• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social Security ,how and why did the right turn SS into a entitlement.

ttwtt78640 said:
Thank you. Since I paid into it for over 40 years, and now collect retirement benefits from it, I did manage to learn a bit about it.
Click to expand...

What makes your analysis so salient is that it draws on experience beyond your own. You did a better job than Snopes did.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
You seem very passionate about the issue. I would suggest that you invest some more time on the specifics. The tax revenue collected by the IRS on SS benefit is recycled into Social Security and Medicare.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html

"The additional income tax revenues resulting from this provision are transferred to the trust funds from which the corresponding benefits were paid. Effective for taxable years beginning after 1983."

It was about $30 billion last year.
Click to expand...
There are lots of information , "The tax revenue collected by the IRS on SS benefit is recycled into Social Security and Medicare." other then the 3 trillion that is left in it. or owed to it. Every amount extra through the years, that's above payout has received over 5% per year on average. You don't get the amount paid out you pay 10 to 12% tax on it. so either put it back in the total or only count after tax amounts. 30 % don't live to be 65 and in 1937 Life expectancy was 59 years and women 62 and that was for white men and women. everyone else dragged those numbers down. Again this is white males and women, in 37 if you made it to 65 you had 12 years to live. all other nationalities are shorter. Add in the fact all those different interest rates that people paid in through the years were correlated with $10.00 SS check in 35
 
Last edited:
jbander said:
Start from the beginning, why did The hate party turn it into a entitlement. They want it for their people ,who control them and their party and who tells them what to think , how to think and what to say. The uber wealthy.

Just a few points, Not one dime of this is from the government funds, We paid in 15% of our income. We own it the same as putting it into a bank. If we made as little as 30k a year during our lifetime we would have $220,000.00 in our SS account. put into American bonds, the only place it legally can be put and at 5% (it's actually a little more) It would become $892,919.00 . if you took 15% a year that would be $26,787 per year and would last till your 95. The caper 30% die before they get to the age of 65. and the average income per household is $73,000.00 now. They call it a entitlement and want it all to give to the wealthy. This is what the hate party wants for the is country. They are simply evil. It's up to everyone here to stop them.
Click to expand...

You need to ask this question of Roosevelt. Republicans had little to do with it.

You really have no conception of what you speak.
 
jbander said:
There are lots of information , "The tax revenue collected by the IRS on SS benefit is recycled into Social Security and Medicare." other then the 3 trillion that is left in it. or owed to it. Every amount extra through the years, that's above payout has received over 5% per year on average. You don't get the amount paid out you pay 10 to 12% tax on it. so either put it back in the total or only count after tax amounts. 30 % don't live to be 65 and in 1937 Life expectancy was 59 years and women 62 and that was for white men and women. everyone else dragged those numbers down. Again this is white males and women, in 37 if you made it to 65 you had 12 years to live. all other nationalities are shorter. Add in the fact all those different interest rates that people paid in through the years were correlated with $10.00 SS check in 35
Click to expand...

Social Security has massive problems, and there is no need to simply make-up numbers, and go to this much work. I recommend reading the Congressional testimony of A.J. Altmeyer. In 1944, he predicted where we are today, and he didn't even know about the Baby Boomer's.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2014/12/02/predicting-social-securitys-financial-imbalance/
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
Social Security has massive problems, and there is no need to simply make-up numbers, and go to this much work. I recommend reading the Congressional testimony of A.J. Altmeyer. In 1944, he predicted where we are today, and he didn't even know about the Baby Boomer's.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2014/12/02/predicting-social-securitys-financial-imbalance/
Click to expand...
Yup I have you, all you got is bull**** now, made up numbers you say, tell us what those made up numbers are.
 
Fletch said:
This post is a great example of why liberals are so angry and violent--they see the opposition as 'evil.' The hate is far more prevalent on the left than on the right so you cast your opponents as evil. That makes it possible for you to justify your hate and declare your anger as 'righteous.'
Click to expand...

I like being righteous over evil. Do go on.
 
jbander said:
Yup I have you, all you got is bull**** now, made up numbers you say, tell us what those made up numbers are.
Click to expand...

You asked previously and I have you the reference on Snopes, a site dedicated to urban legend. Your numbers match to the penny, which suggests to me that you didn't even check the math. It is based on the wrong tax rate, the wrong taxable amount, inflation is not figured in, your "just-30000" would be about 200,000 per year back when the worker started work in the 1960s.

You asked. I gave you all of this in a site that you could verify. If you have a problem with Social Security, fine. But quit pretending that you did any research here. You cut and paste spam that was debunked years ago. Now you are trying to defend your numbers when you already have a link to the site that debunks them.

So let's not pretend that I haven't given you the numbers that are junk, and why.
 
I want everyone to notice that he did not show one thing that I made up, I asked him to tell me which made up number I made up and got nothing. instead of trying to dance around his nonsense. To repeat myself "Yup I have you, all you got is bull**** now, made up numbers you say, tell us what those made up numbers are.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
You asked previously and I have you the reference on Snopes, a site dedicated to urban legend. Your numbers match to the penny, which suggests to me that you didn't even check the math. It is based on the wrong tax rate, the wrong taxable amount, inflation is not figured in, your "just-30000" would be about 200,000 per year back when the worker started work in the 1960s.

You asked. I gave you all of this in a site that you could verify. If you have a problem with Social Security, fine. But quit pretending that you did any research here. You cut and paste spam that was debunked years ago. Now you are trying to defend your numbers when you already have a link to the site that debunks them.

So let's not pretend that I haven't given you the numbers that are junk, and why.
Click to expand...
This guy thinks he is some kind of economist ,( look at this comedians online name) if he is Don't hire him he has very little grasp of economics. What the right says about social security is that there is only pay in and payout. which leaves out the fact that the average American security from day one is over 5% (This is the only instrument that the SS can invest in.) second , you pay up to 12 % taxes on their payout to you. Which should still be put back into ss or say that the payout is after taxes , one or the other. 3. 30% of the population dies before they are 65 4 .that at at all levels of contributions made in the past they payout has been proportionate to the money coming in, give or take a dollar or two. 5. That people lifespan when this was implemented was 58 for men and 62 for women. The payout has been as little as. about 10 cents and they had buyouts in the beginning where you could take out all that you contribute Earnest Ackerman had a buy out that was .17 cents.
 
jbander said:
I want everyone to notice that he did not show one thing that I made up, I asked him to tell me which made up number I made up and got nothing. instead of trying to dance around his nonsense. To repeat myself "Yup I have you, all you got is bull**** now, made up numbers you say, tell us what those made up numbers are.
Click to expand...
Sorry the above comment was about Joe the so called economist.
 
jbander said:
Here is the number that you made up
Click to expand...


$892,919.98.

Technically, you didn't make it up. You plagiarized it from known spam.

jbander said:
Here is the original spam
Click to expand...


SOCIAL SECURITY NOW CALLED ‘FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENT’/ENTITLEMENT

Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a “federal benefit payment”?

I’ll be part of the one percent, to forward this, our government gets away with way too much in all areas of our lives, while they live lavishly on their grossly overpaid incomes! KEEP passing THIS AROUND UNTIL EVERY ONE HAS READ IT…..

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THIS CALCULATION IS THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY COLLECTED THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY!!!! WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?????????????

This was sent to me, I am forwarding it because it does touch a nerve in me.

This is another example of what Rick Perry called “TREASON in high places”!!! Get angry and pass this on!

Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that’s close to $220,500.

If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% (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.

The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever had.

Entitlement my butt, I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn’t make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

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 entitlements?

We’re “broke” and can’t help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless.

In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey . And now Pakistan ……home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of
DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a ‘fixed income’ receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$’s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!

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? Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave ‘US’ the same support they give to other countries.

Sad isn’t it?

99% of people won’t have the guts to forward this.

I’m one of the 1% — I Just Did.
 
jbander said:
I want everyone to notice that he did not show one thing that I made up, I asked him to tell me which made up number I made up and got nothing. instead of trying to dance around his nonsense. To repeat myself "Yup I have you, all you got is bull**** now, made up numbers you say, tell us what those made up numbers are.
Click to expand...

Continued :


jbander said:
Here is Snopes response. Snopes is dedicated to debunking urban legend.
Click to expand...

Origins: It’s true that Social Security retirement payments are classified as “federal benefit payments,” but that’s about the only bit of information the author of this item got right — and even at that he errs in mistakenly assuming this terminology to be new and in misconstruing what it means.

The word “benefits” has been applied to Social Security retirement payments since the Social Security program was enacted in the 1930s. The terminology is also not unique to Social Security, as the phrase “federal benefit payments” applies to a broad class of payments made to (or on behalf of) individuals under federal government programs — everything from Social Security Disability Insurance to Medicare to

farm subsidies are considered “federal benefit payments.” The fact that workers themselves contribute much of the money that goes into the Social Security retirement fund doesn’t affect its classification as a benefit.

Likewise, the word “entitlement” has long been the standard terminology for payments made under government programs that guarantee and provide benefits to particular groups. Persons who have demonstrated their eligibility to claim such payments are entitled (i.e., “qualified for by right according to law”) to receive them. The usage has nothing to do with pejorative connotations associated with the word (e.g., “a sense of entitlement”) which are often applied to denote people expecting or demanding something they do not merit.

As for the calculations about savings detailed in the latter half of the above-quoted example, they’re far off the mark for a number of reasons:


Assuming the aggregate Social Security contributions for any individual to be equal to 15% of his lifetime income is a flawed approach, because the required levels of Social Security contributions have varied across time, and Social Security contributions from individuals and employers combined have never “totaled 15% of your income before taxes.” The current contribution level is 12.4%, and historically the contribution rates have been significantly less. (Many people confuse Federal Insurance Contributions Act [FICA] payments, which are currently assessed at a 15.3% rate, with Social Security, but they are not the same thing. FICA payments include both Social Security and Medicare taxes.)

Assuming the Social Security contributions for any individual to be equal to a percentage of his average lifetime income is a flawed approach, because Social Security contributions have a yearly cap (i.e., contributors never pay more than a specified maximum amount, no matter how much money they make in a given year). A person who earned $80,000 in 2001 would have paid just as much into Social Security as a person who made $750,000 in 2001, so assuming that the Social Security contributions for each equalled 12.4% of their income that year would produce a grossly inflated figure in the latter case.

The dollar figures provided are a mish-mash that take neither past nor future conditions into account. It’s wrong to assume that Social Security contributions equal “15% of your income before taxes” because (as already noted), Social Security contribution levels have varied across time, they have never been as high as 15%, and there’s no guarantee of what they will be in the future. It’s wrong to assume that a typical current retiree (i.e., someone who started his working life 40+ years ago) earned an average of $30,000 per year across his lifetime, as the median household income in the U.S. didn’t even reach that level until 1993. And it’s wrong to assume that a current wage earner could safely see a 5% return on his money if it weren’t paid into Social Security, as the average interest rates for savings accounts and certificates of deposit have been well below that figure (typically under 1% or 2%) for several years now.

Still too long
 
jbander said:
This guy thinks he is some kind of economist ,( look at this comedians online name) if he is Don't hire him he has very little grasp of economics. What the right says about social security is that there is only pay in and payout. which leaves out the fact that the average American security from day one is over 5% (This is the only instrument that the SS can invest in.) second , you pay up to 12 % taxes on their payout to you. Which should still be put back into ss or say that the payout is after taxes , one or the other. 3. 30% of the population dies before they are 65 4 .that at at all levels of contributions made in the past they payout has been proportionate to the money coming in, give or take a dollar or two. 5. That people lifespan when this was implemented was 58 for men and 62 for women. The payout has been as little as. about 10 cents and they had buyouts in the beginning where you could take out all that you contribute Earnest Ackerman had a buy out that was .17 cents.
Click to expand...

Part III

Additionally, the statement that “our retired seniors living on a ‘fixed income’ receive no aid nor do they get any breaks, while our government pours hundreds of billions of $$$$$$’s to foreign countries” reflects a common but grossly inaccurate perception of how the federal government spends taxpayer monies. In fact, the bulk of the federal budget (by far) goes towards providing for retirees and low-income households: 20% of the budget pays for Social Security, 21% pays for health insurance programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP), and another 13% pays for financial safety net programs. By contrast, only about 1% of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid.

Finally, although the anonymous author of this piece uses the term “Social Security insurance,” he doesn’t seem to understand that’s exactly what Social Security is. Social Security isn’t a savings plan or an investment scheme; it’s an Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program intended to ensure that Americans are guaranteed a minimum monthly payment in their non-working years. As with all insurance programs, some people will eventually receive less than they paid in, and others will receive more.

Last updated: 11 February 2013

Federal Benefit Payments
 
jbander said:
Start from the beginning, why did The hate party turn it into a entitlement. They want it for their people ,who control them and their party and who tells them what to think , how to think and what to say. The uber wealthy.

Just a few points, Not one dime of this is from the government funds, We paid in 15% of our income. We own it the same as putting it into a bank. If we made as little as 30k a year during our lifetime we would have $220,000.00 in our SS account. put into American bonds, the only place it legally can be put and at 5% (it's actually a little more) It would become $892,919.00 . if you took 15% a year that would be $26,787 per year and would last till your 95. The caper 30% die before they get to the age of 65. and the average income per household is $73,000.00 now. They call it a entitlement and want it all to give to the wealthy. This is what the hate party wants for the is country. They are simply evil. It's up to everyone here to stop them.
Click to expand...
Was going to reply...why bother, unhinged can't be fixed....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
Continued :




Origins: It’s true that Social Security retirement payments are classified as “federal benefit payments,” but that’s about the only bit of information the author of this item got right — and even at that he errs in mistakenly assuming this terminology to be new and in misconstruing what it means.

The word “benefits” has been applied to Social Security retirement payments since the Social Security program was enacted in the 1930s. The terminology is also not unique to Social Security, as the phrase “federal benefit payments” applies to a broad class of payments made to (or on behalf of) individuals under federal government programs — everything from Social Security Disability Insurance to Medicare to

farm subsidies are considered “federal benefit payments.” The fact that workers themselves contribute much of the money that goes into the Social Security retirement fund doesn’t affect its classification as a benefit.

Likewise, the word “entitlement” has long been the standard terminology for payments made under government programs that guarantee and provide benefits to particular groups. Persons who have demonstrated their eligibility to claim such payments are entitled (i.e., “qualified for by right according to law”) to receive them. The usage has nothing to do with pejorative connotations associated with the word (e.g., “a sense of entitlement”) which are often applied to denote people expecting or demanding something they do not merit.

As for the calculations about savings detailed in the latter half of the above-quoted example, they’re far off the mark for a number of reasons:


Assuming the aggregate Social Security contributions for any individual to be equal to 15% of his lifetime income is a flawed approach, because the required levels of Social Security contributions have varied across time, and Social Security contributions from individuals and employers combined have never “totaled 15% of your income before taxes.” The current contribution level is 12.4%, and historically the contribution rates have been significantly less. (Many people confuse Federal Insurance Contributions Act [FICA] payments, which are currently assessed at a 15.3% rate, with Social Security, but they are not the same thing. FICA payments include both Social Security and Medicare taxes.)

Assuming the Social Security contributions for any individual to be equal to a percentage of his average lifetime income is a flawed approach, because Social Security contributions have a yearly cap (i.e., contributors never pay more than a specified maximum amount, no matter how much money they make in a given year). A person who earned $80,000 in 2001 would have paid just as much into Social Security as a person who made $750,000 in 2001, so assuming that the Social Security contributions for each equalled 12.4% of their income that year would produce a grossly inflated figure in the latter case.

The dollar figures provided are a mish-mash that take neither past nor future conditions into account. It’s wrong to assume that Social Security contributions equal “15% of your income before taxes” because (as already noted), Social Security contribution levels have varied across time, they have never been as high as 15%, and there’s no guarantee of what they will be in the future. It’s wrong to assume that a typical current retiree (i.e., someone who started his working life 40+ years ago) earned an average of $30,000 per year across his lifetime, as the median household income in the U.S. didn’t even reach that level until 1993. And it’s wrong to assume that a current wage earner could safely see a 5% return on his money if it weren’t paid into Social Security, as the average interest rates for savings accounts and certificates of deposit have been well below that figure (typically under 1% or 2%) for several years now.

Still too long
Click to expand...
Mr economist are you suggesting that something in your comment is proof that I mad up something. Your a total fraud. Everything I got and said are from sights all over the internet but you call me a plagiarizer, Who in the hell is arguing where I got the information. If it was a quote it was in quotation marks but if I just took the information out of it , It wasn't nor does it have to be put in quotation marks . Tell us what number or piece of information I made up. Take note lots of words , lots of bull**** , but he said I made up numbers , which of course I didn't and He can't point out one number that I made up. I still win and know who didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom