Quantcast

SOCIAL SECURITY - NOW CALLED- FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENT ENTITLEMENT!

Yo'Adrienne..AFCL 2012/08/26 14:57:48
Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment"?

The government is now referring to our Social Security checks 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 – Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going, for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it.

Here’s a novel idea:
* Get out of the countries who don’t want us there. * Bring our soldiers home and invest some of the $700B+ in giving them new careers building roads and parks, teaching our children, creating new technologies, discovering cures for illness.

Then take the rest and begin to pay back Social Security, and call it what it is:
Our Earned Retirement Income.


ROMNEY/RYAN in NOVEMBER!
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • JohnT 2012/08/26 16:37:06
    JohnT
    +3
    When I pay into something for 50 years I don't care what you call it you better either send it monthly or just send it all back to me, and I will invest it.
    I love their new wording we pay into these programs and now they are a entitlement. Typical dumb ass government.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Joe The Economist 2012/08/28 16:03:39 (edited)
    Joe The Economist
    This is all internet spam. You really shouldn't believe every email that comes to you. Why people can't think is beyond me :

    These are the problems in just the first paragraph...

    First, it uses the wrong rate : Social Security is 10.6% not 15%. Disability is 1.8% and HI is 2.9%.

    Second, Social Security has been 10.6% for about 20 years not 40. In 1965 it was 4.8%, less if you were self employed. Beyond being the wrong rate, there is a cap. In 1965, it was about $4,800.

    Third, the numbers are not inflation adjusted. $30,000 in 1965 was roughly $210,000 today. So we aren't dealing with an average American.

    I am not saying that it is a good deal, just that this spam is mind-numbingly silly. Please don't forward junk mail.
  • Rhonda Joe The... 2012/11/19 19:35:11
    Rhonda
    +12
    Hi joe the economist, you must be on the government payroll, i mean dole. You are the person out of touch with hard working americans. Or you belive in the easter bunny...
  • Joe The... Rhonda 2012/11/19 19:48:26
    Joe The Economist
    Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. Do you actually have any facts to go with the blah, blah,blah...
  • Rhonda Rhonda 2012/11/19 20:05:08
    Rhonda
    +7
    Joe the economit didn't like my post. He is so intellegent...yes...couldnt even post my comment about the Federal Reserve is a private institution. He is definitately a government talking head to convince us "stupid americans". Now prove what you have to say. You do not have to go to the internet to read about the Federal Reserve Joe!
  • Yo'Adri... Rhonda 2012/11/19 20:07:12
  • DuncanONeil 2012/08/27 01:17:51
    DuncanONeil
    Sorry, but it is a benefit. For it to be an account that you have paid into it has to have your name attached. In my case after I applied they simply said I was going to get less then they promised because of who I worked for. Does that sound like how something you paid for is going to work?
  • sonofason 2012/08/26 18:05:48
  • Yo'Adri... sonofason 2012/08/27 01:06:32
    Yo'Adrienne..AFCL
    +1
    The new administration will be prepared to work it out.
  • sonofason Yo'Adri... 2012/08/27 01:07:57
  • sonofason Yo'Adri... 2012/08/27 01:10:30
  • Joe The... sonofason 2012/08/28 16:09:46
    Joe The Economist
    +1
    @son, The money was given to your parents. More than 85% of the money collected and earned has been used to pay benefits to people who didn't pay the full cost of the system. These people didn't pay 12.4%.

    In 1960, the average couple expected to collect $7 of benefits for every $1 of contribution. And you are surprised that it is insolvent?
  • sonofason Joe The... 2012/08/28 21:13:13
  • Joe The... sonofason 2012/08/28 23:03:37
    Joe The Economist
    +1
    Honestly the problem isn't you. The problem is probably your parent's benefits that will be cut. It may not be true for you, but a lot of GenXers are in for a nasty surprise.

    Nine most frightening words in the English language : I'm your mother-in-law, I need a place to live.
  • sonofason Joe The... 2012/08/28 23:10:10
  • Joe The... sonofason 2012/08/28 23:56:37
    Joe The Economist
    +1
    The thing we learned in 2008 is the connectivity of the economy. Whether you are alone or not, you will feel that domino fall. For example, housing will get killed as retirees are forced to sell to generate savings on which to live.

    Check our our site www.FixSSNow.Org and our FB community "Fix Social Security Now". Feel free to ask questions.
  • sonofason Joe The... 2012/08/29 00:04:16
  • Joe The... sonofason 2012/08/29 00:21:41
    Joe The Economist
    +1
    You will be affected if only by having homeless aged people sleeping on your yard. Your house will lose value. Jobs will probably be negatively affected by decreased aggregate demand. Your drinking buddies will cancel poker night because their mother-in-law at home doesn't want them to come home late.

    The financial crisis started because banks took on trillions of dollars of risk with no capital. It starts with a bad loan in Kansas but it affected car sales in GA. Social Security is a bigger domino. All told I don't want my kids to have to live through it. When they ask, I will be able to say that I at least tried.
  • sonofason Joe The... 2012/08/29 00:30:56
  • Rhonda sonofason 2012/11/19 19:55:30
    Rhonda
    +10
    Did you know the Federal Reserve is not a government agency? They loan America money with a large interest and are owned by the wealthiest of people around the world!! Sick...our governtment works for their own interests, not us, the minions that allow them to live better than us. It feels like a movie about midevil castles with the poor, living outside the castle walls, supported their king and lived like paupers.
  • Yo'Adri... Rhonda 2012/11/19 20:11:09
    Yo'Adrienne..AFCL
    +1
    AS I have said many many times......It's as FEDERAL
    as FEDERAL EXPRESS.
  • sonofason Rhonda 2012/11/19 22:34:44
  • sonofason Joe The... 2012/08/29 00:37:01
  • Yo'Adri... sonofason 2012/11/19 20:09:35
    Yo'Adrienne..AFCL
    Led by the Number ONE CHICAGO THUG of all time.!
  • Joe The... Yo'Adri... 2012/08/28 16:07:40
    Joe The Economist
    I am confused. Whoever wins in November has already said that they have no plan. Romney is for increasing retirement age. And it is unclear what Obama is for.

    DC isn't trying to fix Social Security. It is trying to convince someone to pay for it. The worst of this is telling younger people that they are living too long. Which do you think has grown faster? Life Expectancy or the costs of Social Security.
  • Yo'Adri... Yo'Adri... 2012/11/19 20:08:56
    Yo'Adrienne..AFCL
    It's ashame what POTUS inherited from the last 4 years.....OH NO.......that was HIM!!!!!!! It s all Obama s fault
  • Joe The... sonofason 2012/08/28 16:05:37
    Joe The Economist
    +1
    Reform is cheaper and easier than jail. Visit www.FixSSNow.Org. Stop complaining and start organizing...
  • Rhonda sonofason 2012/11/19 19:32:08
    Rhonda
    +5
    If only people weren't such sheep and so complacent they would wake up and join forces to force our corrupt, yes "corrupt" government to the will of the people not their elaborate life styles that MOST of us could never live like! !ny ideas to turn people around, we DO need to STOP paying taxes, not half the population, but at leaxt 75% of americans. The government would have to listen or lose their "out of real life" lives and live like MOST americans. Rhonda_619@yahoo.com. I believe the government is slowly dumbing us down and most people just can't fathom the fact that they are being fleeced. UGH
  • Joe The... Rhonda 2012/11/19 19:51:12
    Joe The Economist
    What are you doing? I will repeat reform is cheaper and easier than jail. Visit www.FixSSNow.Org. Stop complaining and start organizing...
  • fisherman 2012/08/26 17:13:57
  • Joe The... fisherman 2012/08/28 16:15:34
    Joe The Economist
    You had a vote. The problem we have today comes from the vote you had in 1983. At that time Social Security was insolvent. Congress decided to preserve benefits for retirees who hadn't paid a fraction of the real cost, and pushed the cost onto future generations. The problem is that we can't push the cost out further and the current workers really aren't in a position to pay for the deal that you made with yourself. If the deal from 1983 doesn't hold-up, it isn't the fault of the workers today.
  • fisherman Joe The... 2012/08/28 17:42:48
    fisherman
    +1
    do you just make this stuff up as you go along ...i paid into that monstrosity for well over thirty years and if drop dead right now who gets the money ? certainly not Mrs.Fish ! now multiply that by god knows how many workers that didnt live long enough to collect . what do have ...a boat load of money . so if the SS fund is insolvent or ever was you have to blame the jagoffs in charge of watching the " lockbox ". did you ever open a saving account and three years later you want to make a withdrawal and get told no , your acct was insolvent ? or you cant have your money until you reach an age that is five years past the normal life span of human beings . you wouldnt tolerate that from a bank and you sure as hell dont have to put up with it from the government ...but they are bigger than you and i and we can pound sand .
  • Joe The... fisherman 2012/08/28 22:49:59
    Joe The Economist
    Actually it is mostly the people who claim that they paid in who make it up.

    Fact : Social Security was insolvent in 1983.

    It reached that state because Congress through the 1940s and 1950s and into the 1960s used Social Security as a campaign re-election fund promising dollars of benefits for dimes. This is how Social Security started to build its shortfall.

    Congress didn't steal our money our parents and grandparents did. They knew it too, and voted for Congresses that shoveled benefits on them. According to the Urban Institute, the AVERAGE couple who retireed in 1960 expected to collect $7 of benefits for every dollar contributed.

    In 1983, the government could have told those who hadn't paid that they could collect only to the extent that money was there. Instead we agreed to increase tax rates, which fell primarily on non-voters. The people who have been hit the hardest is the gen-X crowd who started work inthe 1990s at peak rates. Those people didn't even have a vote.

    In 1983 Social Security contained 40 years of promises, and not a penny to pay them. That is where the problem is. Of your 'monstrosity" about a dime per dollar actually went to savings. That is what you paid for.

    The only people who ever describe Social Security as a savings account were people my p...

    Actually it is mostly the people who claim that they paid in who make it up.

    Fact : Social Security was insolvent in 1983.

    It reached that state because Congress through the 1940s and 1950s and into the 1960s used Social Security as a campaign re-election fund promising dollars of benefits for dimes. This is how Social Security started to build its shortfall.

    Congress didn't steal our money our parents and grandparents did. They knew it too, and voted for Congresses that shoveled benefits on them. According to the Urban Institute, the AVERAGE couple who retireed in 1960 expected to collect $7 of benefits for every dollar contributed.

    In 1983, the government could have told those who hadn't paid that they could collect only to the extent that money was there. Instead we agreed to increase tax rates, which fell primarily on non-voters. The people who have been hit the hardest is the gen-X crowd who started work inthe 1990s at peak rates. Those people didn't even have a vote.

    In 1983 Social Security contained 40 years of promises, and not a penny to pay them. That is where the problem is. Of your 'monstrosity" about a dime per dollar actually went to savings. That is what you paid for.

    The only people who ever describe Social Security as a savings account were people my parents age. Your parents may have raised you to believe it, but no one in the government ever said that was the case. They flat out told you we are kiting checks. The facts that you thought of that as safe isn't the fault of workers today.

    You will get much more out of the system than workers today. If you think it failed you wait until you are 80 when it fails in total.
    (more)
  • fisherman Joe The... 2012/08/29 17:59:00
    fisherman
    +1
    still havnt answered the question matey , if you pay in all your working life , and i do the same and we both die two days before we are 65 ....WHERES THAT MONEY GONE ? in my family alone there was 3 members that paid in and died before they could collect . BTW aint planning on living till 80 .in the sixties i could pay my SS "obligation" by august or in a bad year september ...now in the fullness of time i would have to rob a bank to pay it up .
  • Joe The... fisherman 2012/08/29 20:25:43
    Joe The Economist
    You have answered your own question.

    In the sixties you didn't pay the full cost of the benefits you were promised. It was Congresses way of buying votes. They promised you benefits and suppressed the cost so that you wouldn't vote them out of office.

    Where did the money go? Are you kidding me. Let me quote : "According to the Urban Institute, the AVERAGE couple who retireed in 1960 expected to collect $7 of benefits for every dollar contributed." That expectation included people who got zero because they died early. Did you seriously think that your $250 a year contribution in 1965 was going to pay for the $12,000 per year that you now collect?

    Congress knew that people would die without collecting and used that to drive the cost down for everyone. Congress gave you dollars of benefits for dimes of cost. At the time, it was well known that this would have consequences for the system. It was known in 1944 when Congress started to use Social Security as a re-election tool.
  • fisherman Joe The... 2012/08/30 02:14:35
    fisherman
    well , you were starting to make your point until the last statement ...congress driving down the cost for everyone . what congress was that , the one on the planet vulcan ?
  • Joe The... fisherman 2012/08/30 14:01:48
    Joe The Economist
    I wasn't clear - it held costs down for voters and pushed those costs onto non-voters.

    Originally, Social Security was suppose to have 6% payroll taxes phased-in over 12 years.

    In 1939(?), Congress added survivor benefits but didn't change the price.
    In 1942, Congress waived the 1% increase cost (again in 1945 and 1948)
    In 1944, Congress is told that benefits will now cost closer to 7% of wages
    In the 1950s, Congress raised benefits every election year.

    So you see that Congress is holding down costs on voters, and just giving away benefits.

    Here is why. Payroll taxes are counted as revenue. The cost of the promises made to take that money was zero. Costs aren't recognized until the check is written say 45 years later. Magically, 45 years later in 1983 Social Security hits insolvency.
  • JohnT 2012/08/26 16:37:06
    JohnT
    +3
    When I pay into something for 50 years I don't care what you call it you better either send it monthly or just send it all back to me, and I will invest it.
    I love their new wording we pay into these programs and now they are a entitlement. Typical dumb ass government.
  • Yo'Adri... JohnT 2012/08/26 19:28:43
    Yo'Adrienne..AFCL
    +1
    GOT THAT RIGHT!
  • frank 2012/08/26 16:18:40
    frank
    +3
    You pay into it all those years and now the government is going to call it a Benefit or an entitlement, well, your dam right you are entitled to it.
  • Ken 2012/08/26 16:13:22
    Ken
    +2
    Insanity or common sense? It's time to make a common sense choice.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/07/30 17:16:59

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals