Odd how conservatives who rant about America becoming socialistic have no problem signing up for government run SS. What, you didn’t plan for your retirement properly and have to depend on others? Why should I, a hard working, self sufficient person, pay for you?
The Social Security Administration, bracing for the coming eligibility of 80 million baby boomers, is introducing an online application that will allow people to apply for retirement benefits in as little as 15 minutes.
Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue said in an interview the agency was completely overhauling its electronic services in recognition of the greater computer skills of future Social Security recipients and the need to more efficiently process the coming flood of applications.
“We just don’t have the infrastructure to handle that workload in the traditional fashion,” he said.
Astrue said a person who now goes to a Social Security office to apply spends about 45 minutes consulting with a field officer.
The agency says that over the next 20 years some 10,000 people a day will become eligible for retirement.
[…]
Those wanting to use the new program can go to http://socialsecurity.gov and click on “Filing Online for Retirement Benefits.”
[Suggestion: Unlike some commenters, before making an embarrassing rant that I am wrong and your lifetime of payments into SS pay for your benefits, please do some research. — UD]
15 minutes online? 45 minutes in person? WTF is the delay? When my dad applied on the phone ten years ago it took less than ten!
# 34 Named said, “Not true. The SS fund is stuffed with IOU’s and T-bills.”
LOL!
Like I said, no money in there.
35,
Simple. They don’t want you to apply. In fact, it would be great if you died WHILE waiting.
#29 nolimit…..
So, if, by the time you’ve worked your 40 years and Uncle Sam has a full 15% (7.5 from you, 7.5 from your employer) of the money you made in that 40 years, if you get a dollar back, will that be enough? I mean, you’re getting SOMETHING for the stuff you put in.
$2? $4?
Sorry, this all goes back to my belief that the government should’t be in the business of propping up individuals (or businesses, for that matter.) If individuals want to prop up other individuals, fine. GREAT, even.
Someone said above that the purpose of “having a society” is for the benefit of its members. Fine, but it should be handled directly by its members, and not wholesaled, raped, etc by the government.
Uncle Dave – How’s this? I won’t say a word if they will just return every dime to me today that I and my employers have put into the system.
You don’t have a choice now and we didn’t have one when we started working except maybe to not work (and draw from the government) or move to someplace where you do have a real choice.
38,
The government IS the people. You’ve let that get away from you. Now, the government is for itself. You can take it back though. But it requires a lot of work on the part of the American people. And the couch is so very comfy…
RIPOFF! PONZI SCHEME!
Despite all the problems we have with SS in the US, it is a lot better than the pension systems in place in most of the first world.
The coolest feature of our SS system is that it has (a) capped contributions and (b) distributions are not means tested, unlike most other systems.
On the contribution side: Earned income after $85k (It might be higher now) a year is not subjected to SS tax. So you are not penalized for being successful. Other countries have a progressive SS tax, meaning the more you make, the larger amount they take of your earnings.
On the distribution side, once you reach full retirement age, distributions are not means tested. If get your money no matter how much you have or earn. In most countries distributions are means tested. If you are successful in saving for your own retirement, then you don’t get squat from the pension system. It is a double insult because you also paid more in to it too.
A third point is that most first world countries are facing serious shortfalls with their pension systems. The US system is far healthier than the systems of European nations and Japan. It still has excess funding and the US has a large enough younger population to maintain the system. The other systems have to pay all distributions from current tax revenue, and they face declining populations of workers making contributions. So the burden on each worker there is much higher than the burden on US workers.
Mr. Mustard is right on about the fact that there is already a highly functional private retirement system in place. It is called IRA’s. You can open one today. You can invest in all sorts of places, even in real estate. There was no need for Wall Street to invent a whole new system for privatized SS investments. The idea was nothing but a naked money grab of greed from bankers hoping to rake in huge management fees.
Chile did the privatized SS system. Citizens there starting loosing their shirts as the banks convinced them to move their funds here, there, and everywhere, each time taking a nice commission. It hasn’t worked out so well since too many people are conned into unwise investment strategies.
The last point that many people forget is that SS is not just about retirement. A large chunk of the distributions go to people on disability. That tax you pay is also an insurance premium that will help support you if you become disabled. That is why is it called “Social Security” and not “The Public Pension” as it is often called in other nations.
#38 – Moonie
>>Sorry, this all goes back to my belief that
>>the government should’t be in the business of
>>propping up individuals
What, then. Let them die, frozen and starved, on the streets of our cities and towns? Put them on welfare? Hope that they all have wealthy children with the means and willingness to support them?
There’s no “propping up” going on here. People pay into SS all their lives, and to the extent that they have paid in, they “get back” (with apologies to Uncle Dave). If you never work, you get nothing. If you (and your employer) contribute to the max every year, you get the max back (skimpy as that may be).
>>Fine, but it should be handled directly by
>>its members, and not wholesaled, raped, etc
>>by the government.
Agreed. And maybe SS is not the most perfect system that could ever have been designed with the benefits of 20:20 hindsight. It’s a fuck of a lot better than handing over folks’ retirement futures to Wall Street predators, though. If you want to talk about wholesaling, raping, etc., just imagine THAT scenario.
Actually, if you’re a French nurse in a Paris state run hospital, you can retire with a generous pension, free lifetime medical care, free public transport and subsidized accommodation for life, when you reach 38 years old.
Just make participation voluntary. Problem solved.
#45 Paddy-O said
“Just make participation voluntary. Problem solved.”
It’s a tax. Cuss and discuss all you want, it’s still a tax.
>Maybe if congress hadn’t been stealing the $ for the last 40 years…
It would have made no difference, except the national debt would be lower now. The government would still be facing funding shortfalls in a decade, and the surplus has already started shrinking, meaning the regular budget deficit gets worse every year. On the other hand, if you are saying they would actually take this money and put it in a lockbox…
45,
I’ll take a bet that you’ll find something else to make you unhappy…
# 46 Ranger007 said, “It’s a tax. Cuss and discuss all you want, it’s still a tax.”
And, thus it will always be screwed up. Hence, my solution.
I was looking forward to reading this thread, but even with a caution, Paddy-Zero’s buffoonery takes away all the joy.
I think I’ll close one eye and see if there are any links worth visiting.
Paddy-Zero=a fail of the Touring Test.
# 49 Paddy-O said,
“And, thus it will always be screwed up.”
Can’t disagree with that.
I believe I have a better chance of hitting a big lottery payout than I do of receiving full Social Security benefits when I retire in 20-25 years.
Nope. Not a single link to fill-out the original post.
SS is a social program partially funded by participants amounting to a huge ponzi scheme. Its mismanaged just like every other freaking thing our Congress does.
VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE.
#44 – Sargasso
>>Actually, if you’re a French nurse ..you can
>>retire… when reach 38 years old.
Bunk.
The minimum age for retirement is 60, and the minimum years of contribution to the fund is 40 years. Some workers (not nurses) may be beneficiaries of the régimes spéciaux de retraite, with guidelines that are a little more liberal, but it’s still 40 years of contributing, and retirement age of 55 – 60.
On the other hand, France is rated #1 in providing the best overall health care; the UK is #18, and the USA is #37.
54,
VIVE LA FRANCE!
In fact, Americans love France so much they are becoming more like them every day… One day you might have health care too!
http://time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html
Unless you’re getting ready to retire soon (say, next 5 years or so), you would be a fool to be planning on having a Social Security check when you retire. Even if you are retiring soon, I wouldn’t count on continuing to receive a check indefinitely, if I were you.
You can be as pissed off about it as you want. In the end, it won’t make any difference. The money won’t be there. Go ahead and get pissed off about it now. Maybe you’ll give yourself a coronary and your spouse will get a nice fat check for all the Social Security you’ve ‘paid into the system’…yeah, right.
#55 – named
>>One day you might have health care too!
We can only help. Even though we’ve become more french than the French in many regards, it’s usually to benefit the trust fund babies at the expense of the rest of us.
Permitting universal health care is too plebian to be of any interest to the TFBs. They already have adequate health care. They can NEVER have too much money, though.
That’s why the French are happy with France, and we’re miserable.
Let’s hope we can reverse that over the next 8 years.
57,
What I find so uniquely American is the PRIDE in not having health care. The sheer joy of knowing that you basically need a lawyer to get a claim filled, and as soon as you make a claim you’ll likely be dropped as “high risk”. And, top it off, if you’re employer likes to touch you inappropriately, you weigh harassment against health insurance value. Because, you know, any other type of system is communism!
So very strange…
MisterMustard:
“What, then. Let them die, frozen and starved, on the streets of our cities and towns?”
If that’s what the citizens of those cities and towns deem appropriate, then yes.
“Put them on welfare?”
No, that would be people propped up by the government.
“Hope that they all have wealthy children with the means and willingness to support them?”
It’s better than hoping the government will support them.
59,
Ah yes… Society as a savage jungle. Very post-modern. You must hate having all those public services and civil, judicial and, dare I say, human rights…
#59 – Moonie
>>If that’s what the citizens of those cities
>>and towns deem appropriate, then yes.
Nice. I guess you’re not elderly, disabled, or one of the folks whose job has been outsourced to Moom-bai.
>>It’s better than hoping the government will support them.
I guess we should be building our own roads and schools, and burying rifles and canned tuna in the back yard for when the furriners invade us, eh?
>>It’s better than hoping the government will
>>support them.
Why’s that? It’s the government’s job to do that. It’s not the job of children, who often have trouble making ends meet themselves, to care for aging parents who live 2000 miles away.
My husband and I arn’t planning for SS to be there for us. Even if it survives until we retire we are considering not drawing on it. We are savers and both have retirement funds. The economy has dented them currently but there is time for them to grow back.
Our parents all drew or are drawing on SS now and we feel that is our benefit from paying in.
-Carrie
Im going to ask a strange question here…
HOW in the world are 1/4 to 1/3 of this nation going to retire, over a 10 year period??
http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade40.html
Population in 1940 was 133million.
population in 1950 was 155million.
This number is saying that OVER 1/2 those BORN SURVIVED..
“It’s the government’s job to do that.”
The government’s “job” is to provide the means to prevent your rights from being infringed upon by ol’ moondawg over there. Not to grant you artificial ones at the expense of his.
You know, “if men were angels…” or something like that.