Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu from NYC
Social Security is not meant to be a way of transferring money from rich to others but a pension system so you more or less get back what you put into it.
...
|
This simply is not true. From the very beginning the formula for calculating benefits gave a greater payment to lower earning workers, thus the wealthy were paying more dollars into the system per dollar received back. It has always functioned in part as a wealth transfer.
Quote:
|
Individuals were insured if they had worked at least 5 years in jobs covered by the program, and earned total wages of at least $2,000 in those jobs, before they reached age 65. The amount of the benefit was related to the amount of total wages covered by the program, but the formula was weighted to give a greater return, on payroll taxes paid, to low-wage earners.
|
As the original legislation in 1935 required a five year pay in to get a payout from age 65 until death, it actually was more generous than what we have now which requires a ten year pay in. Additionally Soc Sec originally only covered the worker, but quickly was amended to include a widow, and children, then a spouse. So now a single worker can collect his own benefit, his spouse can collect 50% of his benefit, and as many ex-wives of 10 years who do not remarry can also collect. All based on one worker's contribution. Also your FICA paid for disability coverage for all your working years and bought coverage for disability of your children. SSI coverage is income limited. Thus although the wealthy paid into the system, they are not eligible for the benefit.
Social Security is not a pension system, it is a program to provide several benefits to workers and their families throughout life and beyond and has always paid a proportionally greater benefit to the working poor, and that's a good thing.