3 ms·

Well the problem with social security is it's not really income that can be garnished. It's money that was paid into social security with the explicit promise t

Well the problem with social security is it's not really income that can be garnished. It's money that was paid into social security with the explicit promise that you'd get it all back upon retirement. This is garnishing wages in the past. It's kind of like repossessing someone's fully paid-for car and house to pay an unrelated debt. It's something you already owned and was not collateral for your debt, but they're taking it away from you anyway. If you're an American, check your pay stubs. You're paying for social security every pay period. It's not welfare, it's a refund of money the government forced you to pay when you were younger. If they're now taking it away from you, taking away a refund of money they already forced you to pay them years ago, that seems to me like a massive misuse of the social security system. People rely on that for their sole income, secure in the knowledge that they spent their entire lives paying into it.

h4nkoslo 10y ago
"It's money that was paid into social security with the explicit promise that you'd get it all back upon retirement" That's not even close to true; there is no legal connection that requires you "get it all back" or that the government can't arbitrarily adjust benefits up and down. In practical terms the program is a transfer from present workers to past workers, it doesn't fundamentally operate as a savings account.
- freehunter 10y ago
  Practical terms or not, that's the founding principle of the social security program. People can't/won't save for retirements, so we (the government) will take money from them now and pay it back later when they retire. If the government can say "we took all this money from you in the past but won't give it back now", there was literally no point in paying social security taxes.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - pilom 10y ago
    It makes much more sense if you don't think about SS as a pension. It is a tax you pay to not have old people destitute on the streets. That's all. It isn't a savings account or an annuity. It's a tax to take care of old people today. When you get old, you may be eligible for funding to keep you off the streets. You might not. That is what SS is and should be marketed as.

h4nkoslo 10y ago

"It's money that was paid into social security with the explicit promise that you'd get it all back upon retirement" That's not even close to true; there is no legal connection that requires you "get it all back" or that the government can't arbitrarily adjust benefits up and down. In practical terms the program is a transfer from present workers to past workers, it doesn't fundamentally operate as a savings account.

freehunter 10y ago
Practical terms or not, that's the founding principle of the social security program. People can't/won't save for retirements, so we (the government) will take money from them now and pay it back later when they retire. If the government can say "we took all this money from you in the past but won't give it back now", there was literally no point in paying social security taxes.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pilom 10y ago
  It makes much more sense if you don't think about SS as a pension. It is a tax you pay to not have old people destitute on the streets. That's all. It isn't a savings account or an annuity. It's a tax to take care of old people today. When you get old, you may be eligible for funding to keep you off the streets. You might not. That is what SS is and should be marketed as.