Calendar - Wisconsin Department Of Revenue: Fill & Download for Free

When To FileYou will meet the requirement to file Forms 1094-C and 1095-C if the forms are properly addressed and mailed on or before the due date. If the due date falls on a weekend or legal holiday, then the due date is the following business day. A business day is any day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.Generally, you must file Forms 1094-C and 1095-C by February 28 if filing on paper (or March 31 if filing electronically) of the year following the calendar year to which the return relates. For calendar year 2017, Forms 1094-C and 1095-C are required to be filed by February 28, 2018, or April 2, 2018, if filing electronically.ExtensionsYou can get an automatic 30-day extension of time to file by completing Form 8809, Application for Extension of Time To File Information Returns. The form may be submitted on paper, or through the FIRE System either as a fill-in form or an electronic file. No signature or explanation is required for the extension. However, you must file Form 8809 on or before the due date of the returns in order to get the 30-day extension. Under certain hardship conditions you may apply for an additional 30-day extension. See the instructions for Form 8809 for more information.How to apply.As soon as you know that a 30-day extension of time to file is needed, file Form 8809. See the instructions for Form 8809. Mail or fax Form 8809 using the address and phone number listed in the instructions. You can submit the extension request online through the FIRE System. You are encouraged to submit requests using the online fill-in form. See Pub. 1220, Part B, for more information on filing online or electronically.Where To FileSend all information returns filed on paper to the following:If your principal business, office or agency, or legal residence in the case of an individual, is located in:Use the following address:Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,West VirginiaDepartment of the TreasuryInternal Revenue Service CenterAustin, TX 73301If your principal business, office or agency, or legal residence in the case of an individual, is located in:Use the following address:Alaska, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, WyomingDepartment of the TreasuryInternal Revenue Service CenterPO Box 219256Kansas City, MO 64121-9256

In a free market economy, their should be no reason that Tesla would not be able to sell directly to its customers. However, some states have franchise laws that prohibit direct sales of cars and only allow cars to be sold by dealerships.Tesla uses the direct sales model to reduce costs and the hassle of the buying experience. Anyone who has purchased an ICE vehicle knows what I mean by the hassle of the buying experience.Here is some added information on on direct sales by state:States with total direct sales bansNew Mexico (also bans service centers)In January 2019, the Public Affairs Committee approved the Tesla-friendly Senate Bill 243, but it died on the Senate Corporations and Transportation Committee calendar. House Bill 294 died in the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee.Alabama (also bans service centers)Alabama regards manufacturer-owned new motor vehicle stores and service centers as "unfair and deceptive trade practices".In August 2016 State Senator Tom Whatley introduced Senate Bill 22, assigned to the Senate Tourism and Marketing Committee, which would allow a manufacturer of alternative fuel vehicles to sell and lease its vehicles directly to the public. The bill died in committee.South Carolina (also bans service centers)South Carolina bans manufacturer ownership of new car dealerships and manufacturer service/repair of cars they do not own. A bill was introduced in 2019 to allow electric only manufacturers to sell in the state. However, Tesla does offer mobile service in the state.LouisianaLouisiana enacted a law in June 2017 that bans direct to consumer sales of vehicles. A service center is planned in New Orleans.TexasTexas enacted laws make it illegal to buy a car from Tesla in person, at a Tesla Gallery. Thus, all Texas orders are taken via the internet or over the phone. Texas residents can still easily buy a car from Tesla, but the purchase is handled as an out-of-state transaction and must be completed before the vehicle ships to Texas. Tesla recently added the ability to include tax, title, license, and registration in the sale price of the car so the purchaser doesn't have to pay that separately once they receive the vehicle. In 2015, Tesla lobbied the Texas Legislature to modify the law to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers, and specifically allow Tesla employees to discuss "financing, leasing, or purchasing options" at the firm's existing galleries in Austin, Dallas, and Houston.Texas considered legislation in 2015 to allow Tesla to operate in the state but legislation was not passed.As of 2016, most of the GOP delegates support direct sales while Governor Abbott prefers the current system. According to Texans for Public Justice, Tesla spent $1.3m on lobbyists while dealerships spent $1m.ConnecticutConnecticut does not allow manufacturer direct sales, but does allow direct leasing. Tesla operated a gallery in Greenwich that the Connecticut Automotive Retailers Association successfully got shut down via a lawsuit. In March 2018, Tesla was appealing a ruling that they operate the Greenwich gallery as an unlicensed dealership, but later dropped the appeal. The gallery was shut down in March 2019.In December 2019, Tesla started offering leases at their showrooms which allowed them to provide test drives for customers discussing leases.In 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 bills were introduced in the legislature to allow licensing electric vehicle manufacturers as dealers.West VirginiaWest Virginia does not allow Tesla-owned stores or showrooms.In January 2019, House Bill 2219 was introduced that would allow a manufacturer to be licensed and operate as a new motor vehicle dealer if the company is ZEV-only and manufacturing since 2008.WisconsinAuto manufacturers are not allowed to sell directly to the public under Wisconsin law.In late 2017 a legislative bill named "Electric Vehicle Freedom Act" was introduced to allow only electric vehicle manufactures to sell directly. The bill is opposed by the Wisconsin Automobile Dealers & Truck Association.NebraskaNebraska prohibits auto manufacturer direct sales, but Legislative Bill 830 was introduced in 2018 in an attempt to change the law.There is a new bill being pushed into Legislation from Vargas again. LB51 - Change license applications, prohibited acts, and franchise restrictions under the Motor Vehicle Industry Regulation Act. On January 8th, 2020 - Title printed. Carryover bill.OklahomaOklahoma currently bans direct sales by auto manufacturers, but legislation was introduced in February 2018 to attempt to allow it.States with limited salesVirginia(2 stores, unclear if more would be denied)[edit]In Virginia Tesla has obtained license from the (DMV) for a single direct sales dealership (Tysons Corner). Upon learning of Tesla's attempt to obtain a second dealership in the state, the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association filed a lawsuit in March 2016 against both Tesla and the DMV to prevent the licensing of the second dealership.In September 2016, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (VDMV) recommended ending Tesla direct sales, as at least 11 dealerships were interested in selling Tesla vehicles.The VDMV later allowed Tesla to open another shop (Richmond), as Tesla has no dealerships to compete against; the 11 interested dealerships would not be able to compete on undiscounted prices, as Tesla has the same price online and in shops.Third-party profits could come from servicing as is traditional, but Tesla already has satisfactory servicing.The Virginia Automobile Dealers Association continues to use the legal system in an attempt to prevent Tesla from opening more than a single store and appealed the ruling by the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles allowing the second store to be open. However, in June 2019 a judge in the Richmond Circuit Court ruled against the Dealers Association.The Dealers Association also had state Senators remove a governor-appointed Tesla employee from the Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, created in 1995, that regulates car dealers in the state.Ohio(3 store limit)In December 2013, days before Tesla was to open its first store in Ohio, a one line amendment to a draft bill was proposed at the urging of the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association that would have prevented Tesla from selling directly to the public in the state. This amendment was dropped a day later.A group of auto dealers then sued the state to try to get Tesla's license rescinded. This suit was dismissed less than two months later. Shortly thereafter a legislative bill was introduced that would ban all manufacturers from owning dealerships, not just those with existing frachisees.A deal reached between Tesla and the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association in March 2014 allowed Tesla to have three stores but blocks all other auto manufacturers. The Ohio Senate approved the bill in April.New Jersey(4 store limit)On March 10, 2014, it was announced that New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission and Governor Chris Christie's administration held a meeting to pass a new proposal into law. This new proposal, PRN 2013-138, was announced one day before it was to be put into law. Tesla responded by saying that the proposal "seeks to impose stringent licensing rules that would, among other things, require all new motor vehicles to be sold through middlemen and block Tesla's direct sales model," and that "[Governor Christie's] Administration has decided to go outside the legislative process by expediting a rule proposal that would completely change the law in New Jersey."The law was passed, and "Tesla will no longer be able to sell electric cars in New Jersey, effective April 1". Diarmuid O'Connell, Tesla Vice President of Business Development, said, "Worse, it has done so without any reasonable notice or even a public hearing."Forbes contributor Mark Rogosky said, "The state's new rules protect its auto dealers from having to compete with Tesla's direct sales model"; he points out that this is a direct contrast from what Christie said earlier, "We are for a free-market society that allows your effort and ingenuity to determine your success, not the cold, hard hand of the government." Kevin Roberts, a spokesman for the Christie administration, responded by saying "it was the [Tesla Motors] company, not the governor's office, that was attempting to bypass normal procedures.".In March 2015, a new state law was signed allowing zero-emission vehicle manufacturers to sell at up to four location and require a minimum of 1 service center.2018 session Senate bill No. 3493 was introduced to increased the number of allowed sales locations to 14 by 2023, but increases the mandated retail service facilities to seven. It died in committee.In September 2019, the New Jersey auto dealers association, the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, sued Tesla and the state to stop Tesla from selling cars by its current methods in the state.Maryland(4 store limit)In May 2015, Maryland approved, through House Bill 235, direct Tesla sales to customers beginning in October 2015, though limiting the statewide number of stores to only four. The legislation was crafted specifically for Tesla and allows only four manufacturers of electric or non-fossil fuel burning vehicles without existing franchisees to be licensed to sell direct to the public.Pennsylvania (5 store limit)Pennsylvania enacted a law in 2014 that allows Tesla to open up to five stores.New York (5 store limit)In 2014, New York banned direct sales but grandfathered in five Tesla stores. Tesla operates two galleries in addition to its five stores.There is proposed legislation (Senate bill S6600A and Assembly bill A8248A) to allow more stores. The Eastern New York Coalition of Automotive Retailers is opposed to this as is the Rochester Automobile Dealers Association.Georgia (5 store limit)Since 2015, Georgia law no longer restricts Tesla to 150 car sales per year but limits sales to five locations.North Carolina (6 store limit)Tesla's first store in North Carolina was in Raleigh. In 2016 the state would not grant Tesla a dealer license for a second location in Charlotte. A previous legislative bill that would allow six Tesla stores was shelved in 2017.In July 2019 a bill was passed allowing Tesla to operate a maximum of six stores, unlimited galleries and repair centers.States for which Tesla gained the right to mostly unrestricted direct sales:New Hampshire (2013 law change)In 2013, New Hampshire passed legislation to allow auto manufacturers with no existing franchise dealer in the state to engage in direct sales.Minnesota (2013 law interpretation)The Minnesota Department of Public Safety ruled in 2013 that the original dealer law "does not prohibit a manufacturer from becoming licensed as a dealer in Minnesota".The dealership association in the state failed in their attempt to get the law changed to block Tesla.Washington (2014 law)A 2014 Washington state law outlawed direct sales but grandfathered in Tesla.Massachusetts (2014 court ruling)After an almost two year court battle with the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association, a September 2014 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court allowed Tesla to begin selling directly in the state. The court ruled the law only protected franchise dealers from abuse by manufacturers they already buy from; since no franchise dealers were selling Teslas at the time of the suit, the court ruled the Association had no standing to sue.Missouri (2017 court ruling)A Missouri circuit court ruled in August 2016 to end direct sales, confirmed in late December 2016, and delayed in early January while the Missouri Department of Revenue appeals the former verdict.]In December 2017 an appeals court reversed the circuit court's decision, saying the Missouri Automobile Dealers Association did not have standing to sue. However, the Dealers Association is backing new legislation that would allow it to sue.Wyoming (2017 law change)Wyoming banned direct sales until a law change in 2017 that created a direct sale manufacturer's license.Electric cars were seen as a way to promote the use of coal mined in the state.Arizona (2017 court ruling)Arizona blocked direct sales until June 2017 when an administrative law judge ruled that the Arizona Department of Transportation interpreted the law incorrectly. This was after a years-long legal battle by Tesla.Indiana (2017 law change)Indiana allows a service center and manufacturer sales for 30 months, ending direct Tesla sales by the end of 2017. A legislative proposal had further restrictions, opposed by Tesla.The Roads and Transportation committee approved a modification that grandfathered Tesla, but maintained the ban on all new direct sales by other automakers.Rhode Island (2017)In December 2017, Tesla was granted a license by the state of Rhode Island after DMV lawyers concluded that the law blocking direct auto sales only applied to manufactures that have franchise dealers. Tesla planned to begin sales in 2018 in Warwick, but this was pushed back to 2019.Utah (2018 law change)As of March 21, 2018, Utah Governor Herbert signed a bill into law allowing Tesla direct sales in the state.Michigan (2020 legal settlement)After a change of political leadership in Michigan's executive branch, on January 22, 2020, Tesla and the state of Michigan agreed to settle Tesla's 2016 federal lawsuit against the state for unfair vehicle sales and service restrictions. The agreement allows Tesla to sell and service cars within the state. Previously Tesla could not sell or service vehicles in Michigan. Tesla may deliver vehicles within the state, but they must be titled outside of Michigan and transferred to a new title after purchase. Tesla may not own a service center directly, but a wholly owned subsidiary may own a service centeColorado (2020 law change)Tesla opened its first and only Colorado store in Boulder in 2009. A 2010 revision to the state dealership law removed the word "franchised". This closed the loophole that Tesla had used to open a direct dealership but grandfathered in the existing singleThis limitation was supported by the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association.The store moved from Boulder to the Park Meadows shopping mall in Lone Tree in 2011. Showrooms/galleries have since been opened in Aspen, Vail, and the Cherry Creek Shopping Center in Denver, though these have since closed. There is a service center in Denver and a service center and showroom in Littleton. A large service center and store was built in Superior, Colorado in Boulder County, targeted for spring 2019 opening,, and opened in February 2020.A bill to allow direct sales died in the House in 2019, for which the Colorado Auto Dealers Association claimed credit. 2006 New Mexico Statutes, Section 57-16-5-V prohibits manufacturers like Tesla to be licensed as a dealer, directly or indirectly performing warranty or other services. Despite Tesla owners' pleas to change the law, they still currently depend on out-of-state centers such as Arizona and Colorado for Tesla sales and services.Hope you find this information useful.

The Social Security Act was created in 1935 during the Depression as a first effort towards the eventual goal of providing cradle to grave social security to Americans. The drafters of the Act intended to create two types of government programs: (1) public welfare and (2) public insurance. Public welfare programs are paid for by general tax revenues, and the amount of the benefit has no connection to the amount of taxes, if any, the beneficiary has paid. Public insurance programs are paid for by payroll taxes to insure against the risk of loss of earnings from a job. The payroll taxes are put into a government-run trust fund, and the amount of benefit is tied to the amount of money in the trust fund and the average amount of taxed income the beneficiary earned during his lifetime.Here is a quick summary of important public welfare and public insurance programs under the Social Security Act: (Food Stamps is an important public welfare program which is not part of the Social Security Act. Workers' Compensation is an important insurance program which is not part of the Social Security Act.)Title II: Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. This is a public insurance program. The original Act only provided for Old-Age Insurance. The Old-Age Insurance Trust Fund was used to provide a pension to people who lost the income from their jobs because they retired. The provisions relating to the payroll tax to provide revenue for the Trust Fund were put in Title VIII. In 1939, a Survivors benefit was added so that the widows of old-age beneficiaries could continue to receive benefits. In 1956, disability benefits were also added for people who had to retire prior to reaching “old age” because they became disabled. This public insurance program, which is now administered by the Social Security Administration, is what people usually refer to as “social security.”Title III: Grants to States for Unemployment Compensation. This is a public insurance program that was part of the original Act. The program is now administered by the Department of Labor. The law taxes employers, and the Federal government assists the states in administering systems of unemployment compensation to provide temporary assistance to people who lose their income from their jobs because they are laid off.Title IV: Grants to States for Aid and Services to Needy Families with Children and for Child-Welfare Services. This is what exists now that we have eliminated “welfare” as we knew it. Originally, Title IV was for Grants to States for Aid to Dependent Children. This was a public welfare program for children whose father did not support them, presumably, because he had died or become disabled. Money was given to the widow to help her support her children. Eventually, the program was expanded to provide Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). For some reason, people began referring to this program alone as “welfare.”Title VIII. Taxes With Respect to Employment. In the original Act, payroll taxes were used to provide revenue for the Old-Age Insurance Trust Fund. This title in the original Act was repealed and moved to the Internal Revenue Code in 1939. Now, payroll taxes are required to be paid under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), which is still codified in the Internal Revenue Code.Title XVI: Supplemental Security Income for the Aged, Blind, or Disabled (SSI). In the original Act, Title I was Grants to States for Old-Age Assistance for the Aged and Title X was Grants to States for Aid to the Blind. Later, Title XIV, Grants to States for the Permanently and Totally Disabled, was added. In the early 1970s, Titles I, X and XIV were eventually combined into this one program. SSI is clearly a public welfare program, but for some reason, people usually do not mean SSI when they use the word “welfare.”Title XVIII: Health Insurance for the Aged and Disabled (Medicare). Created in 1965, this program provides health insurance (but not nursing home care) for the aged and disabled. This is a public insurance program, because benefits are tied to payroll taxes contributed under FICA. People with no work record can get Medicare, but it is through a transfer payment from Medicaid to Medicare.Title XIX: Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid). Created in 1965, this program provides health insurance and nursing home care for the needy. This is a public welfare program, but it is not usually called “welfare,” because it provides medical assistance, not cash assistance.Title XX: Block Grants to States for Social Services. Created in 1981, this program provides block grants to states to be used flexibly for social services.Title XXI: State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Created during the Clinton administration, this program provides health insurance for medically indigent people who have too much income or resources to qualify for Medicaid.Currently, FICA imposes a 6.2% and a 1.45% tax on income, and the tax is deducted directly from the payroll. People generally think of the 6.2% tax as the “social security” tax and the 1.45% tax as the “Medicare” tax. (From 2011-2012, the employee's share was temporarily reduced to 4.2% of gross compensation as a fiscal stimulus.) The tax is only imposed on the first $106,800 of income.Under Title II of the Social Security Act, there is a Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund. Old-Age benefits are paid from the fund. 42 USC § 401(h) The amount of the benefit is a percentage of your average monthly income from age 22 until you retire. The benefit is scaled so that the percentage is lower if your average monthly income is higher.Right from the beginning, there was a debate about what the connection was between the tax imposed by Title VIII of the original Act (now FICA), and the amount of benefit paid by Title II of the Act. The original bill proposed during the Depression by the Committee on Economic Security directed by Edwin E. Witte definitely linked Title II and Title VIII, but there was great concern that the scheme would be found unconstitutional. This was during the time period when the Supreme Court found some of Roosevelt's programs unconstitutional on the ground that they allowed the Federal government to do things that were beyond its enumerated powers in the Constitution. If the two titles were unlinked, it was thought Title VIII had a better chance of being upheld under the Congressional taxing power. Thus, in order to ensure that the law would be found to be constitutional, the House Ways and Means Committee changed the original bill to break the linkage between Title II and Title VIII. “All provisions which related the benefits to the tax paid by the employers and their employees were eliminated, as well as all references to any contractual right to benefits.” Witte, at 147. In the beginning, the Committee on Economic Security had believed that the Title VIII tax would not be enough to fund the Title II benefit past about 1965, and the Committee assumed that Title II would need to be funded from general tax sources. Witte, at 148-149. Roosevelt, however, insisted that the program must be self-supporting, so the plan was changed to increase the tax under Title VIII. Agriculture and domestic service were originally not included. The actuarial calculations were made on the assumption that the benefit would only be paid to those retiring from active employment, but the House Ways and Means Committee took out this requirement, and the bill was passed by the House without any provision requiring that beneficiaries be retired from active employment. The President insisted that retirement from employment be a condition of receipt of benefits, and the Senate bill put that requirement back in and it remained in the final bill that was enacted into law. An amendment was proposed which would have exempted employers who already had industrial pension plans, but that amendment was rejected.Today, the link between FICA taxes paid and benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act is well-established.To be eligible for old-age benefits, you must be at least 62, and you must have paid FICA taxes for 10 years. 42 USC § 414.Old-age insurance benefits are determined as follows:1. Determine “number of elapsed years.” Generally, for people retiring now who were never disabled, this is the number of calendar years after the year in which you turned 21 and before the year in which you turned 62, i.e., 39 years. 42 USC § 415(b)(2)(B)(iii).2. Determine “benefit computation years.” Generally, this is the number of elapsed years minus five, i.e., 35 years. 42 USC § 415(b)(2)(A)(i). Use the 35 years with the highest incomes. 42 USC § 415(b)(2)(B)(i). The income from each year will be multiplied by a wage index to get a figure that shows what you earned in today's dollars. 42 USC § 415(b)(3). Only “credited” income counts, i.e., income on which “social security” FICA taxes were imposed, so there's a maximum amount which can be credited. 42 USC §§ 415(e), 430.3. Determine “average indexed monthly earnings.” Total up all the indexed income in the benefit computation years and divide by the number of months in those years. 42 USC § 415(b)(1).4. Determine the “primary insurance amount.” 90% of the first chunk of average indexed monthly earnings, plus 32% of the next chunk of average indexed monthly earnings, plus 15% of the rest of the average indexed monthly earnings. 42 USC § 415(a)(1).This is the benefit if you retire at the regular retirement age, which is 65 if you turned 62 before 1/1/00, 66 if you turn 62 after 12/31/04, and 67 if you turn 62 after 12/31/21. 42 USC § 416. For example, I'll turn 62 in 2029, so 67 is my regular retirement age. I can get old-age insurance benefits at age 62, but they'll be actuarially adjusted downward.Also, the benefit is adjusted downward if you continue to have significant earned income. Congress has delegated the power to determine the amount of this adjustment to the Social Security Administration. The Social Security Administration could reduce the old-age retirement benefit to zero for people who have earned income in excess of the amount of the benefit they would receive if they did not have earned income. 42 USC § 403(b)(1). This is consistent with the requirement insisted upon by Roosevelt in the original Social Security Act that you had to retire to get the old-age insurance benefit. Today, in order to encourage people to keep working, the Social Security Administration only lowers the benefit by a fraction of earnings, so that it is possible for someone entitled to benefits to increase income by working. Benefits are not reduced on account of a person having unearned (investment) income.That's what social security is. I suppose any insurance plan could be characterized as a "Ponzi sceme," in the sense that the people currently paying premiums are funding other beneficiaries' claims. But unlike Ponzi schemes, most insurance plans are able to honor their obligations to pay claims. Just like a private insurance plan, a public insurance plan will become insolvent if the amount of the claims exceeds the revenue generated by premiums. In the case of social security, the program can remain solvent if FICA taxes are increased and/or benefits are reduced.To me, a big problem in the debate over social security is that people believe they are entitled to receive old-age insurance benefits even if they don't need them. Under current law, of course, they are. I certainly agree that if someone who has worked over the course of a lifetime, and the individual and the individual's employers have paid payroll taxes (either under the former Title VIII of the Social Security Act or under FICA), the person should get old-age insurance benefits if they need them. The situation of no longer having sufficient income to support oneself because one has retired is the risk that old-age insurance was meant to insure against. If, in fact, a person can no longer support themselves because they have retired, the person should be able, in effect, to make a claim for payment under the old-age insurance system. If, however, a person is not destitute upon retirement, the person (luckily) does not need to make a claim.Just like health insurance, car insurance, home owner's insurance or term life insurance, premiums are paid, but it is hoped that a claim will never have to be made. Rich people getting old-age insurance benefits, to me, is like someone telling his homeowner's insurance carrier that he wants to make a claim even though no damage to his house has occurred, simply because he has been paying premiums all his life. To me, a rich person saying he is entitled to old-age insurance benefits because he has paid “social security” FICA taxes during his lifetime is like a healthy person saying that the Medicare program should send him prescription drugs or a kidney transplant even though he is perfectly healthy because he has paid “Medicare” FICA taxes during his lifetime.The nature of insurance is that one is insuring against a risk. In the case of old-age insurance, the risk is that one will be poor when they retire. If the thing one is insuring against does not occur, one should not be able to collect the insurance benefit. For the same reason, I do not think it makes any sense to privatize social security as the Republicans would like to do. Allowing people to use some of their FICA taxes to set up private retirement accounts just takes money away from the Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Fund which provides money to people who have become destitute because they have lost their income from working.People who are already secure don't need social security. I think we should eliminate Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Benefits for people who have a sufficient amount of income and resources to support themselves. I would impose a needs test on the receipt of Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Benefits. If we did so, social security could easily remain solvent and would not collapse like a Ponzi scheme.Of course, it is not politically popular to means test social security, so my solution has little chance of being adopted. But there are other ways the program can remain solvent and continue to honor its obligations. The FICA tax could be imposed on incomes above $106,800. The retirement age could be increased. The United States could adopt a more liberal immigration policy to increase the number of younger workers paying into the system.Social security is determined by laws and regulations that are known and can be changed if necessary. People can criticize those rules, but they are not a fraudulent scheme.BibliographyAltmeyer, Arthur J., The Formative Years of Social Security, University of Wisconsin Press, 1966. Dr. Altmeyer was the first chairman of the Social Security Board. The functions of the Social Security Board were transferred to the Federal Security Agency. In 1946, the Social Security Board was abolished, and the Social Security Administration was created. Altmeyer remained the Commissioner for Social Security until Eisenhower became president. In 1953, the Federal Security Agency was abolished and all of its powers were transferred to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Now, the functions of the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services.Witte, Edwin E., The Development of the Social Security Act, University of Wisconsin Press, 1962. Professor Witte worked for the Wisconsin State government and was a professor at the University of Wisconsin. Beginning in 1934, Witte began directing the work of drafting a social security act. He was the Executive Director of the Committee on Economic Security, which consisted of five members of Roosevelt's cabinet. The President's stated goal was to provide a “cradle to the grave” social insurance system. The Committee wrote an extensive report. Witte testified before Congress, and basically was responsible for the law the was written.