Why does our govenment refer to Social Security as an Entitlment?

I think lumping Social Security benefits in with any discussion of the federal budget is wrong when the talk is about ways to cut the budget. You and I have paid for social Security benefits if you work and pay taxes. It is flat wrong to call social security an entitlement.

Normally I don't agree much with NYT opinion columns but in the article below, the columnist seems to agree and suggests that a better word would be "federal retirement benefits."

That might take care of the PC part but still doesn't change the budget. It is an expense so it does need to appear in the budget but so that congress better understands that it's not touchable and is not subject to budget cuts, make it a separate line item with a different name.
I'd be okay with calling it Earned Retirement Benefits

https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes....t-word-for-social-security-and-medicare/?_r=0

 

Because there's no fund. Social Security was a Ponzi scheme from the very beginning, relying on the money it took in today to pay to retired people today. The same is true now as it was then. You haven't paid for anything through your Social Security taxes except someone else's retirement. There's no pension fund set up in your name, no money in an account somewhere, no money earning interest or dividends from Social Security. The only funds that will come to you when you retire will have to be taken from people who are still working. And just like you, everyone who retires and relies on Social Security thinks they are "entitled" to that money, which makes it an entitlement program.

 

Entitlements is liberal flim flam. Public assistance was never meant to be a multi generational, cradle to grave govenment giveaway. When the left discovered the political advantages of a built in constituency, temporary aid evolved into a cornucopia of services. To get the taxpayer to swallow it all the liberals dreamed up "entitlements" to give it an air of legitimacy and guaranteed permanence. Liberals always screw with the language to obscure facts and add false legitimacy to their agenda like undocumented instead of illegal. Even that has evolved into undocumented citizens. It is a travesty to include Social Security in the pool of "entitlements", it's ironic that it is the only government service that those who recieve it are legitmately entitled to. Adding Social Security to that pool also lends false legitimacy to the others in that pool. Liberal flim flam.

 

(cuz im a bit lazy to research it myself) does unemployment work the same way?

 

Another reason why social security needs reform. Tax payers do pay taxes for any benefits they receive. The government could invest the money better. Our government is always risk averse with anything that involves saving tax dollars but spending more is never a problem.
A problem with SS that needs reforming is that tax payers are also paying for social security disability benefits that in many cases were never earned by those receiving the benefits. Those are entitlements and should be allocated from another budget, Medicaid.

 

No

 

The government doesn't "invest" any money anywhere, it spends every dime it takes in and way more besides, which is why it's called a budget deficit. No one earned their Social Security benefits because they didn't pay for their Social Security benefits, they are a transfer payment from those who are working to those who are not, just like welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and every other government transfer scheme. The only way to reform SS is to raise the retirement age or reduce the benefits. When SS started, only one out of 20 people reached age 65. Now 19 out of 20 do. To get it back to the one out of 20 ratio again, we'd have to raise the retirement age to 85 or 90. Which leaves cutting benefits to make the system viable.

 

Im just hoping that theres enough SS to cover my property taxes. I should be able to pay off my home by the time I retire, and if i cant find a way to make enough money for food/utilities, thats on me. But I do expect the system to start paying for itself and leave me alone at that point.

 

It's called an entitlement because you are ENTITLED to it. That's not a dirty word. We paid for our parents retirement and our kids will pay for ours and their kids will pay or theirs.

It's a deal that was made almost 100 years ago and it works as long as Republicans don't get the chance to screw with it.

 

Of course you want your Medicare and possibly Medicaid a well.

 

Or you could just raise the ceiling on taxable income.
Raise the ceiling, you can take care of most of the problem.

SS disability is another issue.

 

You pay for every single other entitlement too if you work and pay taxes, regardless of whether or not you receive them.

 

Words matter.

 

Yes, and...?
My argument is that there is nothing that significantly distinguished social security such that it shouldn't be called an "entitlement".

 

It has nothing to do with the Republicans. It has to do with the fact that when SS was created, there were 16 people working for every 1 person receiving SS. Now there are only 2½ people working for every 1 person receiving SS. Soon it will be down to just two. As I mentioned above, when SS was created, only one in twenty people reached the age of 65. Now 19 out of 20 do. Life expectancy is expected to hit 85 in the next decade or two. SS must be modified or it will bring the entire economic system down.

p.s. You are not entitled to other people's money.

 

That is exactly what "saint" Reagan did years ago in an earlier "crisis" - he raised the salary cap for contributios - I would say to eliminate the cap entirely - they can afford it.

 

People feel ENTITLED to other people's money.

 

There isn't any real "fund" but it is kept track of in accountancy terms, so in those terms, there is a 2.8 Trillion "surplus." That surplus is being burnt off now to pay for the difference in Social Security payments and the amount being taken in Social Security taxes. It's expected to be exhausted in 2034, at which time Social Security will only be able to pay out what they take in on a yearly basis in taxes, estimated to be about 70% of benefits.

So yes, it's a Ponzi scheme but it's not an entitlement program since under current law they don't keep paying out benefits regardless of what Social Security taxes bring in. When the money stops, the benefits stop.

 

The end of SS in 2034? Wow. I bet the stock market keeps going after 2034.

If we had only privatized SS ....

 

Well it's possible it could be reformed before then.

 

Not without raising taxes. If that's what it takes, no thanks. Let it crash and burn. Then we'll privatize without raising taxes.

 

Contrary to what right-wing socialists have to say, social security is an earned benefit. RIght-wing socialists believe that government is only to
promote the interests of the corporate welfare state, rather than promote the general welfare as dictated by the Constitution.

A United States federal program of social insurance and benefits developed in 1935. The Social Security program's benefits include retirement income, disability income, Medicare and Medicaid, and death and survivorship benefits

Only the dumbest of the dumb refer to social security as a ponzi scheme.

 

No...it pays off current retirees with money from current taxpayers, without collecting enough money to pay off current taxpayers when they become retirees. That's like the textbook definition of a Ponzi scheme.

 

It works as long as folks look at like they do an income tax refund .... HEY!!!!! FREE MONEY!!!!!

Really? LOL

 

By that definition, all government programs are Ponzi schemes.

Social Security will exist and pay benefits
as long as the government cares to support it, just like every government program. It is not a Ponzi scheme, because the money does not HAVE to run out, thanks to the government's taxing power.