Contact FreedomWorks

111 K Street NE
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20002

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870
WATCH NOWConfirming ACB, Debating Candidates, and Grilling James Comey | Pardon the DisruptionWatch Here


Social Security Violates Younger Generations' Property Rights

For young people, Social Security is a misnomer. The generations that follow the Baby Boomers are anything but “secure” in the Social Security program.

The premise of Social Security is that American citizens who pay taxes out of their paychecks into the program will get their money back at retirement. However, current retirees, who have not paid enough into the system for what they are collecting, are supported by younger generations. This Ponzi Scheme violates their property rights.

According to the 1936 Pamphlet on Social Security, “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you... The checks will come to you as a right.” By calling these checks a “right,” implies that the money you put into your Social Security “account” is your property –– your future entitlement. But this is not the case.
The Heritage Foundation estimates that by 2017 Social Security will pay out more in benefits than payroll taxes bring in. In 1940, 42 taxpayers supported each retiree. Now, it’s only 3.3 taxpayers per retiree. That means Washington will have to raise taxes for the working class to support retiring Baby Boomers.

What would our Founders think of this program?

James Madison said that a “just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species…” This is exactly what big government is doing: instead of securing property, the government transfers it, rewarding retirees at the expense of the younger generations’ future. 

Not all feel this way.

Because of the massive number of people living beneath the poverty level, Progressives feel that it is the government’s duty to save the citizens from possible economic trouble. In his 1944 State of the Union Address, Franklin Delano Roosevelt laid out a second “Bill of Rights” that would provide happiness and security in the face of economic fears.

“All of these rights spell security…And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being,” he said.

FDR missed the mark. An individual’s most sacred right is his or her conscience: the ability to think and make rational, personal decisions.

“Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right,” Madison wrote. He had it right. When big government is given more power to make choices for its citizens, they lose their individual freedoms.

This is exactly what is happening with Social “Security”. American citizens are losing their right to make personal decisions and younger generations are losing their right to their future retirement funds. Big government must remove itself from the picture and protect the true rights of the individual –– life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness –– by privatizing Social Security.

We wouldn’t be the first to try it. Chile privatized Social Security by basing the system on individual choice. Private companies were given the freedom to provide insurance, Chilean citizens pay 10 to 20 percent of their paychecks to the company that best fits their needs. Because of this simple policy change, Chileans now receive 40 to 50 percent higher retirement pensions than the public system provided. America should take notes.

Madison says that a wise and just government “will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in the rights.” Only when our government follows this rule will the individual have real social security.

Our country needs to be willing to seek alternatives to our unsustainable Social Security system. Younger generations should not be left to pick up the pieces of this broken system. Washington needs to take responsibility and pave the road to reform.


I work with www.FixSSNow.Org. We provide one-stop shopping for those concerned with Social Security.

Where is your plan? I have to ask because it is my understanding that this site, FreedomWorks, right now supports a plan from Thaddeus McCotter which is a staggering increase in the size of Social Security. It literally cuts the cost of SS in half for those under 50,and then gives them a guarantee of benefits from the general taxpayer.

For those who are 50 and older, it means that you will not only pay for your parent's retirement, but you will be expected to subsidize your children's. McCotter says it doesn't increase taxes. It 'cuts unnamed government programs' which is neo-con speak for issue more debt. And if they find wasteful government programs - just cut them and don't subsidize the retirement of those under 50. Cutting service and keeping the price is a tax increase.

Ironically enough, the plan that your site supports goes in the exact opposite direction of your article. Back to your quote : "James Madison said that a “just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species…”

Jennifer W

Severe commodity price increase is observable as we face the economic depression. As a response to the existing needs of respective beneficiaries, Social Security benefits will go up by 3.6 percent in 2012 to modify for the cost of living. This will be the first boost in Social Security benefits in 3 years. This comes as welcome information for retirees in the economic downturn. It will serve as a support for their medicare requirements. Article source: <a title="Social Security benefits to increase for the first time since 2009" href=" Security benefits to increase for the first time since 2009</a>


If you feel that we are unfair to the McCotter plan, yell at us : www.FixSSNow.Org. Literally tell us how it works.

Rick Norris

This article is all well and good, but it leaves out one key point. That point is there would be enough money in the Social Security system if congress had not "borrowed" every dime in the fund to pay for their pet projects. Look at RR retirement-it has a surplus of funds to pay retirees for many years. If Congress got their hands on it(as they have tried many times), it would be gone within a few years just like Social Security.The problem is not the poor, it is the fat cat politicians and their handlers who want to keep the divide in this country alive and well. Look again at Madison's quote. It works both ways. If the super rich and the big corporations paid there fare share of taxes instead of riding on the backs of the workers this country would not be bankrupt. America better wake up and come out of their fantasy world before it is too late. The working class is not going to take much more.........


The above comment about Jesus' priorities ignores some of His basic principles. Firstly, giving was supposed to be voluntary. Any coercion (government) or doing it for the approval of others nullified the respect and blessing for doing it. Paul specifically states that giving should not be "under compulsion". Secondly, Jesus was as willing to accept donations from the poor as the rich. Remember the widow's mite? Thirdly, the rich young ruler is the only one Jesus is said to have asked to sell everything but he is not the only rich person who came to and followed Jesus. Hence the requirement to sell should not be taken as the norm.
And, finally, the above discussion confuses the believers with the government. The government no longer is seen (and never should have been) as the corporate expression of the people of God. Failing to vote for monies to be confiscated from others to meet our own ideas of caring for the poor is not a vote against compassion. It is a vote against foisting our responsibilities on others.

Chuck Reynolds

It would be nice to have a "like" and a "report spam" button.

Chuck Reynolds

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. I saw this cut and paste somewhere before. Is it just spam, or do you think that the government is now the Church?


Jesus had a special sense of mission to poor and oppressed people. At the outset of his ministry, sometimes referred to as Jesus' mission statement, Jesus stood up in the synagogue at Nazareth and read from the prophet Isaiah:
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19)
The biographies of Jesus depict him repeatedly reaching out to those at the bottom of the social pyramid--poor people, women, Samaritans, lepers, children, prostitutes and tax collectors. Jesus was also eager to accept people who were well-placed, but he made clear that all, regardless of social position, needed to repent. For this reason, he invited the rich young man to sell all of his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. (Matthew 19:16-30, Luke 18:18-30, Mark 10:17-31)
Jesus commanded, "Love your neighbor." When asked to define "neighbor," Jesus expanded the traditional meaning of the word--defining our neighbor as anyone who is in need, including social outcasts: "But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed." (Luke 14:13)
In his portrayal of the day of judgment, Jesus pictured people from all nations gathered before him, separated into "sheep" and "goats." (Matthew 25:31-46) To the "sheep" he says, "Come you blessed of my Father, for I was hungry and you fed me..." In their astonishment they ask, "When did we do that?" And he answers, "When you did it to the lowliest of my brothers (and sisters)." Conversely, to the "goats" he says, "Out of my sight, you who are condemned, for I was hungry and you did not feed me..."
Jesus himself cared for those in need by feeding the hungry. Crowds of four thousand (Mark 8:1-13) and five thousand (Mark 6:30-44) had assembled to listen to Jesus. They soon became hungry. When his disciples suggested that Jesus send the people away to buy food, he responded by saying "I have compassion on these people..." and "you give them something to eat." He proceeded to perform miracles to feed these large crowds of hungry people.
Adapted from J. Bennett Guess, "Biblical Foundations for Justice Advocacy," UCC Justice and Witness Ministries.