- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Social Security is Welfare
Posted on 12/19/25 at 6:20 pm to ericberryistheman
Posted on 12/19/25 at 6:20 pm to ericberryistheman
I’d rather just have the option not to pay into social security and not have it taken out of my paychecks.
This post was edited on 12/19/25 at 6:21 pm
2
Posted on 12/19/25 at 6:29 pm to ericberryistheman
quote:
Current workers are taxed to pay benefits to current retirees. There is no fund.
Been that way for 40+ yrs... LOL
BTW, I am retiring next month after 45 yrs of employment and paying into SS. You all keep working so I get my checks. TIA
Posted on 12/19/25 at 7:01 pm to GeorgePaton
quote:The money to fund TARP came from standard US debt issuances. But the structure of TARP (until Obama got to it) actually ended up making money for the government/taxpayer vis-a-vis the banks. Some of the TARP money was used for preferred bank stock purchases, some of it was used for purchase of warrants, and some was used to fund loans which all the major banks were required to take.
So where did the money come from to fund TARP?
Posted on 12/19/25 at 7:05 pm to Veritas
quote:Wouldn't we all?
I’d rather just have the option not to pay into social security and not have it taken out of my paychecks.
quote:
Median SDS monthly payments run ~$1800. To get those monthly payments, one contributes 6.2% of his paycheck w/ a 6.2% employer match, or ~$158K, over ~45 yrs.
---
If instead of going to the SSTF, the $158K over ~45 yrs was placed in an S&P portfolio account, at retirement it would be worth $1,475,147.79. At a 7% ROI, monthly withdrawals from that point would run $8605/mo (w/o ever touching principal).
$8605/mo is nearly 5-fold the SS ($1800/mo) amount, plus a nearly $1.5M residual principal would remain to pass on to the kids.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 7:16 pm to ericberryistheman
Social security is literally not welfare since it’s a funded plan that has requirements for the recipient to have worked and paid in. The scheme requires workers to pay in today for retirees today. In other word, the retirement benefits received are not your own funds but those of people still working.
While retirement benefits are the most common form of Social Security, not everyone qualifies for these types of payments. In general, you'll need to have worked and paid Social Security taxes for at least 10 years to receive retirement benefits.
There’s other aspects of social security that are more fitting to be called “welfare”. SSDI can be gotten if you haven’t paid in. Spousal benefits can be had if you haven’t paid in.
So it’s been bastardized to be a quasi welfare system but the original intent was to be a funded program for those who have worked and paid in.
While retirement benefits are the most common form of Social Security, not everyone qualifies for these types of payments. In general, you'll need to have worked and paid Social Security taxes for at least 10 years to receive retirement benefits.
There’s other aspects of social security that are more fitting to be called “welfare”. SSDI can be gotten if you haven’t paid in. Spousal benefits can be had if you haven’t paid in.
So it’s been bastardized to be a quasi welfare system but the original intent was to be a funded program for those who have worked and paid in.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 7:23 pm to SlidellCajun
quote:
Social security is literally not welfare since it’s a funded plan that has requirements for the recipient to have worked and paid in.
Nope. It literally is welfare. Look up Flemming v Nestor.
A work requirement doesn't disqualify SS as an entitlement. Pretty much all entitlements have requirements for eligibility, including the requirement that someone work. That's not at all unique to SS.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 7:58 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:That's literally like saying Whole Foods is really Welfare Foods because a small percentage of its customers use SNAP benefits as payment.
Nope. It literally is welfare.
quote:In cases of disability, for example. That is but a fractional portion of the program though, and one in which other normal SS participants are required to fund along with their own "benefits."
A work requirement doesn't disqualify SS as an entitlement.
quote:
Median SDS monthly payments run ~$1800. To get those monthly payments, one contributes 6.2% of his paycheck w/ a 6.2% employer match, or ~$158K, over ~45 yrs.
---
If instead of going to the SSTF, the $158K over ~45 yrs was placed in an S&P portfolio account, at retirement it would be worth $1,475,147.79. At a 7% ROI, monthly withdrawals from that point would run $8605/mo (w/o ever touching principal).
$8605/mo is nearly 5-fold the SS ($1800/mo) amount, plus a nearly $1.5M residual principal would remain to pass on to the kids.
But the government rips that opportunity away! $1,475,147.79 and $8605/mo ripped away! In exchange, the government 'awards' the poor sot $1800/mo and calls it a "benefit."
.... and you refer to that rip off as "welfare"?
Posted on 12/19/25 at 8:05 pm to ericberryistheman
I hate that my money is taken from me so that lazy people can have a retirement they never paid for.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 8:46 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
That's literally like saying Whole Foods is really Welfare Foods because a small percentage of its customers use SNAP benefits as payment.
Uh, no, that's like saying that Whole Foods would be Welfare Foods if someone else paid for all your groceries when you were eligible for them to do so and you paid for other people's when they were eligible for you to do so.
Not a small portion. All of them. You didn't pay for anything you're going to get back in SS. That money was spent on someone else as soon as you paid it in.
I get it. Some people are simply not rational about SS, and I have noticed when it has come up that you are one of those people. The emotional sales pitch was so good back in the 30s that it still persuades people now, 90s some-odd years later.
But the SCOTUS has ruled that it is an entitlement. It's not a contract, it's not a retirement plan, it's an entitlement, so sayeth the highest authority in the land.
Just take the L.
This post was edited on 12/19/25 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 12/19/25 at 8:51 pm to ericberryistheman
Now do welfare
Posted on 12/19/25 at 9:25 pm to ericberryistheman
It isn’t security for society.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 9:30 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:100% false.
All of them. You didn't pay for anything you're going to get back in SS.
I thought you knew something of what you were talking about. My mistake.
SS was founded in 1935.
Two years of SS tax collection from the entire working population followed during which there was no payout.
In the late-1930's when payments were initiated, life expectazncy was 61y for men; 65y for women. Any SS payouts were prorated IAW years of contribution and only for those >65y. e.g., If one began contributions at age 63, then retired at 65, payout was 5% of full benefit. The full-career (40yrs) contributions and non-prorated "benefits" were not initiated until the 1970s. As aging of the population took place SS was restructured to compensate for it. Meanwhile, SS has always run in the black, as it is currently.
At what point did the supposed transition from self-funding to welfare occur in your estimation?
quote:FWIW, I've run the median SS career contributional numbers a couple of times in this thread already. You might want to take a gander at them before you motor-mouth further about "welfare."
Just take the L.
This post was edited on 12/19/25 at 9:47 pm
Posted on 12/19/25 at 9:34 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:As one to whom the US is indebted is CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED to repayment.
But the SCOTUS has ruled that it is an entitlement
Posted on 12/19/25 at 9:43 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
SS was founded in 1935.
Two years of SS tax collection from the entire working population followed during which there was no payout.
In the late-1930's when payments were initiated, life expectazncy was 61y for men; 65y for women. Any SS payouts were prorated IAW years of contribution. e.g., If one began contributions at age 63, then retired at 65, payout was 5% of full benefit. The full-career (40yrs) contributions and non-prorated "benefits" were not initiated until the 1970s. As aging of the population took place SS was restructured to compensate for it. Meanwhile, SS has always run in the black, as it is currently.
Blah, blah, blah, none of that is remotely relevant.
The first tax collections were in 1937. The first payouts were in 1940.
Those people who got benefits in 1940 might have had a tiny percentage of their benefits paid for by their own contributions, but it couldn't have been much...they only paid in for three years but collected full benefits. You're simply wrong about that. Here's AI:
quote:
People who began receiving monthly Social Security benefits in 1940 (starting January 31, 1940) did receive full, recurring monthly payments rather than just a lump sum. The 1939 Amendments to the Social Security Act allowed for the first monthly checks to be paid, with average monthly benefits for a retired worker around $23, significantly increasing for early beneficiaries compared to their total contributions. Key details about early Social Security beneficiaries: Initial Payments: The first recipient, Ida May Fuller, received a monthly check of \(\$22.54\) in 1940 after paying into the system for only three years.Benefit Structure: The 1939 law, which took effect in 1940, added spouse and survivor benefits, ensuring that those who reached age 65 could receive monthly payments.Redistribution: Early beneficiaries, having paid in for a very short time, received benefits that were higher relative to their contributions than later beneficiaries.Average Benefit: In 1940, the average monthly benefit was roughly \(\$22.60\), which was a modest supplement to other income.Eligibility: While monthly benefits began in 1940, these were for workers who had met the requirements for insured status by turning 65
quote:
I thought you knew something of what you were talking about. My mistake.
There's somebody here who doesn't know what the frick he's talking about, but it's not me.
Could be why the SCOTUS already ruled that SS was an entitlement. Did I mention that before?
This post was edited on 12/19/25 at 9:44 pm
Posted on 12/19/25 at 9:48 pm to wackatimesthree
Did you read the rest of my post?
Posted on 12/19/25 at 9:50 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:No you f*cking dumbass. Their payments were more or less pro rata ... assuming they lived past 65y to collect a penny.
Those people who got benefits in 1940 might have had a tiny percentage of their benefits paid for by their own contributions, but it couldn't have been much...they only paid in for three years but collected full benefits.
E.g., the first (Jan1940) "beneficiary" (Ida Fuller) received $22.54/m after retiring at 65 w/ 3yrs in the system. Had she worked 35yrs (~10x), her payment would have been ~$400-$500/mo (~20x). People love to cite Fuller as an example of getting more than you put into SS, because she lived to ... Wait4It ... 100yrs old!!!
Needless to say, in a world where life expectancy was 65yrs, 100 is a huge exception to the rule.
Meanwhile roughly 20% of the otherwise SS eligible workforce during her lifetime never made it to 65 to qualify for even one SS payment, despite life long SS contributions!!!
Focus . . .
One could say their ""welfare"" (in your idiotic estimation) SUCKED.
This post was edited on 12/19/25 at 11:48 pm
Posted on 12/20/25 at 8:19 am to NC_Tigah
"In fact, SS was never an intended benefit for anyone except Uncle Sam".
That's your opinion. It's NOT factually true. That's why they came up with the "Social Security Lock Box" concept. The employees / employers funded S/S and the money was securely held (at least that was the plan) in the S/S LB.
FACT - the present day looming Funding Crisis for Social Security occurred because the money was stolen. America just keeps electing democrat crooks, and they kept stealing America blind. Now in a present day scheme to hide their theft they (the democrats) have shifted the job of stealing to their surrogates - the Somalians (and their NGOs), the Muslims, the Illegal Aliens. But I digress.
Bottom line - the democrat led U.S.Congress worked out a viable bipartisan Social Security "foundational plan" - then the Ole Bait and Switch routine kicked in. We wouldn't be having this discussion on S/S if Joe Biden and his crooked pals had left that money alone. Just like we wouldn't have a funding crisis if Bill Clinton hadn't forced banks and lending institutions to accept those "high-risk" mortgage loans for minorities. Those same mortgage loans minorities simply defaulted on leaving the banks holding the bad loans.
It's called "Social Security" for a reason. The fund is a "Social" program designed to provide "Security" in the form of retirement income for retirees. But regardless I believe S/S retirees, are bascially being paid with printed worthless money anyhow. The four democrat amigos (Johnson, Clinton, Obama, and Biden) have stolen everything.
......and I believe the remnants of the S/S Lock Box are mixed in somewhere in the $ 38 trillion dollar national debt.
Bottom line, President Trump and his MAGA Team are the ONLY ones keeping this Republic swimming above water.
President Trump is right about.........everything.
That's your opinion. It's NOT factually true. That's why they came up with the "Social Security Lock Box" concept. The employees / employers funded S/S and the money was securely held (at least that was the plan) in the S/S LB.
FACT - the present day looming Funding Crisis for Social Security occurred because the money was stolen. America just keeps electing democrat crooks, and they kept stealing America blind. Now in a present day scheme to hide their theft they (the democrats) have shifted the job of stealing to their surrogates - the Somalians (and their NGOs), the Muslims, the Illegal Aliens. But I digress.
Bottom line - the democrat led U.S.Congress worked out a viable bipartisan Social Security "foundational plan" - then the Ole Bait and Switch routine kicked in. We wouldn't be having this discussion on S/S if Joe Biden and his crooked pals had left that money alone. Just like we wouldn't have a funding crisis if Bill Clinton hadn't forced banks and lending institutions to accept those "high-risk" mortgage loans for minorities. Those same mortgage loans minorities simply defaulted on leaving the banks holding the bad loans.
It's called "Social Security" for a reason. The fund is a "Social" program designed to provide "Security" in the form of retirement income for retirees. But regardless I believe S/S retirees, are bascially being paid with printed worthless money anyhow. The four democrat amigos (Johnson, Clinton, Obama, and Biden) have stolen everything.
......and I believe the remnants of the S/S Lock Box are mixed in somewhere in the $ 38 trillion dollar national debt.
Bottom line, President Trump and his MAGA Team are the ONLY ones keeping this Republic swimming above water.
President Trump is right about.........everything.
This post was edited on 12/20/25 at 9:38 am
Posted on 12/20/25 at 8:28 am to SlidellCajun
quote:
you'll need to have worked and paid Social Security taxes for at least 10 years to receive retirement benefits
Not sure. Spouses get one half of the other's check. And I am not sure they have to work 40 quarters.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 8:33 am to Harvey Vortac
quote:its worse. Pyramid schemes dont force you to "contribute."
Social security is a pyramid scheme
Posted on 12/20/25 at 8:58 am to ericberryistheman
As someone in the accounting profession… all of you would absolutely lose your shite if you knew how much FICA and Medicare isn’t turned over to the government nationwide by employers and the IRS’ inability to collect it all.
This post was edited on 12/20/25 at 8:59 am
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News