Job Hunt!

[Pathfinder]

Yea, there is discrimination occurring and it won't go away anytime soon.  My sister lost her job after training her youthful replacement about five years ago.  She considered fighting it but at 62 she could work part time and collect on her deceased husbands SS until she turned 65.  She found that although he had died in the early 70's, his SS check was a bit more than hers.  She'll continue taking his check until 70 when her's max's out and she'll be fine.  We, as a family, help her when she needs it as it should be.

Play the game if you can!  We've all paid into the system that was designed to make sure we were somewhat secure in our older years.  Though I may never retire, I (or my wife) will get back every fuggin cent I paid into the system!

I found out that a friend of mine applied for SS and got it. She filed under her current husband (#2), even though she has never had to work a day in her life, so she ha not paid one dime into SS, but is now drawing it at almost $800 a month. And she's mad at herself for not filing when she turned 62 last December. She sees it as losing nearly $3000.

What's that I hear you say? What's the big deal? ?  Well, the punchline is this - She lives in a $1+ million coop in Manhattan and is sitting on something like $4 million that her daddy left her. And she thinks she's "entitled" to the SS.

And she got mad at me for telling her "Shame on you!".

Yes, she voted for bho, and plans to again.

[Solus]

I found out that a friend of mine applied for SS and got it. She filed under her current husband (#2), even though she has never had to work a day in her life, so she ha not paid one dime into SS, but is now drawing it at almost $800 a month. And she's mad at herself for not filing when she turned 62 last December. She sees it as losing nearly $3000.

What's that I hear you say? What's the big deal? ?  Well, the punchline is this - She lives in a $1+ million coop in Manhattan and is sitting on something like $4 million that her daddy left her. And she thinks she's "entitled" to the SS.

And she got mad at me for telling her "Shame on you!".

Yes, she voted for bho, and plans to again.

Actually, I don't see any thing for her to be ashamed of.   They took the cash from her husbands pay with his employer matching the contributions.  And it was under a contract that he or his surviving wife/children would be the beneficiaries.

Being rich or poor has no bearing on your right to receive the SS benefits that your or your spouse has paid for.  It is not an en entitlement.

Look at it like an insurance policy that her husband took out to pay benefits to himself or his survivors.  I'd not say the survivors were wrong for receiving the benefits of that policy no matter how rich they were.  It was paid for and it is theirs.

[tombogan03884]

Social Security is no more an "entitlement" than your IRA account.

[Timothy]

Social Security is no more an "entitlement" than your IRA account.

Sometimes, as with my wifes SSI disability, the system has given far more than the person ever contributed!  She's been disabled for most of her life but only been on SSI for about 18 years.  In that time she's drained the system for far, far more than she ever contributed!  She's 49 and might have worked for five years in her entire life.  She's definitely in the "entitlement" mode of her SSI and she'll be taking from the system for another thirty or forty years!

More and more people are applying for and being granted SSI with the economy in the dumper...

[Solus]

I don't think she is getting a entitlement.

She is eligible for the payments, so, by agreement, she met the requirements.

Like an insurance policy.....   some folks get more than they put by a big margin due to their circumstances, some get about what is expected and some go early and get little. 

The insurance company does it's job and wisely invests the payments made and is able to meet it's obligations to it's insured and still make a very nice profit.

Just because the government is running SS as a racket to fund other activities, needed or wasted, instead of how it should have managed the fund does not make recipients of what they deserve become "entitlement" folks. 

If an insurance company were to tell it's insured that their benefits will be set lower than agreed upon because they decided to use the funds for ANYTHING other than what was promised, no matter how well intended, that would be robbery, plain and simple.

Because the government is doing the robbing doesn't make it right and, for sure, doesn't somehow turn the ones owed the benefits into moochers.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

My Great Grand Father was in his 60's when SS went into effect, he collected until he was 96.
The theory was that the interest on payments, and the people who paid in then died before collecting  would more than make up for increased population or people collecting longer than they paid in.
It was working fine, in fact, there was a large surplus, even allowing for future "Baby Boomers" until Johnson and his Dem Congress stole the money to pay for his "Great America" welfare scheme.

[Timothy]

I don't think she is getting a entitlement.

She is eligible for the payments, so, by agreement, she met the requirements.

Like an insurance policy.....   some folks get more than they put by a big margin due to their circumstances, some get about what is expected and some go early and get little. 

The insurance company does it's job and wisely invests the payments made and is able to meet it's obligations to it's insured and still make a very nice profit.

Just because the government is running SS as a racket to fund other activities, needed or wasted, instead of how it should have managed the fund does not make recipients of what they deserve become "entitlement" folks. 

If an insurance company were to tell it's insured that their benefits will be set lower than agreed upon because they decided to use the funds for ANYTHING other than what was promised, no matter how well intended, that would be robbery, plain and simple.

Because the government is doing the robbing doesn't make it right and, for sure, doesn't somehow turn the ones owed the benefits into moochers.

Thanks for that!  I'd never looked at in that context before!  There have been times that we really didn't need the money but my wife was firm and wouldn't let it go.  At this point, it only covers her medicare premiums and a small portion of her medical cost monthly.  The rest is my problem and I don't shy away from it!

[PegLeg45]

My Great Grand Father was in his 60's when SS went into effect, he collected until he was 96.
The theory was that the interest on payments, and the people who paid in then died before collecting  would more than make up for increased population or people collecting longer than they paid in.
It was working fine, in fact, there was a large surplus, even allowing for future "Baby Boomers" until Johnson and his Dem Congress stole the money to pay for his "Great America" welfare scheme.

And a lot of 'regular' folks don't get that part of it.