Investigating the Scheme of “Social Justice” by Government
A question frequently raised with much concern, however hastily disregarded with little considerable afterthought, is the respective benefits to be obtained through participation in the government’s “social justice” program known as Social Security’s Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) over that of individual choice, moral opportunity, and prudent planning.
The public’s perception of “social justice” programs is at best dubious. Concerning Social Security Insurance (SSI), it is a much little known realization that participation in this federal entitlement is entirely voluntary for virtually all American citizens. See: 42 USC § 405(c)(2)(B)(i); 26 CFR §§ 31.6011(b)-2(b)(1)(iv),(c)(2)(i), 301.6109-1(c),(d)(1),(d)(3)(i), et seq.
At present, America bears an approximate population of 312-million individuals. Meanwhile, the reality of our American lifestyles has come to reflect a society of egregious desperation with 1:24 (4.1%) individuals dependent on welfare; 1:7 (14.97%) relying on food-stamps; 1:6 (18.19%) collecting Social Security, (while 1:35 (2.82%) receive disability benefits); 1:6 (16.25%) requiring Medicare; and 1:56 (1.8%) remaining unemployed.
For each individual collecting government entitlements through the Social Security Administration there are only 1.98 full-time labors (including the public sector) that toil away for the financing of those benefits. There are enough full-time jobs throughout the United States of America for only 1 out of every 36 individuals, for which 15.82% of that full-time employment exists in the realm of the public sector. (The above data is compiled from figures reported during 2011 and 2012.)
More pointedly, the underlying reasoning for the federal government’s relentless justification of sanctioning privatized fractional-reserve lending schemes through the medium of its Federal Reserve System entails permitting the countless banks within each of the Federal Reserve System’s twelve districts to publicly grant credit and loans in accordance with each one’s rated monetary holding to lending’s ratio—i.e., a grant for nationalized banking institutions to digitally counterfeit—however in consequence, deflating the dollars’ worth. Instigating the provision of cover are the myriad of governmental “social justice” programs, which creatively serve as a pseudo means of acquisitioning much needed revenue from the populace, so as to delay the ever increasing monetization of its financial obligations. Evidencing the government’s inclination to spend outlandishly, meanwhile developing a largess and rancorous complex against its populous.
To proffer a comparative example between the personal benefits of financial independence versus financial dependence, we are going to look into the hypothetical retirement arrangements of two friendly neighbors, Mr. Bill Handover and Ms. Ida Patriot. For the purposes of this example we will presume that both Mr. Handover and Ms. Patriot were born in 1947 (making their full retirement age 66) and began their long work careers at the very start of 1974, ultimately retiring at the end of 2013.
We shall further consider that Mr. Handover had contributed $3,224 per year into his OASDI enrollment over the span of 40-year employment career (reflecting a monthly reduction in his paycheck of: $268.67), while his next door neighbor, Ms. Patriot, had instead invested that exact sum annually into physical gold throughout this same period, with the price of gold holding steady at $497.34 per troy ounce throughout that 40-year period, until finally rising to $1,421.39t oz in the close of 2013. Also noting that Mr. Handover had $128,960.00 deducted throughout his employment by his employer (who was therefore legally obligated to match Mr. Handover’s contributions), in the course of Ms. Patriot investing that precise sum into real gold she afforded the purchasing of 259-troy ounces at a price of $497.34 apiece—and at zero cost to her own employer.
Both individuals having just retired are now timely activating their varied arrangements for retirement:
- Mr. Handover shall begin to receive $1,607.00 as a fixed monthly sum by the government until his death (albeit his coverage will be reduced by 50% upon divorce); afterward his benefits will pass onto his qualifying survivors.
- Ms. Patriot in selling all 259-troy ounces of her gold bars to a reputable precious metals retailer receives $364,255.01 ($368,140.01 less a $15 per ounce retailer fee) and is now free to reinvest that large sum into any venture or investment account she deems financially beneficial and/or of little-to-no risk—that is to mean the sum remaining after deducting the taxes due on her profit realized from the sale.
Thusly, Ms. Patriot having paid taxes in the amount of $35,294.25 (presuming a tax rate of 15% on $235,295.01—i.e., after first subtracting her principal from the total) is now left with the tax-free figure of: $328,960.76.
The respective life expectancy of a 66-year individual is an additional 14-yearsfor males and 17-years for females (e.g., 80-83 years old.) For the purposes of this exercise, the two summaries below pose a terminal timeframe of 14-years:
- Mr. Handover is expected to live out the remainder of his life on $269,976.00—indicating a sum of $19,284.00 per year, chaining him to monthly payments of $1,607.00 (further emphasizing that these figures do not reflect deductions for any taxes he is required to pay throughout this period of time.)
- In contrast, Ms. Patriot will look forward to paying no further taxes on her remaining $328,960.76 (save for whatever additional taxes incurred upon her future capital gains through the prudent investing of its varying portions), which equates a sum of $23,497.19 annually or $1,958.09 monthly. Furthermore, aside from any succession or inheritance taxes required to be paid upon her passing, Ms. Patriot’s family will be entitled to whatever remaining sum in whole (in accordance with her testament.)
Even in observing today’s discouraging APR rates for personal savings of less than 1% (albeit still being marketed as “high yield savings accounts”) it remains possible to envisage the parities of retaining autonomous. Ms. Patriot in remaining independent now becomes capable of realizing up to $850 per $100,000 invested annually through a completely safe and bank insured jumbo money market account—e.g., presuming an APR of .80%, she could readily invest $300,000 (from her acquired sum of $328,960.76) into such an account, and accrue an additional $2,400 throughout each year (in following this example); thereby affording her the means to indefinitely remain much more financially well off than Mr. Handover could ever hope to by pecking at the handouts proffered by government.) And perhaps even more importantly, the above arrangements made by Ms. Patriot will potentially afford her family the graces of social ascension, while Mr. Handover’s family on the other hand will likely need to make yet further budgetary cutbacks upon his passing.
Consequently, in order for Mr. Handover to become eligible for 100% of his entitled benefits, he was required to lock himself into a set retirement age of 66 (as legislatively regulated through the SSA.) While the earliest he may retire is at 62 (excepting claims for disability), however reducing his benefits to 75% in the process, even retiring at 65 noticeably reduces his benefits to 93.3%. Additionally, his retiring early carries over to post-penalize any unmarried ex-spouses of his by reducing their eligible benefits from 50% to 45.8% at 65 or to 35% at 62—“survivors” (e.g., widows) are similarly post-penalized by the early retirements of their spouses, for the benefits passed onto them can be no greater than those having been received by the decedent.
Apropos, unmarried ex-spouses and survivors may selectively receive such benefits from their prior marital relationships (of at least 10-years in most instances), or from their own individual SSI eligibility, depending on which discretionary arrangement grants them the largest payments percentage. Subsequent recipients of SSI benefits become subject to taxation similarly as the decedent. Furthermore, the receipt of SSI entitlements are permitted to be postponed for up to 4-years (age 70 in this example) and left meanwhile to accrue an 8% increase each year above the expected 100% benefits eligibility, thereby increasing their potential payments percentage up to 132%.
Additionally, it is imperative to notice that for those born after 1960 their retirement benefits have been slightly reduced from those shown above; i.e., the retirement age required in order to receive 100% of one’s benefits has increased to 67-years old, while retiring at 65 results in a 86.7% benefits entitlement (41.7% for qualifying ex-spouses) and at 62 a 70% benefits entitlement (32.5% for qualifying ex-spouses.)
In conclusion, while Mr. Bill Handover has surrendered his individual sovereignty, effectively becoming subjugated and wholly dependent upon the bureaucracy that is his government, Ms. Ida Patriot wisely opted instead to prime her self-empowerment and independence—a birthright that all Americans should proudly strive to grasp.
In addition to similar entitlement programs, other matters that raise concern about OASDI include:
- Employers are required to match the contributions made by their employees, which translates into less money for employers to: provide their employees with wage increases, overtime, promotions, or bonuses; hire more staffing, purchase additional or upgraded equipment; make repairs or perform maintenance; or expand operations; and perpetually increases operating costs by having to maintain accurate payroll and accounting of their employees time, while additionally paying into FUTA (consequently, the more an employee is paid, the more their employer must additionally pay into SSI and FUTA.)
- The self-employed are compelled to pay doubly, their current tax-rate is at 12.4%.
- Up to 85% of an individual’s SSI benefits becomes taxable if one-half of their designated payout, plus the sum of all other income received throughout that present tax-year, surpasses the taxable income threshold (e.g., between $25,000-34,000 if filing single or between $32,000-44,000 if filing jointly.)
- Presently each individual’s eligible monthly benefits are capped at $2,533.
- Participation in pubic entitlement programs financially constrains oneself to the regulatory edicts of unfamiliar, collectivist, individuals working at faraway offices without individualistic concerns, yet with impunity.
- Seeking to receive benefits from public entitlements requires one to unconditionally delegate their inherent right of self-preservation and personal management to those in government, thereafter limiting their ability to determine the best choices concerning one’s personal (i.e., private) financial affairs and lifetime plans.
- All such governmental benefit programs proffered to its populace may be repealed or dramatically amended, virtually at any time, through the legislature’s decrees, the rule-making whims of its bureaucratic administrators, or recent common law precedents; effectively, suspending, reducing, nullifying, or cancelling any or every portion of a programs stipulated benefits, and without any further monetary reimbursement or compensation due unto those participating.
- The financial contributions that are collected to supposedly fund public entitlement programs is actually deposited into the general funds account of the government providing whatever respective services (see: 26 USC §§ 7501(a), 7809(a)); in other words, there is no designated bank account for these contributions to remain accruing in, rather such contributions are permitted to be drawn on at any time and for whatever purpose the government desires.
Subsequently, with reference to investing in physical gold, including other precious metals (e.g., silver, palladium, platinum, and rhodium), Gold IRA plans are widely available now and may be rolled over from conventional IRA plans. Additionally, other alternatives to precious metals include: CD’s, futures trading, (jumbo) money markets, individual retirement accounts (IRA), and stock investments, etc. Precious metal is inherently valuable and both timeless and limitless in its physical form. Investing in precious metals is relationally similar to investing in a stock portfolio, as each are representative of rare earthly commodities, such as wood, salt, crude oil, or coal, for example. Although, the former remains vastly safer, while assuring a steady positive return beyond the principal over the long-haul; and the latter requires far more risk and uncertainty, much more invested principal, and requires a vigilant eye ever seeking out that newest fade or starter business.
For instance, in 1971—when the average cost of an automobile was less than $4,000 and gasoline was a mere 35-cents per gallon—one could have sagaciously purchased 16-troy ounces (i.e., 17.554 ounces) of gold at a cost of $652.80 (averaged at: $40.80t oz) and then sold it during September of 2011, when gold reached its then all-time high of $1,895.00t oz, for the astonishing sum of: $30,320.00, respectively. Thus, representing a 4,645% increase in value over that 40-year period. There are not very many stock portfolios capable of coming anywhere near achieving such a feat on such a small amount of invested capital.
It is worthwhile to mention that during the first century of America’s newly declared independence that is until 1887, silver maintained an average value of just above one-dollar; while the average price of gold remained over twenty-dollars until 1930 (at present $1 represents the purchasing power of more than $20 during that period.) It is even more worthwhile to reflect upon the fact that during this same period of time the government’s involved meddling into the private affairs of its citizens or the free-markets was absolutely minimal.
The following indices for each of silver, gold, palladium, platinum, and rhodium (per troy ounce), aid to depict their empirical worth over the last four-decades:
* For simplicity, the figures used throughout this example are static and neither take into consideration dollar inflation nor increases in COL/CPI that are certain to take place during this vast timeframe.