PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Social Security is an entitlement?


Der Flöprer
05-08-2013, 10:35 AM
Came across this on Facebook. Don't know who wrote it, but it's exactly how I feel about the whole thing. Just thought I'd share it, and watch the cat fight that ensues from afar. Good day.

THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!!! THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!!! WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?

Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security, but your employer did, too. It totals 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. Read that again!

Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?

We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an ENTITLEMENT when we reach the age to take it back.

If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. If you have a deceased spouses who died in their 50's -- their S.S. money will never have one cent drawn from what they paid into S.S. all their lives over the past 30 years!

THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my social security insurance! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

Remember Congressional benefits? --- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare!!! And they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?!?

We're "broke" and we can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, or Homeless.
Yet in the last few months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile and Turkey. And now Pakistan......home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS... if not TRILLIONS of DOLLARS are unaccounted for!!!

They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.
Sad isn't it.

Donger
05-08-2013, 10:39 AM
I think the definition of entitlements has become distorted over the years. There's a rather large difference between SS and Medicare versus food stamps.

blaise
05-08-2013, 10:53 AM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought when you died your kids or spouse get some sort of SS payments.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-08-2013, 11:03 AM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought when you died your kids or spouse get some sort of SS payments.

Spouse yes, kids no.

cosmo20002
05-08-2013, 11:08 AM
Spouse yes, kids no.

Minor kids, yes.

alnorth
05-08-2013, 11:09 AM
Few things:

Regarding "keeping the money when you died" Social Security also includes a survivor's benefit program, and other little-known programs. Also, people are living plenty long enough to collect, far longer than the program was based on. The people who don't collect are a pittance in comparison.

Right when the author started talking about 5% return, he committed a key, fundamental flaw. You aren't earning 5%, nor should you expect to since the trust fund is basically invested in government bonds that yield next to nothing.

Social Security is not an investment. I repeat: social security is not, and never was intended to be, an investment. People need to get that idea out of their heads. Whether the program is good, bad, or indifferent, you simply can not compare it to an investment or a retirement account.

It even has the word "social" in it, social security is a government social program intended to keep everyone at some minimal standard of living, at the expense of those who are middle class or higher. They kick a few bucks to everyone to keep those who would otherwise vote against it, from complaining too loudly.

patteeu
05-08-2013, 12:32 PM
Yes, it's an entitlement. If you meet the qualifications for payment, you're entitled to that payment. If you're dead or if you haven't reached the right age yet or if you never worked a job during your life, you generally don't meet the requirements so you don't get paid. Exceptions include the disabled and spouses of those who earned a benefit.

FD
05-08-2013, 01:32 PM
What? Social Security is the very definition of an entitlement program.

Amnorix
05-08-2013, 02:38 PM
Well, we've got multiple errors in this. Let's deconstruct:


THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!!! THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!!! WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?


Social Security does NOT, and NEVER has, had any kind of separate accounts for separate individuals. Amounts are paid in as SS taxes, and amounts are paid out as SS benefits, but nobody has any kind of "lockbox" account, or specifically set-aside money to which they are entitled. SS doesn't work that way. Never has.

Instead, you pay in while you work. If/when you are entitled to collect and make the election to do so, you collect.

People who die -- they don't get paid (unless there is a spousal benefit, minor child or other person that is entitled to that money). On the flip side of the ledger, however, are people who far outlive expectations and, as a result, get paid out WAY more than they ever put in, even including any kind of reasonable interest rate. In theory, over the entire demographics, this stuff should sort of balance out, to the benefit of those who live longer and detriment of those who die young.


Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security, but your employer did, too. It totals 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. Read that again!


A basic fact that is wildly wrong. The SS tax, including both employee and employer portions, has never been 15%. Since the late 1980s, except for the last couple years when a recession-prompted reduction went into effect (increasing the deficit by the way), the combined rate has been 12.4%.

Oh, and I don't know how the hell this guy is figuring $220,500. That assumes that the individual made $30,000 each year from age 18 to age 67. Of course, the issue there is that if you go back BEFORE 1988, the rate was not even 12.4%, much less 15%. If you go back the 49 working years this guy assumes, you're back to 1964, when the combined rate was only 7.25%.

But why let facts get in the way of a good story.

Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?

Well, in actuality, any payments above the amounts paid in by the worker during their working lifetime (due to living "too long") would be funded by the government.

Of course, all government funds are essentially from taxpayers, so it's not like they have a separate place to get money. But over the last few years, SS receipts have fallen short of outlays, which means that SS is getting the money from general revenues. Of course, what is happening in accounting terms is the general government is repaying loans previously extended to it by SS, but I digress.

Anyway, this is basically wrong, again, and will be even more wrong if we don't change anything and, a few decades from now, SS outlays have outstripped SS reciepts and all loans by SS have been repaid in full.

We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank

Nope. Wrong. Money was never put in any "government bank".

to insure you and I that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an ENTITLEMENT when we reach the age to take it back.

SS is an entitlement program. If you qualify for the money, you are ENTITLED to get it. Hence entitlement program. See how easy that was?


If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows),

When the hell was this article written, 2004? 5% is way more than the government has paid on the money that it borrows for years now.


THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

There is an argument that SS is a ponzi scheme. In many respects it is.

Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my social security insurance! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

It is neither a charity nor a handout. But it is heading towards insolvency. That's the only thing that truly matters. Keep the system as it stands, and it will be completely broken before today's college graduates retire.

Remember Congressional benefits? --- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare!!! And they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?!?


Interesting, but totally irrelevant.

They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.


No it wasn't supposed to be in a locked box. It was NEVER in a locked box. It was never designed to be in a locked box. If it was a locked box, then everyone who lived too long (the majority of SS recipients) would have had their money simply run out at some point in time. Can't imagine how popular that would be.

But bottom line that was never how the system was designed.

The author is an ignorant, pandering, demogoguing fool.

RedNeckRaider
05-08-2013, 09:20 PM
Paid my whole life never asked for a dime from my government. I would hope I am entitled to at least get the money back that I have paid to the pricks~

Garcia Bronco
05-08-2013, 09:39 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought when you died your kids or spouse get some sort of SS payments.

Kids get 250.00 dollars burial money. Not per child. Might be 200.00. see brochure for details.

aturnis
05-08-2013, 10:20 PM
I think it comes from the fact that the right lumps retired Americans into their stats of "takers". It was done CONSTANTLY by Romney and the GOP after his dinner party gaff.

BigRedChief
05-08-2013, 10:26 PM
Yes, it's an entitlement. If you meet the qualifications for payment, you're entitled to that payment.So.........if you pass the drivers test and receive a licsense, thats an entitlement, if you meet the qualifications for a mortgage, thats an entitlement............. should I go on..........

And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch. SS is definitely an entitlement.

cdcox
05-08-2013, 10:35 PM
Kids get 250.00 dollars burial money. Not per child. Might be 200.00. see brochure for details.

False. Minor children receive a benefit of 75% of the deceased workers benefit. My cousin received a substantial check (several hundred dollars) every month after her father passed away.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/survivorplan/ifyou5.htm

BucEyedPea
05-08-2013, 10:52 PM
Paid my whole life never asked for a dime from my government. I would hope I am entitled to at least get the money back that I have paid to the pricks~

You should. One reason it's an entitlement, to me, is because many get more out of it than they put into it. The Greatest Generation benifitted the most from the program. Afterall, they produced the baby boom generation.

2bikemike
05-08-2013, 11:05 PM
Well, we've got multiple errors in this. Let's deconstruct:

No it wasn't supposed to be in a locked box. It was NEVER in a locked box. It was never designed to be in a locked box. If it was a locked box, then everyone who lived too long (the majority of SS recipients) would have had their money simply run out at some point in time. Can't imagine how popular that would be.

But bottom line that was never how the system was designed.

The author is an ignorant, pandering, demogoguing fool.

While the author was wrong on several counts. I will say that I would much rather of had the money (mine and my employers contribution) in my own account under the so called lock box. I would rather take my chances on life expectancy than what the Govt is going to do to the program.

What the Govt did with social security is no different than a pyramid scheme. Takes new investors to push the old ones out. As long as you have plenty of new investors the program runs fine. Which is why IMHO there is the big push to legalize all the illegals, get some new investors. Problem is sooner or later we will be back in the same situation.

patteeu
05-09-2013, 12:19 AM
So.........if you pass the drivers test and receive a licsense, thats an entitlement, if you meet the qualifications for a mortgage, thats an entitlement............. should I go on..........

And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch. SS is definitely an entitlement.

No, that wouldn't be an entitlement. Here's a definition: (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/entitlement_program)

The kind of government program that provides individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal right (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program. The beneficiaries of entitlement programs are normally individual citizens or residents, but sometimes organizations such as business corporations, local governments, or even political parties may have similar special "entitlements" under certain programs. The most important examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States would include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans' Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs.

King_Chief_Fan
05-09-2013, 08:39 AM
You should. One reason it's an entitlement, to me, is because many get more out of it than they put into it. The Greatest Generation benifitted the most from the program. Afterall, they produced the baby boom generation.

I don't want more, but I will take my employers contribution and mine in a lump sum when I retire.

Amnorix
05-09-2013, 09:19 AM
While the author was wrong on several counts. I will say that I would much rather of had the money (mine and my employers contribution) in my own account under the so called lock box. I would rather take my chances on life expectancy than what the Govt is going to do to the program.

Yeah, but that's because you're intelligent and no doubt willing and able to save for retirement, etc.

SS has been a great program for alot of years, but changing demographics means its viability is seriously threatened. When it was instituted there was soemthing like 9 working adults for every 1 retiree. Now it's like 3:1, and will soon be 2:1. That makes the program as currently constructed non-viable.

What the Govt did with social security is no different than a pyramid scheme. Takes new investors to push the old ones out. As long as you have plenty of new investors the program runs fine. Which is why IMHO there is the big push to legalize all the illegals, get some new investors. Problem is sooner or later we will be back in the same situation.

Right, I mentioned that some consider the program a ponzi scheme. I really dont' think SS is one of the main reasons behind SS reform. Don't think it would help that much to be honest, but yes to the extent it would help, it just kicks the ball down the road a bit.

BucEyedPea
05-09-2013, 09:20 AM
I don't want more, but I will take my employers contribution and mine in a lump sum when I retire.

You get no quarrel from me.

2bikemike
05-09-2013, 09:47 AM
Yeah, but that's because you're intelligent and no doubt willing and able to save for retirement, etc.

SS has been a great program for alot of years, but changing demographics means its viability is seriously threatened. When it was instituted there was soemthing like 9 working adults for every 1 retiree. Now it's like 3:1, and will soon be 2:1. That makes the program as currently constructed non-viable.

.


I probably didn't explain real well, I think the program should have been invested individually through the Govt program of collecting for that very reason. There are just too many who would not invest for their future. There are ways that the money could have been invested to ensure at least a 6% rate of return over the working life of a person. The problem I have not really figured is how do you protect the children and widows of those who paid in and died prematurely.

Amnorix
05-09-2013, 09:49 AM
I probably didn't explain real well, I think the program should have been invested individually through the Govt program of collecting for that very reason. There are just too many who would not invest for their future. There are ways that the money could have been invested to ensure at least a 6% rate of return over the working life of a person. The problem I have not really figured is how do you protect the children and widows of those who paid in and died prematurely.


The other issue, and it's a big one, is the massive distortion to the market that would be caused by that much money being funneled into whatever in the world you decided to invest it in.

And the fact that many would go nuts to learn that their "hard earned money" was being invested in something that could lose principle. That might render it politically DOA.

But it's the first point that concerns me more.

Psyko Tek
05-18-2013, 09:05 PM
67 paid holidays,???
WTF are these holidays?
why is congress even getting pasid they all spend more than that to get in

is there any federal elected official that wasn't a millionare at least before they started