Think carefully before you answer.

Nope, I am forced to pay into it, therefore, it is a loan from me to the government, and it is supposed to be repaid upon my retirement!

YEP, that is the truth in a nut shell.

SOME of it became an entitlement when SSI was allowed for those that NEVER paid in though, STEALING MY money for leeches!

It's a government run Ponzi scheme.

BINGO!!!

What does FICA mean? Federal Insurance Contribution Act.

An insurance policy is not an entitlement. An Insurance policy is a contract.

Promise and then follow thru...America...Amererericaaa!
SS is just like the treaties to tribes...it must be paid. Whether or not you and your kids like it.

It is not an entitlement, it is a Promise.

+1

I also firmly believe you should only be eligible for the time you actually put into it, if you became a citizen at 5 years from retirement, and you have been contributing for 7 years, you get that percentage, you WILL not get the same about as the person who has busted his ass for 45-50 years. Congress, the president and Supreme Court should all be on Social Security also! What is good enough for us, had damned sure better be good enough for them!

Well, it's certainly not an investment.

+2

Most people use up everything they paid in, within just a few years. Many draw that didn't work their required 40 quarters and some draw that never paid a penny.

Some of the politicians complain that we draw out more than we put into it. Hell yes! It's called interest on your investment!




"SUPPORT OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"

Yep

I know a number of worthless people that are on SSI that could work if they wanted to. Funny how a guy with a bad back can still hunt.

an opt out would be wonderful.

Started paying into it when I was 14 years old, sitting bowling pins at a bowling alley, started drawing it in my 60's.

Dick

I don't really know why I engage but here goes...

When SS was instituted there was a trust fund (I can't be the only one who views the phrase gov't trust fund with suspision and utter contempt for those who fell for it??) into which our "deposits" were to be remain until we withdrew them in retirement. The life expectancy of retirees was significantly lower, retirement age higher, and this was meant as bare bones income to avoid poverty.

The best thing we could all do is stop associating the words "Gov't" and "entitlement" together. The only way that they relate has to do with the Gov't entitlement to our money, NOT vice-versa. Once our population gets that through our heads we'll be on the right path (read: NEVER).

Kamerad_Les
So should medicare and all the other ideas that congress & all come up with for the masses. What is good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander. Thus ALL should be in it together, no exception or an exsallted class. Just my $.02 worth. Cheers NC

Right there with ya

To further refine your point, life expectancy when the program initiated was sixty two for men sixty four for women. Payouts did not begin until age 65. For other than the obvious reason, the system remained solvent until president Johnson (yet another POS democrap) decided the "Trust Fund" could be tapped for other social programs (fill in the blank) for no loads and replace that money with IOUs. With life expectancy now at eighty, the fund being used to buy off democrap votes and a shrinking input base, even the democrap morons among us can read the writing on the wall.

only if you receive more than you had taken from you or didn't pay any to begin with.

Right on Jorge!

I have a hard time putting too much time and detail into a response to one of the few I have on ignore .

I consider it a gift, if you are 40 and under you should consider every penny you pay in as a gift to someone else because I don't believe you will see a penny of it. Ever.

It's not an insurance policy, if it was an insurance policy the rate would be based on the probability that you would file a claim on it. Considering the percentage of people who make it to retirment age now I don't think they adjust for that at all.

The minute you start taking more out than you put in it moves a lot closer to that entitelment stage.

I'd rather pay off those already invested in it over time and do away with the whole thing. Let citizens be responsible for their own retirement.

Besides the whole "government shouldn't be involved in mandatory retirement planning etc.." angle sending that much money to the federal government is just a disater. One of two things happen, it drags down everything else because it's not self sustaining. Or it is self sustaining and the money flows out into other crap the federal government has no business in either. It's a no win deal.

I have been paying in since 1958. In 1958 a hamburger was 25 cents an order of fries 20 cents, so there3 has ben a little inflation.

It is a system where the young generations provide some support to the older generations, not really a savings account.

Good system or bad, I supported old people for a long time and don't feel sorry for youngun's trying to weasle.
I don't look at it as entilement but rather "obligation". Like we used to have a military "obligation" as part of being a guy, before the draft was eliminated for a higher paying system.

That is true of a lot of older folks who got in early, but I suspect that by the time many retire they will not get what they have put in. If our government would not have raided it, then no it would not be a ponzi scheme, now it seems they have turned it into a Pyramid party.

You can call it whatever you want, what I like to call it is unsustainable. That right there is all you need to know.

what most seniors receive from SS as their only source of income should be called existence not retirement

Fundamentally, what is the allure of SSI? It is the notion that one will get more out of it, than one pays into it.

Why else would one not want to invest their own earnings to be drawn upon at a future date?

Between that, and the egregious number of leaches suckling the SSI teat for all manner of imagined disabilities, we have what we have - a busted ponzi scheme.

Cancel the whole phuggin thing. Short of that, we need people w/ demonstrable critical thinking skills to do some weeding.

Wow. I'm sure glad that everyone from older generations doesn't take that view.

I'm with NathanL; I'd let y'all keep my contributions as undeclared income taxes if I could manage my own retirement from here on out. I am 36 and have been putting in since I was 12, so I think that is more than fair.

I for one feel badly for those who have been idealistic enough to count on a promise from the gov't to come to anything but what my generation will see. Greed can cause blindness I suppose, and no one can really be surprised by what has come from all this.

FWIW, neither of my parents made it much beyond 67 and put in a TON. My mother was the main breadwinner and she died at 56 so I gotta imagine if this were an entitlement I'd be able to get SOMETHING from her "investment". I'm not complaining, just pointing out that thinking that this is anything less than a monsterous ponzi scheme is ill advised.

You can call it whatever you want, what I like to call it is unsustainable. That right there is all you need to know. [/quote]
Yep that is currently the way it looks. It would be sustainable if they brought back the military draft and knocked the pay back down to $87.50 per month for a two year obligation. Then the price tag for our military adventures wouldn't compete as much with our other obligations.
I would like to see it, it would be good for you!

Whatever it is,..it's mandatory.

Paying it out is mandatory too,..unless the people managing it are a buncha damn criminals.

,..and they are.

You're absolutely right they are criminals!

Someone has obviously already tapped out the separate pool of money they withold for SS and medicare. This was suppose to stream to seniors not politicians, its massive fraud into the trillions along with the criminal banksters these politicians should be tortured into telling ALL and then made accountable or forfeit what they spent it on.

Yes, it is an entitlement. You get more out of it (unless you die young) than you put into it. Until you receive the money you paid in, it is not an entitlement, but once you've exceeded this, it becomes an entitlement. And, it pays your survivors once you die.

Same situation for any defined benefit retirement plan.

Social Security is exactly what it says...socialism.

but...but....they took my money and said I'd get more back?

WTF?

Yeah I want whatever machine they are running it thru.

The problem is every time it's brought up about chaning it in the FUTURE the media and some people start saying we're going to take away the money your 89 year old grandmother gets. Instead of trying to change the program in steps way out from retirement we'll ride it down to nothing.

As it is now it's just what someone posted earlier, a gigantic ponzi scheme that worked until the amount of money going out passed the money coming in.

Best thing I can say is you are under a certain age of say 40ish act like it's not even there.

If they hadn't taken it, you could have invested it in precious metals and definitely got back *much* more.

If the government sucks at investing,..it's not the people's fault.

The government laid out the rules.

If they fugged it up, it's their burden to bear.

If they can't pay their obligations, they need to shut down like everybody else would have to.

,...fuggum!

Not only that, but SS is used for disability for those below retirement age............it's turned into a catch-all account to pay entitlements to lots who've never contributed a dime.

If it was administered & used as intended, it would not be in nearly the trouble it is now due is abuse & politics.

35% of SS payouts is for something other than retired folks.

MM

and they hated it

http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush_Social_Security.htm

That would include widows and widowers raising children by themselves.

Curious, who else is on the list of getting benefits that aren't retired yet?

Of course it is an entitlement. I paid into it, I paid income tax on what was paid into it, and now I am legally entitled to get my payments. The question should have been "Re: Is Social Security Welfare?" The answer would be no, not for the folks who made mandatory contributions during their working years.

I paid in. I will get it back with interest. I been paying in for 50 years and have another 20 to go. You bet I will get it.

No.

Well here's a little math. I paid in the maximum I could for at least the last 10 years. I paid both the employe and employer half which is about 15.3% total on X amount of income. It used to top out at $86k or somewhere close but since has moved up to $100k or close to it.

Let's say I paid in $15k/year for 30 years. Even with paying the maximum I am getting back double what I paid in, the maximum you can collect now is right at $3,000 per month. So the first year I am getting back double what I paid in during the best year.

You live very long after retirement you are getting a lot more than you paid in back.

The dollar a ss recipient gets paid today is worth a lot less than a dollar contributed 40 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. So, what's the problem with getting more than what was actually paid in?

Make it such that I no longer have to contribute coupled with a 10K tax credit each of the next 5 years and I'll sign over my SS benefits tomorrow. Millions would take a early,present dollar buyout.

Exactly right. I started paying into it in 1961, and I helped support older Americans for all these years. I must say I take some exception to those who now want my plug pulled. I worked hard, invested in land and water rights for my retirement, paid my taxes, and never sucked at the public-tit. The downturn took away almost all of what I had worked for, so I'll keep working long past the age I had hoped to retire and keep paying TAXES; it won't hurt me one bit to do so.

I feel absolutely no guilt in accepting a Social Security check to help with what became a major shortfall in my retirement funds.

Socialism, finds it's mark.

I have paid into the system for around 12 years. (I know, not a lot by most peoples standards) However I am one of the people who will likely pay into SS for another 40 years at least before I will theoretically see a dime, and I likely never will.

Like most socialist programs, and entitlement programs the people benefiting from them don't see anything wrong with them.

I have heard the same arguments over and over about " I paid into the system for x number of years and I am entitled to it." True, but the same people will tell me if you are under 40 don't expect to ever see a dime of that money.

OK so now who is getting the money that I put in? The people before me that is who.

It is a [bleep] entitlement program if I have ever seen one and has been from the day that that it was conceived and elderly people were getting paid money, through a system they never contributed to, that other working people were depositing. Nobody will complain as long as they get theirs.

What about welfare, food stamps, etc.... I pay my taxes which funds these programs. So I am entitled to sit around on my ass and collect because I paid taxes? Its the same thing people just cannot see it because while nobody plans on getting welfare, everybody knows they are going to get SS...... until they don't

Dunno what it is to me. I'll never see a dime of the money contributed to it. Y'all enjoy that when you get there.

I hope FDR is smoking turds in Hell. And a few others as well.

If SS is an entitlement then the money they collect from us and our employeers is just a federal tax..plain and simple.

ah nathan, here's a little math. From the social security webite, maximum benefit this year for a age 66 person is 2355/month or 28352yr, that is assuming they paid in the maximum from age 21. That is 45years. Using your 15000 that would be paying in 675000 dollars. At 28352 a year, it would take over 23years to get back what you paid in. So at age 89 you get it back not allowing for any earnings on the money that was confiscated.

There it is.... if it were anything else it would be optional.....

I have been paying into social security with no way to opt out since the early 60's. I filed at age 62 basically so my wife who is ten years older could have her benefit increase.
Now i have continued to work, with a wage cap of 14500 roughly under the current rules. The government doesn't want me making more than that and to discourage me they take back a dollar for every two i earned above that limitation. So next month i loose social security for about five months, and my wife since her benefit is based on mine looses for about three months. Keep in mind I am still paying INTO social security, plus medicare and all the other crap.
If I would NOT have done what i did my wife would have been age 76 before she could have recieved half my benefit with a then reduced life expectancy.
I personally wish i could just quit all together, and have some of you younger people just direct deposit into my account.
I have lived for years paying into the system even tho given my choice i would have opted out. No choice. I only hope to live long enough to get back what was paid in which for me the crossover point in in the mid 70's age wise, and that is assuming no earnings on the money.
Ponzi scheme works for me.

I've always thought of SS as thinly disguised federal tax.

They just break it out from FITW to lessen the sting, and let you think it is something to benefit you later.

In fact it is taken as a tax, and disbursed as a political tool.

It's bullshit.

I've been involuntarily paying into it for 35 years. So I feel I am entitled to receive it when I retire. I paid for that privilege.

I also think that even if you make Bill Gates kind of money and have paid into it, you are entitled as well. Just because you might not even need the money at all doesn't give the government to break their word to you.

Lots of people live longer than 89 nowdays and most people don't start paying in the maximum from age 21. I believe they base on it a rolling average of the last 10 years you worked. So you could pay in the maximum for only 10 years give or take and get the maximum withdrawl possible - for life.

I haven't used the online calculator but if you go by the statement Social Security sends you each year 3 months before your birtday then 2355/month is not right because my last statement showed right at $3,000/month if I was to continue earning the same till retirement.

It just doesn't add up and isn't sustainable. I'm not talking about shutting down people who are age 60. But if we can't even start talking about making it sustainable for people who are just entering the workforce then default it will be.

I also can't believe people can say with a straight face it's better than the government get your $675,000 than keep it yourself.

Got news for you, governments word isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

If you are close to retirment you should and likely will get your money. If you are 40 there's no freaking way you should expect it because one of two things will happen in the next 25 years before you retire. The government goes broke and it's not worth anything to begin with, or they scale back to make it sustainable.

It's a ponzi scheme and everyone knows it. It worked great for a while because people weren't living long after retirement, there were lots of new people paying into the system etc....

But like all ponzi schemes once that balance was reached it can't keep going in it's current form.

The concept of people being able to retire from productive work and draw a SS-type pension for another 20+ years was only feasible when you had significant number of workers for each retiree. Unless it is drastically reformed, the baby boomers will wipe it out and we will return to concept of essentially working until you drop. I know that current retirees feel that they contributed over there working lifetimes and deserve it; but, what they also did was elect politicans who took their contributions and spent it on everything else. We need to reform the system into something actuarilly sound and reflects current lifespans. The disability and welfare aspects of the program need to split off. I don't know why we are so short sighted that we can't come up with some sort of graceful plan to transform the system over the next 20 years so that those that are currently dependent aren't thrown out on the street but the younger workers will at least see something.

That's what I keep trying to tell people and the first thing I hear from them is "Well I'm 2 years from retirement and I paid in that money", it's like they don't even listen to what you are saying.

I've been paying into the system as well but I can face facts and know I will never see any of it and I'm fine with it as long as they start changing it down the line NOW for people who will retire in 20-40 years.

Well I am 70 so you young whippersnappers keep paying in for a few more years for me!

Same age as my dad, and yes he says the same thing to me lol.

Listen to the man grasshopper he is very wise.

You forgot compounded interest.

Throw 4% onto those calculations, and try again.

..and I paid in double what most people who are employed do.

And, many of us have always worked 2 or more jobs - my draw when I hit will bee max due to the amounts I have paid in over ALL the years while working two or more jobs per year. Compounding the interest with all of the new payments each year results in a HUGE amount of $$ over a typical 40-50 year work life. Yeah, they OWE it to me !!!!

I started paying in to the system in 1956 when I got my first job. I worked under the Fla Municipal workers retirement plan, paid SS as well and was in business for all those years also and paid SS on my earnings on that. Yeah I am OWED!

Is SS an entitlement?

My Government thinks it is! They take it from me without asking and against my wishes because they feel they are entitled to it.

Alan

Exactly.

Can we draft the Master Guns for POTUS?

You are SOOOOOO correct Les. They steal our money and then have the GALL to tell us it is an entitlement. That is pure BS. Those of us who paid in are under contract to be paid back. Entitlement my foot.

Jim

I'd be happy to take what I paid in, lump sum, no interest, pay taxes on it and call it even.

Alan

I just consider it a tax I pay so that I don't have to look at old people dying in the streets.
Don't expect to receive any myself, but still think maybe it's money well spent.

I did mention not counting any earnings. To put 4% on it would make me really sad. Also s.s. is a form of an annuity. With costant dollar devaluation so the stream of income becomes nominally less every year in purchasing power. And they cook the books so there is no inflation, right?

Anyone who thinks that it is anything more than just another tax isn't living in reality.

The gov't ensures that my paystubs are labelled with "Federal Tax", "Social Security", "Medicare", etc, etc.

Where do all of these funds go?... into the general fund! EVERY PENNY! There is NO SUCH ACCOUNT FOR SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, etc. They are TAXES, you can call a turd anything you want...

And its exactly a Ponzi scheme, no matter how little you reclaim. The definition is money-in, money-out with no investments. Read about Bernie Madoff. Later clients were paying off older clients. They tracked the money back to the '70's with not one record of any market trades. It's only legal if the Federal government initiates the program.

you are "owed" but that is just your opinion as an honest man who has worked and paid his way. It is not the opinion of the people that control the media, control the military, control the budget' and buy the votes with the money you worked for. I and my employer have paid this tax for 43 years as well.

Its an entitlement however because anyone that is over a certain age regardless of what they contributed is "entitled" to it. Try to change that and Maxine Waters will be calling you a racist faster than you can say Pee Turkey Damn.

You my friend and all of us that work are under the boot of those who use our money to buy votes and power. Audit the Fed, no vote unless you pay tax, no jury duty unless you pass a test that shows you can read above the 3rd grade level, no Social Security unless you pay into it for 5 years.

There Maxine I am a racist too.

A while back I heard Rush talking about the history of SSI. He said that it started when life expectancy was much shorter than now. Also, men at that time tended to marry much younger women so there were lots of widows who were often left destitute. Very few men lived to collect SSI but their widows did. Hence, it's called SS Insurance...insurance against living too long. It was devised to protect the widows and never intended as a retirement package.

Perhaps true but that's not what they told voters. Politicians wanted voters to believe that they would be taken care of, which is why many never put much away for retirement. These days, a lot of people who did invest for retirement got wiped out and will be dependent on government, too.

This whole situation makes politicians happy. They want people dependent on them so they can manipulate the system to get the votes they need to stay in power.

Bingo, as usual government involvement [bleep] it up.

Let's get real here. It's not the folks like yourself that contributed all their lives, that are the problem. It's the people that never did contribute. It's the people that come into this country, expect to be treated special because of where they came from, don't pay taxes, will not salute our flag, but yet expect to reap benefits from our social programs that I see as the problem. In short, the majority of the Democrap's constitiuents.

For me it boils down to those who CAN'T work vs. those who WON'T work.

No problem on my part helping those who can't. Not a dime to those who won't.

I don't know about y'all, but just the fact that "they" said they'd give it back tells me they won't.

I have found it is simplest to just accept the fact that they're all lying all the time. Easier that way.

Well if it's not a tax they do a pretty good job of disguising it as such. If you don't have it withheld (IE self employed) it goes on a schedule called "Self Employment Tax" to cover the full 15.3% and the total goes on your 1040 and the check is rolled into your total for your federal return.

Social security is a government run pension plan, for the most part. If it�s an entitlement it�s because those who paid into the plan are entitled to the promised benefits upon retiring.

That�s pretty much how state and private pension plans work, the main difference being Social security funds have been used to bail out tax payers to the tune of over 2.5 trillion. Now some tax payers want to deadbeat on paying back that debt.

Social security does need changes to remain viable, just as there were changes to it back in the 80�s, but they don�t need to involve current and soon to be retired folks.

SS is sort of an annuity, which would have returns. Figure, over the long-haul, whether it a fixed or a very conservatively invested variable, 4% compounded would be about right.

Figure out how much goes for "survivor" benefits to minor children of a deceased parent.

In some cases (with enough kids), the payout may amount to more per annum, than the deceased parent's annual income at time of death.

Agreed that SS is an unworkable program, but I've been made to pay into it for almost 50 years, so I damn well expect something back.

Tell you what, just give me back MY MONEY I paid into it all this time, and I'll go away. What the H@ll is socialistic about THAT!?!?

Your problem is telling the difference...

AND

Who is telling the difference�

Exactly. I collected a little after my father was killed. And it was very closely controled in those days.
Now?
They throw open the bank doors to anyone!

Why would someone do that when over they last 50 years they could have averaged 10% on a good index fund? OH and when they died it would belong to their estate and wouldn't be stolen by the goobermint. SS is a rippoff because not many times over the last 40 years could they have gotten money that cheap and just used it were ever they pleased.