Some Inconvenient Facts About Social Security

[jbander]

All these MAGA Maggots contribute the same amount , yup, they contribute nothing, ever!

 

[hadit]

No we aren't we are talking about social security and the amount that people pay in. That means everyone ace. Everyone but the rich pay the same. The rich don't have top pay over a certain amount , like $170,000.00 or close to that. You have zero clue what you are talking about , you are like all right wingers you are going to try to bullshit your way through this , We won't let you, so when you say something stupid like much of your comments we will point that out , tell how little you know about the subject and get a good laugh out of your stupidity

SS payments are based on how much a person pays into it. The rich don't get large payments out of it because they don't pay into it beyond the cap on income. Remove the cap on income and they should also receive much larger SS payments. Something tells me, though, that's not what you want.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As long as they get commensurately more as they pay more, it shouldn't be a problem. There's a problem if they don't.

Wages are capped because the benefit is capped.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What a idiot , no one pays more than everyone else , they all pay 6.2%, only different is the rapers off this country only pay that 6.2% on a small part of their income while everyone else pays on every dollar they make. Answer my question, give us a list of countries that don't pay progressive tax rate. if it is good enough for the rest of the world, it is good enough for us. You are a joke.

Umm… wages are capped because benefits are capped. Precisely to ensure that everyone pays the same for their benefit.

 

[jbander]

Umm… wages are capped because benefits are capped. Precisely to ensure that everyone pays the same for their benefit.

Ah what , everyone gets paid different amounts for SS.

 

[jbander]

Umm… wages are capped because benefits are capped. Precisely to ensure that everyone pays the same for their benefit.

What a idiot , no one pays more than everyone else , they all pay 6.2%, only different is the rapers off this country only pay that 6.2% on a small part of their income while everyone else pays on every dollar they make. Answer my question, give us a list of countries that don't pay progressive tax rate. if it is good enough for the rest of the world, it is good enough for us. You are a joke.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No we aren't we are talking about social security and the amount that people pay in. That means everyone ace. Everyone but the rich pay the same. The rich don't have top pay over a certain amount , like $170,000.00 or close to that. You have zero clue what you are talking about , you are like all right wingers you are going to try to bullshit your way through this , We won't let you, so when you say something stupid like much of your comments we will point that out , tell how little you know about the subject and get a good laugh out of your stupidity

The max benefit is capped at $3600/month.
The wage cap is $160k/ yr
160k/12= 13,333
13,333(6.2%)= 826.64
826.64/3,600= 23%
Those at the wage cap pay 23% of their expected monthly benefit per month.

Average wage is $60k with an average monthly benefit of $1500.
The same formula shows they pay 20% of their expected monthly benefit per month.

They are relatively equal in what they pay for their benefits. As they should be.

Now. Raising the wage cap while leaving the benefit cap in place would totally destroy that. It would raise funds, sure. It would also build inequity into the system that previously did not exist.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The max benefit is capped at $3600/month.
The wage cap is $160k/ yr
160k/12= 13,333
13,333(6.2%)= 826.64
826.64/3,600= 23%
Those at the wage cap pay 23% of their expected monthly benefit per month.

Average wage is $60k with an average monthly benefit of $1500.
The same formula shows they pay 20% of their expected monthly benefit per month.

They are relatively equal in what they pay for their benefits. As they should be.

Now. Raising the wage cap while leaving the benefit cap in place would totally destroy that. It would raise funds, sure. It would also build inequity into the system that previously did not exist.

Nice Math.

Except benefits are not determined over a single year.

Benefit payouts are based on indexed and weighted averages spread over up to 35 years or earnings.

So even though the math is nice, it doesn't prove what you think it does. (The assumption might be correct, it might not. But the example math isn't a proof.)

Social Security Benefit Amounts

Cost of Living Adjustment

www.ssa.gov

WW

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Nice Math.

Except benefits are not determined over a single year.

Benefit payouts are based on indexed and weighted averages spread over up to 35 years or earnings.

So even though the math is nice, it doesn't prove what you think it does. (The assumption might be correct, it might not. But the example math isn't a proof.)

Social Security Benefit Amounts

Cost of Living Adjustment

www.ssa.gov

WW

No shit. That’s where I got the expected monthly benefit. It’s the benefit for that wage.
The top is the top and the average is the average.

It shows clearly that the average and the top pay the same for their respective benefit.

Prove otherwise.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No shit. That’s where I got the expected monthly benefit. It’s the benefit for that wage.
The top is the top and the average is the average.

It shows clearly that the average and the top pay the same for their respective benefit.

Prove otherwise.

I did. Link was provided.

WW

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Virtually all of the aged denizens of this great nation express similar opinions on Social Security regardless of political affiliation, to wit: “I paid into Social Security. It’s MY money. I am entitled to get it back when I retire.”



I know you were “promised” this benefit by the federal government, and that you donated 6% of your gross earnings to this purportedly noble system in good faith. Therefore, you are willing to fight tooth and nail to protect this program. I get it. Your feelings are understandable. It is the fair thing to occur.



However, maybe it is time for older Americans to consider Social Security benefits in a very different light. Instead of viewing Social Security as a good faith pact between contributors (forced contributors) and big daddy government, who knows what’s best for you; perhaps try considering Social Security as an elaborate, government sanctioned Ponzi scheme you were drawn into and fucked by.



There is no real Social Security trust fund. You have been lied to in order to gain your trust. Your SS contributions go into the general federal fund. You pay into a fungible fund, the feds draw from said funds to, inter alia, buy weapons, build roads to nowhere, and to finance tranny education in Pakistan. Then Congress authorizes spending a certain amount of SS funding in its periodic appropriations bills. Thus, the federal government receives your “investment”, spends it on whatever, then will pay you a “return” on your investment as funds are available to do so. When funds are no longer available to pay you a return, then you are fucked and there is nothing you can do about it. This is the heart of all Ponzi schemes.



Moreover, the monthly payments you SS trough feeders are receiving today is not YOUR money. YOUR money was spent decades ago. Your benefits are from the money being forcibly taken from people today. Your benefits are being doled out somewhat loosely based on the amount you have “paid in” (I.e., had taken from you involuntarily) over the years. But that is the only nexus between you and the money the government is giving you.



Social Security theoretically should not “go broke”. Every person is forced to give up 6% of their gross incomes. Recipients become eligible for SS payments at 65 (62 if you agree to reduce the monthly payment to which you are “entitled”. Thus, you have revenue funneled into the system by working folks, then being paid out to old, dying folks. If there was a “trust fund” being administered solely for retirement payments, then they could tweak the system to keep it solvent (e.g., increase contribution requirements; raise age of eligibility; reduce benefits; invest corpus of trust in conservative assets - e.g., municipal bonds - that have low risk but will grow the fund; etc…). But this is not how it works. There is no trustee administrator with a fiduciary duty to payees like there is with a private trust. The effective “administrator” of this fake “fund” is 535 senators and representatives who have no fiduciary interest to manage your Social Security benefits in a manner to ensure YOUR best interests are accounted for. A true trust fund would mot be subject to political interests.



If a real trust fund goes broke, then there is a big problem in terms of law and ethics. Somebody is either going to prison or will be subject to civil liability. However, there is no such redress if the fake SS fund “goes broke”. The only redress is political.



As mentioned, there is actually no trust fund to “go broke”. Rather, it boils down to projected spending. The “contributions” to SS (I.e., the 6% involuntary deduction taken from your gross pay) are going down while the benefits payments are increasing, all based upon changing demographics. Moreover, the out of control federal spending is causing the value of the dollar to decrease. This exacerbates the spending shortfall.



So, the nonexistent “fund” is not running out of money. Rather, projections show that it will be impossible to sustain the Social Security hand-outs -which accounts for a HUGE portion of the federal budget - at current revenue levels. In short, you retired Americans who rely upon this scheme to make ends meet are fucked. Perhaps you should go back to school and learn to code?



Don’t feel bad. I understand your anger. This is not the first time big government has lied to its subjects. Most older Americans are essentially dependent upon their Social Security payments. They are economic slaves on the plantation. They were promised Utopian retirement years, free of all obligations so they could spend their golden years fishing, knitting, and catching the “early bird special” down at the Country Buffet. But in reality they are economic slavery. They are made to fight tooth and nail to keep this financial boondoggle in place. They need their meager SS payment, and the government wants this large source of revenue. This is why it is so taboo, and politically destructive, to talk about common sense solutions to this coming disaster.



Americans need to get over their aversion to admitting that the federal government duped them into the Social Security Ponzi game. You were TAXED involuntarily for SS; you did not “contribute”. It is not “your money”, it’s the federal government’s money and they will spend it according to appropriations bills. And YOU let it happen this way.



When you look at this rationally it is clear that we are going to have to make big changes to this program. It cannot be avoided. SS represents a huge part of our budget. We should not run from this challenge. It fact, it is morally indefensible to ignore this. Politicians have been content to kick the can down the road lest they are portrayed in campaign ads as pushing grandma off the cliff.



There’s ways to address this. You can offset SS payments by giving tax cuts and deductions to families who take care of elder family members, in whole or in part. This costs us nothing. Rather, it can be “paid for” (a very misleading political term in this context) by cutting spending elsewhere. Further, it will make the nursing and assisted living homes more competitive and, thereby, lower costs. Hell, cutting Medicaid grants to states will do this too.



Innovation and capitalism will solve this issue, not big daddy government. But attitudes must change. Social Security is a big old socialist government clusterfuck that is not sustainable. Like most big government socialist clusterfucks it was always doomed to fail. Don’t blame the boomers either. SS is the brainchild of leftist Judeo-Christian guilt-think and is not based upon sound economic principles.

It's okay. The adults will handle this. SS is going nowhere. No one is proposing doing nothing to aid it. It's been fulfilling it's obligation(s) for how many years?

SS exists because people make irrational and risky investments based on the appeals of snake oil. When many fail, we have to bail them out, or end up like the shithole Germany/Nazi Germany was after WWI, before WWII.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Yet they have paid for over 80 years
Has any Ponzi Scheme ever paid out that long?

ty

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Courts have ruled that the government is not obligated to pay SS.

could you spend some of your time seeking out and posting a factual link for your claim?

 

[WorldWatcher]

could you spend some of your time seeking out and posting a factual link for your claim?

He's talking about Flemming v. Nestor who was an immigrant deported in 1960, the SS laws had been amended in 1954 to restrict immigrants that were deported from receiving benefits.

Some try to equate the deportation of an alien (and resulting disqualification) with US citizens.

WW

 

[Dante Reawakened]

He's talking about Flemming v. Nestor who was an immigrant deported in 1960, the SS laws had been amended in 1954 to restrict immigrants that were deported from receiving benefits.

Some try to equate the deportation of an alien (and resulting disqualification) with US citizens.

WW

I believe I know what he might back his argument on (shit out of the mouths of CATO https://www.cato.org/commentary/there-right-social-security# ). I don't believe the main flaw in his argument is an 'alien' vs a citizen.

I believe the members of the Court decided and dissented on arguments over 'property' -- The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause.

Now, did the Court actually rule that the government is not obligated to make social security payments? And how would apply to a Ponzi scheme, or not?



Flemming v. Nestor

 

[80zephyr]

He's talking about Flemming v. Nestor who was an immigrant deported in 1960, the SS laws had been amended in 1954 to restrict immigrants that were deported from receiving benefits.

Some try to equate the deportation of an alien (and resulting disqualification) with US citizens.

WW

If you read about it, you would see that the courts generally ruled that the government has no ob ligation to pay anyone.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

If you read about it, you would see that the courts generally ruled that the government has no ob ligation to pay anyone.

"Does the termination of Social Security benefits when the recipient is deported violate the Fifth Amendment right to accrued property?"

"No. Justice John M. Harlan delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Supreme Court held that the Social Security system was meant to be a form of long-term social insurance that has to constantly adapt to the demands of a changing workforce, which prevents it from fitting within the framework of the right to accrued property. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment only bars government action that is arbitrary or lacking in rational justification, neither of which is true in this case. The Court also held that the termination of benefits was not punitive but rather the “denial of a non-contractual government benefit.”

Justice Hugo L. Black wrote a dissenting opinion and argued that, because Nestor had been paying into the Social Security fund before he began receiving benefits, the government’s termination of his benefits was effectively depriving him of his property without just compensation. He also argued that both the deportation and termination of Nestor’s benefits, based solely on the fact that he was a member of the Communist Party 20 years previously when it was not illegal to do so, imposes an ex post facto law on him. In his separate dissenting opinion, Justice William O. Douglas argued that receiving Social Security benefits is a right earned by years of working and paying into the system, which Nestor did. The deprivation of those rights is a punishment that should only be reserved for those convicted of a crime. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., also wrote a separate dissenting opinion in which he argued that the deprivation of Social Security benefits for certain offenses constituted a punishment without judicial trial in violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws. Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Justice William O. Douglas joined in the dissent."

 

[80zephyr]

I believe I know what he might back his argument on (shit out of the mouths of CATO https://www.cato.org/commentary/there-right-social-security# ). I don't believe the main flaw in his argument is an 'alien' vs a citizen.

I believe the members of the Court decided and dissented on arguments over 'property' -- The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause.

Now, did the Court actually rule that the government is not obligated to make social security payments? And how would apply to a Ponzi scheme, or not?



Flemming v. Nestor

The Court’s decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

https://www.cato.org/commentary/there-right-social-security

 

[Dante Reawakened]

If you read about it, you would see that the courts generally ruled that the government has no ob ligation to pay anyone.

you appear to be confused by the nuances of argument

Is 80zepher confused

 

[80zephyr]

you appear to be confused by the nuances of argument

Is 80zepher confused

Maybe you could show me where I went wrong?