Social Security: It is NOT an Entitlement!

Your employer pays part of your income taxes as well that go to fund other things. Does that make them not entitlements?

The biggest myth in the world is that SS is "yours." Second biggest? That SS should not be in the stock market (it already is in the market).

 

The government pays far less than 5% on the money it borrows.

We're broke? Really, since when?

Social Security, Medicare, prescription drug benefit, senior discounts. No aid? No breaks?

Which is it: We're broke? Or: We're running out of money?

Nice rant, but my Mom receives Social Security. It is an entitlement.

 

Thank you! I agree!

It has been claimed that it is not "our" money.

Let me see, my money was forcibly taken from me for the past 40 years. But now, according to some, it isn't my money at all.

I wonder what these people would say if they went to their bank to withdraw from their savings and were told the money wasn't actually theirs. It seems like the bank made some bad investments so their money was gone.

 

It seems to me then that you would have been against increasing the debt limit.

Where do you think that the excess of social security taxes coming in over the benefits currently being paid out is being invested?

It was all invested in government debt and that hasn't changed.

In other words - it's all been spent and the only way that it is going to be repaid is by taking even more from us.

So we will pay more taxes in the future so that the government can repay the money that it already "borrowed" from us.

 

If I'm understanding you correctly, you worked part time at your church and also worked for the state. I presume the state did not take out Social Security taxes. Is this correct?

Anyway, this link might apply to you. Take a look at this, esp. the "Some Exceptions" paragraph.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10045.html#how

 

I did not have a strong opinion about this issue. Besides, both sides were playing politics, as usual.[/QUOTE]

 

I certainly agree with the premise of what he says. He does have some facts a little off and actually Social security is technically an entitlement based on the definition of the word.
An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.
In a casual sense, the term "entitlement" refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit[1]—if given without deeper legal or principled cause, the term is often given with pejorative connotation (e.g. a "sense of entitlement").

The problem is not with Social Security. The fund is self supported. The problem is the congress who has pilfered the fund for their pet projects and irresponsible spending. Now they want to get away with an even bigger scam by convincing the people, and some have bought it, that the fund is a problem. So the congress wants to cut benefits so they can get out of repaying what they pilfered as well as to continue to pilfer the fund in the future.

 

That has nothing to do with SS. That is a problem with your state laws. You need to contact your legislators and get the law changed in that state.

 

Tom,
That is an interesting though not accurate thought. It´s just like the insurance that I had when I worked, the Employer did not pay me as much as he, she or they would have except for the insurance... the same is true for the SS. How do I know this? Once upon a time I employed people and all of this in addition to Christmas bonus' were part of the pay computation for the weekly paycheck. Having been an employer and having friends that were also and some still are, I know that none are ever going to fess up but I also know it is true. When I worked for others, even the US Army, I earned every penny that was ever placed in that fund because of me. Then, when I was on the other end, I paid myself a check and I paid all the FICA on that from both ends.

It is not wrong to say that I and other employers paid a large share of that tax but the worker earned every dime of it and it is his money the government is mismanaging. I might be wrong but you speak very much like a Liberal Democrat. Personally, Iḿ a swing voter but I repented of voting for Jimmy Carter and God has fogiven me for that.

 

Apples and oranges. I, too run small business and was HR for larger companies. Insurance (an optional benefit) is one that the employer is under no obligation to provide. It is indeed a taxable wage as such but the benefits are not (unless you're talking about a health plan). That policy (either way) is tied to your SS# and must be reported on the W-2, whether taxable or not. OASDI is an entirely different horse. You do not have a SS account with Uncle Sam. George W Bush tried to propose such and he was killed in the Dem circles for it so it never got off the ground. That should tell you all you need to know about what OASDI is.

Ironically, it is insurance. Or at least, was designed to be such.

I'm not a liberal democrat. I just happen to know a thing or two about economics, taxes, etc.

 

Just as a reminder, those who are self-employed (as I have been most of my Information Technology Career) must pay the complete 14 plus % FICA.

True, though mandated, I willing gave it up. But then again, I would like my government into whose hands I entrusted it to return it and indeed they are today.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't forfeit it if it came to the ultimate well being of my country.

But it doesn't have to be that way.


HankD

 

You can thank Reagan for cheating some working people out of 60% of their SS payment. That's why I never bothered to get my 40 quarters.

 

Oh come on. Honestly.