So lets say there is a 20 year old person who has been diagnosed with X disease and has 5 years to live. Why should that person be forced to pay into the social security retirement trust fund when they know they’ll never be able to draw any benefits from it?
Because when that person’s health deteriorates to the point where he or she can no longer work, he or she will be able to receive Social Security Disability benefits.
You need 40 work quarters.
SSI is possible but it’s means-tested.
You never “know” someone won’t draw benefits. Anyway, that’s not relevant. If you start making exceptions to the payroll tax, you’ve created an unmanageable mess. I’m sorry this person is going to die within five years, but I’m not willing to let him opt out of Social Security.
You mean… like all the young people who at one point were dying of HIV and had just months to live, then a new drug like AZT was developed and suddenly they’ll all getting healthy again and live another 20 years?
Granted, that was an unusual case, but expiration dates for humans aren’t exact things.
You can always opt out of paying social security taxes. Just don’t earn any money, which is an attractive oprion available to the person who has only five years to live. He also has to pay income tax, so his nation’s defense department can be prepared to nuke some country long after he is dead. And school tax to educate children that he is not responsible for. And property tax, so his neighbors don’t have to set out buckets of nightsoil by the curb.
You don’t pay into SS to receive benefits; you pay into SS so *others *can receive benefits. And when it’s your turn, others might pay for your benefits.
People who pay into SS, but die before becoming eligible for benefits, are a *boon *to the system. That’s how it works.
Social Security isn’t a retirement account established for an individual. It’s more like an insurance policy: when you pay your car insurance bill, the money isn’t set aside at the insurance company in a special account that is reserved just for you for whenever it is that you get into a car accident.
Instead, like any insurance program, the money paid in goes out to whomever qualifies to get it. Someone can pay car insurance for many decades, and never see a single dime of that money if they don’t file a claim – and they aren’t entitled to their money back, either. Same with Social Security.
Same logic as why I have to pay taxes toward public or separate schools when I don’t have children and never will have children to use said schools. It’s a collective, isn’t it? Correct me if I’m wrong.
The hypothetical 20 year old with a five year life expectancy - are they presently unable to engage in significant gainful activity, and is their condition on the Compassionate Allowances list? Having a CAL condition can significantly speed up the process to start receiving disability payments.
If they are contemplating filing for benefits, they’d be well-advised to consult with a disability attorney or two. The system is not at all friendly to the layperson. :mad:
It’s a collective, but you also benefit by increased property value if you live in a good school district.
This is what I do for a living (no, really).
There are two different Social Security disability programs. One is the SSDI which does act like an insurance policy. You “buy” coverage by earning credits. For most people, you have to have 20 eligible quarters earned over 40 quarters, or five years of work over a period of ten years. Social Security knows that it violates the laws of physics for younger people to have spent that much time in the work force, so it makes adjustments for them so they’re still eligible under SSDI.
The other is SSI, and eligibility for that is a simple income-and-resources test. Children and adults who have never worked, or people who are low-income fall under this program. I should also point out that you can (and a lot of people do) file claims under both programs, assuming you’re eligible to do so.
As far as the hypothetical situation in the OP goes, I see that I was ninja’d by gotpasswords. As a cog in the system, I’m not prepared to get into a discussion about whether the system is layman-friendly since I don’t work in CAL and I know things work a little differently over there.
NPR did a pretty interesting series on SSA’s disability program, which you can find here.
And because I missed the time limit…
The Social Security disability program has two major issues. The first is mission creep. The program was designed in a time when it was possible to get a good factory job with minimal education. These jobs tend to be physically demanding, and it made sense to have a program to keep these people from starving if they got too injured or sick to work. The economy has shifted so that more people are educated past high school and are more likely to work in jobs that aren’t physical. The NPR series gets into this in greater detail.
The other is that medical science is getting a lot better at curing formerly disabling diseases, or at least, turning them into chronic but manageable conditions. Broomstick’s example of AIDS is a good one. Just being HIV positive isn’t enough to claim disability; you have to have some complication like Kaposi’s sarcoma or an opportunistic infection.
One more thing, then I’m going to shut up and go back to the MMP. There is a LOT of misinformation about SSA disability. It’s not true that you’ll always be denied the first time, or that the third time’s the charm. Don’t listen to the guy on the barstool next to you, ask a qualified SSA representative or the field office.
Because that’s how risk-spreading works.
No, a younger worker can qualify with significantly fewer work quarters.
Before age 24, a worker can qualify with six credits in the three years before disability begins. Cite.
Or they may leave behind (a) minor child(ren) who can receive Social Security survivor’s benefits, and a spouse too if they are married.
I had no idea the list was that long. Thanks for posting it! Many of them are conditions that leave people permanently and incurably disabled from, or shortly after, birth. This kind of thing can be a lifesaver for a family, especially if a parent cannot work because of the child’s disability.
Yes. I think Social Security is best viewed as a tax-supported government benefit. Current payroll taxes go to support those who are currently retired or disabled. It’s not an individual saving plan, although in some ways it’s set up to look like one (your retirement benefits depend on how much you paid into the system while you were working). It’s not even really a collective retirement saving plan. Most of the money that comes in goes right back out to current beneficiaries.
The trust fund is a bit of an exception. In 1983 (I think that was the year), Congress passed a law increasing the payroll tax and putting the extra money into the trust fund. Up until that point the trust fund wasn’t allowed to grow very much, and the system would have had trouble covering the baby boomers when they retired. So, in a sense, some of the money collected from the boomers since 1983 has been to cover their own retirement. This is the only way the Social Security system acts like a real retirement fund (as far as I know).
So the question could be rephrased as, why should a 20-year-old with a terminal illness have to support other people who are currently retired or disabled?
Because everyone* who works contributes to social security, including those who will die tomorrow in an accident. As long as they work that rule applies to them. When they stop working they need no longer contribute to the fund.
- There are, in fact, people exempt from social security. Railroad workers have their own similar retirement system that pre-dates social security. The Amish are exempt from paying in, but neither do they collect it. There may be others.
Some schoolteachers do not pay into Social Security either; they pay instead into a pension plan. This is one reason why so many teachers moonlight - so they can get SS quarters from their other job.