You're exactly correct, Mr. Shea.

Mr.Shea's letter is right on target. Let me add that every Rushpublican president since Richard M. Nixon borrowed heavily from the Social Security funds. To the best of my knowledge these "loans" have yet to be paid back.

By the way a Regan insider admits that Regan destroyed the U.S. Economy. "How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse."
http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...010-08-10

"...These are undisputed facts from the report of the trustees."

Well, if they are from the report of the trustees, then they must be facts, nothing to worry about.Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were doing well, too, right?

I think that people who are proponents of privatizing social security have suggested doing this with a portion, not all, of the money. While I'm sure that there is always risk in the market, I can tell you without doubt that my 401K has greatly outperformed my social security over the past few decades , and when I retire I will be able to take all of it if I want, or whatever portion I want, and will not be waiting every year to see if I can get a small raise in what I am given back. My investments in the private sector are mine, my investment (and my employer's) with Uncle Sam ends up being returned as an allowance.

Sorry Duke--you may be a loyal lap dog, but you are a little loose with the facts.

Social Security were indeed designed to be put into a "Trust Fund" rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, under JOHNSON (D) along with the Dem. controlled House and Senate the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent!

SS started with annuity payments to the retirees would that never be taxed as income. Under CLINTON(D) & GORE(D) up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed!


Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!


Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And this brings me to illegal immigration.

Okay, so these illegals are not paying into the system via taxes.

But what happens if this president has his way and an amnesty is granted to them. That's approx. 12 million+ who I'm sure he will make sure get some sort of retirement. After all they will be a very large voting block.

And as for what has happened to Social Security.

GBRetired is correct. It was set up to be a trust only for retirement, but over the years it was just too much for those greedy pols to let it sit and not use it to further their careers.

Yes, if it was left alone it would not be in the sad straights it is today.

Mismanagement and corruption have ruined what was once a very promising program.

Imagine if instead of sending your S.S. money to the federal government every two weeks, it was put into a private savings account insured by the FDIC. Or if it was used to buy interest-yielding bonds.

In banks, the money would be constantly circulated throughout the economy, creating further capital for growth, under the stability of FDIC insurance, and of course, some regulation to restrict how that money could be invested (domestically, risk-factors, etc.).

In government bonds, the federal government is invested in by every single worker. Although less ideal because you have to actually count on the government paying you back, its still better than the magical pot that you throw your money in now.

My money is mine, I earned it. It isn't the governments buisness to be taking it from me my entire life, then handing it back to me like an allowance in older age, like a child asking his parents for lunch money.

GBR got it right about Johnson--he wanted the fund's surplus to be used to disguise the deficits being created by the Vietnam War. No president since then has stopped the practice, for their own reasons. "off the books" wars still have to be paid for.

Mugsy, if you avoided taking a bath on your 401K the last few years, you have an exceptional investment.

Bankers and investors have hated Social Security since it was instituted. Now, given recent events in the markets, do your really think we'd be better off letting these people run Social Security if it's privatized?

centinel, the money is not yours. The money pays for today's recipients and others will pay yours when you qualify.

Social Security scare tactics are bogus.

Somoeone mentions above about LBJ and using the SS surplus to mask the deficit.

Funny that those that perfected that were republicans

See: Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2

"Mugsy, if you avoided taking a bath on your 401K the last few years, you have an exceptional investment. "

As I approach retirement I had moved about 60 percent of my 401K into a fixed rate which was lower and less volitile. In total my 401K lost about 20 percent but with intrest and deposits by me or on my behalf since then I am ahead of where I was. There is no 10 year period that I am aware of where the market lost value, investment is a long term plan with ups and downs, but over the course of time it has always proven to be ups.

"centinel, the money is not yours"

That is the problem in a nutshell. The money withdrawn from Centinel's paycheck, and the money payed by centnel's employer on his behalf (if not self employed and doubly penalized) is most certainly the property of centinel, confiscated by the government to continue to fund what is essentially a Ponzi scheme.

Now, the problem is that left to their own devices many of our fellow citizens would either be incapable or unwilling to provide adequately for their golden years, which is why, I believe, most proponents of private investment would only allow a portion of the investment to be privatized. Well, that and the fact that the previous investors need to be paid, and that's pretty much how a ponzi scheme works, right?

Mugsy :"There is no 10 year period that I am aware of where the market lost value, investment is a long term plan with ups and downs, but over the course of time it has always proven to be ups."
Sept 11 2000 DJI= 10,927.00
Sept 6 2010 DJI = 10,447.93

GBretired from the nut factory. You post mistruths concerning social security. Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Regan, Bush1 and2 borrowed from the found.Your the rushpublican lap dog chicken hawk.

Let's get some facts straight.

Illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive social security benefits.

Legal immigrants are eligible to receive benefits based on the payroll taxes they pay, just as any citizen is.

The social security trust fund is not open to spending other than on social security benefits. In the late sixties it's budget numbers became part of the general budget only to show the level of overall spending, and tax revenue, for the federal government. By law, social security trust fund money can only be invested in government securities, basically T-Bills, T-Notes and bonds. Like any other entity purchasing such instruments, the trust fund is reliant on the overall solvency of the federal government, just like Britain, China, France, Germany or any other investor, as well as individuals, including those who have bought savings bonds. The government is borrowing when it issues and sells these instruments. It has always repaid these instruments when thay have been due. By the way, the social security trust fund trustees have discretion as to whether to invest at all. The government can not order them to do so.

If you want to interpret that process as "raiding" the trust fund, fine, but is no more a raid than when you go to your local bank and receive money other than what you have on deposit. If it's a "raid" the FBI will be after you, if you sign papers agreeing to pay it back, that is a loan. These days it is highly more likely that the government will meet its obligations to the trust fund than that you will pay off your mortgage.

Okay, there is no "amnesty" proposed by Obama.Any talk of legitimizing illegal immigrants already here focuses on providing for a period when, among other things, they meet all their tax obligations over a period of time. There would be other requirements, too. After that period of time they would then be eligible for legal status, but would still have to go through the normal processes to gain naturalized citizenship. Incidentally, one thing applicants for citizenship have to do, is pass a test on U.S. history and government. It appears some of the readers here are fortunate to have been born here because they obviously could not pass such a test.

Social security is my only income. If I live a normal life span, the benefits received will far exceed the taxes I paid. Although this year and next no cost of living increase in benefits will be paid, my friends and my brother invested in 401k's have lost money, thus losing income. My benefits have not been cut.

Please do not rely on the internet or FoxNews for your information about social security. Various fact finding sources are available which usually dispel the rumors and false information circulating. Three I use regularly are Snopes.com, Politifact and FactCheck.org. There are also emails trying to discredit Snopes, but they too are lies.

KEEP MY SOCIAL SECURITY AWAY FROM WALL STREET

There's the problem - you call it 'my' social security, as if you're inherently entitled to it. I understand that there are those who can't work and need public assistance, but the mindset that you somehow own my labor is way off base. You say 'keep my ss out of wall street.' I say keep my money out of ss. You don't own my labor, and your only entitled to what you manage to vote out of someone elses pocket.

Centinel, I have no idea what you are bitter about. Social Security has been with us 75 years and has provided a pretty good safety net for those with no other retirement plans. If you are not yet eligible, it will still be there when you retire. There is no guarantee your 401k will be. And yes, I am entitled to it. A law was passed by the U.S. Congress establishing Social Security, just as it has passed laws enabling you to establish your 401k with tax and other benefits to you. You would likely be among those yelling the loudest if there was such a revamping of 401k's that your own would be worthless as retirement income, or your taxes would be much higher, or your employer could no longer contribute to it, or all of the above.
The term entitlements is used as a pejorative because conservatives believe only the poor should not benefit from any government assistance. Whereas when large corporations get such assistance, it is termed tax credits, tax incremental financing or a myriad of other programs designed to encourage business and let companies prosper. People in Pittsburgh still complain about the financing of two new stadiums and now a new arena. The laws passed to enable these projects were entitlements.

When the state or local governments offer tax abatements, infrastructure improvements or other incentives for a business to relocate or expand, those are entitlements.

The pensions our military retirees receive are an entitlement.

According to Webster an entitlement is a "right to a benefit specified especially by law or contract". Very plain English. Entitlement does not mean, as apparently many think, that merely being in a select class of some nature gives those members a right to certain benefits. Absent the passage of a law or execution of an enforceable contract there is no entitlement.
Social security taxes are levied at the same rate on everyone, though only up to a certain income level, right around $100,000 a year. Those folks pay no social security tax on excess income over that amount. Everyone who pays in is entitled to receive., regardless of income.

Now, let's say people could opt out of social security and establish their private retirement plans. All well and good in the abstract, but what happens when their investments go south and nothing remains in the pot for when they retire. And that happens frequently. Now they have not paid into social security so they darn well better not expect to get anything out. Fortunately if you live in Pittsburgh you have a number of bridges to choose from to live under. But I bet if that happened to you you would come screaming to the government for assistance. Too bad , buddy, you made your choice.
So be realistic. Accept the fact that social security may undergo adjustments to ensure its continued viability, as it has throughout its life, but odds are it will see no radical change. After all, the American population is aging. And older people vote. They are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them, any more than corporations will beg Congress to eliminate their entitlements. By the way, the largest increase in social security taxes occurred during Reagan's administration. Shame on those Democrats.

Dukie, I realize it is difficult for you to get a handle on the truth. I stated that the FIRST pres. to pull the monies from the SS Trust Fund sand put it into the general fund was LBJ--along with the dumbocrap controlled house and senate. As correctly stated by Regis, this was done to hide the costs of the Vietnam war. Indeed, ALL presidents since then have done the same. Bad doggie

You must not have read my earlier post or you choose to ignore the facts. The SS trust fund is not part of the general fund. SS was added to the overall budget, like it or not. But the government cannot dip into the trust at will. You can repeat the same lies all you want, but it does not change the facts.

I really get tired of this misleading SS facts that has gone around for years. Yes, it is true that Clinton and Gore increased the taxable portion of SS benefits to 85%, but Reagan(R) that took the taxable portion from 0% to 50%. Just so everyone understands, SS benefits were not taxable until Reagan started to tax the benefits.

But to clarify, SS benefits are taxed at all only if your income exceeds a certain threshold. If SS is your only income, it is not taxed.

Correct, UMOC

Centinal, I know sentiments from the
Ayn Rand plsybook of catchy phrases like "you don't own my labor" make good soundbites, but it bypasses the very idea of what a society is. To some extent, we agree, as expressed through whom we vote for, exactly what services and protections the members of the society provide for each other. Ideally, this would be the minimum amount necessary to keep an orderly and humane society afloat. Of course, it's more complicated than that, and all of us here have differing opinions of how much the laws, tax structure, and social safety net should intrude on our lives.

But all society-based rules "limit" us. "Thou shalt not kill" means I can't shoot my irritating neighbor. At that point, I have given up a certain amount of freedom of action for the stability of my own life. (In theory, he can't shoot me either).

After that, we are merely arguing over the relative merits and intrusions. It's good to have forums like this one to help thrash it out.
It will never be totally settled--democracy is an ongoing process.

Back to original thought: SS broken.

It was broken the first time a politician or entity borrowed (stole) from it.

Yes, it is broken. Broken by theft.

Both Icers and UMOC are correct regarding the taxation of Social Security benefits.

I've presented this in other discussions of this subject but here it is again: Over 95% of the recipients of SS benefits pay no taxes unless they are among the 4% of Americans who are considered affluent. In all agreed upon definitions used by financial experts anyone with over $500,000 in investment assets (which does not include personal items such as your residence, automobile, etc.) is considered to be affluent.

For an example, any single or married couple filing jointly receiving the maximum Social Security benefits and having $250,000 in CD's and another $250,000 in 401k's or IRAs and withdrawing the required minimum distribution from them would owe no Federal income tax.

If you are among those with greater wealth, you probably already have or should consider retaining a CPA and investment advisor who can help you minimize your tax liability.

If you disagree about how SS is managed or even if you are totally against it, using the taxability of benefits as part of your argument is just a red herring since most people receiving these benefits pay little or no tax as a result.