I want to waive my right to Social Security
So according to this article FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act and it was implemented back in 1935, and amended in 1939 allowing the IRS to collect for it. Interestingly enough, the article mentions questions about the constitutionality of the 1935 act. (Read in depth here the history of it and how the New Deal items were being overturned. I don't remember learning this at Langley??)
Here is what I want to know. Since I'm 31, and not expecting to EVER see ANY money from the Social Security Administration, how can I opt out of it?? Here's what I want to do, I want to sign some document that says I will not get to collect any Social Security in the future, but then I also don't have to contribute to it ever. Instead I save for my own retirement.
This seems fair to me. Why can't I choose whether or not I want the Governement to save for me?? I know Bush was working on something to fix SSA but I feel like it's lost steam. Plus, I don't care if it's a Republican or Democrat in office but I know one thing for sure, I can not count on the Govt. to provide for me. Just as all the victims of the recent hurricanes have unfortunately found out. The Govt. is just too big, and too inefficient.
Perhaps someone can answer this, but aren't a bunch of Govt. Employees and Congress Exempt from SSA because they have their own Pension Plan or something like that? If I'm remembering it right it's typical do as I say, not as I do mentality of Congress.
Who's with me on this? I've got to get working on a letters to Bush, my Congressmen, and Bill O'reilly.
This is interesting too. Straight from http://www.ssa.gov/mystatement/fica.htm it says that indeed FICA is a Tax, not a contribution. Now my blood really boils when I hear folks call it a contribution. Even the Govt. calls it a tax.
More interesting History from http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
Helvering vs. Davis:
George P. Davis was a minor stockholder in the Edison Electric Illuminating Company. Edison, like every industrial employer in the nation, was readying itself to start paying the employers' share of the payroll tax in January 1937. Mr. Davis objected to this arguing that by making this expenditure Edison was robbing him of part of his equity, so he sued Edison to prevent their compliance with the Social Security Act. The government intervened on Edison's behalf and the Commissioner of the IRS (Mr. Helvering) took on the lawsuit.
The attorneys for Davis argued that the payroll tax was a new type of tax not listed in the Constitution's tally of taxes, and so it was unconstitutional. At one point they even introduced into their argument the definitions of "taxes" from dictionaries in 1788 (the year before the Constitution was ratified) to prove how earnest they were in the belief that powers not explicitly granted in 1789 could not be created in 1935. Davis was also of the view that providing for the general welfare of the aged was a power reserved to the states. The government argued that this was too inflexible an interpretation of the powers granted to Congress, and (loosely) that if the country could not expand the interpretation of the Constitution as it stood in 1789 progress would be impossible and it would still be 1789.
posted by Alexander Romero @ 6:31 AM
1 comments
