SOCIAL SECURITY LAY OFF AT LEAST 7,000
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2025/02/28/social-security-administration-layoffs-what-to-expect/80843682007/
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
NeuroticByNature · 41-45, F
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@NeuroticByNature How are THEY wasting your money? THEY invest your SSA payroll taxes to grow the funds required to pay out your retirement benefits -- or disability payments, if you unfortunately need them -- and administer eligibility records and payouts using long out-of-date computer systems. It is Congress that periodically "borrows" that money to waste on their deficit spending, undermining the long-term solvency of the Social Security System.
Reason10 · 70-79, M
@dancingtongue How are THEY wasting your money? THEY invest your SSA payroll taxes to grow the funds required to pay out your retirement benefits -- or disability payments
Uh, you REALLY have no idea what you are talking about.
NO MONEY IS INVESTED in the Social Security scam. President George W. Bush floated the idea and you goose steppers SCREAMED BLOODY MURDER.
Resonate THIS,ignoramus.
1.Social Security was ALWAYS a WELFARE program, to be financed by Congress's ability to tax, and that comes from the original Social Security administrators who argued that point before the Supreme Court.
2. If ANY private annuity companies handled their finances like Social Security, they would be shut down by the government.
Only an IDIOT thinks Social Security is ANYTHING but welfare.
Uh, you REALLY have no idea what you are talking about.
NO MONEY IS INVESTED in the Social Security scam. President George W. Bush floated the idea and you goose steppers SCREAMED BLOODY MURDER.
Resonate THIS,ignoramus.
1.Social Security was ALWAYS a WELFARE program, to be financed by Congress's ability to tax, and that comes from the original Social Security administrators who argued that point before the Supreme Court.
2. If ANY private annuity companies handled their finances like Social Security, they would be shut down by the government.
Only an IDIOT thinks Social Security is ANYTHING but welfare.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@Reason10
While there are some disabled and dependents of annuitants/disabled which one could argue is a form of welfare, 84% of beneficiaries are retirees who had to pay into the system for a designated period of time to qualify for benefits, and the benefits are based on average amount of taxes paid into the trust fund. So it is not outright welfare and more akin to an annuity, insurance policy, or retirement account.
I hope you appreciate how it is possible to have a discussion without labeling, name calling.
The phrase “Social Security trust fund” is misleading and often confuses the public. It conjures images of money or securities held in a trust on behalf of beneficiaries. In reality, the government takes every cent of Social Security taxes collected from current workers and passes the money immediately to current retirees. Until 2010, workers paid more in Social Security taxes than what the federal government paid out in benefits, but the government spent all that surplus money in other areas. The government has never saved or invested the Social Security tax surplus. Today, all benefits are paid by current tax collections or borrowing since Social Security taxes no longer fully cover the cost of benefits. Based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data, the government will borrow $4.1 trillion, including associate interest costs, between now and 2033 to pay for Social Security benefits.
cato.org/policy/analysis/social-security-trust-fund-mythWhile there are some disabled and dependents of annuitants/disabled which one could argue is a form of welfare, 84% of beneficiaries are retirees who had to pay into the system for a designated period of time to qualify for benefits, and the benefits are based on average amount of taxes paid into the trust fund. So it is not outright welfare and more akin to an annuity, insurance policy, or retirement account.
I hope you appreciate how it is possible to have a discussion without labeling, name calling.
NeuroticByNature · 41-45, F
@dancingtongue We've been told all our lives that social security will be utterly bankrupt by the time we're old enough to draw from it. My generation will retire the day we die on the job.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@NeuroticByNature I've heard it as well, going back to the Reagan-Tip O'Neal compromise where Reagan got his income tax cuts and O'Neil got an increase in payroll taxes to shore up Social Security and Medicare. A combined whammy of a rapidly aging population retiring and a shrinking younger workforce being taxed, plus the impact of "staglfation" as it was called at the time; a hang-over from the extreme inflation of the 1970's. And Congress keeps trying to put band-aids on the problem while going ahead ajd "borrowing" money that should be invested to finance other things.
Reality is that Social Security has never been intended in the last 70+ years -- if ever -- to be the sole means of retirement, but more a universal base line to assure that everyone was saving some money to survive on after work, even if it was at the poverty level. The same idea of universal insurance coverage we have for automobiles and keep trying to obtain for health care.
I understand your frustration. An uncle gave me the best advice I ever got. He told me to begin saving a dime out of every dollar for my retirement when I got a full-time job and launched career. He said don't look at it as saving 10% of your paycheck, but as that dime -- that pocket change -- that you squander on some impulse buying or treat. I took it to heart and even though we sometimes weren't sure where the mortgage payment or food for the table were coming from every month, I had my employer withhold 10% from my paycheck in an IRA, when they matched. And as hard as it was the first couple of years, it became much easier as our careers and paychecks improved. It is my primary retirement income. The Social Security a nice safety-net backing it up, as was intended.
Reality is that Social Security has never been intended in the last 70+ years -- if ever -- to be the sole means of retirement, but more a universal base line to assure that everyone was saving some money to survive on after work, even if it was at the poverty level. The same idea of universal insurance coverage we have for automobiles and keep trying to obtain for health care.
I understand your frustration. An uncle gave me the best advice I ever got. He told me to begin saving a dime out of every dollar for my retirement when I got a full-time job and launched career. He said don't look at it as saving 10% of your paycheck, but as that dime -- that pocket change -- that you squander on some impulse buying or treat. I took it to heart and even though we sometimes weren't sure where the mortgage payment or food for the table were coming from every month, I had my employer withhold 10% from my paycheck in an IRA, when they matched. And as hard as it was the first couple of years, it became much easier as our careers and paychecks improved. It is my primary retirement income. The Social Security a nice safety-net backing it up, as was intended.
Reason10 · 70-79, M
@dancingtongue While there are some disabled and dependents of annuitants/disabled which one could argue is a form of welfare, 84% of beneficiaries are retirees who had to pay into the system for a designated period of time to qualify for benefits
Nope. They were TAXED. Paying into a system implies CHOICE. And there were NO Social Security trust funds. The only reason they qualified for benefits was the DemoNazis wanting to buy votes.
Nope. They were TAXED. Paying into a system implies CHOICE. And there were NO Social Security trust funds. The only reason they qualified for benefits was the DemoNazis wanting to buy votes.