NO, and I will make a comparison to prove otherwise.
Since the Social Security ACT has been enacted, it is mandated that every employee MUST pay into SS and there is NO legal way to opt out of SS. Those contributions that are mandated to be paid are YOUR funds and under the SS Act those funds are entitled to those eligible to collect at age of determined retirement.
When Congressman Paul first was elected, he was given the option to opt out of the Congressional Retirement Fund in which he did. This CRF is taxpayer funded and throughout his congressional career, Dr. Paul has voted against any legislation or programs that lay a burden on the taxpayers. Because of his decision to opt out, he will NOT collect a Congressional Retirement pension.
Dr. Paul has continuously proposed a plan where younger workers should have the option to opt out of Social Security and use that money to fund their own independent retirement plan. His proposal also would use the funds that are spent on illegal wars and foreign aid which total into the billions to be used instead to shore up SS and Medicare until a pragmatic plan can be in place to slowly phase out or reform those plans.
So in essence, to call Ron Paul hypocritical is a oxy-moron in the sense, SS is a program he was forced to pay into...
Since the Social Security ACT has been enacted, it is mandated that every employee MUST pay into SS and there is NO legal way to opt out of SS. Those contributions that are mandated to be paid are YOUR funds and under the SS Act those funds are entitled to those eligible to collect at age of determined retirement.
When Congressman Paul first was elected, he was given the option to opt out of the Congressional Retirement Fund in which he did. This CRF is taxpayer funded and throughout his congressional career, Dr. Paul has voted against any legislation or programs that lay a burden on the taxpayers. Because of his decision to opt out, he will NOT collect a Congressional Retirement pension.
Dr. Paul has continuously proposed a plan where younger workers should have the option to opt out of Social Security and use that money to fund their own independent retirement plan. His proposal also would use the funds that are spent on illegal wars and foreign aid which total into the billions to be used instead to shore up SS and Medicare until a pragmatic plan can be in place to slowly phase out or reform those plans.
So in essence, to call Ron Paul hypocritical is a oxy-moron in the sense, SS is a program he was forced to pay into...
NO, and I will make a comparison to prove otherwise.
Since the Social Security ACT has been enacted, it is mandated that every employee MUST pay into SS and there is NO legal way to opt out of SS. Those contributions that are mandated to be paid are YOUR funds and under the SS Act those funds are entitled to those eligible to collect at age of determined retirement.
When Congressman Paul first was elected, he was given the option to opt out of the Congressional Retirement Fund in which he did. This CRF is taxpayer funded and throughout his congressional career, Dr. Paul has voted against any legislation or programs that lay a burden on the taxpayers. Because of his decision to opt out, he will NOT collect a Congressional Retirement pension.
Dr. Paul has continuously proposed a plan where younger workers should have the option to opt out of Social Security and use that money to fund their own independent retirement plan. His proposal also would use the funds that are spent on illegal wars and foreign aid which total into the billions to be used instead to shore up SS and Medicare until a pragmatic plan can be in place to slowly phase out or reform those plans.
So in essence, to call Ron Paul hypocritical is a oxy-moron in the sense, SS is a program he was forced to pay into and he is only exercising his right to receive the benefits he is entitled to. He has stated if SS was a program when he first started in the work force gave him a option to opt out, he would have done it without question. That option was and still is not available.
(more)Since the Social Security ACT has been enacted, it is mandated that every employee MUST pay into SS and there is NO legal way to opt out of SS. Those contributions that are mandated to be paid are YOUR funds and under the SS Act those funds are entitled to those eligible to collect at age of determined retirement.
When Congressman Paul first was elected, he was given the option to opt out of the Congressional Retirement Fund in which he did. This CRF is taxpayer funded and throughout his congressional career, Dr. Paul has voted against any legislation or programs that lay a burden on the taxpayers. Because of his decision to opt out, he will NOT collect a Congressional Retirement pension.
Dr. Paul has continuously proposed a plan where younger workers should have the option to opt out of Social Security and use that money to fund their own independent retirement plan. His proposal also would use the funds that are spent on illegal wars and foreign aid which total into the billions to be used instead to shore up SS and Medicare until a pragmatic plan can be in place to slowly phase out or reform those plans.
So in essence, to call Ron Paul hypocritical is a oxy-moron in the sense, SS is a program he was forced to pay into and he is only exercising his right to receive the benefits he is entitled to. He has stated if SS was a program when he first started in the work force gave him a option to opt out, he would have done it without question. That option was and still is not available.
Yes, Ron Paul has stressed there should a pragmatic move to eventually abolish the Federal income tax which is unconstitutional to begin with. He is not entirely against taxes as taxes are a constitutionally permitted means of funding State, county and local projects and services since the constitution states no taxation without representation.
The Federal government has three main responsibilities:
- To Protect the Country
- Maintain Foreign Commerce
- Maintain Foreign Negotiation
The constitution was designed to not have a centralized government (which we have now) but to have a government comprised of states having more power than the Federal government. Each state would be responsible for the taxation of their respective states to maintain infastructure, provide services to its citizens i.e. fire, police, education and welfare of children and elderly. Each state would also maintain a militia as most have National Guard Units.
With the limitations put fo...
Yes, Ron Paul has stressed there should a pragmatic move to eventually abolish the Federal income tax which is unconstitutional to begin with. He is not entirely against taxes as taxes are a constitutionally permitted means of funding State, county and local projects and services since the constitution states no taxation without representation.
The Federal government has three main responsibilities:
- To Protect the Country
- Maintain Foreign Commerce
- Maintain Foreign Negotiation
The constitution was designed to not have a centralized government (which we have now) but to have a government comprised of states having more power than the Federal government. Each state would be responsible for the taxation of their respective states to maintain infastructure, provide services to its citizens i.e. fire, police, education and welfare of children and elderly. Each state would also maintain a militia as most have National Guard Units.
With the limitations put forth to the Federal government by the constitution, the funding necessary to carry out those duties can be easily funded with tariffs and fees. NO income tax would be necessary if the role of the federal government
were downsized to the point of it's constitutional duties.
As far as the "system" that is in place now, it was in place long before Ron Paul became a Congressman. As one of 535 members of Congress, he can not single handedly change the system back to how the founding fathers had originally designed our roles of government. Just like you and I, Ron Paul is stuck with the system that's in place whether he alone approves of it or not. To call him out as one person who uses what's in place because of a corrupted system is not only moronic but shows complete lack of knowledge of the constitution.
The brunt of our current military expenditures is to fund a military industrial complex in conjunction with a failed foreign policy of pro-actively starting wars primarily for oil and a egotistical agenda of "spreading" our democracy around propping up "selected" dictators that eventually go rogue.
The amount of benefits is calculated based on earnings that you were taxed on, however there is no direct connection between what you pay and what you receive. (That is what keeps it legal and why the 9 robes never declared it unconstitutional.)
There is no legal requirement for Congress to keep SS benefits going. (It would, however, be political suicide to suddenly end it.)
Now it may sound bias as a Ron Paul supporter, but I don't follow the man, I follow the idea.