One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Social Security Entitlement
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
May 30, 2014 09:38:18   #
BearK Loc: TN
 
Below are two sites stating that our Social Security payments are now "Federal Benefit Payments" or entitlements (for most of us - direct deposit, so we don't get to see it). Will that 'federal benefit' then have to be repaid from our estate (if we have anything left) when we die?

http://www.turningpointusa.net/social-security-called-federal-benefit-payment-entitlement-2/
http://www.ice-news.net/2012/12/01/social-security-now-called-federal-benefit-paymententitlement/

Seniors tend to have a BLIND spot when they hear the words Social Security. I was not particularly a fan of John McCann, but when he ran he brought up the fact of how Chile treats their Social Security recipients, AND IT'S WORKING. Chile changed to private investment accounts. They told their people they had a choice, the PIA or traditional government benefits. For those who opted for the PIA, if it didn't pay what the government benefit was they would receive the difference. So far, Chile has not had to supplement any PIA recipients.
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/chilean-model-social-security
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/chiles-social-security-lesson-us

| Reply
May 30, 2014 10:06:33   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
BearK wrote:
Below are two sites stating that our Social Security payments are now "Federal Benefit Payments" or entitlements (for most of us - direct deposit, so we don't get to see it). Will that 'federal benefit' then have to be repaid from our estate (if we have anything left) when we die?

http://www.turningpointusa.net/social-security-called-federal-benefit-payment-entitlement-2/
http://www.ice-news.net/2012/12/01/social-security-now-called-federal-benefit-paymententitlement/

Seniors tend to have a BLIND spot when they hear the words Social Security. I was not particularly a fan of John McCann, but when he ran he brought up the fact of how Chile treats their Social Security recipients, AND IT'S WORKING. Chile changed to private investment accounts. They told their people they had a choice, the PIA or traditional government benefits. For those who opted for the PIA, if it didn't pay what the government benefit was they would receive the difference. So far, Chile has not had to supplement any PIA recipients.
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/chilean-model-social-security
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/chiles-social-security-lesson-us
Below are two sites stating that our Social Securi... (show quote)


The change is a political wording tool. Nothing has changed in SocSec., but by renaming it, conservatives believe it gives the impression that SocSec payments are entitlements. They are not, they are annuity payments. Notice also that these same politicians do not rename Federal retirement payments as entitlements, but the fact is, they are, as tax money is used directly to make these payments and those receiving it do not make payments into the system. Federal retirement accounts for 24% of the Federal budget, SocSec payments account for 0%, so there is the REAL entitlement.

Those who have paid into the SocSec system have a RIGHT to those payments, they are not ENTITLED to them. That's a big difference. I think it's past time for Federal employees, including elected officials, to contribute to their own retirement, instead of making SocSec recipients pay taxes to support them.

| Reply
May 30, 2014 10:21:02   #
BearK Loc: TN
 
lpnmajor wrote:
The change is a political wording tool. Nothing has changed in SocSec., but by renaming it, conservatives believe it gives the impression that SocSec payments are entitlements. They are not, they are annuity payments. Notice also that these same politicians do not rename Federal retirement payments as entitlements, but the fact is, they are, as tax money is used directly to make these payments and those receiving it do not make payments into the system. Federal retirement accounts for 24% of the Federal budget, SocSec payments account for 0%, so there is the REAL entitlement.

Those who have paid into the SocSec system have a RIGHT to those payments, they are not ENTITLED to them. That's a big difference. I think it's past time for Federal employees, including elected officials, to contribute to their own retirement, instead of making SocSec recipients pay taxes to support them.
The change is a political wording tool. Nothing ha... (show quote)


:thumbup: You've got that right. I'm Railroad and still collecting on my personal contribution to pension, by bits and drabs they, so generously, give it back to me. I get to deduct that from taxes because I already had paid taxes on it.

| Reply
May 30, 2014 10:28:37   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
If Social Security is an entitlement, then why are taxes of 13% collected on incomes up to $104,000? Don't get me wrong, I am all for fixing the SS system. One way would be to make it illegal for Congress to steal the excess funds, replace them with worthless, unmarketable treasury securities, and then tell taxpayers the fund is broke. Also making all income subject to the tax and then means testing would help.

| Reply
May 30, 2014 11:17:20   #
Serenity54321
 
BearK wrote:
Below are two sites stating that our Social Security payments are now "Federal Benefit Payments" or entitlements (for most of us - direct deposit, so we don't get to see it). Will that 'federal benefit' then have to be repaid from our estate (if we have anything left) when we die?

http://www.turningpointusa.net/social-security-called-federal-benefit-payment-entitlement-2/
http://www.ice-news.net/2012/12/01/social-security-now-called-federal-benefit-paymententitlement/

Seniors tend to have a BLIND spot when they hear the words Social Security. I was not particularly a fan of John McCann, but when he ran he brought up the fact of how Chile treats their Social Security recipients, AND IT'S WORKING. Chile changed to private investment accounts. They told their people they had a choice, the PIA or traditional government benefits. For those who opted for the PIA, if it didn't pay what the government benefit was they would receive the difference. So far, Chile has not had to supplement any PIA recipients.
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/chilean-model-social-security
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/chiles-social-security-lesson-us
Below are two sites stating that our Social Securi... (show quote)


##########
I am all for private investment. Anytime you give the government your money to "hang onto", they don't "hang onto" it. I don't want the government to help me with my retirement. I want to save myself. That way, if I raid it I can't blame anyone but myself!

I am also a huge fan of the healthcare savings account. This is a far better plan for health care in my opinion than government-run health care. Every payday, I have a certain amount deducted from my paycheck, BEFORE taxes, and placed into a health savings account. I then have a debit card tied to that account to pay for my deductible and co-insurance fees. So those fees are paid TAX FREE. In addition, I can claim a tax deduction each year for the amount I paid into my health care savings. My employer also matches the amount I put in up to $300. So I have an additional $300 to spend on my health care I otherwise wouldn't have. Now THATS a great plan!!! Wouldn't it be fabulous if we could save for our retirement the same way?

| Reply
May 30, 2014 11:32:40   #
bmac32 Loc: West Florida
 
Something like this was brought up by Bush and Ryan but Obama has nixed the idea so the piggy bank will likely remain open.



BearK wrote:
Below are two sites stating that our Social Security payments are now "Federal Benefit Payments" or entitlements (for most of us - direct deposit, so we don't get to see it). Will that 'federal benefit' then have to be repaid from our estate (if we have anything left) when we die?

http://www.turningpointusa.net/social-security-called-federal-benefit-payment-entitlement-2/
http://www.ice-news.net/2012/12/01/social-security-now-called-federal-benefit-paymententitlement/

Seniors tend to have a BLIND spot when they hear the words Social Security. I was not particularly a fan of John McCann, but when he ran he brought up the fact of how Chile treats their Social Security recipients, AND IT'S WORKING. Chile changed to private investment accounts. They told their people they had a choice, the PIA or traditional government benefits. For those who opted for the PIA, if it didn't pay what the government benefit was they would receive the difference. So far, Chile has not had to supplement any PIA recipients.
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/chilean-model-social-security
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/chiles-social-security-lesson-us
Below are two sites stating that our Social Securi... (show quote)

| Reply
May 30, 2014 11:41:32   #
thisweekinstupid Loc: United Kingdom
 
BearK wrote:
Below are two sites stating that our Social Security payments are now "Federal Benefit Payments" or entitlements (for most of us - direct deposit, so we don't get to see it). Will that 'federal benefit' then have to be repaid from our estate (if we have anything left) when we die?

http://www.turningpointusa.net/social-security-called-federal-benefit-payment-entitlement-2/
http://www.ice-news.net/2012/12/01/social-security-now-called-federal-benefit-paymententitlement/

Seniors tend to have a BLIND spot when they hear the words Social Security. I was not particularly a fan of John McCann, but when he ran he brought up the fact of how Chile treats their Social Security recipients, AND IT'S WORKING. Chile changed to private investment accounts. They told their people they had a choice, the PIA or traditional government benefits. For those who opted for the PIA, if it didn't pay what the government benefit was they would receive the difference. So far, Chile has not had to supplement any PIA recipients.
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/chilean-model-social-security
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/chiles-social-security-lesson-us
Below are two sites stating that our Social Securi... (show quote)


If I had a nickel for every good idea I got from Augusto Pinochet...

| Reply
May 30, 2014 12:02:04   #
Tasine Loc: Southwest US
 
lpnmajor wrote:
The change is a political wording tool. Nothing has changed in SocSec., but by renaming it, conservatives believe it gives the impression that SocSec payments are entitlements. They are not, they are annuity payments. Notice also that these same politicians do not rename Federal retirement payments as entitlements, but the fact is, they are, as tax money is used directly to make these payments and those receiving it do not make payments into the system. Federal retirement accounts for 24% of the Federal budget, SocSec payments account for 0%, so there is the REAL entitlement.

Those who have paid into the SocSec system have a RIGHT to those payments, they are not ENTITLED to them. That's a big difference. I think it's past time for Federal employees, including elected officials, to contribute to their own retirement, instead of making SocSec recipients pay taxes to support them.
The change is a political wording tool. Nothing ha... (show quote)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoa! Civilian workers pay into SS by order of law. Federal employees pay into their retirement account - my husband was a federal employee and I KNOW that was the case. Money was also withheld, by his directive, to provide an annuity for me should he die before I die, ergo I receive a monthly annuity. All of these things are contributed into by the employee. Therefore, if federal employees are not paying into their own retirement, something is wrong, or the rules have been changed.....neither would surprise me in the least.

OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that politicians are NOT contributing into THEIR "retirement fund" for their government service.

| Reply
May 31, 2014 06:46:04   #
Thunder
 
The gov. try's to make us on SS think that we are on the same level as welfare crowd .I'am ENTITLED --- More gov. BS At the same time in the last 20-25 yrs. they have STOLEN $2.9 Trillion (put up worthless IOU's for it ) from it for their pet projects back home . Hell yes keeps em voted in office .

| Reply
May 31, 2014 08:23:26   #
BearK Loc: TN
 
Thunder wrote:
The gov. try's to make us on SS think that we are on the same level as welfare crowd .I'am ENTITLED --- More gov. BS At the same time in the last 20-25 yrs. they have STOLEN $2.9 Trillion (put up worthless IOU's for it ) from it for their pet projects back home . Hell yes keeps em voted in office .



Quite a few years ago, the gov found that Railroad Retirement had cash in their account - so they quickly voted to throw it in with Social Security - and now all we have are their worthless IOU's. They have since, made further changes to how RR payments are made.

The senior voting bloc is usually reliable - why aren't seniors getting it together to get rid of these 'establishment' types that dominate both parties?

| Reply
May 31, 2014 09:30:33   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
Tasine wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoa! Civilian workers pay into SS by order of law. Federal employees pay into their retirement account - my husband was a federal employee and I KNOW that was the case. Money was also withheld, by his directive, to provide an annuity for me should he die before I die, ergo I receive a monthly annuity. All of these things are contributed into by the employee. Therefore, if federal employees are not paying into their own retirement, something is wrong, or the rules have been changed.....neither would surprise me in the least.

OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that politicians are NOT contributing into THEIR "retirement fund" for their government service.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ br Whoa! Civilian worker... (show quote)


Whatever the cause, the 2014 budget shows 24% for Federal retirement. That includes elected officials, appointed officials, judges and so forth. It may very well be that lower level Fed. employees are required to contribute to retirement with the Fed. matching those funds. Fed employees must also contribute to SS and can draw that after age 65 1/2. Same with military personnel, except they do not contribute to their retirement. Those funds come under the DoD overall budget.

Any funds the Fed shows spending on SS are personnel costs, which are the same as any other agency. Any other money shown are the buy back of the treasury bonds the Congress requires SS to invest in from withholdings. You have your money deducted today, SS gives it to the treasury in return for T bonds, to be repurchased at a later date. The Congress is spending YOUR retirement money today and promising to pay it back to you sometime in the future - with your tax money and promises to tax that money again. So the money you earn is taxed BEFORE SS and Medicare deductions, then when you retire, you are taxed AGAIN on YOUR money being returned to you - that you have already paid taxes on. That's a double tax on the same money. I seem to remember King George III doing some shit like that and the people wouldn't put up with it and they revolted. I just wish I could remember who THOSE people were, we could learn something from them.

| Reply
May 31, 2014 10:15:38   #
Tasine Loc: Southwest US
 
lpnmajor wrote:
Whatever the cause, the 2014 budget shows 24% for Federal retirement. That includes elected officials, appointed officials, judges and so forth. It may very well be that lower level Fed. employees are required to contribute to retirement with the Fed. matching those funds. Fed employees must also contribute to SS and can draw that after age 65 1/2. Same with military personnel, except they do not contribute to their retirement. Those funds come under the DoD overall budget.

Any funds the Fed shows spending on SS are personnel costs, which are the same as any other agency. Any other money shown are the buy back of the treasury bonds the Congress requires SS to invest in from withholdings. You have your money deducted today, SS gives it to the treasury in return for T bonds, to be repurchased at a later date. The Congress is spending YOUR retirement money today and promising to pay it back to you sometime in the future - with your tax money and promises to tax that money again. So the money you earn is taxed BEFORE SS and Medicare deductions, then when you retire, you are taxed AGAIN on YOUR money being returned to you - that you have already paid taxes on. That's a double tax on the same money. I seem to remember King George III doing some shit like that and the people wouldn't put up with it and they revolted. I just wish I could remember who THOSE people were, we could learn something from them.
Whatever the cause, the 2014 budget shows 24% for ... (show quote)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm certainly not arguing with you re this because the government makes a mess of everything it touches. That's why we should never allow the feds to have one penny of our money. But either things have changed, or you are wrong about federal employees having to pay into SS. Historically, government employees pay into a retirement plan, NOT SS. That may be different now. I don't know.

| Reply
May 31, 2014 12:11:21   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
BearK wrote:
Quite a few years ago, the gov found that Railroad Retirement had cash in their account - so they quickly voted to throw it in with Social Security - and now all we have are their worthless IOU's. They have since, made further changes to how RR payments are made.

The senior voting bloc is usually reliable - why aren't seniors getting it together to get rid of these 'establishment' types that dominate both parties?


So, would that make RR retirement an entitlement? Some politicians might say so. But I don't think so.

| Reply
May 31, 2014 12:24:52   #
Ricko Loc: Florida
 
Tasine wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoa! Civilian workers pay into SS by order of law. Federal employees pay into their retirement account - my husband was a federal employee and I KNOW that was the case. Money was also withheld, by his directive, to provide an annuity for me should he die before I die, ergo I receive a monthly annuity. All of these things are contributed into by the employee. Therefore, if federal employees are not paying into their own retirement, something is wrong, or the rules have been changed.....neither would surprise me in the least.

OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that politicians are NOT contributing into THEIR "retirement fund" for their government service.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ br Whoa! Civilian worker... (show quote)


Other than politicians , do you know anyone who retires at full salary ?
They make the mob look like choir boys. Good Luck America !!!

| Reply
May 31, 2014 12:41:19   #
Tasine Loc: Southwest US
 
Ricko wrote:
Other than politicians , do you know anyone who retires at full salary ?
They make the mob look like choir boys. Good Luck America !!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Over the years I have had many friends who were federal employees, most in for the long haul. None of them retired on full salaries. Yet most of the ones I knew were subject to violence every time they went to work as they were in the US Border Patrol, or Criminal Investigators. Politicians retire with only 1/3 time spent on the job as do other employees, and with full salary, and without ever facing a gun or a knife.

Being a senator or a representative should receive NO RETIREMENT INCOME OR PERKS.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2020 IDF International Technologies, Inc.