It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: phinubian
It was not meant to be a personal retirement plan. Thus the name "Social" Security. I started paying into the program in 1968, every paycheck until 2008. I now get a check every month and it is how I pay medical. I have a separate private pension plan.
Most of us know many people that worked hard, did all of the right things more than likely paid their taxes and also gave a part of their paycheck to the government to help fund social security, with the promise that at some point you would receive some benefits if you reached a certain age or became eligible for some reason.
So I entirely reject the notion that social security is an "entitlement"" fund.
originally posted by: phinubian
Most of us know many people that worked hard, did all of the right things more than likely paid their taxes and also gave a part of their paycheck to the government to help fund social security, with the promise that at some point you would receive some benefits if you reached a certain age or became eligible for some reason.
The mere fact that there are retirement plans, 401 K's etc, should not take from the fact that your contributions to social security is your money, not the government's.
Now many politicians always use the entitlement billing for social security, but no one ever says a word about the 25-50,000 dollars or so over a working career that someone has actually freely given as a result of their labor and might never see a dime of it back.
I am surprised that if a person dies, or never receives one penny, why does this money not get returned to them, their heirs or a fund, because the component that is a not matched is pure contributions that someone has given out of their paycheck, this is wealth on a large scale that cannot be computed.
Most people that live to get retirement will not even be paid back what they actually contributed if they did work for instance 35 years and and made 45-60k per year.
I think there should be more outcry from citizens that have a record of what could amount to a year or two years of a working salary tax free literally stolen from them, this is a huge problem because people already pay taxes and many times owe money at the end of the year.
Who else out there thinks that if a person works 25-30 years, regardless of their income, have worked hours and not been paid , but only promised that you will get your money back as an entitlement because the government claims they are also adding in money from their program, but in actuality in many cases you won't even see all of your own money returned, who thinks there is nothing wrong with this and who thinks that it is actually a form of theft if your actual contributions will never be fully returned or if you die cannot be a part of your estate or be paid to a relative?
. I thought pensions and 401k's were there to be pilfered by WALLSTREET parasites?
originally posted by: St Udio
if you recall...a decade or more ago there was a big hubbub about Social Security accounts being pilfered by the Federal Government for years-- because the Social Security bag-of-assets was listed as being in the 'General Fund' where Congress could borrow the monies for anything they could think of
then the President, to quell the public outrage...created the fictional 'Lock Box' which was supposed to keep the Social Security 'Surplus' out of the hands of those self-serving Congress persons
Social Security is totally an exercise in "Socialism"....that is why 401Ks and IRAs were created (but these savings programs are generally controlled by registered 'Dealers-Agents' in what are called 'Custodial Accounts'....so your 401K or IRA is subject to the same 'bail-in' seizure that Banks have over your voluntary savings-checking deposits (unsecured loans in Legalese talk)
it would be too costly & wasteful for Congress to re-vamp the SSA program, so live with it
ADD:
you can however create a LLC (personal corporation, about $500.) to manage/self direct your own IRA
(I am not certain about self directed ROTH IRAs)
then you are in control of your retirement $$, and at least one step removed from seizures of IRAs, 401Ks by those Custodial Agents such as Market-Maker Financial Institutions, Big Banks, Mutual Funds, money managers....
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: phinubian
It was not meant to be a personal retirement plan. Thus the name "Social" Security. I started paying into the program in 1968, every paycheck until 2008. I now get a check every month and it is how I pay medical. I have a separate private pension plan.
my SS check pays for the annual property taxes here in a tourist destination,
my separate private pension plan is not to be touched for another 4 years (hopefully)
Because it's a Ponzi scheme at it's heart.
The current tax rate for social security is 6.2% for the employer and 6.2% for the employee, or 12.4% total. The current rate for Medicare is 1.45% for the employer and 1.45% for the employee, or 2.9% total. Refer to Publication 15, (Circular E), Employer's Tax Guide, for more information, or for agricultural employers refer to Publication 51, (Circular A), Agricultural Employer’s Tax Guide.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: schuyler
So I entirely reject the notion that social security is an "entitlement"" fund.
Why ?
Do people fund their benefits 100% by themselves ?
No.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: schuyler
Hence, no entitlement.
Yeah it is.
To repeat NO PERSON funds their benefits by themselves.
People are getting back MORE than they ever paid in.
The difference is made up by other means.
ENTITLEMENT.