Social Security Observation

[AZRedhawk44]

In direct opposition to traditional APS norms, I'm going to start a new thread rather than derailing the Harry Reid Social Security thread.

Harry said:

"The reason they're going after Social Security is that's where the money is," Reid said. "They want to take money that isn't theirs."

There's a sense among SS recipients, and soon-to-be SS recipients, that "they paid into the system and they should get what's coming to them."  That they have a big (or not so big) chunk of cash in some government account, just waiting to be apportioned to them for their retirement years.

FDR signed Social Security into law in 1935.

The first Social Security checks were cut in 1940.  The first collector was Ida May Fuller.  She paid in to Social Security for 3 whole years.  Whooptidoo.  She collected $22.54 in benefits a month, roughly equivalent to about $375 per month today if adjusted for inflation.


From http://www.ssa.gov/history/idapayroll.html:

Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.

She did NOT pay in her $22,888.92 over her lifetime, but she sure sucked out $22,888.92 during her retirement.

I present the claim that NO social security recipient "deserves" the money they receive.  From its inception it was structured as a means of taking money from youth and redistributing it to the elderly.  Money received by recipients isn't "theirs."  Previous generations were dumb enough to buy into the ponzi scheme.  Previous generations had the option of pulling the plug and removing the scab and dealing with the pain.

I reserve the right for my generation to do the same.

[French G.]

There is real money somewhere that is theirs. For me right now that is about 17K, I would consider mine that plus reasonable interest. Any other proposition is theft under the color of law. I do not disagree that the money is not there, I do not disagree that it is a ponzi scheme. My only disagreement is that left to my own volition I do not participate in ponzi schemes. I had no choice on this one.

How dare you not drift a thread anyway!

[AZRedhawk44]

Ida Fuller contributed $24.75 and collected nearly $23,000.  That's nearly a 1000-fold return on her contributions.  That money didn't come from any perceived compounded interest.  It was taken, at the muzzle of a gun, from young taxpayers.

You will contribute about $20k and collect several hundred thousand dollars.  Via theft under color of law, by men with guns, who will come and kill me if I refuse to pay that portion of taxes.  It is not, and never was, "your money."  "Your money" was spent over the last 20 years you have been working, giving it to the previous generation.

Ida Fuller proves this, incontrovertibly.

Any other proposition is theft under the color of law.

Not when the original proposition was never a compelled savings and investment program.  It was intended from the get-go to be a "take from the youth and give to the elderly" program.  Otherwise Ida Fuller would have collected a buck or two per benefit check.

[SADShooter]

Redhawk:

You're entirely correct. However, the myth has been entrenched for decades, and no amount of fact-waving is going to materially break it.

SADShooter

[bedlamite]

Such is the nature of a Ponzi scheme.

[HankB]

The SS trust fund is currently in the black to the tune of trillions of dollars. Just recently - as the first of the 'boomers retires - has it dipped into the red for the year. (Note that a lot goes to persons other than retirees.) Still, most of the money in the fund today was contributed by 'boomers.

It is not set to run out until 2037 - when it does, it will be because retired 'boomers are getting some of their own money back. (And Fed.gov is TAXING that money . . . and putting it into the general fund, not back into SS.)

Fed.gov has borrowed SS money, replacing it with Fed.gov securities. Now the loans are beginning to come due.

I'm not going to argue that it's not a Ponzi scheme.

I'm not going to argue that it's not biased to provide a higher return to those who pay in the least (i.e., the Ida Fullers of society) since promised benefits don't rise in proportion to lifetime contributions.

I'm not even going to argue that it's a good investment - some years back, the now defunct Keeping Up column in Fortune magazine determined that a person retiring then could, had he invested HIS contributions at 3%, buy a lifetime annuity that would have paid him 75% more than the maximum SS benefit. 

[Monkeyleg]

It's been one of the biggest crimes perpetuated by our government, ever. Every legislator who voted to keep current SS system should be hanged, and those that are dead should be dug up and hanged.

I don't like it any more than the younger folks here. There's been no way out for me, and there won't be for you, either, until somebody in DC gets the stones to change the system.

I've now put in over $140,000. I'd like even half that back, but I know it's not in an account with my name on it. It probably bought a couple of girders for a bridge in WV named after Robert Byrd.

[makattak]

The SS trust fund is currently in the black to the tune of trillions of dollars. Just recently - as the first of the 'boomers retires - has it dipped into the red for the year. (Note that a lot goes to persons other than retirees.) Still, most of the money in the fund today was contributed by 'boomers.

It is not set to run out until 2037 - when it does, it will be because retired 'boomers are getting some of their own money back. (And Fed.gov is TAXING that money . . . and putting it into the general fund, not back into SS.)

Fed.gov has borrowed SS money, replacing it with Fed.gov securities. Now the loans are beginning to come due.

I'm not going to argue that it's not a Ponzi scheme.

I'm not going to argue that it's not biased to provide a higher return to those who pay in the least (i.e., the Ida Fullers of society) since promised benefits don't rise in proportion to lifetime contributions.

I'm not even going to argue that it's a good investment - some years back, the now defunct Keeping Up column in Fortune magazine determined that a person retiring then could, had he invested HIS contributions at 3%, buy a lifetime annuity that would have paid him 75% more than the maximum SS benefit. 

The money isn't there. The money isn't there. The money isn't there.

The "trust fund" is a fiction you've been fed your whole life. The government already spent it all.

Additionally, it spent it on "you." All those extra things the government has been doing your whole lifetime was paid for with your social security money.

Now that the whole of the baby boomers are about to retire, they want "what's ours!!!".

Not only were the baby boomers so selfish as to vote for the politicians who would spend their "retirement savings" buying their votes, now they want to screw over their children and grandchildren because they're entitled to "our retirement that we paid for!!!", despite the fact they voted for politicians that would spend it on them.

Further, their children and grandchildren will never see a dime of the money they are paying into social security, and those children and grandchildren also are going to deal with the fact that they will be taxed at a much higher rate than the baby boomers were for their lifetime while simultaneously "getting less" out of the deal. That is, of course, supposing the whole system doesn't collapse first.

But at least the baby boomers will be "getting what's theirs!"

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The money isn't there. The money isn't there. The money isn't there.

The "trust fund" is a fiction you've been fed your whole life. The government already spent it all.

Additionally, it spent it on "you." All those extra things the government has been doing your whole lifetime was paid for with your social security money.

Now that the whole of the baby boomers are about to retire, they want "what's ours!!!".

Not only were the baby boomers so selfish as to vote for the politicians who would spend their "retirement savings" buying their votes, now they want to screw over their children and grandchildren because they're entitled to "our retirement that we paid for!!!", despite the fact they voted for politicians that would spend it on them.

Further, their children and grandchildren will never see a dime of the money they are paying into social security, and those children and grandchildren also are going to deal with the fact that they will be taxed at a much higher rate than the baby boomers were for their lifetime while simultaneously "getting less" out of the deal. That is, of course, supposing the whole system doesn't collapse first.

But at least the baby boomers will be "getting what's theirs!"

This is what really tweaks me.  The boomers want to have their cake and eat it to.  And, through force of government, they may just be able to, at the expense of their children (people like me and my wife).

[Monkeyleg]

HTG, Makattak, did you not just read what I posted? Not all "baby boomers" (I hate that term) voted for the slimeballs who kept this scheme going.

I've never taken a dime from the .gov. Not even unemployment insurance (how many here can say that?). I seriously doubt I'll be able to get anything from SS, either.

[drewtam]

When railing against the generation who put tax and borrow politicians in office; I think most of the choir of APS can be excluded.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

HTG, Makattak, did you not just read what I posted? Not all "baby boomers" (I hate that term) voted for the slimeballs who kept this scheme going.

I've never taken a dime from the .gov. Not even unemployment insurance (how many here can say that?). I seriously doubt I'll be able to get anything from SS, either.

No, not all of you guys are behind this stuff.  But most of you are, enough that the results are as described.

This is a generational issue, not an individual issue, and your generation (not you personally) is at fault.  There's no sugar coating it, and the time to politely ignore these unpleasantries has passed.

The Federal government is flat broke. Every marginal dollar SS recipients take is one more dollar that must be borrowed today and eventually paid back by the younger generations.  If you take SS, you're spending your childrens' future.  This is the reality and there's no escaping it.  

(And I can say that I've never taken unemployment.  When I got laid off back in '08, I kept my hands off of other peoples money and relied on my own savings.  I take care of myself and expect no less from my neighbors.)

[bedlamite]

Here's your trust fund:



fixed

[dogmush]

That's actually kinda funny, but what was the pic supposed to be?

[AZRedhawk44]

...

[Monkeyleg]

I had this same sort of argument with my dad for years. He started paying into SS at the very outset in 1937. He paid in something like 10 cents a week. He began collecting in 1982, so he'd paid in for 45 years. IIRC, the total amount he'd paid in was in the low to mid five figures ($30-$50K).

Well, he lived to 92 years old, so he was drawing about $1000 a month for 27 years.

When I told him that he'd collected everything he'd paid into the system in two to three years after retirement, he got really angry. But that's a fact.

I started volunteering for political campaigns in the early 1990's (when Clinton decided it would be a good idea to start banning guns). The established politicians used the SS boogeyman to scare "the greatest generation" into voting against anyone who even suggested tweaking the system.

There's plenty of blame to go around: the politicians, various generations, illegal immigrants, the disabled, children of SS recipients who get college funding with SS money, etc. I'm sure that a little poking around will find some generation X and Y-ers guilty as well.

I'm not trying to defend the indefensible people in my generation. I didn't like most of my contemporaries in the 1960's, and I don't like most of them now. But pointing to one generation is taking too simplistic a view of the problem.

[makattak]

HTG, Makattak, did you not just read what I posted? Not all "baby boomers" (I hate that term) voted for the slimeballs who kept this scheme going.

I've never taken a dime from the .gov. Not even unemployment insurance (how many here can say that?). I seriously doubt I'll be able to get anything from SS, either.

As I've said before, I don't blame all the baby boomers. I know not all of them wanted this.

However, I get really indignant when I hear, "I PAID for this social security ALL MY LIFE! I want what's mine!!"

What I hear is: "I'm getting mine and screw all the rest of you!!" (The rest of you includes my 4 month old sleeping beside me right now. That's what makes me particularly perturbed by that selfishness.)

[TommyGunn]

That's actually kinda funny, but what was the pic supposed to be?

A broken piggie bank with IOUs inside it.  Piggie had a frown on it's face.

[French G.]

You will contribute about $20k and collect several hundred thousand dollars.  Via theft under color of law, by men with guns, who will come and kill me if I refuse to pay that portion of taxes.  It is not, and never was, "your money."  "Your money" was spent over the last 20 years you have been working, giving it to the previous generation.

Yeah it was my money when they took it from me. I never said I wanted to collect 10 times what I paid in but the sad fact is I'd do just that if I had it back to invest privately. I just what was taken from me by force. There is a legitimate argument there, the people that paid in have their money somewhere, even if it is a bridge named after Robert C. Byrd. They are owed an accounting and at the very least reparation. I know the money isn't there, so why get all preachy and pissy with me?

[makattak]

Yeah it was my money when they took it from me. I never said I wanted to collect 10 times what I paid in but the sad fact is I'd do just that if I had it back to invest privately. I just what was taken from me by force. There is a legitimate argument there, the people that paid in have their money somewhere, even if it is a bridge named after Robert C. Byrd. They are owed an accounting and at the very least reparation. I know the money isn't there, so why get all preachy and pissy with me?

Because those who "want what's owed them" want my daughter to pay for it.

I don't believe in screwing over my children just so I can "get what's mine."

[MillCreek]

From http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/SocialSecurity.html


According to a study by the Congressional Research Service, a worker with average earnings who retired at age 65 in 1940 got back the retirement portion of his and his employer's taxes, plus interest, in a mere two or three months. For workers who retired in 1960, the payback period was 1.1 years. For those retiring in 1980, the payback period had increased to 2.8 years.

The picture is much bleaker for future retirees. The expected payback period for today's older workers, those retiring in 2000, is 12.9 years, rising to 18.3 years for workers retiring in 2030.

My projected retirement date, for full benefits, is 2027.  If Social Security is still operating by then, my projected payback period will be around 17.5 years.  Will I live to be 85 and collect all I put in?  I wonder. If I die before 85, Social Security will make a profit off of me.

[AZRedhawk44]

Yeah it was my money when they took it from me. I never said I wanted to collect 10 times what I paid in but the sad fact is I'd do just that if I had it back to invest privately. I just what was taken from me by force. There is a legitimate argument there, the people that paid in have their money somewhere, even if it is a bridge named after Robert C. Byrd. They are owed an accounting and at the very least reparation. I know the money isn't there, so why get all preachy and pissy with me?

Because you are the one that believes the lie.

It was never "your money."


Put into the context of my family:

My grandparents paid for Ida May Fuller... not themselves.

My parents (and I) are paying for my grandparents... not themselves.

I (and my unborn children) am paying for my parents (boomers)... not myself.


Put into the context of you:

Your grandparents paid for Ida May Fuller.

Your parents and you paid for your grandparents.

You and your children will pay or are paying for your parents.

There's nothing there... of all the money you've EVER paid, that is yours.  You're not "owed" anything.  There was never any acceptance of obligation of future debt.

It's not, and never was, yours to get a 10x investment return.  It was taken from you, to pay for Ida May Fuller, your grandparents, your parents.  It never sat idle, isolated from the whims of the stock market and moldering in a treasure chest in DC with your SSN written on it.  It was taken from your paycheck and given to Ida, your grandparents, your parents.  And it was spent.  It's gone.

[Ben]

This particular topic is getting as bad as abortion threads here on APS. There will be no attacking members because they believe one way or another. If you guys have salient and polite arguments to make on either side of this issue, make them. Any personal attacks, and this thread will get a visit from Mr Masterlock.

[French G.]

Look, I'm not saying the SS fairy is sitting on a pile of my money. I. Know. It's. Gone. OKAY? So hop off the high horse and explain where my reparation comes for the 17K they have already taken from me, age 36. I don't want my daughter to pay for it either. And yes it was mine when they took it from me so I have a right to be irritated. Anyone else takes 17K from me and they have some explaining to do, and lots of it.

[makattak]

Look, I'm not saying the SS fairy is sitting on a pile of my money. I. Know. It's. Gone. OKAY? So hop off the high horse and explain where my reparation comes for the 17K they have already taken from me, age 36. I don't want my daughter to pay for it either. And yes it was mine when they took it from me so I have a right to be irritated. Anyone else takes 17K from me and they have some explaining to do, and lots of it.

It's gone. You're never getting it back. (I'm not saying this as a taunt, I'm 32 and I know I'm never getting back "what I paid into it".)

Our options are to try to end it with as little pain as possible or ignore the problem until it collapses. The sooner we try to deal with the coming collapse, the less pain there will be.

Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice everything I've paid and will pay into this Ponzi scheme if it means my children won't be subject to it.