Holy Social Security

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
-snip-
I have no problem working until I am 72 before retiring. My parents just retired at the age of 75. I do not consider it hardship to work that long before retirement and I don't think it is an imposition too great to impose on my countrymen. We as Americans have to do something for the next generation. Holding off on SS benefits for a few extra years is the very least we can do.

We already don't have enough jobs to go around. Keeping the elderly in workforce longer just worsens that problem.

IDK what kind of jobs your parents had, but there aren't a whole lot of jobs suitable for elderly people. Not everyone can be WalMart greeters.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
-snip-
SS going bankrupt would be the absolute worst thing that could happen to the poor.

SS can't/won't go bankrupt.

As long as there is a workforce contributions will be coming in. Those contributions will be used to pay benefits. IIRC, the worst case scenario is benefits will be at 70%.

Fern
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
So you read this 44 page study in 10 seconds and 'showed me up'. Good for you.

I suggest that you actually read the paper before trying to refute it.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w10466.pdf

site where the paper is linked

http://www.nber.org/papers/w10466

You already posted the link to the paper. I read about five pages, skimmed the rest and then decided to just start searching for different keywords.

There is no mention of any other form of retirement in that paper other than SS from what I saw.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
-snip-
This is one mess I squarely place the blame for on the Republican idol, Ron R. He allowed, no encouraged the raiding of pensions forcing those "irresponsible" who really did have a retirement and often contributed onto SS with no other recourse. The cocky and condescending might do well to wonder how well they'd be off if their 401k's were seized, and then for many to loose their jobs at the same time.

I don't think they'd be quite so eager to destroy SS.

Honest question- What did Reagan do?

IMO, it was the advent of 401(k) plans that is the cause of our retirement problems. Prior to that we had Defined Benefit Plans. 401(k)'s killed those off. BTW: 401(k) plans were created during the Carter admin.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,541
54,403
136
You already posted the link to the paper. I read about five pages, skimmed the rest and then decided to just start searching for different keywords.

There is no mention of any other form of retirement in that paper other than SS from what I saw.

Wait, what? What is your argument against this paper, specifically?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
The above 30 crowd also votes and I can guarantee that would be a non-starter.
In a typical election, roughly 70% of the voters are 50 and older.
IOW, the below 30 crowd doesn't vote.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
You already posted the link to the paper. I read about five pages, skimmed the rest and then decided to just start searching for different keywords.

There is no mention of any other form of retirement in that paper other than SS from what I saw.

The message you replied to (in less than a second) was the first time I had posted the link. So, unless there's a link to that paper from someone earlier in the thread I'd say you're telling a fib.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Honest question- What did Reagan do?

IMO, it was the advent of 401(k) plans that is the cause of our retirement problems. Prior to that we had Defined Benefit Plans. 401(k)'s killed those off. BTW: 401(k) plans were created during the Carter admin.

Fern

Pension raiders. My own father worked for a company in which he contributed towards a retirement. Thirty years he did that. Along comes some bottom dweller who used the pension fund to buy the business then closed it down making a tidy profit. This was repeated over and over and the Democrats, bless their hearts, got a law passed or would have (I don't recall which) that prevented such bald theft. Reagan didn't want to interfere with the sharks, AKA "the free market" and with a veto proof congress allowed men like this to cause the ruination of uncounted workers. Thirty years of savings for retirement, which he contributed to, gone overnight and out of a job to boot.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,557
3,728
126
Whole different problem there friend

Your point was 'the market always goes higher'. That is just one example of a situation where a market doesn't go higher. What proof do you have that the US market is unable to encounter a period of stagnation? Past performance? In fact overall evidence points to the US (and four other markets) being an aberration instead of the norm. All other markets going back to the 1920s have experienced prolonged downward trends while over a third have closed

But just wait a few years and you'll recover. To use your words 'Whats the big deal?'. I mean its not like the US market has ever stagnated for over a decade, except for 66-84 or almost 20 years like 06-25.

you don't have to be invested in just the DOW.

Is this response for someone else? Because it doesn't make sense if its for me because no where did I claim that you couldn't. In fact by pointing out the Nikkei it should be painfully obvious that I already know that.
 
Last edited:

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Yea, don't try to tell me that the rich aren't the avowed enemy of the working man. It is all there in black and white. Reagan unleashed the rich to plunder the retirements of millions of Americans.

Unless one worked for a small company, it was assumed that all employers, union or non-union, would provide pension benefits. In fact, the amount of money accumulating in employer pension plans -- which surpassed $1 trillion in 1983 for private and public employers combined -- came to represent one of the largest pools of capital in the country, much of which was invested in the securities of large corporations. This prompted management guru Peter Drucker to write of the arrival of “pension fund socialism.”

During this time, however, a counter-revolution was starting to take place in corporate headquarters around the country. Companies no longer looked at pension funds as employee nest eggs that they were charged with protecting. Now they were seen as sources of “excess assets” that could be put to very different uses -- if the plans were shut down. During the 1980s, hundreds of companies took the audacious step of terminating pension plans and using the captured assets for purposes such as financing leveraged buyouts by Top managers. Corporate raiders also got into the act. For example, when Ronald Perelman took over cosmetics maker Revlon in the mid-1980s, he gained control of $100 million in pension fund assets. Overall, more than $20 billion in pension assets were captured before Congress put an end to the practice by imposing a heavy tax on pension piracy.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Easy, make it voluntary as it was originally supposed to be.
You are spreading misinformation! Social Security was NEVER meant to be voluntary -- http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/fdrs-voluntary-social-security/

Q: Did FDR promise that Social Security would be voluntary? Did Democrats end tax deductions for Social Security withholding?

A: Social Security has never been voluntary and taxes paid to support it have never been deductible from federal income taxes. A widely e-mailed "history lesson" gets nearly all its facts wrong.

FULL ANSWER

This elaborate collection of falsehoods is so detailed that we believe it must be an intentional and malicious effort at disinformation. It grafts some new whoppers on top of a list that we debunked in April 2004, in a special report we called "Lies in the E-mail, Part 2." The earlier version, we said, was "full of laughably inaccurate claims," and this one is worse.

FDR Never Promised That

We’ll address the newer claims first, specifically the five "promises" supposedly made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the inception of the Social Security system in 1935. We rely here on no less an authority than the official historian of the Social Security System, Larry DeWitt, who has written up a detailed response to these claims under the heading "Myths and Misinformation About Social Security," which can be found on the Social Security History Web page, along with answers to other frequently asked questions.
1.Not Voluntary. Contrary to the e-mail’s very first claim, FDR never promised that "the program would be completely voluntary." It is supported by taxes and participation has never been voluntary. As historian DeWitt states: "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. "
2.Not 1 Percent. Another false claim is that FDR promised participants would pay only "1% of the first $1,400" of income. The law FDR signed taxed income up to $3,000, for one thing. And while the rate was 1 percent for the first few years, the law FDR signed raised it incrementally in 1940, 1943, 1946 and 1949, when it reached 3 percent.

3.Not Deductible. Also false is the statement that Social Security contributions "would be deductible from their income for tax purposes." The opposite is true. Section 803 of the law Roosevelt signed specifically says Social Security payroll taxes "shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year." So the claim made later in the e-mail – that Democrats "eliminated the income tax deduction" for payroll taxes – cannot possibly be true. There was never a deduction to eliminate.
Update, March 27: An alert reader points out that self-employed persons must pay "self-employment tax," which is a Social Security and Medicare tax similar to the taxes withheld from the pay of most wage earners. Half of the SE tax is indeed deductible when figuring adjusted gross income for federal income tax purposes. However, the SE tax deduction has not been eliminated, not by "the Democratic party" or by anybody else.


4.Trust Fund Falsehoods. The message claims that FDR promised Social Security funds would be used "for no other government program," but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it." This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits. As DeWitt states: "[T]here 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." All LBJ did in 1968 was to make Social Security taxes and spending part of a "unified budget." As DeWitt notes, this was an accounting issue and "has no affect on the actual operations of the [Social Security] Trust Fund itself."

5.Taxation of benefits. The e-mail also gets it wrong when it claims that Roosevelt promised that "annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income." It’s true that Social Security benefits weren’t taxed at first, but DeWitt writes that this was the result of a series of administrative rulings by the Treasury Department, not the result of Roosevelt’s law or anything he did or promised. And contrary to a false claim made later in the e-mail, it was not Democrats alone who "started taxing Social Security annuities." Congress authorized taxation of Social Security benefits in 1983, when Republicans controlled the Senate, and the measure was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The measure was part of a bipartisan compromise to shore up the finances of the system, which were then on the verge of collapse.

Nixon’s Gift to Immigrants

Another huge whopper in this e-mail is the claim that President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party "decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants … even though they never paid a dime into it." In truth, no illegal immigrant is allowed to get a penny of Social Security retirement benefits, as this message implies. (We address more false claims on that theme in another Ask FactCheck.) And any immigrant who has become a citizen or legal resident can qualify only to the extent that they have worked and paid into the system for years, on the same basis as everybody else.

The earlier version of this e-mail made this claim only about the SSI program – the Supplemental Security Income program for the blind, disabled or elderly and destitute. But the truth is, that program was signed into law by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1972. Under Nixon’s SSI law, legal immigrants were eligible for benefits from the start. It is a federal welfare program funded out of general tax revenues and is separate from the Social Security old-age pensions and disability insurance programs funded out of dedicated payroll taxes. While Social Security benefits are paid to those who have paid payroll taxes for a certain minimum period of time, SSI benefits were available to all – citizens and legal residents alike – regardless of whether they had "paid a dime into it" or not.

Fake Jefferson Quote

The e-mail signs off with a quote that supposedly comes from Thomas Jefferson: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." But Jefferson never said that.

According to Monticello researchers and Jefferson scholars who maintain the online Jefferson Encyclopedia: "We have never found such a statement in Jefferson’s writings. As far as we know, this statement actually originates with [Republican President] Gerald R. Ford, who said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have," in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974."

The author of this urges others to send this message on, smugly suggesting,"If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted." Hardly. What’s really being spread are seeds of ignorance – and a pack of clumsy lies.

-Brooks Jackson

Sources

DeWitt, Larry, "FAQs; Debunking Some Internet Myths; MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY" Social Security Administration undated Web page accessed 24 March 2009.

"Legislative History; Social Security Act of 1935" Sections 801 & 803." Social Security Administration undated Web page accessed 24 March 2009.

DeWitt, Larry, "Agency History; Research Notes & Special Studies by the Historian’s Office; /research Note #12: Taxation of Social Security Benefits" Social Security Administration Web page dated Feb 2001, accessed 24 March 2009.

Jackson, Brooks "Lies in the E-mail, Part 2" FactCheck.org Special Report 14 April 2004.

Jefferson Encyclopedia "Government big enough to supply you . . . (Quotation)" Web site article dated 6 March 2009, accessed 24 March 2009.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Fairness obviously isn't a part of the equation with Social Security so I'm not going to start making it either. You have to start at some point to ween people out of it. For starters I'd say, anyone below the age of 30 doesn't contribute anymore, and gets no benefits either. Let the above 30 crowd fend for themselves until they all die off.
That's okay Biff we all understand that you are delusional.....
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Bullshit. There were plenty of jobs that one could do without having to pay social security. I call that voluntary.
I could have worked for a company that provided a pension back then and not had to worry about Social Security. I could have been making gobs of money doing so and not handicapped my income so as to avoid paying some into SS.

It was intended to give those who didn't have access to a pension/retirement a means to save for those things. It was intended to serve only those people. Do with that information what you will.

Again more delusional thoughts. Nice try though...........
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Pension raiders. My own father worked for a company in which he contributed towards a retirement. Thirty years he did that. Along comes some bottom dweller who used the pension fund to buy the business then closed it down making a tidy profit. This was repeated over and over and the Democrats, bless their hearts, got a law passed or would have (I don't recall which) that prevented such bald theft. Reagan didn't want to interfere with the sharks, AKA "the free market" and with a veto proof congress allowed men like this to cause the ruination of uncounted workers. Thirty years of savings for retirement, which he contributed to, gone overnight and out of a job to boot.

I'm pretty sure we had this discussion before.

Then, as now, I didn't see how such a scenario could have happened. I was working in the US in the early 80's for one the largest international accounting firms and even then raiding pensions resulted in federal prison. The CEO of one of our clients was suspected of it and the feds (PB&GC) came in with a subpoena and confiscated all records for their investigation etc.

In any case I think it's the demise of the entire system that is our biggest problem.

Edit: None of this is meant to diminish what happened to your father.

Fern
 
Last edited:

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
This is a terrible idea. Life expectancy has been increasing for wealthy people, not for the poor that Social Security is designed to help. Why would you cut poor people's benefits because rich people are living longer? I thought you were all about helping the poor?

So... poor people who would have died before the age-cutoff... receive no less benefits? While the long-living rich receive fewer benefits? Meaning everyone, including the poor, pay less into SS throughout their lifetimes and as such they can make use of the cash while they are still alive?
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
25,578
11,946
136
I oppose privatization because I fully expect we'll have another case of 'privatized profits and socialized losses'. Some will do well under privatization and others will not. We'll end up subsidizing the latter.

Fern

I completely agree with you. That may be the 3rd time.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,541
54,403
136
So... poor people who would have died before the age-cutoff... receive no less benefits? While the long-living rich receive fewer benefits? Meaning everyone, including the poor, pay less into SS throughout their lifetimes and as such they can make use of the cash while they are still alive?

Nope.

Limiting benefits or raising taxes are two totally different discussions. My argument is if you have decided to make up a percieved shortfall through benefit reductions, choosing to do so by giving more money to the people who need it the least seems like a foolish way to cut benefits.

Don't you agree?
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Nope.

Limiting benefits or raising taxes are two totally different discussions. My argument is if you have decided to make up a percieved shortfall through benefit reductions, choosing to do so by giving more money to the people who need it the least seems like a foolish way to cut benefits.

Don't you agree?

Hey imma totally down with means testing to receive SS benefits. I has no problems wit dat.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
I oppose privatization because I fully expect we'll have another case of 'privatized profits and socialized losses'. Some will do well under privatization and others will not. We'll end up subsidizing the latter.

Fern

That is exactly what would happen. And, ironically, part of why social security was created in the first place. Most people wouldn't save any money during their working years and then would have to depend on society in their old age. At least with social security, people have to pay in something towards what they are likely to receive later.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |