Go to main Forum page » see the discussion here
AUTHOR: R Quinn on 4/25/2025
We seniors do not DESERVE anything from society or government. This is especially true when giving extra benefits to seniors takes away from younger generations or shifts more tax burden to them.
We do deserve to receive what we contributed toward and were promised by law – Social Security, Medicare, but that also applies to every American.
The vocal movement on social media to eliminate property taxes for citizens age 65 + is especially disturbing to me – along with tax-free Social Security. The vast majority of comments support the idea.
Without eliminating vital local services along with taxes, how do these greedy oldies propose paying for schools and more?
We had a lifetime to prepare for our non-working years. Our relative financial position over age 65 reflects our economic status during our working years regardless of where that falls.
IMO it’s just not fair to take more from the following generation
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Sorry, what was promised to me when I started paying Social Security taxes in 1969 was TAX FREE benefits. It was 15 years later that they retroactively changed the rules. Same for IRMAA. Same for a lot of changes with retroactive effect.
LikeLike
You know better, Jack. No law is a promise. I don’t see either change as retroactive given we weren’t charged retroactively.
LikeLike
it has a retroactive effect – and, importantly, it makes a difference in that they are mandates, as well as entitlements, but for my 55 years, Congress has lied to me by misreprentung them as contractual obligations, PROMISES. Did I know they were lying? YES! But that makes no difference.
LikeLike
The way I see it both current and future SS recipients have an obligation to keep the program solvent.
Just because Congress has failed in its responsibilities shouldn’t mean the burden is only on the younger generation – our children an grandchildren.
In fact, I favor suspension of the COLA for higher income as part of the effort. Going forward there should not be a COLA for those starting SS with the maximum NRA benefit.
LikeLike
wrong. Those who qualify for maximum SS benefits CERTAINLY caused to be contributed amounts that are far, far in excess of the benefits they will ever receive.
LikeLike
Sure? I received in benefits all i paid in taxes within six years of starting benefits, including spousal benefits.
LikeLike
Al Lindquist
What about your employer’s contribution? that was a match wasn’t it–they could have [paid you more if they did not pay SS–just think if that contribution was paid to a TSP–Lifetime Cycle fund–that is what we need for the grandchildren–let them decide when to retire–and what the benefit they receive would be.
Mandate an annuity at 33% of the assets they have at retirement, thus if they have $500,000 1/3 goes to a NY Life annuity (as an example)–and a TSP balanced fund approach for 67%–a 4% + 3% withdrawal–beneficiaries established. Minimum retirement age 59.5.
LikeLike
You seem to forget that SS is much more than retirement benefits for a single individual.
Yes, looking at my SS earnings record and both tax portions paid. I have received a great deal more in benefits than the combined taxes paid.
LikeLike
Look at your own earnings record and see.
The “I could do better investing” the taxes is smoke and mirrors using many unrealistic assumptions and forgetting SS is far more than your retirement benefits.
The reality is that the vast majority of people couldn’t or wouldn’t use the tax money to build even a sound single life income for life, let alone all the added benefits.
LikeLike
“Look at your own earnings record and see. The “I could do better investing” the taxes is smoke and mirrors using many unrealistic assumptions and forgetting SS is far more than your retirement benefits. The reality is that the vast majority of people couldn’t or wouldn’t use the tax money to build even a sound single life income for life, let alone all the added benefits.”
My own earnings record. Clearly, before I commenced a penny of Social Security, a year and a quarter after reaching my SSNRA of 66, I had caused to be contributed well in excess of $2MM dollars (my contributions, those of my employers, plus assuming a 6% interest rate). If I annuitized that with a 20 year certain (age 67 – 87, beyond the life expectancy of myself and my spouse), it would generate $14,956 per month, $3,589,440 minimum cash payment … more if I were to survive past age 87 (highly unlikely, my dad died at 53, my mom at 76). That monthly amount, guaranteed for 20 years, is more than double the benefit my spouse and I receive from Social Security – ignoring the taxes she paid into the system. And, as I continue employment today, I am still paying into the system.
With respect to smoke and mirrors, I have contributed MORE to other benefit plans that I was eligible for, received employer contributions to pension and 401k plans that are about the same as my own contributions, and achieved investment earnings that have averaged about 6% on the 401k monies. We also purchased LTD coverage through my employer, plus funded LTC monies via contributions to Health Savings Accounts.
That also ignores all of the general revenue taxes we paid that funded Medicare Part B, Medicare Part D and Medicaid (federal and state).
I agree that most people wouldn’t take that action, and would spend the money. That is exactly my point. When Congress took away that choice, they assumed a fiduciary duty to stand in our shoes, they had a duty not to spend the money buying votes from current beneficiaries (Greatest Generation, Silent Generation, etc.)
And, those calling for tax forgiveness or lesser taxes are asking Congress to deliver for them what they have done for others – based on Congress’ past tax history and Congress bestow other benefits and concessions to others in their vote buying schemes.
What would you call the Social Security Fairness Act other than the Democrats (and a handful of Republicans) buying votes from public employee unions and workers – hundreds of thousands who are now retired, and millions more who will someday retire from government service? Those are the most reliable Democratic votes. What other name could you give this other than vote buying!?
What would you call improvements like Medicare Part D – President Bush II’s 1983 vote buying effort? What would you call the Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden’s vote purchase which limited the cost of insulin and other Rx for Medicare beneficiaries?
I don’t agree with the calls to lower taxes, but I certainly can see why people who paid significant taxes in the 20th Century (that others don’t pay today), many of whom are still paying the bulk of taxes in the 21st Century – but who feel crapped upon because they haven’t benefitted as much from the Bush II, Obama, Trump, Biden and Trump vote buying.
Finally, here is President Carter on December 20, 1977:
“… Before I became President, the concern expressed to me most often was the fear that the social security system was in danger of bankruptcy. This fear was backed up by facts:
–A flaw had been introduced into the benefit formula which overcompensated for inflation and threw the system out of actuarial balance.
–Declines in birth rates meant that there would be fewer workers to support the system in the future–down from over 100 to 1 when the system started, to 14 to l in 1950, to 3 to 1 today, and to 2 to 1 in the next century.
–The worst recession since the Great Depression and the worst inflation since the Civil War had depleted the reserves in the trust funds to the point that the Disability Trust Fund would be depleted by 1979 and the Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund would run out by 1983.
–A majority of Americans did not believe that their social security benefits would be there when they needed them.
I am happy to be here today to sign legislation which will reassure the 33 million people who are receiving benefits and the 104 million workers now making contributions that the social security system will be financially sound well into the next century. …”
Of course, he was misrepresenting those changes, some would assert he did so knowingly. What was he doing? He was buying votes! Those changes WORSENED Social Security funding – leaving Reagan to patch the gap in funding with the Social Security Amendments Act of 1983.
LikeLike
During my working years 1959 to 2010 the combined taxes paid were $266,314.
Forget all the benefits we have received since 2008 when we started, just looking at the next 4.5 years during which our benefits will exceed all taxes paid.
I recalculated from the start and it’s still just over 6 years to break even on all taxes paid.
LikeLike
Again, if you only look at one source of revenue, if you ignore the other sources, you can come up with that conclusion. I once bought a car with about $6,000 of my own money, the rest came from my spouse, and earnings on contributions we had made to the checking account. Did I pay $2,000 or did I pay $9,000 (with interest included). That is, ignoring the employer contribution (especially for the self-employed) is lying to yourself. Similarly, ignoring the interest on monies you contributed what 60 years ago, is also lying to yourself. You always defend the investment in treasury securities, as opposed to other investment options. Why ignore them here?
Social Security trust funds would have been exhausted long ago had it not been for all of the sources of revenue. And, trust me, the government funded nothing, NOTHING! It all came from you, and others like you, taxpayers. Some, much more than others.
LikeLike
100% CERTAIN that Baby Boomers who contributed the maximum, and had their employer match the maximum, caused to be contributed (once you adjust for earnings) far in excess of the cost to fund their own benefits. 100%. CERTAIN. It is all in the bend points of the formula. Clearly, lower paid retirees could not have paid in what they will received, so, where does that money come from.
No Question. Stop pitching the inaccurate narrative that most people will “get their your money back in a few years”. That ignores the employer contribution (which generally was a reduction in wages that would otherwise have been paid to the worker, and more importantly, it ignores the time value of money (interest and inflation). That is, the $1 I contributed 55+ years ago has no comparison to the $1 I receive this month.
Yes, you received the nominal dollar amount you contributed to the system. But, would you have contributed to your 401k plan if all you got back was your own contribution? I doubt that. You would have invested those dollars elsewhere, and for most Americans, spent them elsewhere.
Again, the “promise” only makes a difference here, the only reason so many Americans are irritated, is because it was mandated – where the individual had no control over the TAXATION NOR the BENEFIT. Congress had a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that there was proper funding, sustainability, throughout all the 80 years – not require super contributions from the Baby Boomer generation, so that Congress could spend those monies on the greatest generation and the silent generation – to buy their votes. In that way, it was a government mandated ponzi scheme (small “p”).
That is all the 1983 changes amounted to be – actions that would immediately raise sufficient revenue, to keep the money flowing in to the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation, who had failed to contribute enough – especially given the Carter years of buying votes and COLA adjustments. Allowed Congress to clearly promise them more, much more, than their contributions caused to be funded into the program (individual, employer and earnings).
There wasn’t and still isn’t intergenerational equity – and because Congress was never responsible and accountable in their vote buying, there never will be.
LikeLike