Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since Christie is NJ, WTH does he get off saying that social security is an "entitlement".
This is money that the gov't has been taking from my paycheck since I started working many years ago.
Plus the fact that Reagan increased my total retirement years ago...ITS MY MONEY.
Lets make a deal. Give me back all the money that you've taken from me for the last 40+ years and we'll call it even.
..and while we're on the subject, how about my real estate taxes that are still paying for the school system, when my last kid hasn't been using the system for 15 years.
If anything the gov't has a sense of entitlement, not me.
He lost my vote and every other senior citizen who votes. Which means I'm willing to bet he lost a very heavy percentage of seniors.
I'm not sure who I'm voting for, but it sure ain't Christie or Clinton. (That's for another thread).
And for that reason, I'm out and Christie can blow it out of his butt.
Well, this is certainly a watershed moment, as you had previously defended everything that our esteemed governor did up until this point.
Congratulations on finally coming to your senses regarding this crass, low-down creep's contempt for anyone other than the 1% that he represents.
I never defended everything that he said or did. But felt that he could have made a good President.
and BTW.....Hillary is Queen of the 1%'ers. Don't let anyone tell you that she isn't. She makes Christie look like a Boy Scout with her corruption and multitude of accents.
I'm going to start off by saying I'm not too sure where I stand on this subject or if I understand it fully. Please feel free to "learn me".
Why was social security established in the first place?
I thought it was to help those who didn't save/couldn't save (whatever) for their "retirement"/"old age" have some form of monthly income to help them live out their years? Back when the average life expectancy was a lot lower than it is today.
When did it turn in to a "sure thing" for everyone?
Isn't the "I" in SSI for "insurance"? Not an absolute?
Don't we all pay UI too? Are we supposed to expect that back with interest as well when we retire if we were never unemployed and never had to use it?
As of right now, I agree with the fact that it's an entitlement. Seems a lot of folks feel that it's supposed to be treated as a guaranteed pension.
A friend of mine feels the same way the OP does. But he flipped out given the suggestion that the age at which one can fully collect SS might be raised to 69 and if that happened he wouldn't be able to retire until he was 69 (he's in his early 40's) . You can retire at any age you want to. But if you hold off your retirement b/c you need that SS check? You did something very wrong with your finances over the course of your life. You didn't plan to fail, you failed to plan. Counting on the government to take care of you so you can retire? Makes zero sense.
I'm going to start off by saying I'm not too sure where I stand on this subject or if I understand it fully. Please feel free to "learn me". ... Isn't the "I" in SSI for "insurance"? Not an absolute? ...
Not seeking to get into the depth of the discussion, just a point of clarification: Don't confuse the monthly payments to senior citizens commonly called 'Social Security' with the program known by the initials 'SSI'. They are two very different things!
Social Security Income:
Senior citizens receive Social Security Income (not SSI, although the initials match) based upon their lifetime FICA contributions, a/k/a Social Security and Medicare 'taxes'. Technically, payments to seniors are a return on an insurance contract between the government and the recipient. The amount seniors receive is based upon their Primary Insurance Amount, derived from a formula based on their inflation-indexed highest 35 years of wages. The benefit is very regressive, meaning the greater the amount paid in, the lower the percentage one receives back.
Supplemental Security income:
SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income, which is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes). It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and it provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter. Most senior citizens DO NOT receive SSI. In essence, it's welfare for elderly people who have nothing else.
I hope this helps clarify the distinction between the two.
Not seeking to get into the depth of the discussion, just a point of clarification: Don't confuse the monthly payments to senior citizens commonly called 'Social Security' with the program known by the initials 'SSI'. They are two very different things!
Social Security Income:
Senior citizens receive Social Security Income (not SSI, although the initials match) based upon their lifetime FICA contributions, a/k/a Social Security and Medicare 'taxes'. Technically, payments to seniors are a return on an insurance contract between the government and the recipient. The amount seniors receive is based upon their Primary Insurance Amount, derived from a formula based on their inflation-indexed highest 35 years of wages. The benefit is very regressive, meaning the greater the amount paid in, the lower the percentage one receives back.
Supplemental Security income:
SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income, which is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes). It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and it provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter. Most senior citizens DO NOT receive SSI. In essence, it's welfare for elderly people who have nothing else.
I hope this helps clarify the distinction between the two.
Thanks.
So it IS an entitlement/welfare program on one end and an expected form of a "low paying" pension on the other.
Thanks. So it IS an entitlement/welfare program on one end and an expected form of a "low paying" pension on the other.
You're welcome!
My opinion is that it is insulting to consider standard Social Security retirement payments as welfare. It's a return on an insurance contract, much like an annuity. The only ones receiving that return are those who have paid in. So it's not a government give-away program. If someone paid nothing in, they get nothing back! That said, as mentioned earlier, the 'benefit' is regressive — the greater the amount paid in, the lower the percentage returned.
As for Social Security being 'low paying', here again, it depends on your definition of low paying! The maximum monthly 'benefit' is currently $2,663 — not an amount that I would consider low paying for subsistence income. This is almost exactly double to average monthly benefit of $1328. See https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/3401...retired-worker
A bigger disparity is based on generational status. Remember, it's a legalized Ponzi Scheme. See SEC.gov | "Ponzi" Schemes. Those who came early to the party are whooping it up, while the late-comers get the leftovers... if there are any leftovers!
For very old people, those now in their late 80s and older known as the World War 2 Generation, Social Security provided a phenomenal benefit compared to what they paid in, because they didn't pay in much. The FICA tax rates were much lower for them than they are today. That's why Social Security is their Sacred Cow. Wow, they carved out lucrative retirements for themselves by passing along the bills to future generations!
For the next generation, including people now 69 years old to their mid-80s, the Silent Generation, Social Security also provides lucrative returns compared to what they paid in. They didn't let their older siblings and cousins steal all the party cake!
Following that, within the Baby Boomer Generation, the early boomers... it's 'Leading-Edge' will fare okay. Although they saw their 'full-retirement age' increase from 65 to 66, and they've spent more than half of their working lives with higher FICA tax rates, they'll still get a reasonable return based on what they paid in. (As they enjoyed their LSD, they didn't realize the revenge their parents had in store!)
The Baby Boom Generation's 'Trailing-Edge' (late boomers) will fare worse, because
1) most of their working lives were spent with the current higher FICA tax rates, meaning they have paid and are now still paying a greater percentage of their earnings into the system; and
2) their full retirement ages are raised again — to a full 67 for those born in the 1960s.
Thereafter, for Generation X and beyond — they're late to the Ponzi Scheme! Their grandparents have picked their pockets! Good luck getting your money back. Why... because younger people tend to be non-voters, while older people tend to vote often! See:
So no, Social Security is not retirement welfare... at least not yet. Eventually, as the Ponzi Scheme continues to run out of new money to pay off the older players, expect to see needs-based criteria implemented, at which time it will likely deteriorate into retirement welfare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't Confuse Social Security with SSI
