[crydzanich]

Originally Posted by davem4616

those entitlements allow us to be extremely generous with our church and the charities that we choose to support...as did the stimulus checks that we received earlier this year...and as will any future stimulus money

so from that perspective...yes, it's important to us.

I know I worked very hard and paid into both all my life. I earned both. Unfortunately for me, I need both. My job did not have a pension plan and neither did my husbands. My IRA took a couple of big hits over the years so I don’t get much help from that. I never thought that at my age I’d still be working but I have to if I want to continue to live here where I feel safe.
So please don’t call them entitlements.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by KRM0614

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.

In my opinion, when you pay some beneficiaries more money then they contributed and you pay other beneficiaries less money than they contributed, that is a transfer of wealth.

[jimjamuser]

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

Interesting that today there is another thread about distortion of word meanings. Or the emotions stirred by various words. This is a good example.

[ValSetz]

Originally Posted by rustyp

What is the real motive of this thread ? Political ? Ask your question a different way - If you are wealthy enough are you willing to give up your earned benefits for the greater good or no I sacrificed and paid into the system and now it's time to withdraw from my savings account. Almost a Catch 22.

Waited until 70-1/2 to collect SS to maximize benefit. Would be OK living off investments without SS IF amount SS would have paid could be removed from investments without further taxation - I give up SS but you allow me to withdraw same amount of money with zero taxes due. Currently because of good stockmarket have made just over limit to not avoid IRMA so am paying $200/month for Medicare. Feel that the sacrifices I made in living frugally will come back to bite me in the a** and will leave me wondering who was the bigger fool - those who spent or those who invested and saved for their old age? Using my own investment income equal to SS benefit, if tax free, would greatly reduce what I now pay to the Federal government by putting me in a much lower tax bracket and allow me to extend the length I can live off of my own wealth.

[SouthJerseyGirl]

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.

Perhaps Medicare transfers some wealth to lower income people BUT Social Security is a different story. There is a CAP on how much a high earner pays into the program. Earners over the limit are not subject to withholding. So dollar for dollar, lower income earners pay a higher percentage of their pay into the program.

[Byte1]

To answer the question, yes SS means something to me, but Medicare was a waste of my earnings for those many, many years I was employed. On the other hand, if the GOV was better at managing SS, I would be getting a heck of a lot more of my money back. If they would have privatized my SS, I would be living a higher lifestyle because just a little interest compounded would make my SS worth a lot more.
Medicare was a waste of my earnings. I paid all my work life into Medicare and get nothing from it because I still have private health care. When you reach 65yo and become eligible for Medicare, you receive ONLY Medicare A which is hospitalization only, unless you PAY for Medicare B while you are retired. And even then, you still have to pay a supplement if you want a prescription plan. To me, Medicare is worthless. And NOW some want to allow the Gov to run ALL of your health care needs. Good luck. The gov is terrible at running/managing any business, so I do not want them running my health care or anything else.
That's my opinion. I have lived half my life overseas so I do know something of how socialized medicine works in other countries. Believe me, if you allow the gov to run your health care now, after having private insurance for so long, you will regret it. The only reason folks in other countries like gov run health care is because they have never had anything else and are dependent on a gov nanny. When the gov promises you benefits, the money comes from somewhere to pay for it. Hope you do not mind a 50%+ payroll tax on your paycheck. Try living on half your paycheck. In our system, most folks have decent health care. In socialized medicine run by the gov. only the wealthy have good health care.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JGVillages

Here is what happens when we put people who really are not disciplined in charge of SS.

Abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund Began in the 1980s
by Allen W. Smith / November 28th, 2009

The mishandling of Social Security funds has been going on since the mid-1980s. As soon as the surpluses, resulting from the 1983 payroll tax hike, first began to flow into the Treasury, politicians from both political parties began using the money like a giant slush fund. At that time, it would be at least 30 years before the funds would actually be needed for Social Security, so politicians developed the bad habit of “temporarily borrowing” the money and using it for non-Social Security purposes. That bad habit never was broken, and every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the tax hike, has been spent, leaving no real assets in the trust fund.

This is where the continuing problem started.

That was an interesting post. I may check that out.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by SouthJerseyGirl

Perhaps Medicare transfers some wealth to lower income people BUT Social Security is a different story. There is a CAP on how much a high earner pays into the program. Earners over the limit are not subject to withholding. So dollar for dollar, lower income earners pay a higher percentage of their pay into the program.

It's true that there is a cap on the tax, but there is also a cap on the benefit you can receive. But, overall, the monthly benefit people receive is heavily weighted to benefit lower income workers. A person who pays in the maximum amount of SS tax during their working years, will never receive as much in benefits as they paid in contributions. But, many lower income workers will receive a lot more in benefits than they paid in contributions while working. It is not a straight line proration of benefits vs contributions. That is the way the system works.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by will1546

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

Which makes you entitled to them as an entitlement.

[perrjojo]

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 always consider SS an entitlement because I was required to pay into for 35 years; therefore, I am entitled to receive it.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Which makes you entitled to them as an entitlement.

Can I quote you on that?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

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

Too many people "think" that they are a stock market "wizards". I have know many very smart individuals that have gotten severely burned by the stock market. It is a LOT like Las Vegas - 90% of the time for the high risk takers - they lose and the HOUSE wins. Winning at gambling AND the stock market can be addictive and thus cloud your perception.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

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.

That could(?) start a firestorm! It is very anti-women. 60 years ago very few women worked outside the home (where they worked hard) - often they decided or were compelled to have many children because infant mortality was high - divorced women earned scorn and social stigma in most cases. Maybe not the moneyed upper class? Women earned far less than men for the same job (if a woman could even get the job). WW2 started to change that, but only slowly. About 1970 the unions started providing jobs of equal pay for women. Today women earn 75 cents compared to a dollar for a man in equal jobs.

[P&WBryant]

Please don't call SS an entitlement!!! We have paid into.that fund all our working lives. And so have our employers. SS is ours, not something that hopefully we are or will one day be entitled to.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

To answer the question, yes SS means something to me, but Medicare was a waste of my earnings for those many, many years I was employed. On the other hand, if the GOV was better at managing SS, I would be getting a heck of a lot more of my money back. If they would have privatized my SS, I would be living a higher lifestyle because just a little interest compounded would make my SS worth a lot more.
Medicare was a waste of my earnings. I paid all my work life into Medicare and get nothing from it because I still have private health care. When you reach 65yo and become eligible for Medicare, you receive ONLY Medicare A which is hospitalization only, unless you PAY for Medicare B while you are retired. And even then, you still have to pay a supplement if you want a prescription plan. To me, Medicare is worthless. And NOW some want to allow the Gov to run ALL of your health care needs. Good luck. The gov is terrible at running/managing any business, so I do not want them running my health care or anything else.
That's my opinion. I have lived half my life overseas so I do know something of how socialized medicine works in other countries. Believe me, if you allow the gov to run your health care now, after having private insurance for so long, you will regret it. The only reason folks in other countries like gov run health care is because they have never had anything else and are dependent on a gov nanny. When the gov promises you benefits, the money comes from somewhere to pay for it. Hope you do not mind a 50%+ payroll tax on your paycheck. Try living on half your paycheck. In our system, most folks have decent health care. In socialized medicine run by the gov. only the wealthy have good health care.

To compare the health system of one country to another - you need to use INFANT MORTALITY as a yardstick, which is the best measure. So, last time I looked at the world list for infant mortality, the Scandinavian Countries with Universal Health Care were all in the top 10 and the US was down at 20 or 30. That is the only way to compare countries - use an objective measure, not a personal and subjective way.