Social Security, yea or nay?

[Sandtrap328]

Yes, we all paid into Social Security for our working careers and, naturally, the Social Security general fund was "raided" to pay for other things. That is not the issue of this post.

I would like to know opinions on IF Social Security had been an opt-in program, who would have decided NOT to opt-in and to save/invest for their own retirement. At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good saving/investment choices.

Which would you have taken - advised your children and grandchildren to have taken?

[Walter123]

If we only knew then what we know now.

[folkh]

Yes, we all paid into Social Security for our working careers and, naturally, the Social Security general fund was "raided" to pay for other things. That is not the issue of this post.

I would like to know opinions on IF Social Security had been an opt-in program, who would have decided NOT to opt-in and to save/invest for their own retirement. At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good saving/investment choices.

Which would you have taken - advised your children and grandchildren to have taken?

At 25 young and dumb I would of opted out at 61 glad i didn't have the choice!!!

[Villages PL]

Yes, we all paid into Social Security for our working careers and, naturally, the Social Security general fund was "raided" to pay for other things. That is not the issue of this post.

I would like to know opinions on IF Social Security had been an opt-in program, who would have decided NOT to opt-in and to save/invest for their own retirement. At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good saving/investment choices.

Which would you have taken - advised your children and grandchildren to have taken?

I think you reveal your biased motivation by saying "there would be absolutely no government assistance".

My grandfather never had social security and was poor all of his life with a family of 7. He never owned a house or car. In his retirement he received state aid. His main occupation during his working years was "coal mining".
Either the state or federal government must step in with some minimum safety net. If you change your opening post you might get more replies. As it stands you have stacked the deck in favor of the answer you're looking for.

[REDCART]

Yes, we all paid into Social Security...

I would like to know opinions on IF Social Security had been an opt-in program, who would have decided NOT to opt-in and to save/invest for their own retirement. At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good saving/investment choices...

Your question suggests that SS is nothing more than a "retirement" program, and that you've overlooked the valuable disability and survivor benefits that your FICA taxes also paid for.

[Rags123]

Yes, we all paid into Social Security for our working careers and, naturally, the Social Security general fund was "raided" to pay for other things. That is not the issue of this post.

I would like to know opinions on IF Social Security had been an opt-in program, who would have decided NOT to opt-in and to save/invest for their own retirement. At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good saving/investment choices.

Which would you have taken - advised your children and grandchildren to have taken?

Actually, this question makes no sense.

When I, and assume most others were working, there were very few alternatives...you selected your employer and one of the main factors was retirement.

Annuities and the like were new on the landscape and not discussed much.

Not sure of you intent in asking this question, because I was always told my social security was a guaranty by the government, but I should save as much as possible to add to that plus my employers retirement plan. Today, those retirement plans are history for the most part and it is now, for those younger folks....you do not have a retirement in most cases, unless with the government (state or federal), and social security will never do it, so you better begin to invest and start young.

To respond directly, I can't answer it...it was a different time and age, and today's investment opportunities just did not exist.

I would really like to know the reason for the question actually. Recently there appears to be a subtle message from some that I should feel guilty for collecting SS. As I said to the other thread, I suppose posting with the same motivation as usual, I feel not one iota of guilt.

PS...DIdnt you often times mention you worked for the government so you DID NOY pay into SS. You paid, I think a percentage into the federal retirement fund. Sorry if I am wrong..my memory is shot..you know these old social security collectors.

[ureout]

Yes, we all paid into Social Security for our working careers and, naturally, the Social Security general fund was "raided" to pay for other things. That is not the issue of this post.

I would like to know opinions on IF Social Security had been an opt-in program, who would have decided NOT to opt-in and to save/invest for their own retirement. At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good saving/investment choices.

Which would you have taken - advised your children and grandchildren to have taken?

did you buy life insurance when you were young???? if yes, why???? you could have put that yearly premium away and had a bundle of $$$$ now....same premise

[gomoho]

did you buy life insurance when you were young???? if yes, why???? you could have put that yearly premium away and had a bundle of $$$$ now....same premise

Uh I think you buy life insurance in case you drop dead tomorrow or in 10 years. You don't know when you'll need it so it really isn't something you can save for over the years.

[billethkid]

if opting out was indeed a choice we as a nation would be confronted with millions who would have opted out...only to use the money. Then when between the rock and the hard place years hit they would be lined up looking for support/supplement/give away.

The same issue exists with younger people who do in fact have the option to buy insurance and didn't or don't......until they need support/supplement/hand out.

Opting out should only be when proof of the alternate investment is provided and maintained. The Treasury could do that like they do everything else....right?

[JP]

I think the average American doesn't understand investing enough to "opt out" and would end up with ZERO $ at retirement age and would cosequently further burden our over burdened society. I have never liked paying in to social security but as it stands, I am glad I did and everyone has to.

[billethkid]

I think the average American doesn't understand investing enough to "opt out" and would end up with ZERO $ at retirement age and would cosequently further burden our over burdened society. I have never liked paying in to social security but as it stands, I am glad I did and everyone has to.

except for some of the illegals and select other groups!

[Polar Bear]

I think you reveal your biased motivation by saying "there would be absolutely no government assistance"...


I didn't read bias into that at all. It sounded to me like he was just being clear about the hypothetical situation he was describing.

[2BNTV]

I think the average American doesn't understand investing enough to "opt out" and would end up with ZERO $ at retirement age and would cosequently further burden our over burdened society. I have never liked paying in to social security but as it stands, I am glad I did and everyone has to.

Totally agree. Since I don't get the AARP magazine anymore, I can't really state percentage wise, how many Americans have saved less than 25K for retirement. There would be a glut of people who would be living in poverty conditions if they had the option to opt out..

Many people don't have the wherewithal to start saving in their twenties, thinking they have plenty of time. When they have reached 50 or so, it's too late.

Giving people the option to opt out would generate a whole new generation of broke retirees. Some people now have to work until they drop dead.

Sorry I don't agree that anyone should opt out of SS.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

I don't think that you should be able to opt out but your SS money should be yours and go into a 401k type program that you can not touch until age 62. The investment choices should be controlled to some extent. You would end up with a lot more than what you are getting now!

[784caroline]

Do you really think the average person (especially 20 - 40 years olds) knows how to invest in a 401K program?

I would be in favor of all americans continue paying into Social Security, but rather than giving them the option of investng in a 401K type program, have them invest in a government run TSP program which has been Extremely succesful for more than 30 years and provides for a number of investment options.

Even with the TSP, how do you get the 20 year old to invest in stocks when they have NO idea what to do!!!! If it was only in money markets or treasury equavalents, they would never have what they would under Social Security.

Hard to beat Social Secuity for its simpilicity. yet takes all into consideration regardless of investment know how!!

[JoMar]

As I remember, SS was established as a supplement and never as a retirement plan. Over the years it has transitioned to a retirement plan and now millions have it as their only income...while more millions make significant returns on their investments and still continue to take SS. I have counseled my kids to make sure they control their future, SS may be a supplement but if they count on it they will disappointed and don't expect me to chip in. I find it interesting that we (yes I include me in that we) get slightly crazy when Uncle talks about increasing taxes or redistributing wealth or providing more assistance yet when they talk about taking SS from those that really don't need it (means testing) we get just as crazy because now they are talking about us. End of rant.

[Rags123]

As I remember, SS was established as a supplement and never as a retirement plan. Over the years it has transitioned to a retirement plan and now millions have it as their only income...while more millions make significant returns on their investments and still continue to take SS. I have counseled my kids to make sure they control their future, SS may be a supplement but if they count on it they will disappointed and don't expect me to chip in. I find it interesting that we (yes I include me in that we) get slightly crazy when Uncle talks about increasing taxes or redistributing wealth or providing more assistance yet when they talk about taking SS from those that really don't need it (means testing) we get just as crazy because now they are talking about us. End of rant.

A few questions with all due respect.....

How do you determine who needs social security ?

How do you take back something that they have paid into for years ?

Yes, I get a bit crazy...not for the reasons you mention, which are ALWAYS the standard phrases used by a certain p group to justify the assistance programs, etc. I DO NOT FEEL GUILTY ABOUT TAKING SOCIAL SECURITY which seems to be the intent of this thread and a few others on the same exact subject with the same posters.

This is a different age and thus the question is basically ludicrous ! When it was proposed by Bush...albeit invest a percentage if you wanted to...he was laughed off the podium. Quotes supplied upon request.

[Paper1]

As I remember, SS was established as a supplement and never as a retirement plan. Over the years it has transitioned to a retirement plan and now millions have it as their only income...while more millions make significant returns on their investments and still continue to take SS. I have counseled my kids to make sure they control their future, SS may be a supplement but if they count on it they will disappointed and don't expect me to chip in. I find it interesting that we (yes I include me in that we) get slightly crazy when Uncle talks about increasing taxes or redistributing wealth or providing more assistance yet when they talk about taking SS from those that really don't need it (means testing) we get just as crazy because now they are talking about us. End of rant.

Thank you for your post. This wonderful, fast growing community we live in probably has more unfunded SS, Medicare, disability, pensions (state, federal, military) per acre as any place on earth. Our children and grandchildren had nothing to do with that but are picking up the tab.

[Tennisnut]

except for some of the illegals and select other groups!

Unauthorized workers are paying an estimated $13 billion a year in social security taxes and only getting around $1 billion back, according to a senior government statistician.

Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration (SSA), told VICE News that an estimated 7 million people are currently working in the US illegally. Of those, he estimates that about 3.1 million are using fake or expired social security numbers, yet also paying automatic payroll taxes. Goss believes that these workers pay an annual net contribution of $12 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund.

The SSA estimates that unauthorized workers have paid a whopping $100 billion into the fund over the past decade. Yet as these people are in the US illegally, it is unlikely that they will be able to benefit from their contributions later in life.

Our social security system is fortunate that the illegals are helping the fund with their contributions. Where would we be without their support?

[Rags123]

Thank you for your post. This wonderful, fast growing community we live in probably has more unfunded SS, Medicare, disability, pensions (state, federal, military) per acre as any place on earth. Our children and grandchildren had nothing to do with that but are picking up the tab.

I would be curious in what way future generations are picking up the tab ? I am told, and I believe our government, that this is separate accounting or did they lie to me. Nah, I know it is thus the only impact, as of this writiing, oh...wait..there is NO impact at this point.

[Rags123]

I would like to ask a general question of those who seem to be badgering and criticizing social security recepients.

WHY ? What motivation do you have to attack those who receive social security or make them feel guilty for receiving ?

Is it to deflect the other spending done by the government that you support ?

Is it to defend some other policy ?

I ask, because it makes absolutely no sense to me why I, or any other recepient should feel guilty in anyway at all. I paid and was told I could not work unless I paid. I had very few other investment opportunities as most of them did not exist at that time. I have no idea if I am collecting more than I put in the system as the government has screwed up the accounting of SS so bad it is hard to determine a lot of things about the program.

Is this because if you collect SS, you should not be allowed to criticize all the other entitlements gained by NOT working ?

I just do not understand it. The OP, to my knowledge, was a government employee thus never paid into the system so I just do not get the motitvations.

Thank you

[ureout]

Uh I think you buy life insurance in case you drop dead tomorrow or in 10 years. You don't know when you'll need it so it really isn't something you can save for over the years.

UH.... i think you missed the point I was trying to make....O/P said if you had a choice....if SS was a choice would you opt in or out....no one knows their life span it would be like playing Russian roulette.... same as life ins. do I buy it or save the $$$$ every year for retirement

[Cedwards38]

Without question, I would have opted in.

[dillywho]

I will probably mess this up, but here goes since my thoughts are sometimes hard to put to paper.

As someone else stated, you either paid into SS in order to work or you couldn't work (with the exception of a few jobs, RR for instance). Someone else pointed out that there were not other choices available for investment. I can remember when only those with thousands to invest were able to do so.

As for SS being "unfunded", I don't understand that. It is very much funded to this day since the rules remain the same. It was established as a "Trust Fund", which meant that it was to remain separate. That got changed so that those funds ended up being spent via the General Fund. Another way it is funded is by those who die before age 62 and have no spouse eligible to draw as a widow or no dependent children under 18 or disabled. My brother was still working at 65, never took any of his, and died suddenly. This happens all the time. Unfortunately, many die just prior to age 62.

Now, to the so-called means testing. How would that be had we been able to do our own fund that we faithfully paid into along with contributions from our employer(s)? I sure wouldn't go for that!

Yes, SS was supposed to "supplement" our retirement. Fortunately, for many of us, retirement plans were available to us. No way could we make it on our SS alone. Since SS is based on earnings, wages were not what they are today, and wages also have to do with demographics. The more you make, the greater your contribution. That's just the way it is.

And, no, I do not feel "guilty" for drawing SS, anymore than I would feel guilty about taking anything else I paid into. It is not the fault of us that this fund has been changed from its original intent. Retirement funds are set up the same way.....you draw until you die, even if it exceeds your contributions. The holders of these are just gambling that you and/or your beneficiary will die sooner rather than later.

[Gerald]

if this or that does not exist. be real. it works for most people. yes the gov. took a lot of money from the fund. deal with it and make the fuss with those that did it. call your political leaders and complain.

[Rags123]

I will probably mess this up, but here goes since my thoughts are sometimes hard to put to paper.

As someone else stated, you either paid into SS in order to work or you couldn't work (with the exception of a few jobs, RR for instance). Someone else pointed out that there were not other choices available for investment. I can remember when only those with thousands to invest were able to do so.

As for SS being "unfunded", I don't understand that. It is very much funded to this day since the rules remain the same. It was established as a "Trust Fund", which meant that it was to remain separate. That got changed so that those funds ended up being spent via the General Fund. Another way it is funded is by those who die before age 62 and have no spouse eligible to draw as a widow or no dependent children under 18 or disabled. My brother was still working at 65, never took any of his, and died suddenly. This happens all the time. Unfortunately, many die just prior to age 62.

Now, to the so-called means testing. How would that be had we been able to do our own fund that we faithfully paid into along with contributions from our employer(s)? I sure wouldn't go for that!

Yes, SS was supposed to "supplement" our retirement. Fortunately, for many of us, retirement plans were available to us. No way could we make it on our SS alone. Since SS is based on earnings, wages were not what they are today, and wages also have to do with demographics. The more you make, the greater your contribution. That's just the way it is.

And, no, I do not feel "guilty" for drawing SS, anymore than I would feel guilty about taking anything else I paid into. It is not the fault of us that this fund has been changed from its original intent. Retirement funds are set up the same way.....you draw until you die, even if it exceeds your contributions. The holders of these are just gambling that you and/or your beneficiary will die sooner rather than later.

Great post. Stated better than I ever could. Thank you

I still do not get the chronic postings on this subject and what is the point. Folks who never contributed keep alluding to other government programs and trying to relate SS to those and I just cannot understand it. And they never explain, except for the inane comment about not complaining when you get your SS payment as if that had anything to do with other government entitlements that we ALSO pay for.

[JoMar]

A few questions with all due respect.....

How do you determine who needs social security ?

How do you take back something that they have paid into for years ?

Yes, I get a bit crazy...not for the reasons you mention, which are ALWAYS the standard phrases used by a certain p group to justify the assistance programs, etc. I DO NOT FEEL GUILTY ABOUT TAKING SOCIAL SECURITY which seems to be the intent of this thread and a few others on the same exact subject with the same posters.

This is a different age and thus the question is basically ludicrous ! When it was proposed by Bush...albeit invest a percentage if you wanted to...he was laughed off the podium. Quotes supplied upon request.

I understand your questions and the perspective you see......first, let me be clear that I do not feel guilty and have the same perspective that I paid in so I should get it. Wait, I think I'm getting the money my kids are paying into the plan.....my money supported my parents didn't it. The fact that maybe I don't need it and someone else could be better off if I didn't take it doesn't matter. As far as your question about means testing, the government means tests all their entitlement programs, medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance etc. so establishing a means test will not be difficult for Uncle and of course then ignoring any attempt to enforce or eliminate abuse.

My kids hate the concept of SS as do most of their friends that I have met. They aren't against forced retirement plans but believe that the money they pay into SS should be put into a private plan, that they can't touch, and allows them input into it's direction. In that scenario, they would be getting the money they put into it and not depend on the money the generation behind them is putting into a government plan.

At some point the system will need to change, as more take advantage of the entitlements programs there will be less money going into SS which is why today's generation have no faith in SS being available to them. They understand the funding solutions (or for those of us from the business side like to call it.....revenue streams) will have to come from somewhere and Uncles only source is us.....more taxes, different taxes, surcharges, fees etc. They will continue to fund and add programs.....and we will continue to defend those that benefit us and vilify most of those that don't but either way, we pay.

[Rags123]

I understand your questions and the perspective you see......first, let me be clear that I do not feel guilty and have the same perspective that I paid in so I should get it. Wait, I think I'm getting the money my kids are paying into the plan.....my money supported my parents didn't it. The fact that maybe I don't need it and someone else could be better off if I didn't take it doesn't matter. As far as your question about means testing, the government means tests all their entitlement programs, medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance etc. so establishing a means test will not be difficult for Uncle and of course then ignoring any attempt to enforce or eliminate abuse.

My kids hate the concept of SS as do most of their friends that I have met. They aren't against forced retirement plans but believe that the money they pay into SS should be put into a private plan, that they can't touch, and allows them input into it's direction. In that scenario, they would be getting the money they put into it and not depend on the money the generation behind them is putting into a government plan.

At some point the system will need to change, as more take advantage of the entitlements programs there will be less money going into SS which is why today's generation have no faith in SS being available to them. They understand the funding solutions (or for those of us from the business side like to call it.....revenue streams) will have to come from somewhere and Uncles only source is us.....more taxes, different taxes, surcharges, fees etc. They will continue to fund and add programs.....and we will continue to defend those that benefit us and vilify most of those that don't but either way, we pay.

There have been calls to do what, I THINK, your children support. In 2005, President Bush proposed it for discussion. I offer to you a retort from Nancy Pelosi on that proposal after Bush said it was one of his big disappointments...

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was extremely pleased with President Bush's latest revelation that his biggest failure in office was not passing Social Security reform, telling reporters on Friday that it was a great Democratic triumph that the party managed to block him.

"As one of the leaders who led the effort to disappoint him, I am very pleased that he is admitting he was trying to do that," she said during the call, joined by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.). "That it was his high priority. We defeated him then in his trying to privatize Social Security, we will do it again. Republicans are trying to do it in their budget. The three independent reports conclude that if Republicans succeeded in privatizing Social Security, benefits for America's seniors would be cut [and] Wall Street would have made billions."

Nancy Pelosi Responds To President Bush On Social Security: We're Very 'Pleased' He Is Disappointed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/nancy-pelosi-bush-social-security-pleased-disappointed_n_772538.html)

He was even ridiculed and all the leaders said there was no problem

Let me explain....my retorts are to those who somehow, for some reason tie SS with other entitlements. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME IN ANYWAY, and tying them together makes no sense

And refer your children to this site....the SSA does employ top actuaries to insure the program is run correctly.

Office of the Chief Actuary -- Home Page (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/)

[dillywho]

Could we please not refer to SS as an "entitlement"? I know that this is what the powers-that-be choose to tell us.

To me, it is not an entitlement nor a benefit. It is the same as any other insurance. Workman's Comp. and Unemployment Insurance are both paid for by employers....no choice for them, either, just the same as their forced SS matches. Remember, too, it is not just the individuals who pay into SS, but their employers as well.

Thanks.

[Sandtrap328]

[QUOTE=dillywho;1000315]Could we please not refer to SS as an "entitlement"?

...but it IS an entitlement. You paid a percentage of your salary into Social Security as did your employer and now, you are ENTITLED to getting your benefits.

[Rags123]

[QUOTE=dillywho;1000315]Could we please not refer to SS as an "entitlement"?

...but it IS an entitlement. You paid a percentage of your salary into Social Security as did your employer and now, you are ENTITLED to getting your benefits.

Nothing but playing with words. Has no value to any conversation. If the difference escapes anyone, well.....

[graciegirl]

Semantics.

Entitlement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement)

[tcxr750]

If you are financially savvy at an early age and opted for your own investment strategy you would be one of a very few. Based on the performance of my professionally managed IRA over the past 15 years, it has been a roller coaster ride with every up and down of the market. Ask anyone who has an IRA. In addition to market fluctuations you have to be alert to the integrity, or lack thereof, of your investment advisor. Ask around. In Northeast Ohio we had several who caused more than a few folks to have to return to work.
Regardless of your political philosophy I've found even the most conservative people happy for the monthly SS check.
"A government of the people, by the people and for the people.." A. Lincoln

[Challenger]

Facts---
As of 2014 there is $2.6 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund. Funds are invested in US Govt Bonds(arguably the safest investment in the world).

The fund earns (goes back to the Fund) about $99billion a year from interest on the bonds.

If the Feds did not borrow from the Fund , they would borrow it from others at probably the same annual interest cost.

So in a way all taxpayers even those now retired are contributing to the fund(interest on the debt)

You can argue that the Feds borrow too much but they have not in fact stolen from the Fund.

[Rags123]

This entire thread, begun by a person who does not nor ever did contribute to SS, and that is based on his posts, is just a P stunt. This particular thought process has been on TOTV before by the same cast of posters.

I keep asking WHY the threads, every time, and yet to get a response.

[Sandtrap328]

This entire thread, begun by a person who does not nor ever did contribute to SS, and that is based on his posts, is just a P stunt. This particular thought process has been on TOTV before by the same cast of posters.

I keep asking WHY the threads, every time, and yet to get a response.

Even though I owe no explanation to this poster, I will reply.

First, I have paid into Social Security and I do get a Social Security retirement check.

The question of opting in or out of Social Security was based upon a conversation over a couple of Dewar's White Label's with a friend. He was under the thought that most people would opt-out and plan their own retirement future. I thought that most young people do not think retirement until their mid-40's and then it is too late to start from zero. I said that the safety net of a Social Security retirement check in addition to 401k's and other investments was needed. He said the 7 percent deduction could have made so much more money that it would not be needed as a safety net.

No, there was no political bent to my post. It was a legit question asking for opinions.

[Rags123]

Even though I owe no explanation to this poster, I will reply.

First, I have paid into Social Security and I do get a Social Security retirement check.

The question of opting in or out of Social Security was based upon a conversation over a couple of Dewar's White Label's with a friend. He was under the thought that most people would opt-out and plan their own retirement future. I thought that most young people do not think retirement until their mid-40's and then it is too late to start from zero. I said that the safety net of a Social Security retirement check in addition to 401k's and other investments was needed. He said the 7 percent deduction could have made so much more money that it would not be needed as a safety net.

No, there was no political bent to my post. It was a legit question asking for opinions.

I will give you a public apology based on this. I was almost sure you said at various times that you were a long time federal employee in Washington DC.

If I was in error, I apologize sincerely.

Secondly, I KNOW you began threads on this and for reasons YOU will understand I will stay away from discussing those, and they all were around the same issue.

[Topspinmo]

I gained little insight over the years and of course my own opinion and tried to stay out of it but some posts PMO.

The fed gov has had several retire plans over the years. And as usual the higher the pay grade the better the benefits/entitlements (just look at congress and staff) which they enact and some trickled down. When there are reforms it's always the masses the take the hit! why that's where they can say they saved the taxpayer lots of money.

The hard working core that actually has job that have to produce and don't go on long lunches, dream up meeting at resorts, or come in late and leave early (so if you are higher paid grade (what even that means to you) and you did not skate, I salute you). The working mass has schedule to the minute, not on so called flex time honor system.

Fed retirement funds can't be compared to SS. Plus the fed retirement system changed in 80's which now all federal employee pay into SS and are entitled to it plus their Furs retirement plan No different than any other employee at company with option investment fund.

Now SS. if all the fleabags didn't get SS before eligible retirement age (with Good lawyer and Doctor( let you determine what I consider good) there would be plenty of money for congress to rob and plenty of money for retirees. But, with all the things over the years tacked into SS like SSI, disability, money or kids who knows what else ect.. which IMO should have nothing to do with SS retirement fund but should be separate official entitlement funded up front so we see how much it's costing.

I worked 48 years in the pits watching what goes on in Management both privately and for the what some call the entitled Fed Gov. I earned every Dollar I got paid and every Dollar I will receive for my 40 years of service.

For those of you that Feel you didn't earn it or feel your so rich and smart, then man up and don't take it. And for the ones that don't get it cause you company had other retirement funded program that got you out of paying in, you had choice just like me and others, you have no skin in the game.

For the ones that going to say that was your choice. Yes, I took the good with the bad and now I earned my entitlement as some call it.

Burning some bridges, but I have good row boat and thick skin I developed over the years and of course my own opinion which will not change. So go ahead and waste your breath.

[dbussone]

I gained little insight over the years and of course my own opinion and tried to stay out of it but some posts PMO.



The fed gov has had several retire plans over the years. And as usual the higher the pay grade the better the benefits/entitlements (just look at congress and staff) which they enact and some trickled down. When there are reforms it's always the masses the take the hit! why that's where they can say they saved the taxpayer lots of money.



The hard working core that actually has job that have to produce and don't go on long lunches, dream up meeting at resorts, or come in late and leave early (so if you are higher paid grade (what even that means to you) and you did not skate, I salute you). The working mass has schedule to the minute, not on so called flex time honor system.



Fed retirement funds can't be compared to SS. Plus the fed retirement system changed in 80's which now all federal employee pay into SS and are entitled to it plus their Furs retirement plan No different than any other employee at company with option investment fund.



Now SS. if all the fleabags didn't get SS before eligible retirement age (with Good lawyer and Doctor( let you determine what I consider good) there would be plenty of money for congress to rob and plenty of money for retirees. But, with all the things over the years tacked into SS like SSI, disability, money or kids who knows what else ect.. which IMO should have nothing to do with SS retirement fund but should be separate official entitlement funded up front so we see how much it's costing.



I worked 48 years in the pits watching what goes on in Management both privately and for the what some call the entitled Fed Gov. I earned every Dollar I got paid and every Dollar I will receive for my 40 years of service.



For those of you that Feel you didn't earn it or feel your so rich and smart, then man up and don't take it. And for the ones that don't get it cause you company had other retirement funded program that got you out of paying in, you had choice just like me and others, you have no skin in the game.



For the ones that going to say that was your choice. Yes, I took the good with the bad and now I earned my entitlement as some call it.



Burning some bridges, but I have good row boat and thick skin I developed over the years and of course my own opinion which will not change. So go ahead and waste your breath.


As you say, you earned it. That's all that matters. I look at it the same way.

[Paper1]

Facts---
As of 2014 there is $2.6 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund. Funds are invested in US Govt Bonds(arguably the safest investment in the world).

The fund earns (goes back to the Fund) about $99billion a year from interest on the bonds.

If the Feds did not borrow from the Fund , they would borrow it from others at probably the same annual interest cost.

So in a way all taxpayers even those now retired are contributing to the fund(interest on the debt)

You can argue that the Feds borrow too much but they have not in fact stolen from the Fund.

I struggle with why so very many intelligent people continue to refer to this imaginary trust fund as if it was really backed by assets. It is just part of the 18 trillion dollars that will somehow be magically resolved. As we bury our heads in the sand we do expose another sensitive part of our anatomy.

[Challenger]

I struggle with why so very many intelligent people continue to refer to this imaginary trust fund as if it was really backed by assets. It is just part of the 18 trillion dollars that will somehow be magically resolved. As we bury our heads in the sand we do expose another sensitive part of our anatomy.

Are you suggesting that the the USA will default on it's debt? If so, there will be much, much more to worry about than SS. What investment might you suggest that would be better than US debt securities.?

If your premise is that we need to run surpluses and reduce the debt, I totally agree.

[JoMar]

There have been calls to do what, I THINK, your children support. In 2005, President Bush proposed it for discussion. I offer to you a retort from Nancy Pelosi on that proposal after Bush said it was one of his big disappointments...

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was extremely pleased with President Bush's latest revelation that his biggest failure in office was not passing Social Security reform, telling reporters on Friday that it was a great Democratic triumph that the party managed to block him.

"As one of the leaders who led the effort to disappoint him, I am very pleased that he is admitting he was trying to do that," she said during the call, joined by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.). "That it was his high priority. We defeated him then in his trying to privatize Social Security, we will do it again. Republicans are trying to do it in their budget. The three independent reports conclude that if Republicans succeeded in privatizing Social Security, benefits for America's seniors would be cut [and] Wall Street would have made billions."

Nancy Pelosi Responds To President Bush On Social Security: We're Very 'Pleased' He Is Disappointed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/nancy-pelosi-bush-social-security-pleased-disappointed_n_772538.html)

He was even ridiculed and all the leaders said there was no problem

Let me explain....my retorts are to those who somehow, for some reason tie SS with other entitlements. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME IN ANYWAY, and tying them together makes no sense

And refer your children to this site....the SSA does employ top actuaries to insure the program is run correctly.

Office of the Chief Actuary -- Home Page (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/)

Thanks for the reply....no reason for me to continue the discussion....you believe what you believe and that works for you.

[Villages PL]

I didn't read bias into that at all. It sounded to me like he was just being clear about the hypothetical situation he was describing.

Concerning the opening post: I saw it as a false premise because there would never be any such choice. The correct choice would be between Social Security and welfare. Unlike Social Security, welfare would only include those who need it for survival.

Many would not opt out based on the choice given by the OP.

Hypothetical, yes, but based on a false premise. That makes it biased.

[Polar Bear]

...Hypothetical, "yes", but based on a false premise. That makes it biased.


How can a hypothetical be based on a false premise? Hypothetical by definition means conjectural, "what-if", not real. If there are no false premises, then the question is not hypothetical.

[Steve & Deanna]

Social Security is/was a good program until our leaders raided the fund. Isn't it curious how we may run out of Social Security funds but we never hear of a welfare program or food stamps that will run out of money?

[Sandtrap328]

Social Security is/was a good program until our leaders raided the fund. Isn't it curious how we may run out of Social Security funds but we never hear of a welfare program or food stamps that will run out of money?

Food stamps and different welfare programs do get massive cutbacks. Google food stamps and see how much was cut from the program recently. Social Security retirement has not seen cutbacks thankfully but keeps receiving a small increase (based on the CPI) each year.

[gomoho]

Food stamps and different welfare programs do get massive cutbacks. Google food stamps and see how much was cut from the program recently. Social Security retirement has not seen cutbacks thankfully but keeps receiving a small increase (based on the CPI) each year.

Only the government could figure out how to cut a program and put millions more on the same program. It's all a shell game.

[billethkid]

people on welfare or food stamps do not have any personal contribution or vested/invested interest.

One only needs to meet the very shaky, very loose criteria that determines need.

As in most social freebies there are far to many who participate that are totally and completely unqualified.

Adding to the current bane of our country....no enforcement of the rules/law!!

[Tennisnut]

people on welfare or food stamps do not have any personal contribution or vested/invested interest.

One only needs to meet the very shaky, very loose criteria that determines need.

As in most social freebies there are far to many who participate that are totally and completely unqualified.

Adding to the current bane of our country....no enforcement of the rules/law!!

What criteria do you think is very shakey and loose? I would like to know how many people totally and completely unqualified. Also, what makes you think there is no enforcement of the law.

I know when I was a an 8 year old child with a younger brother and a bed ridden mother with MS, she received $135 a month in aid and bag of groceries once a month from the Sisters of the Poor. I had a paper route that provided $5 a week income. The criteria and enforcement of the welfare considered that income, therefore, would reduce the monthly aid. I hope the current criteria and enforcement does not approach that.

[dbussone]

people on welfare or food stamps do not have any personal contribution or vested/invested interest.



One only needs to meet the very shaky, very loose criteria that determines need.



As in most social freebies there are far to many who participate that are totally and completely unqualified.



Adding to the current bane of our country....no enforcement of the rules/law!!


And 13 million more people have been added to the food stamp rolls since 2009.

[Tennisnut]

And 13 million more people have been added to the food stamp rolls since 2009.

And fortunately in those words of great public servant whom I ardently supported and is the sunset of his life, "We are a kinder and gentler nation". I hope we never forget that.

[graciegirl]

And fortunately in those words of great public servant whom I ardently supported and is the sunset of his life, "We are a kinder and gentler nation". I hope we never forget that.


Here is the rest of that speech.

A President must be many things.
He must be a shrewd protector of America's interests; and he must be an idealist who leads those who move for a freer and more democratic planet.
And he must see to it that government intrudes as little as possible in the lives of the people; and yet remember, that it is right and proper that a nation’s leader take’s an interest in the nation's character.
And he must be able to define -- and lead -- a mission.
For seven and a half years, I’ve worked with a great President -- I have seen what crosses that big desk. I’ve seen the unexpected crisis that arrives in a cable in a young aide's hand. And I have seen problems that simmer on for decades and suddenly demand resolution. And I’ve seen modest decisions made with anguish, and crucial decisions made with dispatch.
And so I know that what it all comes down to, this election -- what it all comes down to, after all the shouting and the cheers -- is the man at the desk.
And who should sit at the desk?
My friends, I am that man.
I say it -- I say it -- I say it without boast or bravado, I've fought for my country. I've served. I've built. And I’ll go from the hills to the hollows, from the cities to the suburbs to the loneliest town on the quietest street to take our message of hope and growth for every American to every American.
I will keep America moving forward, always forward -- for a better America, for an endless enduring dream and a thousand points of light.
This is my mission. And I will complete it.
Thank you. You know one -- You know it is customary to end an address with a pledge or a saying that holds a special meaning.
And I’ve chosen one that we all know by heart, one that we all learned in school. And I ask everyone in this great hall to stand and join me in this, we all know it.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you, and God bless you.

[Tennisnut]

Here is the rest of that speech.

A President must be many things.
He must be a shrewd protector of America's interests; and he must be an idealist who leads those who move for a freer and more democratic planet.
And he must see to it that government intrudes as little as possible in the lives of the people; and yet remember, that it is right and proper that a nation’s leader take’s an interest in the nation's character.
And he must be able to define -- and lead -- a mission.
For seven and a half years, I’ve worked with a great President -- I have seen what crosses that big desk. I’ve seen the unexpected crisis that arrives in a cable in a young aide's hand. And I have seen problems that simmer on for decades and suddenly demand resolution. And I’ve seen modest decisions made with anguish, and crucial decisions made with dispatch.
And so I know that what it all comes down to, this election -- what it all comes down to, after all the shouting and the cheers -- is the man at the desk.
And who should sit at the desk?
My friends, I am that man.
I say it -- I say it -- I say it without boast or bravado, I've fought for my country. I've served. I've built. And I’ll go from the hills to the hollows, from the cities to the suburbs to the loneliest town on the quietest street to take our message of hope and growth for every American to every American.
I will keep America moving forward, always forward -- for a better America, for an endless enduring dream and a thousand points of light.
This is my mission. And I will complete it.
Thank you. You know one -- You know it is customary to end an address with a pledge or a saying that holds a special meaning.
And I’ve chosen one that we all know by heart, one that we all learned in school. And I ask everyone in this great hall to stand and join me in this, we all know it.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you, and God bless you.

Thank you and here are some quotes:

And I hope to stand for a new harmony, a greater tolerance. We've come far, but I think we need a new harmony among the races in our country. And we're on a journey into a new century, and we've got to leave that tired old baggage of bigotry behind.
It means, it means, teaching troubled children through your present that there’s no such, that there's such a thing as reliable love. Some would say it's soft and insufficiently tough to care about these things. But where is it written that we must act as if we do not care, as if we are not moved? Well I am moved. I want a kinder, and gentler nation.

[Sandtrap328]

Here is the rest of that speech.

A President must be many things.
He must be a shrewd protector of America's interests; and he must be an idealist who leads those who move for a freer and more democratic planet.
And he must see to it that government intrudes as little as possible in the lives of the people; and yet remember, that it is right and proper that a nation’s leader take’s an interest in the nation's character.
And he must be able to define -- and lead -- a mission.
For seven and a half years, I’ve worked with a great President -- I have seen what crosses that big desk. I’ve seen the unexpected crisis that arrives in a cable in a young aide's hand. And I have seen problems that simmer on for decades and suddenly demand resolution. And I’ve seen modest decisions made with anguish, and crucial decisions made with dispatch.
And so I know that what it all comes down to, this election -- what it all comes down to, after all the shouting and the cheers -- is the man at the desk.
And who should sit at the desk?
My friends, I am that man.
I say it -- I say it -- I say it without boast or bravado, I've fought for my country. I've served. I've built. And I’ll go from the hills to the hollows, from the cities to the suburbs to the loneliest town on the quietest street to take our message of hope and growth for every American to every American.
I will keep America moving forward, always forward -- for a better America, for an endless enduring dream and a thousand points of light.
This is my mission. And I will complete it.
Thank you. You know one -- You know it is customary to end an address with a pledge or a saying that holds a special meaning.
And I’ve chosen one that we all know by heart, one that we all learned in school. And I ask everyone in this great hall to stand and join me in this, we all know it.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you, and God bless you.

He had good speechwriter, didn't he? :popcorn:

[graciegirl]

He had good speechwriter, didn't he? :popcorn:
Yes, But I always thought George H.W.Bush believed in those principles.

But now that you mention it...we all tend to believe the person who represents the party we voted for. And that in itself is probably not the best thing.

If we all stopped swallowing things whole and reacting for or against certain canned statements we would be more effective citizens. And we would sleep a little better at night. This is the most polarized I have seen this nation in my lifetime.

[REDCART]

Social Security is/was a good program until our leaders raided the fund. Isn't it curious how we may run out of Social Security funds but we never hear of a welfare program or food stamps that will run out of money?

When did "our leaders" raid SS? During the Vietnam War, LBJ included SS in the unified Federal budget for the first time but that was only to give the impression that we had a balanced budget. It was an accounting measure only. Is that what you're referring to? SSI is paid from general tax revenue and not from SS trust funds.

[Paper1]

Are you suggesting that the the USA will default on it's debt? If so, there will be much, much more to worry about than SS. What investment might you suggest that would be better than US debt securities.?

If your premise is that we need to run surpluses and reduce the debt, I totally agree.

I'm trying to say, probably poorly, that we need to raise taxes to match our spending. I do believe the US will not be able to meet it's financial promises but it will not be called default. Very basic mathmatics should make this pretty clear. As a society we don't even want to raise gas taxes to fix our roads with at 2.00 and will instead issue more US bonds.

[Abby10]

Yes, But I always thought George H.W.Bush believed in those principles.

But now that you mention it...we all tend to believe the person who represents the party we voted for. And that in itself is probably not the best thing.

If we all stopped swallowing things whole and reacting for or against certain canned statements we would be more effective citizens. And we would sleep a little better at night. This is the most polarized I have seen this nation in my lifetime.

Excellent post! That is why I so appreciate some posters on here who really seek the truth. Their posts are thoughtful, humble, and attempts are often made to show proof of their points. Without naming names (which I don't think I'm supposed to do on here), thank you to those posters - you make me a more knowledgable and thoughtful person by reading your posts!

[billethkid]

I'm trying to say, probably poorly, that we need to raise taxes to match our spending. I do believe the US will not be able to meet it's financial promises but it will not be called default. Very basic mathmatics should make this pretty clear. As a society we don't even want to raise gas taxes to fix our roads with at 2.00 and will instead issue more US bonds.

Really!!! You do not think there is enough to spend as it is currently appropriated (note I did not say budgeted)?

It has been noted for months that this country has taken more in in reveunues than at any time in it's history.

Secondly I would not allow the increase of taxes on anybody until such time as the out of control programs and waste are contained first. Secondly go after those not currently paying their taxes starting with those who work in Washington first!

Revenues are sufficient. Spending is out of control. No magic here.

Cut spending and I do not mean every politicians favorites of medicare and SS.
I mean all the pork and favorite politician back home projects and special interest quid quo pros.

Insist on balancing the federal checkbook. Do you have an ability to arbitrarily increase your cash needs when you want to spend more?

Most of us do not!

[tcxr750]

"Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

[Tennisnut]

I think some will find this interesting which shows income and corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP. One thing I would like to point out is that during the year 2000, total receipts were 19.9 and now they are 16.7 or the same as 2005. Please make your own informed conclusions.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205)

[gomoho]

I'm trying to say, probably poorly, that we need to raise taxes to match our spending. I do believe the US will not be able to meet it's financial promises but it will not be called default. Very basic mathmatics should make this pretty clear. As a society we don't even want to raise gas taxes to fix our roads with at 2.00 and will instead issue more US bonds.

We don't want to raise the gas taxes to fix our roads cause most of us believe that money will either be poorly spent or sent to another country. We don't trust our government anymore so we are no longer interested in funding their lies.

[Polar Bear]

We don't want to raise the gas taxes to fix our roads cause most of us believe that money will either be poorly spent or sent to another country. We don't trust our government anymore so we are no longer interested in funding their lies.

Actually, I don't feel quite so negatively about our government. Governments are by their very nature hard to keep in check and must be monitored by the people at all times.

But I still think limited government is necessary. I just feel they already have plenty of our money...actually much more than is absolutely necessary...to do the minimum required work of government, including maintaining the infrastructure.

[Topspinmo]

I'm trying to say, probably poorly, that we need to raise taxes to match our spending. I do believe the US will not be able to meet it's financial promises but it will not be called default. Very basic mathmatics should make this pretty clear. As a society we don't even want to raise gas taxes to fix our roads with at 2.00 and will instead issue more US bonds.

IF you feel the country needs more tax money then you can contribute some more. Nothing stopping you. they will take donations! and tax you on them! As for gas taxes the government probably makes more on gas than the companies drilling and process it.

[Paper1]

We don't want to raise the gas taxes to fix our roads cause most of us believe that money will either be poorly spent or sent to another country. We don't trust our government anymore so we are no longer interested in funding their lies.

To this reader that is a very poor reason to saddle our grandchildren with this disaster. Everyone wants taxes raised and spending cut as long as it does not effect them.

[gomoho]

To this reader that is a very poor reason to saddle our grandchildren with this disaster. Everyone wants taxes raised and spending cut as long as it does not effect them.

It's our government's incredible ability to waste the billions of tax dollars they collect that is saddling our grandchildren. We have paid taxes year after year after year only to watch the money squandered. I remember when we were first married my husband would say he was good with paying his fair share of taxes to live in this country - not any more.

[beachx4me]

I am glad I paid into it. If people had a choice back then, how many young folks would have actually been disciplined enough to pay into another form of retirement savings? I would think not many. Plus, in this day and time I don't think there would be many that would be all that disciplined either. It is a good thing we have it. I am to young to start collecting, but I consider it a benefit of my retirement. I was certainly blessed to have a job that offered a pension also. I do not feel one iota guilty about it either. It will "benefit" me in later years and I am grateful it is there. For many it is trying to make ends meet.

[tuccillo]

Unfortunately there is no such thing as "fair share". There is only the concept of paying the least amount of tax that the tax laws permit and they are anything but fair since they are the result of extensive lobbying by special interest groups. The middle-class doesn't have a lobbying group and is guilty of repeatedly voting the same people into office and therefore guaranteeing that they will get screwed.

It's our government's incredible ability to waste the billions of tax dollars they collect that is saddling our grandchildren. We have paid taxes year after year after year only to watch the money squandered. I remember when we were first married my husband would say he was good with paying his fair share of taxes to live in this country - not any more.

[Tennisnut]

Unfortunately there is no such thing as "fair share". There is only the concept of paying the least amount of tax that the tax laws permit and they are anything but fair since they are the result of extensive lobbying by special interest groups. The middle-class doesn't have a lobbying group and is guilty of repeatedly voting the same people into office and therefore guaranteeing that they will get screwed.

Don't worry. There is some intensive lobbying going on right now with the Kock brothers.

[graciegirl]

Don't worry. There is some intensive lobbying going on right now with the Kock brothers.


Mrs. Sharpton is reading this. Coke is spelled with an H at the end.

[Villages PL]

How can a hypothetical be based on a false premise? Hypothetical by definition means conjectural, "what-if", not real. If there are no false premises, then the question is not hypothetical.

Concerning the opening post: The OP's premise is faulty because it's not within the realm of possibility. The American people would never stand by and let millions of people starve and go homeless.

Here's a valid hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if the only other existing safety net would be welfare?

Here's a faulty hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if you knew that you would be charged with treason and executed? It's hypothetical but faulty in the sense that it will not lead to a rational discussion.

[Polar Bear]

Concerning the opening post: The OP's premise is faulty because it's not within the realm of possibility. The American people would never stand by and let millions of people starve and go homeless.

Here's a valid hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if the only other existing safety net would be welfare?

Here's a faulty hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if you knew that you would be charged with treason and executed? It's hypothetical but faulty in the sense that it will not lead to a rational discussion.


A hypothetical is what it is. If you choose to say it's faulty or not rational, that's your prerogative. Doesn't disqualify it as a hypothetical. A hypothetical doesn't have to meet your "faulty" or "valid" test.

That being said, the OP is not even close to being unreasonable as a hypothetical. Your assumptions about its validity are just that...your assumptions. Seems most find it to be a perfectly valid starting point for discussion.

[Villages PL]

That being said, the OP is not even close to being unreasonable as a hypothetical.

Sandtrap328... At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good savings/investment choices.

What is the point of choosing between Social Security that exists and something that could never exist?

[Sandtrap328]

What is the point of choosing between Social Security that exists and something that could never exist?

Here's a valid hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if the only other existing safety net would be welfare? I am NOT saying Social Security retirement is welfare. However, what welfare program is being discussed for a safety net?

Before the Social Security retirement existed and there was no forced saving through payroll deduction, weren't individuals responsible for their own savings for retirement?

What kind of government welfare was in place at that time (pre-Social Security retirement)? Were people able to get this welfare for retirement living?

I remember seeing photographs in history books of people during the Great Depression selling apples on street corners in order to make a little money. Wasn't there any kind of government welfare available for the millions of people out of work at that time?

[Tennisnut]

Mrs. Sharpton is reading this. Coke is spelled with an H at the end.

Thank you you for your help. Personally, I do not drink Coke.

[Villages PL]

Here's a valid hypothetical: Would you opt out of Social Security if the only other existing safety net would be welfare? I am NOT saying Social Security retirement is welfare. However, what welfare program is being discussed for a safety net?

Choosing between Social Security and welfare (for the needy) is a valid choice but not an easy one. Although, I think in many cases the standard of living wouldn't be much different between the two.

Before the Social Security retirement existed and there was no forced saving through payroll deduction, weren't individuals responsible for their own savings for retirement? What kind of government welfare was in place at that time (pre-Social Security retirement)? Were people able to get this welfare for retirement living?

Many extended families lived in close proximity, and they tended to help each other when needed. At some point, before Social Security, there was state aid. My grandfather received state aid during his retirement in CT.

I remember seeing photographs in history books of people during the Great Depression selling apples on street corners in order to make a little money. Wasn't there any kind of government welfare available for the millions of people out of work at that time?

During the time of the Great Depression the following programs were started: 1) the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was created in 1933 to combat unemployment and... 2) the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was also created to deal with the housing crisis.