GOP to Jobless: Drop Dead

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

I don't think so Pete. Or at least that's not my understanding. Just a couple of thoughts- if it were a "forced saving account" then it would be, you know, an account. We'd have individual accounts and be able to track their progress and benefits paid relative to performance.

Second, if it were intended to be a saving account, then it wouldn’t pay out to anyone who had not paid into it. But benefits, I believe, started when the bill was passed. Clearly none of the first recipients had "paid in" to an "account".

Finally, the program was commonly called the "old age pension" when it was passed. I’m pretty sure it was modeled after similar programs, some passed by some individual states, using similar language, and at least in part by the Old Age Pension Act passed in the U.K. in the early 20th century.

A pension plan isn’t a saving plan, but a guaranteed annuity- a distinguishing characteristic and benefit being you cannot outlive benefits. Sure enough, this continues to be the case with Social Security today and, in fact, that's a big part of why we have an issue. People are living much longer and so drawing more out of the system.

That’s my understanding. If you have information to the contrary, as always, I’d be happy to look at it and see if I’m wrong.

Eddie, let's see if we are on the same page. The (defined benefit) pension plans I deal with have monthly contributions, and those contributions are segregated into a trust fund. While it technically is not a savings plan, it is funded by your contributions and/or contributions made on your behalf. The amount of your defined benefit is going to be based on your level of contributions, but not necessarily on the total amount of your contributions.

The SS disability and SSI benefits were added on later. The SSI benefits are a means tested disability benefit for those who do not otherwise qualify for Social Security. SSI is essentially a hybrid of retirement benefits and welfare payments, leaving room for arguments about whether they belong in the social security system. The SS disability benefits work similarly to several pension plans I have dealt with. The disabled person who has not reached retirement age receives an accelerated eligibility for full benefits.

In sum - SS looks more like a retirement plan than a savings plan. (IRAs, 401(k)s, on the other hand, are retirement savings plans.)

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

It was temporary, paying out when it started. It was always supposed to be self sufficient.

And they still make a pretense of it being an 'account', I get a statement every year.

Like there's any money in there

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

In sum - SS looks more like a retirement plan than a savings plan. (IRAs, 401(k)s, on the other hand, are retirement savings plans.)

Exactly- it’s a retirement or pension plan. Works like a pension plan. Intended to be a pension plan from the get go.

Pete, they send you a statement of benefit. They don't send you an account balance. It's different from the statement you get for your 401k, a saving plan, that shows what you've invested, where it's invested and how it has performed over the time since your previous statement.

[piece-itpete]

Hey, I'm just passing on what dear old dad says they sold it as.

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Hey, I'm just passing on what dear old dad says they sold it as.

Could be. I'd bet if I were a politician trying to sell something like Social Security I'd try to explain it to people in that way. Politicans tend to paint things in simple terms that aren't necessarily accurate if it's politically expedient. Kind of like calling health care reform "government run health care" even though those of us who wanted government run health care didn't get it.

[d-ray657]

Even when we identify SS as a pension plan, the funds for that plan are supposed to be in a trust. To the extent that the funds have been treated like they are not in trust, there should be an accounting.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Even when we identify SS as a pension plan, the funds for that plan are supposed to be in a trust. To the extent that the funds have been treated like they are not in trust, there should be an accounting.

Absolutely agree.

[piece-itpete]

Jail time for all members of Congress for the last 30-40 years?

We are suckers.

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

We are suckers.

We are. We can blame them all we want, but it's our own fault. They told us we can have lower taxes and we said hell yeah! They told us we could keep Social Security and we said damn straight! They told us we could kick ass in Iraq and we said booyah! That's what gets them elected, and anyone who said otherwise was shown the door in short order. So when we find out they're playing a shell game and digging us deeper and deeper in debt to make it all happen, kind of tough to say "why didn't you tell us?!"

And don't get any delusions that these "Tea Party" folks are any different. They're banging on Reagan's drum. They're just angry about it. More middle and lower class people marching on Washington to protect rich guys fortunes. They will demand lower taxes (and justify it with logic like we've seen in this thread that has little to do with reality) but won't touch Social Security, Medicade, Medicare or the Military. And when we say "but why isn't the debt going down?" they'll say "well, it's that Obamacare!" or "it's the illegals!" And we'll all jump up and down and say "Yeah! Send the illegals back to Mexico!" and we'll spend a bunch more money and dig ourselves deeper. More distractions to keep us from looking at the real issues that we need to face.

[Fast_Eddie]

What we need is Bill Clinton. Whatever you think of him, the guy has an IQ of about a billion and he is the only one who did anything about it. Not that the Republicans didn't do everything in their power to stop him.