Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You mean you be living off YOUR money, money that YOU set aside via your social security?
Not so.
"According to the institutes data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.
If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.
Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.
Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.
According to this calculation, past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits. Adjusting for past and future transfers from the federal Treasury, the difference between "paid-in" and "paid-out" works out to $21.6 trillion.
the exhortation that todays generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect. We are to get much more under current Social Security laws to the tune of $21.6 trillion than well pay into the system. The excess benefits are a return on past and current generations taxes of $71.3 trillion and quite a handsome return it is!"
PolitiFact | Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get
It is the rich, the ones cursed up and down by the Liberal folk, who will not get back as much.
You really should stop believing government propaganda.
I have a suggestion: ask me when you need the truth.
SSI is/was a non-optional investment. Or a government run protection racket depending on how you want to look at it. Is there something wrong with a small profit on a longterm investment that might not even counter the effects of inflation much less equal actual voluntary investments? What about all the people who don't live long enough to withdraw a dime of what they put in?
"...the exhortation that todays generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect
Wrong.
Is it compassion to give a man with a broken leg a crutch? Doesn't that make them more comfortable and encourages never walking again?
Don't be stupid
Here's what you said. Is it compassion to create poverty by making ppl comfortable in it. You ARE talking about welfare right? Welfare is encouraging, even creating poverty?
Or are you saying something completely different than the quote?
Yep. I have said and will continue to say that welfare encourages, even creates poverty.
And I have gone into some detail to back up my rationale for the statement. And I will point to the roughly 50% or so of Americans who are now receiving some sort of federal government benefit as the evidence.
But there is a big difference between encouraging and creating poverty and 'keeping people in poverty' which was your phrase that I took exception to. Nobody is forced or required to be poor via government or social mandate. But if you lose those government benefits when you become more affluent, a whole lot of folks aren't willing to risk their food stamps, subsidized housing, cash, Medicaid, free phones, free child care, etc. etc. etc. They become comfortable in dependency and no longer try to dig themselves out.
And their children see the parent enjoying life on the couch with all the free stuff, and he or she may be less motivated to do the hard work to educate himself/herself or acquire marketable skills that would pay good wages. The local gang provides protection and a feeling of self worth without doing all the hard stuff. It looks real good to the young girl who can get all that free stuff just by allowing herself to get pregnant and have a kid or two or ten so that the government will support it/them and her for decades.
We have tried the Great Society method now for almost 50 years now at a cost of, by some estimates, $16 trillion to date which coincidentally is about the amount of the National Debt. We have seen our schools decline, a breakdown in the traditional American family, an increase in government to the point nobody really knows what the money actually goes for any more. And the poor are still with us.
I think it might be the compassionate way to look at whether what we do hurts more than it helps and figure out how to do it better.
Here's what you said. Is it compassion to create poverty by making ppl comfortable in it. You ARE talking about welfare right? Welfare is encouraging, even creating poverty?
Or are you saying something completely different than the quote?
Yep. I have said and will continue to say that welfare encourages, even creates poverty.
And I have gone into some detail to back up my rationale for the statement. And I will point to the roughly 50% or so of Americans who are now receiving some sort of federal government benefit as the evidence.
But there is a big difference between encouraging and creating poverty and 'keeping people in poverty' which was your phrase that I took exception to. Nobody is forced or required to be poor via government or social mandate. But if you lose those government benefits when you become more affluent, a whole lot of folks aren't willing to risk their food stamps, subsidized housing, cash, Medicaid, free phones, free child care, etc. etc. etc. They become comfortable in dependency and no longer try to dig themselves out.
And their children see the parent enjoying life on the couch with all the free stuff, and he or she may be less motivated to do the hard work to educate himself/herself or acquire marketable skills that would pay good wages. The local gang provides protection and a feeling of self worth without doing all the hard stuff. It looks real good to the young girl who can get all that free stuff just by allowing herself to get pregnant and have a kid or two or ten so that the government will support it/them and her for decades.
We have tried the Great Society method now for almost 50 years now at a cost of, by some estimates, $16 trillion to date which coincidentally is about the amount of the National Debt. We have seen our schools decline, a breakdown in the traditional American family, an increase in government to the point nobody really knows what the money actually goes for any more. And the poor are still with us.
I think it might be the compassionate way to look at whether what we do hurts more than it helps and figure out how to do it better.
The poor will always be with us. Nothing will ever change that and if you think snatching "entitlements" will create this bastion where there Is no poverty (you will never SAY that, you simply "suggest" it) you are plainly stupid.
Your opinion is fine, but you presented it as fact. That's why I asked for proof and NOW you respond with "this is my rationale" instead of the PROOF, which I thought we were talking about.
How about you prove what you said...with anything.
July 9, 2011--
During his Twitter Townhall on Wednesday, President Obama admitted that government welfare has created dependency. He noted:
I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency. As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, Ive seen it where people werent encouraged to work, werent encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if youre progressive youve got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed.
President Obama Admits Welfare Encourages Dependency | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation
I see what you're doing. I'll go link by link.
1. No program...No nothing will EVER EVER EVER END POVERTY. So to pretend the goal of welfare is to END poverty is a lie
2. Obama...yes, that CAN happen but you have yet to show where that DOES happen on a large enough scale as to end welfare completely. The bath is dirty so you want to throw out the baby too
3. Welfare reform! Cool!
4. More Welfare, More Poverty - Opinion piece that again suggests that Welfare programs are meant to END poverty. Not the case see #1
5. Does Welfare Dimish Poverty - See #1
6. Working Works in State-Based Welfare Reform - Great I agree. Why you posted this I don't understand tho
How does a society encourage people not to be poor?
No answer?
Of course not.
Sorry. I know it's difficult to believe, but I do have a life and am not watching this thread with baited breath hoping you'll post something so I can respond.
But since you have ignored all my arguments, I will answer you with Benjamin Franklin's words:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."--Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766
I see what you're doing. I'll go link by link.
1. No program...No nothing will EVER EVER EVER END POVERTY. So to pretend the goal of welfare is to END poverty is a lie
2. Obama...yes, that CAN happen but you have yet to show where that DOES happen on a large enough scale as to end welfare completely. The bath is dirty so you want to throw out the baby too
3. Welfare reform! Cool!
4. More Welfare, More Poverty - Opinion piece that again suggests that Welfare programs are meant to END poverty. Not the case see #1
5. Does Welfare Dimish Poverty - See #1
6. Working Works in State-Based Welfare Reform - Great I agree. Why you posted this I don't understand tho
Yup. Just as I thought, you didn't read any of them and you have no rebuttal. But just to keep you busy, how about you PROVE your statements in #1 through #6? That's fair isn't it? You've asked me to PROVE my point of view. So you PROVE yours. And if you say you don't have to because I didn't PROVE anything, I can also say that you're FULL of it if you can't prove that I'm wrong about what I have said. I've given you a number of links. Prove them wrong if you can.
And no, I'm still not going to bite when you continue to infer or put words in my mouth that I have not said.
I see what you're doing. I'll go link by link.
1. No program...No nothing will EVER EVER EVER END POVERTY. So to pretend the goal of welfare is to END poverty is a lie
2. Obama...yes, that CAN happen but you have yet to show where that DOES happen on a large enough scale as to end welfare completely. The bath is dirty so you want to throw out the baby too
3. Welfare reform! Cool!
4. More Welfare, More Poverty - Opinion piece that again suggests that Welfare programs are meant to END poverty. Not the case see #1
5. Does Welfare Dimish Poverty - See #1
6. Working Works in State-Based Welfare Reform - Great I agree. Why you posted this I don't understand tho
I see what you're doing. I'll go link by link.
1. No program...No nothing will EVER EVER EVER END POVERTY. So to pretend the goal of welfare is to END poverty is a lie
2. Obama...yes, that CAN happen but you have yet to show where that DOES happen on a large enough scale as to end welfare completely. The bath is dirty so you want to throw out the baby too
3. Welfare reform! Cool!
4. More Welfare, More Poverty - Opinion piece that again suggests that Welfare programs are meant to END poverty. Not the case see #1
5. Does Welfare Dimish Poverty - See #1
6. Working Works in State-Based Welfare Reform - Great I agree. Why you posted this I don't understand tho
Yup. Just as I thought, you didn't read any of them and you have no rebuttal. But just to keep you busy, how about you PROVE your statements in #1 through #6? That's fair isn't it? You've asked me to PROVE my point of view. So you PROVE yours. And if you say you don't have to because I didn't PROVE anything, I can also say that you're FULL of it if you can't prove that I'm wrong about what I have said. I've given you a number of links. Prove them wrong if you can.
And no, I'm still not going to bite when you continue to infer or put words in my mouth that I have not said.
No I asked you to prove that welfare encourages poverty, which you haven't done. The links mean jack since the goal of Welfare programs is not to end poverty.
Your non answer will prove you don't believe that but you keep posting links that suggest it...?
Do you think the goal of welfare is to end poverty? If you do, you're a fool
I will not respond to you further until you
a) Provide your own rationale for why my opinion is wrong
b) Provide some credible sources to back up your opinion
c) Answer the questions I have put to you.
And no, I won't go back and hunt those up again. I've done my part in the debate. Now you do yours.
The question was asked: does the welfare system increase or decrease poverty.
Seems post #177 answered that question definitively: the Left's poverty scam not only maintains poverty for recipients, now called clients, but increases poverty by making profitable the behavior that causes it.
So the issue is closed.....
...or...
...'speak now or forever hold your piece.'
I see what you're doing. I'll go link by link.
1. No program...No nothing will EVER EVER EVER END POVERTY. So to pretend the goal of welfare is to END poverty is a lie
2. Obama...yes, that CAN happen but you have yet to show where that DOES happen on a large enough scale as to end welfare completely. The bath is dirty so you want to throw out the baby too
3. Welfare reform! Cool!
4. More Welfare, More Poverty - Opinion piece that again suggests that Welfare programs are meant to END poverty. Not the case see #1
5. Does Welfare Dimish Poverty - See #1
6. Working Works in State-Based Welfare Reform - Great I agree. Why you posted this I don't understand tho
It may not be possible to end poverty. I can't say for certain one way or the other. However, the goal has to be to reduce poverty as much as possible doesn't it? It certainly doesn't make sense to increase poverty.
So what's wrong with trying to come up with a better way to decrease poverty? It really just feels like you are knee-jerking because someone spoke against the way welfare is working (or not working.) Is there something inherently wrong with trying to examine a system to see if there might be a better way to accomplish it's goals?
Any way you say it, less poverty is good. If we could end poverty, great. If not, then let's try to find the most effective way to reduce it as far as possible. The point is these programs don't encourage people to start earning on their own. If we are going to have government welfare programs that needs to be a key part of them; an incentive to start working and earning on your own.
Not so.
"According to the institutes data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.
If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.
Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.
Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.
According to this calculation, past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits. Adjusting for past and future transfers from the federal Treasury, the difference between "paid-in" and "paid-out" works out to $21.6 trillion.
the exhortation that todays generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect. We are to get much more under current Social Security laws to the tune of $21.6 trillion than well pay into the system. The excess benefits are a return on past and current generations taxes of $71.3 trillion and quite a handsome return it is!"
PolitiFact | Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get
It is the rich, the ones cursed up and down by the Liberal folk, who will not get back as much.
You really should stop believing government propaganda.
I have a suggestion: ask me when you need the truth.
SSI is/was a non-optional investment. Or a government run protection racket depending on how you want to look at it. Is there something wrong with a small profit on a longterm investment that might not even counter the effects of inflation much less equal actual voluntary investments? What about all the people who don't live long enough to withdraw a dime of what they put in?
"...the exhortation that todays generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect
Wrong.
Pleeeeezzze.....focus like a laser.
The post to which I responded said " YOUR money, money that YOU set aside"
Did I or did I not prove that this is not the case?
If you have some other issue to discuss re: Social Security, please state it as such.
SSI is/was a non-optional investment. Or a government run protection racket depending on how you want to look at it. Is there something wrong with a small profit on a longterm investment that might not even counter the effects of inflation much less equal actual voluntary investments? What about all the people who don't live long enough to withdraw a dime of what they put in?
"...the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect
Wrong.
Pleeeeezzze.....focus like a laser.
The post to which I responded said " YOUR money, money that YOU set aside"
Did I or did I not prove that this is not the case?
If you have some other issue to discuss re: Social Security, please state it as such.
I responded to your post and your statement: "...the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect
And, no you haven't proven that statement incorrect.
Some may get more than they paid "...the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect
Some may get more than they paid in out, some may get little or no return for their money. In any case you have not shown where anyone is getting any more than they are due based on their past payments.
Uh, where is the proof again?
