Shopsmith Forums

dusty wrote:letterk: You say that the social security pot was never invested. I don't know if that is true or not but if it was not invested, why wasn't it..

I tend to stay out of these conversations, but this one actually seems like a conversation. Real discussion without the overly political moaning. Good job guys. As I said, I was playing devils advocate. I believe SS is a safety net. I would be surprised if the real return on social security is more than the surplus plus the rate of the government bond (3%-8%).

Here is what wikipedia has for how the system works - I'll be the first to admit, I don't 'have a complete understanding of the system.

Social Security taxes are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund maintained by the U.S. Treasury (technically, the "Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund", as established by 42 U.S.C. &#167] The Trust Fund is regarded by some as an accounting trick which holds no economic significance. Others argue that it has specific legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt.

source: wikipedia

Perhaps if we want someone to blame, maybe it is Ida May Fuller the first recipient.

Ida May Fuller (September 6, 1874 – January 31, 1975) was the first American to receive a monthly benefit Social Security check. She received the check, amounting to $22.54, on January 31, 1940.
Fuller was born on a farm outside Ludlow, Vermont. She spent most of her life in Ludlow, working as a legal secretary, but lived with her niece in Brattleboro, Vermont during her last eight years. She retired in 1939, having paid just three years of payroll taxes. She received monthly Social Security checks until her death in 1975 at age 100. By the time of her death, Fuller had collected $22,888.92 from Social Security monthly benefits, compared to her contributions of $24.75 to the system. She later said about going to the Social Security office, "It wasn't that I expected anything, mind you, but I knew I'd been paying for something called Social Security and I wanted to ask the people in Rutland about it."

Source Wikipedia

Ida May paid 1% SS tax in those days too.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/idapayroll.html

dusty wrote:letterk: You say that the social security pot was never invested. I don't know if that is true or not but if it was not invested, why wasn't it..

I tend to stay out of these conversations, but this one actually seems like a conversation. Real discussion without the overly political moaning. Good job guys . As I said, I was playing devils advocate. I believe SS is a safety net. I would be surprised if the real return on social security is more than the surplus plus the rate of the government bond (3%-8%).

Here is what wikipedia has for how the system works - I'll be the first to admit, I don't 'have a complete understanding of the system.

Social Security taxes are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund maintained by the U.S. Treasury (technically, the "Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund", as established by 42 U.S.C. &#167] The Trust Fund is regarded by some as an accounting trick which holds no economic significance. Others argue that it has specific legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt.

source: wikipedia

Perhaps if we want someone to blame, maybe it is Ida May Fuller the first recipient.

Ida May Fuller (September 6, 1874 – January 31, 1975) was the first American to receive a monthly benefit Social Security check. She received the check, amounting to $22.54, on January 31, 1940.
Fuller was born on a farm outside Ludlow, Vermont. She spent most of her life in Ludlow, working as a legal secretary, but lived with her niece in Brattleboro, Vermont during her last eight years. She retired in 1939, having paid just three years of payroll taxes. She received monthly Social Security checks until her death in 1975 at age 100. By the time of her death, Fuller had collected $22,888.92 from Social Security monthly benefits, compared to her contributions of $24.75 to the system. She later said about going to the Social Security office, "It wasn't that I expected anything, mind you, but I knew I'd been paying for something called Social Security and I wanted to ask the people in Rutland about it."

Source Wikipedia

I can't find it now, but I believe SS contribution was 2% when it first started, now it is 6%?

On a similar front while reading the social security website history section I came across this fact.

The Civil War Pension program began shortly after the start of the War, with the first legislation in 1862 providing for benefits linked to disabilities "incurred as a direct consequence of . . .military duty." Widows and orphans could receive pensions equal in amount to that which would have been payable to their deceased solider if he had been disabled. In 1890 the link with service-connected disability was broken, and any disabled Civil War veteran qualified for benefits. In 1906, old-age was made a sufficient qualification for benefits. So that by 1910, Civil War veterans and their survivors enjoyed a program of disability, survivors and old-age benefits similar in some ways to the later Social Security programs. By 1910, over 90% of the remaining Civil War veterans were receiving benefits under this program, although they constituted barely .6% of the total U.S. population of that era. Civil War pensions were also an asset that attracted young wives to elderly veterans whose pensions they could inherit as the widow of a war veteran. Indeed, there were still surviving widows of Civil War veterans receiving Civil War pensions as late as 1999!

Watch out SS recipients if they start cutting future benefits, you could be next target for "young wives" looking for a safety net.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/b ... tory3.html

I don't know how to say this without making a big BLACK BALL appear on my icon.

Since I worked every day since 18 years old, with the exception of only the time in the military and one week, when I got out of the army, I know that I have been a contributor to the economy. However, when I add up all of my monetary contributions to SS and Pension and subtract the money taken from the G.I. bill for college, I find that I did not pay as much as I've gotten so far in retirement income.

Yes, Proud to say- I worked part time while in college, on the G.I. Bill, and full time in summers. It was called eating and feeding my family.

I only retired from my full time job of 35 years when my employer gave me enough extra benefits to retire that I could not turn down.

My Pension contributions were also equaled by employer (a taking). Pension funds were invested and making big bucks until all funds were pulled out of South Africa during the Apartheid situation. (a good thing) And pension funds did pretty well during stock market hey days. Today not so good!

Social security investments were "borrowed" by congress for several years in a row in order to pay down national debt. I am not sure that all of the "Borrowed" funds have been re-payed.

Have I realized more money from SS than contributed? I believe so! Yes, I've lived longer than the predictions. This is a debt my children and grandchildren will have to pay, if the Nation is to remain solvent.

Although, I still pay income taxes each year, I feel these taxes are based n my income which is, in a pure dollar based analysis, a taking.

Another thing often forgotten... look at the "retirement" age for SS benefits when it was enacted. Then look at the life expectancy of the same time. Then compare those two numbers to today.

I don't feel that we are takers: The ones that have worked all our lives, I too have never been on welfare and I have never been unemployed. Did you know that the ones on welfare or SSI can have a cell phone with free minutes and text messages. http://www.assurancewireless.com/Public/HowToQualify.aspx and https://www.reachoutmobile.com/

joedw00 wrote:I don't feel that we are takers: The ones that have worked all our lives, I too have never been on welfare and I have never been unemployed. Did you know that the ones on welfare or SSI can have a cell phone with free minutes and text messages. http://www.assurancewireless.com/Public/HowToQualify.aspx and https://www.reachoutmobile.com/

Wouldn't you know it. I am not eligible for either one of these programs; not because I make too much money or because I didn't work enough quarters or because I voted for the wrong party but because I live in Arizona.

Hmmm, I wonder if I have just become a taker. I waited until turning age 70 last month to begin receiving social security. I would have preferred to wait an additional five years. Our friends in fantasy land (nations capital) declared my industry was not in the best interest of the public thus reduced the amount of money which insurance carriers can legally pay guys like myself. So now I guess that makes me a taker. Never in my life have I ever received any form of support from our government. Okay that's not true on a few occasions I over paid my taxes and when the IRS discovered the error they refunded the overpayment. Perhaps that makes me a taker. Jim

mrhart wrote:How did they define a "taker" on the program?

Like so many things we see and hear on TV, the takers were not clearly defined. I think they were discussing those people who believe the world owes them a living; those people who have no intention of ever working to support themselves.

This is why I thought the number (47%) was too high. I don't believe our society has sunken that low yet.

I also do not group those who truly need assistance to survive as takers. I know several who would much rather be working than accepting government assistance.

On the other hand (as an example), students in prestigious colleges who believe the Government should pay for their birth control pills are "takers".

Dusty,
Are you a taker?
I know that many on board focused on the social security. I offer you a different way to look at it. Your service to our country makes you a giver. I am guessing your age as about the same as my dad's (he is a USAF Retired CMsgt), so you probably spent a number of tours SE Asia, you missed days with your family in service of your country, you stood your watch when others were at home cozy and ignorant in their bed, you offered to give your life so others could vote as they please, worship as they please and have the freedom to succeed.

Sir, God bless you for the service to our country, you are not a taker, but a person who has served our nation and her people. Your sacrifice, like others who have served and are currently serving in the military, police, fireman, nurses and the like is truly commended.

You deserve all you are given.
I salute you. BZ - job well done.
Jerry