Social Security should only go to those who NEED it

[Binnie]

The main thing that bothers me about Social Security is that it was established as a safety net, it wasn't intended to be the truly global entitlement that it is now.

The second thing that bothers me is how it's paid. My mother worked for maybe 10 years of her life. The rest of the time she was a SAHM (which is really an overstatement of what she really did, but that's another story). She started collecting last year at 62, at some relatively low rate, but much more that she ever "put into the system." She's now looking forward to when she turns 67 (I think), when she can collect my father's "entitlement," which is 3 times what she's eligible for on her own. And Dad will collect the same amount when it gets to be his time, both drawing from the same "entitlement," but without reduction for either (they're divorced, of course).

I understand that I pay for their benefits, but since income while working is a determining fact, how could anyone possibly think it would work to "justify" 2 sets of entitlements from the same income source? Furthermore, it was completely irresponsible and ill-conceived to establish the system like this--of course saliency (which I know isn't an objective of the SS system) is impossible!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

The main thing that bothers me about Social Security is that it was established as a safety net, it wasn't intended to be the truly global entitlement that it is now.

The second thing that bothers me is how it's paid. My mother worked for maybe 10 years of her life. The rest of the time she was a SAHM (which is really an overstatement of what she really did, but that's another story). She started collecting last year at 62, at some relatively low rate, but much more that she ever "put into the system." She's now looking forward to when she turns 67 (I think), when she can collect my father's "entitlement," which is 3 times what she's eligible for on her own. And Dad will collect the same amount when it gets to be his time, both drawing from the same "entitlement," but without reduction for either (they're divorced, of course).

I understand that I pay for their benefits, but since income while working is a determining fact, how could anyone possibly think it would work to "justify" 2 sets of entitlements from the same income source? Furthermore, it was completely irresponsible and ill-conceived to establish the system like this--of course saliency (which I know isn't an objective of the SS system) is impossible!

I believe that his benefits are reduced by any amount paid to a spouse. I don't think that the system allows for double dipping...

 

[mefordis]

This is what I'm talking about when I say "supposedly paid into it" in my original post.

The main thing that bothers me about Social Security is that it was established as a safety net, it wasn't intended to be the truly global entitlement that it is now.

The second thing that bothers me is how it's paid. My mother worked for maybe 10 years of her life. The rest of the time she was a SAHM (which is really an overstatement of what she really did, but that's another story). She started collecting last year at 62, at some relatively low rate, but much more that she ever "put into the system." She's now looking forward to when she turns 67 (I think), when she can collect my father's "entitlement," which is 3 times what she's eligible for on her own. And Dad will collect the same amount when it gets to be his time, both drawing from the same "entitlement," but without reduction for either (they're divorced, of course).

I understand that I pay for their benefits, but since income while working is a determining fact, how could anyone possibly think it would work to "justify" 2 sets of entitlements from the same income source? Furthermore, it was completely irresponsible and ill-conceived to establish the system like this--of course saliency (which I know isn't an objective of the SS system) is impossible!

 

[DawnCt1]

Okay, so what about the $$ WE are paying in now (those of us who have 25 or more years before they retire)? Everyone says Soc Security will be depleted by then so the people in our generation who will really need it will get zilch. Or, maybe then they will implement some sort of qualifying criteria?

THAT is exactly why President Bush was right! You should have an option to invest a portion of those funds or "opt out". I believe that teachers in some states do not pay because they have a retirement fund. Why shouldn't THAT apply to everyone. And yes, we paid in, I want it back.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

... And yes, we paid in, I want it back.

When America collapses, who is going to pay you back - if we are lucky enough to even be free at that point?

I told my mother, who turns 65 this year, that she could move in with me if she would just agree not to accept her SS payments. I would pay all of her bills, and she could keep my father's retirement benefit for whatever she wanted. She decided not to accept my offer. We get along great, but she also wants to help one of my nephews who I will not help unless he goes to college.

She would rather have her independance and take money from the government than do what is right for America.

If we think times are tough now, just wait. Families have to pull together to support one another. We need to stop relying on Uncle Sam. The government doesn't owe us anything but our freedom, and if it is allowed to collapse, it will not even be able to protect that...

 

[mefordis]

I think the only way the transition to personal accounts would work is to:

1. Eliminate or reduce payments to recipients who already have a substantial amount of assets.

2. Then convert the program to a welfare program, so it can exist that way, only paying out to the truly needy (with more oversight so those who are fraudulently collecting by claiming to be injured or mentally ill will be more scrutinized and weeded out). Call it something else but it's basically welfare for older people who were born after a certain date.

3. Those born after a certain date will be required to hold personal savings accounts, and also be required to pay in social security. Total would amount to the same as they pay in today.

I want my $$ back, too. But if you are under a certain age I doubt we will ever "get it back" so to speak. But they can correct the problem so we can have SOMETHING from all that tax we pay in!

THAT is exactly why President Bush was right! You should have an option to invest a portion of those funds or "opt out". I believe that teachers in some states do not pay because they have a retirement fund. Why shouldn't THAT apply to everyone. And yes, we paid in, I want it back.

 

[Frankiesmom]

Even if I win the Mega Millions I will still want my SS $ back-actually my DH has paid in more than I ever will so I'll just wait for his.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Even if I win the Mega Millions I will still want my SS $ back-actually my DH has paid in more than I ever will so I'll just wait for his.

Not to sound ugly, but this is why America is doomed...

 

[RitaE]

sorry, but I'm getting rather tired of being punished for being a saver instead of a spender.

I also want my SS money and I do not for one split second feel there is anything wrong with that. If I don't need it at the time, I'll give it to family or charity.

7.65% employee
7.65% employer

My husband and will have paid an awful lot of money into Soc Sec by the time we retire. We deserve to collect the benefits just as much as the person next to us who didn't fund other retirement accounts the way we have.

 

[MrsPete]

Count me in as another "I've paid in for years, I expect to receive something in the future" vote. 15% of everything I've earned in two and a half decades of work (and I intend to work another decade and a half) is a tremendous amount of money. I was forced to put it into the SS system -- forced to put it in in addition to all my other taxes. It's not greedy to expect the government to live up to their end of that deal.

I understand perfectly why SS is in trouble, but the folks at the national level need to figure out how to manage this program better -- and they need to do it without hurting the people who actually worked for the money.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...I understand perfectly why SS is in trouble, but the folks at the national level need to figure out how to manage this program better -- and they need to do it without hurting the people who actually worked for the money.

I showed you the math. There is no way. Period. We will either pay higher taxes with greatly reduced benefits or we will see America destroyed at our hands...

 

[BuzznBelle'smom]

As one of the first Boomers to be eligible this year to collect but who is not, all I can say is this issue, Social Security beneifts of ALL types, will drown my future grandkids.

There are many many potential solutions, but as one who has worked for it and will collect, the system is so broken and so political that I see no way it can be fixed except to junk it and start over. But then I believe in a 10% flat income tax for personal and corporations, no deductions, no need to file tax returns too. Couple that with a 50% spending reduction by all local, state, and the federal governments and there might be hope at the end of all this.

This is why you'll never be a successful politician. You make too much sense!

I also agree with Rita--those of us who work hard and save would be punished if they change the rules. We've been living by those rules all our lives, and now some are suggesting that it's "not fair" that we reap the benefit of our efforts? That makes us selfish? Oh, puh-leaze!

 

[Planogirl]

If I understand it right, some are advocating that we keep on paying into Social Security but we somehow refuse the benefits when our time comes? I fail to see how that's fair.

 

[MrsPete]

I showed you the math. There is no way. Period. We will either pay higher taxes with greatly reduced benefits or we will see America destroyed at our hands...

This isn't news. I understand the math, but you're assuming that the program must continue in the way it's being currently administered, a method that was always bound to reach this crisis. We've known this for years, and Washington has forced the American public to continue down this path for years. Seriously, SS has been in trouble since I was a kid. What has any politician done to change things? Nothing -- SS is the proverbial third rail; touch it, and you die.

The answer isn't to screw over those who've paid in. The answer is to make fundamental changes to the program so that it can become profitable.

At a wild guess, I'd say 15% of everything I've earned in my life is at least two houses. I'm not willing to walk away from that and say, "Oh, other people need it more." I've sacraficed and done without, and the government has piddled around and refused to make the hard choices. If I'd had options in how my money was handled, I might be more forgiving, but as it is now, nope.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...We've been living by those rules all our lives, and now some are suggesting that it's "not fair" that we reap the benefit of our efforts? That makes us selfish? Oh, puh-leaze!

Fair? Only those crying that they "deserve" to get back because they paid in are crying about "fairness".

Look, I am going to be fine, no matter what happens. I do not fear poverty. I am prepared for whatever comes. And my boys are being raised to be just as flexible. But those out there who want their pound of flesh - who think that they are owed something by America - are in for a world of hurt.

When your children and grandchildren are begging in the streets, look in the mirror for someone to blame. Are you slefish? I do not know you. But if you think that you are doing the right thing by making these types of demands of your government - that you have "earned" it - then you are a part of the problem. Of that, I have no doubt.

This is not a personal attack. There are over 100 million Americans who feel just as you do. That is why America is doomed...

 

[Binnie]

I believe that his benefits are reduced by any amount paid to a spouse. I don't think that the system allows for double dipping...

Since my parents ar eno longer married, it's not considered double-dipping, as I understand it. It's considered my mother's "entitlement" because they were married for 15 years (of course Dad's "entitlement" is based on 25+ years of work AFTER he and Mom divorced, but that's another story!).

 

[DisneyMomOK]

If I understand it right, some are advocating that we keep on paying into Social Security but we somehow refuse the benefits when our time comes? I fail to see how that's fair.

Unfortunately, there are too many people receiving SSI benefits that either never paid into the system or paid for too short a time to receive SS benefits due to age. The system is broken.

 

[Reflection]

According to experts, the shortfall in Social Security is manageable. Medicare is more critical problem.

TRUSTEES REPORTS SHOW SOCIAL SECURITY SHORTFALL MANAGEABLE, MEDICARE’S PROBLEMS MORE DAUNTING
By Paul N. Van de Water

The annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare trustees project the financial status of these two programs for the next 75 years. The new reports confirm that policymakers will need to take action to keep Social Security and Medicare on a sound financial footing. In evaluating the new reports, the reader should keep several points in mind.

The projections in this year’s trustees reports are similar to those of last year. The projected dates of exhaustion of the combined Social Security trust funds and of Medicare’s Hospital Insurance trust fund have remained the same. Social Security’s projected 75-year deficit has declined from 1.95 percent to 1.70 percent of taxable payroll as a result of changes in methods used to project immigration.

Social Security’s funding shortfall is relatively small and manageable. The trustees report reaffirms that Social Security is in excellent financial shape over the near term. The program will be able to pay 100 percent of promised benefits for more than three decades — until 2041. At that point, income will be sufficient to pay only 78 percent of benefits. Measured over the next 75 years, the amount by which income will fall short of what is needed to pay benefits amounts to 0.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Many combinations of modest revenue increases and benefit reductions would remedy the projected shortfall for 75 years and beyond.[1] Social Security is structurally sound and does not require drastic changes.

Medicare’s financial problems are much more challenging. The Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is projected to start running deficits in 2010. Current income and trust fund reserves will be sufficient to pay all hospital insurance benefits until 2019, when reserves are projected to be depleted. At that point, if policymakers do not make changes, scheduled HI income will cover 78 percent of estimated expenditures. The HI deficit will average 1.6 percent of GDP over the next 75 years.

The Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is always adequately financed because beneficiary premiums and general revenue contributions are set annually to cover expected costs. However, the rapid growth of program costs will place increasing pressures on both beneficiaries (to pay the premiums) and taxpayers (to provide the general revenues).

Medicare’s long-term financing problems stem primarily from the continuing sharp rise in both public and private health care costs, not from structural problems with the program. Medicare spending is growing rapidly for the same reasons that private health spending is growing rapidly — increases in the cost and use of medical services. For several decades, increases in Medicare costs per beneficiary have mirrored the increases in costs in the health system as a whole. Between 1970 and 2006, Medicare spending for each enrollee rose by 8.7 percent annually, and private health insurance spending rose by 9.7 percent per person per year.[2]

http://www.cbpp.org/3-25-08health.htm

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Since my parents ar eno longer married, it's not considered double-dipping, as I understand it. It's considered my mother's "entitlement" because they were married for 15 years (of course Dad's "entitlement" is based on 25+ years of work AFTER he and Mom divorced, but that's another story!).

Maybe someone more familiar with the specifics can help. My wife has an aunt who was married to the father of her children for about 15 years, and to another man for about 5. She was allowed to pick between the two when she was old enough to collect. She chose the former because his benefits were higher. The former spouse's benefits were reduced as a result until the day he died - but I am not sure by how much...

 

[Planogirl]

Unfortunately, there are too many people receiving SSI benefits that either never paid into the system or paid for too short a time to receive SS benefits due to age. The system is broken.

I don't deny that. I believe that something broken should be repaired not scrapped though.

It's interesting to me that in this day of mindless handouts to corporations and the like, we are discussing people not receiving a return of any kind on their investment. Social Security is an investment but it was supposed to be a safe one. I don't see why hoping for some return is somehow selfish.