Guest |
03-21-2015 11:01 AM |
Quote:
Posted by Guest
(Post 1032076)
Let me get this straight. Some would suggest that social security should now be based on need. First define "need"? Second explain why anyone who has been forced since 1934 to pay into a fund that they could only activate at retirement now be told that can't withdraw their share? And contrast that with someone who has never had a productive day in their lives live high off the dole? Third, explain why contributors to this fund should be penalized because Congress has for so many years mismanaged this fund while said contributors watched helplessly? Fourth explain why an individual who has pay careful attention to his/her financial planning and to accumulate a worthy estate be mis-characterized as greedy. Fifth why is it that this government gets to pick winners and losers? Sixth what happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave and a citizen rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
|
Your FIRST question asks why anyone who has been paying into Social Security since 1934... Hey, that would be one mighty old employee in 2015, wouldn't it?
People live "high off the dole"? Not most I have seen. They have enough to live on but certainly not taking cruises or Caribbean vacations like so many Villagers do a few times a year.
Someone who has accumulated a worthy estate does not need the safety net of Social Security. Consider it a tax you paid while working and will not be seeing again.
Most Villagers have a good life, all have liberty, and with the exception of the Tea Party Grumps, Villagers have the happiness they pursue.
|