Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are so right, but unfortunately most young people don't understand that seniors have paid into the system for many years and aren't particularly interested in working when they are 75. Quite frankly the Social Security shortfall is due to a combination of several factors. Obviously the one you mention is the most important. When SS was established, it was supposed to be a trust fund and the money was not supposed to be touched. I'm sure that someone here can give the date (was it in the 70's or 80's), but the government decided that the money was just too appealing and they started taking it out for something other than paying benefits. If the Federal government had kept their mits off my money, there wouldn't be a shortfall.
In addition the program was expanded to pay benefits to people who had not contributed. I know personally that it was also expanded to pay benefits longer to dependents than was the original plan. Now a dependent can collect benefits until they are 25 (I believe - maybe longer) as long as they are still in school, whereas in the original plan benefits were stopped in January of the year the dependent turned 18 even if the dependent was still in high school.
It has ballooned into just another big government piggy bank for the corrupt politicians to raid when they can't squeeze anymore out of the ignorant voter. So sad!
Look, I think we need to reform(if not abolish) social security. Aside from the theft issue, I hope the people(who support social security) would consider the fact that young people never voted for this social contract(social security and medicare). Hell, we weren't born. The whole notion of pushing a social contract without a vote on someone, who wasn't even born is simply anti-liberal. Aside from the 'individual principle', on which I oppose social security, the program of social security fails even the basic democratic principle, which is so dear to the left. How can you impose a system on a entire generation, who didn't even exist at the time to vote on that measure?
You need to brush up on your history. Social Security was started in 1935 by FDR as part of his New Deal. Guess what -- I wasn't alive then either but I doubt that it was put to a vote of the people. It was passed by the Congress at the time and everyone thought it was a great idea since they were in the middle of a Depression. Not a little slowdown like we have now, but a full blown Depression. As I said everything would have continued to be great if the Federal Government had kept their hands off my money. If you have any complaints, I suggest you ask your Congressman why he took money out of the Social Security fund, but leave the seniors alone who have done nothing but pay into the system as they were required.
When Republicans raise concerns about abortion, gay marriage, or terrorism, it's "fear mongering".
When Democrats tell seniors that evil Republicans are out to dismantle social security, minorities that they're racists, or union workers that they're out to steal their jobs, then it's not.
EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!! Since my husband and I each payed into the Social Security system for over 40 years at the maximum rate, I have a little problem with young people who don't want to pay calling it theft when we get our rightfully paid for benefits. And by the way, he died 5 weeks after turning 65 and collecting one SS benefit check. He also cost the Medicare $0 since his death was sudden and at home.
I am very sorry for your loss - I really am.
I would point out one thing though - by your own words, your husband contributed all that money into the system and got what out of if? Nothing.
I'm with those who feel Social Security is theft -
I would point out one thing though - by your own words, your husband contributed all that money into the system and got what out of if? Nothing.
I'm with those who feel Social Security is theft -
As far as my husband's contributions, I plan to live to a ripe old age and I will have no guilt about collecting my Social Security because I know that both he and I worked many years to fund the program.
Unless you are saying it is theft by the Federal Government, exactly how is it theft when both my husband and I paid in for over 40 years at the maximum rate? Also are you aware what a small percentage of people fund a 401K presently? If you can't get people to save in the established retirement accounts, how do you propose to keep people from being destitute and dependent on government welfare when they get old?
Unless you are saying it is theft by the Federal Government, exactly how is it theft when both my husband and I paid in for over 40 years at the maximum rate? Also are you aware what a small percentage of people fund a 401K presently? If you can't get people to save in the established retirement accounts, how do you propose to keep people from being destitute and dependent on government welfare when they get old?
First off, you husband contributed all that money and got nothing in return - and, think - if that money had been otherwise invested, you would be able to have the benefits of those investments.
Its theft because the feds tell you that you have no choice. That is not true.
And, think how much bigger those 401's could be if the average worker had the money they contribute to SS to invest in their 401"s?
[quote=VMH2507;3816252]You are so right, but unfortunately most young people don't understand that seniors have paid into the system for many years and aren't particularly interested in working when they are 75. Quite frankly the Social Security shortfall is due to a combination of several factors. Obviously the one you mention is the most important. When SS was established, it was supposed to be a trust fund and the money was not supposed to be touched. I'm sure that someone here can give the date (was it in the 70's or 80's), but the government decided that the money was just too appealing and they started taking it out for something other than paying benefits. If the Federal government had kept their mits off my money, there wouldn't be a shortfall.
In addition the program was expanded to pay benefits to people who had not contributed. I know personally that it was also expanded to pay benefits longer to dependents than was the original plan. Now a dependent can collect benefits until they are 25 (I believe - maybe longer) as long as they are still in school, whereas in the original plan benefits were stopped in January of the year the dependent turned 18 even if the dependent was still in high school.[/quot
I am afraid you are wrong about the money not supposed to be touched. It's a trust fund and the only one who can use it is the federal government and they pay a interest. If it were any other trust fund it would be aillegal trust fund. The government borrows the money and pays interest supposedly when you draw it out. The reality is it is a pay- go system in which they determine how much to let you take out and pay no interest unless you go over your contribution.They have been paying from the money coming in with a surplus that they borrow.. If you die they take the money if it is a individaul account and you have no wife or your wife has a separate account she either gives up your money or hers;she can't have both.It was cheap money for the feds and they really paid no interest.The democrats during the clinton admistration actually claimed the fund was not in trouble but since the OMB has to notify the president when it is in trouble and the president has to recoomend action that is why he recommended the allowing some money to go into younger peoples investment accounts. The democrats blocked this and claimed there still wasn't a problem.Kind of a see no evil ;hear no evil. The sad part is that medicare and medicaid are in wrose trouble. There is no apy that the younger generatino can pay in enough to cover the boom generation without a huge payroll txa increase.But thyen just think they want to add another program called universal healthcare on top of those three that will go bankrupt in the near future.The feds take in like 18% of the GDP of the nation from all sources. Medicare;SS and medicaid uses 8% of that. Inlike 25 years the thyree programs will use 16% of the 18% according to estimates. That leaves 2 for other programs and to run the governamnt.
You are so right, but unfortunately most young people don't understand that seniors have paid into the system for many years and aren't particularly interested in working when they are 75. Quite frankly the Social Security shortfall is due to a combination of several factors. Obviously the one you mention is the most important. When SS was established, it was supposed to be a trust fund and the money was not supposed to be touched. I'm sure that someone here can give the date (was it in the 70's or 80's), but the government decided that the money was just too appealing and they started taking it out for something other than paying benefits. If the Federal government had kept their mits off my money, there wouldn't be a shortfall.
In addition the program was expanded to pay benefits to people who had not contributed. I know personally that it was also expanded to pay benefits longer to dependents than was the original plan. Now a dependent can collect benefits until they are 25 (I believe - maybe longer) as long as they are still in school, whereas in the original plan benefits were stopped in January of the year the dependent turned 18 even if the dependent was still in high school.[/quot
I am afraid you are wrong about the money not supposed to be touched. It's a trust fund and the only one who can use it is the federal government and they pay a interest. If it were any other trust fund it would be aillegal trust fund. The government borrows the money and pays interest supposedly when you draw it out. The reality is it is a pay- go system in which they determine how much to let you take out and pay no interest unless you go over your contribution.They have been paying from the money coming in with a surplus that they borrow.. If you die they take the money if it is a individaul account and you have no wife or your wife has a separate account she either gives up your money or hers;she can't have both.It was cheap money for the feds and they really paid no interest.The democrats during the clinton admistration actually claimed the fund was not in trouble but since the OMB has to notify the president when it is in trouble and the president has to recoomend action that is why he recommended the allowing some money to go into younger peoples investment accounts. Thsi was turned down and nbow since even more of the boomer generatrion they are back to what their committee said years ago under clinton;a heafty raise in payroll taxes or reducing benefits.It still is not on the congresses agenda since the repubicans tried to pass reform when in control and isn't on the radar screen in the election. Sad thing is medicare and medicaid are in worse probems.
Yes, I agree with you about Medicare and medicaid being worse problems and with all the illegal immigrants that they want to legalize the problem will get much worse fast if that happens. I realize that the government has taken money from the fund and that it is a pay-as you go now but I didn't think that that was always the case. I'll have to do some research on it. I think that when Bush tried to get the individual accounts that the numbers didn't add up. People would have to do extraordinarily good at managing their accounts to be able to match what they would receive from traditional SS. Do you honestly believe that given the low rate of 401K participation that most people would fund individual accounts? Do you believe that most people have to skills to manage and grow the retirement accounts? I personally have my doubts.
I am glad to see though that you don't appear to be accusing ME as a senior of theft in getting SS benefit as the other poster seemed to be doing. Seemed like she just hoped I would go ahead and die.
What a shame. Obama original position was right---retirment age needs to be increased along with cutting benefits and etc. Of course, he still wouldn't talk about reforming the entire system(asking too much from democrats). This was of course 15 months ago, then obama realized he couldn't win the election without seniors and thus enter obama-keep-all-welfare-program. Still, Seniors don't vote for him and most of the young voters(obama supporters) are in favor of social security reform(if not end of the sytem then at least some individual accounts) and its time for Obama to return back to this original position and stop this pandering to special interest coaltion on social security.
Social security = Theft
What the heck are you saying? These people worked and paid into this and it is suppose to be returned to them. They paid into it and they are owed it.
How the heck is it theft? Give me a break?
Seniors should be taken care of first and foremost, they paid their dues!
Welfare = theft why? because these welfare bums have not earned it or paid into it and are stealing it from those who have.
Welfare should be stopped and the money put into the SS fund so seniors will be forever paid.
Sure it needs to be reformed, but it cannot be reformed to screw over those who have worked their entire life and paid into it.
Obama is a screw ball who has flip flopped all over the place on this issue.
I see what your saying, your an Obama nut and you are complaining that seniors wont vote for him so you want to screw them over. How dare you!
Are you working? Do you think you can work until your 75?
My in laws are in the mid 70's and have both worked their entire lives away, saved some money and paid huge sums into the SS system. They earned and are owed it back. FIL worked in a factory for 51 years!!!!
Its the young people who are stealing from us, they wont even work 40 hour per week or take on two jobs, heck they cannot even keep a good job when they get it.
The young today who have stolen welfare checks from those like us who have paid into it owe us to pay it back into the SS system so it will be good to go for anyone over 45 years of age or older.
People who are 45 have paid into it for 27 years and deserve it. Anyone under that has been told for many years it wont be there to save your money.
Obama would rather give a rat bum welfare scum on the streets who wont ever amount to crap a check so they can buy more beer and drugs then give it to a senior who has already accomplised allot in their life and PAID THEIR DUES.
Stop welfare cold and put the money in the SS fund for people like my inlaws.
Force welfare scum to work, I am tired of them sucking of those who work for a living.
Typical Obama follower, screw over those who have earne something and give it to a lazy bum young person.
So what your saying is your mad because older people wont vote for Obama because he wants to SCREW them over? Thought so.
You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that! You will be old someday too.
Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program
The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.
The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
This is what I found about the Trust Fund. Apparently in 1968-69 Johnson changed the accounting method, but they also say that it wasn't a change in policy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seemed like she just hoped I would go ahead and die.
