Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | Home RSS
 
 
 

There are those who consider Social Security an entitlement. Do you?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(57)

concerned

Sep-26-13 7:09 AM

I don't see how it could be called an entitlement when the federal government takes over 15% (1/2 paid by employee and 1/2 paid by employer) of the workers wages for the program. If people were allowed to manage that money themselves they would have a lot more than S.S. gives them back. How can one be entitled to something that was already theirs? It is just another failing socialist system that needs privatized. How to accomplish that without anyone getting hurt is not going to be easy and would cost money but it needs to be done. The way it is now the system will eventually collapse.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

notSocialist

Sep-26-13 7:12 AM

"If people were allowed to manage that money themselves they would have a lot more than S.S. gives them back. "

This statement is historically accurate.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizkid

Sep-26-13 7:22 AM

I agree with "concerned", however the amount being taken is 6.2% from employee and the same amount taxed to employer.... Total of 12.2%. Then 1.45 from employee and same from employer for Medicare premium.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Sep-26-13 7:26 AM

Sure !

Put it in the stock market, When that collapses .Then what

SS was fine as long as you had more people paying into it.

They have failed over the last several decades to make corrections.

People are living longer. Like most retirement plan aren't meant to last forever, Back in the old days many people didn't live long enough to collect it.

If Washington would get off its butts and fix it.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Sep-26-13 7:30 AM

I know many people who lost money in 2008 .

Most have never recovered those loses

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Sep-26-13 7:32 AM

The trillions of dollars taken from the SS trust fund to run gov, was BS.

The interest alone covered payments for yrs.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Sep-26-13 7:44 AM

All good comments except "sure"...

It was originally set up to be an addition to retirement, not the main stay. Social Security's history is an interesting read.

We do or have paid into SS and Medicare expecting the government to pay us benefits when we retire. As with most everything the government tries to handle, no matter which party is in charge, it is a mess. Then, because those who could change things to protect our investments and retirement are far too interested in keeping their cushy jobs, nothing is done.

But it is not an entitlement.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Sep-26-13 8:09 AM

Ok Kozy !!!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Sep-26-13 8:20 AM

Your right,

I get so disgusted with all these people and their me attitude,

Their more interested in getting re-elected and not loosing a vote.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Mtlhed

Sep-26-13 8:22 AM

Ladybug, you said Back in the old days many people didn't live long enough to collect it. You are correct. But you implied that because of this, the system worked, as if everything's ok with it as long as they stay in the black; and they stayed in the black because enough people dropped dead early. You see, it's in the heart of that system that make's it a ponzy scheme.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Sep-26-13 8:26 AM

"Sure ! Put it in the stock market, When that collapses .Then what"

Ladybug I never said to put it in the stock market. There are other investments like annuities, money markets etc. What about all the people that pay into s.s. all their life and die before the collect a penny. I don't think people are living any longer today than they ever did. Their are more people so of course there are more numbers of people living longer. Washington was 67, Madison was 85, Jefferson was 83 these are the founding fathers. My wife and I both have many people in our family line from the 1700's and 1800's that lived well into their 80's and 90's. My grandfather that was born in mid 1800's lived to be 99. So this idea that people are living longer is just a bunch of bunk. There are more people living longer because there are more people in the world therefore that is the only reason more are living longer. What killed S.S. was dipping into the money for other purposes and unfunded colas.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Mtlhed

Sep-26-13 8:26 AM

It's definitely not an entitlement, but it's still a ponzy scheme all the same. They take your money and hope you drop dead the second you quit working. You hope to live a long time so you can get your money back out and maybe even recoup some of the interest you could have made had you invested it all those years. Most of the time you're lucky if you can even recoup the original money. And when you die, the gov't keeps it all and your family gets nothing.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Sep-26-13 8:39 AM

Annuities and money market funds are based on stock market performance.

Second the avg, life exspectancy has increased.

IN : 1940 53.9% males and 60.6% females reached age of 65.

In: 1990 72.6 %males and 83,3% females reached age 65

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheOriginal

Sep-26-13 8:43 AM

since the government is taking over healthcare, to a point, we can expect people to start dying off early again, so I think SS is safe.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Sep-26-13 8:45 AM

What interest ?

I believe I will collect what I put in and more. Which is a another reason the fund is going broke along with more retires,

LIke Kozy said it was meant to be an addition,

Like a 401K ,Co. pension plan and of course savings,

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Sep-26-13 8:48 AM

OK original.

Any alternatives.?

Healthcare costs have risen 113 % from 2000 to 2010 and no end in sight.

There's over 50 million uninsured which you and I pay for in one way or another.

So i'm listening

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Sep-26-13 8:54 AM

I also believe your spouse when she reaches retirement age is entitled to your SS payments if lg. than hers.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Sep-26-13 9:04 AM

Concerned :

The " Avg " life exspec, in the early 1900's was less than 50 rising to around 86 today;

About 25 % reach 90 or hiher "Quote "Avg "

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Sep-26-13 9:33 AM

Spousel benefit is not quite what you said, ladybug but yes, she benefits if you were receiving a higher benefit than she did.

Original may be on to something...congress does not want to tackle the Social Security/Medicare shortfall so they may want to shorten our lives through taking over our healthcare. I never heard or thought about that as their motive...scary!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Poollady

Sep-26-13 9:35 AM

Since you pay into it your entire working life - you're entitled to it when you retire!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Sep-26-13 9:41 AM

Mtlhed...Social Security is not truely a ponzi scheme but is certainly not what it was intended to do. Like so many other things, people get real lazy when they believe the goverment has their backs. Far too many have only Social Security to live off and, I don't know how they do it...and as the payments go up by a few bucks per year and honest to goodness things we have to buy go up by losts of bucks per year, they go into poverty. Check the numbers of the growing poverty and see how many retirees are moving into that awful level of living. So why doesn't AARP fight for a better Social Security? Politics?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EATTHERICH

Sep-26-13 9:53 AM

I'd like toget back what I've paid in over the years.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Sep-26-13 9:56 AM

I believe AARP is fighting for retires,

But when things falls on deaf ears, Which decisions in Washington are based on votes and getting re-elected .

The only ones who suffers is us.

What their going threw right now should have been resolved back in April,

It's the debt ceiling we better worry about because it could result in SS payments and Military pay stop fot lack of funds

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Sep-26-13 10:29 AM

Ladybug says: "The Avg. life exspec, in the early 1900's was less than 50 rising to around 86 today; Funny thing about statistics Ladybug you can make them say what ever you want. In 1900 if a white male lived to age 65 his life expectancy was an additional 12 years. In 2000 if a white male lives to age 65 his life expectancy is an additional 16 years. Pick up the paper and look how many die before reaching age 65. Life expectancy records were not as well kept in 1900 as they are today. Also on your belief that annuities and money market accounts are based on the stock market Some may be but most are not. Annuities are issued by insurance companies and most of them are not big on investing in stocks. Money markets are issued by banks and the return is usually from their loaning money out and their return on that money. Now you might be thinking of mutual funds which are invested in the stock market but that is a totally different Invst. instrument which I didn't mention.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Sep-26-13 10:39 AM

You have an argument for everything conered,

The facts are like it or not people on the Avg are living longer. Accept it or stick your head in the mud somemore

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 57 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web