Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

PzKfW IVe said:

Not surprisingly, you're sidestepping the point.
But then, when you cannot actually address that point, what choice to you have?

Click to expand...

And what exactly is this POINT that you feel is being sidestepped or ignored?

GreenvilleGrows said:

Both of these statements are very misleading.

Click to expand...

If you find statements of fact, misleading.

The President doesn't control the spending.

Click to expand...

I never said he did, what I said was that since 1945, Republican Presidents have approved more spending than Democrat Presidents.

Show me the Republican vetoes of spending since 1945?

Social Security, primarily, pays people from what new people put into the system (not from what people put in themselves)

Click to expand...

.

That is the way every insurance company operates.

When it runs short, it's backed by the Treasury. When the Treasury runs short, Congress raises the debt ceiling. If, eventually, Congress doesn't balance the budget and can't borrow more money, Social Security, at some point, will default.

Click to expand...

Of course, that is why it will be necessary to cut wasteful spending and the eliminate the temporary tax cuts for the rich. It was stupid to cut taxes and wage unfunded two simultaneous wars at the same time. Were you under the impression that no one would ever have to pay for them?

On paper, it looks pretty stable right now: Social Security Online - HISTORY -- the worry is the increasing population in retirees compared to those putting money into the system -- starting about 2020: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9649/08-20-SocialSecurityUpdate.pdf (BAD NEWS!)

Click to expand...

Meh, raise or remove the FICA CAP, problem solved for the long term!

SypherAL said:

Just curious as to how people view Social Security. I myself do NOT view it as an entitlement, considering its MY money I have been putting in the program for years and years

Click to expand...

then you are sadly mistaken. your money is long gone - and you have no right to anyone else's in the form of a check from Social Security.

Thus Sayeth the Social Security Administration:

...There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right...

Click to expand...

cpwill said:

then you are sadly mistaken. your money is long gone - and you have no right to anyone else's in the form of a check from Social Security.

Thus Sayeth the Social Security Administration:

Click to expand...

This is nothing more then conservatives trying to find ways to continue to plunder more money from the middle class and poor, it ain't going to happen and if it does the republicans can kiss thier party good bye. Many niddle class and poor people depend on SS monies for life sustaining needs

Gipper said:

Not our fault. Democrats do well at scaring the old farts into thinking their checks will go away when they won't.

My worry is that when all the Freds and Ethels die off, other ignorant old people will take their place.

Click to expand...

Thats real condescending horse**** gipper...older americans arent afraid...weve just heard all the lies dozens of times and we DONT TRUST THE TEAPARTY greedy youngsters

Cold Highway said:

Its called a 401k, investing throughout your working years and savings.

Click to expand...

Thats perfect if you can make enough to do that...but with walmart the countries largest employer most americans cant....oh and ask all the people at retirement age RIGHT NOW how their 401k is doing....their answer will be we lost 30 to 70% of our retirement....ask the employees of WorldCom and Enron how 401ks worked for them.....401ks health are at the whim and discression of the greedy rich...s

atrasicarius said:

Well, I'm of the opinion that the government should take over the role of central bank directly, instead of delegating it to a for-profit corporation. There's no reason government activities can't turn a profit, although that would require some intelligence that seems to be lacking in the current system.

Click to expand...

You and I agree on many things......including having the government take over the banks....or a central bank, I should say...
Our banks have shown that they cannot be trusted.....
Those nations with a federal government central bank.....How are they doing ?

lpast said:

The same people that whine about Social Security forget a few points....number one, people that are on social security paid it all their lives...NOT BY CHOICE...we were forced to pay social security. For people that make above middleclass pay its not a problem to pay social security and pay into a bigger private retirement plan...For lower middleclass and the working poor most could not afford to pay SS and an additional private retirement.

I keep asking all the hot shot teapartiers, the get RID OF ALL ENTITLEMENTS...no pensions, no health benefits nothing... I have doubts about the thinking and reasoning abilities of the tea baggers....They seem to be all emotions... .I keep asking them what do they think is going to happen with 60% of the country gets old and has no pension or health benes....do we start digging mass graves...
One way or another your going to pay...

Click to expand...

Social security and many other things are in need of improvement...
We need intelligent level headed Congressmen to do this.

atrasicarius said:

Here's how the system should work. You can open a tax-free bank account with the government with an interest rate pegged to inflation, and you're not allowed withdraw any money from it until you retire. Actually putting money into it is entirely voluntary. The government is not allowed to spend your money on other things, except things which actually produce income to pay for your interest.

Click to expand...

Very similar to a 401K, which I had.....years of "pocket change" yielded about $40K.....really nice...but the financial market is very volitile..social security is much more certain and sure.

atrasicarius said:

I've really never been able to follow the path that leads from public works and universal healthcare to gulags and secret police. You guys seem to be absolutely convinced it's there, though.

Click to expand...

The tea bagging conservatives are, just ask Limbaugh or Beck....
I know better...
But, we do need our people to monitor their government at all times.

it's an entitlement if you worked all your life n you put money into it.

Hatuey said:

An "entitlement program" within American ideological lexicon is pretty much anything you haven't put money into and yet feel you have a right to use. So SS is an "entitlement program" depending on who is receiving it. I am entitled to it because I've worked and supported it. Others feel they're entitled to it even though they've made no effort to become supportive members of society. So yes, it's an entitlement program, but entitlement is defined by referencing the individual in question.

Click to expand...

An intelligent answer to what boils down to a silly thing begun by conservatives...

David D. said:

It's a bit more like a loan to the government that you may or may not get repaid on.

I'm <30 years old, and I don't expect to see anything back from SS So you are another one of those who trusts not his own government - but why ??? ; this is why I'm saving and planning for my retirement on my own.

So for me, it's just another tax which I may never benefit from.

Click to expand...

Do you not know that individuals do not always benefit from taxes, but their society does.

EarlzP said:

This is nothing more then conservatives trying to find ways to continue to plunder more money from the middle class and poor,

Click to expand...

fascinating. the Social Security Administration under the Obama Presidency is made up of conservatives trying to find ways to plunder the poor and middle class?

it ain't going to happen and if it does the republicans can kiss thier party good bye. Many niddle class and poor people depend on SS monies for life sustaining needs

Click to expand...

they depend on a pittance - Social Security does not provide the money necessary for our working poor to survive, which is why we should reform it so that it does.

Morality Games said:

That people are putting the entitlements of seniors who've labored their entire lives and paid large percentages of their income in the expectation of monetary support toward the end of life, beneath the interests of corporations whose existence has in no sense contributed to the well being of American society, as a means of resolving debt issues (incurred to support the excesses of those same corporations), is completely absurd and a sign of a culture in serious moral and political decline.

Click to expand...

This statement would be true if it was correct. No one wants to "take" anything from anyone. There isn't a single politician out there recommending we screw the elderly out of anything. The elderly got screwed the second they put faith in a government program. What is being proposed is that future generations (those not already dependent) be given the option to actually do something useful for themselves with the money they earn.

GreenvilleGrows said:

Both of these statements are very misleading.

If you don't read anything else in this post, please look at the last link included.

The President doesn't control the spending. Yes, he's supposed to put forth the budget, but Bill Clinton was the only President who had a line item veto for awhile. Meaning, if Congress wants to do something strongly enough, the President can't stop it. He sure can't hold up the budget because then everybody screams "fire" ("government shut down").

Republicans controlled the House and Senate from 1995 to 2000.
1996 Debt Increased by 6.71%
1997 Debt Increased by 3.37%
1998 Debt Increased by 2.03%
1999 Debt Increased by 2.88%
2000 Debt Decreased by 1.97% (a product of the "Contract with America" led by Newt Gingrich in preceding years)

in 2001 and 2002 the House and Senate were split and the debt grew by an average of 6.37% (9/11) and to a height of a 9.25% increase by 2003 when Republicans (not particularly conservative Republicans) regained a slight majority. Then the increase decreased (politician speak) gradually each year (9.25%, 8.55%, 7.56%, 6.24%) to 6.24% in 2006. The Democrats gained control of both House and Senate in 2007 (elected end of 2006) and in 2008 the increase in debt jumped from 6.32% in 2007 to 15.93% in 2008 another 15.06% in 2009 and another 13.92% in 2010. About a 52% increase in debt in just 3 years -wow!

Social Security, primarily, pays people from what new people put into the system (not from what people put in themselves). When it runs short, it's backed by the Treasury. When the Treasury runs short, Congress raises the debt ceiling. If, eventually, Congress doesn't balance the budget and can't borrow more money, Social Security, at some point, will default.

For example, the fund was nearly depleted in 1982. No beneficiary was shortchanged because the Congress enacted temporary emergency legislation that permitted borrowing from other Federal trust funds. The borrowed amounts were repaid with interest within 4 years.

In 1996 the Treasury Dept. announced it did not have enough money to pay Social Security benefits for the month of March because it could not issue new debt. However, Congress passed a law allowing the department to temporarily issue securities in an amount equal to those payments, in such a way that would not count against the debt ceiling in the short-term. The benefits were paid and Congress subsequently raised the debt ceiling from $4.9 trillion to $5.5 trillion. The payments are not protected if Treasury does not have the money to pay them.

On paper, it looks pretty stable right now: Social Security Online - HISTORY -- the worry is the increasing population in retirees compared to those putting money into the system -- starting about 2020: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9649/08-20-SocialSecurityUpdate.pdf (BAD NEWS!)

Click to expand...

Your post is very misleading

The reason why the deficit grew in 200 and 2009 had more to do with programs passed when the republicans controlled congress (Medicare D, PATRIOT Act, military budgets, the TSA, the HSA, pork laden agricultural and transportation bills, and tax cuts) than with anything the dems in congress did.

lpast said:

Thats perfect if you can make enough to do that.

Click to expand...

The Fed Gvmnt takes 6.2% of your income for SocSec.
If you can afford that 6.2% - a question no one ever asks, so the assumption is that you can - then, if you arent paying that 6.2% into SS, you can afford to pay it into a 401K.

Going back to OP. I have several problems with SS:

It was not voluntary. No one can refuse to have SS deucted from their paycheck.

It is not deductable for tax purposes. My 401K is a write off, which I volunteered to join.

It is not guaranteed according to the SC in the Fleming Case. Social Security Online History Pages

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.


It is not going into my own SS account. My deduction is going to a current retiree making it similiar to a pyramid model. If funding ceases for SS, it goes insolvent.

cpwill said:

fascinating. the Social Security Administration under the Obama Presidency is made up of conservatives trying to find ways to plunder the poor and middle class?



they depend on a pittance - Social Security does not provide the money necessary for our working poor to survive, which is why we should reform it so that it does.

Click to expand...

I do not want my SS monies invested in Wall Street, I want to be invested in a program that does depend on market whims, your plan makes it possible for people to borrow against thier investments prior to retirement age that will mean that many people will hit retirement age with no retirement monies left in fact they could reach retirement age in be in debt.

SS is the best bet for the middle class and poor,

When the market plunges where does the money go? It does not just disappear it's not thrown into an incinerator some one has it, some one is getting rich whether the market goes up or down

EarlzP said:

I do not want my SS monies invested in Wall Street, I want to be invested in a program that does depend on market whims, your plan makes it possible for people to borrow against thier investments prior to retirement age that will mean that many people will hit retirement age with no retirement monies left in fact they could reach retirement age in be in debt.

SS is the best bet for the middle class and poor,

When the market plunges where does the money go? It does not just disappear it's not thrown into an incinerator some one has it, some one is getting rich whether the market goes up or down

Click to expand...

SS is not a good bet, nor a good return for the middle class and poor - the return is horrendous and the system is unsustainable. Where does the money go? If you had bothered to read the post, you would have seen that I had already provided those numbers. If a low income worker never makes more than 32,000 a year in his entire life, and see's a market crash like what we saw in late 2008/ early 2009 just as he retires, and then he withdraws all his money at the bottom so that he doesn't get to ride any of the recovery... then he still ends up with a benefit more than twice what he could have expected from Social (in)Security.

I truly believe that SS is a total scam on america. I really can't understand why anyone believes in this crud. Since my first paycheck when I was 16 or so, SS has been taking my money. I tried to get straight answers on where the money went, and all people told me was it went in a whole in the ground. What?
What I can gather is that our grandfathers and great-grandfathers wanted a little free pass in life and decided to throw us a little debt. And their thinking was that if we all fought in the great wars, why shouldn't we benefit from a break. Hell, they did save the world from gruesome evil.
Either way SS goes, I'll keep paying until all the baby-boomers are dead, and I say cut your loses and work til your dead.
seriously.

cpwill said:

fascinating. the Social Security Administration under the Obama Presidency is made up of conservatives trying to find ways to plunder the poor and middle class?



they depend on a pittance - Social Security does not provide the money necessary for our working poor to survive, which is why we should reform it so that it does.

Click to expand...

401k Advice That Everyone Could Use

This chart, courtesy of the Motley Fool, really shows you the power of compound interest. If you contributed only $5,000/yr for 10 years at starting at age 25, you would have almost $800,000 by retirement at age 65 (assuming an 8% compound rate of return). If you started contributing the same amount, starting at age 45, you would only have $170,000. In both cases, you only contribute $50,000 of pre-tax income, but the major difference is the amount of time that the $50,000 gets to grow at 8% a year

Click to expand...

walmart worker 7.50 per hour 15,600 per year 1950.00 total 975.00 from worker and 950.00 from the employer, remember with SS that money can not be with drawn, you can pull money out of a 401k and if you do not only is that money not available but you are penalized for early withdrawal

15.6 g is not a lot of money to live on so saving money if even possible would allow a person in a 401k to withdraw and pay the penalty and not have a cent left for retirement

Walmart is the largest employer in the USA followed by Macdonalds

15.00 per hour means 31,200 per year 3900 dollars into SS 1950.00 from employee 1950.00 from employer remember with SS that money can not be with drawn, you can pull money out of a 401k and if you do not only is that money not available but you are penalized for early withdrawal

31,200 is not a lot of money to live on so saving money in a 401k allows a person to withdraw and pay the penalty and not have a cent left for retirement

The average worker in the United States earns an average hourly wage of $20.90, reports the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' 2010-2011 occupational handbook. This rings up to an average annual salary of $43,460.

20.90 per hour means 43,460 per year 5215.20 dollars into SS 2607.00 from employee and 2607.00 from emplyer

I have to tell you the truth 43,460.00 a year is not much to earn and still be able to stuff money away for retirement, my conclusion is that the average wage earner would be lucky to put 5000.00 in a 401k and even luckier if they did not have to draw some portion of it out before retirement.And who knows thier is no guarantee that a crash or recession in the market won't reduce or totally wipe out a person 401k savings

SS can not be touched until a person retires at least insuring some kind of income for many poor and elderly people.

If you are a high wage earner open up a 401k and reap in those big benefits, use you SS money to buy your new cadillac or boat or whatever but leave the poor and those who did not ever have your earning potential a little money and a little dignity.we may have all had the same opportunity but unfortunately we were not all given the same gifts our IQ' are not all the same, we are not all athelitic nor are we all models or born with the same physical capacities, some are born into proverty and some are born into wealth but the facts are we all part of the whole and when push comes to shove we are all needed

Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poverty is defined as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.[1] According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 43.6 million (14.3%) Americans were living in absolute poverty in 2009, up from 39.8 million (13.2%) in 2008.[2] In addition, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. [(United States Census Bureau|U.S. Census Bureau]]


The government's definition of poverty is not tied to an absolute value of how much an individual or family can afford, but is tied to a relative level based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2011 was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four.[3] Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75.[4] There remains some controversy over whether the official poverty threshold over- or understates poverty.

The most common measure of poverty in the United States is the "poverty threshold" set by the U.S. government. This measure recognizes poverty as a lack of those goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society.[5] The official threshold is adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index.

Click to expand...

The number of people living at or below the poverty level in 2010 was 15.1% of our population or over 47 million people that means if they can not pull thier selves out of poverty they will be living under bridges and eating out of garbage cans in thier retirement years

If you think I am a bleeding heart liberal you are absolutely right, I live in a country that wil rush to the aid of foreign countries but wants to reduce the minimum wage from 7.50 per hour

I will repeat myself again SS is the best thing that has happened for many millions of Americans, so if you are among those who can invest in 401ks have at it I hope your investments pay off handsomely so that you can afford to keep spending in your retirement years, those less fortunate may need to work at Walmarts or MacDonalds to supplement thier SS checks

EarlzP said:

walmart worker 7.50 per hour 15,600 per year 1950.00 total 975.00 from worker and 950.00 from the employer, remember with SS that money can not be with drawn, you can pull money out of a 401k and if you do not only is that money not available but you are penalized for early withdrawal

15.6 g is not a lot of money to live on so saving money if even possible would allow a person in a 401k to withdraw and pay the penalty and not have a cent left for retirement

Walmart is the largest employer in the USA followed by Macdonalds

15.00 per hour means 31,200 per year 3900 dollars into SS 1950.00 from employee 1950.00 from employer remember with SS that money can not be with drawn, you can pull money out of a 401k and if you do not only is that money not available but you are penalized for early withdrawal

31,200 is not a lot of money to live on so saving money in a 401k allows a person to withdraw and pay the penalty and not have a cent left for retirement

The average worker in the United States earns an average hourly wage of $20.90, reports the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' 2010-2011 occupational handbook. This rings up to an average annual salary of $43,460.

20.90 per hour means 43,460 per year 5215.20 dollars into SS 2607.00 from employee and 2607.00 from emplyer

I have to tell you the truth 43,460.00 a year is not much to earn and still be able to stuff money away for retirement, my conclusion is that the average wage earner would be lucky to put 5000.00 in a 401k and even luckier if they did not have to draw some portion of it out before retirement.

Click to expand...

I was saving for retirement (I think I managed $4,000) when I was making around 30K as the sole income provider for my family. What your figure doesn't fully represent is that that is not the case for everyone - as the average household income is around $51,000. The reason, being, of course, that a large number of those Walmart-esque jobs are held by second-income-earners who work part time.

however, fortunately for you, I ran the numbers on what would occur if we were to convert a portion of the FICA tax into a tax-free personalized account as I suggested:

And who knows thier is no guarantee that a crash or recession in the market won't reduce or totally wipe out a person 401k savings

Click to expand...

fortunately, I ran that scenario as well:


glad to help.

SS can not be touched until a person retires at least insuring some kind of income for many poor and elderly people.

Click to expand...

agreed.

I will repeat myself again SS is the best thing that has happened for many millions of Americans, so if you are among those who can invest in 401ks have at it I hope your investments pay off handsomely so that you can afford to keep spending in your retirement years, those less fortunate may need to work at Walmarts or MacDonalds to supplement thier SS checks

Click to expand...

what you are missing is that social security benefits are calculated off of what you have paid into the system. those workers who were at Walmart or MacDonalds making $7.50 would have had a much better return off of private investment in an S&P 500 index fund than they would have had from SS - because their SS benefit is going to be abysmal.

what you are missing is that social security benefits are calculated off of what you have paid into the system. those workers who were at Walmart or MacDonalds making $7.50 would have had a much better return off of private investment in an S&P 500 index fund than they would have had from SS - because their SS benefit is going to be abysmal.

Click to expand...

What you are missing is according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average weekly salary of the American Worker as of January 2010 is $629.04, or $32,708.10 per year. With the conservatives pushing to lower the minimum wage and the lack of jobs the annual salaries of the middle class and poor will continue to go down, Job opportunities are not going to improve meaning employers hold the purse strings if people want to work they will have to take what ever they can find 7.50 per hour will end up a descent paying job, people will not be able to save without the payroll deduction, if they can get at the money they are saving they will. Millions make that a hundred million or more will end up with nothing in thier old age and what group will reap the rewards of privatized savings plans? The same group that has benefited from 30 years of Reaganomics, the same group that engineered the recession the boys and girls on Wall Street, sorry when a snake sheds its skin it's still a snake, a biting dog continues to bite until it's teeth are removed

SS can be made solvent easily just by raising the cut off ceiling ensuring that people will have at least some type of retirement income, presently you can see below that even a annual salary of 15.2G provides 13G in retirement income, not a lot of money but older people usually don't end up with the same level of expences they had in thier younger years

SALARY 32G Social Security may provide $20,964 per year.
sALARY 20.5G Social Security may provide $18,124 per year.
SALARY 15.2G Social Security may provide $13,483 per year.

cpwill said:

I was saving for retirement (I think I managed $4,000) when I was making around 30K as the sole income provider for my family. What your figure doesn't fully represent is that that is not the case for everyone - as the average household income is around $51,000. The reason, being, of course, that a large number of those Walmart-esque jobs are held by second-income-earners who work part time.

Click to expand...

You just proved that Earlzp was right. You made $14,400 more than the minimum wage worker (your $30,000 - $15,600 that the Walmart worker made) and you could only save $4000. If you needed $26,000 to support your family, how is the minimum wage worker supposed to support his family on $15,600