[fraurauch]

MikeH, I've been reading these posts and I've been thinking the same thing. My Mother, Father, Father-in-law and Sister-in-law all died without ever collecting anything, but there are a lot of people who have died prematurely, who have spouses who never worked, children under age, disabled people. It goes on and on. They have to, according to our laws, be provided for.

[villagegolfer]

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It was raided during the Johnson Administration to pay for the so-called War on Poverty and VietNam. Basically they wrote I.O.U's that do not have a snow-ball in h*** chance to ever being paid back.

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no fund sitting there for us to collect. If Johnson and his cronies did not touch it and it was invested properly, you would be very secure in your old age.

[handyman]

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It was raided during the Johnson Administration to pay for the so-called War on Poverty and VietNam. Basically they wrote I.O.U's that do not have a snow-ball in h*** chance to ever being paid back.

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no fund sitting there for us to collect. If Johnson and his cronies did not touch it and it was invested properly, you would be very secure in your old age.

Do you mean that LBJ committed such a theft of S.S. funds in the 6 years he was in office that it could not be repaired by by neither party over the course of 42 years? Or was there a little more Tom Foolerie going on,over the course of many years?

[villagegolfer]

Originally Posted by handyman

Do you mean that LBJ committed such a theft of S.S. funds in the 6 years he was in office that it could not be repaired by by neither party over the course of 42 years? Or was there a little more Tom Foolerie going on,over the course of many years?

Once the floodgates were open, it was to the advantage of the politicians not to change it. By the way, Congress was controlled by one party in those days.

[Moderator]

Just a reminder...let's try to keep the discussion non-partisan and nonpolitical and on topic. Thank you.

[handyman]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Just a reminder...let's try to keep the discussion non-partisan and nonpolitical and on topic. Thank you.

I am sorry ,but the topic that I was trying to state are the problems of our Social Security, are alot more recent then 40 yrs. ago , P.S MR. administrater I do not consider this to be political,I look at this thread to be about , a pension plan that I payed very dearly for,and everyone on the TOTV should be able to make up their own minds,if it is what they consider an intitlment my comments had nothing to do with party lines.. And again I thank you.............handyman

[villagegolfer]

Originally Posted by handyman

I am sorry ,but the topic that I was trying to state are the problems of our Social Security, are alot more recent then 40 yrs. ago , P.S MR. administrater I do not consider this to be political,I look at this thread to be about , a pension plan that I payed very dearly for,and everyone on the TOTV should be able to make up their own minds,if it is what they consider an intitlment my comments had nothing to do with party lines.. And again I thank you.............handyman

Your right, a politician is a politician and they have been leading us to ruin for a long time.

[Taj44]

Originally Posted by Hal :-)

I don't understand how "entitlement" became a bad word. I believe Social Security is an entitlement. You are entitled to the benefit because you paid the premiums all those years. I don't believe there is any definition of Entitlement that says Handout or anything like that. If you earned it, paid for it, or received it as a benefit, it's an entitlement.

You can not calculate an ROI because it's a community program. It's retirement insurance. Like all insurance, there are winners and losers. Although you may not want to be a big winner on your Auto, File, Health, and Homeowners insurance. You make years of premiums and never have a claim and you're probably very happy never having a claim. I suppose everybody is a winner on life insurance, although the big winner dies the day after he takes out the policy.

The calculation gives the impression of a big ripoff. Actually many in that scenario may do better. There's no way to get a risk-free 5% these days, but the $36,287 is a bit less that a couple would get in guaranteed inflation protected benefits, with just 35 years at the max. Currently, the max FRA benefit is about $2366/mo, a spouse would get 50% of that for $3549/mo, $42,588/yr. Factor in multiple marriages, disability, under age children, and you could be considerably more. And it's all with annual COLA increases.

Social Security is simply a retirement insurance policy. It's insurance by ever measure. Many people don't realize the payroll tax is not deductible. You paid income tax on those premiums (FICA), just like any other insurance premium. Normally, insurance premiums are paid in post-tax dollars and the benefit is tax-free. Of course that's changed now, Social Security benefits can be partial taxed.

Social Security is sound. It may need some tweaking because we're living longer and it covers more. But there's no rush on that. It has produce a surplus every year for 75 years. By law the SSA can not borrow money. Imagine the early days when everyone started paying in and few collected. Huge surpluses, never accounted for. A couple decades ago, recognizing that the Baby Boomer Bubble was on the way, the rate was increased to accelerate collections and build the trust fund. It worked very well. Most of the boomers will be gone when when the Trust Fund runs out (if we ever use it).

While it's true that those excess contributions over the years went into Treasuries, which essentially went out the other door and into the general fund. It's not entirely fair to say politicians stole or misappropriated. The law specifically stated that the excess must go to US Treasures, full faith, and all that stuff. In fairness, there really was little other choice. Where do you put $2.6 Trillion? Ideally, it would have been invested, diversified in stock, bonds, etc. But no one would go along with that. And you're certainly not going to stack up dollar bills in the corner somewhere. So US Treasuries was the only realistic option. And, BTW, they do pay interest.

We're approaching the point where not enough is coming in to cover the outgo for Social Security. There's some $2.6 trillion in the fund now, over 99% from the middle and lower class. If those Treasuries are cashed in, it has to come from somewhere. Hence, all the screaming about Social Security. Even though it never contributed one penny to the deficit, and in fact, always contributed to reducing the deficit. The cries (mainly from the right) call for changes to Social Security to avoid raising taxes on the rich, and avoid needing to access the trust fund Treasuries. They want to maintain excess contributions from the middle class to maintain the low tax rates for the top 1%. Simple as that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPeUrJF6AM8

Hal, good common sense post. I expect SS to be there for me; as you say, it needs to be tweaked a bit, and when it gets down to the nitty gritty, I'm sure the pols will find a way to do that. I'd like to see the salary cap raised on ss contributions.

[tpop1]

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

Your right, a politician is a politician and they have been leading us to ruin for a long time.

Which brings us to the bottom line.......

What is the definition of a Stateman?

A Statesman is an out-of-office politician.....

and God do we need more Statesmen!

[Hal :-)]

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It was raided during the Johnson Administration to pay for the so-called War on Poverty and VietNam. Basically they wrote I.O.U's that do not have a snow-ball in h*** chance to ever being paid back.

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no fund sitting there for us to collect. If Johnson and his cronies did not touch it and it was invested properly, you would be very secure in your old age.

Although they are "Special Issue" Treasury Securities, they do exist. They earn interest and could be cashed in just like normal Treasuries. The Trust Fund is held in Virginia.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ust-fund_x.htm

Records are maintained and public.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/qop.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

I'll have to research the Johnson comment. All I recall is that Johnson's Great Society gave us Medicare.

[villagegolfer]

Originally Posted by Hal :-)

Although they are "Special Issue" Treasury Securities, they do exist. They earn interest and could be cashed in just like normal Treasuries. The Trust Fund is held in Virginia.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ust-fund_x.htm

Records are maintained and public.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/qop.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

I'll have to research the Johnson comment. All I recall is that Johnson's Great Society gave us Medicare.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html
http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by Hal :-)

Although they are "Special Issue" Treasury Securities, they do exist. They earn interest and could be cashed in just like normal Treasuries. The Trust Fund is held in Virginia.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ust-fund_x.htm

Records are maintained and public.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/qop.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

I'll have to research the Johnson comment. All I recall is that Johnson's Great Society gave us Medicare.

that means nothing. If they can be cashed in as you claim, why did Obama during the recent budget crisis say he may not be able to send out the social security checks. It is lies and phoney bookkeeping. Wake up dreamers.

[villagegolfer]

Originally Posted by JimJoe

that means nothing. If they can be cashed in as you claim, why did Obama during the recent budget crisis say he may not be able to send out the social security checks. It is lies and phoney bookkeeping. Wake up dreamers.

We have 78 million Baby Boomers. They will really be cashing them in real soon.

[hdh1470]

They need to raise the age about 5 years or so. 50% of newborn babies will live to 100 they can't be collecting ss for 38 yrs. and they need to start phasing in at maybe 45 year olds.And maybe means testing for ss and medicare.I know this may not sit well with most of us.But we have to stop being so greedy.I'm preparing to get blasted but I feel its the truth.

[BobKat1]

Originally Posted by hdh1470

They need to raise the age about 5 years or so. 50% of newborn babies will live to 100 they can't be collecting ss for 38 yrs. and they need to start phasing in at maybe 45 year olds.And maybe means testing for ss and medicare.I know this may not sit well with most of us.But we have to stop being so greedy.I'm preparing to get blasted but I feel its the truth.

Yes, it's clear some modifications need to be made. It will take political courage and will happen sometime. Changes will need to be made sooner than later. Hopefully there is something viable in place for the younger generation.

I paid in to SS for 40 years and have been receiving benefits for 5 years. SS proved to be a great supplement during the recession, and allowed us to keep our other retirement savings in tact.