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.

 

Social Security Is Not A Guaranteed Right.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Over the last few years, we have heard a lot about social security and its problems. The different ways offered to fix it is through private accounts, reduced benefits, higher taxes, raising retirement age, and many other viable plans. However, up to now, there has been no fix and social security is expected to be in financial trouble in the near future.

I am amazed at how many people believe this program is a right, especially my friends and family members. People claim that they have paid in to it, as a result they are entitled to something in return.

But are they? There are many teachers who have paid into the system and will never see a dime of what they paid in. Mainly because they fall under a state pension fund.

If social security is a guarantee, why aren't these teachers allowed to collect or be refunded the money they have been taxed?

Politicians and the media are the reason many people believe social security is a guarantee. Politicians want to scare you for a vote and the media wants to sensationalize the story for ratings.

Pelosi-bold emphasis mine


“Workers who have paid into Social Security with every paycheck must receive the guaranteed benefit they were promised.

“It is the knowledge of that guaranteed benefit that allows more people in our society to pursue the entrepreneurial dreams that fuel so much of our economy.

“The burst of the Internet bubble in 2000 wreaked havoc on private investments.

“We won’t let a guaranteed benefit become a guaranteed gamble.


www.house.gov...

Obama-bold emphasis mine


The New Deal gave the laid-off worker a guarantee that he could count on unemployment insurance to put food on his family's table while he looked for a new job. It gave the young man who suffered a debilitating accident assurance that he could count on disability benefits to get him through the tough times. A widow might still raise her children without the indignity of charity. And Franklin Roosevelt's greatest legacy promised the couple who put in a lifetime of sacrifice and hard work that they could retire in comfort and dignity because of Social Security.


obamaspeeches.com...

Media-bold emphasis mine


All Americans should be concerned with this chatter. Social Security is the government’s guarantee to us that we will have a decent retirement and that our children will be covered in case we get disabled or die.


www.progressive.org...

There is no guarantee because there is no contract between the government and the people paying into social security.

Furthermore, decisions from the Supreme Court have validated that social security is not a contractual right.

Flemming v. Nestor.

He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.


www.ssa.gov...


The current situation from the Social security website


Should I count on Social Security for all my retirement income?

A. No. Social Security was never meant to be the sole source of income in retirement. It is often said that a comfortable retirement is based on a "three-legged stool" of Social Security, pensions, and savings. American workers should be saving for their retirement on a personal basis and through employer-sponsored or other retirement plans.


www.ssa.gov...

If social security was wasn't intended as the sole source of income for retirement, then why did the government enact it? In the 1930's, there were very few companies that paid pensions.


As late as 1932, only about 15% of the laborforce had any kind of potential employment-related pension. And because the pensions were often granted or withheld at the option of the employer, most of these workers would never see a retirement pension. Indeed, only about 5% of the elderly were in fact receiving retirement pensions in 1932.


www.ssa.gov...


And finally, I present FICA.


The payroll taxes collected for Social Security are of course taxes, but they can also be described as contributions to the social insurance system that is Social Security. Hence the name "Federal Insurance Contributions Act."

So FICA is nothing more than the tax provisions of the Social Security Act, as they appear in the Internal Revenue Code.


www.ssa.gov...


Social Security is nothing more than a welfare program with no guarantees. Congress can change the terms of the deal anytime they see fit. Maybe next time a politician tells you that social security is a right or guarantee because of the amount you have contributed(been taxed), tell that politician to write it down in form of a contract.

How many of you feel social security should be a guarantee and are counting on it when you retire?




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I think we should just get rid of Social Security 100%.

It only harms us.

See, if my grandparents got to KEEP the $$$ they earned, they would not need SS anyways.

Think about it.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Agree 100% muzzleflash.

This economy is hurting social security as well.


With unemployment rising, the payroll tax revenue that finances Social Security benefits for nearly 51 million retirees and other recipients is falling, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, the trust fund's annual surplus is forecast to all but vanish next year -- nearly a decade ahead of schedule -- and deprive the government of billions of dollars it had been counting on to help balance the nation's books.


www.washingtonpost.com...

We keep hearing about the SS trust fund. There is no money in the account. Basically IOUs. The government borrows the money in exchange for special government bonds. Now how much do you think those bonds are worth during this economy and the high debt we owe?


According to the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton Administration in 1999:

These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.


www.washingtonpost.com...

IMO, those private accounts that Bush proposed are starting to sound pretty good.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


All I want, then, is the money I paid into it over the last 30 years of my working life. I earned it....the government did not. I only want what they took from me under false pretense...no more, no less. There is no doubt in my mind that I could manage it better than them. The government owes money to every working American who has paid into the system. Not our fault they have misused it. I have no sympathy or tolerance for their incompetence and corruption.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hugues de Payens
reply to post by jam321
 


All I want, then, is the money I paid into it over the last 30 years of my working life. I earned it....the government did not. I only want what they took from me under false pretense...no more, no less. There is no doubt in my mind that I could manage it better than them. The government owes money to every working American who has paid into the system. Not our fault they have misused it. I have no sympathy or tolerance for their incompetence and corruption.


Totally agree!! Give me my SS 'contributions' back!! You can call it what you like, but when enacted it was pushed as being threr when we retire and it damn well should be! The government has done nothing but screw us with all the taxes they have laid upob us over decades and decades of lies. If SS was never meant for us to be able to draw upon when we retire then it never should have been put into effect!!

What about those that worked their whole lives to get screwed out of theit retirement?? This is the case with my late father and my mom. Without SS they would have had nothing! 40 years of paying into SS and nothing in return?!?!?!? Hope the gov can see us coming........




posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 




Social Security Is Not A Guaranteed Right.


I have heard this same argument applied to many issues. For instance, there is no absolute right to health care. But it sure makes it hard to pursue life, liberty and happiness when one is sick or injured and unable to obtain decent medical attention.

As for Social Security, I don't know if I view it as a right but I do see it as a contract between my government and my money and trust. I have indeed paid into this fund all my working life, with the understanding that it would be there at retirement or sooner if something should happen such as a work injury that left me permanently disabled.

For those of us with a lifetime investment in this program, there is no issue of rights because it is more than that. For those who miss the point; It is a solemn covenant of trust that should not be violated for the mere whims of those who would like to use the funds for other purposes or for any temporary, political expediency.


...



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Social Security not a guaranteed right???
Why not just follow the Prez's lead and use someone else number?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by jam321
 




Social Security Is Not A Guaranteed Right.


As for Social Security, I don't know if I view it as a right but I do see it as a contract between my government and my money and trust. I have indeed paid into this fund all my working life, with the understanding that it would be there at retirement or sooner if something should happen such as a work injury that left me permanently disabled.

For those of us with a lifetime investment in this program, there is no issue of rights because it is more than that. For those who miss the point; It is a solemn covenant of trust that should not be violated for the mere whims of those who would like to use the funds for other purposes or for any temporary, political expediency.


...




To me it's even more simple than that, although you stated it nicely. To me it's more a loan given to the government. I expect it paid back.

At this point I'm not even interested in adjustment for inflation or interest. I only want returned what they took...no more....no less. Like I said earlier....I earned the money. They did not.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 


Many people share your sentiments.


Over a million public employees in California who qualify for Social Security –directly or indirectly through their spouses – won’t get the benefits when they retire. They include firefighters, police officers and schoolteachers. Years ago, Congress voted to keep pensioners from double dipping. But the decision wound up penalizing civil servants across the country.

Over a million public employees in California who qualify for Social Security ?directly or indirectly through their spouses ? won?t get the benefits when...

Mark Sobel, a rabbi in Burbank, pays part of his salary into Social Security, but when he retires he won’t see a penny of it.

"I would like to earn back what I put in," he told NBC4, "which I think is the American way. It smacks of taxation without representation."


www.nbclosangeles.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I think you are wrong about the teachers. Most teachers still get it. Those who don't work for districts that have opted out of having their share contributed. The share the district pays still gets paid but it is paid into an invetsment account instead. Depending on the district and employee's choice it is invested in fixed annuities, treasury bonds, equities, etc. For all asset classes available the return over the last 20 years has well exceeded the return one would have earned from social security even considering only half the money was invested. Upon retirement the teachers in these plans get payments from this fund in addition to their pensions.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I paid it. It's mine. I will one day want it back!

OR

Give it back to me now, at which time I will immediately go out and buy either land, precious metals, or stock (not likely on the latter, these days).

The economy will be stimulated and I will have something of tangible value. Problem solved.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by netwarrior]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join