Our wonderful rules effecting S.S. Benefits

[OSU55]

I am absolutely dumbfounded by our S.S. system---I was notified by my Credit Union via mail that the Social Security Adm. had withdrawn Bill's December 3, 2008 S. S. benefits from our checking account. Mind you, this was for the month of November--S. S. is always a month behind so I was told. Everyone needs to let your family, loved ones, etc. know that if they are drawing S. S benefits, they must not die until the 1st day of the following month or they will withdraw the funds with no warning. Can you believe that?

The Junkie left us on November 28th--2 days shy of the 1st of December--

Please don't misunderstand my feelings---just dumb vision on the part of the lawmakers of this land.

Fortunately, it did not send us into bankruptcy---which I am thankful for--just another stupid ruling that has been made and noone knows about it until it happens to them.

Chanda and I are adjusting---sure is a life alterning change but with friends, and our faith we will make it. The Junkie would expect no less from us.

Love you all!!

OSU55

[barryrules]

Same thing happened with my Grandma when Gramps died, he died at 11pm on August 31st. So the took the August payment from her - total BS if you ask me.

[OSUFan]

Yes, same thing with Mom and Dad.

[pistolpete2002]

That's ridiculous!!!!!

[JimBob]

Same here when Mom died.

[Lewis the Pike]

If you want something done, the government will;

If you want something done effectively/ accurately, you have to rely on yourself.

This is another fine example of why our Government hasn't cleaned up a mess without making it worse since the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

[FloridaPoke]

Sorry to hear that, but as always there is a bright side :)

I'm sure the lost month of benefits is minor in comparison to the difference between what junkie "paid in" to the system and what he "got back".

[CaliforniaCowboy]

This is another fine example of why our Government hasn't cleaned up a mess without making it worse since the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Lewis, always cracking jokes.

you might get a whole routine out of that one.

[Tokyoken]

That a leap in intelligence Fpoke. He may have only drawn on it for a few months or a couple of years. While I'm not in favor of the Insurance industry taking over social security, a retirement annuity based on your earnings, at first blush without cranking out the old calculator, would at least pay the same return. Never met the Junkie but odds are he would be ticked off about that.. Go Pokes!!!

[FloridaPoke]

That a leap in intelligence Fpoke. He may have only drawn on it for a few months or a couple of years. While I'm not in favor of the Insurance industry taking over social security, a retirement annuity based on your earnings, at first blush without cranking out the old calculator, would at least pay the same return. Never met the Junkie but odds are he would be ticked off about that.. Go Pokes!!!

You obviously misunderstood the post then. What I said was the one month lost would be small in comparison to what he lost by paying in more than he was able to take out, which is true of every single person in the US, not just the wrestling junkie.

[okstatepike]

Hey if I remember the statistics right what I am paying supports 4 people (is that right, or is that a future forecast?). Anyway, If that is right I'd much rather just give the money to my grandparents and cut out the middle man. Ah, but I guess We The People cannot be trusted to take care of ourselves or our loved ones, huh?

[Cowboy76]

I want to add a comment I heard on Fox business channel when they were hashing out the Madoff ponzi scheme. They were afraid the government would make a shambles out of the investigation and then impose a whole bunch of new regulations. Their comment was that this is the same group of people who are running the BIGGEST PONZI scheme in the history of man kind -- the S.S. system.

[BigBadBen]

I want to add a comment I heard on Fox business channel when they were hashing out the Madoff ponzi scheme. They were afraid the government would make a shambles out of the investigation and then impose a whole bunch of new regulations. Their comment was that this is the same group of people who are running the BIGGEST PONZI scheme in the history of man kind -- the S.S. system.


I heard the same statement doc.

And, its absolutely true.

We have the right to overthrow the goverment & start over, just not the backbone.

[Poke John I]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Junkie's wife can still collect Junkie's SS after his death but she must apply for it. She can collect his SS and her SS up to some total like $2,600-$2,700 per month. I believe I saw that in an AARP magazine article. Let me know if this is right or wrong?

[FloridaPoke]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Junkie's wife can still collect Junkie's SS after his death but she must apply for it. She can collect his SS and her SS up to some total like $2,600-$2,700 per month. I believe I saw that in an AARP magazine article. Let me know if this is right or wrong?

Correct, but all of us that pay in, regardless of mortality of each spouse, will still pay in and never recover.

I understand that, as well as most of us do.

What is troubling to me is the dishonesty and lack of transparency that exists with the less enlightened of our society.

If they called it a tax, we would revolt. But that is what it is.
If they honestly told us that congress robs the trust regulary so that its original purpose can never be achieved....and thus it is a tax....we would revolt.
Only by the promise of it being a retirement fund where big brother will take care of us are we, as a nation, content to let'em get by with it without a revolt.

Should it be means tested (wealthy never qualify), and thus call a spade a spade (a tax) to the wealthy? Probably

Should it have financial integrity as a sacred trust? absolutely.

Somewhere there has to be the integrity and honesty of our elected officials to a) fix it, b) call a spade a spade transparently and c) let market forces work without interference.

[JimBob]

Somewhere there has to be the integrity and honesty of our elected officials to a) fix it, b) call a spade a spade transparently and c) let market forces work without interference.

Unfortunately, the answer is d) none of the above.

[GoPokesit]

Hey if I remember the statistics right what I am paying supports 4 people (is that right, or is that a future forecast?). Anyway, If that is right I'd much rather just give the money to my grandparents and cut out the middle man. Ah, but I guess We The People cannot be trusted to take care of ourselves or our loved ones, huh?

It's the other way around. It originally started out with something like 13 people paying for every one receipient. I think it is now down to something like 3 or 4 paying for every one receipient.

Easiest solution is to bump the eligibility age to an age corresponding to the increased longevity of people as compared to when SS was first implemented. Of course, it shouldn't be done all at once. Increase the eligibility age by 10 years or so over the course of the next 15-20 years.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

It's the other way around. It originally started out with something like 13 people paying for every one receipient. I think it is now down to something like 3 or 4 paying for every one receipient.

Easiest solution is to bump the eligibility age to an age corresponding to the increased longevity of people as compared to when SS was first implemented. Of course, it shouldn't be done all at once. Increase the eligibility age by 10 years or so over the course of the next 15-20 years.

They already boosted the eligibility age a few years back... you're proposing that we boost it beyond life expectancy. They also raised the cap several times to make sure "rich" people pay more for others retirement.

When it "originally started out" it was for widows and orphans of the war, and now they've turned it into something far beyond it's original intent... as the left-leaning governements will always do.

They need to scrap the whole thing... Bush's plan would have worked, or something similar. Our Federally mandated social programs should be for those that are truely in need and simply cannot work or have other issues. Everything else should be a governenment mandated retirement savings plan (with tax incentives).

[Lewis the Pike]

They already boosted the eligibility age a few years back... you're proposing that we boost it beyond life expectancy. They also raised the cap several times to make sure "rich" people pay more for others retirement.

When it "originally started out" it was for widows and orphans of the war, and now they've turned it into something far beyond it's original intent... as the left-leaning governements will always do.

They need to scrap the whole thing... Bush's plan would have worked, or something similar. Our Federally mandated social programs should be for those that are truely in need and simply cannot work or have other issues. Everything else should be a governenment mandated retirement savings plan (with tax incentives).

+1

[GoPokesit]

[QUOTE=CaliforniaCowboy;56533]They already boosted the eligibility age a few years back... you're proposing that we boost it beyond life expectancy. QUOTE]

Why is that a problem? Life expectancy in 1930 was 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65.


Also, the widows and orphans of a war thing you bring up was the reason for the Civil War Pension system. While widows and orphans are part of the social security system, the reasons for it were far greater than helping this group and it was far broader than being limited to war. It obviously included the disabled and the elderly and was in large part triggered by the urbanization of the US and an economic crisis of the that afflicted a huge portion of the country with no connection to a war.

[OSU55]

Just a foot note--didn't intend to start a riot--just wanted to pass on facts to everyone. I still work--I am 74 years old, make good money, have worked for a company for 30 years--I would lose my mind if I didn't work--(Junkie said I lost my mind years ago) which has nothing to do with S.S.--I know that I will in all probability never ever touch my S.S. account--how many others are in the same boat? Yes, Junkie did draw on his S.S. account but when you work for many years who truly knows how much you have paid into your account? Please believe me, I was not intending to gripe--just passing on facts to all of you.

Like I said--it certainly didn't bankrupt me--

Junkie always said "there is the right way to do something and then the Goverment way."

Love you all!!

[bleedorange]

Please believe me, I was not intending to gripe--just passing on facts to all of you.

Shoot, you have nothing to be sorry for. Looks to me like you started a pretty good thread. If there is one thing that needs or overhauling, or better yet eliminated- it Social Security. A little debate about it can't hurt.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

Interestingly, in looking over the original Act wording from 1935... I found this tidbit:


(c) If the Board finds at any time that more or less than the correct amount has theretofore been paid to any individual under this section, then, under regulations made by the Board, proper adjustments shall be made in connection with subsequent payments under this section to the same individual.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/35actii.html