Point-by-point rebuttal to@RIP_IRS: “You’re wrong on so many levels.” Cute opener. The original post’s core claim—that Social Security payments come from decades of mandatory FICA contributions by workers and employers (totaling ~15.3% including Medicare side), not some unearned handout—is basically correct in the everyday sense people mean it. The “Federal Benefit Payment” renaming panic is a recycled internet myth that’s been floating around since at least 2012; SSA has always called them benefits, and “federal benefit payments” is bureaucratic jargon that also covers disability, Medicare, etc. No grand recent rebranding occurred to insult you. But the substance isn’t “wrong on so many levels.” It’s a pay-as-you-go transfer system dressed up as social insurance. People paid in under the promise of getting something back. Calling that a pure “benefit” like welfare is the linguistic slight the original was reacting to.“ But yes promises were made, and yes, we have been betrayed. But the betrayal happened in 1935 when Socialist ideas were sweeping the planet.” Ah, the vintage “everything I dislike is socialism” move. Critics in 1935 did call the Social Security Act socialistic, a “cruel hoax,” “Sovietize the country,” “compulsory socialistic tax,” and worse. Republicans and business groups howled. FDR explicitly drew on Bismarck-style social insurance (the German model from the 1880s), packaged it with more popular relief measures, and insisted on the contributory framing so it wouldn’t look like a pure dole. It passed with big bipartisan majorities anyway. Calling the entire New Deal-era program a “betrayal by socialist ideas sweeping the planet” is overheated rhetoric that pretends the alternative was pure free-market old-age provision in the middle of the Depression. Promises were made; demographics and design made them hard to keep without adjustments. That’s not unique to 1935 “socialism.” “There were people then, who rightly pointed out the system was mathematically unsustainable and would be looted either by politicians or the masses, or by both.” Fair enough on the predictions—actuaries and critics flagged the reserve issues and political temptation early. It was never a pure funded savings plan with personal accounts; it’s pay-as-you-go. Surpluses bought special-issue Treasuries (IOUs from the rest of the government), which let Congress spend the cash on other priorities while the trust funds held paper claims. When cash-flow turned negative, those get redeemed by general revenues/borrowing. “Looted” is dramatic, but yes, the money wasn’t locked in a vault with your name on it, and the Supreme Court has made clear there’s no property right to specific benefits. Demographics (longer lives, lower birth rates, fewer workers per retiree) were always going to stress a pure transfer system. The original post isn’t denying math problems; it’s rejecting the framing that retirees are freeloaders on unearned charity. “So, seeing your TwitterHandle gives me an idea of the type of politicians you have been voting for. You have yourself and your voting cohort to blame.” Peak ad-hominem. You deduced someone’s entire voting history and moral culpability from a handle and a viral post about Social Security nomenclature? Impressive detective work. Both parties have expanded benefits, delayed hard choices, and kicked the can. Blaming “your cohort” while promoting your preferred bill is the classic “everyone else is the problem” move. The system’s structural issues predate any recent handle or voting pattern. “That being said, the system COULD be given an extension. The maneuver has to do with the way it’s funded. Extracting it from workers and employers (actually ALSO from workers) is obscene. HR25, The FAIRtax dumps ALL FEDERAL PAYROLL TAXES, and replaces it with one, progressive consumption tax. If you want to know more, do your due dilligence.” Finally, a policy pitch. HR 25 (FairTax) does propose replacing the income tax, payroll taxes (including the Social Security/Medicare ones), estate/gift taxes, etc., with a national retail sales tax (around 23% tax-inclusive / ~30% exclusive initially), plus a monthly “prebate” keyed to poverty-level spending to make it progressive at the low end. Revenues would be allocated in part to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. It’s a real proposal that’s been around for years, with the usual arguments about growth, simplicity, and taxing consumption instead of work. Critics note rate sufficiency questions, transition issues, compliance, and whether it truly protects the trust funds without other changes. Calling the current dual employee/employer payroll tax “obscene” while selling a consumption tax that still funds the same obligations is fine advocacy—just don’t pretend it’s the only possible “extension” or that everyone who notices the current system’s promises is somehow uniquely at fault for not having already enacted your bill. “Do your due diligence” after a short sales pitch is the standard closer. Bottom line: The original post is emotional and slightly myth-laden on the “renaming,” but its refusal to treat decades of forced contributions as pure charity is understandable. Your reply correctly notes the 1935 design flaws, pay-as-you-go realities, and political looting incentives, then pivots hard into handle-shaming and a FairTax commercial. Promises were made under a system whose math was always fragile. Fixing the funding mechanism is legitimate debate; declaring the other side solely to blame while pushing one specific bill is just the usual Twitter (X) theater.