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.
no they weren’t. It is and always has been just a tax. The government started paying out SS right after Congress passed the bill. It’s just old people welfare. When you loo on your W2. Does it say SS tax or SS investment?“old people” paid in a lot. Say $350K over 40 years. The GOVT was supposed to collect, save and invest. The messed up, not people. They stole it. At 7% annual interest compounded its a non issue to get back $360K every ten years. Probably not many live 20 yrs getting paid. It was designed self sufficient based on interest growth in bonds or whatever.
The SS fund was not always part of the general fund. That changed during the 1960s when the politicians discovered "all that cash" just lying there waiting to be spent. Then they replaced the fund with the "full faith and credit" of the US government.“old people” paid in a lot. Say $350K over 40 years. The GOVT was supposed to collect, save and invest. The messed up, not people. They stole it. At 7% annual interest compounded its a non issue to get back $360K every ten years. Probably not many live 20 yrs getting paid. It was designed self sufficient based on interest growth in bonds or whatever.
Not until they raided it. It was 7:1 pay in to pay out in the start. Easily self sustainable. And it is our savings. Not theirs. Every dime was put in by employee labor. Not Tax dollars.no they weren’t. It is and always has been just a tax. The government started paying out SS right after Congress passed the bill. It’s just old people welfare. When you loo on your W2. Does it say SS tax or SS investment?
Not only do they get $120k government pensions, but they’re tied to inflation as well. They are protected from the consequences of their vote.$120K GOVT never ending pensions are 2X worse as Couch funds those. Don't let him find out. They only need 20 yrs service.
john boner gets $86K worked 26 ys.
Rodd Perot was not against Social Security.
He was the only one who told the truth back in 1992.
Bush Sr. said there was a surplus (there was) that would carry SS well into the future.
Perot said that is true, but the government is not keeping the surplus, or investing it. They are spending it like it is candy. And that is exactly what happened. And, almost exactly like he stated in 1992 - SS will be insolvent by 2036. That is what he projected 32 years ago, and he was precisely right.
Many state and municipal employees are exempted from paying into social security.
The original SS bill required all excess funds to be placed in treasury bonds. In other words given to the Government which spent that money. SS is a tax. Always has been always will be.The SS fund was not always part of the general fund. That changed during the 1960s when the politicians discovered "all that cash" just lying there waiting to be spent. Then they replaced the fund with the "full faith and credit" of the US government.
www.fool.com
Ben is not right and he needs to be put in his place -- again.
The disingenuous little prick knew what he was doing, and tried to hide and cry foul.
It wasn't "raided" The government got all the excess money paid into SS via treasury bonds in the original bill.Not until they raided it. It was 7:1 pay in to pay out in the start. Easily self sustainable. And it is our savings. Not theirs. Every dime was put in by employee labor. Not Tax dollars.
SS would never have a problem if we tied the retirement age to 3 years older than the life expectancy.
What woman would ever threaten a man by saying she would put him in the hospital? That’s a male way of thinking.Youre an idiot if you think the trans guy won that. Trans guy lost the argument and then got physical, as men often do, and instantly lost the debate. Ben crushed it!
try that now and you will have a full fledged revolt on your hands
Stop trying to equate SS payments that hard-working Americans contributed to their entire lives to TRUE welfare handed out to young people in their 20s and 30s who refuse to get a job. The former group has contributed to society for 40 years, when the latter are takers.I have no doubt there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth if you took away everyone's old people welfare. Im not even advocating that we would should but we should at least be honest about what it is and treat it accordingly.
Mine always said FICA (Federal Insurance Contribution Act) Are you saying that you shouldn't collect from the insurance company that you've been paying premiums to when you suffer the loss or meet the requirements? I am sure the insurance industry and and annuity companies will be happy to know that.When you loo on your W2.
56 for me, but I had employer covered healthcare and a nice 401K. I did half, my employer covered the other half of the two obstacles to early retirement (money and healthcare)
It wasn't "raided" The government got all the excess money paid into SS via treasury bonds in the original bill.
SS is a tax. The benefits are a Ponzi scheme that only survives because it has the power of the Government to keep it afloat.
The reason the ratio was 7:1 when SS started was because the life expectancy in 1935 was 58 for men and 62 for women. Most people died before they collected and even if they did collect it wasn't for long. In other words, the Government always collected far more than it ever had to pay out. The retirement age in the original SS bill was 3 years past when people were expected to live. SS would never have a problem if we tied the retirement age to 3 years older than the life expectancy.
It's amazing to me everyone on here arguing about the subject without doing a simple google search.
Are you sure? I understood that anyone who served even one term in congress could collect a congressional pension on retirement. Maybe I was misinformed.$120K GOVT never ending pensions are 2X worse as Couch funds those. Don't let him find out. They only need 20 yrs service.
john boner gets $86K worked 26 ys.
