[Rags123]

[quote=Sandtrap328;1000345]

Originally Posted by dillywho

Could we please not refer to SS as an "entitlement"?

...but it IS an entitlement. You paid a percentage of your salary into Social Security as did your employer and now, you are ENTITLED to getting your benefits.

Nothing but playing with words. Has no value to any conversation. If the difference escapes anyone, well.....

[graciegirl]

Semantics.

Entitlement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[tcxr750]

If you are financially savvy at an early age and opted for your own investment strategy you would be one of a very few. Based on the performance of my professionally managed IRA over the past 15 years, it has been a roller coaster ride with every up and down of the market. Ask anyone who has an IRA. In addition to market fluctuations you have to be alert to the integrity, or lack thereof, of your investment advisor. Ask around. In Northeast Ohio we had several who caused more than a few folks to have to return to work.
Regardless of your political philosophy I've found even the most conservative people happy for the monthly SS check.
"A government of the people, by the people and for the people.." A. Lincoln

[Challenger]

Facts---
As of 2014 there is $2.6 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund. Funds are invested in US Govt Bonds(arguably the safest investment in the world).

The fund earns (goes back to the Fund) about $99billion a year from interest on the bonds.

If the Feds did not borrow from the Fund , they would borrow it from others at probably the same annual interest cost.

So in a way all taxpayers even those now retired are contributing to the fund(interest on the debt)

You can argue that the Feds borrow too much but they have not in fact stolen from the Fund.

[Rags123]

This entire thread, begun by a person who does not nor ever did contribute to SS, and that is based on his posts, is just a P stunt. This particular thought process has been on TOTV before by the same cast of posters.

I keep asking WHY the threads, every time, and yet to get a response.

[Sandtrap328]

Originally Posted by Rags123

This entire thread, begun by a person who does not nor ever did contribute to SS, and that is based on his posts, is just a P stunt. This particular thought process has been on TOTV before by the same cast of posters.

I keep asking WHY the threads, every time, and yet to get a response.

Even though I owe no explanation to this poster, I will reply.

First, I have paid into Social Security and I do get a Social Security retirement check.

The question of opting in or out of Social Security was based upon a conversation over a couple of Dewar's White Label's with a friend. He was under the thought that most people would opt-out and plan their own retirement future. I thought that most young people do not think retirement until their mid-40's and then it is too late to start from zero. I said that the safety net of a Social Security retirement check in addition to 401k's and other investments was needed. He said the 7 percent deduction could have made so much more money that it would not be needed as a safety net.

No, there was no political bent to my post. It was a legit question asking for opinions.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

Even though I owe no explanation to this poster, I will reply.

First, I have paid into Social Security and I do get a Social Security retirement check.

The question of opting in or out of Social Security was based upon a conversation over a couple of Dewar's White Label's with a friend. He was under the thought that most people would opt-out and plan their own retirement future. I thought that most young people do not think retirement until their mid-40's and then it is too late to start from zero. I said that the safety net of a Social Security retirement check in addition to 401k's and other investments was needed. He said the 7 percent deduction could have made so much more money that it would not be needed as a safety net.

No, there was no political bent to my post. It was a legit question asking for opinions.

I will give you a public apology based on this. I was almost sure you said at various times that you were a long time federal employee in Washington DC.

If I was in error, I apologize sincerely.

Secondly, I KNOW you began threads on this and for reasons YOU will understand I will stay away from discussing those, and they all were around the same issue.

[Topspinmo]

I gained little insight over the years and of course my own opinion and tried to stay out of it but some posts PMO.

The fed gov has had several retire plans over the years. And as usual the higher the pay grade the better the benefits/entitlements (just look at congress and staff) which they enact and some trickled down. When there are reforms it's always the masses the take the hit! why that's where they can say they saved the taxpayer lots of money.

The hard working core that actually has job that have to produce and don't go on long lunches, dream up meeting at resorts, or come in late and leave early (so if you are higher paid grade (what even that means to you) and you did not skate, I salute you). The working mass has schedule to the minute, not on so called flex time honor system.

Fed retirement funds can't be compared to SS. Plus the fed retirement system changed in 80's which now all federal employee pay into SS and are entitled to it plus their Furs retirement plan No different than any other employee at company with option investment fund.

Now SS. if all the fleabags didn't get SS before eligible retirement age (with Good lawyer and Doctor( let you determine what I consider good) there would be plenty of money for congress to rob and plenty of money for retirees. But, with all the things over the years tacked into SS like SSI, disability, money or kids who knows what else ect.. which IMO should have nothing to do with SS retirement fund but should be separate official entitlement funded up front so we see how much it's costing.

I worked 48 years in the pits watching what goes on in Management both privately and for the what some call the entitled Fed Gov. I earned every Dollar I got paid and every Dollar I will receive for my 40 years of service.

For those of you that Feel you didn't earn it or feel your so rich and smart, then man up and don't take it. And for the ones that don't get it cause you company had other retirement funded program that got you out of paying in, you had choice just like me and others, you have no skin in the game.

For the ones that going to say that was your choice. Yes, I took the good with the bad and now I earned my entitlement as some call it.

Burning some bridges, but I have good row boat and thick skin I developed over the years and of course my own opinion which will not change. So go ahead and waste your breath.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

I gained little insight over the years and of course my own opinion and tried to stay out of it but some posts PMO.



The fed gov has had several retire plans over the years. And as usual the higher the pay grade the better the benefits/entitlements (just look at congress and staff) which they enact and some trickled down. When there are reforms it's always the masses the take the hit! why that's where they can say they saved the taxpayer lots of money.



The hard working core that actually has job that have to produce and don't go on long lunches, dream up meeting at resorts, or come in late and leave early (so if you are higher paid grade (what even that means to you) and you did not skate, I salute you). The working mass has schedule to the minute, not on so called flex time honor system.



Fed retirement funds can't be compared to SS. Plus the fed retirement system changed in 80's which now all federal employee pay into SS and are entitled to it plus their Furs retirement plan No different than any other employee at company with option investment fund.



Now SS. if all the fleabags didn't get SS before eligible retirement age (with Good lawyer and Doctor( let you determine what I consider good) there would be plenty of money for congress to rob and plenty of money for retirees. But, with all the things over the years tacked into SS like SSI, disability, money or kids who knows what else ect.. which IMO should have nothing to do with SS retirement fund but should be separate official entitlement funded up front so we see how much it's costing.



I worked 48 years in the pits watching what goes on in Management both privately and for the what some call the entitled Fed Gov. I earned every Dollar I got paid and every Dollar I will receive for my 40 years of service.



For those of you that Feel you didn't earn it or feel your so rich and smart, then man up and don't take it. And for the ones that don't get it cause you company had other retirement funded program that got you out of paying in, you had choice just like me and others, you have no skin in the game.



For the ones that going to say that was your choice. Yes, I took the good with the bad and now I earned my entitlement as some call it.



Burning some bridges, but I have good row boat and thick skin I developed over the years and of course my own opinion which will not change. So go ahead and waste your breath.

As you say, you earned it. That's all that matters. I look at it the same way.

[Paper1]

Originally Posted by Challenger

Facts---
As of 2014 there is $2.6 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund. Funds are invested in US Govt Bonds(arguably the safest investment in the world).

The fund earns (goes back to the Fund) about $99billion a year from interest on the bonds.

If the Feds did not borrow from the Fund , they would borrow it from others at probably the same annual interest cost.

So in a way all taxpayers even those now retired are contributing to the fund(interest on the debt)

You can argue that the Feds borrow too much but they have not in fact stolen from the Fund.

I struggle with why so very many intelligent people continue to refer to this imaginary trust fund as if it was really backed by assets. It is just part of the 18 trillion dollars that will somehow be magically resolved. As we bury our heads in the sand we do expose another sensitive part of our anatomy.

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by Paper1

I struggle with why so very many intelligent people continue to refer to this imaginary trust fund as if it was really backed by assets. It is just part of the 18 trillion dollars that will somehow be magically resolved. As we bury our heads in the sand we do expose another sensitive part of our anatomy.

Are you suggesting that the the USA will default on it's debt? If so, there will be much, much more to worry about than SS. What investment might you suggest that would be better than US debt securities.?

If your premise is that we need to run surpluses and reduce the debt, I totally agree.

[JoMar]

Originally Posted by Rags123

There have been calls to do what, I THINK, your children support. In 2005, President Bush proposed it for discussion. I offer to you a retort from Nancy Pelosi on that proposal after Bush said it was one of his big disappointments...

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was extremely pleased with President Bush's latest revelation that his biggest failure in office was not passing Social Security reform, telling reporters on Friday that it was a great Democratic triumph that the party managed to block him.

"As one of the leaders who led the effort to disappoint him, I am very pleased that he is admitting he was trying to do that," she said during the call, joined by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.). "That it was his high priority. We defeated him then in his trying to privatize Social Security, we will do it again. Republicans are trying to do it in their budget. The three independent reports conclude that if Republicans succeeded in privatizing Social Security, benefits for America's seniors would be cut [and] Wall Street would have made billions."

Nancy Pelosi Responds To President Bush On Social Security: We're Very 'Pleased' He Is Disappointed

He was even ridiculed and all the leaders said there was no problem

Let me explain....my retorts are to those who somehow, for some reason tie SS with other entitlements. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME IN ANYWAY, and tying them together makes no sense

And refer your children to this site....the SSA does employ top actuaries to insure the program is run correctly.

Office of the Chief Actuary -- Home Page

Thanks for the reply....no reason for me to continue the discussion....you believe what you believe and that works for you.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

I didn't read bias into that at all. It sounded to me like he was just being clear about the hypothetical situation he was describing.

Concerning the opening post: I saw it as a false premise because there would never be any such choice. The correct choice would be between Social Security and welfare. Unlike Social Security, welfare would only include those who need it for survival.

Many would not opt out based on the choice given by the OP.

Hypothetical, yes, but based on a false premise. That makes it biased.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

...Hypothetical, "yes", but based on a false premise. That makes it biased.

How can a hypothetical be based on a false premise? Hypothetical by definition means conjectural, "what-if", not real. If there are no false premises, then the question is not hypothetical.

[Steve & Deanna]

Social Security is/was a good program until our leaders raided the fund. Isn't it curious how we may run out of Social Security funds but we never hear of a welfare program or food stamps that will run out of money?