Ayn Rand withdrew Social Security checks (to get back what the government took.) There is nothing necessarily wrong with that.

When you claim Social Security money, you aren't "getting back" what you put in/was "taken" from you. Your contribution is already gone, disbursed to current recipients. When you ultimately collect, that money is similarly coming out of someone else's pocket.

That is true, but it is not how it is marketed. SS is marketed as "insurance" (official name is Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) - so you pay the premium and then get the benefits. The fact that it is not actually insurance but a combination of tax and welfare program is true, but it's hardly the fault of the person who has no choice in paying the tax. If you already are forced to pay the admission price, you may as well enjoy the benefit of what is being sold, even if you are forced to buy it and prefer not to. E.g. many places force people to buy car insurance. Would it be hypocritical for somebody to object to the fact that it is mandatory and still buy it and use it when accident happens? I think only person not understanding the difference between voluntary and coerced transactions would claim such thing.

It's the same with the bank deposits - would you expect do get exact same dollar bills with serial numbers you've deposited every time you use an ATM?

Are you then looting somebody every time you make a cash withdrawal?

No, in fact, it's not the same with bank deposits. Of course you don't get back the same dollar bills; frankly, that's an offensively specious false analogy. But when you deposit money into a bank account, you still own that money; if you were to close your bank account tomorrow, you'd get a cheque for the balance.

Social Security, on the other hand, is a "pay as you go" program. When you contribute money into the Social Security trust fund, it is used to satisfy payments to current recipients. If it's still solvent and operating when you retire or become disabled, then you can expect to receive benefits similarly (though, technically, retirement/"old age" and disability benefits come from different funds).

Moreover, if the fund were to go insolvent — or Congress were to shut the program down — tomorrow, you would have no recourse. (Whereas with bank deposits, you have recourse at least up to the FDIC insured maximum.) If you renounce your US citizenship, or decide to fund your retirement yourself, you don't somehow magically get back the money you contributed, and you're still subject to payroll taxes in the latter case.

> If it's still solvent and operating when you retire or become disabled, then you can expect to receive benefits similarly

That's now how it works. The reason you get those annual pamphlets from Social Security Administration is to know exactly what you're entitled to. It's highly dependent on your rate and consistency of contributions.

> or decide to fund your retirement yourself, you don't somehow magically get back the money you contributed

Not sure what you're saying. When you reach proper age, you're entitled to Social Security payouts as long as you've contributed into the system the way that was intended. A lot of people fund their own retirements through 401(k), annuities or personal savings, that does not disqualify them from Social Security.

I hope you enjoyed the irony of invoking the FDIC to justify why people "own" money that they've deposited in checking accounts as much as I enjoyed reading it. Banks used to shut down all the mfing time without making their depositors whole. The reason that's more or less stopped (in the US) is not because of some moral awakening that somehow missed the social security administration. It's because we regulate banks better.

PS: congress is just as capable of shutting down the FDIC as the SSA

You never get your money back out of a bank; you get somebody else's money, if there ever even was physical money involved. And you never step in the same river twice. I think that's all splitting metaphysical hairs.

In this case, it's actually not hair-splitting; see my reply to your comment's sibling. You both demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how Social Security works.

I may well misunderstand how Social Security works. However, the point of my comment is that it's hardly the only system to which one might contribute funds, incurring some future obligation of (re)payment on the part of that system, which is later discharged using funds that were most recently in "someone else's pocket".

Either it's a trivial point that applies pretty broadly outside of SS, or you meant something more significant and I'm interested in knowing what that is.

Your misunderstanding is, at least in part, in thinking that contributing to SS incurs an obligation to you on the part of the program. Technically, it doesn't even have an obligation to current recipients, let alone future ones.

It doesn't matter though. If social security were made of your actual money the end result would still be the same -- your money would go towards investments in the past, and you'd get paid back by people benefiting from those investments.

Right. That confusion is what causes some people to think that a tax cut is the same as government spending.

Yes, but this is not really related to what I said.

Ayn Rand, and any other person who has become independently wealthy in a way that has nothing to do with the government, can despise looters and be consistent. Government workers in particular cannot.

Given the enormous benefits of taxpayer funded defence/political stability/regulatory frameworks/crime prevention/an educated wokforce etc, 'independently wealthy' is perhaps an impossibility.

What if they're highly employable in private industry anyways, and choose a government job not out of fear of dying of hunger, but for better paycheck, closer commute, or work environment?

Or someone like John Kerry - both independently wealthy and a government worker?

Not the same. You can't opt out of paying into SS. You can choose not to take a government job.