bobcat
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northern Calif
No matter how the idea was originally fleshed out, it eventually became a house of cards over time.
Many think that they are just getting back the money they paid into the system, but that's not the way it's designed.
The money you paid in was given to the people who retired while you were still working, and it remains that way. So the S.S. you now receive is paid for by current workers.
When it was set up, it was worded to be a "right" to collect it. However, court cases ensued, and it eventually became an "entitlement" (Which has taken on a welfare-like meaning in more recent times). It should mean that anyone who meets the qualifications should be entitled to it. But in the highly politicized world that we live in, what words actually mean, and the meaning given to words aren’t always the same.
I had never paid attention to the wording that comes on your estimated earnings for the coming year from SS.
It states: "“Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time.”
To me, that essentially means you are not entitled, even though it is supposed to be an entitlement. Hence the idea that it is viewed as more of a social welfare program. That's messed up.
Here is the Cambridge Dictionary definition: (Entitlement) Something that you have a right to do or have, or the right to do or have something
Here is the government's definition: (Entitlement) A government program providing benefits to members of a specified group
The problems with SS is it has become a lightning rod for politicians to seriously address, and meanwhile everyone knows that, on it's current course, it's untenable. It seems the only solutions are to increase taxes on the working class, reduce benefits to recipients, or increase the retirement age (None of which are likely to garner votes from the public). Add to this the prospect that many jobs will likely be replaced with robots and AI who may not even be legally required to pay into the system, since they won't need to collect it.
It seems to me that kicking the can down the road won't work much longer because soon you run out of road. It makes sense to me that if lifespan is increasing, then so should the retirement age to keep pace. Either way, the concept of SS wasn't very well thought out, and now we have to find a new recipe.
Many think that they are just getting back the money they paid into the system, but that's not the way it's designed.
The money you paid in was given to the people who retired while you were still working, and it remains that way. So the S.S. you now receive is paid for by current workers.
When it was set up, it was worded to be a "right" to collect it. However, court cases ensued, and it eventually became an "entitlement" (Which has taken on a welfare-like meaning in more recent times). It should mean that anyone who meets the qualifications should be entitled to it. But in the highly politicized world that we live in, what words actually mean, and the meaning given to words aren’t always the same.
I had never paid attention to the wording that comes on your estimated earnings for the coming year from SS.
It states: "“Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time.”
To me, that essentially means you are not entitled, even though it is supposed to be an entitlement. Hence the idea that it is viewed as more of a social welfare program. That's messed up.
Here is the Cambridge Dictionary definition: (Entitlement) Something that you have a right to do or have, or the right to do or have something
Here is the government's definition: (Entitlement) A government program providing benefits to members of a specified group
The problems with SS is it has become a lightning rod for politicians to seriously address, and meanwhile everyone knows that, on it's current course, it's untenable. It seems the only solutions are to increase taxes on the working class, reduce benefits to recipients, or increase the retirement age (None of which are likely to garner votes from the public). Add to this the prospect that many jobs will likely be replaced with robots and AI who may not even be legally required to pay into the system, since they won't need to collect it.
It seems to me that kicking the can down the road won't work much longer because soon you run out of road. It makes sense to me that if lifespan is increasing, then so should the retirement age to keep pace. Either way, the concept of SS wasn't very well thought out, and now we have to find a new recipe.
