregon workers -
and workers everywhere else - from investing more productively for their
own retirement.
Allowing such investing, the resolution continues, might increase the
savings rate, spur the Oregon economy and generate the kind of jobs that
would encourage Oregon residents not to look outside the state for work.
Already the state has obtained waivers related to its use of Medicaid
funds [brought to you by:ra...@TeamInfinity.com
http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html] and to its plans to move welfare
recipients to work. Why not a waiver to allow the state to pursue
alternatives to Social Security, an Oregon option if you will ?
The waiver is necessary because for the time being it is illegal to opt
out of Social Security. [THIS IS PATENTLY FALSE please see below a letter
from SSA themselves in response to my personal inquiry, ralph].
Alternatives do exist. In 1981 local government employees in three Texas
counties bailed out of the Social Security system through a loop hole that
was closed in 1983. Today, reports the Dallas-based National Center for
Policy Analysis, those employees "are enjoying rapid growth in their
retirement incomes, better benefits than those offered by Social Security
and the satisfaction of knowing that the money deposited in their accounts
belongs to them [what a novel idea, ralph] and will be there when they
retire."
In Chile, a country which once endured a state-controlled retirement
system like the one here, a privatized system has generated 12.8 percent
annual returns for its citizens over the past 15 years. By contrast,
young residents of this country can look foward to negative returns.
Oregon's resolution comes in the wake of an appearance there by Chile's
former minister of labor, Jose Pinera, who discussed his country's
successful transition to a private system. Armed with such findings and
backed by two think tanks, the Cato Institute here in Washington D.C. and
[brought to you by:ra...@TeamInfinity.com
http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html]
the Portland, Oregon-based Cascade Policy Institute, the state is now
pushing to free its residents from the shackles of Social Security and to
give them better alternatives. Anyone who aspires to a comfortable
retirement should hope the Oregon Option gets a chance to succeed.
================== End of Washington Times Editorial 5/12/97 ===========
First off realize that a source of confusion over who must have SSN number
and who must not is mostly due to the LEGAL DEFINITION within the Internal
Revenue Code Title 26 as well as Title 42 and the implementing regulations
of EMPLOYMENT, EMPLOYEE, and EMPLOYER.
EMPLOYMENT is defined as COVERED EMPLOYMENT meaning if you want to
be a covered employee you must have a SSN, which makes sense as
you could not track benefits without it, so saying that an
"employee" must have an SSN is true when you define an "employee"
as one who is covered by SS. It sounds circular because their
definition is for a COVERED employee, NOT all workers. So if you
realize that they use the shorthand of employee when they mean
COVERED employee you will see that only those who wish to
participate must have an SSN. Please see below the proof of this
and also realize that the government could NEVER force you to
participate in ANY entitlement program EVER under our
constitution. This does not mean they would not try to.
LETTER from SSA Proves SSN NOT required to live or work in US
=============================================================
From OPI.NE...@ssa.gov Mon Jan 13 09:30:08 1997
Return-Path: OPI.NE...@ssa.gov
Received: from s3abab9 (s3abab9.ssa.gov [199.173.224.2]) by
teaminfinity.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA09452 for ; Mon, 13 Jan
1997 09:30:04 -0500
From: OPI.NE...@ssa.gov
Received: from Mailhub by s3abab9
id AA13956; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:23:43 -0500
Received: from s00d0ce.ssa.gov by s3abac8 with SMTP
(1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA227865495; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:24:55 -0500
Received: from ccMail by s00d0ce.ssa.gov (SMTPLINK V2.11.01)
id AA852312513; Mon, 13 Jan 97 09:27:36 EST
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 97 09:27:36 EST
Message-Id: <9700038523....@s00d0ce.ssa.gov>
To: Ralph
Subject: Necessity of having an SSN
Status: RO
We regret the delay in replying to your inquiry about the
necessity of having a Social Security number (SSN).
The Social Security Act does not require an individual to
have an SSN to live and work in the United States, nor does
it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one.
However, if an individual works without an SSN, we cannot
properly credit the earnings for the work performed.
On the other hand, other laws require people to have and use
SSNs for specific purposes. For example, the Internal
Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 6109 (a)) and applicable regulations
(26 CFR 301.6109-l(d)) require an individual to get and use
an SSN on tax documents and to furnish the number
to any other person or institution (such as an employer or a
bank) that is required to provide the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) information about payments to the individual.
There are penalties for failure to do so. In addition,
people filing tax returns for taxable years after
December 31, 1994, generally must include the SSN of each
dependent.
Section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act requires the
Social Security Administration to establish and maintain
records of wages and self-employment income for each
individual whose work is covered under the program; an SSN is
used for that purpose. The IRS requires employers to report
SSNs with employees' earnings. if you object to providing
your SSN to your employer for religious or other reasons, you
may wish to contact the IRS office in your area to see if any
exceptions are allowed.
========================= END of LETTER ========================
To recieve email from RALPH on a regular basis write to him
at ra...@TeamInfinity.com
For the entire version of this article please go to:
http://TeamInfinity.com/~ralph/or.html
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Sylvia T. Paldhan
the_duck wrote:
> I suppose the moon landings were all faked and the
> TriLateral Commission is controlling the Clinton androids??
No, the moon landings were authentic.
Dean Hebert
pe...@thenavy.com wrote:
: OREGON: The Revolution has begun -
: SS is OPTIONAL Always has Been !
: LETTER from SSA Proves SSN NOT required to live or work in US
: =============================================================
: We regret the delay in replying to your inquiry about the
: necessity of having a Social Security number (SSN).
: The Social Security Act does not require an individual to
: have an SSN to live and work in the United States, nor does
: it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one.
: However, if an individual works without an SSN, we cannot
: properly credit the earnings for the work performed.
"If an individual works without an SSN, we cannot properly credit the
earnings for the work performed" sounds like those without SSNs will
still have FICA deducted from their paychecks, but won't be credited for
those deductions. If that's what you want, go for it . . .
- dean
lang...@transport.com
Hi all,
Most people don't realize that there is a group of people in the U.S
workforce who are already opting out of the Social Security pyramid
scheme. All Federal Government employees may opt out of the SS plan
that the rest of us are shackled to . They have their very own
retirement plan that, unlike social security, will be there when they
need it. If they can do it, then why not the rest of us?
People are very quick to point out the myth that "we have the lowest
taxes in the world here in the good old USA". Not true. When you
look at the bottom marginal tax rate and then add in the %17 percent
that you pay for a social security program that you will never see,
the bottom tax rate is in excess of 35 %! We never see half of that
17%, since it is "paid" by the employer. Most people don't realize
that they are paying 17% social security tax, since it doesn't show up
as coming out of one's gross wages. Most Americans pay more in social
securty tax than they do in income tax, and they don't even realize
it.
Imagine how secure retirement would be if we could all take that 17%
and invest it as we see fit!
Paco Callman
> People are very quick to point out the myth that "we have the lowest
> taxes in the world here in the good old USA". Not true. When you
> look at the bottom marginal tax rate and then add in the %17 percent
> that you pay for a social security program that you will never see,
> the bottom tax rate is in excess of 35 %! We never see half of that
> 17%, since it is "paid" by the employer. Most people don't realize
> that they are paying 17% social security tax, since it doesn't show up
> as coming out of one's gross wages. Most Americans pay more in social
> securty tax than they do in income tax, and they don't even realize
> it.
employed). Don't stop there though. Most states have a sales tax or
income tax or both and then there is property tax(personal and real) and
intangible taxes and excise taxes on cigs and booze and a host of other
things and gas taxes..................................maybe as much as 55
or 60% for some. No wonder there is an underground economy.
> Imagine how secure retirement would be if we could all take that 17%
> and invest it as we see fit!
In the real world, most of us tend to spend all the money we get our hands
on. Couple that with the fact that few of us are trained investors and I
think you will see the folly of handing our retirement funds over to
ourselves.
--
Paco Callman
http://www.cybermax.net/~paco
______________________________________________________________
Any culture that surrenders its vision and its self-sustaining human values
to the narrow judgement of commerce will be neither free nor just.
-Ralph Nader
______________________________________________________________
H D
"Paco Callman" <pa...@cybermax.com> wrote:
>> Imagine how secure retirement would be if we could all take that 17%
>> and invest it as we see fit!
>In the real world, most of us tend to spend all the money we get our hands
>on. Couple that with the fact that few of us are trained investors and I
>think you will see the folly of handing our retirement funds over to
>ourselves.
I think within the next twenty years, you will see the folly of
handing our retirement funds over to corrupt and self servient system
that cannot be held accountable.
Dennis Alwine
lang...@transport.com wrote in article <5m4cnd$5ck$2...@news.transport.com>..
.
>Hi all,
>
>Most people don't realize that there is a group of people in the U.S
>workforce who are already opting out of the Social Security pyramid
>scheme. All Federal Government employees may opt out of the SS plan
>that the rest of us are shackled to . They have their very own
>retirement plan that, unlike social security, will be there when they
>need it. If they can do it, then why not the rest of us?
>
>taxes in the world here in the good old USA". Not true. When you
>look at the bottom marginal tax rate and then add in the %17 percent
>that you pay for a social security program that you will never see,
>the bottom tax rate is in excess of 35 %! We never see half of that
>17%, since it is "paid" by the employer. Most people don't realize
>that they are paying 17% social security tax, since it doesn't show up
>as coming out of one's gross wages. Most Americans pay more in social
>securty tax than they do in income tax, and they don't even realize
>it.
>
>and invest it as we see fit!
>
>
But wait! There's more! Those abused members of our society, the
self-employed, get to actually write the check for the full 17%! That's
because the government can't figure out any way to 'hide' the tax from
them.
Would that we all had to actually write the check for the full amount every
month. How many of us would?
Mark C. Craig
In a previous article, lang...@transport.com () says:
>Hi all,
>
>Most people don't realize that there is a group of people in the U.S
>workforce who are already opting out of the Social Security pyramid
>scheme. All Federal Government employees may opt out of the SS plan
>that the rest of us are shackled to . They have their very own
>retirement plan that, unlike social security, will be there when they
>need it. If they can do it, then why not the rest of us?
>
>People are very quick to point out the myth that "we have the lowest
>taxes in the world here in the good old USA". Not true. When you
>look at the bottom marginal tax rate and then add in the %17 percent
>that you pay for a social security program that you will never see,
>the bottom tax rate is in excess of 35 %! We never see half of that
>17%, since it is "paid" by the employer. Most people don't realize
>that they are paying 17% social security tax, since it doesn't show up
>as coming out of one's gross wages. Most Americans pay more in social
>securty tax than they do in income tax, and they don't even realize
>it.
>
>Imagine how secure retirement would be if we could all take that 17%
>and invest it as we see fit!
>
More robber-baron disinformation.
It is interesting how the globalist use semantics to promote
their agenda. They demonized the word cult in preparation for an
attack on Christianity, and defined "baby-boomers" as those
people born between 1945 and 1965, prior to another attempt at
embezzling Social Security. "Baby-boomers" are those people
born at the end of WW2,
In any case: Social Security is solvent until the year 2050, with
a 1% increase in contributions in the year 2033 -- Trustee.
Check www.ssa.gov for verification. If these people were really
concerned they would quit using the "trust funds" surplus to
disquise the budget deficit.
Organized crime has taken over our government; if you want to
collect your retirement benefits: demand that they quit doing
this.
ps. I see where they are going to steal more from the "trust"
fund, inorder to balance the budget (code word for tax-cut for
the rich). Also, they didn't cut any of the estimated 200
billion dollars in corporate Welfare.
These crooks no longer promote the general welfare, but the
welfare of multinational companies. Could this be a quid-pro-quo
(bribery)?
Paul Maffia
lang...@transport.com writes:
I love it when ignoramuses like you post your ignorant comments!
>Most people don't realize that there is a group of people in the U.S
>workforce who are already opting out of the Social Security pyramid
>scheme. All Federal Government employees may opt out of the SS plan
>that the rest of us are shackled to . They have their very own
>retirement plan that, unlike social security, will be there when they
>need it. If they can do it, then why not the rest of us?
Nonsense, all Federal government employees hired since about 1986 are
under the SS system. they have no choice just like the rest of us.
--
Paul M.
Paco Callman
D <dun...@nol.net> wrote in article <33872...@news.nol.net>...
> "Paco Callman" <pa...@cybermax.com> wrote:
>
> >> Imagine how secure retirement would be if we could all take that 17%
> >> and invest it as we see fit!
>
hands
> >on. Couple that with the fact that few of us are trained investors and
I
> >think you will see the folly of handing our retirement funds over to
> >ourselves.
>
> I think within the next twenty years, you will see the folly of
> handing our retirement funds over to corrupt and self servient system
> that cannot be held accountable.
powerless at least not yet. There is healthy debate being waged over
investing SS funds in the stock market. Actually this debate puzzles me as
I was under the impression that there were no funds. I thought that
payments came out of current taxes and that there was no actual pension
fund that acrued interest year after year until one was old enough to
collect.
Mark C. Craig
Don't believe the disinformation being spread by the robber-barons.
A. LeJeune
lang...@transport.com wrote:
: Hi all,
: Most people don't realize that there is a group of people in the U.S
: workforce who are already opting out of the Social Security pyramid
: scheme. All Federal Government employees may opt out of the SS plan
: that the rest of us are shackled to . They have their very own
: retirement plan that, unlike social security, will be there when they
: need it. If they can do it, then why not the rest of us?
: People are very quick to point out the myth that "we have the lowest
: taxes in the world here in the good old USA". Not true. When you
: look at the bottom marginal tax rate and then add in the %17 percent
: that you pay for a social security program that you will never see,
: the bottom tax rate is in excess of 35 %! We never see half of that
: 17%, since it is "paid" by the employer. Most people don't realize
: that they are paying 17% social security tax, since it doesn't show up
: as coming out of one's gross wages. Most Americans pay more in social
: securty tax than they do in income tax, and they don't even realize
: it.
: Imagine how secure retirement would be if we could all take that 17%
: and invest it as we see fit!
Why would you opt out of a plan that the employer pays half of your
savings. I'll bet you are a govt. operative.
Ray Hann
>
> lang...@transport.com wrote:
> : Hi all,
>
> : Most people don't realize that there is a group of people in the U.S
> : workforce who are already opting out of the Social Security pyramid
> : scheme. All Federal Government employees may opt out of the SS plan
> : that the rest of us are shackled to . They have their very own
> : retirement plan that, unlike social security, will be there when they
> : need it. If they can do it, then why not the rest of us?
>
> : People are very quick to point out the myth that "we have the lowest
> : taxes in the world here in the good old USA". Not true. When you
> : look at the bottom marginal tax rate and then add in the %17 percent
> : that you pay for a social security program that you will never see,
> : the bottom tax rate is in excess of 35 %! We never see half of that
> : 17%, since it is "paid" by the employer. Most people don't realize
> : that they are paying 17% social security tax, since it doesn't show up
> : as coming out of one's gross wages. Most Americans pay more in social
> : securty tax than they do in income tax, and they don't even realize
> : it.
Not true,
I've worked for the federal governmnt for the past 10 years and that has nto been an
option during my tenure. We do have a retirement plan. But there is nothing really
special about it. Federal workers used to have the option of the government retirement
program instead of SS, but that has not applied to anyone hired within the past 15 years or
so.
Ray
Lee
Seems no one remembers Patrick Monahan(?), sending in a proposal to
Congress requiring that SS funds be seperated from the general fund
where they are now sent. The republican congress roundly defeated
this bill. Neither am I saying that the democrats are uninvolved in
this matter, but it would seem that at the time the republicans were
yelling loudly that the SSI system needed reform.
Now people are still yelling that the system is inefficient and
corrupted in some way? A system that has never been independent of
congressional politics...go figure!
Personally, I would like to see SSI set up as an independent agency,
with funding provided by the SSI payments and authorization for them
to invest the funds. Of course, this would also make SSI the largest
single retirement fund on Wall Street...which will probably make the
conservatives yell even louder.
--Lee
l...@designwest.com
BKL
On 25 May 1997 04:24:32 GMT, ir...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark C.
Craig) wrote:
>In any case: Social Security is solvent until the year 2050, with
>a 1% increase in contributions in the year 2033 -- Trustee.
>Check www.ssa.gov for verification. If these people were really
>concerned they would quit using the "trust funds" surplus to
>disquise the budget deficit.
Meanwhile, part of your "solvency" claim is entirely dependent on the
vlaidity and collectability of those IOUs congres has left in the
trust fund fishbowl. After 2012, when the system begins running
deficits, all those IOUs really say are: "feel free to raise taxes on
current workers to cover our embezzlement." This is what will happen
even in your "solvent" scenario.
Still think SS will survive a vote of citizens (mostly working) when
that comes to pass?
ncorp
Paul Maffia wrote in article ...
U.S
pyramid
>>scheme. All Federal Government employees may opt out of the SS
plan
>>that the rest of us are shackled to . They have their very own
they
>>need it. If they can do it, then why not the rest of us?
>
are
>under the SS system. they have no choice just like the rest of us.
>
>
>
>--
> Paul M.
>
~~NOTICE~~
This Mr. Paul (Maffia) Communist fellow obviously does *NOT* speak
for the rest of us. Move back to fascist Italy Paul!
Myself a natural-born FREE American, I've never opted in to SS in my
entire life, and I'm retired. When someone says "no choice," I smell
a *real* ignoramus... Boy, that stinks to high heaven, Mr. Paul!
DJM -- noncorporate consultants
nc...@usa.net
******************************************
Paul Maffia
"ncorp" <nc...@usa.net> writes:
>******************************************
>~~NOTICE~~
>This Mr. Paul (Maffia) Communist fellow obviously does *NOT* speak
>for the rest of us. Move back to fascist Italy Paul!
>Myself a natural-born FREE American, I've never opted in to SS in my
>entire life, and I'm retired. When someone says "no choice," I smell
>a *real* ignoramus... Boy, that stinks to high heaven, Mr. Paul!
>DJM -- noncorporate consultants
>nc...@usa.net
>******************************************
You a--h---s are hilarious. Now I am a communist. Hell, you don't even
know what the word means.
If you had not noticed boob, I never claimed to speak for anyone but
myself. The fact that I deal in reality and not some whako's fantasy, does
mean that what I do write happens to agree with 99.9999% of normal human
beings in this country. Subnormal idiots like you are another matter.
Oh and I was born here. And the last time I checked I was born naturally
too. And I happened to be born with a functioning brain as opposed to your
non-functioning pea.
--
Paul M.
Mark C. Craig
Another govt. operative spreading disinformation.
ncorp
Paul Maffia wrote in article ...
Greetings oh venerable maffioso don paul communist,
Perhaps your memory grows short, maybe you should lay off the
marijuana for a while... and beer's not good for your mental or
physical health, either.
Now, just for the record, this is exactly what you said *ver batum*
that I hereinbefore so wittingly replied to -- ditto what you so
conveniently cut from your wholly inept subsequent response, in order
to conceal your blatent ineptitude:
- - - -
>:Nonsense, all Federal government employees hired since about 1986
are
>:under the SS system. they have no choice just like the *rest of
us*.
- - - -
Pray tell, percisely then, who or whom else might you be referring to
as being "the rest of us?"
1) Firstly, you *specifically* refer to "all Federal government
employees hired since about 1986" as being *them* (not you or me);
2) secondly, you do *not* qualify yourself as being a fed employee
hired *before* "about 1986";
3) therefore, any sober, English-speaking person can clearly see you
*do* indeed infer that "the rest of us" must include *all* other
American citizens not a fed employee since 1986, especially since you
also imply "us" as meaning nonfed employees.
This is called a syllogism. Such fundamental syllogistic Aristotelian
principles of logic are prerequisite to carrying on a constructive
dialogue. You sir, are obviously a nincompoop, and a communist, since
you include all nonfed employees as being automatically subordinate
to your socialist insecurity system. This conclusion is utterly
irrefutable based on your own written words.
In closing, although I easily could, I shall not bother to dignify
your intoxicated rantings with an intellectual response. Please, hug
your Collegiate Dictionary once and a while, and eat more fruits and
vegetables too, won't you Dr. Einstein?
Bill Watts
"Paco Callman" <pa...@cybermax.com> wrote:
>> People are very quick to point out the myth that "we have the lowest
>> taxes in the world here in the good old USA". Not true. When you
>> look at the bottom marginal tax rate and then add in the %17 percent
>> that you pay for a social security program that you will never see,
>> the bottom tax rate is in excess of 35 %! We never see half of that
>> 17%, since it is "paid" by the employer. Most people don't realize
>> that they are paying 17% social security tax, since it doesn't show up
>> as coming out of one's gross wages. Most Americans pay more in social
>> securty tax than they do in income tax, and they don't even realize
>> it.
>Actually FICA is15.3%(half paid by your employer if you are not self
>employed).
Well before you delude your self in thinking that your in 50-50 with
your employer, look at the bigger picture. On paper you are 50-50, but
in reality it's really 100-0, you being the 100. when an employer is
forced to pay any tax, two things will happen: First, the employer or
his corporation will increase the price of the products in direct
proportion to the amount that it is being taxed -- you pay the tax
through the increased prices, a perfect hidden tax. Second, the you
loose as the employer will be paying you less than you would have
without the tax.
> Don't stop there though. Most states have a sales tax or
> income tax or both and then there is property tax(personal and real) and
> intangible taxes and excise taxes on cigs and booze and a host of other
> things and gas taxes..................................maybe as much as 55
> or 60% for some. No wonder there is an underground economy.
I'd say if it wasn't for an underground economy, this system would
have collapsed long ago.
>> Imagine how secure retirement would be if we could all take that 17%
>> and invest it as we see fit!
> In the real world, most of us tend to spend all the money we get our hands
> on. Couple that with the fact that few of us are trained investors and I
> think you will see the folly of handing our retirement funds over to
> ourselves.
Yes, please hand more of it to the politicians, they've done a great
job so far -- only 4+ trillion, not including contingent liabilities,
in debt.
That's what freedom is; freedom to be foolish as well as wise.
Bill Watts
http://www.nothinbut.net/~wwatts/
The jury has a right to judge both the
law as well as the fact in controversy.
John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S.
Supreme Court, in Georgia v. Brailsford,
1794:4
To consider the judges as the
ultimate arbiters of all constitutional
questions is a very dangerous
doctrine indeed, and one which
would place us under the despotism
of an oligarchy. - Thomas Jefferson
If we can prevent the government from
wasting the labors of the people under
the pretense of caring for them, the
people will be happy. - Thomas Jefferson
The Libertarian Party:
Paco Callman
> >> People are very quick to point out the myth that "we have the lowest
> >> taxes in the world here in the good old USA". Not true. When you
> >> look at the bottom marginal tax rate and then add in the %17 percent
> >> that you pay for a social security program that you will never see,
> >> the bottom tax rate is in excess of 35 %! We never see half of that
> >> 17%, since it is "paid" by the employer. Most people don't realize
> >> that they are paying 17% social security tax, since it doesn't show up
> >> as coming out of one's gross wages. Most Americans pay more in social
> >> securty tax than they do in income tax, and they don't even realize
> >> it.
>
> >Actually FICA is15.3%(half paid by your employer if you are not self
> >employed).
>
> Well before you delude your self in thinking that your in 50-50 with
> your employer, look at the bigger picture. On paper you are 50-50, but
> in reality it's really 100-0, you being the 100. when an employer is
> forced to pay any tax, two things will happen: First, the employer or
> his corporation will increase the price of the products in direct
> proportion to the amount that it is being taxed -- you pay the tax
> through the increased prices, a perfect hidden tax. Second, the you
> loose as the employer will be paying you less than you would have
> without the tax.
You are right of course but I would still rather pay only the 50% op front
in the hope that the stockholders will have to absorb at least a portion of
the other 50% .
> > Don't stop there though. Most states have a sales tax or
> > income tax or both and then there is property tax(personal and real)
and
> > intangible taxes and excise taxes on cigs and booze and a host of other
> > things and gas taxes..................................maybe as much as
55
> > or 60% for some. No wonder there is an underground economy.
>
> I'd say if it wasn't for an underground economy, this system would
> have collapsed long ago.
This is an interesting concept. Could you expand on it? I was actually
trying to allude to the need for a fairer tax system. Having an income tax
coupled with all these other types of tax schemes makes it very hard for us
to 1) survive on the balance and 2) evaluate our politicians when it comes
time to vote. Some countries are having success with a VAT(Value Added
Tax-Asset based taxes) type of tax structure sometimes in conjunction with
a small sales tax. The debate is occurring out there and hopefully the
present sustem will eventually be scrapped---along with the IRS.
> >> Imagine how secure retirement would be if we could all take that 17%
> >> and invest it as we see fit!
>
> > In the real world, most of us tend to spend all the money we get our
hands
> > on. Couple that with the fact that few of us are trained investors and
I
> > think you will see the folly of handing our retirement funds over to
> > ourselves.
>
> Yes, please hand more of it to the politicians, they've done a great
> job so far -- only 4+ trillion, not including contingent liabilities,
> in debt.
>
> That's what freedom is; freedom to be foolish as well as wise.
I do believe a SS system is wise but that we haven't managed it wisely. Of
course it's ludicrous to let the politicians raid the surplus every year
and use it to cover up their overspending of the general fund. We must
blame ourselves for that though as we voted for the bums. It's a no
brainer to pass a law forbidding the use of the SS surplus and to provide
for it's investment in the safest types of markets.
Donald R. McGregor
In article <3388a524...@news.earthlink.net>,
Lee <Death...@dev.null.com> wrote:
>Personally, I would like to see SSI set up as an independent agency,
>with funding provided by the SSI payments and authorization for them
>to invest the funds. Of course, this would also make SSI the largest
>single retirement fund on Wall Street...which will probably make the
>conservatives yell even louder.
If SS is going to be set up as a pension fund that invests current
contributions for future payments, why would we need a _government_
agency to do it? Private mutual funds are perfectly capable of doing
that already. I'd trust them more with my hard-earned dollars than
some fund run by Robert Reich.
Government would bring no unique skills to the table, and quite
a few minuses.
--
Don McGregor | I did it for the children.
mcg...@crl.com |
Lee
I find that as distasteful as "I'm from the government and we're here
to help you."
I just tend to hear all sides of an issue, rather than taking some
religious fervor to it.
ir...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark C. Craig) wrote:
you wrote->Another govt. operative spreading disinformation.
--Lee
l...@designwest.com
Mark C. Craig
THE ROBBER-BARONS OF THE CONCORD COALITION ARE BACK!
It is interesting how the globalist use semantics to promote
their agenda. They demonized the word cult in preparation for an
attack on Christianity, and defined "baby-boomers" as those
people born between 1945 and 1965, prior to another attempt at
embezzling Social Security. "Baby-boomers" are those people
born at the end of WW2,
In any case: Social Security is solvent until the year 2050, with
a 1% increase in contributions in the year 2033 -- Trustee.
Check www.ssa.gov for verification. If these people were really
concerned they would quit using the "trust funds" surplus to
disquise the budget deficit.
Organized crime has taken over our government; if you want to
collect your retirement benefits: demand that they quit doing
this.
ps. I see where they are going to steal more from the "trust"
fund, inorder to balance the budget (code word for tax-cut for
the rich). Also, they didn't cut any of the estimated 200
billion dollars in corporate Welfare.
These crooks no longer promote the general welfare, but the
welfare of multinational companies. Could this be a quid-pro-quo
(bribery)?
Until Americans become proactive and impeach the politicians guilty
of malfeasance in office, they will continue to plunder America.
Lee
And I wouldn't like to see Robert Milliken running it either.
mcg...@crl.crl.com (Donald R. McGregor) wrote:
you wrote->In article <3388a524...@news.earthlink.net>,
you wrote->Lee <Death...@dev.null.com> wrote:
you wrote->>Personally, I would like to see SSI set up as an
independent agency,
you wrote->>with funding provided by the SSI payments and
authorization for them
you wrote->>to invest the funds. Of course, this would also make SSI
the largest
you wrote->>single retirement fund on Wall Street...which will
probably make the
you wrote->>conservatives yell even louder.
you wrote->
you wrote->If SS is going to be set up as a pension fund that invests
current
you wrote->contributions for future payments, why would we need a
_government_
you wrote->agency to do it? Private mutual funds are perfectly capable
of doing
you wrote->that already. I'd trust them more with my hard-earned
dollars than
you wrote->some fund run by Robert Reich.
you wrote->
you wrote->Government would bring no unique skills to the table, and
quite
you wrote->a few minuses.
you wrote->
you wrote->--
you wrote->Don McGregor | I did it for the children.
you wrote->mcg...@crl.com |
--Lee
l...@designwest.com
Bill Watts
"Paco Callman" <pa...@cybermax.com> wrote:
>>> Actually FICA is15.3%(half paid by your employer if you are not self
>>> employed).
>> Well before you delude your self in thinking that your in 50-50 with
>> your employer, look at the bigger picture. On paper you are 50-50, but
>> in reality it's really 100-0, you being the 100. when an employer is
>> forced to pay any tax, two things will happen: First, the employer or
>> his corporation will increase the price of the products in direct
>> proportion to the amount that it is being taxed -- you pay the tax
>> through the increased prices, a perfect hidden tax. Second, the you
>> loose as the employer will be paying you less than you would have
>> without the tax.
> You are right of course but I would still rather pay only the 50% up front
> in the hope that the stockholders will have to absorb at least a portion of
> the other 50% .
I'd rather keep it and do with it as I see fit. Why would you overlook
this option?
>>> Don't stop there though. Most states have a sales tax or
>>> income tax or both and then there is property tax(personal and real)
>>> and intangible taxes and excise taxes on cigs and booze and a host of other
>>> things and gas taxes..................................maybe as much as 55
>>> or 60% for some. No wonder there is an underground economy.
>> I'd say if it wasn't for an underground economy, this system would
>> have collapsed long ago.
>This is an interesting concept. Could you expand on it?
Sure. Basically the power to tax is the power to destroy. If it wasn't
for the fact that there is a large underground economy, note the fact
that there is a large underground economy, is do to the high level of
taxation. What is important to understand here is that the founding
fathers had intended for the government to be limited in two important
way. First, is the type of taxation they could impose. They wanted
excise taxes to be relied on as opposed to direct taxes, in that they
have an intrinsic check and balance system that would prevent abuse.
What they reasoned was that the product being taxed would not be
bought if the tax was to high. Out of all the systems of checks and
balances that they devised, this is the most important to understand.
Second, what the government had power over was, and still is as it
stands in the constitution, however greatly ignored, very limited. As
both factors become abused, witness the underground economy.
> I was actually trying to allude to the need for a fairer tax system. Having an income tax
> coupled with all these other types of tax schemes makes it very hard for us
> to 1) survive on the balance and 2) evaluate our politicians when it comes
> time to vote. Some countries are having success with a VAT(Value Added
> Tax-Asset based taxes) type of tax structure sometimes in conjunction with
> a small sales tax. The debate is occurring out there and hopefully the
> present sustem will eventually be scrapped---along with the IRS.
A fair tax system is a delusion.
>>>> Imagine how secure retirement would be if we could all take that 17%
>>>> and invest it as we see fit!
>>> In the real world, most of us tend to spend all the money we get our
>>> hands on. Couple that with the fact that few of us are trained investors and
>>> I think you will see the folly of handing our retirement funds over to
>>> ourselves.
>> Yes, please hand more of it to the politicians, they've done a great
>> job so far -- only 4+ trillion, not including contingent liabilities,
>> in debt.
>> That's what freedom is; freedom to be foolish as well as wise.
> I do believe a SS system is wise but that we haven't managed it wisely. Of
> course it's ludicrous to let the politicians raid the surplus every year
> and use it to cover up their overspending of the general fund. We must
> blame ourselves for that though as we voted for the bums. It's a no
> brainer to pass a law forbidding the use of the SS surplus and to provide
> for it's investment in the safest types of markets.
I don't see anything " wise" about it at all. I anything I see it as
unconstitutional, even though it is voluntary, and evil. I say let
each men keep his due.
Security is at best an illusion: security enforced by and promised by
the state, is nothing short of a delusion.
If legislation and taxation led to prosperity and responsibility, we'd
be living in utopia.
Lee
I agree with you regarding SSI. But most of the propaganda we hear
about SSI is smoke and mirrors. I find it extremely interesting that
the congress laments about the solvency of SSI and yet has repeated
refused to take the funds out of the General Fund so that there can be
better accountability of the SSI funds.
It reminds me of the actions taken by the Reagan white house to
manipulate the unemployment figures. They stated that the figures did
not reflect the military personnel and others, so they added these
people to the numbers....final analysis: unemployment figures looked
better for the president's re-election.
re...@ptd.net wrote:
yyou wrote->SS taxes are a heavy burden, and the solvency of no fund
is completely
you wrote->guaranteed, but it seems only fair to look at the potential
of getting
you wrote->more than you pay in, as well as SS payments being somewhat
you wrote->judgement-proof.
you wrote->
you wrote->
you wrote->>
you wrote->>--
you wrote->>Don McGregor | I did it for the children.
you wrote->>mcg...@crl.com |
you wrote->
--Lee
l...@designwest.com
David Winslow
H D wrote in article <33872...@news.nol.net>...
>"Paco Callman" <pa...@cybermax.com> wrote:
>
>>> Imagine how secure retirement would be if we could all take that 17%
>>> and invest it as we see fit!
>
>>In the real world, most of us tend to spend all the money we get our
hands
>>on. Couple that with the fact that few of us are trained investors and
I
>>think you will see the folly of handing our retirement funds over to
>>ourselves.
>
>I think within the next twenty years, you will see the folly of
>handing our retirement funds over to corrupt and self servient system
>that cannot be held accountable.
>
Looks like folly all around. The various 401K's seem to be doing a great
job. Company
retirement plans seem to be working too. How about a compromise,
government mandated savings in plans that are controlled like those
mentioned that work. Government is not trusted with our money, individual
not relied upon for self discipline.
Paul Maffia
"David Winslow" <Da...@Winslow.mv.com> writes:
> Looks like folly all around. The various 401K's seem to be doing a
> great job.
Actually, study after study shows that participants as a whole are far too
conservative in their choice of investments in their 401Ks. As a result
their future retirement income from these plans appear rather bleak.
> Company retirement plans seem to be working too.
They have for a long time, at least major company defined benefit
retirement plans. However, the costs involved for companies to continue
them has become so high that only the largest can carry them with any
assurance of the funds being there to pay the promised benefits.
Even large companies have been scaling back their plans, while introducing
401Ks in order to control costs and their potential future liabilities
while passing off the risks to their employees. and the employees have not
risen to the demands placed on them to insure their own future
retirement.
Smaller companies, from second tier on down, have all but abandoned
defined benefit plans.
___________________________________________________________________
--
Paul M.
SPAMMERS who send unsolicited ads of any kind to me have assumed the
position of client. My minimum charge to any client is $2,500.00. The sum
will be billed and if unpaid will be put into collection at your expense.
Andrew Lazarus
>The various 401K's seem to be doing a great
>job. Company
>retirement plans seem to be working too.
I happen to agree with your conclusion (mandatory contributions to
401k type plan), although I add SS system to support destitute. But
this is too optimistic by far. A number of 401k plans, for example,
offer extremely limited choices and a few are restricted only to stock
in the employee's company. And if that company goes under? Ooops.
And for company retirement plans-- anybody reading this get burned by
Equitable Life? (That was the name, wasn't it?)
Larry L. Jansen
It is interesting how the globalist use semantics to promote
their agenda. They demonized the word cult in preparation for an
attack on Christianity, and defined "baby-boomers" as those
people born between 1945 and 1965, prior to another attempt at
embezzling Social Security. "Baby-boomers" are those people
born at the end of WW2,
In any case: Social Security is solvent until the year 2050, with
a 1% increase in contributions in the year 2033 -- Trustee.
Check www.ssa.gov for verification. If these people were really
concerned they would quit using the "trust funds" surplus to
disquise the budget deficit.
The robber-barons have taken over our government; if you want to
collect your retirement benefits: demand that they quit doing
this.
ps. I see where they are going to steal more from the "trust"
fund, inorder to balance the budget (code word for tax-cut for
the rich). Also, they didn't cut any of the estimated 200
billion dollars in corporate Welfare.
These crooks no longer promote the general welfare, but the
welfare of multinational companies. Could this be a quid-pro-quo
(bribery)?
In a previous article, Da...@Winslow.mv.com (David Winslow) says:
>
> H D wrote in article <33872...@news.nol.net>...
>>"Paco Callman" <pa...@cybermax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Imagine how secure retirement would be if we could all take that 17%
>>>> and invest it as we see fit!
>>
>>>In the real world, most of us tend to spend all the money we get our
>hands
>>>on. Couple that with the fact that few of us are trained investors and
>I
>>>think you will see the folly of handing our retirement funds over to
>>>ourselves.
>>
>>I think within the next twenty years, you will see the folly of
>>handing our retirement funds over to corrupt and self servient system
>>that cannot be held accountable.
>>
>Looks like folly all around. The various 401K's seem to be doing a great
>job. Company