Wh**ever 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 s**t 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.

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 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

Beark-Lets not forget that social security was initially intended to supplement retirement income for senior citizens. It has, however, evolved into something entirely different. We now have many people who are well below the age of 65 collecting social security disability in amounts much larger than the social security checks received by the average senior citizen retiree. We also have SSI which pays people who have never contributed or did not have enough quarters to qualify for the regular Social Security. So the fund is being depleted because of the additional beneficiaries and the fact that people are living longer than anticipated when it first started. As for the government robbing the fund, a requirement is that the assets of the Trust Fund can only be invested in US Government securities. At that time, those were considered to be the safest place to put money. We could fix Social Security overnight if Congress had the guts to do so. Don't believe they pay into the fund so not much desire to do anything that may cause them to have to put in a little effort. In their view, we work for them and that will not change until the apathetic v**er grows some backbone and sends them packing. Good Luck America !!!

You are right it was never intended for a living wage, unfortunately, at that time Congress figured most of us would die off before we would draw any. Thanks to Johnson, he threw everything except the kitchen sink in to draw off those funds (v**ers). Enough seniors v**e, if they got together (oxymoron) they could possibly have some sensible legislation passed.

In the 60's I figured it wouldn't be there for me, so I started to invest. My investments have done very well, much better than what the government has done for me. I can't complain though, I was railroad and so was my husband - we cross draw.