jimbo70 Loc: Orange Park, FL.

SOCIAL SECURITY NOW CALLED 'FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENT'/ENTITLEMENT!

Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment"? This isn’t a benefit – its earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.

It totaled 15% of our income before taxes. If you averaged $30K per year over your working life,
that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security. If you calculate the future value of your monthly
investment in social security ($375/month, including both your and your employer’s contributions)
at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved!
This is your personal investment.
Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.
That’s almost three times more than today’s average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according
to the Social Security Administration (Google it - it’s a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)!
I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government
had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.

Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did.
They took our money and used it elsewhere. They “forgot” that it was OUR money they were taking.
They didn’t have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them.

And they didn’t pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently, they’ve told us that the money
won’t support us for very much longer. But is it our fault they misused our investments?

And now, to add insult to injury, they’re calling it a “benefit,” as if we never worked to earn every penny of it.
Just because they “borrowed” the money, doesn't mean that our investments were a charity! Let’s take a stand.

We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government –

Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income.

SpeedyWilson Loc: Upstate South Carolina

ziggykor Loc: East Texas

FDR and his cronies hoped to never pay a penny out. The fund was created as a way to double taxes collected to pay for his 'New Deal". Written into the law was the ability to borrow the funds to pay for bigger government, and though not known, the funds could be invested. But that can't happen as long as the congress keeps using the money.

Additionally, as far as I'm able to tell, (I've been wrong before) it's a trust fund, but the only trust fund that isn't protected from congressional raiding. There's always the oxymoron of a Government managed Trust Fund. May this is another reason there's a Second Amendment!

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

You obviously cribbed this from somewhere else, because the exact same document is on Snopes. But Snopes goes one step beyond this nonsense to explains the use of the terms:

Origins: It's true that Social Security retirement payments are classified as "federal benefit payments," but this terminology is not new: the word "benefits" has been applied to Social Security retirement payments since the Social Security program was enacted in the 1930s. The terminology is also not unique to Social Security retirement payments, as the phrase "federal benefit payments" applies to a broad class of payments made to (or on behalf of) individuals under federal government programs — everything from Social Security Disability Insurance to Medicare to farm subsidies are considered "federal benefit payments." The fact that workers themselves contribute much of the money that goes into the Social Security retirement fund doesn't affect its classification as a benefit.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/benefit.asp#XLPe1ImB4EFliDM9.99

Randolph Loc: Medway, UK

Same problem in UK!

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

I've often wondered how things would be if we had not been required to to let the govt. take the money. When my mother started teaching back in the early 40s, one didn't have to contribute, but the law was changed. So now, if we were not required to do this, would we really be better off? Would we have invested that money or spent it? And if we had spent it, how many older citizens would now be destitute and have to depend on the govt. for handouts more than they do already? just a thought.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

It's the story of the ant and the grasshopper - over and over. I have always put 10 - 15% away every year for eventual retirement - some of that value has been eaten away by taxes and inflation - but I have managed FAR better than what the thieves in Washington have done with my FICA taxes. And - of course - now - the DC Thieves want to 'help me' manage my independent retirement funds. I'll have to second Ziggykor's comments above regarding our bill of rights - -
-
And Ziggy - - my departure from Tx is only temporary - -

KW Conch Loc: USA

Amy, you are correct. Most people let money burn a hole in their pocket and don't save a penny. Before I retired, I was a Financial Consultant and was surprised at how many doctors and lawyers with high incomes had no idea how to invest their money and had no savings.
Nothing is stopping anyone from contributing to an IRA or having a personal investment account in addition to Social Security. I wonder if those who oppose Social Security would take pleasure in the suffering of the elderly who had no knowledge of how to invest their meager earnings during their working years.

jimbo70 Loc: Orange Park, FL.

Remember how Bush was criticized for wanting to invest just 2% of the monthly contributions to SS. It seems that money invested in the stock market gets better returns than investing it in the worlds largest Ponzi Scheme.

KW Conch Loc: USA

What's wrong with investing the 2% in an IRA or personal savings account ? Remember the market meltdown as Bush was leaving office ? People need guaranteed accounts such as SS as well as their own investment accounts.
I have been retired for five years and have already received back more than I put in over the years. SS has been around since the 30''s and is still solvent. With a few tweeks, like Reagan did in the 80's, it would be solid for many more years.

jimbo70 Loc: Orange Park, FL.

But the market is right back where it was, unfortunately the housing market tanked and who knows when it will recover? If they don't fix SS it will tank too.

DennisK Loc: Pickle City,Illinois

Knowing me,I'd probably have spent it.
:roll: