A health care question...

thellama73 wrote: ^^You're referring to welfare, not social security. Social security takes a chunk of your paycheck and hides it away until you're old because you can't be trusted to save for your own retirement. The problem (other than the extreme condescension) is that the government was supposed to invest that money and return it to you, but instead they spent it and are now not taking in enough new money to pay retirees what they are owed.

OK, although I appreciate you making such a distinction, can you confirm or otherwise, if earned income in the US goes towards an individual's welfare and social security benefits in the form of taxes ? (i.e. deducted at source)

Perhaps there's a problem in nomenclature hereabouts e.g. for Brits and Australians your social security equates to the state pension upon retirement and welfare equates to national insurance contributions paid as unemployment benefit.

I also get the impression from your quoted post that in the US you cannot 'opt out' of such social security contributions being deducted at source (i.e. is it a 'common' pool of monies to be utilised as the government sees fit ?)

Confused Highland Mortal

I'm not really sure what I think about social security. It's a safety net, but most folks certainly don't get their money back, let alone with interest. A well planned retirement fund would be better but that can be raided and not everyone has the planning, resources, or intelligence to achieve this.

A lot of this Bill is modeled after the mandatory system we have here in Taxachusetts, so that being the case I'll just say the whole thing sucks. The kinks should have been worked out of our state system before it was made national.

And since the government inflates your money quicker than even most private sector investments can counteract, even without explicitly using the stolen money pool they still leach away at your "savings". 

^ It's all good and well to say "we are the government." But I am not. I don't receive any money from the government, and I didn't vote for anybody currently in office. The government does not represent me.

It's silly to imply that no one can have any complaint against the government because the government in comprised of citizens. Silly, silly, silly.

Silly reality.

thellama73 wrote: ^ It's all good and well to say "we are the government." But I am not. I don't receive any money from the government, and I didn't vote for anybody currently in office. The government does not represent me.It's silly to imply that no one can have any complaint against the government because the government in comprised of citizens. Silly, silly, silly.

You don't drive on any highways, cross any bridges, receive mail or eat food that is regulated against disease?

Easy Money wrote: thellama73 wrote: ^ It's all good and well to say "we are the government." But I am not. I don't receive any money from the government, and I didn't vote for anybody currently in office. The government does not represent me.It's silly to imply that no one can have any complaint against the government because the government in comprised of citizens. Silly, silly, silly. You don't drive on any highways, cross any bridges, receive mail or eat food that is regulated against disease?

I don't drive on anything, since I don't have a car, I don't receive any mail I care about and I make sure to let all my food rot a little before I eat it so as to counteract the actions of the pesky FDA.

thellama73 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: thellama73 wrote: ^^You're referring to welfare, not social security. Social security takes a chunk of your paycheck and hides it away until you're old because you can't be trusted to save for your own retirement. The problem (other than the extreme condescension) is that the government was supposed to invest that money and return it to you, but instead they spent it and are now not taking in enough new money to pay retirees what they are owed. OK, although I appreciate you making such a distinction, can you confirm or otherwise, if earned income in the US goes towards an individual's welfare and social security benefits in the form of taxes ? (i.e. deducted at source) Perhaps there's a problem in nomenclature hereabouts e.g. for Brits and Australians your social security equates to the state pension upon retirement and welfare equates to national insurance contributions paid as unemployment benefit. I also get the impression from your quoted post that in the US you cannot 'opt out' of such social security contributions being deducted at source (i.e. is it a 'common' pool of monies to be utilised as the government sees fit ?) Confused Highland Mortal Earned income is taxed by both the Federal Government and State Governments, and in some places City Governments as well. Some of those taxes go towards what we call Wellfare, a pool that goes to anyone who is unemployed. In addition to those taxes, they also pull out Social Security, which theoretically is held for you until you retire. In reality, that money is spent and you get your SS payment from the next generation's payments. You cannot opt out of any of these programs. I would have no problem with Social Security if you could choose not to participate.

Thanks for the background, it's starting to make sense to a non-american now.

Easy Money wrote: Who is supposed to decide where roads go and lead to in this government less utopia.

 I wouldn't doubt many were indeed building their own roads and other things back when this was still a big, unwieldy, highly dangerous and dirty place, and I assume it;'s one of the many reasons we decided to become a real nation