Can someone please explain social security to me?

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
maybe they should tax incomes above $106,000, instead of stopping at that limit, to shore up the trust fund.

Sounds like a fine idea to me.

:thumbsup:

If SS is supposed to be a safety net that you pay into, why stop at a certain income? As the Madoff scandal proved, you can still lose your shirt no matter how much you have...and you will still have SS to keep you from being too destitute in your old age...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
We get through this recession and it will be time for a Lockbox.

i still have no idea how a social security lockbox would really work. social security has to buy government bonds. it has always bought government bonds. so social security is really the government owing itself money. you can't lock it away from congress. the only thing congress can do with the money when they get it after congress sells the bond is to spend it (either on projects or reducing other debt) or give it back to tax payers. they can't stuff it in the mattress in the lincoln bedroom. they don't put it in orange savings accounts. they don't buy muni bonds or corporate bonds or stocks or gold or pork bellies. the only way congress could do it is if social security stops buying public debt. and good luck doing that.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hacp
SS is basically there to support the old people. While it has some merit, it is very wasteful. The old grandmpas and grandmas should live with their children before asking for government handouts. We could drastically reduce SS taxes if we enforced this rule.

What... I don't want no more kids in my house... I raised them and one of them's kids (3) I'll be damed if they are moving back in here... no way...

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
First, how does this sound like a good idea? Obviously back in the 1930's it seemed like a good idea at the time, enough for people to pass it...

It wasn't a good idea then either. It was a bad idea, and the people who concocted it knew it, that's why Congress exempted itself from the program and gave themselves "real" retirement income.

Hell, the states knew it was bogus too and used the "You can't tax states" argument to bail as quickly as possible.

ss isn't a retirement program

 

[ccbadd]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
First, how does this sound like a good idea? Obviously back in the 1930's it seemed like a good idea at the time, enough for people to pass it...

It wasn't a good idea then either. It was a bad idea, and the people who concocted it knew it, that's why Congress exempted itself from the program and gave themselves "real" retirement income.

Hell, the states knew it was bogus too and used the "You can't tax states" argument to bail as quickly as possible.

ss isn't a retirement program

It was sold to the American people as such.

Why can't we all just admit that it should have been a trust fund and never spent?

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme on steroids. As long as there are continue to be enough workers paying into the system, it works. If a time comes there are not enough paying in to cover those receiving, we'll be in a lot of pain.

It's a pyramid scheme.

it annoys me to no end when I hear people spout ignorance like that. Yes, Social security involves paying recipients (retirees) money gained from individuals (workers). HOWEVER, the difference is that Ponzi schemes/pyramid schemes involve an element of FRAUD to it. Furthermore, pyramid scheme participants purportedly get a scaling benefit due to the number of connections (direct and indirect) they make.

Madoff's investments were a ponzi scheme because of his claim that his investment returns were due to his investment acumen and not because he was 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.

In contrast, social security IS what it purports to be; a government-backed social welfare and social insurance program for individuals who meet certain requirements.

 

[ccbadd]

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme on steroids. As long as there are continue to be enough workers paying into the system, it works. If a time comes there are not enough paying in to cover those receiving, we'll be in a lot of pain.

It's a pyramid scheme.

it annoys me to no end when I hear people spout ignorance like that. Yes, Social security involves paying recipients (retirees) money gained from individuals (workers). HOWEVER, the difference is that Ponzi schemes/pyramid schemes involve an element of FRAUD to it. Furthermore, pyramid scheme participants purportedly get a scaling benefit due to the number of connections (direct and indirect) they make.

Madoff's investments were a ponzi scheme because of his claim that his investment returns were due to his investment acumen and not because he was 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.

In contrast, social security IS what it purports to be; a government-backed social welfare and social insurance program for individuals who meet certain requirements.

What were the requirements when the people agreed to the withholding and what were the promises? You are correct in that it is not a ponzi scheme, but what is it? Defend it if you want, but it is theft from current workers who will never see benefits from their government retirement plan.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Hacp
SS is basically there to support the old people. While it has some merit, it is very wasteful. The old grandmpas and grandmas should live with their children before asking for government handouts. We could drastically reduce SS taxes if we enforced this rule.

What would you suggest we do with this Dead weight

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Can someone please explain social security to me?

Nothing easier - its purpose is to take money from younger folks so that politicians can buy the votes of older folks.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme on steroids. As long as there are continue to be enough workers paying into the system, it works. If a time comes there are not enough paying in to cover those receiving, we'll be in a lot of pain.

It's a pyramid scheme.

it annoys me to no end when I hear people spout ignorance like that. Yes, Social security involves paying recipients (retirees) money gained from individuals (workers). HOWEVER, the difference is that Ponzi schemes/pyramid schemes involve an element of FRAUD to it. Furthermore, pyramid scheme participants purportedly get a scaling benefit due to the number of connections (direct and indirect) they make.

Madoff's investments were a ponzi scheme because of his claim that his investment returns were due to his investment acumen and not because he was 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.

In contrast, social security IS what it purports to be; a government-backed social welfare and social insurance program for individuals who meet certain requirements.

Your argument is that it is not a ponzi scheme because the government does it is laughable.

You're in the technical sense that there is no fraud simple because everyone knows that the government is stealing their money.

 

[IcePickFreak]

Guys, the government has told us not to rely on social security a few years ago and that we should invest in a 401k. Of course the floor fell out on those as well, so please stand-bye while they come up with another schem.. err plan.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Hacp
SS is basically there to support the old people. While it has some merit, it is very wasteful. The old grandmpas and grandmas should live with their children before asking for government handouts. We could drastically reduce SS taxes if we enforced this rule.

What would you suggest we do with this Dead weight

define disability, cause 1 in 5 of the people i know (hell, people i've met) aren't disabled...to my knowledge.

Originally posted by: IcePickFreak
Guys, the government has told us not to rely on social security a few years ago and that we should invest in a 401k. Of course the floor fell out on those as well, so please stand-bye while they come up with another schem.. err plan.

investing wisely in the market probably isn't a bad idea for money growth over long periods of time, because making a million FDIC insured accounts, while guaranteeing you safe money growth, will limit the potential of your money. just depends on how much risk you want to take

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ccbadd


What were the requirements when the people agreed to the withholding and what were the promises? You are correct in that it is not a ponzi scheme, but what is it? Defend it if you want, but it is theft from current workers who will never see benefits from their government retirement plan.

I'm 22 and i see no reason why i won't collect SS. How exactly is it that i am being robbed?

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme on steroids. As long as there are continue to be enough workers paying into the system, it works. If a time comes there are not enough paying in to cover those receiving, we'll be in a lot of pain.

It's a pyramid scheme.

it annoys me to no end when I hear people spout ignorance like that. Yes, Social security involves paying recipients (retirees) money gained from individuals (workers). HOWEVER, the difference is that Ponzi schemes/pyramid schemes involve an element of FRAUD to it. Furthermore, pyramid scheme participants purportedly get a scaling benefit due to the number of connections (direct and indirect) they make.

Madoff's investments were a ponzi scheme because of his claim that his investment returns were due to his investment acumen and not because he was 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.

In contrast, social security IS what it purports to be; a government-backed social welfare and social insurance program for individuals who meet certain requirements.

Your argument is that it is not a ponzi scheme because the government does it is laughable.

You're in the technical sense that there is no fraud simple because everyone knows that the government is stealing their money.

its not a ponzi scheme because its not a ponzi scheme, is that better?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

The only problem with SS is that in 1983 Reagan opened the door to the SS trust fund vault and let the goverment start borrowing to cover dificiet spending. Up until 83 SS ran huge surpluses.

And the 2.5 trillion that the government owes the SS trust fund doesn't include the interest that it should have made if properly invested. Just imagine the interest that could have been made if the funds had been invested for the last 26yrs instead of being pilfered by irresopnible polititions to fund their addiction of spending more than they had.

This criminal activity by our elected officials not only stole money from our children and grandchildren, but it has created a political machine that views deficiet spending as normal and proper. They are addicted like crackheads to spending money of future generations and don't see anything wrong with it and will fight to protect their right to steal.

The only mistake that was made by the inventors of SS was thinking that government elected officials could be trusted as stewards of the SS trust fund.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme on steroids. As long as there are continue to be enough workers paying into the system, it works. If a time comes there are not enough paying in to cover those receiving, we'll be in a lot of pain.

It's a pyramid scheme.

it annoys me to no end when I hear people spout ignorance like that. Yes, Social security involves paying recipients (retirees) money gained from individuals (workers). HOWEVER, the difference is that Ponzi schemes/pyramid schemes involve an element of FRAUD to it. Furthermore, pyramid scheme participants purportedly get a scaling benefit due to the number of connections (direct and indirect) they make.

Madoff's investments were a ponzi scheme because of his claim that his investment returns were due to his investment acumen and not because he was 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.

In contrast, social security IS what it purports to be; a government-backed social welfare and social insurance program for individuals who meet certain requirements.

Your argument is that it is not a ponzi scheme because the government does it is laughable.

You're in the technical sense that there is no fraud simple because everyone knows that the government is stealing their money.

No I did NOT say that the govt's actions constitutes legitimacy. THAT interpretation is indeed laughable. I merely said that there is no fraud insofar as people knowing the source of the money and where it goes to.

You're entitled to your opinion that the govt is 'stealing money', but the fact is that it's legal and accepted practice for the govt. to levy taxes on businesses/employers which go into a fund for social security (I'm simplifying it even though IOUs are involved).

What were the requirements when the people agreed to the withholding and what were the promises? You are correct in that it is not a ponzi scheme, but what is it? Defend it if you want, but it is theft from current workers who will never see benefits from their government retirement plan.

When SS was created it was law having gone thru the legislative process and signed into law from duly elected politicians. As for the people who weren't around when SS was created: tacit consent.

It's not theft insofar as nothing criminal has occurred, just demographic changes and as a result the payer : Payee ratio has shrunk. Instead of 4 worker payers to 1 retiree it's gone down to 2 payers to retirees iirc.

 

[sandorski]

Life Expectancy might be part of the problem, but the biggest problem is the Baby Boom generation. It is a Population Bubble that makes the SS system have severe problems it otherwise wouldn't have. This has been a widely known problem since the 80's and no one did anything to address it except Clinton/Gore. Clinton Balanced the Budget to deliver Surpluses, Gore was going to Save those Surpluses. Bush went and gave it all away on Tax Cuts.

Now I'm sure some are going to roll their eyes, but that's what happened like it or not.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: JS80
We work to pay current retirees and when we are 65 there aren't enough 22 year olds to pay us so we basically get fucked. It's effectively an extra 7% tax on workers that will never see the benefit.

You are not very good at actuarial stuff, are you?

Social Security is an easy fix. Good to see you play the Fear Card, too.

I'm in finance I am fully aware of the math involved. The problem is that it's not an easy fix because it's a political issue. Good luck trying to reduce the benefits to adjust for the actuarial miscalculations. It's political suicide and will never happen until the trust runs out of money. And in the meantime the people paying in now will get fucked in the future, and the people receiving benefits now are enjoying inflated pay outs.

U are the greatest part of the problem, and the insurance industry.......ohhhh and lets never forget corporate lobbyists who tool the political systems.
U produce fuck all in the real sense, but your swarmy words of shit..... keep coming.
You all live off the bridges of civility built by your predecessors and such little respect you have for their sacrifice, but what does one expect from the biggest war profiteering nation this world has ever know!
Some days I wish the krauts had of won. But they allied with the japs.
Shame on you all, who think such self-center things, Shame on me for thinking fascists are an answer to your line of thought.
You want real reform- make all insurance public/state owned, make the Sx state owned and have a state owned bank verbatim! then you will have your equal opportunity! and a reasonable tax rate.
At 22 your looking for all gain no pain. Like how your been supported by your maw n paw!

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: JS80
We work to pay current retirees and when we are 65 there aren't enough 22 year olds to pay us so we basically get fucked. It's effectively an extra 7% tax on workers that will never see the benefit.

You are not very good at actuarial stuff, are you?

Social Security is an easy fix. Good to see you play the Fear Card, too.

I'm in finance I am fully aware of the math involved. The problem is that it's not an easy fix because it's a political issue. Good luck trying to reduce the benefits to adjust for the actuarial miscalculations. It's political suicide and will never happen until the trust runs out of money. And in the meantime the people paying in now will get fucked in the future, and the people receiving benefits now are enjoying inflated pay outs.

by the way social heathen it's maths.
not MATH!
but' keep the old world entertained while you can afford the credit.

 

[gingermeggs]

obama, isn't nuthin like paul robeson!
He has the dirty white capitalist gene(WASP), from the deep south!
C'mon you really yankies!
The world loves ya's! all mongrels like us!

 

[gingermeggs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gtJkeXAMt0

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Topic Title: Can someone please explain social security to me?

It's just another Federal tax/entitlement program -- a.k.a. "Welfare for old people"

1. The Federal Goverment takes your money under the guise of helping you pay into your own retirement plan.
2. They then give some of your money to the older retired people who have had their money taken from them for several decades.
3. They use the rest of your money to pay for pet projects and other fun-filled spending that they couldn't properly budget for otherwise.
4. 20-40 years from now, when you are ready to retire, the program may no longer be around, so you may never see a dime of the money you paid into the program in the form of a monthly check; or, they could continue to raise the taxes for SS every few years to compensate for their irresponsible use of your money.

That's Social Security. It's just another tax, plain and simple. If the Government wanted to be honest about it, they'd simply add it to everyone's annual Federal income tax rates and be done with it -- across the board, including the poor (Can you say "political shitstorm"?). Then, when you retire, by adding up your total lifelong wages listed on every tax return, they could easily compute the amount you should receive in the mail from their "Welfare for Old People Entitlement Program."

/thread

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Topic Title: Can someone please explain social security to me?

It's just another Federal tax/entitlement program -- a.k.a. "Welfare for old people"

1. The Federal Goverment takes your money under the guise of helping you pay into your own retirement plan.
2. They then give some of your money to the older retired people who have had their money taken from them for several decades.
3. They use the rest of your money to pay for pet projects and other fun-filled spending that they couldn't properly budget for otherwise.
4. 20-40 years from now, when you are ready to retire, the program may no longer be around, so you may never see a dime of the money you paid into the program in the form of a monthly check; or, they could continue to raise the taxes for SS every few years to compensate for their irresponsible use of your money.

That's Social Security. It's just another tax, plain and simple. If the Government wanted to be honest about it, they'd simply add it to everyone's annual Federal income tax rates and be done with it -- across the board, including the poor (Can you say "political shitstorm"?). Then, when you retire, by adding up your total lifelong wages listed on every tax return, they could easily compute the amount you should receive in the mail from their "Welfare for Old People Entitlement Program."

/thread

Or we could spend more trillions on cleaner more friendly nukes, huh?

 

[Druidx]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Social security uses funds from current workers to pay off current retirees who are owed money. In principle it sounds basically like a pyramid scheme. Use money from current investors (current working force) to pay off previous ones (retirees). Everything is nice until you can't find anymore investors (tax revenue not sufficient). Then you're screwed.

Hyperbole. Social Security is a PAYGO system, not a pyramid scheme. You can view the differences as well as an in-depth conversation here.

You should go back an take a 2nd look at your link showing how its a "PayGo" system an not a pyramid scheme. While I agree it's not a ponzi or pyramid scheme because there is no intentional fraud involved, it sure as hell doesn't resemble their description of a Paygo system.
"So we could image that at any given time there might be, say, 40 million people receiving benefits at the back end of the pipeline; and as long as we had 40 million people paying taxes in the front end of the pipe. (There does not have to be precisely the same number of workers and beneficiaries at a given time--there just needs to be a fairly stable relationship between the two.)"
Sorry but that dos NOT describe the SS system. They make it sound like the same money going in is coming out, it's not even close. Which is why they've had to raise the SS tax multiple times.
When SS was 1st past, it said the most we would EVER pay is 3% up to $3,000 a year. After adjusting for infllation we currently pay 7 times more than the oringal max level.
http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
The only problem with SS is that in 1983 Reagan opened the door to the SS trust fund vault and let the goverment start borrowing to cover dificiet spending. Up until 83 SS ran huge surpluses.

If you have something to back that claim up I would love to hear it.

SS was already in trouble prior to Reagen becoming President. Which is why in 1977 they increased both the SS tax rates and ceiling. I didn't realize Reagen was president in 1977
Maybe you're talking about the SS Amendments of 1983. If so, it passed with overwhelming Democratic support
http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally1983.html

Everyone has know for a long time that SS is unsustainable without a major overhaul. I agree Bush's idea stupid but it's just as idiotic as everyone suddenly acting like SS is financially sound.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Social security uses funds from current workers to pay off current retirees who are owed money. In principle it sounds basically like a pyramid scheme. Use money from current investors (current working force) to pay off previous ones (retirees). Everything is nice until you can't find anymore investors (tax revenue not sufficient). Then you're screwed.

Hyperbole. Social Security is a PAYGO system, not a pyramid scheme. You can view the differences as well as an in-depth conversation here.

SS is definitely NOT a PayGo system. Their definition most certainly does not describe SS in a realistic fashion at all. SS definitely does fit the description of a Ponzi scheme. The difference is that in SS, the investors eventually dies so the number of investors doesn't keep climbing expenencially. Also, when they die they typically don't get their original investment back. This is why SS is unsustainable. Our population keeps growing and people keep living longer. The "Ponziness" of SS is creeping out.

I don't care if you agree that it's a Ponzi scheme or not. But you can't deny that if a private company were to do anything like this, it would definitely be fraud.

 

[Tequila]

Originally posted by: IcePickFreak
Guys, the government has told us not to rely on social security a few years ago and that we should invest in a 401k. Of course the floor fell out on those as well, so please stand-bye while they come up with another schem.. err plan.

Um..my 401k has done very well over the years, thank you. Anyone short-sighted like you definitely should not be investing, but for those of use who take responsibility in our lives we won't have to rely on SS. That doesn't mean I'm against it but I laugh when I see people like you panic over 401k because the market got hit hard. I'm sure the same people with your short-sighted view panicked and stopped contributing to their 401k plan while the markets have recovered 50%.

In fact, the best thing that ever happened to me was when I was laid off in 2000 and rolled that 401k into a rollover-IRA where I was able to manage all the money myself. My current company 401k has done pretty well but not as good as my rollover.

Like I said, there is nothing wrong with SS but you definitely should not rely on it.