mwoods222 Loc: Newburg N.Y,

Who died before they collected Social Security?

KEEP PASSING THIS AROUND UNTIL
EVERY ONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT...

THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!!!

THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT
TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!!!

WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?

Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security but your employer did, too.

It totaled 15% of your income before taxes.

If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500.

Read that again.

Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?

We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and
me that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government.

Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back.

If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows).

After 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit!

If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON
HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME

THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

Entitlement my foot; I paid cash for my social security insurance!

Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some
kind of charity or handout!!

Remember Congressional benefits?
--- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.

Now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?

They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for
it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money.

Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?

It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.

A. J. Loc: PA. USA

As I understand it, they opened the Social Security fund to help pay for WWII, they never closed the box from then on. Our Congressman can take money out of our Social Security fund for their pet projects and throw in an I.O.U. which they never intend to pay back into the S.S. fund which helps lower the balance in our Social Security Fund.

Now they have added Medicaid farther lowering the fund, but that's another subject.

I think, I'm Not sure about this, that Al Gore, when running for President promised, if elected, to lock that box and to help save our Social Security funds; in doing this, Congressman would not be able to draw on the moneys in our Social Security fund and then just throw in an I.O.U.

Tom H Loc: St. Louis, MO

In general, you are right. Social Security should never be called an entitlement. You mention that the government doesn't take into account that some die before ever collecting any of it. That may be somewhat balanced by the funds they pay out for the disability benefits that aren't mentioned. I have no idea about those numbers.

I haven't run the figures and assume your math is correct. But, your figures are based on working 49 years at an average wage of $30,000 per year. I have no idea what the average number of years is that a person works, but 49 years seems very high. That would be working full time since being in your mid teens. That would infer no college degree and thus lower average wages. (Perhaps, you may be thinking of part time work during high school, etc. but that would have been at very low wages.)

Your calculations were based on an average income of $30,000. That would have been a very high income 49 years ago in 1965. Particularly for someone without a college degree. I think I was doing OK on about $7,000 or $8,000 then. What did a bottle of milk cost back then? I understand that your figures are based on an AVERAGE of $30,000, not making that much back then, but to bring the average up to $30,000 would seems to require a higher than average income in the later years.

Somewhere on the Internet one might be able to find the average number of years one contributes to Social Security and might find what wages have averaged over that period. It would be interesting to work with these figures.

None of what I've said changes the fact that social Security has been a rib-off and very poorly handled by our government. Only for those on disability or perhaps children receiving benefits due to the death of a parent should this program be considered an entitlement. And in my mind those benefits should have been from a separate progrm, not Social Security.

However, if we had not had this program as a supplement for retirement income, how many people would have saved appropriately for their retirement? And how much would we be spending, (via private charities and government programs), to take care of those that didn't? I can understand the reasoning for starting Social Security, but not how it has been handled or financed or allowed to be used for other government spending.

The term "entitlement" for something we have paid so dearly for does make me mad. I might argue with your numbers, but not the principle of what your saying.

Sorry for the long winded reply. I had no intentions of spending this much time on this but got a little carried away.

Thanks for taking the time to work this up and post it.

gmolony Loc: Louisiana

Social Security running out of money? What about Welfare, Unemployment, cash for clunkers, free cell phones for people who didn't work for them, etc.? Are these programs running out of funding? Funny we don't hear about or question these give-a-way programs.

garyb

You are right. It just goes to show you don't trust this government with your money . Now they control your health, how's that make you feel.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Sorry for pulling the trigger before I replied.
While I agree with much of your post. I would point out what I consider a huge flaw in the calculation. Most who are collecting did not start making 30K per year. Also, the contribution rate was not a high then as it is now. Overall, good post.

Violameister Loc: michigan

I had an economics professor point out many years ago that Social Security was a very poor investment. Had we invested the same amount of money prudently ourselves, we would have had much better returns. Once again, the prudent hard worker gets screwed to provide for the wastrel. I strongly believe in charity; but forced redistribution is not charity; it is robbery.

Billbobboy42 Loc: Center of Delmarva

Just a short note on SS: It is my understanding that when the law was enacted (FDR) it was set up as a deficit program so that eligible workers could start receiving payments immediately. Thus, the source of those receiving payments are actually funded by workers still paying into the fund, rather than the funds one paid in to the program are reserved in a private account to be drawn from at eligibility time.

I am receiving SS, but the funds are coming from workers still paying into the program, not from the funds I paid in. One of the problems with this setup is that the original framers did not anticipate an ever increasing number of recipients vs a diminishing number paying into the system.

Violameister Loc: michigan

I think you are correct. It just goes to show that even the most beloved of Government programs is very flawed in its conception, and prone to unintended consequences. Unfortunately, Government programs are usually huge, and impossible to fix or eliminate.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

All of the money they take from those who pay taxes goes into the general fund which is less than just the interest that is owed on a daily basis.
The regular operating expenses is borrowed adding to the national debt that the ceiling was just raised with no limit for one year.
If we don't manage to clean House and Senate in November, I feel that will be the point of no return if we haven't already crossed it.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

This is called trusting the weasel to guard the chicken coop. Never has worked, except for the weasels, and never will but many continue hiring weasels just the same. They are called fools or worse where I come from.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I have never believed that social security is going broke. Medicare, on the other hand may be legitimately in trouble.
I think there is an inherent shady claims by doctors, hospitals, and a growing number of both legitimate and illegitimate claims for signing up for disability which places a deeper burden on the system.
It may be too late to salvage any attempt to provide solvency to the program. Although I truly believe the original intent was good, it is the perverse use of the money by our representatives that has caused this, not the recipients.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

Do you understand that there aren't any 'accounts' that have a positive balance ??
The government is borrowing money to pay regular daily expenses.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

An account? The money is inserted into the general treasury. Had there been a legitimate account which was made safe from our greedy blood-sucking politicians, I doubt this would be a topic for discussion. It is the sticky fingered politicians that have pilfered the contributions.
"Daily expenses" includes much more than SS, medicare, and disability however.

Popeye33

When I first went to work over 60 years ago, wasn't Social Security only collected on the first $4,000 of income? Didn't they add disability and dependent care on to it later and life expectancy was just 72 for males and 78 for females?

Heck I'm almost 81 now and still kickin'.