"Totalization” is government-speak for combining or “totalizing” the Social Security taxes paid by individuals into the U.S.’s and a foreign country’s respective systems to create a single, harmonized retirement payment. The State Department has been negotiating such an agreement with Mexico, but, according to this columnist, keeping key details secret. The move to include illegal workers and the huge cost estimate of $345 billion were leaked, and now there’s a furor. Consular Affairs (CA) chief Maura Harty called the leaker a “traitor.”
Questions for debate:[ol][]Should the US negotiate a totalization agreement with Mexico?[]If your answer to #1 is YES, then why hasn’t this already been done?[]Should illegal aliens be included?[]Was the leaker a “traitor” or a hero?Did Congress cede too much power to the State Department, in not requiring an affirmative vote in favor?[/ol]
It’s probably a good idea if done correctly. In theory, such an agreement can make things much easier for the common citizen (in reducing the confusion of Social Security benefits and increasing the benefits themselves) while incurring little marginal cost, especially since a harmonized system might allow some people to avoid going on old age security benefits rather than SS.
Because getting two countries to agree on anything is hard.
In the case of Social Security, anyone who pays in should get the benefit. Being an illegal alien is sort of beside the point; if they pay in you should pay out. My insurance company can’t deny me benefits if I incidentally also cheat on my taxes.
Neither. He’s obviously not a “traitor” - that is a ridiculous and slanderous charge, and literally false - but I would say there isn’t anything “heroic” about leaking something to the press.
If this is the case, I would say so. International agreements should be subject to Congressional approval.
I sure hope this is some overzealous journalist who’s got his facts screwed up. I’m all for NAFTA and if Mexico would like to adopt the US dollar, as some countries have, that’s fine, too. But I sure as hell don’t want any of my tax dollars co-mingling with the Mexican treasury. Mexico has not shown a long-term commitment to a free Market system yet. It wasn’t that long ago that they were still nationalizing industries.
As far as illegal aliens are concerned, they are law breakers and should not be considered in any gov’t program. I’m sure some bleading heart will come out and say “oh, but they pay taxes and do jobs that Americans wouldn’t do…” Bullshit. As soon as any illegal alien comes into the limelight to collect on any gov’t program, they should be deported. Mexicans in this country illegally are not seaking political assylum. They are simply breaking the law, period.
No. Our plate is full paying for our own. Enough of my taxes already go to ‘foreign aid’. This plan would, of course, eventually turn into American subsidation of Mexican retirement funds.
No. They do not pay into the system, they should not draw from the system.
‘Hero’, but not in the Sgt.York sense.
Assuming that this is all true, absolutely. I’m sure congress is sooo busy, but the least they can do is their frigging jobs, and not pawn it off onto the State Dept.
I am not going to waste much time in this thread because we already discussed this issue not many months ago and it was totally debunked. The USA already has similar agreements with many countries and it is simply a reciprocity agreement so that Americans abroad can collect benefits in those countries in exchange for aliens from those countries collecting in the USA. There is nothing wrong with that and it is the right thing to do because people who have paid their taxes should be entitled to the benefits.
If someone would kindly search for the other thread I would be obliged. In that thread I came to the conclusion that the issue was one of willful ignorance on the part of the usual crowd who oppose anything that has to do with anything foreign.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but totalization agreements go in both directions in more than one sense. If the prospective one with Mexico ever takes effect, a Mexican national who pays into the U.S. Social Security system for part of his working life, but retires in Mexico, would have his years/wages of U.S. employment counted toward his Mexican pension, right? And the reverse would be true of an American who spent part of his career working in Mexico?
You know, not every Mexican who comes to the U.S., legally or illegally, stays here for the rest of his days. Not being a statistician, though, I’d have no idea where to begin crunching the numbers about whether the U.S. would get the short end of the stick; much would depend on the details, as well of the demographics of which kinds of people are likely to end up retiring under the U.S. vs. the Mexican schemes, and in what numbers.
I have no idea how the Mexican retirement scheme works, but as I understand Social Security, retirements benefits are capped, such that higher-wage earners don’t end up getting back as much proportionately as they contributed over their careers. So it would be very, very tricky to calculate the average lifetime wages of the Mexican vs. U.S. workers who are likely to be affected, and balance them against the demographics and numbers of people going in each direction. For this one, the devil will definitely be in the details, which I am in no position to evaluate.
Then you throw the legal vs. unauthorized employment factor, and it gets even messier. So to those of you who think that nobody should ever benefit from unauthorized employment, do you think we should refund the Social Security contributions that have been withheld from the paychecks of Mexican workers during any periods of unauthorized employment?
Should we should also fear that our hard-earned retirement funds are being usurped by those sneaky Belgians? Here is a list of countries with which the U.S. has social security totalization agreements.
… is akin to saying " ‘vehicle’ is government-speak for cars and trucks." That’s just what it’s called, and to put it in quote marks in that context is misleading. This page explains what international SS agreements do. There’s no commingling of funds (I wouldn’t necessarily trust Mexican banks with my retirement either), but rather ensures that a person paying into one country’s system, while being a beneficiary of another country’s system, can derive benefits from that home system.
In the case of Mexico, there are a number of factors behind the delay. First there are the obvious political implications behind doing anything that could be viewed as “promoting” illegal immigration–“Them dark furriners is stealing my money”–also now being seen with FAIR’s opposition to the acceptance of consular ID as proof of identity. Then there are several matters of technical compatibility of SS systems; Mexico’s nominal Social Security system is more of a healthcare and social welfare system, with a retirement and disability component, and there is presently no unemployment insurance component. Also, Mexican law and practice generally require that a person be physically present in Mexico to derive any public benefits.
As far as I know, “it will include illegal immigrants” is true in the sense that it won’t exclude illegal immigrants. If they pay in to the U.S. reserve, they can draw out of the Mexican reserve. Same as any Mexican national working in the U.S. and paying SS taxes, and the converse is true for any American working in Mexico and paying Mexican SS taxes. And without knowing the details, I’d guess that the “cost” of the agreement’s coverage of illegal workers is actually the amount of SS taxes they pay in and which would be transferred to Mexico for payout upon retirement, and not actually a cost in the sense of a burden upon U.S. taxpayers.
Also dishonest. The Department of Transportation knows how many miles of U.S. highway were refurbished in the Nixon administration, and the White House doesn’t know. Scandal! And there’s nothing sneaky about the Senate’s nonratification of the agreement–the Social Security Act (an act of Congress, no less) specifically provides that totalization agreements are executive agreements for which Senate ratification is previously authorized.
So, to answer the questions:
Yes.
Because of technical incompatibility and political pressure wrought by misunderstanding.
To the extent that the illegal aliens are paying in to the US reserve using a unique, personal SS number, yes.
Neither. Just one more nameless bureaucrat who found something to share.
No. As in the case of tax information exchange agreements and air transport treaties, this is an administrative agreement not requiring any change in law or policy.
The reason I would be against this giveaway is because it only takes 40 Quarters(10 years) of very low wages to qualify for SS. The vast majority of working Americans pay into SS for at least 30-40 years.
So you would have Mexicans coming here, working just a few years, who would get the same SS benefit that Americans have to work 40 years to get. Americans don’t have a choice as to whether or not to pay SS. We have to, whether we like it or not.
Now, unless they wanted to change the SS system to make it less of a welfare system, where everyone put in the same amount for the same amount of years, I would be against the idea of including foreigners.
And of course illegal aliens who have SS withheld from their checks, because they have managed to obtain illegal SS cards, should not get SS.
