[JoMar]

As I remember, SS was established as a supplement and never as a retirement plan. Over the years it has transitioned to a retirement plan and now millions have it as their only income...while more millions make significant returns on their investments and still continue to take SS. I have counseled my kids to make sure they control their future, SS may be a supplement but if they count on it they will disappointed and don't expect me to chip in. I find it interesting that we (yes I include me in that we) get slightly crazy when Uncle talks about increasing taxes or redistributing wealth or providing more assistance yet when they talk about taking SS from those that really don't need it (means testing) we get just as crazy because now they are talking about us. End of rant.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by JoMar

As I remember, SS was established as a supplement and never as a retirement plan. Over the years it has transitioned to a retirement plan and now millions have it as their only income...while more millions make significant returns on their investments and still continue to take SS. I have counseled my kids to make sure they control their future, SS may be a supplement but if they count on it they will disappointed and don't expect me to chip in. I find it interesting that we (yes I include me in that we) get slightly crazy when Uncle talks about increasing taxes or redistributing wealth or providing more assistance yet when they talk about taking SS from those that really don't need it (means testing) we get just as crazy because now they are talking about us. End of rant.

A few questions with all due respect.....

How do you determine who needs social security ?

How do you take back something that they have paid into for years ?

Yes, I get a bit crazy...not for the reasons you mention, which are ALWAYS the standard phrases used by a certain p group to justify the assistance programs, etc. I DO NOT FEEL GUILTY ABOUT TAKING SOCIAL SECURITY which seems to be the intent of this thread and a few others on the same exact subject with the same posters.

This is a different age and thus the question is basically ludicrous ! When it was proposed by Bush...albeit invest a percentage if you wanted to...he was laughed off the podium. Quotes supplied upon request.

[Paper1]

Originally Posted by JoMar

As I remember, SS was established as a supplement and never as a retirement plan. Over the years it has transitioned to a retirement plan and now millions have it as their only income...while more millions make significant returns on their investments and still continue to take SS. I have counseled my kids to make sure they control their future, SS may be a supplement but if they count on it they will disappointed and don't expect me to chip in. I find it interesting that we (yes I include me in that we) get slightly crazy when Uncle talks about increasing taxes or redistributing wealth or providing more assistance yet when they talk about taking SS from those that really don't need it (means testing) we get just as crazy because now they are talking about us. End of rant.

Thank you for your post. This wonderful, fast growing community we live in probably has more unfunded SS, Medicare, disability, pensions (state, federal, military) per acre as any place on earth. Our children and grandchildren had nothing to do with that but are picking up the tab.

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by billethkid

except for some of the illegals and select other groups!

Unauthorized workers are paying an estimated $13 billion a year in social security taxes and only getting around $1 billion back, according to a senior government statistician.

Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration (SSA), told VICE News that an estimated 7 million people are currently working in the US illegally. Of those, he estimates that about 3.1 million are using fake or expired social security numbers, yet also paying automatic payroll taxes. Goss believes that these workers pay an annual net contribution of $12 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund.

The SSA estimates that unauthorized workers have paid a whopping $100 billion into the fund over the past decade. Yet as these people are in the US illegally, it is unlikely that they will be able to benefit from their contributions later in life.

Our social security system is fortunate that the illegals are helping the fund with their contributions. Where would we be without their support?

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by Paper1

Thank you for your post. This wonderful, fast growing community we live in probably has more unfunded SS, Medicare, disability, pensions (state, federal, military) per acre as any place on earth. Our children and grandchildren had nothing to do with that but are picking up the tab.

I would be curious in what way future generations are picking up the tab ? I am told, and I believe our government, that this is separate accounting or did they lie to me. Nah, I know it is thus the only impact, as of this writiing, oh...wait..there is NO impact at this point.

[Rags123]

I would like to ask a general question of those who seem to be badgering and criticizing social security recepients.

WHY ? What motivation do you have to attack those who receive social security or make them feel guilty for receiving ?

Is it to deflect the other spending done by the government that you support ?

Is it to defend some other policy ?

I ask, because it makes absolutely no sense to me why I, or any other recepient should feel guilty in anyway at all. I paid and was told I could not work unless I paid. I had very few other investment opportunities as most of them did not exist at that time. I have no idea if I am collecting more than I put in the system as the government has screwed up the accounting of SS so bad it is hard to determine a lot of things about the program.

Is this because if you collect SS, you should not be allowed to criticize all the other entitlements gained by NOT working ?

I just do not understand it. The OP, to my knowledge, was a government employee thus never paid into the system so I just do not get the motitvations.

Thank you

[ureout]

Originally Posted by gomoho

Uh I think you buy life insurance in case you drop dead tomorrow or in 10 years. You don't know when you'll need it so it really isn't something you can save for over the years.

UH.... i think you missed the point I was trying to make....O/P said if you had a choice....if SS was a choice would you opt in or out....no one knows their life span it would be like playing Russian roulette.... same as life ins. do I buy it or save the $$$$ every year for retirement

[Cedwards38]

Without question, I would have opted in.

[dillywho]

I will probably mess this up, but here goes since my thoughts are sometimes hard to put to paper.

As someone else stated, you either paid into SS in order to work or you couldn't work (with the exception of a few jobs, RR for instance). Someone else pointed out that there were not other choices available for investment. I can remember when only those with thousands to invest were able to do so.

As for SS being "unfunded", I don't understand that. It is very much funded to this day since the rules remain the same. It was established as a "Trust Fund", which meant that it was to remain separate. That got changed so that those funds ended up being spent via the General Fund. Another way it is funded is by those who die before age 62 and have no spouse eligible to draw as a widow or no dependent children under 18 or disabled. My brother was still working at 65, never took any of his, and died suddenly. This happens all the time. Unfortunately, many die just prior to age 62.

Now, to the so-called means testing. How would that be had we been able to do our own fund that we faithfully paid into along with contributions from our employer(s)? I sure wouldn't go for that!

Yes, SS was supposed to "supplement" our retirement. Fortunately, for many of us, retirement plans were available to us. No way could we make it on our SS alone. Since SS is based on earnings, wages were not what they are today, and wages also have to do with demographics. The more you make, the greater your contribution. That's just the way it is.

And, no, I do not feel "guilty" for drawing SS, anymore than I would feel guilty about taking anything else I paid into. It is not the fault of us that this fund has been changed from its original intent. Retirement funds are set up the same way.....you draw until you die, even if it exceeds your contributions. The holders of these are just gambling that you and/or your beneficiary will die sooner rather than later.

[Gerald]

if this or that does not exist. be real. it works for most people. yes the gov. took a lot of money from the fund. deal with it and make the fuss with those that did it. call your political leaders and complain.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by dillywho

I will probably mess this up, but here goes since my thoughts are sometimes hard to put to paper.

As someone else stated, you either paid into SS in order to work or you couldn't work (with the exception of a few jobs, RR for instance). Someone else pointed out that there were not other choices available for investment. I can remember when only those with thousands to invest were able to do so.

As for SS being "unfunded", I don't understand that. It is very much funded to this day since the rules remain the same. It was established as a "Trust Fund", which meant that it was to remain separate. That got changed so that those funds ended up being spent via the General Fund. Another way it is funded is by those who die before age 62 and have no spouse eligible to draw as a widow or no dependent children under 18 or disabled. My brother was still working at 65, never took any of his, and died suddenly. This happens all the time. Unfortunately, many die just prior to age 62.

Now, to the so-called means testing. How would that be had we been able to do our own fund that we faithfully paid into along with contributions from our employer(s)? I sure wouldn't go for that!

Yes, SS was supposed to "supplement" our retirement. Fortunately, for many of us, retirement plans were available to us. No way could we make it on our SS alone. Since SS is based on earnings, wages were not what they are today, and wages also have to do with demographics. The more you make, the greater your contribution. That's just the way it is.

And, no, I do not feel "guilty" for drawing SS, anymore than I would feel guilty about taking anything else I paid into. It is not the fault of us that this fund has been changed from its original intent. Retirement funds are set up the same way.....you draw until you die, even if it exceeds your contributions. The holders of these are just gambling that you and/or your beneficiary will die sooner rather than later.

Great post. Stated better than I ever could. Thank you

I still do not get the chronic postings on this subject and what is the point. Folks who never contributed keep alluding to other government programs and trying to relate SS to those and I just cannot understand it. And they never explain, except for the inane comment about not complaining when you get your SS payment as if that had anything to do with other government entitlements that we ALSO pay for.

[JoMar]

Originally Posted by Rags123

A few questions with all due respect.....

How do you determine who needs social security ?

How do you take back something that they have paid into for years ?

Yes, I get a bit crazy...not for the reasons you mention, which are ALWAYS the standard phrases used by a certain p group to justify the assistance programs, etc. I DO NOT FEEL GUILTY ABOUT TAKING SOCIAL SECURITY which seems to be the intent of this thread and a few others on the same exact subject with the same posters.

This is a different age and thus the question is basically ludicrous ! When it was proposed by Bush...albeit invest a percentage if you wanted to...he was laughed off the podium. Quotes supplied upon request.

I understand your questions and the perspective you see......first, let me be clear that I do not feel guilty and have the same perspective that I paid in so I should get it. Wait, I think I'm getting the money my kids are paying into the plan.....my money supported my parents didn't it. The fact that maybe I don't need it and someone else could be better off if I didn't take it doesn't matter. As far as your question about means testing, the government means tests all their entitlement programs, medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance etc. so establishing a means test will not be difficult for Uncle and of course then ignoring any attempt to enforce or eliminate abuse.

My kids hate the concept of SS as do most of their friends that I have met. They aren't against forced retirement plans but believe that the money they pay into SS should be put into a private plan, that they can't touch, and allows them input into it's direction. In that scenario, they would be getting the money they put into it and not depend on the money the generation behind them is putting into a government plan.

At some point the system will need to change, as more take advantage of the entitlements programs there will be less money going into SS which is why today's generation have no faith in SS being available to them. They understand the funding solutions (or for those of us from the business side like to call it.....revenue streams) will have to come from somewhere and Uncles only source is us.....more taxes, different taxes, surcharges, fees etc. They will continue to fund and add programs.....and we will continue to defend those that benefit us and vilify most of those that don't but either way, we pay.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by JoMar

I understand your questions and the perspective you see......first, let me be clear that I do not feel guilty and have the same perspective that I paid in so I should get it. Wait, I think I'm getting the money my kids are paying into the plan.....my money supported my parents didn't it. The fact that maybe I don't need it and someone else could be better off if I didn't take it doesn't matter. As far as your question about means testing, the government means tests all their entitlement programs, medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance etc. so establishing a means test will not be difficult for Uncle and of course then ignoring any attempt to enforce or eliminate abuse.

My kids hate the concept of SS as do most of their friends that I have met. They aren't against forced retirement plans but believe that the money they pay into SS should be put into a private plan, that they can't touch, and allows them input into it's direction. In that scenario, they would be getting the money they put into it and not depend on the money the generation behind them is putting into a government plan.

At some point the system will need to change, as more take advantage of the entitlements programs there will be less money going into SS which is why today's generation have no faith in SS being available to them. They understand the funding solutions (or for those of us from the business side like to call it.....revenue streams) will have to come from somewhere and Uncles only source is us.....more taxes, different taxes, surcharges, fees etc. They will continue to fund and add programs.....and we will continue to defend those that benefit us and vilify most of those that don't but either way, we pay.

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

[dillywho]

Could we please not refer to SS as an "entitlement"? I know that this is what the powers-that-be choose to tell us.

To me, it is not an entitlement nor a benefit. It is the same as any other insurance. Workman's Comp. and Unemployment Insurance are both paid for by employers....no choice for them, either, just the same as their forced SS matches. Remember, too, it is not just the individuals who pay into SS, but their employers as well.

Thanks.

[Sandtrap328]

[QUOTE=dillywho;1000315]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.