Posted: 4/17/2005 7:43:19 PM EDT
|
What gives the Goverment the power to run social security? I don't plan on needing it when I am old but I sure as hell would like the money now. I know congress has the power to tax but SS isn't really a tax. I need them to hold onto my money for me, talk about big brother. bottom line is I want my Fucking money back. |
|
When President Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933, social security was far from a radical—or even novel—concept. Social security-like government programs had already been around for two millennia. Philosopher and bureaucrat Confucius, who lived from 551 to 479 BCE , wrote that the Chinese empire of his time provided “regular allowances” to orphans, widows and widowers, and “old men without sons.” [5] Imperial Germany began the first modern social insurance system under the auspices of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. As a countermeasure to more radically socialistic proposals, Bismarck established mandatory old-age and invalidity (disability) insurance in 1889. Great Britain started unemployment and disability insurance in 1911 and added old-age and survivors insurance in 1925. [6] By 1933, at least 39 countries operated social security programs of some kind for old-age and/or unemployment. Belgium ,Bulgaria ,Czechoslovakia ,France ,Germany ,Great Britain ,Greece ,Hungary ,Luxembourg ,Netherlands ,Poland , and the USSR all had compulsory social insurance for old-age, disability, and survivors—social security systems more advanced than the American system would be until 1956. [7] Closer to home, Thomas Paine made the first known proposal for social security in the United States in 1795. Paine, famous for his best-selling American Revolution manifesto, Common Sense , also wrote a pamphlet he titled Agrarian Justice . In it, he outlined an innovative system of social insurance—funded by a 10 percent inheritance tax—that he believed would work in any country (he published Agrarian Justice in English and French). He included revenue and spending projections based on a detailed demographic model. His plan called for one-time cash payments of 15 pounds sterling to every 21-year-old, which would give each young person a good start in life. He also proposed annual 10-pound pensions for all Americans—regardless of their means—if they were “lame or blind” or had attained age 50.  Abe Bortz, official historian of the Social Security Administration from 1963-1985, saw each of the following programs as significant steps toward the development of social security in the United States: pensions for disabled Revolutionary War veterans, 19 th century government health programs for merchant seamen, and post-Civil War pensions for disabled Union Army veterans and their widows. [9] After 1880, America gradually changed from rural to urban, and from agricultural to industrial. As a result, the family farm with its multi-generational extended family—a traditional source of economic security for the aged and disabled—began to disappear: [10] www.francesperkins.org/fdr.html |
Yes. But only a very select few are exempted. If you work, you pay SS out of your payroll taxes. If you're self-employed you pay both halves of that. Its not about SS. Its about the gov having another rev source. |
damn those walkers really sting when they hit you. 
|
|
City Workers of Galveston Texas opted out of the SS system. Their benefits are 3 times what they would have gotten in SS. Most teachers and government employees are not in SS, at least in CA. Lots of jobs there to choose from. Surprisingly though the Retirement systems for these employees are beginning to look more and more like SS (pay as you go) as unions support candidates that give them bigger and bigger benefits. |
|
We should most certainly be able to not only opt out of paying into it but also be ensured that the loss from SS will not pop-up as a new federal tax on our paycheck. Nothign woudl burn me up more than to be rid of paying into it and then the next pay period see that my federal witholdings have just been mysteriously bumped up the same amount that I used to pay into SS. The people who spent all of the money that used to be in the "SS Fund" should be held responsible for the losses as a result of people opting out of paying into the system any longer. Mainly... THE DEMS. If need be I'd gladly accept the cutting of certain other government programs that the current SS tax money is being spent on... like welfare, head start, food stamps... If that'll offset the losses I'll be 2x as happy. |
|
It's funny how every president and would-be president who wants to make a name for themself tries to "fix" social security. The way I see it you fix something by looking at how you broke it and reversing the process. Before it was broken: It was a separate fund that they couldn't touch. How it was broken: They put it into the "general" fund and spent it all. How to fix it: Redistribute the funds into a locked "account" that the .gov is not allowed to touch. If they want to spend it they can do it by "investing" in thigns that actually turn a profit... but the profit should also not be touched, but given back to the people contributing to it as a return the same way you get a return from an IRA/401k. Problem solved. Every other "fix" fails because they refuse to admit that they are the ones that broke it in the first place. It's like backing your car into the garage door and fixing it by duct taping the car bumper to it. 
|
You have to pay into SS so I can get MY money out of it. So all you young guys need to make lots of money and pay lots of SS tax to insure the stability of the system. No slackers! |
It was broken well before Reagan managed to get SS funds put into the general fund to mask - or correctly reflect depending on your point of view - the true budget shortfall. SS was a Ponzi scheme from the second that it was created. Those currently employed were taxed and those funds were payed out to current retirees. None of the money was "saved" or "invested" for those actually paying the tax. Their SS entitlements would be payed by those working when the original payees were drawing benefits. Changing demographics doomed SS. Longer lifespans meant that retirees drew benefits for a longer time. Falling birth rates due to a number of reasons (delay of marriage, increased use of birth control, and abortion) meant that a smaller number of current workers pay for an increasing number of retirees. If a private investment company tried to sell a retirement scheme that worked like SS, the owners would be jailed for fraud. The Achilles heel of a defined benefit retirement plan is that payouts increase as lifespans grow longer. That is why more companies are moving away from defined benefit plans (you get a defined amount of $$ as long as you live) and towards defined contribution plans (401K/403B). Defined benefit plans are not sustainable over the long haul. |
Sure there is a way not to have to pay SS taxes. Become a Federal employee. They don't pay SS taxes. They have their own retirement plan that is vastly superior to SS. That means that the people running SS don't pay into it and have a better plan. Ironic, isn't it? |
This is another reason why the "fix" I stated above would work. it would more or less allow for the termination of SS. If all the money was just sitting in a pot, it would be no different than a national savings account and everyone who put money in would eventually be able to take their part out. So if people who are "coming of age" to work that would normally be taxed for SS didn't have to pay in, it would have no effect on those drawing from it because those drawing from it already contributed to it. They're essentially just getting back their own money. But since there is no "big pot-o-money" if they stopped it nobody would get shit if they ended it today. This is so simple it's mindboggling. Now, the question I have is this, because I have no idea how to come up with these numbers: how much money would have to be "put back into the pot" in order for it to become stable enough that people could opt out of SS all together without causing the "fund" to collapse? And don't say "all of it"... I mean an actually dollar amount. No doubt it'd be some astonomical figure but in the grand scheme of things it shouldn't have been allowed to end up like this in the first place. If it means firing a few over-paid congressmen and senators and the president taking a pay-cut I'll be able to live with it. if it means reducing defense spending on say bottomless pit projects like the OICW, I'll sleep better at night. |
|
I will probably never get mine back. Based on the current trends I feel that if you have your own 401K or IRA and your SS benefits will be reduced or eliminated. It sucks that my efforts to have a comfortable retirment will likely be punished by having my SS benefits reduced. BTW the Dems keep bitching about the Pres's plan but have they developed a plan yet? |
Bullshit. I'm a federal employee, and I damn sure have to pay SS. |
Yes. Their plan is to obstruct by trying to scare old people and then to raise taxes every few years to "fix" social security. They will accomplish this by scaring old people who need SS so more dems can get elected. When more dems get elected they will raise taxes to "fix" social security..... See a pattern here? The stink over SS is all about getting democrats elected. Even a lot of Democrats are disgusted by the whole thing. |
Ahem. "Until 1984, employment by the Federal government was covered under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and not by Social Security. If you worked for a Federal agency during these years, you did not pay Social Security tax on your earnings and those earnings are not shown on your record. In 1984, a second retirement system--the Federal Employees Retirement System, or FERS--was introduced. People who began working for the Federal government in 1984 or later are covered by FERS instead of CSRS. Also, some workers who had been covered by the CSRS program chose to switch to the FERS program when it became available. Work under FERS is covered by Social Security. If you stayed under the CSRS program after 1983, you still are not covered by Social Security but you are covered under the Medicare program and you pay Medicare taxes on your Federal earnings." Directly from the Social Security Administration's website. |
So if one were to Become a Federal employee they would still have to pay into SS, because this is 2005.her |
I believe, like the schools and public employees in CA they have the option of being in SS. The CA system is similar to SS in that it is a "defined benefits" plan. The Galveston plan was a "defined contribution" plan where your ultimate benefit was not written in stone but would be a product of some very conservative investments like annuities. One place near Galveston invested some of the money directly into the market and didn't do as well. It's in the article. Article published Mar 18, 2005 On Texas Coast, a Laboratory for Private Accounts GALVESTON, Tex., March 13 - As governor of Texas, George W. Bush had an up-close look at what many advocates of individual Social Security investment accounts consider a laboratory for how such a system might work: Galveston County's retirement system. In 1981 officials in Galveston, a seafront city on the Gulf of Mexico opted out of Social Security along with neighboring Brazoria and Matagorda Counties and chose instead to plunge their county governments into the unknown territory of offering private retirement accounts. Hundreds of employees in these counties have since retired under the system and more than 4,000 current employees make deposits into their private accounts each month. But there is intense debate over what lessons to draw from Galveston's experience and whether a government retirement system should help adjust income disparities. Some prominent retired officials swear by the system, saying it has allowed them to retire richer than if they had stayed with Social Security. "You basically get back what you put in," said Ray Holbrook, 78, a former county judge who retired in 1995. Mr. Holbrook had been an early supporter of the plan. Others, mainly retirees with lower income, have found their small nest eggs eroded by inflation or gone altogether after choosing a lump-sum payment instead of monthly checks. "I don't know what I would do without Social Security," said Norma Samuels, 61 , a retired food services manager who took the $22,000 she had put in her account over eight years as a lump-sum payment because her husband had died and amassed unpaid medical bills. Ms. Samuels still receives Social Security through survivor's benefits and is waiting to collect her Social Security benefits from a previous job when she turns 65. The Galveston plan also includes survivor and disability benefits that sometimes exceed those of Social Security. Still, few of the participants in the plan are explicitly critical of the system, perhaps because many say they feel they have greater control over their investments. Most county employees here also benefit from a separate county pension, which gives them a cushion. The Houston investment firm that designed the Galveston plan invests employees' money mostly in safe but low-yielding securities, providing participants with quarterly updates on their investments and the opportunity to withdraw their money in a lump sum upon retirement or in installments over several years. "I have the luxury of completely forgetting about Social Security," said Kirk Greene, 42, an information technology manager who began working full time for Galveston County with a salary of about $14,000 a year in 1986, five years after it adopted the system. Mr. Greene said he now had about $120,000 in the Galveston plan in addition to some $130,000 in the county's pension plan. Mr. Greene, who earns about $75,000 a year, said he expected to retire in nine years. "I'll be going fishing when many of my friends will still be working," said Mr. Greene, cherishing his ability to start drawing his money at 51, an option not available under Social Security. "I feel able to benefit from the money that I myself put in." Under the Galveston plan employees put about 6.1 percent of their salaries into their accounts, roughly the same as the 6.2 percent withdrawn from most workers' paychecks for Social Security. In addition, the three county governments then pay about 7.7 percent of employees' salaries, slightly higher than the 6.2 percent deposited in Social Security by most employers. The majority of the plan's money is invested in annuities, financial securities sold by insurance companies that provide fairly predictable rates of return. The exception is in Brazoria County. Some employees there are smarting after losses in their accounts because of an investment option, created around the time of the stock market's peak in 2000, allowing them to put some of their money in stocks with higher risks. Most of those losses have been recuperated in the last few years. The insurance company, rather than the plan's participants, pays a management fee of less than 1 percent of the plan's assets. First Financial Benefits of Houston, the creator and administrator of Galveston's plan, estimates that the plan has earned an average of 6.5 percent in annual returns since its inception, though that figure was influenced by the relatively high interest rates of the 1980's. The plan currently returns about 4 percent a year. Richard F. Gornto, the president of First Financial Benefits, helped design the plan and said his estimates showed that all retirees would do better financially under the county's plan than they would have under Social Security. But others who have studied the plan and used different assumptions disagree. Critics contend that employees with higher incomes do much better than those with lower incomes and that over time the fact that the returns are not indexed for inflation make them a worse deal than Social Security. A study in 1999 by the Social Security Administration, for instance, found that after 20 years of retirement, all of the plan's benefits, even for wealthier retirees, would be lower relative to Social Security. Eric R. Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University who has studied the Galveston plan, also says it is a threat to the "quiet redistribution" of wealth under Social Security that provides poorer retirees with a higher share of their pre-retirement wages than it does to their richer counterparts. For instance, the study by the Social Security Administration found that married low-income workers retiring in 2045 under the Galveston plan would receive initial benefits equivalent to about 60 percent of Social Security while a single high-income worker would receive payments equivalent to about 140 percent of Social Security. In 1983 Congress ended the option of allowing counties to drop out of Social Security but exempted those who had already left it. Another study of the Galveston plan, by the Government Accountability Office in 1999, projected that a low-income worker retiring in 2026 after 45 years would receive $1,028 a month under the Galveston plan compared with $1,366 under Social Security. The G.A.O. also found that those with larger incomes did better. A worker with a median income would receive $1,367 a month under Social Security as opposed to $2,024 under the private plan. An employee in a higher income range would receive $1,898 in Social Security compared with $4,089 a month under the Galveston Plan. (The G.A.O. defined a low-income salary as $17,124, median income as $25,596 and high income as $51,263.) Mr. Gornto, of First Financial Benefits, said that if a plan like Galveston's were tried on a national scale, it could always be altered to deal with any problems. He noted that the plan had already made changes to features deemed unwise, recently eliminating the option of hardship withdrawal. "Some people like to see us here in Texas as unsophisticated, with chewing tobacco in our mouths," Mr. Gornto said in an interview. "The opposite is true. We can do our own quiet redistribution within the plan if that's needed," he said, explaining that a formula could be used to shift some of the plan's resources to poorer retirees. For all the debate, participants in the plan tend to have few complaints about returns as long as they know that their accounts are gaining in value. "It's known that we've got one of the best retirements in the law profession in Texas," said Robert Dodd, 36, a sheriff's deputy who recently moved to Galveston. A 22-year-old colleague, Dustin Helms, on a cigarette break with him, took that thought a bit further. "Social Security's a joke, and everybody knows it," Mr. Helms said. "By the time I retire it's not going to be around. I might as well stick around here." |
|
It seems even Congress is in SS but they probably just raised their pay to accomplish it. It's really a different story when you're the employee BUT you have control of the CASH. RNC finds Bush-Reid tit-for-tat By Alexander Bolton The Republican National Committee (RNC) has resurrected a bill Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sponsored when he was in the House more than 20 years ago that would have kept members of Congress out of the Social Security program. RNC researchers contend that the 1983 bill belies Reid’s repeated claim that Social Security is the “most successful program in the history of the world.” The Republican salvo is in response to Democrats’ frequent use of a statement President Bush made in 1978 during his unsuccessful campaign for Congress that Social Security will “go bust in 10 years unless there are some changes.” As the battle over Social Security reaches a fever pitch — complete with tens of millions of dollars spent by the opposing sides on television ads and the mobilization of thousands of volunteers to conduct grassroots campaigns — Bush and Reid have emerged as the principal adversaries, resembling candidates locked in a tight race. Like a closely contested race, the fight over Social Security has spawned research unearthing long-forgotten statements and actions from the days when musical performers such as the Bee Gees and The Police reigned supreme. In a statement scheduled for release today, the RNC blasts Reid for the 1983 bill. He sponsored it a few months after Congress passed legislation that required all members and other federal employees to join Social Security. Previously, federal employees, including lawmakers, participated in a generous defined-benefit pension program that exempted them from Social Security taxes. That action may seem embarrassing when contrasted with Reid’s recent ebullient praise of Social Security, praise he reiterated yesterday at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters. “Senator Reid has asserted that Social Security is the ‘most successful program in the history of the world,’ yet he wrote legislation allowing himself and other members of Congress to stay out of Social Security,” said Brian Jones, the RNC’s communications director. Reid’s bill would have kept all federal employees hired on or after Jan. 1, 1984, such as the president, elected officials, political appointees and judges, from participating in Social Security, according to a Republican summary of the bill, H.R. 3589, introduced in July 1983. “One of outrages of allowing some people to be outside of Social Security is they’re not making contributions to the program,” said Gary Burtless, an economic-studies fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert on Social Security. “You are not contributing to benefits going to your parent,” Burtless said of people who do not participate in the pay-as-you-go program. “That [would have been] … one of the politically embarrassing things in 1983.” Jim Manley, Reid’s communications director, said he was not familiar with his boss’s 1983 bill, probably because it was introduced more than two decades ago. But Democrats have not hesitated to use statements dating from even further in the past as political ammunition against Bush. In an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” last month, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) used a Bush quote first reported 27 years ago by the Midland, Texas, Reporter-Telegram. “This is a man, President Bush, who said in 1978 that Social Security would go bust in 1988 unless the system was privatized,” she said. “He was wrong then. This is the president whose White House said we’ve been waiting for this opportunity to change Social Security.” During an appearance on CNBC last month, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) cited the same reference: “The president indicated in 1978 when he was running for Congress that he wanted to privatize not partially Social Security but all of Social Security.” In response to those and other attacks, Republicans have responded with a pointed attack of their own on the tough-talking Reid, who is emerging as the leader of Democratic opposition to the Bush administration, particularly to Bush’s plans for reforming Social Security. Reid described his relationship with Bush in personal terms during yesterday’s reporters’ breakfast, referring to him as “this guy” and describing meetings with Bush at the White House as lectures. He lamented that Bush takes up most of the meeting time discoursing on foreign affairs and leaving Democratic leaders little time to ask questions. Republicans, too, have sharpened their focus on Reid, continuing a line of counterattack they sprung in early February when the RNC sent a mailing to nearly a million supporters criticizing Reid as an obstructionist at the start of his tenure as Democratic Senate leader. Since then, Republican operatives have dubbed Reid “chief Democratic obstructionist,” just as they did his predecessor, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.). They also have accused him of contradictions, in one case contrasting Reid’s claim that “there is no more positive agenda than saving Social Security” to one made two days later, when he said, “The so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans.” |
|
At first while I was reading about all this I though "Oh and the best part about SS is you pay in, the money never accumulates interest and then when you get your money back they tax it again. How the F*CK does that make an ounce of sense?" Link After reading the above link it kind of makes sense as to how they justify the taxes on this benefit. This is just a small part from the above link to show you how confusing it can get.
I'm kind of learning about all this as I go. Here are some more intresting links to resd up on for those interested: Social Security Trust Fund Social Security (United States) FICA Tax |
Source |
This is a quote from an older thread
Anyone have a source for the statements in red? I have yet to find anything that backs this up. Seems to me the Social Security Trust Fund has never been a "separate" fund in the sense that there is a bank account somewhere that all the money usd to go into and come out of. It's always been simply a source of revenue for the .gov that has been accounted for and that the money that people are "supposed" to get back is "federally guaranteed" as it has been put into bonds, while the "revenue" made off the bonds is spent ad general surplus. Someone clear this up for me... |
Really. I don't pay SS taxes? That is news to me. Any idea how I get back the $800+ per month that is deducted from my check. You don't know of what you speak - unless you don't consider the military federal employees. |