Former Member
inherit
guest@proboards.com
164531
0
May 18, 2024 10:31:10 GMT -8
Former Member
0
January 1970
Former Member
|
Post by Former Member on Dec 15, 2017 15:21:06 GMT -8
Sheri just got a raise in her Social Security. Before, she got $780 a month. With the raise, after Medicare costs going up, she now gets $780 a month. No. That wasn't a typo
|
|
inherit
(?)?
188910
0
Jan 26, 2013 13:30:48 GMT -8
♥ ℒʊ√ ♥
Clouds float into my life no longer to carry rain or usher storm but to add color to my sunset sky.
10,458
January 2013
luv
|
Post by ♥ ℒʊ√ ♥ on Dec 15, 2017 15:26:16 GMT -8
And that's what happens to most, not just Sheri.
The payment won't go below your original amount, but it usually doesn't increase your payment just because you get a COLA increase. That increase will be given in one hand and then taken by the other ~ your Part B Medicare cost.
|
|
Former Member
inherit
guest@proboards.com
164531
0
May 18, 2024 10:31:10 GMT -8
Former Member
0
January 1970
Former Member
|
Post by Former Member on Dec 15, 2017 15:42:24 GMT -8
How is someone supposed to live on that? If something happened to me, she would be completely unable to survive. A 2% raise even? That's not cost of living. Gas alone just went up 85% here for crying out loud!! That can't be right. 45 cents a gallon is right
|
|
inherit
23506
0
Nov 19, 2012 5:30:35 GMT -8
James [a_leon]
I feel a strong desire to XSS a cookie from Peter.
4,326
April 2004
mnstrgarge
|
Post by James [a_leon] on Dec 15, 2017 15:57:31 GMT -8
Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Social Security is NOT an entitlement nor is it "free money." The funds therein are a retirement program derived from the Social Security payments withheld from worker's earning aa mandated by the government. You work, you pay, plain and simple. ..... I paid into it for almost 50 years. I had no choice. It's mine and I should get it. Social Security is an entitlement. You literally, twice, described what an entitlement is. You've worked and paid into it, you deserve to get a cut. That's an entitlement! You're entitled to withdraw on the money you paid in. If you don't think that's what an entitlement is...well, you and I don't have the same dictionary definitions of words (note: this is not directed at you Knightly Celt , this is a general statement).
|
|
Former Member
inherit
guest@proboards.com
164531
0
May 18, 2024 10:31:10 GMT -8
Former Member
0
January 1970
Former Member
|
Post by Former Member on Dec 15, 2017 16:02:47 GMT -8
Call it whatever, it doesn't matter. The government needs to keep their paws off it, repay what they stole from it, and pay these poor people a livable wage
|
|
inherit
(?)?
188910
0
Jan 26, 2013 13:30:48 GMT -8
♥ ℒʊ√ ♥
Clouds float into my life no longer to carry rain or usher storm but to add color to my sunset sky.
10,458
January 2013
luv
|
Post by ♥ ℒʊ√ ♥ on Dec 15, 2017 16:46:31 GMT -8
How is someone supposed to live on that? If something happened to me, she would be completely unable to survive. A 2% raise even? That's not cost of living. Gas alone just went up 85% here for crying out loud!! That can't be right. 45 cents a gallon is right God forbid, should something happen to you, she would then have the choice of keeping her benefits or getting your spousal benefits if they are more than hers.
I know you're a Trump supporter, but he really wants to cut disability.
time.com/4788759/trump-budget-disability/
|
|
inherit
Resident Historian, Grammar Guru, Wildmaven's Knight
48377
0
May 18, 2024 5:53:28 GMT -8
Knightly Celt
The Squirrel Army, commanded by Knightly Celt, continues to defend PBGT
6,085
June 2005
fpq2
|
Post by Knightly Celt on Dec 15, 2017 22:18:33 GMT -8
Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Social Security is NOT an entitlement nor is it "free money." The funds therein are a retirement program derived from the Social Security payments withheld from worker's earning aa mandated by the government. You work, you pay, plain and simple. ..... I paid into it for almost 50 years. I had no choice. It's mine and I should get it. Social Security is an entitlement. You literally, twice, described what an entitlement is. You've worked and paid into it, you deserve to get a cut. That's an entitlement! You're entitled to withdraw on the money you paid in. If you don't think that's what an entitlement is...well, you and I don't have the same dictionary definitions of words (note: this is not directed at you Knightly Celt , this is a general statement). I was referring to the original intent of FDR's (Social Security Act of 1935) as it was to be a contributory pension plan, whereby workers would fund it via payroll taxes and saved for future retirement benefits. As he put it, "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions. ... No damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program." By FDR's definition - and he was one that put it all together - this was a savings/pension plan. What it has become is vastly different. Entitlement? Yes, it has become that in many ways, but the bottom line is this; it was never intended to be an entitlement plan, a pay-as-you-go plan, or a go-to fund for uses other than Social Security. Case in point, during his (President George H.W. Bush) four years in office, $211.7 billion in Social Security surplus revenue flowed into the U.S. Treasury. Every penny of it was spent for general government expenditures, and none of it was saved and invested for the payment of future Social Security benefits, as is commonly believed. (Dr. Allen W. Smith, Professor of Economics, Emeritus, Eastern Illinois University, November 2009). Oh, well.
|
|
inherit
Passionate Peruser of Prose
89748
0
Apr 5, 2024 12:09:43 GMT -8
📚 Dianne 📚
"Never Judge A Book By Its Movie"
10,522
September 2006
cats57
|
Post by 📚 Dianne 📚 on Dec 16, 2017 5:13:57 GMT -8
I think that the word "entitlement" has taken on a new meaning in this day and age and that's why there may be some misunderstandings about SS.
Lately, in my opinion, the word entitlement has taken on the meaning that if you live (no that is not a typo) you are entitled to almost anything you want. If you work at a minimum wage job-you are entitled to more money because you can't raise a family on it (let's not forget that these jobs are mainly for the teens for spending money or the retired to add to SS)
You snuck into this country and had kids? You are entitled to stay.
You chose to go to college and get a degree in something that doesn't pay well - you are not entitled to the same wages as a person who has been at a different type of job for decades.
My list goes on and on.
As far as SS goes don't get me started - I don't know if I am misunderstanding but it seems that there are those who want to make persons that have been at the job for decades take forced retirement to make room for the young. Let me remind you Karma is a bitch.
|
|
inherit
23506
0
Nov 19, 2012 5:30:35 GMT -8
James [a_leon]
I feel a strong desire to XSS a cookie from Peter.
4,326
April 2004
mnstrgarge
|
Post by James [a_leon] on Dec 16, 2017 8:05:03 GMT -8
Social Security is an entitlement. You literally, twice, described what an entitlement is. You've worked and paid into it, you deserve to get a cut. That's an entitlement! You're entitled to withdraw on the money you paid in. If you don't think that's what an entitlement is...well, you and I don't have the same dictionary definitions of words (note: this is not directed at you Knightly Celt , this is a general statement). I was referring to the original intent of FDR's (Social Security Act of 1935) as it was to be a contributory pension plan, whereby workers would fund it via payroll taxes and saved for future retirement benefits. As he put it, "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions. ... No damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program." By FDR's definition - and he was one that put it all together - this was a savings/pension plan. What it has become is vastly different. Entitlement? Yes, it has become that in many ways, but the bottom line is this; it was never intended to be an entitlement plan, a pay-as-you-go plan, or a go-to fund for uses other than Social Security. Case in point, during his (President George H.W. Bush) four years in office, $211.7 billion in Social Security surplus revenue flowed into the U.S. Treasury. Every penny of it was spent for general government expenditures, and none of it was saved and invested for the payment of future Social Security benefits, as is commonly believed. (Dr. Allen W. Smith, Professor of Economics, Emeritus, Eastern Illinois University, November 2009). Oh, well. It always was entitlement. The workers funding it have always been entitled to draw on it. That's what an entitlement is. Period. I don't see why you insist on saying it wasn't an entitlement, and then post the original language which is an entitlement. Entitlement isn't a bad thing, even though it has some negative connotation today. You're right, it was never intended to be used for anything else and I have not one defended its use elsewhere, that has been grossly mishandled. I saw this happen at my previous job at a university as well and it, to be frank, pissed me off.
|
|
inherit
Resident Historian, Grammar Guru, Wildmaven's Knight
48377
0
May 18, 2024 5:53:28 GMT -8
Knightly Celt
The Squirrel Army, commanded by Knightly Celt, continues to defend PBGT
6,085
June 2005
fpq2
|
Post by Knightly Celt on Dec 16, 2017 8:31:06 GMT -8
I was referring to the original intent of FDR's (Social Security Act of 1935) as it was to be a contributory pension plan, whereby workers would fund it via payroll taxes and saved for future retirement benefits. As he put it, "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions. ... No damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program." By FDR's definition - and he was one that put it all together - this was a savings/pension plan. What it has become is vastly different. Entitlement? Yes, it has become that in many ways, but the bottom line is this; it was never intended to be an entitlement plan, a pay-as-you-go plan, or a go-to fund for uses other than Social Security. Case in point, during his (President George H.W. Bush) four years in office, $211.7 billion in Social Security surplus revenue flowed into the U.S. Treasury. Every penny of it was spent for general government expenditures, and none of it was saved and invested for the payment of future Social Security benefits, as is commonly believed. (Dr. Allen W. Smith, Professor of Economics, Emeritus, Eastern Illinois University, November 2009). Oh, well. It always was entitlement. The workers funding it have always been entitled to draw on it. That's what an entitlement is. Period. I don't see why you insist on saying it wasn't an entitlement, and then post the original language which is an entitlement. Entitlement isn't a bad thing, even though it has some negative connotation today. You're right, it was never intended to be used for anything else and I have not one defended its use elsewhere, that has been grossly mishandled. I saw this happen at my previous job at a university as well and it, to be frank, pissed me off. What I quoted was not the original language of the bill. FDR's quote clearly stated they were the worker's pensions; thus, they are entitled to it, yes, but because it is their money, their pension plans, NOT an "entitlement program." There is major difference between getting something to which your are entitled because it is yours in the first place (Social Security), and an entitlement program where you get something for nothing or just because you exist (Welfare, for example). Dianne is absolutely correct in her illustration of the difference. Hopefully this clarifies the difference between an entitlement program and being entitled to something that's already yours.
|
|
inherit
23506
0
Nov 19, 2012 5:30:35 GMT -8
James [a_leon]
I feel a strong desire to XSS a cookie from Peter.
4,326
April 2004
mnstrgarge
|
Post by James [a_leon] on Dec 16, 2017 9:21:08 GMT -8
It always was entitlement. The workers funding it have always been entitled to draw on it. That's what an entitlement is. Period. I don't see why you insist on saying it wasn't an entitlement, and then post the original language which is an entitlement. Entitlement isn't a bad thing, even though it has some negative connotation today. You're right, it was never intended to be used for anything else and I have not one defended its use elsewhere, that has been grossly mishandled. I saw this happen at my previous job at a university as well and it, to be frank, pissed me off. What I quoted was not the original language of the bill. FDR's quote clearly stated they were the worker's pensions; thus, they are entitled to it, yes, but because it is their money, their pension plans, NOT an "entitlement program." There is major difference between getting something to which your are entitled because it is yours in the first place (Social Security), and an entitlement program where you get something for nothing or just because you exist (Welfare, for example). Dianne is absolutely correct in her illustration of the difference. Hopefully this clarifies the difference between an entitlement program and being entitled to something that's already yours. It's still an entitlement program, there is no difference. Social Security is a government program which guarantees benefits to the workforce that have paid into it. They are not different things.
|
|
inherit
I need a new CT, thinking.... [insert Jeopardy theme song here]
110769
0
Aug 21, 2021 0:07:21 GMT -8
Tumbleweed
20,825
September 2007
tumbleweed
|
Post by Tumbleweed on Dec 16, 2017 12:01:02 GMT -8
Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Social Security is NOT an entitlement nor is it "free money." The funds therein are a retirement program derived from the Social Security payments withheld from worker's earning aa mandated by the government. You work, you pay, plain and simple. ..... I paid into it for almost 50 years. I had no choice. It's mine and I should get it. Social Security is an entitlement. You literally, twice, described what an entitlement is. You've worked and paid into it, you deserve to get a cut. That's an entitlement! You're entitled to withdraw on the money you paid in. If you don't think that's what an entitlement is...well, you and I don't have the same dictionary definitions of words (note: this is not directed at you Knightly Celt , this is a general statement). You are correct. Social Security is in fact an entitlement. Unfortunately, to those on social security, that word has become offensive because things that aren't entitlements got lumped into that same description, such as welfare, foodstamps. Welfare and foodstamps are not entitlements (a right to something). @thecaptainstable, You get what you paid into it. If you were working your whole life at a decent job and retired when you are supposed to, the max you can get is $2,639, which is a reasonable amount one could live off of. If something should happen to you, there is help for Sheri and who knows, she may be eligible for help now? I do agree that most people on social security are struggling and there should be a hike but with things as they are, I'm not sure where the money would come from.
|
|
Former Member
inherit
guest@proboards.com
164531
0
May 18, 2024 10:31:10 GMT -8
Former Member
0
January 1970
Former Member
|
Post by Former Member on Dec 16, 2017 14:12:58 GMT -8
Funny how there's a "shortage" on Social Security, but we never hear of a shortage in welfare funds
|
|
inherit
(?)?
188910
0
Jan 26, 2013 13:30:48 GMT -8
♥ ℒʊ√ ♥
Clouds float into my life no longer to carry rain or usher storm but to add color to my sunset sky.
10,458
January 2013
luv
|
Post by ♥ ℒʊ√ ♥ on Dec 16, 2017 14:19:14 GMT -8
Funny how there's a "shortage" on Social Security, but we never hear of a shortage in welfare funds Sure we have. Welfare funds are always on the chopping block.
But I absolutely don't believe that Social Security is an entitlement in the strictest definition of the term. And I have never resented those who were on it as I worked from the age of 13 and up through the decades.
I believe the program serves its intended purpose.
Many workers put into the program for decades and then die before ever receiving one thin dime back. That's surplus funds.
And the very audacity of this administration giving tax breaks to the wealthiest that will go on endlessly while giving a few crumbs to the middle class that will end in a few finite years, adding a trillion PLUS to the deficit, just to go after entitlements in 2018 because of the outrageous deficit they themselves have made, is a cruel, cruel joke on the vast majority of us.
|
|
inherit
17836
0
Apr 29, 2024 15:20:43 GMT -8
daniel
27,203
December 2003
danielsmith
|
Post by daniel on Dec 16, 2017 16:00:44 GMT -8
Funny how there's a "shortage" on Social Security, but we never hear of a shortage in welfare funds Sure there is. It's fought over every election cycle.. Hi, Waiving to you as a tax payer whose family was on benefits for a couple years when I was a kid. My mom worked two jobs and got off benefits (barely). Since then, her two kids have grown up and never needed it. We've paid in since we were teenagers into the Social Security that older generations are now drawing. Some fractional percentage of your SS will have been paid by me, a percentage much higher than the welfare received for a few years.. That's the typical story of people on welfare. There is abuse, yeah, but MOST of it goes to people in situations of real need. But, here you are in a situation where YOUR family would benefit and all you can do is try go have a go at others in need. That's exactly what the people in power want. They want poor person A to fight poor person B so that they don't say, "hey, maybe it's super rich person C that's screwing both of us." I'd certainly pay a few more % in taxes to help your cause, to help people on welfare, to have universal healthcare, to have college paid for, etc. My generation seems to think those ideas are pretty popular. The question is, will baby boomers vote that way too? Or, will they continue to vote against their own interests?
|
|