Dr. Roberts takes Walter William’s to task about his accurate claim that Social Security is “legalized theft.” Dr. Roberts responds with:
“This is an ideological argument that overlooks that Social Security is a pact between generations. The working generations provide retirement incomes for the elderly and in turn are provided retirement incomes by succeeding generations. Terminating Social Security for the elderly also terminates it for those who follow.”
A “pact,” you say? Just when did I consent to and sign such a “pact?” And just how could I have consented to and signed such a “pact” if this so-called agreement was created before I was even born? Was I therefore born into such an agreement and obligation? How is this not indentured servitude?
Funding Social Security involves taxing one generation to fund the benefits of another. “Tax” is just a deceiving, statist term for “theft”. These contributions certainly aren’t voluntary. Their collection and resulting distribution is ultimately executed at the point of a gun. It is the state that is the instigator and executor of this theft. And since the booty of this theft is transferred from one generation to another, how can it not be accurately described as inter-generational theft?
In his post, Dr. Roberts then lists all the tweaks and adjustments made to this theft program to make it both solvent and politically palatable. Of course, all these changes have failed miserably. Each succeeding generation becomes more upset about being forced into such an ill conceived program. And the system becomes ever more bankrupt and at risk of collapsing.
The first recipient of Social Security benefits was Ida May Fuller in 1940. She had participated in the program for three years and “contributed” a grand total of $24.75. After dying at the age of 100, Ms. Fuller had received (according to ssa.gov) $22,888.92 in benefits. Shazam! That’s some return! If any private retirement program gave such a return on principal it would immediately be eyed with suspicion and investigated for fraud. But not when a government program gets such results. Only the benevolent, messianic state can create such financial miracles.
Social Security was set up as a Ponzi scheme at Day One, which is criminal enough. But it was also funded by force (through taxes). The program has also declared a “trust fund” exists when in fact there are only government issued IOU’s within this “trust fund” and absolutely no cash. These IOU’s must be funded by still more future theft victims. Therefore, you may also list the crime of fraud being committed by this deceiving program.
Instead of taking the individual responsibility of providing for their own methods of support in old age, the ruling generation in 1937 decided instead to loot the preceding generation and saddle all future generations with the same slavish obligations, theft, and fraud. In order to fund their poorly designed schemes, the state seems to prefer preying on those least able to resist. The dead are taxed by way of estate taxes and have no opportunity to fight back. The unborn are also victimized by being saddled with debts and obligations they have no chance of consenting to.
Yes, the money (“trust fund”) has been stolen, but even if that hadn’t occurred, the future demographics (workers/beneficiaries) cannot possibly support such a scam. In 1950, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 16.5-to-1. Presently, the worker to beneficiary ratio is at 3.1-to-1. See why your SS taxes are so high? And within 20 years it's expected to drop to 2.1-to-1. This setup cannot be supported without confiscatory, intolerable levels of taxation. Bernie Madoff’s scam eventually caught up with him and so will Uncle Sam’s.
Yes, “terminating Social Security for the elderly also terminates it for those who follow.” But it has to end sometime. Its failure is mathematically inevitable. It was doomed from the start. It’s unethical redistribution of wealth from one generation to another is unacceptable. How much longer should people be forced at the point of a gun to fund and tolerate such thievery and fraud? You can either end it creatively (and gradually) or you can sit back, whine about the political impossibility and temporary inconvenience and watch it fall into a colossal heap of misery. That is not an “ideological argument,” as Dr. Roberts might describe such a claim. That is reasoned fact.
Resistance is Mandatory