(08-05-2014 11:31 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Aren't Social Security and Unemplyment earned benefits, meaning you, or your employer, pay in?
They shouldn't be on that list, and the numbers dramatically change without them.

No, these are simply different forms of taxes. The rules for the collection of the taxes and the rules for the disbursement of the benefits are completely independent. You have no right to the money you paid into the system.

Quote: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.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

(08-05-2014 07:40 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Social Security age should not go up. I had to pay into that system my entire working life. I've made good choices and will be prepared for retirement. But why should I be so old that I can't use what I was forced to pay in?

Because people will come after you who also paid into the system, and they don't want your generation to destroy the system for us.

(08-05-2014 08:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 07:40 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Social Security age should not go up. I had to pay into that system my entire working life. I've made good choices and will be prepared for retirement. But why should I be so old that I can't use what I was forced to pay in?

Because people will come after you who also paid into the system, and they don't want your generation to destroy the system for us.

The people of our generation deserve to get their money back. Period. Your generation deserves to get back what you paid in.

The problem is not one generation or another, and some in congress are trying to start that in order to cover up the real problem--that they stole money from the trust fund to buy votes to get themselves re-elected. They ought to have it taken out of their hides.

(08-05-2014 08:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 07:40 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Social Security age should not go up. I had to pay into that system my entire working life. I've made good choices and will be prepared for retirement. But why should I be so old that I can't use what I was forced to pay in?

Because people will come after you who also paid into the system, and they don't want your generation to destroy the system for us.

I'm in my early 40's. My generation is most likely your generation. That still doesn't change the fact that I don't want to be so old that I would never get to use what I was forced to pay in. As far as the system goes. Maybe Congress should not have been robing it for years, or maybe let us use the funds for a federally backed individual retirement account. At least then I could will it to my wife and children if they raised the age.

(08-05-2014 10:49 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Quote:The federal government paid $2,007,358,200,000 in benefits and entitlements in fiscal year 2013 from government programs, according to data from the Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s Monthly Treasury Statement.

The treasury statement summarizes the financial activities of the federal government, including data on government receipts, outlays, and surplus and deficit totals. The September 2013 monthly treasury statement calculates these metrics for the entire fiscal year of 2013, which began on October 1, 2012 and ended on September 30, 2013.

According to the statement, the federal government’s total outlays, otherwise known as spending, for means-tested and non-means tested government programs -- not including administrative expenses -- totaled $2,007,611,200,000 in fiscal year 2013.
programs

Most of the benefits doled out from the total of $2 trillion, or 69.7 percent, came from non-means tested government programs that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, provide benefits to recipients who qualify regardless of income.

These non-means tested government programs include Medicare, Social Security, railroad retirement, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, Veterans’ compensation and Veterans’ educational assistance. In fiscal year 2013, Americans received $1,399,253,000,000 in benefits from these programs. The two programs which contributed most to this total were Social Security, totaling $663,216,000,000 and Medicare, totaling $589,655,000,000 for a combined total of $1,252,871,000,000.

Means-tested government programs, which require income to be below a certain level to be eligible for receipt, contributed to 30.3 percent of the total amount in benefits.

Such government programs include public or subsidized rental housing, Federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps, otherwise known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Women, Infants and Children (WIC), free and reduced lunch programs, Pell Grants, refundable tax credits and Medicaid.

These programs totaled $608,358,200,000 in fiscal year 2013.

According to the treasury statement, the federal government totaled $3,454,253,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2013. This number encompasses all government spending, including things like defense, highway and transportation costs, public education, immigration services and government worker salaries, to name a few.

This means that benefits, totaling $2,007,611,200,000, amounted to 58.1 percent of the total spending.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-...nment-2013

No wonder the government is bringing in so many illegals. They work when the get here, usually three jobs. Americans have made welfare a career. Someone has to do the work around here.

Public sector pensions are a joke as well. Scam!

(08-05-2014 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 08:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 07:40 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Social Security age should not go up. I had to pay into that system my entire working life. I've made good choices and will be prepared for retirement. But why should I be so old that I can't use what I was forced to pay in?

Because people will come after you who also paid into the system, and they don't want your generation to destroy the system for us.

The people of our generation deserve to get their money back. Period. Your generation deserves to get back what you paid in.

The problem is not one generation or another, and some in congress are trying to start that in order to cover up the real problem--that they stole money from the trust fund to buy votes to get themselves re-elected. They ought to have it taken out of their hides.

True, but we can't go get the money back so its imperative to see if there is even a viable long term solution for SS. Clearly, getting your money back isn't the issue, but we all know that at this point people are withdrawing far more than they put into the system.

(08-06-2014 07:08 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  True, but we can't go get the money back so its imperative to see if there is even a viable long term solution for SS. Clearly, getting your money back isn't the issue, but we all know that at this point people are withdrawing far more than they put into the system.

Actually, they aren't. Most peope will get their money back with about a 1-2% ROI, much worse than they could have gotten in the market.

It was fashionable to argue in the wake of the 2008 market crash that we shouldn't privatize social security because so many people would have seen their retirement savings wiped out. Actually, even with the 2008 decline, anyone who retired in the last 10 years after working 40 years, and who could have taken her/his social security contributions and invested them instead in a market index fund, would have been way, way ahead of where s/he would be with social security. And obviously now that the market has recovered and is making new highs, the question is totally moot.

The problem with social security is very simple, the money has been stolen by congress critters to pay for pet programs instead of being invested at a reasonable rate of return. That turns it into--yes, exactly--a Ponzi scheme. If the government had made 5% on everything paid into social security since day one, we would not have the problems coming down the pike that are now starting to stare us in the face.

The solution is pretty obvious, and pretty straightforward:
1. Eliminate the income cap on contributions. That brings in more money, and from people who can afford it.
2. Have two parts, a defined benefit plan run by the government and a privatized defined contribution plan, like a super 401-K. Several liberal proposals for Invest in America accounts or something like that could make use of the privatized plan.
3. Let some portion of the privatized part invest in infrastructure projects with a guaranteed rate of return high enough to make them viable investments. Let the profits go toward reducing the future shortfall. This helps with both social secuirty and infrastructure.
4. Increase the eligibility age one month per year for the next 48 years, until the age is 70. That simply mirrors longevity in society. Continue to allow people to start withdrawals as early as we do today, with reduced benefits amounts.
5. Make social security benefits non-taxable again. You've already been taxed once on the money. Heck, the money is the tax you paid. This makes many people's social security go up right there.
6. Set future inflation growh to be higher for those with lower amounts contributed and higher for those with lower amounts contributed. Eventually you would merge into one amount payable to everybody. Since the benefit of non-taxability is greatest for those with the biggest incomes, this would largely be offset by 1) the nontaxability, and 2) the likelihood of having a larger balance in the privatized account.
7. Establish legally that the social security benefit is in fact consist of funds held in trust for individual contributors/beneficiaries. Allow the privatized part, at least, to be passed along as part of a deceased person's estate.

Ahhh hell whats $$$ anyway?! Plenty of paper and lots of ink to print more.


O B A M A!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wonderful...another moronic poster arrives.

(08-06-2014 04:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Wonderful...another moronic poster arrives.

Who's that? Another libtard joined?

While SS is a system that provides for its working population it has grown too much to include people that never put a dime into it. For instance, my nephews are getting SS because their dad died at 42 yrs. or so. Why? Their mother gets a great paycheck from her school administrator job and really she's the one that spends SS for her expenses.

My b-i-l also gets a check and he's only worked about 3 years in his 50 years of life and because he has treatable bi-polarism he gets medicare. There are loads of people with bi-polarism and they work, why can't he? I tell my wife that he's just lazy which he is.

Oh, and let me add. The U.S. SHOULD take care of its own and to heck with the rest of the world. How much money would we save if we didn't throw it away at people that hate us.