I am not so sure that Social Security has been the best option for saving money for retirement. I earned almost twice what my wife did over the years before retirement.
My social security pays me $2500.00 a month before taxes. Her well managed pension pays her $3500.00.
I guess you could say this is just another example of how government manages verses how much better private enterprise does.

I wish I was in that position. My pension and investments supplement my Social Security. Without Medicare, I'd be dead.

I think , since people pay up to a a maximum , currently around $130,000 of income at about 6% , no it’s not correct in saying people with higher incomes pay more . Also the people who had lower incomes paid less and get a much smaller social security benefit.

The real motive of this thread, and every other thread, is for people to think. Something we haven't seen in politics for some time.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Extremely. We depend on both SS and Medicare.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

. 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

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

Social Security and Medicare are not ENTITLEMENTS.
 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Which makes you entitled to them as an entitlement. :ohdear:

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

Can I quote you on that?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Can someone explain what it is about the word entitlement that bothers you? I have been paying into the system since I was 13 and started paying in the maximum around age 30. That entitles me to a benefit when I reach the specified age. Now, I could understand if we were calling it welfare or something like that. But its not welfare. Most of us paid into the system and are therefore entitled to a specific benefit at the appropriate age.

Sure, no patent pending.

Apparently, Medicare is even important to Joe Namath. In his Medicare commercial, he claims that he called Medicare and he is eligible to receive meals delivered to his house. According to Google, he has a net worth of $25 million.

Spouse and ex-spouses have to share the benefit if they qualify.

Not true. Here is an excerpt from the SSA website about ex-spouse benefits.

"The amount of benefits you get has no effect on the benefits of your ex-spouse and his or her current spouse."