Look at the chart I linked to above and tell me it isn’t obvious who benefits the most/least from Social Security. White women get the gravy, black men get the shaft. A black male can expect to pay in for 45 years and collect for 2.5, whereas a white female can pay in for 45 years and will collect for 14.5.
Btw, I just checked my link and noticed it wasn’t exact - probably because it is a redirect link from about.com to the CDC.gov site. This link should clear up the confusion.
Yes, but a black males lifespan, at 67.8 years in length, is seven years shorter than a white males, and twelve years shorter than a white females. That is a WHOPPING difference, and shows the racial bias of the current social security structure.
I absolutely agree with this, which is why I am completely baffled by the democrats’ attempts to counter Bush’s tax cut proposals by calling for a “payroll tax” cut or holiday. When pressed on it, or when Fox news reports it, dems will admit that when they say “payroll tax” they mean “social security/medicare tax”.
Now, it’s hard to disagree with their point that this kind of tax disproportionately affects those in the lower income brackets (only the first $80k are taxed like this), but I just know the AARP is gonna come down on them like a tonne of bricks!
Sorry about the hijack. Carry on.
Pretty much the poor… I’m not to sure if you have to be receiving welfare checks to receive medicaid though… I doubt it.
You get out what you pay in. Therefore, the “rich” get bigger checks than the poor.
By “means testing” he means that the SS checks are distributed regardless of whether you need it. My grandfather died with an estate of over $20,000,000, but he received the same SS check that he would’ve recieved had he no estate.
…“same monthly SS check”
Here is an analysis of the Galveston plan by the SSA itself. As one can expect, it isn’t flattering. A more favorable analysis can be found at the Cato website at: http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp16.pdf .
For the truth, read both and average out the figures. 
But seriously, if you’re really interested in seeing what the latest presidential commission has come up with, check this out.
Technically, if you are receiving Medicaid, you are on welfare, since Medicaid is a “welfare program”–that is, a program which applies a “means test” based on income or assets before one can receive benefits. Other such programs include food stamps and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. It’s possible to qualify for Medicaid without qualifying for the others, especially if you don’t have children.
Social Security is not a welfare program precisely because it is not means tested, as discussed by other posters.
** Those taxes (FICA -Federal Insurance Contribution Act) are also used for those who are “disabled” as defined in the Social Security Act.
** However, you get nothing back on income earned above the level in which the contributions are maxed. For example, if you earn a million dollars one year, you only get SS on the amount which was subject to FICA, which keeps going up every year.
Do you know who really get screwed on SS? Single persons. A married person’s spouse (if at least age 60) and his or her children (if under 18) also get auxilliary benefits. Now, many people who are retired won’t have children that young, but remember that you also get benefits if you are “disabled.” Also, if a child of an insured wage earner himself became disabled before the age of 22, he is entitled to benefits under his father’s record. Therefore, if I retired at age 65, and I have a child who became “disabled” before the age of 22, even if he is now 45, he may be entitled to benefits. (Other considerations come into play, such as did he engage in “substantial gainful activity”?, etc.)
Zoe states:
You do not have to be permanently disabled to get disability benefits. However, you must have an impairment which lasted or can be expected to last for one year, or result in death. Not just any impairment, but the impairment or impairments must either equal a Listing of Impairments found in the Social Security Regulations (Title 20), or prevent you from performing not only your past work but any work which exists in significant numbers in the national economy, considering your education, age, and acquired work skills (if any). Also, the surviving parent only gets benefits until the child attains age 16, although the child continues to be entitled to benefits until age 18.
I should add that in order to get Medicare if one is “disabled,” he or she must be disabled for two years. This link contains the Act, Regs, and Rulings.
This is a factual forum. If this or that group gets this or that much less or more, on average, than some other this or that, please feel free to say so with appropriate cites.
If one wishes to characterize with “bias,” “scam” “pyramid scheme” or similar charged language, please feel free to go to the Pit or GD.
Thank you.
There were a couple of other statements which I intended to address.
That is absolutely false. Medicare pays 80% of approved charges. Providers (doctors and hospitals) agree to limit their charges to the amounts HCFA (the Medicare agency) approves for any service. Medicare has three parts, A, B, and C. A is the one that everyone gets with no extra charge. It includes basic hospitalizations and post-hospital stays in a skilled nursing facility, up to a certain prescribed amount of time. Part B costs more, but it includes doctor bills, custodial care, home health care, and durable medical equipment, stuff that A does not. C is a new one, and it is just an extension of B, but the particulars I’ve forgot.
No longer, unless you take early retirement before age 65. You can retire as early as age 62 but there is an offset of 5/9 of one percent per month and any earnings above a certain amount also necessitates an additional offset of $1. for every $2 earned. You don’t have to take your benefits at age 65, incidentally. You can wait anytime thereafter until age 70 and have your benefits increase. The normal retirement age of 65 is being increased in increments, so that anyone born after the year 1937 must wait until a later date, depending upon their birthdate.
This answers some questions on Medicare.
To clarify some points previously raised, if you do not qualify for disability benefits or old age benefits under Title II (which is the wage earner’s section) you may still get SSI (Supplemental Security Income) if you are “disabled” or at least age 65, if you meet the financial requirements. (See Title XVI of the Act.) Refer to 20 CFR 404.01 et seq for Title II and 20 CFR 416.01 et seq for Title XVI (to which I have previously referenced).
Not everyone who is insured for old age benefits under Title II is insured for disability benefits. (I hate to use the word “insure” since the SSA was upheld by SCOTUS on the basis that it is not insurance, but everyone knows it is.) To get old age benefits, you only have to be totally insured, which in most cases is 40 quarters of coverage (QC). However, to get disability benefits, you also have to be “currently insured,” which means that you must have 20 QC in a 40-quarter period covering the date on which you allege disability. Refer to my first reference.
I’m 27. In my retirement planning, I’m counting on getting exactly $0.00US in retirement benefits. I fully expect the baby boomer generation to bankrupt the system. I understand that many under 30 share this view, which is why so many of us are cynical about the deduction that gets taken from our paycheck.
And just think, SC_Wolf, the amount stolen from your paycheck is only half of what is really stolen. Your employer gets ripped off of the other half.
Medicaid is one of the reasons some states are having severe budget problems. In my state Medicaid consumes over 32 percent of the state spending budget and a state tax increase is expected soon.
http://www.state.oh.us/obm/Information/budget/bluebook0203/tab_b/spsummary.asp
manhattan with all due respect even the terms
“pyramid scheme” “social security”
put into google will come across over 4000 hits,
dictionary.com defines pyramid scheme as:
And with talk of the SS system going bankrupt all the time it very much sounds like it fits the meaning of pyrmid scheme.
As for Galviston, I heard the numbers on the news several years ago, most liklely before the .com bust. I have to look into that further but with the above cite from JohnT (the 2nd one - btw), page 10 on the PDF, even after SS has reduced the figures for no other reason they they beleive it was too high the Galviston system would pay $2076 per person while the $1077 SS payments (again I feel they are twisting it a little and raising their numbers). So even with them fudging it the private system is paying about 2x that of the gov’t run system.
The “Social Security surplus” is the aggregate surplus of FICA tax revenues over SS benefits paid out. This money has to be invested in something – it doesn’t sit in piles of cash in Ft. Knox, you know.
The SS fund is invested in a special restricted series of US Government bonds, sold by the US Treasury only to the SS fund. Like any other T-bond, these bonds are loans to the US for general expenses. And like any other T-bond, these bonds are considered completely safe against default risk, as the US Gov’t has always paid its debts, at least since the start of the Federal Reserve system (1913?).
Now as to whether this obscures the cost of running the government, reduces funds available to run the SS system or pay benefits, or whatnot, that’s an issue for GD.
Also…
ALL accounts – bank savings, checking, brokerage, and SS benefits – exist purely on paper. If you deposit $100 in the bank, they don’t lock $100 in their vault; they lock the required reserve percentage in the vault, and invest the rest in some kind of loan.