Social Security is no handout
There are a lot of people that keep making the mistake of confusing Social Security with some kind of government handout. This is not the case. Social Security is a prepaid retirement plan and the way it was set up was as follows.
In 1934 FDR contrived a plan where every employed person would “contribute” a certain percent of their wages, matched by the same “contribution” by the employer, to be kept in a dedicated fund to be given back to the employee, in monthly payments, after the employee retired. The more money the employee earned the more money the government withheld and the larger the monthly payments to the retiree would be after retirement. These “contributions” were government mandated with fines and/or imprisonment for noncompliance.
This system worked well until 1967 when LBJ couldn’t see all of this money laying there unspent so he raided our, dedicated, Social Security fund to pay for his, so called Great Society. After that the door was open and there was a general run on our dedicated fund. The government was giving our money to people who had never worked a day in their life and calling it Social Security.
If the government would repay what they “borrowed” and quit calling all of these schemes to buy voters with our prepaid fund “Social Security” and call it welfare, as it should be, our funding would be more than solvent.
It really hurts to work, and pay into this fund, for 40 to 45 years and have some person, who is ignorant of the facts, call it Geezer welfare or an entitlement. In a way they are right in calling it this. I worked all of my adult life and paid, by law, into my retirement fund and I am entitled to it.
Clyde DeBolt
Backus
Comments (31)
Add commentour retirement money
Good letter Mr. DeBolt. I would think many people would
agree with you. Of course, the government has added the
disability payments of which there are recently many millions
added, as well as SSDI . So. the dedicated funds are being
used for more than was the original purpose as well as the
funds being loaned to the general fund.
We need to do something to change it for younger workers.
It appears you are calling
It appears you are calling him a liar just because you may
disagree with him. I think the Democrats were in control
of Congress ( I could be wrong) at the time Either way,
I don't think you were there at the time.
Also, that is a nasty thing to say about pro-life people.
Texas...If it should leave the United States of America...
Will have a great retirement plan...
NONE...
Eyolf
I have read your posts over time thinking that you may be one of the more moderate thinking and less caustic people who write opinions on this site. I have either been way off in my views, or you have been slipping into the abyss currently occupied by 90 percent of the posters here ... both conservative and liberal. The comments about prolife people treating women like brood mares and this one here are showing your true colors. You have joined the ranks of those writers with too much time on their hands and not enough understanding of differing points of view. The comments are just plain nasty. If these remarks truly reflect how you feel, you are a bad person - plain and simple.
Clyde is living off the wages of current workers!
As I stated previously, Clyde is an excellent example of the clueless senior citizen who is totally ignorant of truth regarding social security.
For his check today is not coming from money he contributed years ago--that money was long ago spent by sending to someone drawing social security at the time.
His check today is coming out of my paycheck and others who are still working for a living and paying social security taxes.
And that is NOT because of some mythical raid by President Johnson. Here's what the social security administration itself has to say about Clyde's misinformed belief (all info readily available on the SS website):
"Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program
The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.
The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself. "
Baxterone,
you have joined the ranks of the not blind. Eyolf has always used nasty backstabbing inuendo to attack anyone that doesn't love his nasty ways. He tries to pretend he's a soothsaying humble man but satinistic sweat is ozzing out of the seams all the time.
I think Mr. Clyde does know
I think Mr. Clyde does know that his check is coming from
current workers and not his portion that was put in a lockbox.
I seems everyone has their favorite place to go for information that they believe to be the truth.
Truer words were never spoken
Good one FNB. This is one that baxterone should listen to. 2 thumbs up to FNB.
Rino
You are mostly right, but I think you are totally wrong to call Clyde clueless and ignorant. Maybe you should state your twist in the conversation and leave your personal attacks out of it.
Republicans to blame for faster decline in the SS Trust Fund
Should Clyde again care to listen to truth, republicans are just as culpable as democrats when it comes to actions that increased the decline the in social security Trust Fund--basically insuring that the date when there would not be enough money coming in to pay all eligible seniors would come earlier than it would otherwise.
Reagan strongly supported and then signed social security reform in 1983 that added a huge number to those eligible to receive social security. Bush allowed seniors to continue to work while still drawing a social security check (those young adults who have a really difficult time finding a job today can thank him and others for this). Cost of living adjustment (COLA) decisions have been made numerous times to the detriment of the fund balance.
Over the years, people from both parties have taken action that weakens the fund balance--but the basic design of the program is the same. Unless you start out with a fully funded program and the numbers of workers paying in and retirees drawing out are the same over time--you run into trouble.
The baby boom is insuring that we will have more drawing out than putting in, thus the looming deficit.
If Mr. Clyde is like me and
If Mr. Clyde is like me and many others, he doesn't care
if they are/were Republ. or Demos.
Money is taken from the retirement fund for SSDI and
disability . I wonder if there is a breakdown of how much is
taken out of retirement to cover SSDI and disability.
As you know, disability payments have skyrocketed recently and how is that being paid?
We need to do something about the funding for younger
workers. Quit trying to blame one side or the other.
When someone lijke Paul Ryan at least has an idea and
presented it for discussion, he gets accused of driving
Aunt Daisy off the cliff. That is not helpful.
Inquiring minds want to know
If seniors work, they continue to pay social security and medicare to the fund. They may collect SS at the same time,
but would have to pay taxes on earnings. I think anything over $25,000-$34,000 you can be taxed up to 50% of your
benefits. Up to 85% if you make more than $34,000. Joint returns are taxed the same, but income amounts are a bit higher. So, Mr Rino, there is usually more to the story.
3 counties including
Galveston Texas, I think do not pay into social security and has their own retirement. Also, there are many who have
their own Pension (teachers) and do not pay into SS.
They have been able to opt out of the program.
From the horse's mouth Sadie
"
If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit.
For 2012, that limit is $14,640.
In the year you reach full retirement age, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above a different limit, but we only count earnings before the month you reach your full retirement age.
If you will reach full retirement age in 2012, the limit on your earnings for the months before full retirement age is $38,880. (If you were born in 1946 or 1947, your full retirement age is 66 years.)
Starting with the month you reach full retirement age, you can get your benefits with no limit on your earnings."
That last statement is the one at issue here. This has changed over the years, and the change had strong bi-partisan support. Used to be you had a choice, get your social security check and work no more than a minor portion of the time--or work and get no check.
This changed under Bush--and that change had an immediate negative effect on the trust fund. More seniors than ever are working more than ever and still drawing a social security check.
Whether you or I agree on it Sadie, this IS right now a serious dispute between the ages in our country. Young people have had a huge impact on the outcome of our two most recent national elections! They understand this problem, and if seniors as a group don't (I know some do and thank them for that) begin to acknowledge the seriousness of the issue and accept some of the responsibility for the fix--i.e. accepting lower social security benefits for themselves in some fashion today--there will be a nasty age class dispute in this country.
Also--somewhat agree with you on Ryan. Both parties are to blame here. Neither one wants to be seen as upsetting the senior voter block or the AARP--problem is they forget that young people pay attention and vote!
Check it out
Anyone who's curious about all the things that have been written in these posts can Google "Social Security Myths and Misinformation" and learn the truth. There are two major reasons the social security fund is falling behind: One is the unemployment rate (less payroll taxes being taken in) and the other is that people are living longer. The program is fixable...it just needs to be tweaked. But if you're more interested in playing the blame game....rant away.
The truth is,
The people that are deciding everything about SS and spend it DON"T PAY INTO SS FOR THEIR SALERIES. Our legislators and senators and president have their own retirement plan. By getting elected Nolan stands to cushion his retirement another $2 Million for two year's work!
Many years ago when I
Many years ago when I received my very first paycheck my brother told me to look it over and not to count on getting any of the money that goes out to social security back again. He said to look at it as a charitable contribution and to take care of funding my own retirement. Wise words in my opinion.
Wouldn't it be nice to see someone like Paul Ryan, a fiscal conservative, come to the table and actually work at making the whole program feasible.
Charlie M and FnB - my bad -
Charlie M and FnB - my bad - bad judge of character. I just much prefer reading opinions that are posted in a respectful manner.
Sadie - as far as teachers
Sadie - as far as teachers not paying into Social Security, I can tell you that that is incorrect. They pay that like anyone else - in addition topaying into their teacher retirement program.
baxterone
Teachers do pay in this state, but not the state of my sister.
No social security, just the pension of which she receives
60% of her highest pay which was around $85,000.
baxterone
I think there may be 15 states who are non social security covered. In fact, years ago, MN may have been one of them
before they changed the system. Some of them, it may be
a choice if they want to be in SS or the pension. I just read
an article about the Illinois pension which is without SS and they receive 3 times more in the pension then they would on SS. They do not pay into SS. They may pay into medicare.
According to the research that I quickly did, MN is one of the
states with teachers not paying into SS. so, they rely on the
pension fund. Are you a teacher that gets SS taken out?
Maybe you had a choice. There is plenty of information
to pile through on the SS vs pension funds. Medicare they
might pay into.
I'm not going to argue, this is what I found. Please enlighten me. Very complicated subject indeed.
Sadie
Interesting. I have never read that before anywhere. I did a quick search and came up with the same information you mentioned. Some sites said some Minnesota teachers get a choice to pay into Social Security and I believe some sites simply said teachers in Minnesota do not pay into SS. My wife has been a teacher for quite some time and her check stub shows both Medicare and Social Security taken out - and according to her Social Security statement, they have been since she started. I know that there are some places where the Teacher Retirement program is more localized instead of statewide - maybe that is where they speak of in the articles. I have never heard of a choice for teachers, but it must be out there somewhere.
You are right in that the complications of the whole Social Security program are immense. I do believe that someone in charge of this country with a more fiscally conservative approach to budgets and the like would have a fighting chance of fixing the problems instead of pretending they don't exist ... or borrowing money to cover the problems. Just my two cents.
baxterone
I don't know if your wife is a public or private school teacher.
Some of my family are Lutheran school teachers and do pay
into SS and pension however, their pension isn't much.
I wonder why it is so hard to find information on the internet
about the pensions and social security mix. I wonder if
different districts have there own systems and even then they change so, it depends on how long they have been teaching.
In my sisters case, in her state we noticed people are big time
complaining about the pension systems and that the state can't keep up with it.
I've been trying to be more informed about the social security system for years and to do something to keep it for younger people. I want to thank you for the discussion.
Facts about Social Security
Anyone interested in learning more about social security should Google "Mark Miller's Fact Finding on Social Security." The article appears on the Morningstar Website. In the opening paragraph he references his "10 Myths about Social Security." Read that article first, then read the fact finding piece. Very informative.
When you exhibit
a little intelligence and quit pretending to not be one of those on the dole let me know, eyolf. It's hard for some of us that pay for some of your substinence to speak equally with you when you are arrogant and untruthful. It's bad enough that we pay to support you, without you insulting us all the time. You walk like the duck pal.
Whichever.
You declined to compare tax returns, as I remember. I'm willing to bet I paid more for the the county share of your road upkeep than you did in our lifetimes. And don't spew that township road stuff because the county helps pay because if only the people on that dead end road had to pay the upkeep you couldn't afford it.
P.S.
Who spelled that for you?
You always do it with an insult, eyolf.
So quit trying to pretend to be a better man. Every single comment you make is tainted with a wry twist to belittle the people you address. It is a sickening habit and it exposes your hypocracy. You say lighten up at the same time you slip your dagger in someone's back. Worth as a human being can surely be judged by how much you pay your own way or how much you live of of other people's labors.
I think Ye labor less than me, Sir R.T.B.
A reminder from Alexis de Tocqueville....
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
Election 2012 stuck the fork in the good ole U.S.A.