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.

 

The social security scam, what's your hard earned money? and what is an entitlement ?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
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?




posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
The program is a good program and the rate takes into consideration the life expectancy of an individual. It takes into effect that many people who have paid in die before they collect a cent also. If they did not figure in this stuff, the rate would be higher. It is meant to subsidize your living when you retire, not give you a whole lot of money. If your home is paid off when you retire and you have reduced your impulse spending, you can live on that money. It is advisable to have all bills paid before retiring, I don't think people should even think of having payments go beyond retirement age and have some savings for emergencies.

I know people who had 401k retirement plans that cashed them in when they retired and bought a new car and stuff like a camp or a better house. one took out a loan against his retirement. They bought things they do not need when they retired. They also blow their retirement savings on trips and cruises and it goes away quickly, then all they have is social security to live on. I have seen a lot of this happen, they were cooped up at jobs most of their life and go wild when they retire, unless they get sick and give all their money to the doctors and hospitals.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: phinubian

You'd make a horrible actuary



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You are right, I'd probably make a better "devils advocate"



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: phinubian

I read somewhere the NWO and Agenda 21 types want to do away with the concept of inheritance altogether. dunno why though, presumably to make sure the masses stay broke, one generation after another and so provide the evidence they deserve nothing more.

I've also read in Australia that they want to stop people getting their superanuation in a lump sum and so force people to accept only a self paid pension. Hence, when you die the leftover goes into consolidated revenue.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 06:02 AM
link   
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
edit on th30141034719310062014 by St Udio because: clarity


 


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)
edit on th30141034822610232014 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   


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.


And they would be WRONG.

First off payroll taxes pay for ss benefits.

A person is only paying 6% towards their benefits.

Then someone else(employer) is matching that contribution anyone who is employed.

Neither contribution covers the benefits received.

So they tax the 'majority'.

So they tax the so called evil rich.

Neither one of those covers the benefits received.

So then they sell 'treasuries'.

That still doesn't cover it.

So they print more fiat currency that still doesn't cover it.

So they rinse and repeat that cycle ad infintum.

It is the countries only LEGAL ponzi scheme.

First in first out leave others holding the bag.

A scam worthy of evil wall street.

Except if people took care of their own 'retirements' through various financial instruments like IRA's, and 401s they would have a better standard of living that keeps up with inflation.

Oh that inflation is a killer the more money they print the less that government stipend buys.

SS is definatly a scam.

Medicare works the same way with the addition of double.triple taxation with new taxes created called the capitol gains 'sur tax'.
edit on 10-9-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I'll never even get a fraction of the SS money I paid into the system as a worker and later as a business owner with employees.

But one thing is certain...

Politicians talking about SS reform, Medicaid or Medicare reform is a fast track to losing the election.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Actually "I" paid about 15% of my salary into the social security fund over forty some odd years. Yes, the "employer paid half of that," BUT that was a part of "my" compensation. It's mine just as much as the dollar my employer gave me for services rendered. SOME of the compensation my employer have to me outright and SOME my employer paid into the fund on my behalf.

The amount I paid is is way more than OP stated. I paid close to $200,000 into the system. Now, what happened to that money, really? It went to pay the last generation's benefits. What WOULD HAVE happened to that money had I stuffed it into a very safe CD every year at the going rate for a long term CD? This is a complex equation, but a simple answer is that it would have easily doubled. Some years the interest rate was 10%. Some years, like now, it's zilch, but overall, that money would have compounded, year after year, into double at least.

Now, all this money paid to the government resulted in me qualifying for a social security pension of about $20K per year. Obviously you can simply divide the pay-in by the pay-out and get ten years, but you would never do that. You would buy an "annuity" that was designed to pay out that $200K and ALSO earn interest over the term. When someone wins the lottery of "1 million dollars" that is what the State does--buys an annuity for $500K that PAYS-OUT a cool 1 million over 20-25 years.

So it's not really fair to simply divide and claim I get more out of social security than I paid in. If we did the CD route I'd have about $800K for my retirement. If we accepted the "no interest" solution of the Feds, I'd still have half that. And guess what THAT is divided by my monthly amount?

20 years. And what's my life expectancy? 78 years overall, or 83 years if I've already made it to 65. So using the Federal method I "use up" my contribution at age 85, two years after I'm dead, or using the CD route, I could have doubled my pension to $40K with exactly the same amount of pay-in over the years.

Now, as it happens, we have a ready comparison. I also have a state pension, which demanded and got EXACTLY the same percentages as reported above for social security. They still cheat, but this time the money "I" put into the fund is totally mine and is part of my estate. If I die early, say right at 65, ALL that money PLUS INTEREST in paid directly to my estate. The state keeps the "other half" donated by my employer. This is still theft, mind you, but it's a less onerous robbery than the Feds do.

And THIS pension pays double what social security does. These guys have invested the money over the years in "prudent man" investments and guess what? They've done so well that the fund is "actuarially sound." In other words, they aren't going to run out of money, even with the last few years of losses.

In both cases, this is MY MONEY we're talking about. It isn't "funded by taxpayers." I funded it out of my salary, my compensation, over my working life.

So I entirely reject the notion that social security is an "entitlement"" fund. It was my money initially and the Feds have offered a very poor return. To be fair, social security is not all about retirement. There's disability and survivor's benefits, too, for those who need them.

I know there are all sorts of issues. One frequently brought up is those treacherous Baby Boomers returning in droves and expecting the younger generation to "support them" with far fewer workers paying into the fund.

Uh, wait a sec here. Remember? Whose money is this? Who paid into the fund? Who wants THEIR money back out now? The return on my CD does not depend on how many people are buying their own CDs.

The fact is, I paid my own way. I'm not asking for help. I just want my money back.
edit on 9/10/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
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.

Which means other people are paying for that benefit.

Hence entitlement.

People are only entitled to what they have paid in themselves.

They are not entitled to the money from others.

From the employer, to double,taxation,triple taxation. to the printing of fiat currency, and borrowing of fiat currency. To printing treasuries.

Social Security was never designed to be self sufficient.

Ponzi scheme or Multi level marketing.

It depends on new people to scam, and the endless borrowing, and printing.

Because if people were paying for what they get out of it.

There is no need for more taxes,more printing, more borrowing.

Hell China is paying for that 'entitlement'.

In what world does it make sense to go in to debt for that vow of poverty SS benefits are?
edit on 10-9-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

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?


Because it's a Ponzi scheme at it's heart.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   

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)
. I thought pensions and 401k's were there to be pilfered by WALLSTREET parasites?



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




Because it's a Ponzi scheme at it's heart.


Yes it is straight from the IRS.



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.


www.irs.gov...

6.2 % for US

6.2 % for the employer

For SS

And Medicare at 1.45 % for each.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
A little trivia: Who here knows who the single largest holder of US debt is?

Thats right. The social security trust.

Forget social security, people. Its passed the point of no return.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

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.


Yes,

as I painstakingly showed above. Hence, no entitlement. You either did not bother to read, or failed to comprehend, what I wrote above. Indeed, had I been allowed to keep that money invested in a lowly no-risk CD in the custody of one of those accursed capitalistic banks, I would have double the retirement from that exact same money than I do now. I paid more into the fund than I will likely get back out even if you discount the fact that the interest on that money was stolen from me. Only if I exceed my actuarially determined lifespan by several years will I get "more" than I paid in. My earnings over the years were quite normal, beginning with several years at the minimum wage.

edit on 9/10/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/10/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
naw, I am not even 50 and my lifetime contribution to SS is almost 50k according to a statement a couple of years ago.... so imagine if I continue to work it's going to be around 70k at least, a high percentage never make it to 62 to see a check, I have heard lots of stories of people who think they should wait until 65 and they die before they get a dime and the government wants to raise the age to 67 or something, then in some cases they don't have money for burial expenses, how can you call that money an entitlement ? the only person entitled to it is the worker whose labor produced the contributions, it does not belong to the government because obligation of paying a benefit has not been met, and if payouts to a person that dies leaves any part of their contribution, they or their family is due a refund.

One of two things should happen, any matching should only kick in once you exhaust your own money you put in, then you get the matching amount, if you die prior to exhausting your money and the government has not given you a dime, you should get the balance of whatever was taken from you during your hard working years....

I put money on it, the candidate that runs for president in the future, this will be the cornerstone to run by, if he can sell it, because to date, it is always spun as an entitlement, when a great majority probably never see what they put into it and many might die before seeing a dime... despite what you are saying..

NO ENTITLEMENT

edit on 10-9-2014 by phinubian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   

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.


It is an entitlement because those of us who have paid into the system are entitled to the benefits paid over the years. It is a tax therefore one is entitled to the long term benefit of paying that tax. Am I saying that it is a good system? Hell no if all the monies were truly going into true retirement then they would be subject to the laws pertaining to that 401K and such. But the rat bastards in DC began to steal the monies from the very beginning and made it part of the general fund in the 60’s by the democratically controlled houses of congress in the 60’s.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Yeah some people are not bothering to read what has been written.

Personal contributions to the SS funds DO NOT COVER THE money received from the program.

Since OTHER PEOPLE ARE PAYING the difference makes it entitlement.

Someone else is paying you all.

I Do not know what is so hard to understand about that.

If a person WAS FULLY funding that benefit themselves then it would be a different story.

That is a fact.

WE ALL are partially funding that program.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join