[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Choro&Swing

While this was true, the Social Security Administration says that nearly all of that money has been repaid and used. If there is a temporary surplus in the federal government, it is not allowed to just put the money in stocks or something.

There is an easy solution to the “Social Security crisis”. Raise the withholding tax for both employees and employers by 0.2% a year for five years, then keep it there. That extra total of 2% per year from us to our Social Security fund will do the trick. Starting next year, I think, the full retirement benefit age will be 67. It’s 66 at present. That helps a lot, too. If everyone waited until then instead of drawing money at 62, that would help.

In twenty years, most Baby Boomers will be dead, and there will be less demand.

We are all living longer and in addition raise the retirement age slowly to say 70.

Not enough people paying into the system to support the benefits long term.

[donfey]

Originally Posted by davem4616

my bad I absolutely did not intend to refer to them as 'entitlements'....I object to that term also...and for the life of me, I don't know why I used that term

We all paid into these systems with the expectation that when we retired we would benefit from having paid into them

sorry...I didn't mean to create controversy

We paid into both systems during our working lives, and now are ENTITLED to the benefits. What's the problem with that? MY problem is with people who receive "benefits" who did NOT pay in. That should not be part of either system but, instead, be called welfare, which is what it is.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Apples and oranges.

Most private pension benefits are paid as a direct proportion to how much the employee earned and contributed to the pension plan.

Social Security benefits are paid on a scale that pays a higher proportional benefit to lower income workers who paid less into the plan.

Very true. For many people, would have done better by opting out of the program early on and funding own retirement.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by donfey

We paid into both systems during our working lives, and now are ENTITLED to the benefits. What's the problem with that? MY problem is with people who receive "benefits" who did NOT pay in. That should not be part of either system but, instead, be called welfare, which is what it is.

I agree. One way to improve the system would be to eliminate the spouse benefit. There are thousands, (or millions?) of people receiving a spouse benefit who never paid anything into the system. And, a spouse who was married for more than 10 years and then gets divorced can receive the spouse benefit without ever contributing to the system. In fact, a worker who has been married and divorced several times will create a spouse benefit for every one of his/her ex-spouses, as long as the marriage lasted 10 years.

[sallyg]

Extremely. We depend on both SS and Medicare.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Amen to that!!i started working at my dad’s restaurant when I was 12. At 15 I started working outside of my family’s business. Didn't retire until 67. Entitlement?? QUOTE=drcar;1844250]I believe that these programs are important to MANY people, but I do NOT like the term "entitlements", since I paid into them my entire life, I do not consider them entitlements.[/QUOTE]

[Fisherman]

My husband and I worked hard for 40 years to build a secure retirement through IRAs and 401K plans. Our employers paid in to SS and money was taken out of our paychecks for all these years, many of which, we topped out contributions with our substantial earnings. We move to the Villages, two years later, we retire and he has a massive heart attack and dies. A healthy young person who never got to see retirement after working hard all those years. What happens, I am left in grief and despair, along with the fact that ONE HALF of our SS monthly income is now gone. After their calculations, because our earnings were so similar..... I get mine, plus, only $80 of his because his earnings were slightly higher. The rest of his monthly benefit is taken away. Money that he earned, and was forced to pay in to SS and Medicare.The government was suppose to take our hard earned dollars and invest it wisely as a forced savings plan. Upon his death, the surviving spouse should be entitled to at a minimum what HE paid in to it. They could keep the employers contributions. If we were not forced to pay in to SS, and we had invested those SS payments on our own, upon his death, it would be my money to help support me through retirement and not money that the government actually steals away when your spouse dies. Social Security was designed as a forced savings plan for retirement to protect and provide supplemental income in later life. Many, sadly, for whatever reasons, depend totally on SS income alone. One could lose their home very easily when their retirement is cut in half upon the death of their spouse. So, yes, both these items that we and our employers invested our hard earned dollars In to are very important. Common sense.

[will1546]

Entitlements they are not, you/we paid for them.

[Joe C.]

Instead of calling them "entitlements" they should be referred to as "Government Obligations", as that is what SS and Medicare are. We paid for them all our working lives, and in return, the government repays them to us upon retirement.

[LianneMigiano]

Originally Posted by drcar

I believe that these programs are important to MANY people, but I do NOT like the term "entitlements", since I paid into them my entire life, I do not consider them entitlements.

I obtained a printout of all of our earnings and contributions into SS - then, the payouts to us - and totalled it for each of us. I am 79 and my husband is 85. We, long ao, have collected WAY more in SS than we ever had taken out of our pay. I'm sure that (unless you just began collecting a few years ago) would find that same result were you to obtain all of the information that I did in order to calculate the benefits!

[KRM0614]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

The level of importance for Social Security and Medicare is heavily dependent on a person's overall income. Both systems are designed to transfer wealth from higher income people to lower income people. All working people contribute to the system, but the distribution of benefits is very skewed in favor of those who did not contribute as much. In the case of Medicare, most people need it, and everyone receives the same benefits. But, higher income people pay more while working, and when they retire, they may pay as much as about 4 times the monthly Part B premium as those who pay the basic premium.

Wrong social security and Medicare is not a transfer of wealth. WhenD
FDR created SS it was clear it was supposed to supplement savings to retire. He designed it through payroll tax with holdings, original system was 6 persons contributing to one person retiring. With the onset of deficit spending starting with FDR thru today combined with disincentive to work thru welfare disability fraud and keeping young adults on Obamacare. However social security contributions are now 1.5 persons to 1 person. When the Congress split social Security into 3 pots - retirees, widows & orphans and disabled it was underfunded because it became a shell game. Medicare is funded through the budget and it was invested poorly for both social security and Medicare.

[Joe V.]

Originally Posted by LianneMigiano

I obtained a printout of all of our earnings and contributions into SS - then, the payouts to us - and totalled it for each of us. I am 79 and my husband is 85. We, long ao, have collected WAY more in SS than we ever had taken out of our pay. I'm sure that (unless you just began collecting a few years ago) would find that same result were you to obtain all of the information that I did in order to calculate the benefits!

Can you tell me how many who contributed never got a cent or just a small fraction of their withholding due to dying before they became eligible to collect? Now that number would be interesting to know.

[Curtisbwp]

SS: since i am a victem of President Regan's "windfall elimination act" my $206.00 a month has no bearing on my finantial status.
Medicare is important! When coupled with "tricare for life" i have no issues.

[Alaska Butch]

. How can you call it an “entitlement”. It is in effect a savings account with a very poor return. I would support mandatory private savings such as 403B or 401K over social security. The returns are much better

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by LianneMigiano

I obtained a printout of all of our earnings and contributions into SS - then, the payouts to us - and totalled it for each of us. I am 79 and my husband is 85. We, long ao, have collected WAY more in SS than we ever had taken out of our pay. I'm sure that (unless you just began collecting a few years ago) would find that same result were you to obtain all of the information that I did in order to calculate the benefits!

Money has a time value. Did you assign 4% to 6% compounded interest from the time it was made to each contribution?