Social Security is a rip off

From the Social Security website:

CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary

Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.


Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

(The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year

There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.

(The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.)


Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. (The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.)

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department. (A detailed explanation of the 1983 Amendments can be found elsewhere on our website.)

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

So Roosevelt lied. Typical fascist.
 
Have you ever calculated how much you would have in retirement funds if you had invested all of your social security taxes, incrementally as you have paid them, in a safe investment portfolio, such as municipal bonds (5-6%, almost no risk), or corporate real estate (7%, slight risk). After 45 years of working most people would be millionaires. And if they die the day after they retire, their spouses or children get to fight over the money.

The only difference between you, with your mortgage, college bills, and retirement worries, vs. the old money people living in mansions, is that their grandparents had enough money in the bank to set them up in a comfortable lifestyle. These people perpetuate their wealth by adding to the principle to keep up with inflation and living off the interest. The current social security system virtually assures that this will never happen to the middle and lower classes. Since we are forced to pay so much taxes, we can't afford to retire!

Say at age 20 you make $20,000/yr ($1667/mo) and pay 6.2% of your income into a fund matched by your employer, and continue this practice until you retire at age 65. After 45 years in a slight risk investment (and with a 45 year term it is almost inconceivable that a "slight risk" investment would have any risk), earning 7%, you would have $783,802 dollars in the bank. (Let's forget inflation here because we will assume that your raises would at least keep up with inflation.) By continuing your 7% investment, never touching the principle, you would be able to draw $4572 in interest per month upon retirement. That's 2.74 times your pre-retirement income. A low risk, 5% investment would earn you almost twice your pre-retirement income.

And the numbers simply multiply with income. Under this scenario, a retired couple would have over $1.5 million in the bank and earn over $100,000 per year in interest.

Compare that with the paltry amount given back by the government in social security. But here is the real rub: after you die, all your principle can be given to your children and grandchildren, basically setting them with "old money". Comparatively, your social security “investment” evaporates, and some people die unable to pay for a decent funeral.

The Republican plan is to transition from the system that we have now to full privatization over several decades, to allow support of the retired and retiring who have been duped all these years. You and I won’t see full privatization, but maybe our grandchildren will.

This is the truth that Democrats don't want you to know. By throwing crumbs, rich liberals like Kennedy and Edwards will continue to be supported by poor people. After all, a retired couple living on 100 large doesn’t really care about the cost of prescription drugs, universal health care, or the current question of social security. They are unlikely to vote for a Democrat.

Do the math. Be smart about your life decisions. See more at http://calculator.socialsecurity.org/.

This has been known for years. It's good you point these facts out though.

Or,,, I agree with most of this. I think though the Republicans have some some short comings as well.
 
I don't know if earlier on I posted, "No fricking duh!" So I'll do it here. This is like saying that Catsup is made from tomatoes...

Its ketchup, retard!!

And Social Security is a gyp, at least to Gen X who will never see it. Portions of Boomers won't see it, either. I may actually collect SS, because it may have come back into existence by the time I retire...
 
I think it will become needs based, which means that I will likely have a retirement income from my actual investments of about $100 more annually than the limit that the government will start to pay out.
 
you want to see a real revolution in this country? Profitize SS. Right wing greed has no bounds.

Considering we dipped into it and spent most of it... Where did that past revolution over SS march off to?

Also, who's going to fight in it? Everyone 18-30 (Millenials) and 30-50 (Gen X) knows we're not going to get SS, so we'd be fighting over nothing.
 
Last edited:
Considering we dipped into it and spent most of it... Where did that past revolution over SS march off to?

Also, who's going to fight in it? Everyone 18-30 (Millenials) and 30-50 (Gen X) knows we're not going to get SS, so we'd be fighting over nothing.

When you fuck with old people's money they vote. It's one reason neocons were voted out last 2 elections and conservative ideology was rejected.

"Al Gore promised to put all future Social Security surpluses in a "lockbox" to be used only for the payment of Social Security benefits, and candidate George W. Bush promised to do the same...
Despite these promises, President Bush has been raiding the trust fund since he took office," Smith said, "and he no longer tries to conceal what he has done. In an effort to muster support for his privatization proposal, he has been openly admitting to the raiding of the fund."
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SocialSecurity/5-03-21SSFundsSpent.htm
 
When you fuck with old people's money they vote. It's one reason neocons were voted out last 2 elections and conservative ideology was rejected.

"Al Gore promised to put all future Social Security surpluses in a "lockbox" to be used only for the payment of Social Security benefits, and candidate George W. Bush promised to do the same...
Despite these promises, President Bush has been raiding the trust fund since he took office," Smith said, "and he no longer tries to conceal what he has done. In an effort to muster support for his privatization proposal, he has been openly admitting to the raiding of the fund."
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SocialSecurity/5-03-21SSFundsSpent.htm

Uh, the government has been stealing from SS since LBJ. Its been a while, and no revolution. Bush is out of office, and its still getting spent under new management, just as it was spent before he came to power. And still no revolution.

If you think old people, who willed the theft of SS to happen in the first place are scary with their voting, then LOLZ. Young people will be coming out to vote as soon as they discover that the healthcare bill forces them to buy health insurance that they don't want, under threat of fine, and then jail.
 
Considering we dipped into it and spent most of it... Where did that past revolution over SS march off to?

Also, who's going to fight in it? Everyone 18-30 (Millenials) and 30-50 (Gen X) knows we're not going to get SS, so we'd be fighting over nothing.

Generation X doesn't include anything over 45.

Trust me.
 
Generation X doesn't include anything over 45.

Trust me.

I've always found it retarded that the Kaboomers are supposed to span all the way to 1965. People born from 1960-65 should be considered Gen X. I mean, its not like X spans all the way to 1985; somewhere from 1978-80, the Millenial generation starts. They back it up 1-2 years because of computer technology, which is supposed to define us, having never lived without the computer being around.

Anyway, I don't have much sympathy for the Kaboomers, because you did nothing to stop government from spending your retirement over the span of your entire adult lives, and you aren't even doing anything now. Fucking retarded generation that's never done anything but take a big dump on X, and now you want them to take care of you, along with my generation. God, I'm glad I'm not a Gen Xer, who is going to have a lovely future thanks to you lot.
 
Right, because supporting the left, who is responsible for destroying SS is a great way to stand up for other people. You need more weed.

SS has already been destroyed by the Reps and the Dems. I don't expect to see anything here soon.

Do you?

I mean the money is already gone.
 
I've always found it retarded that the Kaboomers are supposed to span all the way to 1965. People born from 1960-65 should be considered Gen X. I mean, its not like X spans all the way to 1985; somewhere from 1978-80, the Millenial generation starts. They back it up 1-2 years because of computer technology, which is supposed to define us, having never lived without the computer being around.

Anyway, I don't have much sympathy for the Kaboomers, because you did nothing to stop government from spending your retirement over the span of your entire adult lives, and you aren't even doing anything now. Fucking retarded generation that's never done anything but take a big dump on X, and now you want them to take care of you, along with my generation. God, I'm glad I'm not a Gen Xer, who is going to have a lovely future thanks to you lot.

Your second paragraph is something I totally agree with. But don't forget the generations you've targeted. People were warned not to do what was chosen by Congress, and now time has gone on to this point which brings us here. Which generation is going to pay? I say, make the stand here. Start cutting now. Before people who are not born yet, are born into hell.
 
Back
Top