Is It Moral to Receive Social Security?

[Allison]

A family member paid into Social Security all his life and now qualifies to receive it. However, at this point he feels a moral dilemma, knowing that what he paid all those years was plundered by politicians long ago, and anything he received now would amount to theft from the younger generation.

He is in good health and able to work, so that is not a concern. What would you tell him?

[lundbaek]

The FedGov forced me into a deal and I expect the FedGor to honour its part of the deal.

[PressingForward]

It is not immoral to get back what I paid. Either cash me out at a fixed rate of return, or pay out the annuity in which I was forced to buy into.

[The Airbender]

The whole social security program is an immoral redistribution of wealth. But it is not immoral to be given back what was stolen from you. But that isn't really what is happening, is it?

[ParticleMan]

As corrupt as the system may be, your family member has earned the right to receive what's rightfully his. He isn't the one thieving from the younger generation but those who instituted the system.

"Do not worry about tomorrow, because tomorrow can worry for itself. Today's evil is sufficient for today" (WT Matt. 6:24).

Although fearmongering propaganda is prevalent, people today aren't at fault for the perpetrators of past problems that persist to the present. It isn't his fault that the system is in place. And he won't be answering for the sins of others.

[h_p]

Is slavery immoral? If you were a slave, and then freed, would it be immoral to require someone else to pay you back for the time you spent as a slave?

The social security ponzi scheme has been around so long, nobody wants to see it for what it really is anymore.

[Michelle]

Nope.

If someone steals your coat and leaves you cold, is it moral to take another persons coat and leave them cold?

It stinks, but at some point, the music must stop and a whole generation will be left without a seat.
Better to do it sooner rather than later.

[BackBlast]

A family member paid into Social Security all his life and now qualifies to receive it. However, at this point he feels a moral dilemma, knowing that what he paid all those years was plundered by politicians long ago, and anything he received now would amount to theft from the younger generation.

He is in good health and able to work, so that is not a concern. What would you tell him?

The decision to take the money would be a personal one. I would ask the Lord if it is ok, what I should do in regards to it.

I used to abstain from all the things I viewed as unjust from the .gov. Including things l like child tax credits, etc. As life grew more complicated and harder with dependents. I have found myself tempering that desire. I continue to use my influence to move us in a better political direction as I can. But now I also reach for at least some parts of the unjust system for the benefit of me and mine. We have to make our way in this system. If you lived under communism you would need that public food to feed you and yours, it is an unjust system but you would still need at least some of it's fruits while living under it. Ours is no difference. I continue to abstain from parts of it but I accept that others are necessary for me.

I find it good for a man to work. If he is able bodied I think it is good for his soul to work, even if he doesn't need to do so to sustain himself. Though that might mean serving in the temple or another service opportunity or continuing in the workplace.

[Original_Intent]

The whole social security program is an immoral redistribution of wealth. But it is not immoral to be given back what was stolen from you. But that isn't really what is happening, is it?

It's all fungible.

[Original_Intent]

Nope.

If someone steals your coat and leaves you cold, is it moral to take another persons coat and leave them cold?

It stinks, but at some point, the music must stop and a whole generation will be left without a seat.
Better to do it sooner rather than later.

I've heard this argument. And yet, everything our government does that involves increased debt is an ongoing theft from future generations. All money printing steals from savers thru inflation. The most honest and equitable option is to print money and "buy out" everyone currently in the system. All would suffer equally from the inflation, but it would be a reset. Any other option that I can imagine, some are going to be hurt to the advantage of others.

It's easy to highlight Social Security, but anyone who has their kids publicly educated that pays less than $8000/year in taxes PER CHILD is "robbing the system" as much or more than someone that has paid into a terrible system their whole life and is now expected to "take one for the team" - and, I might add, was not really given a choice to opt out. Oh, and the $8000/year/child is assuming that 100% of your taxes went to education. Clearly most of us are sucking on the tax teat (or the debt teat) much more than most of us want to acknowledge. And I suspect we and our children and grandchildren are going to pay the price when the financial chickens come home to roost.

[Michelle]

Nope.

If someone steals your coat and leaves you cold, is it moral to take another persons coat and leave them cold?

It stinks, but at some point, the music must stop and a whole generation will be left without a seat.
Better to do it sooner rather than later.

I've heard this argument. And yet, everything our government does that involves increased debt is an ongoing theft from future generations. All money printing steals from savers thru inflation. The most honest and equitable option is to print money and "buy out" everyone currently in the system. All would suffer equally from the inflation, but it would be a reset. Any other option that I can imagine, some are going to be hurt to the advantage of others.

It's easy to highlight Social Security, but anyone who has their kids publicly educated that pays less than $8000/year in taxes PER CHILD is "robbing the system" as much or more than someone that has paid into a terrible system their whole life and is now expected to "take one for the team" - and, I might add, was not really given a choice to opt out. Oh, and the $8000/year/child is assuming that 100% of your taxes went to education. Clearly most of us are sucking on the tax teat (or the debt teat) much more than most of us want to acknowledge. And I suspect we and our children and grandchildren are going to pay the price when the financial chickens come home to roost.

I don't agree with about 90% of what our government does including social security and public education. Most of what they do has had a detrimental effect on the family by replacing family roles with public doles. Relationships are built on shared time and sacrifice. When you separate parents from children for most of the day and have the government pay for kids instead of parents (public school, welfare) and pay for parents instead of kids (social security/medicaid), there isn't a whole lot left to bind people together.

[JK4Woods]

The $400 a week I earned in 1980 was enough to live on. Now it’s one trip to Costco (including filling the tank).

So, I’d have no qualms taking the larger sum now, from what I paid into SS way back then.

[Serragon]

I believe the program of Social Security to be immoral. i think most of our social programs are immoral as they breed dependency, jealousy, and entitlement.

But the programs do exist. I do not see any issues with using the benefits while at the same time working to eliminate them.

I believe the principle of equal treatment by the government is more important than the immorality of the programs. If you do not receive the benefit for which you are qualified, others will be treated at advantage by the government. You will continue to be robbed either way. My mind is open to be changed on this point, however.

I think the best option is to not have government benefits at all.

[lundbaek]

The $US of today has about 1/10 of the purchasing power of the $US of 1960. I base that on the cost of things that I purchased regularly then and now. It is also well to recognize that manufacturing, mining, farming, and other technologies related to production are less labour intensive and therefore less costly now than in 1960.

Another thing I came to realize was that up to a certain point in time the money we received from the Social Security system we had already paid tithing on. The number crunching necessary to determine that certain point entailed determining as best I could the value of the $US for each year that I earned money from 1960 when I joined the Church, until I finally stopped paying into the SS system.

[shadow]

Another thing I came to realize was that up to a certain point in time the money we received from the Social Security system we had already paid tithing on.

Consider that only half of your SS tax was deducted from your check. The other half was matched by your employer. Most likely you only tithed on half since the other half isn't reported on your paycheck or W-2.

[Allison]

It’s a true dilemma. If my neighbors had to write their SS checks straight to me, I might feel badly about that, even if someone else had forced me to write checks to them. It would be worse if I knew my neighbors were never going to receive a return.

It really is a quandary.

[jsk]

I’m not a fan of the current system, but I don’t think it’s immoral to collect when your time comes. I thought George W. Bush was on to something with his Social Security Privatization Proposal but that went nowhere. I do laugh a little about older people I know who rail against Socialism but love their Social Security. Years ago there was a poster on LDSFF who wrote hundreds of pages of posts about how people who took Social Security were going to hell. Pretty sure that’s not the case.

[Juliet]

Take the money, invest it, and pay off student loans for people before you die. You can invest that money in the younger generation better than the government.

[h_p]

It's all fine and good until you're the person without a seat when the music stops. Keep that ponzi scheme going as long as we can, and hope we die before the whole rotten thing collapses on everybody's heads.

[Michelle]

It's all fine and good until you're the person without a seat when the music stops. Keep that ponzi scheme going as long as we can, and hope we die before the whole rotten thing collapses on everybody's heads.

I assume I will be the one without a seat, and that is ok. I couldn't take the money knowing what it would cost someone else. The longer we wait the greater the suffering. At least right now many elderly have kids. The next generation may not.

[Original_Intent]

It's all fine and good until you're the person without a seat when the music stops. Keep that ponzi scheme going as long as we can, and hope we die before the whole rotten thing collapses on everybody's heads.

Ideally, phasing it out may still be doable. Raise the retirement age to 70, possibly 75. Decrease benefits. Both could be done in phases.

[TheSnail]

I believe the issue is intentionally too complex morally and financially for most people to understand.

I would at least take the money, invest it, and leave it to my heirs.

The politicians will spend everything they possibly can, and the only constraint is what they think they can get away with. If you take less in benefits, they will be free to spend more on things that they prefer.

I believe the plan is to simply reduce benefits as the money runs out. By taking social security, you're helping to reduce those benefits sooner, but at the same time this steals money from people who are affected by inflation and work.

Just try wrapping your head around this flaming pile of garbage. Taking social security effects so many people in so many ways.

It's a lot easier to morally navigate constitutional law.

[h_p]

Ideally, phasing it out may still be doable. Raise the retirement age to 70, possibly 75. Decrease benefits. Both could be done in phases.

Totally agree. If only it were possible. But I've seen how much people scream when even the rate of increase is cut. First, people need to be educated on how immoral social security--and socialism in general--is. Seems like we're going in the opposite direction from that, though.

"The Gods of the Copybook Headings" keeps coming to mind every time I think about these things...

[Michelle]

Ideally, phasing it out may still be doable. Raise the retirement age to 70, possibly 75. Decrease benefits. Both could be done in phases.

Totally agree. If only it were possible. But I've seen how much people scream when even the rate of increase is cut. First, people need to be educated on how immoral social security--and socialism in general--is. Seems like we're going in the opposite direction from that, though.

"The Gods of the Copybook Headings" keeps coming to mind every time I think about these things...

Agreed.

To be more blunt: If we don't stop taking Social Security, under today's current plans, the elderly and disabled will be euthanized to save money.

That is the moral imperative we are working under today.

I am not kidding.

[Matchmaker]

Many Seniors depend on their SS checks to live each month. Some of them are too old or too infirm to hold down a full-time job anymore. Some no longer have spouses or children willing or able to support them financially. If the government takes away their income, what do we do with them - put them in the pound and euthanize them like family pets?