• 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!

What Happens To The Soc. Sec. Money Of People That Die Before Collecting?

rhinefire

rhinefire

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
10,388
Reaction score
3,002
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
How many people die before collecting the SS money they have earned and how is that money budgeted in to our govt.?
 
rhinefire said:
How many people die before collecting the SS money they have earned and how is that money budgeted in to our govt.?
Click to expand...

Social Security is more a wealth transfer from working people to retired people than it is an individual savings plan. If you die before you collect and don't have a spouse, then the money you paid in goes to everyone else on it. Its kind of like an annuity in that regard.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Social Security is more a wealth transfer from working people to retired people than it is an individual savings plan. If you die before you collect and don't have a spouse, then the money you paid in goes to everyone else on it. Its kind of like an annuity in that regard.
Click to expand...

Hey! That's the way Ponzi Schemes work!

It is also ine reason why the social democracies are so worried and are beginning to increase immigration.
 
joG said:
Hey! That's the way Ponzi Schemes work!

It is also ine reason why the social democracies are so worried and are beginning to increase immigration.
Click to expand...

That is not at all how ponzi schemes work. In a ponzi scheme only a tiny minority of people invested in the scheme get back more than they paid in, or for that matter anything anywhere near what they paid in. With Social Security, the majority of beneficiaries get back in benefits more than they paid in. With Medicare, they get back far more than they paid in.

This calling Social Security or Medicare a ponzi scheme is nothing more than a right wing hack detector.
 
rhinefire said:
How many people die before collecting the SS money they have earned and how is that money budgeted in to our govt.?
Click to expand...
The same thing that happens to the money that people pay in on a dead persons number, I.E. all those illegal immigrants
using an old SSN. The monies offset the imbalance between income and outlay, delaying default by a few years.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That is not at all how ponzi schemes work. In a ponzi scheme only a tiny minority of people invested in the scheme get back more than they paid in, or for that matter anything anywhere near what they paid in. With Social Security, the majority of beneficiaries get back in benefits more than they paid in. With Medicare, they get back far more than they paid in.

This calling Social Security or Medicare a ponzi scheme is nothing more than a right wing hack detector.
Click to expand...

That misses the major problem with Ponzi Schemes. The main point is that it works as long as enough new investors enter the plan to pay for the ones remaining. That is what is happening. Demographics are reducing the number of entrants and increasing the number of beneficiaries. In the US this process is still not as far advanced as in a number of European countries or Japan, but we are well advanced..
 
longview said:
The same thing that happens to the money that people pay in on a dead persons number, I.E. all those illegal immigrants
using an old SSN. The monies offset the imbalance between income and outlay, delaying default by a few years.
Click to expand...

I heard something about those illegals can recover that money they paid under an "erroneous" Social Security Number.
 
What Happens To The Soc. Sec. Money Of People That Die Before Collecting?

That is the beauty of the safety net ponzi scheme. Government has already used it.

What did they use it on? I spend my day looking at loan applications and reviewing documents from a cross section of America. I see people that have every child signed up for SSI. Mom gets it for her crooked eye, little Ray Ray gets it for Asthma, Boo gets it for depression, little Cindy lou gets it for Dyslexia and the list goes on.

It's a welfare program and when you die young Government celebrates.
 
joG said:
That misses the major problem with Ponzi Schemes. The main point is that it works as long as enough new investors enter the plan to pay for the ones remaining. That is what is happening. Demographics are reducing the number of entrants and increasing the number of beneficiaries. In the US this process is still not as far advanced as in a number of European countries or Japan, but we are well advanced..
Click to expand...

Sorry but that is a ridiculous comparison. By that definition a military is a ponzi scheme because you can only fund one if you have a sufficient number of working taxpayers. Hell every government program that isn't a block grant is a ponzi scheme by that definition. Even a growing company is a ponzi scheme by that definition because if you are not bringing in enough people to buy your products, you are going to be out of a job.

Here is some reality for you: Social Security and Medicare are necessary. We have to have them or some other program that does exactly what they do. Thus we should all just accept that and figure out a way to properly fund them rather than making these absurd comparisons to a ponzi scheme.
 
Right now this necessary program keeps poor from accumulating wealth and passing that wealth to their families when they die. Surely you don't support that do you? Why not allow the tax payer to own their retirement and pass it on to their families?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sorry but that is a ridiculous comparison. By that definition a military is a ponzi scheme because you can only fund one if you have a sufficient number of working taxpayers. Hell every government program that isn't a block grant is a ponzi scheme by that definition. Even a growing company is a ponzi scheme by that definition because if you are not bringing in enough people to buy your products, you are going to be out of a job.

Here is some reality for you: Social Security and Medicare are necessary. We have to have them or some other program that does exactly what they do. Thus we should all just accept that and figure out a way to properly fund them rather than making these absurd comparisons to a ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...

Nope. But since you begin with "Sorry but that is a ridiculous comparison" instead of being tolerably less rude and by showing an ignorance probably driven by bias, I do not think I am interested in pursuing the topic with you. But you should look at the economics of these things, if you do not want to look like uneducated. A justifying argument in a technical discussion like: "Social Security and Medicare are necessary" is really quite embarrassing.
 
it's an unnecessary question. The money I've paid into SS is used now, so if I die before I collect any SS, the money has already been used. It's not as if there's an account with my name on it waiting for me to retire and the gov't dances a jig if I die before collecting. If you die before you collect SS, you simply cease adding to SS.
 
rhinefire said:
How many people die before collecting the SS money they have earned and how is that money budgeted in to our govt.?
Click to expand...

It works like insurance. If you never use it, too bad.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

For age group 64, that means about 20,000 per 100,000 people in that age group will likely die before seeing any money from SS (assuming they didnt collect earlier via disability). If they have dependents, some of the benefit shifts to them. I dont think the govt BUDGETS for it though. They take in what they take in and pay out what they pay out. If they fall short, the general fund would cover it.
 
rhinefire said:
How many people die before collecting the SS money they have earned and how is that money budgeted in to our govt.?
Click to expand...

When you die before collecting social security, your living spouse collects $255 in death benefit and everything else you paid in goes back into the pool. Your spouse and/or your heirs do not see a penny of it. If your monthly benefit is higher than that of your spouse, however, your spouse can receive your higher benefit instead of his/her own. I just helped my 90-year-old aunt complete the rather extensive process to get her recently deceased husband's benefit which was some higher than her own.

The fraud with SS is that the money confiscated from our paychecks does not go into a fund to be invested and grown and it doesn't even stay in the treasury long enough to earn interest. If it was, the SS crisis bubble that is building and will require serious SS reform fairly soon would be considerably farther in the distance. But it is immediately spent for general fund purposes.

You earned the money, but if you don't collect it you cannot will it to your heirs or give it to a worthy cause or do anything at all with it as you can do with your privately owned retirement accounts.
 
Nobody really likes paying into a pool where they instantly lose ownership of their payments for the promise of one day .. maybe .. being able to draw from the pool.

Nobody really likes seeing the pool drained via diversion into tributaries that fund unrelated projects thereby siphoning its intended payback.

But nobody really likes reaching an age point where hiring managers are compelled by Wall Street's neurotic competitiveness to say, "Sorry, but bye-bye -- your synapses are simply not firing fast enough any more to help us keep up."

And nobody really likes not being able to keep a roof over their head as well after their youthful energy to scrounge out a living has considerably diminished.

And, back in the day, nobody really liked having their tax rates so high without any kind of ultimate personal payback in order to provide shelter for the aged who didn't/couldn't save for the inevitable with the money they chose not to pay into some personal safety-net pool of their own.

The SSA system sucks a bit .. and so does older life without it for most.

What are you gonna do?

That's life in the capitalist game, a game which is somewhat rigged and which not everyone is intrinsically able to play well even if it wasn't a bit rigged: a socialist counter measure always seems to crop up in an effort to keep everything balanced.
 
Last edited:
yeah...you really cant look at it as a one for one, YOUR money...your account situation. For example, if someone dies there are SS benefits for surviving children and spouses, you may draw out far more than you ever put in depending on longevity, lots of variables.

A lot of people complain that if they had been able to save and invest their own money they would have done better than what the SS program has to offer. The reality is... most people have shown themselves to be lousy savers and worse investors. For what it is, and for what it does...SS is a great program.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The fraud with SS is that the money confiscated from our paychecks does not go into a fund to be invested and grown and it doesn't even stay in the treasury long enough to earn interest.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that everything you said there is wrong, you are 100% right

SS money does go into a fund, the money in the fund is invested, and it earns interest
 
sangha said:
Aside from the fact that everything you said there is wrong, you are 100% right

SS money does go into a fund, the money in the fund is invested, and it earns interest
Click to expand...

my guess is he believes the very dollars he deposits into his bank checking account is held in a box with his name on it, so that when he makes a withdrawal of funds, he gets back the very same dollars he deposited
at least his explanation of SS would indicate such a misunderstanding
 
justabubba said:
my guess is he believes the very dollars he deposits into his bank checking account is held in a box with his name on it, so that when he makes a withdrawal of funds, he gets back the very same dollars he deposited
at least his explanation of SS would indicate such a misunderstanding
Click to expand...

LOL!

I particularly liked his whine about how the money does not stick around in the treasury long enough to earn interest. He does not know that money in the Treasury does not earn any interest
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sorry but that is a ridiculous comparison. By that definition a military is a ponzi scheme because you can only fund one if you have a sufficient number of working taxpayers. Hell every government program that isn't a block grant is a ponzi scheme by that definition. Even a growing company is a ponzi scheme by that definition because if you are not bringing in enough people to buy your products, you are going to be out of a job.

Here is some reality for you: Social Security and Medicare are necessary. We have to have them or some other program that does exactly what they do. Thus we should all just accept that and figure out a way to properly fund them rather than making these absurd comparisons to a ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...

It's all a ponzi scheme.

Social Security and Medicare aren't necessary. A NIT would do the same thing.
 
badfish said:
Right now this necessary program keeps poor from accumulating wealth and passing that wealth to their families when they die. Surely you don't support that do you? Why not allow the tax payer to own their retirement and pass it on to their families?
Click to expand...

yes yes, SSI is an evil program that prevents people who work at wall mart from "accumulating wealth." It seems to me that it prevents retirees from living in a box.

64% of aged beneficiaries received at least half of their income from Social Security in 2013.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2015/fast_facts15.pdf
 
jonny5 said:
It works like insurance. If you never use it, too bad.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

For age group 64, that means about 20,000 per 100,000 people in that age group will likely die before seeing any money from SS (assuming they didnt collect earlier via disability). If they have dependents, some of the benefit shifts to them. I dont think the govt BUDGETS for it though. They take in what they take in and pay out what they pay out. If they fall short, the general fund would cover it.
Click to expand...

Which is why they always want to raise the age of eligibility. Hoping more people die before they have to pay out.
 
badfish said:
Right now this necessary program keeps poor from accumulating wealth and passing that wealth to their families when they die. Surely you don't support that do you? Why not allow the tax payer to own their retirement and pass it on to their families?
Click to expand...

The problem is that many would (and actually do) delay "accumulating wealth" (aka retirement savings) until they are more financially secure (aka "I'll start saving later"). Meanwhile, the federal government with its massive and guaranteed income (tax revenue) saves nothing and, in fact, even borrows (from future generations?) to cover its current spending - its elected representatives (aka congress critters) usually vow that it (they?) will begin to repay the national debt "when things get better".

If we allow folks to "own their retirement" (to benefit their heirs?) then we must also allow them to starve and/or become homeless in the event that their heirs refuse to support them if they fail to adequately save for retirement or disability.
 
Last edited:
austrianecon said:
It's all a ponzi scheme.

Social Security and Medicare aren't necessary. A NIT would do the same thing.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Do you realize what a medical insurance premium would be for a senior? Do you think we would have NIT transfers to 65 year old seniors of over 20k a year? To 70 year old seniors of over 35k a year? To 80 year old seniors of in excess of 50k a year?

You might could replace Social Security with a NIT, but you sure could not replace Medicare with it.
 
austrianecon said:
It's all a ponzi scheme.

Social Security and Medicare aren't necessary. A NIT would do the same thing.
Click to expand...

Would this proposed NIT be based on age/disability or simply a fixed (random?) amount made available to anyone that decided working to fully support themselves and their dependents was too much of a hassle? Obviously, to have a NIT would require significantly increasing the PIT which already falls short of covering even the current federal spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom