Evidently, there were some changes made to SS in the latest budget deal, and probably more coming. Won't affect me personally, but they will some of you. I agree very much with the last 2 sentences in the article, especially if they decide to scrap the program altogether..
quote
“What I would recommend is we have a presidential election coming up. I would put the feet of every one of the candidates to the fire and say ‘what are you going to do and let’s do it now so I don’t have to be 85 and facing a benefits cut.’”
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-12-2015).]
I have 20+ years before I'm eligible for social security. I, like may others, don't believe it will be there when I get to that age. That also makes me think that I'll likely be working until I drop dead.
Was there supposed to be a link? The only thing I saw reported on SS and the latest budget deal was that they robbed another 150 billion from the SS fund and gave it to defense spending and the disability fund which in effect shortened the lifespan of the SS retirement trust fund. I really think we are kidding ourselves when we keep raising the SS retirement age. The majority of big companies find ways get people over 60 off their workforce so they can hire younger cheaper labor and then the older displaced worker is forced to try and work at walmart or apply for SS disability. In addition do you think a brick layer or ditch digger is able to work until they are 66, most are not. For office workers that can keep their job and rich politicians raising the age to 67 or higher has no impact so its very easy for them to agree to raising the age.
Heavy equipment mechanics won't make it to 67 either. I made it to 60 before I gave in to the doctors and took a disability. They had been telling me to do that since I was 19.
Rob another 150 billion from social security then later preach that social security is not funded and will fail. Maybe we should outlaw the robbing from social security and demand that the robbed funds should be returned.
Maybe we should outlaw the robbing from social security and demand that the robbed funds should be returned.
Yep. It should have been the rules all along that thaey cant steal the money we put in and use it for whatever they want, they already do that with all the ohter taxes.
Rob another 150 billion from social security then later preach that social security is not funded and will fail. Maybe we should outlaw the robbing from social security and demand that the robbed funds should be returned.
Are you familiar with the old country phrase "Now ain't that stickin a fat hog in the ass?" . Translated, (for the purposes of this discussion) it means $150 billion dollars won't do crap to help. http://www.cbpp.org/researc...deral-tax-dollars-go
quote
Social Security: Last year, (2014) 24 percent of the budget, or $851 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided monthly retirement benefits averaging $1,329 to 39.0 million retired workers in December 2014. Social Security also provided benefits to 2.3 million spouses and children of retired workers, 6.1 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers, and 10.9 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2014.
$850B ÷ 12 months = $70.83B/month, so that $150B would only pay benefits to recepients for about 60 days or 2 months. You need to come up with a better plan.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-13-2015).]
Rob another 150 billion from social security then later preach that social security is not funded and will fail. Maybe we should outlaw the robbing from social security and demand that the robbed funds should be returned.
They didn't rob anything for s.s. They cooked the books,, all so they could be able to add new taxes for the last 30+ years.. can't push for new taxes and raising the ones on the books, if the national debt. isn't very big or at zero.. it might be news to some but 85% of that big # on the national debt clock.. is paper IOu's from one dept/fed agency to another.. and when the money is returned the IOU isn't pulled.. so the bouncing of funds from one agency/dept to another over the years has made a nice fictional national debt.. The biggest scam played on the tax payers.. The funneling of funds is so massive it take a team of a few hundred thousand working on researching it. and they know that.. it was planned..
for example.. if I opened 20 bank accounts( think of each of them as a dept or agency of the governemt) and took and bounced 50 million around that as the funds hit the account it was withdrawn to be deposited in another.. you could have 50 million and it look like you have zero.. sure with 20 accounts it be not hard to research them and figure out I do have 50 million.. but now do that on the federal government scale, every office, every dept, every agency, and their different sub dept's.. and multible accounts.. and you can make a ton of money look like it isn't there.. and then say we need to raise more tax dollars for the till..
$850B ÷ 12 months = $70.83B/month, so that $150B would only pay benefits to recepients for about 60 days or 2 months. You need to come up with a better plan.
It's not just the $150B. They've been raiding SS for years. Does anyone know the total amount stolen over the years?
It's not just the $150B. They've been raiding SS for years. Does anyone know the total amount stolen over the years?
There isn't an "account" where SS funds are kept for them to raid. By law all SS monies are invested in Treasuries, meaning the money all goes straight into the General Fund in exchange for an IOU to be paid later. The SS Trust Fund is a fund full of Treasuries, not cash.
Social Security benefits are paid from the reserves of the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) trust fund. The reserves are funded from dedicated tax revenues and interest on accumulated reserve holdings, which are invested in Treasury securities.
I have 20+ years before I'm eligible for social security. I, like may others, don't believe it will be there when I get to that age. That also makes me think that I'll likely be working until I drop dead.
Same! Worst thing is you get to pay into it, anyhow. (27 years, actually for me)
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 11-16-2015).]
It would happen a lot more often if people who know or strongly suspect abuse of the system, would just use the fraud and abuse hotline. http://oig.ssa.gov/report-f...raud-waste-and-abuse Most tho, just bury their heads in the sand turn a blind eye to it.
I think that some people who receive full SS disability should only be receiving a partial disability, if they can work the VA disability system that way there is no reason we can't do the same with the SS disability program. The SS disability rules say that to qualify a person must be unable to perform any job available in the national economy. That's a pretty strict qualification and I have to believe that a lot of people receiving SS disability now do not meet this criteria.
If they try enough doctors, they will eventually find one to help them get qualified, and if they get a good attorney, and file enough appeals, the SS or VA either one will eventually just get tired of declining them and approve their claim, whether valid or not. Once approved, all they have to worry about is someone turning them in, and not many will.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-16-2015).]
I think that some people who receive full SS disability should only be receiving a partial disability, if they can work the VA disability system that way there is no reason we can't do the same with the SS disability program. The SS disability rules say that to qualify a person must be unable to perform any job available in the national economy. That's a pretty strict qualification and I have to believe that a lot of people receiving SS disability now do not meet this criteria.
so, if the person can only do "a" type of a job, but there isn't any jobs they should be S.O.L.??? sure it should be that , like unemployment they are handed a list of jobs they could do, and try to get hired, and ss.disabilty suplament it if it doesn't pay much.. but if you are going to put restrictions on that, why not all of Social security!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As there are millions collecting a check that don't "need it" yet they still get a check.. s.s. should be an insurance plan, not an retirement plan, it should be you pay into it, and if you need help when retired to make ends meet, then you get it.. not like now, were a person with a bunch of rental income, a pension, and a nice nest egg, still pull a check every month.. it should be like welfare a safety net, there if you need it, but if you don't you don't use it.. way to many on it that should not be.. And the reality should be to set yourself up so you don't need it, but if the **** hits the fan you have that safety net.. I'm sorry, to many retired folks are gaming the system, yet cry about everyone else.. I can't feel bad for a retired person that complains about s.s. cost of living raise was to small, that is driving a new car.. has a vacation home, etc.. I'd have no problem supporting a bill that made social security a insurance plan that you paid into as a safety net, that you don't automaticly get.. and not a retirement plan.. Then maybe people might set them selves up to be retired, have the house paid off, money put aside, instead of, what me worry, I'll get a check ..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 11-17-2015).]
It would happen a lot more often if people who know or strongly suspect abuse of the system, would just use the fraud and abuse hotline. http://oig.ssa.gov/report-f...raud-waste-and-abuse Most tho, just bury their heads in the sand turn a blind eye to it.
so, if the person can only do "a" type of a job, but there isn't any jobs they should be S.O.L.??? sure it should be that , like unemployment they are handed a list of jobs they could do, and try to get hired, and ss.disabilty suplament it if it doesn't pay much.. but if you are going to put restrictions on that, why not all of Social security!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As there are millions collecting a check that don't "need it" yet they still get a check..
That, is because it was set up that way--it has nothing to do with "need", it has everything to do with the contributions one (and their employer) makes/made during their working lifetime.
quote
s.s. should be an insurance plan, not an retirement plan, it should be you pay into it, and if you need help when retired to make ends meet, then you get it.. not like now, were a person with a bunch of rental income, a pension, and a nice nest egg, still pull a check every month.. it should be like welfare a safety net, there if you need it, but if you don't you don't use it.. way to many on it that should not be.. And the reality should be to set yourself up so you don't need it, but if the **** hits the fan you have that safety net.. I'm sorry, to many retired folks are gaming the system, yet cry about everyone else.. I can't feel bad for a retired person that complains about s.s. cost of living raise was to small, that is driving a new car.. has a vacation home, etc.. I'd have no problem supporting a bill that made social security a insurance plan that you paid into as a safety net, that you don't automaticly get.. and not a retirement plan.. Then maybe people might set them selves up to be retired, have the house paid off, money put aside, instead of, what me worry, I'll get a check ..
Parent, to the child that won't eat his spinach because he doesn't like spinach: "The spinach just doesn't care whether you like it or not" They who retired more comfortably than others don't give a crap whether you or I or anyone else feels sorry for them or not. They are not gaming the system, they are using it exactly as it was intended to be used, exactly as it was set up to be used. Would you be ok if they set the cutoff for being able to draw benefits at $100 less than what you make? I bet not--you most likely would want that cutoff line to be at least a little higher than your own revenue stream. Guess what? Everyone else in the country wants a cutoff set somewhere above their revenue stream too. Which brings up the question of exactly who are you going to cut out of the contributions they made? At what level will it be set? And just who is it that gets to set this cutoff? I have no intention of filing for or drawing SS, but I also have no problem with anyone electing to receive the benefits from the contributions they paid in--regardless of how much $$ or assets they have. Warren Buffet can draw it if he has paid in to the system. I don't have a problem with it. I would hope that he would voluntarily forego it, but it is his choice and he shouldn't lose it just because he has been successful.
Now, if you want to turn the contribtion side of it into a tax, and turn the benefit side of it into an old age welfare project, I guess that could be done and the libs would love it, but that is not how it is set up on either end--it is set up as a retirement fund. I'm not much at all inclined to support the govt stealing other people's $$ and certainly don't covet other people's $$ or assets for myself.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-17-2015).]
Now, if you want to turn the contribtion side of it into a tax, and turn the benefit side of it into an old age welfare project, I guess that could be done and the libs would love it, but that is not how it is set up on either end--it is set up as a retirement fund. I'm not much at all inclined to support the govt stealing other people's $$ and certainly don't covet other people's $$ or assets for myself.
If and when funds run thin thats probably what will happen.
Now, if you want to turn the contribtion side of it into a tax, and turn the benefit side of it into an old age welfare project, I guess that could be done and the libs would love it, but that is not how it is set up on either end--it is set up as a retirement fund. I'm not much at all inclined to support the govt stealing other people's $$ and certainly don't covet other people's $$ or assets for myself.
it is a tax, you can not opp out of it,, they take it you have no say.. how do you see it not as a tax.. every other retirement plan or pension has to have a statement of the funds health,, other than s.s. it is a ponzy scam, and is a tax.. you don't have a choice, they take it out of your pay if you work legally, AGAIN it should be changed to a safety net insurance plan.. just like life insurance you don't get anything just because you paid into it. unless you need it.. if you add up what you "paid in" in your working life.. most would be out of funds in under 10 years after retirement.. most bark back at that, but forget what health insurance coverage cost for a 65y/o+ a month, between that and the check, the money paid in, is gone way before they are ash. AND you really think a generation that before the p.c. crap was called the "me" generation, would as a whole, forgo the s.s. if they didn't need it... hahahahahahahahhhaahhaha They showed their true colors as a group when a plan to fix s.s. that didn't affect them , they went ape **** .. "keep your hands off my s.s. " They didn't hear a frigg'n thing RYAN said..
if it's a retirement plan, let people chose if they want in or not.. but it's not a retirement plan, it's a TAX.. and that is why the funds go into the general government account,, not a separate social security account.. if it was a retirement plan, they should have an office that is doing nothing but wall street investing, so the fund makes money from money.. but it's not,, it's nothing more than a tax,,, and a way to get everyone 50 or above to sit back and let the fed government do as they please.. you think d.c. would be not burning if those retired or nearing it, didn't fear the checks stopping.. to make slaves that will not revolt,, you make them suck the government tit.. you can back that we paid into it, it's not a handout,, but they still own you(not you personally) as you won't rock the boat, as they sign the check... s.s. bill when it was first pushed as an idea, had zero to do about social security.. it was about making a large block of people compliant , giving those in d.c. security that no matter what they do, as long as that check keeps coming you'll never 1776 their @$$e$
Why, should it be changed to a "safety net" thing and people deprived of their contributions?
If most people are actually getting more out than what they and their employer put in, then it doesn't fit the definition of a ponzi scheme on the payout end. In ponzi, hardly anyone gets anything back and even fewer actually get full return of investment, much less make a positive return. Again--are you ok with the cutoff of the safety net being set just below what you are seeing in revenue stream?
Why, should it be changed to a "safety net" thing and people deprived of their contributions?
If most people are actually getting more out than what they and their employer put in, then it doesn't fit the definition of a ponzi scheme on the payout end. In ponzi, hardly anyone gets anything back and even fewer actually get full return of investment, much less make a positive return. Again--are you ok with the cutoff of the safety net being set just below what you are seeing in revenue stream?
yes it does, as my generation is paying your generations retirement as your generations dollars put toward the fund will not cover their full retirement years.. the retired generation worked when wages were very low so knowing what they take from my check, what a person making in the 50's-60's 70's 80's wasn't much going to that fund.. so if it averaged out to 10 bucks a week times 52 weeks 520.oo a year(I'd I'll bet I'm high on what they withheld) x 40 years is a whopping 20,800.oo .. wow,, even 50 years working a whole 26 grand went to retirement, they get that back in 2 years.. live to 85 where the other 18 years of checks/money coming from.. money only earns % when it sits, the feds spend more than they take in, so those dollars never made any %.. and no one can see why it needs to be changed.. never mind that there will be 3 retired people drawing on s.s. in 2020 for every one worker paying into it..
Originally posted by ls3mach: I'll tell you right now, my significant other can't work anymore and she got denied her claim. Cost me $6,000 to hire an attorney.
Its weird to me, some people who are legitimate have to fight for it, and others easily abuse it.
I have 20+ years before I'm eligible for social security. I, like may others, don't believe it will be there when I get to that age. That also makes me think that I'll likely be working until I drop dead.
Nothing there but 2.6 trillion in IOW bonds there now.
Originally posted by E.Furgal: yes it does, as my generation is paying your generations retirement as your generations dollars put toward the fund will not cover their full retirement years.. the retired generation worked when wages were very low so knowing what they take from my check, what a person making in the 50's-60's 70's 80's wasn't much going to that fund.. so if it averaged out to 10 bucks a week times 52 weeks 520.oo a year(I'd I'll bet I'm high on what they withheld) x 40 years is a whopping 20,800.oo .. wow,, even 50 years working a whole 26 grand went to retirement, they get that back in 2 years.. live to 85 where the other 18 years of checks/money coming from.. money only earns % when it sits, the feds spend more than they take in, so those dollars never made any %.. and no one can see why it needs to be changed.. never mind that there will be 3 retired people drawing on s.s. in 2020 for every one worker paying into it..
So you are saying your generation and my generation aren't getting their full return? That is not what you said in a previous post. Anywhere one invests, it is not his money alone that earns the return, it is the cumulative portfolios of same age, older and younger investor that cause the positve return to happen.
Now again I'll ask the 3 simple questions: Would you be ok if they set the cutoff for being able to draw benefits at $100 less than what you make? I bet not--you most likely would want that cutoff line to be at least a little higher than your own revenue stream. Guess what? Everyone else in the country wants a cutoff set somewhere above their revenue stream too. Which brings up the question of exactly who are you going to cut out of the contributions they made? At what level will it be set? And just who is it that gets to set this cutoff?
So you are saying your generation and my generation aren't getting their full return? That is not what you said in a previous post. Anywhere one invests, it is not his money alone that earns the return, it is the cumulative portfolios of same age, older and younger investor that cause the positve return to happen.
Now again I'll ask the 3 simple questions: Would you be ok if they set the cutoff for being able to draw benefits at $100 less than what you make? I bet not--you most likely would want that cutoff line to be at least a little higher than your own revenue stream. Guess what? Everyone else in the country wants a cutoff set somewhere above their revenue stream too. Which brings up the question of exactly who are you going to cut out of the contributions they made? At what level will it be set? And just who is it that gets to set this cutoff?
oh your generation is getting 20x return.. if not more.. what most forget is, the money(tax) withheld wasn't put in to buying bonds or investments that make that money, make more money.. and why it was nothing more than an easy money grab.. and a tax.. AGAIN any retirement plan has to provide a statement of the funds health.. s.s. doesn't as it's not a retirement plan, it's a tax.. and it's a ponzy scam,, the first payers into it, money never was put aside for their retirement,, when they retired the generations still working paid the taxes that paid those retired,, and on it goes. They sold it as a great thing, a retirement security, you'll get money.. but it was just a money grab tax.. as many never make it to collect we just saw a rerun of this movie with the ACA Obama care sold as low cost health care coverage.. and it was nothing more than a huge money grab ,, TAX
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 11-18-2015).]
Might be slightly off topic but- All these socialist things, especially when run by the gov are able to be held over our heads to cooerce and make us subservient. They know it will work, we become dependent. They just have to eliminate the other choices, or when a market crash means no one has a nestegg anywhere else. Just wait it'll probably be selectively denied in the furture, used as a tool to punish tendencies the fed doesnt like. Compare and add it also to healthcare, which will undoubtedly be single payer, fed payer before long.
So you don't like money grabs? (not that I think you will actually answer that (or any other) question)
not when it is the government, If you would please show me how uncle sam took the money withheld for s.s. and used it to make more money so 40 years later when a person retires, there is more than 26 grand . they didn't buy investments with it, they didn't buy bonds with it.. They spent it, hoping that the number that pulls checks is much lower than the # paying in at any given time.. but with 47% not earning income.. the number paying in is tons less than the number pulling a check..
Want to have a national retirement plan that they tax your income for, fine, show how you are going to make those funds earn % (make money) and have it's own account for the funds and investments to be in, not a general fund that can be used for everything.. Everyone will complain about a pensions unfunded liabilities, or under funded.. but if they ever looked at social securities un funded liabilities, you'd have a cow.. if you had an option to opp out, or not and they had to make avail a yearly report on the "fund" like every other retirement plan/fund/ mutual fund/etc.. it be more believable that it was a retirement fund and not a money grabbing tax.. ever wonder way the limit how much you can personally invest yearly into retirement funds, ?? they want a large block of people to have to rely on a government check.. why do they limit the amount you put toward your retirement at set dollar amounts, ? not a % of your income.. iirc ira's it's 5.5k (6500 if 50+) no matter if you make 15k a year or 200k same with 401k's.. I get it that they don't want to allow people to put almost all income in tax deferred retirement accounts, but it should be an % of your income not a set dollar amount.. I know many wives that work mothers hours and put 5.5k in a ira out of a 16k income, and pay zero taxes.. and why it should be a % of your income not a set amount.. a neighbor's wife makes 25k 5.5k into a ira , and the max into a 401k(18k).. taxable income 1500.oo with the personal exemption, what ever she paid into fica,s.s.,etc she'll get back..
and no one understood what Romney ment when he said he wasn't worrying about 47% of the people that are not paying taxes..
