Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Greater Depression - Chapter I => Topic started by: Ladislaus on January 20, 2023, 08:09:12 AM
-
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/treasury-begins-special-measures-avoid-150732979.html
I've had more Social Security taken out of my paycheck than federal income tax for decades now, and I'm not going to see a dime of it. Currently the "full retirement" age is 67, but it'll definitely be at least 75 in 10 years, and by the time I get to 75 (20 years from now), it'll be all gone.
-
Yes, I saw the need for "extraordinary measures" due to the high debt. We have too much debt, so......we'll take from the people! Irresponsibility at its finest!
-
Social security is a socialist program.
No wonder they removed the 10 Commandments.. thou shall not steal.
They aren’t public servants. Most are millionaires who are rich on tax payer stolen money.
They are stealing because they know most of our generation will be dead.
-
It is amazing to me that the American public permitted the social security system. It's not like it was necessary in any way. People have always been able to purchase an annuity, to pay a certain amount out of their paycheck to a company that invests the money and charges a fee, which then will pay them a certain agreed-upon income when they reach a certain age. That's all social security is, and it had existed privately long before the social security law.
The difference is that such a system became compulsory under the social security act. Why would the government have to force people to buy into its annuity if its annuity was so good? People would have bought into it by choice if it had been worth it. Instead, now people can't buy their own annuity because their money is taken away by the government and put into a system that they have no idea if it will ever fulfill its obligations when their time comes. And you can't sue the government, so people are now dependent purely on the good will (!) of politicians who run the social security system, and you see how that's going so far.
-
Yes, it's related to the U.S. hitting the debt ceiling -- the usual yearly threat that the U.S. could default on its debts. Could it happen this year?
Maybe. Congress seems reticent to want to do anything until their side's demands are met. Do they want to risk the world's reserve currency becoming insolvent overnight? Well...
-
Don't we go through this every year?? In order to default on the debt it would have to be announced by the Department of the Treasury, and the default would forever be attributed to the regime in power. That would be Biden so that's not going to happen.( Not until the jews pull the plug, anyway)
The government has robbed the Social Security fund years ago- they took thousands and thousands from medirecty from my paycheck without my permission for 45 years. I am collecting now. Way less than if I had held my own money myself. I'm sure they will use it for manipulation along with the social credit score and hold it back if you are non-compliant.
90% of the country's government and private retirement funds are being held by Blackrock. ( We are currently funding government employee retirements- and Blackrock- because of bad investments and theft of the funds as well ) They will strip that fast enough if it hasn't already happened. Six of one, half -dozen of the other.
-
Social security is a socialist program.
No wonder they removed the 10 Commandments.. thou shall not steal.
I don't have any problem with hit in principle, because a lot of people won't save for retirement and then everybody has to pay for them anyway. It's not like you're going to let an elderly person die because he doesn't have any savings left after retirement. So one way or another society has to pay for it. But what they should do is to withhold the money and whatever you put into it will be available for you to take out when you retire ... instead of being structured as a Ponzi scheme.
So to me it's more about how it's designed and structured rather than in principle.
-
It is amazing to me that the American public permitted the social security system.
Did the public even have much of a choice? Most of this stuff is just forced on everyone.
-
I don't have any problem with hit in principle, because a lot of people won't save for retirement and then everybody has to pay for them anyway. It's not like you're going to let an elderly person die because he doesn't have any savings left after retirement. So one way or another society has to pay for it. But what they should do is to withhold the money and whatever you put into it will be available for you to take out when you retire ... instead of being structured as a Ponzi scheme.
So to me it's more about how it's designed and structured rather than in principle.
No, the whole premise is bad. The government, if you go by the “principles” that this country was founded on, has no authority to be in the charity business. Charity is best left in the hands of the individual as the government does it unfairly, unjustly, corruptly, and incompetently. When kept in the hands of the individual, the person has the chance to gain graces, merit, and show his love for God. The powers that be don’t like that.
-
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/treasury-begins-special-measures-avoid-150732979.html
I've had more Social Security taken out of my paycheck than federal income tax for decades now, and I'm not going to see a dime of it. Currently the "full retirement" age is 67, but it'll definitely be at least 75 in 10 years, and by the time I get to 75 (20 years from now), it'll be all gone.
I hear you Lad. When I started paying into SS, gas was 19 cents per gallon, ground beef was 19 cents a lb., bread was 10 cents a loaf. and one ounce of Silver was $1.
And we were told that our money was being kept in a bank earning interest and would be returned to us when we were old. Ha ha. They left out the part about the private club of bankers laughingly called the "Federal Reserve" stealing our money via inflation and other tricks.
-
Yes, I saw the need for "extraordinary measures" due to the high debt. We have too much debt, so......we'll take from the people! Irresponsibility at its finest!
They’ve been using this scare tactic for years. They printed trillions of dollars in the name of the covid plandemic. To bailout social security would be a drop in the bucket compared to that. It’s a big scam. The only way it will collapse will be if they want it to collapse to further their ends. Also, if it does collapse, that will be the least of our worries.
-
I've got 30 years til I can retire. I won't see any of it. I have days where I think about quitting my job to get my retirement money (since my employer matches 1:1).
-
No, the whole premise is bad. The government, if you go by the “principles” that this country was founded on, has no authority to be in the charity business.
How is this "charity" (except due to its Ponzi structure, for the current recipients)? Answer: it's not "charity" at all.
If properly structured, it's mandating that people put money away for retirement so that the rest of society doesn't have to pay for them to retire while they "lived it up". It's similar to mandating that people carry automobile insurance so that they don't dump the financial responsibility on others if something happens.
If propertly structured, the money would be yours, and could be left to your survivors if you die before you use it all, etc. You would get back what you put into it, and is exactly analogous to legally requiring people to buy car insurance. Your assertion that a properly structured mandatory retirement savings is "charity" is nonsensical.
-
How is this "charity" (except due to its Ponzi structure, for the current recipients)? Answer: it's not "charity" at all.
If properly structured, it's mandating that people put money away for retirement so that the rest of society doesn't have to pay for them to retire while they "lived it up". It's similar to mandating that people carry automobile insurance so that they don't dump the financial responsibility on others if something happens.
If propertly structured, the money would be yours, and could be left to your survivors if you die before you use it all, etc. You would get back what you put into it, and is exactly analogous to legally requiring people to buy car insurance. Your assertion that a properly structured mandatory retirement savings is "charity" is nonsensical.
This is what you wrote: “I don't have any problem with hit in principle, because a lot of people won't save for retirement and then everybody has to pay for them anyway. It's not like you're going to let an elderly person die because he doesn't have any savings left after retirement. So one way or another society has to pay for it.”
This IS tantamount to charity. What I’m contending is that instead of the government being in the business of handing out money (charity), which is completely and totally unconstitutional, the people who don’t have the foresight to save for the future should rely on the charity of individuals not the government.
-
This IS tantamount to charity.
Not even close.
It's like saying that if I mandate people to have car insurance, that's charity toward the people he might hit with his car so that they don't have to pay for it.
-
Not even close.
It's like saying that if I mandate people to have car insurance, that's charity toward the people he might hit with his car so that they don't have to pay for it.
Forcing people at gun point to save their own money is not even in the same ball park as forcing them to get insurance in order for them to drive a car. For starters, no one is forced to drive a car and can live their lives without one, but nearly everyone is forced to have an income in order to survive. I want to add that I’m not convinced that even forcing someone to get insurance to drive a car is constitutional.
-
Forcing people at gun point to save their own money is not even in the same ball park as forcing them to get insurance in order for them to drive a car.
You're not thinking straight. Firstly, this is the opposite of charity. If someone causes a car accident and can't pay, SOMEone has to pay for it, if it's all those who do hold insurance policies. So legally requiring people to have auto insurance (and to pay for it) is perfectly just, and it's to PREVENT other people from having to pay for him.
When you mandate that people save for retirement, that's preventing others from having to pay for them when they retired if they've lived large and squandered all their money.
This is exactly the same thing. What are you talking about "gun point" for? We're talking about making it a legal requirement to put money away for yourself. If structured correctly, no one would take their money away. It would belong to them and their beneficiaries if it hasn't been spent, and people would get out of it what they put into it, with some possible match by their employers and/or the government for incentivizing the behavior on top of a legal minimum requirement.
-
You're not thinking straight. Firstly, this is the opposite of charity. If someone causes a car accident and can't pay, SOMEone has to pay for it, if it's all those who do hold insurance policies. So legally requiring people to have auto insurance (and to pay for it) is perfectly just, and it's to PREVENT other people from having to pay for him.
When you mandate that people save for retirement, that's preventing others from having to pay for them when they retired if they've lived large and squandered all their money.
This is exactly the same thing. What are you talking about "gun point" for? We're talking about making it a legal requirement to put money away for yourself. If structured correctly, no one would take their money away. It would belong to them and their beneficiaries if it hasn't been spent, and people would get out of it what they put into it, with some possible match by their employers and/or the government for incentivizing the behavior on top of a legal minimum requirement.
I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on the function and purpose of government.
-
I don’t think the government has any qualms about letting elderly people die when they run out of money. No way have the poison needles eliminated enough people for the WEF. There are elderly people without families living in cars, tents, and are street homeless. Two men and a woman, all over 70, froze to death in Watertown, NY because the city closed its one shelter just before Christmas.
It’ll save money on what have become useless eaters, the population no longer having enough children to reproduce themselves. Why should Millennials and Gen Z have to support the people who aborted and contracepted their peers and siblings away?
Personally, I’m of the opinion I’ll be found deceased somewhere and burnt up or made into human compost. I hope not, but it’s not past imagination.
-
If my family gets ahold of me, I’ll be made into dust and flushed down toilet.
-
Personally, I’m of the opinion I’ll be found deceased somewhere and burnt up or made into human compost. I hope not, but it’s not past imagination.
If my family gets ahold of me, I’ll be made into dust and flushed down toilet.
As with most things, the regulations surrounding death are decided by each individual state, NOT the Federal Government, other than the Federal Trade Commission “Funeral Rule” which provides for certain consumer protections.
If you want your final disposition to be done in a certain way the best thing is to arrange it in advance and pay for it. You will need to find out what your state requires for a legally binding prearrangement. Some may require only a signed docuмent, some may require a witness signature, some may require that it be notarized (most funeral homes will have a licensed notary on staff).
If these things aren’t prearranged state law will determine who has the legal right to do so, it usually follows the same path as rights of inheritance (I work at a funeral home, these things can get testy sometimes). Often it’s a case of “He who pays the piper gets to call the tune”.
Some don’t realize that in most states the Power of Attorney and Medical Directive expire at the time of death and the person who held those “powers” for someone usually no longer does so. Some states allow one to designate a particular person to control their final arrangements and disposition, other than those provided for by law to control those things. Washington and California are two states that have this provision. It may be a moot point though if one hasn’t set aside sufficient funds for the arrangements.
Payments for funeral services and cemetery costs can be made in installments, with the funds deposited into a trust account or life insurance policy. Once the cost is paid in full the price is frozen at those costs. If set up properly funds set aside for funeral and cemetery arrangements are sheltered from Medicaid spend down requirements.
It ALWAYS pays to shop around ahead of time, ALWAYS! Contact firms in neighboring towns also. While most funeral homes charge a mileage fee for removals and services more than 30 miles (typical) from their location, they might still be less expensive than a local firm.
Avoid firms affiliated with Dignity Memorial, Carriage Services, Foundation Partners, and Stonmor Partners, Northstar Memorial Group, which are national or multinational corporations. There may be others, these are ones with locations in the northwest Locally owned mortuaries and cemeteries will typically provide better service at a lower price, it is never out of line to ask them who the owner is. Municipal and church owned cemeteries may have lower prices than cemeteries affiliated with a funeral home. Rural cemeteries are often very inexpensive but they may restrict burials to local residents or those with relatives buried there, one can always ask. If either spouse is a military veteran they both are entitled to no cost burial at a veteran’s cemetery, including the marker.
If you have a chapel with can be used for the Rosary and Mass consider using a Memorial Society rather than a funeral home. These are usually non-profit and often have a cooperative model (better price if you purchase a membership ahead of time). While these groups typically promote “simplicity” and direct cremation with scattering, many also offer “full mortuary service”, including embalming if needed for viewing in your state. You may have to coach them on Catholic practices, but they will be an economical option. More information can be found here:
https://funerals.org/ (https://funerals.org/)
https://peoplesmemorial.org (https://peoplesmemorial.org)
Another economical option, which defiantly does require advance planning, is for a family / close friends to handle all arrangements themselves (nine states have some restrictions). If you can keep a room relatively cool or use dry ice, you can shelter a body for a couple of days before burial. You can bath and dress the remains yourself, place them in a casket (purchased online or made by someone) and use a van to take them to the church and cemetery. Your main obligation will be to know the legal requirements in your state (the coroner will typically need to be called if it is an unattended death, a death certificate will need to be signed by a physician and filed with the state, Social Security needs to be notified, a transit permit may be needed). If the deceased was under hospice care they may be able to help or advise. Check with the cemetery, they aren’t used to somebody showing up with a body in the back of a pickup and may need to be reassured that it's legit.
https://funerals.org/?consumers=how-to-arrange-a-home-funeral (https://funerals.org/?consumers=how-to-arrange-a-home-funeral)
https://www.orderofthegooddeath.com/resources/home-funerals/ (https://www.orderofthegooddeath.com/resources/home-funerals/)