Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SkyDancer

Social Security was an affordable ‘pension’ plan for most working people with the benefit of matching contributions by employers. Based on life expectancy in the 40’s and no disability payments before 65, it was an attractive money maker for the Government.

US Life expectancy today is only around 78 - so on average people who work and contribute for 40 years will only get benefits for 13 years.
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=195

Federal abuses and malfeasance to the SS funds over the past decades have perverted a reasonable annuity plan. If SS had been privatized it would have been successful.


14 posted on 12/25/2013 7:48:05 AM PST by sodpoodle (Life is prickly - carry tweezers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: sodpoodle
Social Security was an affordable ‘pension’ plan for most working people with the benefit of matching contributions by employers. Based on life expectancy in the 40’s and no disability payments before 65, it was an attractive money maker for the Government.

SS was never a pension plan. And your contributions do not belong to you. They belong to the USG, which can decide what benefits will be provided.

SS is a Ponzi scheme. SS is a pay as you go system, i.e., today's workers pay for today's retirees. In 1950 there were 16 workers for every retiree; today there are three; and by 2030 there will be two. We either decrease benefits or raise contributions or some combination thereof to ensure full benefits are paid. SS has been running in the red since 2010. The last time that happened was in the early 1980s, which prompted Reagan and Tip O'Neil to strike a Faustian bargain to save the system for the next 75 years. One change was to raise the age for full benefits from 65 to 67. Another was to force all new federal hires to pay into SS.

Federal abuses and malfeasance to the SS funds over the past decades have perverted a reasonable annuity plan. If SS had been privatized it would have been successful.

What federal abuses are you referring to?

22 posted on 12/25/2013 8:05:47 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: sodpoodle

SS could have worked if done correctly you’d get 100% investment on your money i.e. you pay in 6.2% of your salary, your employer matches the 6.2%.

When you retire they should just hand you a check (tax free) for the combined total, say here you go and that’s “ALL” you get.

The Government just F’s up everything it touches.


36 posted on 12/25/2013 9:30:15 AM PST by maddog55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: sodpoodle

Or if SS had remained what it started out to be, which was to take care of the people who really needed. The impoverished, widows and orphans and the disabled. It became, in effect, a pension fund for everyone.


40 posted on 12/25/2013 11:13:08 AM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: sodpoodle

Actually, the life expectancy at age 65 is higher than age 78, due to earlier mortality lowering the average of the entire population.

For those who reach age 65, the average life expectancy for men is about another 19 years, and for women another 21 years.

Before Obama hit the medical industry, that is. Now, who knows?


42 posted on 12/25/2013 12:55:19 PM PST by muffaletaman (IMNSHO - I MIGHT be wrong, but I doubt it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson