I’m a youngster, 24 years old and just starting my life as a worship pastor. I find myself caught in this dilemma (I have until next April to file for SS exemption). I can certainly give many reasons why I dislike SS and hate to take part in it, but I’m having to divide my practical, financial concerns and analyze this theologically. Can I honestly exempt myself purely for reasons of belief? I don’t know… Rest assured I’ll be doing a good bit of praying and soul searching over the next few months.

Incidentally, I found this article from 1957 (republished in ‘80) written by a pastor when SS was fairly young. I don’t know how much I agree with his application of Scripture, but it was a good, informative read:
ftp://entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/north/8001.pdf

Thanks to everyone who posted here. Your insights and opinions have been a big help to me in my own decision making process.

I completely disagree that social programs, welfare and Social Security are a Christian approach to the problem of poverty, etc.

Let me start by picking a phrase you used. “It’s not about me. It’s about me helping my children.” You have it exactly backwards. Social Security does not go into some “trust fund” to benefit us and our children later. Instead, the taxes you pay today go to benefit older people who paid their taxes yesterday. Social Security does NOT benefit children, it *indebts* them to us– it demands that they sacrifice their financial well-being for our sake. It leaves a *worse* legacy for future generations. Rather than leaving them more money, it leaves them with a debt, an obligation to support us.

So you may say that by mistake you got it backwards. “It’s about me helping my parents.” That may be, but it is very short-sighted, and does not change the fact that it hurts future generations. In fact, by establishing this program, older generations unwittingly set up a system that would either eventually bankrupt the entire country, or (if benefits are severely reduced) take much from future generations that would never be returned to them in full, while at the same time putting a huge burden on the economy through ever-increasing taxes.

Another evil outcome of Social Security and other welfare programs is that they replace the family support structure with government. The end result is that families do not rely on each other as they used to. Such government programs contribute to the decline of the family in today’s society. Our culture’s reduced sense of responsibility and *personal* duty to others is also reduced. “The government will take care of them.” I would argue, contrary to what you have said, that our materialistic, self-centered culture is more due to such government programs than due to any growth in people trying to provide for themselves and their loved ones.

During the debate about changing the Social Security program a couple of years ago, the most vociferous opponents were, curiously, the eldest among us. Why is that? Is it because they wanted to “help the children”? No, they were acting selfishly! They were afraid that any changes would threaten their benefits. Their fear was so irrational that it blinded them from realizing that the proposed changes would not only not affect them, but it would actually make Social Security a reality for their children. If they really cared about the children and the future of this country, instead of just for themselves, they would have been ALL FOR the changes!

And next, to the demographic havoc that Social Security and similar programs have wreaked. In large part because of programs like Social Security, birthrates have fallen below replacement levels in many European countries and in the U.S. In Rome, for example, I have heard it is often lamented that there are no more young people. (In the U.S. this is offset by immigration and the high birthrates of immigrants.) Now that people don’t rely on their children in their old age, they don’t want to have as many… in some cases, none at all. If you want to look at it in crass economic terms, if you tax something, it will decrease; if you subsidize it, it will increase. Young people are taxed more, and old people are subsidized. So we see the population tilting beyond stabilization into actual decline, and the consequent imbalance of young and old people. This means yet further taxes on the fewer young to support the greater number of old. This trend can only accelerate until it results in catastrophe or the long, slow atrophy of our civilization, as we are now seeing.

From a less economic and more societal point of view, I believe it is much better when *people* take care of people directly, when we rely on and build *personal* relationships. I live in an apartment complex that is home to many older people. Many of them are very lonely and live far away from their children. We try to visit them and help them out as much as we can, and they are so happy to see us and talk to us. I would much rather have my parents live with me, and support them directly, than to have them indirectly live off me through the government’s redirection of wealth. My children could benefit from their wisdom by seeing and talking to them everyday, and our communities would be much healthier with families and friends supporting each other and living together like this. Instead, with older retired people having their much-vaunted “independence,” they end up being very lonely and isolated, and the younger generation no longer feels a sense of duty, obligation or even caring for them. The government has taken over the support role, though it obviously cannot ever replace the personal care. The result is an increase in loneliness, isolation and a *decrease* in relationships– quite the opposite of what you suggested. You cannot have a “relationship” with others that consists primarily of a FICA deduction on one end and a Social Security benefits check on the other.

As to welfare programs in general, we see similar effects. In many poorer communities, the government has largely replaced fathers, which is a huge tragedy for those communities and their health and futures. We are seeing a fatherless generation grow up, and that is at least partly due to government welfare programs.

I know these programs are seen by many as a form of “compassion” from the greater society to those in need. The missing part of it is the personal connection, the personal relationship. Yes, we do have an obligation to the poor and to the widow. We, I mean *me*, *personally*. *I* should be the one going to help them, visit them, and so on. One could say that the government has taken over that role because the church, and people like you and I, had failed in our job to do this. Yet one could also argue that the government stepping in has only compounded the lack of *personal* compassion and involvement. The result has been a reduction in personal compassion, the loss of the individual sense of duty to the common good and to others, and an actual *increase* in the amount of need and poverty and family brokenness.

These are some of the reasons why I conscientiously object to Social Security and similar programs.

If your father had put the same amount of money into a savings account that bore a mere 4% interest (and there are more and more of these every day), your mother would have far more than she would get from Social Security. I would have called that *better* stewardship. Investing in the stock market for the long run would have been even better.

At least, on average. There is one aspect of Social Security that would not be covered by that… and that is if your father died early without having time to put much into the savings account. However, that is what life insurance is for.

I completely disagree that socialism, welfare and social security are a Christian approach to the problem of poverty, etc.

Let me start by picking a phrase you used. “It’s not about me. It’s about me helping my children.” You have it exactly backwards. Social Security does NOT benefit children, it *indebts* them to us– it demands that they sacrifice their financial well-being for our sake. It leaves a *worse* legacy for future generations.

So you may say that by mistake you got it backwards. “It’s about me helping my parents.” That may be, but it is very short-sighted, and does not change the fact that it hurts future generations. In fact, by establishing this program, older generations unwittingly set up a system that would either eventually bankrupt the entire country, or (if benefits are severely reduced) take much from future generations that would never be returned to them in full, while at the same time putting a huge burden on the economy through ever-increasing taxes.

Another evil outcome of Social Security and other welfare programs is that they replace the family support structure with government. The end result is that families do not rely on each other as they used to. Such government programs contribute to the decline of the family in today’s society. Our culture’s reduced sense of responsibility and *personal* duty to others is also reduced. “The government will take care of them.” I would argue, contrary to what you have said, that our materialistic, self-centered culture is more due to such government programs than due to any growth in people trying to provide for themselves and their loved ones.

During the debate about changing the Social Security program a couple of years ago, the most vociferous opponents were, curiously, the eldest among us. Why is that? Is it because they wanted to “help the children”? No, they were acting selfishly! They were afraid that any changes would threaten their benefits. Their fear was so irrational that it blinded them from realizing that the proposed changes would not only not affect them, but it would actually make Social Security a reality for their children. If they really cared about the children and the future of this country, instead of just for themselves, they would have been ALL FOR the changes!

And next, to the demographic havoc that Social Security and similar programs have wreaked. In large part because of programs like Social Security, birthrates have fallen below replacement levels in many European countries and in the U.S. In Rome, for example, I have heard it is often lamented that there are no more young people. (In the U.S. this is offset by immigration and the high birthrates of immigrants.) Now that people don’t rely on their children in their old age, they don’t want to have as many… in some cases, none at all. If you want to look at it in crass economic terms, if you tax something, it will decrease; if you subsidize it, it will increase. Young people are taxed more, and old people are subsidized. So we see the population tilting beyond stabilization into actual decline, and the consequent imbalance of young and old people. This means yet further taxes on the fewer young to support the greater number of old. This trend can only accelerate until it results in catastrophe or the long, slow atrophy of our civilization, as we are now seeing.

From a less economic and more societal point of view, I believe it is much better when *people* take care of people directly, when we rely on and build *personal* relationships. I live in an apartment complex that is home to many older people. Many of them are very lonely and live far away from their children. We try to visit them and help them out as much as we can, and they are so happy to see us and talk to us. I would much rather have my parents live with me, and support them directly, than to have them indirectly live off me through the government’s redirection of wealth. My children could benefit from their wisdom by seeing and talking to them everyday, and our communities would be much healthier with families and friends supporting each other and living together like this. Instead, with older retired people having their much-vaunted “independence,” they end up being very lonely and isolated, and the younger generation no longer feels a sense of duty, obligation or even caring for them. The government has taken over the support role, though it obviously cannot ever replace the personal care. The result is an increase in loneliness, isolation and a *decrease* in relationships– quite the opposite of what you suggested. You cannot have a “relationship” with others that consists primarily of a FICA deduction on one end and a Social Security benefits check on the other.

As to welfare programs in general, we see similar effects. In many poorer communities, the government has largely replaced fathers, which is a huge tragedy for those communities and their health and futures. We are seeing a fatherless generation grow up, and that is at least partly due to government welfare programs.

I know these programs are seen by many as a form of “compassion” from the greater society to those in need. The missing part of it is the personal connection, the personal relationship. Yes, we do have an obligation to the poor and to the widow. We, I mean *me*, *personally*. *I* should be the one going to help them, visit them, and so on. One could say that the government has taken over that role because the church, and people like you and I, had failed in our job to do this. Yet one could also argue that the government stepping in has only compounded the lack of *personal* compassion and involvement. The result has been a reduction in personal compassion, the loss of the individual sense of duty to the common good and to others, and an actual *increase* in the amount of need and poverty and family brokenness.

These are some of the reasons why I conscientiously object to Social Security and similar programs.

The tax breaks and the exemption from the SS system made it possible for her and her husband to live during the time she worked for that particular church based on the very low salary she received in her first ministry job.

What we’re really talking about here is the notion of “commonwealth”–that those of us who have more are willing to give some of that away in order to provide for the common good. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Social Security, equating it with some sort of private, personal, individual plan that would benefit you; it was never intended to be that sort of thing. But following the Great Depression, a number of people realized that when horrible things happen, they affect all of us–and thus when we’re managing okay (working, getting paid regularly, etc.), we should also realize that we’re connected and store up not just for ourselves, but also for others. That’s why Social Security is intergenerational–it’s not about me. It’s about me helping my children–and yours. And you helping your children–and mine. It’s the notion of community, that we share something as Americans and that we’re thus bound together and responsible to help each other. That’s also why we pay to support schools we won’t attend, museums we might only go to once in a while, parks we may never play at… We do this because it’s a right and civilized thing to do–our gift to the others in our community as a way of saying thank you for all those things we enjoyed that we didn’t pay for–and as a way of making sure that the blessings and benefits of our civilization continue for future generations, each one beholden to the one before it, each connected to the ones that come after.

And all of this meshes quite well with Christianity it seems to me–supporting the widows and orphans and aliens among us, recognizing that we enjoy groves and vineyards we didn’t plant, realizing that the old divisions of Jew & Gentile, slave & free, male & female no longer exist. Celebrating the fact that what we have is not ours, but God’s and at the same time rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…

The notion of commonwealth has virtually disappeared in America, leaving only materialism and individualism. But the notion of commonwealth has a long history in Western civilization (and Eastern, too, for that matter)–indeed, many would see it is the primary marker of civilization itself. We band together because we realize that the community is stronger, richer, more resilient, more protected than the individual ever could be. Many European cities still have communal pastureland surrounding them even today, and many cities and villages in New England still have the communal woodland around them where the whole village once collected firewood for the winter… This is the original notion of parkland–a place we share and are equally responsible for whether we’re rich or poor. A place where we come together.

So Social Security isn’t really about personal benefit nor individual justice, Justin, nor is it about maximizing your investment so you can enjoy your wealth yourself. In its original design (at least before all the loopholes for the rich), it was about creating a just society, a community where we realized and acted upon our connectedness. Such a vision of commonwealth is not just a liberal value; it’s a Christian value as well.

It would be a shame to lose it; one more blow to the communal in favor of the individual; one more privileging of the wealthy over the needy; one more fracturing of relationship in favor of isolation. That’s a place I certainly don’t want to live. So I’ll pay my Social Security taxes for your children; I’ll redistribute my wealth for the children and grandchildren of the others who’ve posted here. And I’ll be grateful for the sacrifice their parents–and yours–made for me and my retirement. And I’ll be vigilant in reminding those around me that one of the primary functions of government is to protect the commonwealth–”to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves AND our posterity…”

Stewardship plays a role in the decision whether the IRS wants to put the word on its form or not.

I wouldn’t have nearly as much issue with social security if it were a forced savings plan. But its not. Its just redistribution of wealth. People that are making 90,000 a year are going to get the same amount of money as someone who made 20,000 a year but they are going to pay a lot more than they get back. Its a negative investment.

It was not designed to be my retirement plan. The social security act has several “titles” that also cover things like unemployment, foster care etc…

FDR when he sumbitted it to congress was seeking “some safeguards against misfortunes which cannot be wholly eliminated in the man made world of ours” and to ” provide at once security against several of the great disturbing factors of life” (message to congress 6/8/1934)

One of the factors not accounted for was population shift. I trust that adjustments will be made. But I am aware adjustments made will impact my children/ grandchildren since the system is an intergenerational tax.

Again, my CO stems solely from the fact that my family (biological and spiritual) will be there to provide for me. I am saddened by all the people who desperately need government assistance. I am glad they are able to receive at least some of the help they need; I just wish it was the Church doing its job by stepping in and doing the providing.