[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

People should hate socialism. It is a failed economic strategy. Is there any limit to what you believe you are an expert in, but in reality you are clueless?

True that 100% socialism is a failed strategy, but using the US as an example I would GUESS we are about 85% Capitalism and 15% socialism. Which is a GOOD thing. I would GUESS that most of Europe (like Sweden and Germany) is about 75 % Capitalism and 25 % socialism. The amount of Socialism in Europe works for them just like the amount in the US works for us. I am definitely NOT preaching that the US increase the Socialism %. It seems about right to me. If I was deciding what would benefit the US most......I would say to have 100% voting like the Australians do! Next best thing would be to have 8 year max term limits for the Supreme Court.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

People should hate socialism. It is a failed economic strategy. Is there any limit to what you believe you are an expert in, but in reality you are clueless?

Also, that is NOT a nice thing to say. If government is about COMPROMISE, someone that someone disagrees with IS NOT an enemy. The idea is to discuss opposing viewpoints in a rational, polite manner.

[eyc234]

Originally Posted by JoelJohnson

If you do the math (I have) you get back what you put in around 5 years (or so) after you start collecting.

We have said this for years, if you collect SS past 6 years it is not your money. We never included SS in any part of our retirement planning since no Congress has the guts to fix it and we do not count on money we do not control or can logically predict it will be there when we need it. Now it will be a bonus when we decide to take it. Many people will not save and live beyond their means so SS is a lifeline for them.

[tuccillo]

Yes, you are guessing as you have no clue. Tossing out arbitrary numbers, with no basis in fact, is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

True that 100% socialism is a failed strategy, but using the US as an example I would GUESS we are about 85% Capitalism and 15% socialism. Which is a GOOD thing. I would GUESS that most of Europe (like Sweden and Germany) is about 75 % Capitalism and 25 % socialism. The amount of Socialism in Europe works for them just like the amount in the US works for us. I am definitely NOT preaching that the US increase the Socialism %. It seems about right to me. If I was deciding what would benefit the US most......I would say to have 100% voting like the Australians do! Next best thing would be to have 8 year max term limits for the Supreme Court.

[tuccillo]

Making factually incorrect statements, as you often do, is not a discussion.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Also, that is NOT a nice thing to say. If government is about COMPROMISE, someone that someone disagrees with IS NOT an enemy. The idea is to discuss opposing viewpoints in a rational, polite manner.

[tuccillo]

None of it is your money. Any benefits you collect are from those paying into the system now. That is the way it works; it is a "pay as you go" program. None of the money is in an account with your name attached.

Originally Posted by eyc234

We have said this for years, if you collect SS past 6 years it is not your money. We never included SS in any part of our retirement planning since no Congress has the guts to fix it and we do not count on money we do not control or can logically predict it will be there when we need it. Now it will be a bonus when we decide to take it. Many people will not save and live beyond their means so SS is a lifeline for them.

[jebartle]

Originally Posted by oneclickplus

Well, it's all semantics. Technically, it's NOT your money. If it was, you could put it in your will and bequeath it to your kids. But, if you die before collecting, you get nothing (example). Also, everything you (and everyone else) ever paid has already been stolen and spent. Social security (FICA) taxes have been dumped into the general fund for decades and spent on everything from defense to missiles to food stamps to housing for illegal immigrants. It's all gone. There is no trust fund ... no lock box. It's all an accounting trick.

All you have is a promise to get payments from future taxes (and debt). The US Dollar is being destroyed and those payments will eventually be worthless. I encourage all to find / read a book "When money dies" by Adam Ferguson. This house of cards will fall / fail. The dollar and the USA will collapse. Inflation and debt are past the point of no return. This can no longer be fixed - it is a mathematical certainty. The social consequences will be catastrophic.

Think for a moment. If your money becomes worthless, how will you acquire your needs? When the dung comes in contact with the rotating blades, are you ready? If the dollar isn't accepted for food, how will you acquire food. Food shortages are already evident around you. You can live without money, silver, gold. You can not live without food & water.

What they call your social security payments is the least of your concerns.

Now that we have "a glass half empty", phew! may we also comment about "the glass half full" please

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

CHARITY is a "wealth transfer system". So, you could look at SS as the government ensuring that the wealthy become more CHARITABLE than they otherwise might be on their own. Someone might call the progressive tax system (where the rich pay a greater % than the poor) .......might call that a "wealth transfer system". I call it a way to create a BETTER, more stable COUNTRY with a HEART and a Soul. A soul-less country would always say, "let them eat cake".
.......Also, after about 1980 the US tax system has become less progressive and more like a FLAT tax, which benefits the HAVES v the have-NOTS. New Federal programs like the IRAs and the Affordable Care Act (which is #1 in Fl) HAD to be created to avoid masses of people starving and wandering around the streets. These were attempts at the US having......"a heart and soul".
.......And watch what happens if the prediction of a deep recession materializes. Guess who buys up the IN-default homes?

CHARITY is voluntary...

The government should have no role in forcing someone to make that choice...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

When I hear the term "double taxation" I SHUDDER all over. The US government (and all governments) basically prevents a Russian invasion, builds Interstate highways, provides health care (ACA), distributes money to people who are OLD or otherwise can NOT earn wages, does scientific research, encourages the purchase of E-vehicles and tries to prevent pollution of the air and waterways. So, I find ALL THAT and more to be VERY positive
........Now, as to how they get their money in through taxes, .......there will NEVER be a PERFECT tax system where everyone is a "HAPPY CAMPER"!

Yeah, "government" sure did prevent Russia from invading Ukraine...

And the ACA? It is neither "affordable", nor does it provide better care...

"Encourages" people to buy EVs? You spelled "bribes" wrong... Plus, it's mainly a freebie for "the rich", since "the poor" cannot afford new cars...

Not to mention it's irrelevant to the topic at hand...

And where's the mention of the coral reefs? You're slipping...

[Quickdraw]

Most retirees do not truly understand what social security actually is – legally. What it is not, is our earned retirement income, nor is it any kind of personal investment account. Legally, social security is a tax, with slightly different rules than the income tax or the sales tax, but nonetheless simply a tax. Social security is not a right, but is, in fact, a Federal social benefit program – just another welfare program. Your payments into social security over your working history were not voluntary, but were extorted from you, just as were the income tax and the sales taxes you paid – with the implicit threat of criminal prosecution if you failed to pay. While thinking of social security as some kind of account belonging to the retiree, or that it is some sort of vested right, may be emotionally satisfying, such is not the law. There have been a number of appellate federal court decisions on the topic of the nature of individual citizen’s alleged “rights” to social security payments, the most often cited decision being Fleming vs Nestor, which is a U.S. Supreme Court case that is found at 363 U.S. 603 (1960). A lack of space prohibits a full brief of the case (you can Google it if interested in reading the decision), but, the court ruled that no citizen has a contractual right to social security, and that payments under that federal system are not property rights. Once your social security involuntary contributions enter the coffers of the U.S. Government, what you get back is based solely upon the largess of the Congress of the United States. So, if what you have always thought of, and believed was, your “right” to receive social security is beginning to sound like just one more “welfare” program then you are beginning to grasp the fundamental concept of what the social security system actually is. Even though social security is, in reality and legally, just one of many federal welfare programs, it is often referred to as the “third rail” of political suicide, and, because of this, it remains largely untouched by Congress because of the overwhelming influence of those depending upon it, almost all of whom VOTE!

Originally Posted by chrissy2231

The Social Security check is now (or soon will be) referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment?" I'll be part of the one percent to forward this. I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you. Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it.
The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security, but our employers did too. It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.
If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security.
If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employers' contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved!
This is your personal investment. Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.
That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it’s a fact).
And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.
Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger "Ponzi scheme" than Bernie Madoff ever did. They took our money and used it elsewhere. They forgot (oh yes, they knew) that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn't have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them. And they didn't pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently they've told us that the money won't support us for very much longer.
But is it our fault they misused our investments? And now, to add insult to injury, they're calling it a "benefit", as if we never worked to earn every penny of it.
Just because they borrowed the money doesn't mean that our investments were a charity!
Let's take a stand. We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government.
Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it.
Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income.
99% of people won't SHARE this. Will you?
This Blew My Mind

https://scontent-mia3-2.xx.fbcdn.net...5Q&oe=640331E0

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Most retirees might or might not know what Social Security is, depending on whether they paid attention to class in grade school when the teacher discussed it. There's nothing magic about Social Security that prevents anyone from understanding what it is, and how it works. I mean this system's been around a really long time, it hasn't ever been a secret, and was even a topic in the World Book Encyclopedia back in the day when people bought the whole set that occupied half a wall in their TV room.

Anyone who is currently retired, and doesn't understand that the money they put in isn't set aside with their name on it for retirement, has chosen to be ignorant. Any retiree who doesn't understand that Social Security is a "pay it forward" system - has chosen not to pay attention. The only fully adult English-speaking Americans who are exempt from being labeled "ignorant" on this topic are the mentally disabled.

The Social Security office can explain it to you. The Social Security website explains it to you. If you choose to ignore facts - well that makes you ignorant, by definition. This isn't rocket science, or high finance.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Most retirees might or might not know what Social Security is, depending on whether they paid attention to class in grade school when the teacher discussed it. There's nothing magic about Social Security that prevents anyone from understanding what it is, and how it works. I mean this system's been around a really long time, it hasn't ever been a secret, and was even a topic in the World Book Encyclopedia back in the day when people bought the whole set that occupied half a wall in their TV room.

Anyone who is currently retired, and doesn't understand that the money they put in isn't set aside with their name on it for retirement, has chosen to be ignorant. Any retiree who doesn't understand that Social Security is a "pay it forward" system - has chosen not to pay attention. The only fully adult English-speaking Americans who are exempt from being labeled "ignorant" on this topic are the mentally disabled.

The Social Security office can explain it to you. The Social Security website explains it to you. If you choose to ignore facts - well that makes you ignorant, by definition. This isn't rocket science, or high finance.

Who ever suggest what you're claiming? Oh, right... No one...

What people ARE claiming is, that if they took the money they paid in, and invested it themselves, it would yield a MUCH higher ROI. And that is true.

Also, it is a CONTRACT with the government. They take your money with the promise of certain benefits once you retire...

Calling those who state the obvious are not "ignorant", nor are they "mentally disabled"...

To call them that would be ign... Nah... I won't go there...

[Garywt]

You know, I collect disability since I was 56. I am told at 65 it will be my choice to get SS or stay on disability. Since my disability is currently $3300 I am guess what my choice will be. Of course if I was still able to work we would be much better off but it is what it is. At least I am still alive.

[Love2Swim]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

This "chain letter" has been going around since at least July 2012, over 10 years ago. It was untrue then, and it's untrue now.

Social Security as 'Federal Benefit Payments' | Snopes.com

Agree. I would consider this a political post. Why is it even allowed here?

[Nell57]

Originally Posted by Garywt

You know, I collect disability since I was 56. I am told at 65 it will be my choice to get SS or stay on disability. Since my disability is currently $3300 I am guess what my choice will be. Of course if I was still able to work we would be much better off but it is what it is. At least I am still alive.

I would not count on that. My sister was also on disability at 55. When she turned 65 she was automatically put on SS. No discussion or options about it.
We appealed, and asked that her disability amount continue.
It was a hard no.