• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Social Security Welfare?

What people need to understand about SS is that it is NOT your money once it is taken out of your paycheck and sent to the SS administration. And the reason it is NOT your money is proven by the fact that you could pay into the fund from age 16 to age 65. Retire at 65, and then drop dead a day later, and then all of that money which you would have expected to be paid to you for the rest of your life had you lived to 110; that money DOES NOT go to your estate or to your family. Reason: it is not your money once they take it, it belongs to the "SS trust fund" and not you. So, unlike a personal retirement fund, which IS your money, and remains in your estate after you die, the government has coerced you into giving your hard earned dollars to fund this poorly managed socialism scheme.

Social security does not benefit anyone who is personally responsible and capable of planning and funding their own retirment. SS is just another example of the government meddling in the lives and personal economics of individuals; a means to convince citizens that they need the government to manage their lives.
 
ScrambledEggs said:
I contribute taxes through my working life. If I just decide to stop working as much and go on food stamps and medicaid is that welfare? I paid taxes before to fund it.
Click to expand...
But, in that case, your benefit is not tied to your contribution.
 
NWRatCon said:
But, in that case, your benefit is not tied to your contribution.
Click to expand...
Ok, then that seems to be the crux of the issue. "Relative" benefits according to contribution.

At what point does the degree of relativity warrant a claim of "welfare"? If you receive more SS than you paid in, and beyond what the trust fund grew by investing your money, does it become welfare?

For example, I paid $100 taxes over 5 years, received $110 in food stamps over the next 5 years.

I worked for 5 years, paid $100 in payroll tax, recieved $110 over the next 5 years, but the fund had to raise patroll taxes on those currently working to cover my extra $10 (due to say some market crash).

What's the difference? In both cases, you take more than you gave, and the offset is paid for by another taxpayer.
 
ScrambledEggs said:
Here is the annual 2022 report for those interested:

Trustees Report Summary

A SUMMARY OF THE 2024 ANNUAL REPORTS
www.ssa.gov
Click to expand...
I wasn't in a position to link those reports. Turns out, better than I remembered. Not that adjustments aren't warranted (I believe they are).

Based on our best estimates, the 2022 reports determine:

• The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivors benefits, will be able to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis until 2034, one year later than reported last year. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing tax income will be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.

Of course, YMMV. Every year, the projections change.
 
NWRatCon said:
I wasn't in a position to link those reports. Turns out, better than I remembered. Not that adjustments aren't warranted (I believe they are).

Based on our best estimates, the 2022 reports determine:

• The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivors benefits, will be able to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis until 2034, one year later than reported last year. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing tax income will be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.

Of course, YMMV. Every year, the projections change.
Click to expand...
Yea I think too I confuse "actuarial deficit" with "fiscal deficit". I'm sure there is a distinction but I'm not a financial analyst or actuary pro lol
 
Super Chief said:
So, unlike a personal retirement fund, which IS your money, and remains in your estate after you die, the government has coerced you into giving your hard earned dollars to fund this poorly managed socialism scheme.

Social security does not benefit anyone who is personally responsible and capable of planning and funding their own retirment. SS is just another example of the government meddling in the lives and personal economics of individuals; a means to convince citizens that they need the government to manage their lives.
Click to expand...
OMG, such unmitigated ideological BS. I commend your on your consistency. ;) The bolded kinda swallows your whole argument, as the point is, most people are NOT capable of funding their own retirement.

Buh-bye!
 
ScrambledEggs said:
Yea I think too I confuse "actuarial deficit" with "fiscal deficit". I'm sure there is a distinction but I'm not a financial analyst or actuary pro lol
Click to expand...
You are correct that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund is currently running an annual (fiscal) deficit, but it is not insolvent. We should take action to make sure it does not become so.

1670867536088.webp
 
ScrambledEggs said:
Ok, then that seems to be the crux of the issue. "Relative" benefits according to contribution.

At what point does the degree of relativity warrant a claim of "welfare"? If you receive more SS than you paid in, and beyond what the trust fund grew by investing your money, does it become welfare?

For example, I paid $100 taxes over 5 years, received $110 in food stamps over the next 5 years.

I worked for 5 years, paid $100 in payroll tax, recieved $110 over the next 5 years, but the fund had to raise patroll taxes on those currently working to cover my extra $10 (due to say some market crash).

What's the difference? In both cases, you take more than you gave, and the offset is paid for by another taxpayer.
Click to expand...
That is a good refinement of your question.

Some relatively minor adjustments to the SS system are all that is required to keep it solvent indefinitely (or the 75-year window, technically).

7 changes Americans are willing to make to fix Social Security — including one with ‘overwhelming bipartisan support’ (CNBC)​

 
Last edited:
VySky said:
YEP. My bro works for the Post Office 43 years. When he retires he will get zero SS
Click to expand...
Your brother joined the Postal Service back when employees were still under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). His monthly retirement check will be more than if he had been paying SS taxes all these years.
 
ScrambledEggs said:
I contribute taxes through my working life. If I just decide to stop working as much and go on food stamps and medicaid is that welfare? I paid taxes before to fund it.
Click to expand...
You ought to know the difference between welfare benefits and SS earnings.
 
Could I ask the OP to clarify what point is being made?

Just for the sake of argument, let's just say that Social Security does meet the definition of "welfare". OK, so what?
 
Citizen said:
theseniors.center

What Happened To The Money In Our Social Security Trust Fund? - The Seniors Center

What happened to the money in our Social Security Trust Fund? People ask the question over and over. They word it different ways. But the same question comes through. Whether it is on here on TheSeniors.Center, over at The Seniors Center Facebook page, on Dan Perrin’s Quora site, through...
theseniors.center
Click to expand...

I did a calculation once of what the outcome would have been if the 7.5% SS tax I paid during my working life had been invested in a fairly conservative mutual fund. That's the 7.5% I paid personally, not including the other 7.5% my employers contributed.

That money would have grown into an amount that would pay an annuity four or five times what I get from SS now.

The requirement that SS funds be invested in Treasury bonds, and the raids Congress has made on the cash, do look a bit like mismanagement.
 
Citizen said:
theseniors.center

What Happened To The Money In Our Social Security Trust Fund? - The Seniors Center

What happened to the money in our Social Security Trust Fund? People ask the question over and over. They word it different ways. But the same question comes through. Whether it is on here on TheSeniors.Center, over at The Seniors Center Facebook page, on Dan Perrin’s Quora site, through...
theseniors.center
Click to expand...
So, you have a source for your nonsense? That doesn't make it any less nonsense.
 
ScrambledEggs said:
Pretty straightforward question. From my understanding, social security requires the younger generation to fund the retirement of the retired generation, moving forward, given our aging population (in terms of skew)

Does this make social security one of the, if not the, largest welfare / transfer of wealth that exists? Is it ironic that the older population votes against welfare for other class groups?
Click to expand...
I have been contributing for 40 years along with my employers. Certainly not welfare.
 
vanceen said:
I did a calculation once of what the outcome would have been if the 7.5% SS tax I paid during my working life had been invested in a fairly conservative mutual fund. That's the 7.5% I paid personally, not including the other 7.5% my employers contributed.

That money would have grown into an amount that would pay an annuity four or five times what I get from SS now.

The requirement that SS funds be invested in Treasury bonds, and the raids Congress has made on the cash, do look a bit like mismanagement.
Click to expand...
Conservative management is not mismanagement. Just a modicum of self-education on the topic might assuage some of your concerns. Seriously, do you have a clue how this works? Your figures are wrong, and you are blithely ignoring so many additional factors.
 
ScrambledEggs said:
Pretty straightforward question. From my understanding, social security requires the younger generation to fund the retirement of the retired generation, moving forward, given our aging population (in terms of skew)

Does this make social security one of the, if not the, largest welfare / transfer of wealth that exists? Is it ironic that the older population votes against welfare for other class groups?
Click to expand...
It's partial welfare. I think it should be means tested, and only available to those poor enough and unable to work due to health.
 
911Sparky said:
Did you deliberately fail to mention the fact that postal workers have their own private pension system, one that pays far more than SS?
Click to expand...
Actually, CSRS pays more than FERS.
unitedbenefits.com

FERS & CSRS Monthly Annuities: The First Puzzle Piece of the Retirement Benefits Puzzle - United Benefits

Monthly Annuities Your pension, also called a monthly annuity, is the fundamental basis for your overall retirement income. Most federal employees fall under either the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) or the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The monthly annuity from FERS and...
unitedbenefits.com unitedbenefits.com
 
Simpletruther said:
It's partial welfare. I think it should be means tested, and only available to those poor enough and unable to work due to health.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you think it is partial welfare. We who work pay in and only we that work receive benefits.

I agree, there should be a means test and the retirement age raised to at least 68. 70 would be my vote.

SS does provide benefits to those unable to work because of health at any age. If they have paid in.
 
vanceen said:
Could I ask the OP to clarify what point is being made?

Just for the sake of argument, let's just say that Social Security does meet the definition of "welfare". OK, so what?
Click to expand...
I think it is important for us to use our terms correctly when debating public policy. Because the nature of welfare is used as an ethical standpoint in politics. Many view "welfare" as theft and therefore immoral.

If we can bridge our notions of "welfare" with the same line of thinking as we do with social security, we could win support for something like single payer or medicare for all.
 
noonereal said:
Not sure why you think it is partial welfare. We who work pay in and only we that work receive benefits.

I agree, there should be a means test and the retirement age raised to at least 68. 70 would be my vote.

SS does provide benefits to those unable to work because of health at any age. If they have paid in.
Click to expand...
Means testing == welfare
 
ecofarm said:
So now you understand, right? Note: "qualified individuals".

Entitlement is something one is entitled to as a result of paying in. Welfare is something one gets without paying.

When you pay for something, you're entitled to something. That's what entitlement means.
Click to expand...
That is just semantics. If you get more out than you put in, it's still partially welfare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom