Social Security should only go to those who NEED it

[DisneyBamaFan]

I've read enough articles across the years on this subject to be sufficiently scared -- but the majority of the experts do not agree with your conclusions.

The experts that are not politicians or paid by politicians do...

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

1) Social Security takes in money from new customers and pays it out to older customers. How is that different from a ponzi scheme like Madoff?

Absolute fact. 3 people have committed suicide because of his "theft". How strange that they would kill themselves because they are now poor. How very sad that they had nothing to live for without money. SS is the ultimate "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul" ponzi scheme.

2) Social Security claims to have a trust fund. The trust fund is in government bonds. For the government to pay social security for those bonds, it will have to use tax money or money from the sale of new bonds. When the trust fund runs out, the government will have to make up the shortfall from tax money or the sale of new bonds. How is that different? Is it really meaningful to say that there is a trust fund?

There is no trust fund other than on paper. As you say, the government has spent the money. It will have to borrow it again to pay back the "trust fund" that politicians are telling the people will run dry in 2041. The reality, it doesn't exist. The average American (every man woman and child) owes $135k to this "fund".

3) Social Security runs a surplus today, in the sense that they take in more money than they spend. The excess is "loaned" to the federal government, who spends it. So the social security surplus is essentially used like other general revenue. Given that Social Security taxes are a flat rate and are capped on incomes over about $100,000, doesn't that make it an extremely regressive tax?

Forgetting the regressive tax part (which is true, but only because benefits are also capped), SS income is treated by the government as just another form af tax income. It is spent as it comes in the door...[/QUOTE]

 

[eliza61]

Quick question:

last year 38 million people depended on medicare. What happens to all these people if we simply "stop" medicare? do they magically get better?
10.6 million people lived on social security alone. 25% of that number are elderly women living alone. AARP supplied these figures (jeez, I can't believe I'm old enough to get AARP, when did that happen?) 67% of seniors 65 and older get half their monthly money for SS.

So, we hypothetically get rid of ss or medicare do all these people some how become independant or do they become a burden some other way because they are definitely not becoming invisible.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

...The average American (every man woman and child) owes $135k to this "fund".

Where did you get this figure? Over at the Social Security Trust Funds site, they claim to have had $2,366 billion in September of '08. The US Census website lists our Monthly National Population Estimate for Resident Population plus Armed Forces Overseas as 304,732,585 for that same month. That puts the figure at around $7,764 in the trust fund for every "American".

Of course, the number is somewhat immaterial as the fund is an asset held by future social security recipients and a debt held by future taxpayers, who are predominately the same people. I could write myself a bond for $1,000,000,000,000 and claim it as an asset but the offsetting debt would prevent me from really being any richer.

$135K per American is a figure of about 40 trillion if I kept track of my zeroes correctly (1.35E+5 x 3.0E+8 is about 4.0E+13). That's a lot of dough. Perhaps it represents the net present value of unfunded future social security liabilities?

 

[wall*e2008]

last year 38 million people depended on medicare. What happens to all these people if we simply "stop" medicare? do they magically get better?

Medicare needs to remain but be reworked. It should cover certain illnesses, such as blood pressure medicine, but not cover high cost treatments that have a low chance of extending life.

10.6 million people lived on social security alone. 25% of that number are elderly women living alone. AARP supplied these figures (jeez, I can't believe I'm old enough to get AARP, when did that happen?) 67% of seniors 65 and older get half their monthly money for SS.

Ha ha. I am not yet old enough for AARP!!

I know many who live only on SS and live alone. To me that is a formula (and it was for some that I know) for a disaster. We need to find a way to get the elderly who rely only on SS into more joint living conditions.

We need to work on improving reverse mortgages to allow them to stay in their home as long as they are mentally capable (the recent story of the 93 year old with $500K that froze to death for not paying his bills comes to mind).

There is no easy solution to this problem. Sadly the government has been telling the older generation they would take care of them in their old age. The people believed them and many did not save much or could not save much. It is hard to change that mind set now. We need to start to weaning the younger generation and slowly reduce the amount each generation gets.

The government needs to stop the COLAs as they exist today. They should only go up the same % as the % that the ones income that paid in did.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Quick question:

last year 38 million people depended on medicare. What happens to all these people if we simply "stop" medicare? do they magically get better?
10.6 million people lived on social security alone. 25% of that number are elderly women living alone. AARP supplied these figures (jeez, I can't believe I'm old enough to get AARP, when did that happen?) 67% of seniors 65 and older get half their monthly money for SS.

So, we hypothetically get rid of ss or medicare do all these people some how become independant or do they become a burden some other way because they are definitely not becoming invisible.

No one, to my knowledge, has suggested "suddenly stopping" any of these things. They need to be stopped, to be sure, but not suddenly.

There are over one trillion dollars spent in other government programs that could be cut tomorrow, and that money could be diverted to help us get through the next 15 years or so, but we will not even do that.

We live in a society that expects the government to take care of us. The government borrowed trillions of dollars to meet the promises made by politicians. Well, we now owe 10.7 trillion dollars, not counting the money owed to the SS "trust fund" (just typing that makes me laugh). Our GDP is about 14.3 trillion dollars. When you pull out government spending, we owe almost exactly what we, as a nation, produce, earn and spend in an entire year.

We can eliminate the need to cut Medicare a SS suddenly, but not by continuing this borrowing. We need to cut other programs while we put in place a privitized program, with individual accounts. But there has to be a program horizon. Within 15 years, the costs of these 2 programs will reach 2 trillion dollars per year, about 2/3 our current federal budget - all in. If nothing changes, federal spending will be nearly 5 trillion per year. With forecast GDP shrinkage over the next 3-5 years, that is going to be a real problem...

 

[eliza61]

Medicare needs to remain but be reworked. It should cover certain illnesses, such as blood pressure medicine, but not cover high cost treatments that have a low chance of extending life.


We need to work on improving reverse mortgages to allow them to stay in their home as long as they are mentally capable (the recent story of the 93 year old with $500K that froze to death for not paying his bills comes to mind).

There is no easy solution to this problem. Sadly the government has been telling the older generation they would take care of them in their old age. The people believed them and many did not save much or could not save much. It is hard to change that mind set now. We need to start to weaning the younger generation and slowly reduce the amount each generation gets.The government needs to stop the COLAs as they exist today. They should only go up the same % as the % that the ones income that paid in did.

So true. Sadly I think the younger generation is going to be worse. Many of the younger generation has not even thought about saving for their retirement. Isn't the national savings rate in the negative. One of the reasons I hate bailouts is because it does nothing for our "mindset" I'm trying to think of a better word. Every one gets mad at the politicians but in reality they are a big extension of John P. Public.
-Living on credit is now the norm, not the exception. I ("Just call me Ms. AARP" ) can remember growing up when you may have had 1 store charge card (usually a sears type card). to get a Bank of americard or mastercard you had to be really well off. Now my son got 2 american express card offers, when I called and said he was just entering college and had no job, they said "no worries" He qualifies on his "potential" to work. What kind of Jack$%$ gives an unemployed 18 year old a credit card. While I love the kid dearly "responsibility" thy name is not Jordan.

-Newlyweds now consider a starter house a 3000 sq mcmansion. Don't even suggest they live in an apartment and they always give you the old excuse "Why throw money away to a landlord"? It's simple, if you can't put 20% down you need to stay put and save.

-I think I mentioned before I volunteer in Philly with young adults.(19-25) It's mind boggling the number of girls who will work all summer to buy a genuine Louie Vutton bag. When I ask how many are saving 10% of their salary for college, Wall*E, they laugh. I mean flat out laugh. when I ask how they plan on paying for books, 300 girls (over 3 years) have said flat out "charge"

So I see a bigger need for ss and a smaller ability to pay it. You are absolutely right, that is a recipe for disaster.

 

[GeorgeG]

I paid into Social Security for many years and am entitled to the checks I get every month even though I get a nice pension. I would agree that people who did not pay into SS should not get it. That's a whole other issue.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I paid into Social Security for many years and am entitled to the checks I get every month even though I get a nice pension. I would agree that people who did not pay into SS should not get it. That's a whole other issue.

In what way are you entitled?

 

[eliza61]

We live in a society that expects the government to take care of us. The government borrowed trillions of dollars to meet the promises made by politicians. Well, we now owe 10.7 trillion dollars, not counting the money owed to the SS "trust fund" (just typing that makes me laugh). Our GDP is about 14.3 trillion dollars. When you pull out government spending, we owe almost exactly what we, as a nation, produce, earn and spend in an entire year.

...

Absolutely, but we are not designing our society to be financially independant. We want it now and we don't want to save for it. Look at the current generation Disney. What's the saving rate for young workers? -10%
most young adults (the group I work with) are over extended before they hit 30. Most 30 year olds are not participating in the companies savings plan (401). Wasn't there a report saying that my age group (50+) has way underestimated how much they will need to llive off of when they retirement. We have made living off of credit so much the norm that no one knows how to live any other way. generally speaking.
Privitized programs don't work. We can't get folks to save for a trip to Walmart, forget about savings for retirement. How did the basic housing bubble start to cave in? One (not the only) major reason is some where along the line, young adults some how thought a starter home was 3000 sq ft mcmansion. and that you really could buy a house without money.

I saw an ad for a furniture store the other day that had me laughing (it was actually quite sad though). The store was advertising a room full of furniture with no money down and no payments until 2012. I thought it was funny because by the time you start paying on the furniture it will be time to buy new stuff.

So now you think the next 3 generations are going to miraculously see the error of their ways. People max out on their credit cards, what do they do? They open new ones. You think now they are going to start saving?
Ain't gonna happen.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Where did you get this figure? Over at the Social Security Trust Funds site, they claim to have had $2,366 billion in September of '08. The US Census website lists our Monthly National Population Estimate for Resident Population plus Armed Forces Overseas as 304,732,585 for that same month. That puts the figure at around $7,764 in the trust fund for every "American".

Of course, the number is somewhat immaterial as the fund is an asset held by future social security recipients and a debt held by future taxpayers, who are predominately the same people. I could write myself a bond for $1,000,000,000,000 and claim it as an asset but the offsetting debt would prevent me from really being any richer.

$135K per American is a figure of about 40 trillion if I kept track of my zeroes correctly (1.35E+5 x 3.0E+8 is about 4.0E+13). That's a lot of dough. Perhaps it represents the net present value of unfunded future social security liabilities?

My number was forward looking - not current debt - based on continuing the current policies. The government's figures are absurd. Bush's public shortfall number was 4.6 trillion by 2040. It is really fuzzy math when you consider the rate of spend will reach 1.35 trillion per year with 33% fewer payers into the system within 15 years. The total amount collected in 2008 in SS taxes was about $822 billion.


The shortfall is pretty clear. With 33% fewer payers, that annual collection amount would fall to around $500 billion with annual cost over-runs equal to the total current SS contributions today. And that doesn't include Medicare.

I have seen the numbers run a number of ways. The ones released by the government are absurd...

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...Privitized programs don't work. We can't get folks to save for a trip to Walmart, forget about savings for retirement. How did the basic housing bubble start to cave in? One (not the only) major reason is some where along the line, young adults some how thought a starter home was 3000 sq ft mcmansion. and that you really could buy a house without money.

I saw an ad for a furniture store the other day that had me laughing (it was actually quite sad though). The store was advertising a room full of furniture with no money down and no payments until 2012. I thought it was funny because by the time you start paying on the furniture it will be time to buy new stuff.

So now you think the next 3 generations are going to miraculously see the error of their ways. People max out on their credit cards, what do they do? They open new ones. You think now they are going to start saving?
Ain't gonna happen.

Within the last year I have seen Americans do things that I never imagined possible. I saw a real reduction in total fuel use last year - before we took this recession seriously. I am seeing large homes sit empty while smaller homes sell. I see an increase in savings for the first time in about 30 years.

We can get through this, and we can actually come out the other side stronger than we are today - but not without sacrifice...

 

[eliza61]

Within the last year I have seen Americans do things that I never imagined possible. I saw a real reduction in total fuel use last year - before we took this recession seriously. I am seeing large homes sit empty while smaller homes sell. I see an increase in savings for the first time in about 30 years.

We can get through this, and we can actually come out the other side stronger than we are today - but not without sacrifice...

But is that attitude adjustment or FEAR! I think the latter. You are more optimistic than me. I see the parents of my senior who are buying little johnny a car for graduation but dont have 1000 bucks in the bank for emergencies. When I question this practice, I usually get the "They earned it" or "they're only young once".

I see parents charge a disney vacation because once again "the kids are only young once" but refuse to save for retirement because "you lose too much money in the stock market"

These are excuses I get weekly and would some one please tell me, when did your kids being young become the "get out of financial jail free" card?

 

[C.Ann]

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.

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

-----------------------

Gee - I wonder why she declined such a lovely "invitation".. Nothing like emotional blackmail.. "Mom, you can move in with me - BUT - only if you - blah, blah, blah.."

Darn right she would rather have her independence - as most elderly people do.. Losing ones independence is the worst part of getting old - aside from poor health.. I'm just about speechless that you would even say such a thing to your mother.. Unless she isn't of sound mind, you have absolutely no business whatsoever telling her what she "should" or "shouldn't" do.. Wow!!

 

[rie'smom]

I believe Social Security checks should be cut for only those who need it. Example: I know someone whose husband died and left her with a couple of million. She STILL collects a social security check. In today's economic times especially they really need to make cuts where they can, and believe me many wouldn't even notice if they stopped getting the checks. I know, they supposedly "paid in", but people need to make some sacrifices in this economy and this would be an easy one to make.

Why don't they qualify social security recipients and those who are worth a million or more no longer get to collect?

This is what I have thought for a long time-since 1981. At one time I contacted my congressman and senator about it. My thought was to give SS to those who needed it an to allow taxpayers who made too much money to subtract this amount from their taxes once they reach age 65.

 

[kaytieeldr]

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.

Respectfully, I think there is some confusion, even in this thread, between Social Security (SS) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

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.

Absolutely.

I consider social security a glorified welfare program. You are taking in way more than you paid out. Add it up. People are living longer and longer.

Eh, not necessarily. I've been working since I was twenty, and will have to work a total of 47 years to collect (full) Social Security.

Let's say, for ease of calculation, I earn $25,000 in each of those years. Each year, my employer and I each pay $1,912.50 into Social Security. Over my working life, that's $179,775.00.

If I was elegible for $1,500 per month (which, using the numbers in my example, I doubt), that's almost ten years of payments - except, if I lived ten years, that would make me the longest-surviving female in my family. So, my estate should be entitled to the balance of my payments, right?

AARP supplied these figures (jeez, I can't believe I'm old enough to get AARP, when did that happen?)

Oh, I know this one! Pick me! Pick me! Ahem. When AARP lowered its membership age to almost the average college graduation age. Thank you. And now, back to our regularly scheduled argument.

Medicare needs to remain but be reworked. It should cover certain illnesses, such as blood pressure medicine, but not cover high cost treatments that have a low chance of extending life.

Who gets to decide which high-cost treatments will work on which patients? For that matter, who gets to decide what constitutes high cost?

We need to find a way to get the elderly who rely only on SS into more joint living conditions.

Again, who gets to decide - first, even the necessity of this, then what constitutes joint living conditions, then what those conditions are?

We live in a society that expects the government to take care of us.

Well, when you think about it - why not? We've been taking care of - i.e. supporting - the government all our lives, through taxes. I think tax-free day is somewhere around June 1 this year?

 

[ntsammy5]

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

And so, what is right for America will be determined by you? I don't think so.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

And so, what is right for America will be determined by you? I don't think so.

LOL - you are joking right? I decide nothing for my mother. I just give her options, and love...

 

[SSAVL]

Bottom line here is this. I worked the hours for it, it came from MY paycheck, it is MINE! I want every penny of it. I am not working to support others later in life. If you didnt work, or didnt save, that is not my problem. I know that sounds harsh, but it is REALITY!!

 

[DisneyMomOK]

Where did you get this figure? Over at the Social Security Trust Funds site, they claim to have had $2,366 billion in September of '08. The US Census website lists our Monthly National Population Estimate for Resident Population plus Armed Forces Overseas as 304,732,585 for that same month. That puts the figure at around $7,764 in the trust fund for every "American".

Of course, the number is somewhat immaterial as the fund is an asset held by future social security recipients and a debt held by future taxpayers, who are predominately the same people. I could write myself a bond for $1,000,000,000,000 and claim it as an asset but the offsetting debt would prevent me from really being any richer.

$135K per American is a figure of about 40 trillion if I kept track of my zeroes correctly (1.35E+5 x 3.0E+8 is about 4.0E+13). That's a lot of dough. Perhaps it represents the net present value of unfunded future social security liabilities?

I heard someone last week comment that if Johnson had not discontinued accrual accounting, the actual national debt would be closer to $56 trillion, not $10, mainly because of the unfunded liability of SS.