Skip to comments.Labor Dept. Data: Only 1.75 Full-Time Private Sector Workers Per Social Security Recipient
Posted on 09/12/2011 4:11:50 PM PDT by Nachum
(CNSNews.com) - There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States last year for each person receiving benefits from Social Security, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Social Security board of trustees.
That means that for each husband and wife who worked full-time in the private sector last year there was a Social Security recipient somewhere in the country taking benefits from the federal government.
Most state and local workers are part of the Social Security system and pay Social Security taxes; and, since 1984, all federal workers have been part of the system and pay Social Security taxes. However, unlike private sector workers who pay Social Security taxes with private-sector dollars, government workers pay their payroll taxes out of wages government pays them with tax dollars or with money that was borrowed by government and taxpayers must eventually repay.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
You know what? Governor Perry is the ONLY one who has flat out stated that Social Security is a bust! That he called it a “Ponzi-Scheme” is elementary - the truth is it’s busted, broke, and someone had better da@n well be serious about changing the whole system - someone who can challenge our SELF-SERVING, COUNTRY-CLUB ATMOSPHERE MEMBERS of CONGRESS before we’re DONE as a NATION!!!
Talk about creating accounting...
for starters, the feds need to redeem their IOUs that they deposited in the Trust Fund during prior “raids” for cash — to the tune of $2.67 trillion.
That would be a good place to start. Then the Social Security Trust Fund wouldn’t be broke for quite some little while.
— Jane Reinheimer
This is getting ridiculous. Such a topsy-turvy world in which we live where newborns come out already hopelessly indebted to those who were lucky enough to be born before them.
That would be a good place to start. Then the Social Security Trust Fund wouldnt be broke for quite some little while.
That was meant to be sarcasm, right?
You do know that would be the equivalent of you writing yourself a check for a million dollars and then calling yourself a millionaire, don't you?
And the new thing is letting people pay less payroll tax (SS tax). Obama is proposing not collecting 6.2% in this new bill....
"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -- Winston Churchill
NO MORE SLUSH FUNDS.
NO MORE LIES.
If a company did this with their pension money, they'd be arrested.
Can somebody explain to me why (young) prisoners get SS checks in Jail, and Illegals get them, many even mailed to them in Mexico? Doesn’t Obumo have something like 17 Social Security numbers? Does that mean he and Moochelle will get 17 checks per month? (Do we know how many SS numbers Ms. Hussein has?)
GM was at either 2.3 to 1or something like that when they were on the road to oblivion...
Yes, more musical chairs on the deck of the Titanic Mr. Obama, more music, Please !!!!
But the thing is it was never set aside. From day one SS was just another income tax and it was paid from the Treasury the same as any other government check or bill.
NO MORE LIES.
Well yes, politicians in their speeches lied, but the actual law was there for any one to read from August 14, 1935 on. There was never any SS fund. No pension account, nothing. Just income taxes in, checks out.
People are angry because they feel duped. But they were only duped because of lack of ambition to read the law for themselves and not just take Cliff notes from politicians.
Most people preferred the lies to the truth anyway. They wanted to believe it was a pension insurance fund set aside just for them.
They didn't want to know it was a welfare check paid out in the same manner as any other government program.
Because if they could convince themselves it wasn't, they could feel like they wouldn't be taking "relief" as it was called in those days.
Then the self-deception was passed down generation to generation until now where it's so deeply ingrained people will get angry if you tell them the truth and will deny it until their dying breath.
Who pays for the IOU’s?
In all fairness, they were told it was being invested in Government bonds. What they weren’t told is that they Government bonds than couldn’t be bought or sold.
But what about the “lock box”? Is it empty? (he said knowing that Al Gore has always been a lying dweeb...)
We know dems and their lies - and this one's a BIG LIE. Right now, liberals are using Social Security to replace welfare in inner cities - they're signing up the usual dependent ones for disability - and creepy liberal lawyers are making a bundle on it. The dependent ones will work for two years and be 'disabled' for the next 60 years. And we'll be paying for it until the system is bankrupt. When there are no funds, those who are faking disabilities will move on to the next scam - and the people who really are disabled will die.
But that doesn't bother a liberal.
They only care about the victim groups who vote for them. The one's they pay off with our money. So we do want the truth - and we want the truth out there. Sadly, the MSM gets their marching orders ( stories fed to them ) from friends on the left side.
Well...THAT’s gonna last a whole lot longer!!
Don’t forget that Social Security also pays “disability” benefits to those who have worked as little as two years in their lifetimes (SSD) and even have not ever worked at all (SSI).
Cut all that out and just focus on the retirees and Social Security will stay solvent long enough to keep the promises made to the retired and soon-to-be-retired.
We forget about all the moochers bankrupting the Social Security system.
benefits to those who have worked as little as two years in their lifetimes (SSD) and even have not ever worked at all (SSI).
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I can see (possibly) minor children of the person who put into the fund, indigent widows or widowers of the person who put into the fund - until they remarry receiving the amassed benefits.
As bad as the program was/is, it was never meant for 25 year old druggies or alkies receiving benefits -
Imagine what the unions and members would say if say the union retirement fund was distributed to people who a/didn’t qualify or b/never worked.
I would support that as a matter of compassion except that is what life insurance is for.
We’re expecting Big Brother to take care of us instead of purchasing inexpensive protection for our own families.
Did you know that if a person of suitable age retires and goes on Social Security, his (or her with the help of science) MINOR CHILDREN are entitled to a check too?
So someone can voluntarily retire and the taxpayers get to foot the bill because the kids aren’t adults yet. Nice, huh?
How to test any financial system for a "Ponzi-Scheme:"
If all incoming funding is stopped, does the existing financial system have the funds and means necessary to pay it's liabilities?
If the answer is yes, it's a sound financial system.
If the answer is NO, it's a Ponzi-Scheme.
A Ponzi-Scheme by any other name (Social Security) is still a Ponzi-Scheme!
Sure, but even if those bonds were marketable, they would still have to pay the principle and interest to the private owners so where's the gain? It's still paid off by taxation at some point.
It's all academic though at this point.
The candidates are talking, as are the people, and even many folks on this site, as if we can put in some multi-year reform where those over 45 will get their checks but somehow those under will not have to pay full price.
It can't happen. Take a look at what's going on in the world. There's so much debt out there, both public and private and the world financial system so fragile, we could wake up, maybe even some day this week, where it all comes down.
Some day, sooner rather than later, you could wake up one morning, pop on the news and see bond yields shooting to the moon. And it's a way different world than 1980. We're a debtor nation now. That's a whole different ball game.
What's going to happen in if we have another downturn, and tax receipts dive again?
It, or Medicare, or both, are going to have to become a means-tested programs and soon. It's not a matter of ideology, it's a matter of mathematics.
So are food stamps not welfare when someone has paid income taxes for 15 years, and then they get an EBT card?
suitable age retires and goes on Social Security, his (or her with the help of science) MINOR CHILDREN are entitled to a check too?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I wasn’t aware of that -
I did say on my two ‘alternates’ possibly - with the ONLY reason being that at least the person who put into it had the opportunity to get something out of it.
Of course when the program was ‘invented’ only a handful of people lived much beyond 65 so, in essence, it was a ‘tax’ without the nasty label.....
Nope, more wishful myths.
You can go to SSA.gov right now and see what they're paying on those two programs and they're not a drop in the bucket compared to the 10,000 baby boomers becoming eligible for traditional Social Security every single day for the next 15 years.
Well, the word "tax" appeared multiple times in the original law as well as the subsequent Supreme Court cases which said it was not a pension at all that anyone was entitle to but just another income tax.
Well, the word “tax” appeared multiple times in the original law
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
My first recorded withholding was in 1954 at age 14.
I ‘contributed’ to Medicare since 1966 and do NOT use it as I am in the VA system.
Have also paid ‘full bore’ since 1991.
Since it wasn’t ‘my idea’ and it was (supposedly) ‘put aside’ for MY benefit, Yes, I do want it and NO it is not an entitlement.
Can you explain to me how it's any different (by referring to the actual mechanics, not what politicians said in speeches) from someone paying income tax dutifully for 30 years and then signing up for food stamps?
Because with income taxes, we vote for politicians who affect our tax rate- either positive or negative. Our tax rate is out in the open, with public discussion and vote.
With SS- this was promised as a retirement fund- in which I have paid into by force for 30 years. I would have over $700,000 in my retirement if I did not have to pay SS.
All I know, if Medicare and SS is eliminated ( although I have no issue with Medicare becoming means tested)- I will leave this country upon retirement for a place with a low cost of living.
I will no longer pay federal income income tax.I will escape. I will not be the only person to do this.
What is the government going to do?
We will take our wealth with us, and even if they catch us- what are they going to do with a bunch of grey haired 70-80 year olds? Throw us in prison?
If they did, I would get free medical care.
from someone paying income tax dutifully for 30 years and then signing up for food stamps?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Nice play on words.
Are you related to Bill Clinton?
Sound like him.
I am referring to the statement he made saying anyone drawing a check from the government was in the same class....be it welfare, unemployment, retirement and believe he basically singled out Military Retirement and Welfare, saying it was the same thing.
Yes, in terms of words (like your above question)it is still a check from the government but not in the same vein.
What would your reaction be if say an insurance policy you paid into for 50 years suddenly became ‘due’ and the insurance company told you they put the money in another, similar but different program so they are not obligated to pay you?
I was ‘told’ at the tender age of 14 that what ‘they’ took from me would be mine eventually, I believed them and now I expect them to pony up....(go ahead and read some sarcasm here)...
For what it may be worth when I (we) were in our mid 30’s-40’s really didn’t believe we would ever see a penny of FICA either....
I mean to say- $700,000 in additional retirement funds. This does not include my employer match.
No, it was no play on words. I ask you to explain to me how it was different in actuality. Either by law, or how the accounts are structured or in any tangible way. Not what you were "told" but in actual practice.
You didn't do it (in fact did just the opposite). You couldn't do it and it can't be done, because of the simple fact there is no difference.
There isn't, wasn't and has never, ever, ever been a set aside account for persons' pensions in Social Security. It was always a tax and always a welfare check.
You want to get that check. That's understandable. Shaniqua wants her EBT card charged at the first of the month too.
But it's nothing belonging to you, it wasn't set aside for you, there's no account for you, you're just getting someone else' income tax payment or borrowings from the Chinese.
You don't have to be honest with someone on an internet board, but I hope you're at least honest with yourself on what you're actually getting.
I also want to add, I paid $700,000 into the SS fund.My hard earned dollars.
That does not put me into the dirtball, foodstamp class of people who have contributed nothing to this country and their fellow man.
I want my money back.
It was not promised to you. Ever. In fact the government went all the way to the Supreme Court in Nestor v Fleming and won asserting it wasn't a promise, just an income tax.
Did you ever read the law for yourself? I bet you haven't. Have you ever read the Supreme Court cases regarding what you believe was "promised"? I'm guessing no.
So where are you getting this idea that you were "promised" some specific payment for paying income tax? That's what I want to know.
Shaniqua is a dirtball, and was not promised a retirement fund.She has paid nothing into the system.
How would you like it if the government lied to you, in order to pay off Shaniqua for her vote?
How old are you?
I am honest with myself. If the government double crosses me, I will double cross it in spades.
Another thing- SS is in addition to income tax( in which I pay about 32% of my income).
How much have you paid?
What about the guy who pays income tax for 30 years and then signs up for food stamps? Are you different from him? If so, how?
I want my money back.
I'd like all my income tax ever paid refunded too, but I don't go around telling people I'm entitled to it.
Let me tell you, if SS is eliminated- there will be hell to pay.
The boomers are the highest demographic- we will either leave or vote en mass in our own interest. Who can blame us, as we are the victims of a ponzi scheme?.
Maybe Shaniqua should starve , because she does not deserve the money.If the Shaniquas starve, so the people who paid into the system get the money they deserve, too bad, so sad.
It will get mean real fast.
Being as I paid ( if you include SS) a 40% plus tax rate, then yes, I do deserve it more than the person who has paid little into the system.
However, I will leave the country and take it with me, especially if my government reneges on a promise.
I will not be the only one.
You're not really grasping the math here kaila. All the Shaniquas' checks, all the aircraft carriers, all the EPA staff salaries, are nothing but a tiny rounding error compared to the 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.
You could eliminate the entire federal government and turn it into nothing but a Social Security check mailing facility and Medicare clearinghouse, and we're still broke in 10 years. Period. Full Stop.
10,000 Baby Boomers every day, day in, day out, become eligible for SS and Medicare starting last year.
Who can blame us, as we are the victims of a ponzi scheme?.
In actuality it really wasn't a Ponzi scheme because it was never a separate fund of the Treasury. But for the sake of argument let's say it was. When you're a victim of a Ponzi scheme you don't get to demand your neighbors make up your losses.
Do you deserve it more than he deserves his food stamps if he paid the same tax rates as you? Try answering what I ask for once without adding ten qualifiers to rationalize this to yourself.
I get the math.Medicare should be means tested. I have no issue with that.However, you have people who, on this very forum, want to spend billions of health care dollars to keep everyone alive, even though they are brain dead. How is that going to work?
The EPA, Dept of Education can all suck wind.There is a huge amount of waste in this government.
I can demand that Shaniqua no longer receives welfare, so that citizens who paid into the system get their retirement.
I can demand that we leave third world muslim hellholes, and keep the money in the US.
If the government does something that makes their citizens lose trust in them, that government will not exist for long.
I know people who are stashing gold into foreign countries, because of that fear.
I think that there will be a huge, massive upheaval if SS is eliminated, so much so that the politicians will cut just about everything else to save it.
That is what happens who you have demographics on your side.
You didn’t do it (in fact did just the opposite). You couldn’t do it and it can’t be done, because of the simple fact there is no difference.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
You definitely do sound like a politician.
You probably think Shaniqua rates the EBT card because her contribution to society is, has been and will continue to be, to produce more mouths to feed.
You are probably against a Military Retirement check at 37 ‘because’ the troop has held a steady job for 20 years at or about the same rate of pay that you have been getting.
At least that is what the ‘studies’ seem to prove.
The only fallacy with the ‘studies’ is you work an 8 hour day and that troop is subject to 18-24 hr days more often than not.
Now I may (or may not) be an anomaly, but I am 72 and have yet to collect one day of unemployment, have never been on welfare, never used or drew food stamps, don’t owe for a college loan, been given a job or advancement because of my race, I just spent my life contributing to society in general, either by being in the Military, creating jobs and paying taxes and FICA.
For you to say that my collecting Social Security (after contributing for over 50 years) is parallel to Shaniqua getting issued food stamps, while your example may be true as far as words go, the comparison is ludicrous.
Like I said, Bill Clinton.
Depends on what ‘is’ means.
“It depends on how you define alone”.
“Do you deserve it more than he deserves his food stamps if he paid the same tax rates as you?”
My simple answer to your question-
I paid more, I get more.
Well that didn't answer the question and you know it. It's just your way of rationalizing drawing a welfare check. But I get it, you want a pay more taxes get more welfare system. Seems stupid just to have a government to collect taxes to divy it out in checks, but hey, whatever trips your trigger.
My husband and I paid paid into the 6 figures last year in federal income taxes.
What did you pay? I am not a welfare dirtball, and have never received anything from this government.
The government is sure good in taking it away from me.
And no, I do not want to pay more taxes , to get a SS check.
However, since the government (by force) took my money away from me for 30 years, I will expect a check back.
I can do it two ways:
1. Leave the country- and stop paying taxes. This is what I will probably do if I get ponzied.
2. Riot in the streets. This is what everyone else will do.
It will not be pretty.
Yeah, because there have been so many politicians who have called old people out on their welfare checks. Sure. Whatever.
paying taxes and FICA.
No, not "paying taxes and FICA." It's paying FICA taxes. You're the one who needs semantics to rationalize their check. It's not me playing word games by parroting politicians.
For you to say that my collecting Social Security (after contributing for over 50 years) is parallel to Shaniqua getting issued food stamps, while your example may be true as far as words go...
It has nothing to do with words. It's reality. There is no fund that you contributed to.
You know it's really been eye-opening to me to get on these SS threads on FR, and see the lengths to which some people will go to rationalize their getting a government welfare check.
And it's mind-boggling to listen to supposed conservatives not actually talk about the law as it was passed but instead use what were lines in Democrat campaign literature in 1934 and 1936. That's where this whole "insurance", "pension" and "account" language entered into the public square.
I mean can you believe it? You as a self-identifying conservative are not arguing the actuality of it, but just repeating what are 75 year old Democrat campaign slogans. It truly fits in the ironic category.