Is it mandatory to sign up for Social Security

1. 60

   Ohmaposted 14 years ago

   I have read this http://www.copera.org/pera/about/legisl … toryss.stm and many similar articles which leads me to understand that SS is not at present mandatory.
   If SS is not mandatory why did my daughter have to apply for it on behalf of each of her children before being permitted to take them home from the birthing center?
   
   Why do we have to provide SS# as proof of citizenship on the I9 to obtain employment?
   
   Why do I have to continue to pay for this benifit when it is not likely to be there when I am ready to retire and even if it is still solvent the current benifits are I think about equivalent to 1970's income level and will amount to a drop in the bucket when I retire?

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      As Rochelle said, a SS number/card is required  for each child claimed by parents; and unless someone is not a citizen a number and card are required for tax and records purposes.
      
      If you earn money you have no choice about whether or not a contribution to SS is withdrawn with, along with taxes.
      
      You do have a choice once you become a certain age, with regard to whether or you choose to receive SS payments.
      
      Why everyone "should" contribute is basically a matter of everyone kicking into the fund that helps keep elderly citizens from being absolutely without any income.     Ideally, you are supposed to benefit once you get old enough; and whether you will or not depends on what/if anything gets done to make sure there will be money when you reach that age.
      
      Still, of all the taxes a lot of us pay, and with any deductions that come out of paychecks, I don't see this particular deduction as one I resent (whether or not they'll be any money for me once I get to be that age - and I'm not counting on it, by any means).   To have (at least for now) a fund that helps assure that the elderly, who often cannot possibly work, won't be left with no income seems, to me, to be a worthy contribution; so to me, kicking in to help take care of the people who need it today is a matter of being a decent person who doesn't resent providing something for the nation's elderly.
      
      People aren't living "high on the hog" on Social Security, and it isn't intended to let them - only to assure they aren't absolutely penniless.  I've never planned to rely on it, because I've been hearing about it "drying up" by the time I get there for years.  For now, though, a lot of elderly are benefiting; so I think that's better than nothing.  Sometimes the point can't be whether we'll benefit from something, but whether our contributions are being used for a worthwhile purpose now - and I think they are.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         logic,commonsenseposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Just wondering, why don't the elderly have absolutely have any money?  Did they think they wouldn't need any when they were younger?
         Some need it, many abuse it and I am not counting on it.  I am finding other ways to make sure when I get old I will have what I need to get by on.  I just don't understand why some elderly did not have the foresight to do that as well and why the rest of us have to sacrifice when they were not willing to in their youth.
         I'm not against helping others, just against being forced at government point to help those who sometimes have not been willing to help themselves.
         I feel very very bad for the young entering the work force today.  They will have to shoulder a tremendous burden of an program they will more than likely receive no benefit from.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         h.a.borcichposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         Social security is not a benefit limited to the elderly as it is made available to those diagnosed terminally ill at whatever age. I had been building a solid retirement but cancer at 42 wiped me out fast. Medical care is expensive - my 1st year of treatment was almost a half million dollars. Who thinks it will happen to them? I do think the program is in trouble, but I don't have any answers. And I have never heard of having the option to pay in - only the option of applying for benefits.

         replyreport
      3. 61

         dugger62posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Lisa with all due respect - no one single person should have to file taxes- but  certain people are not aware of that.
         
         It is suppose to be the businesses to file taxes - not individuals.
         
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0yqy06Z … re=related
         
         but don't just stop here .

         replyreport
   2. 61

      dugger62posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Ohma- to me it is just a way to track people. That is my opinion.

      replyreport
   3. 70

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      What makes you think social security won't be there when you retire? Also, Social Security benefits are adjusted (nearly always increased) each year based on the Consumer Price Index so it's completely inacurate to say the benefits are at 1970 levels.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Ohmaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Ralph I will be the first to admit that I do not know everything I should about these things which is why I ask.
         As far a social security not being there for me I feel that way because sooner or later the balance is going to shift from most paying in to most taking out. Not to mention the point made by others that Everyone keeps "borrowing" from this plan to fund their next great idea but it seems that little of the loaned money is being returned.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            No more than small changes will be required in Social Security to put it on a sound footing for the forseeable future. A combination of the following changes will assure that Social Security will "be there" for you--
            
            1. Raise the maximum earnings cap on which Social Security taxes are required from the current $100,000. Currently a person who earns $100,000 pays a Social Security tax of $7,000 and a person who earns $1 million or $1 billion also pays $7,000. The cap should be removed or raised considerably.
            
            2. As Rochelle Frank pointed out, people are living quite a bit longer than they were when Social Security was passed. The age for retiring with full Social Security benefits should be gradually increased from the current 67? by a year or two to reflect longer life expectancy and longer and better health and capability to work later in life.
            
            3. The current formula which adjusts benefits annually to reflect changes in the cost of living apparently over-adjusts for price increases. Proposals are under consideration to "dampen" cost of living adjustments slightly.
            
            Funding Social Security isn't the big problem. Medicare funding is the elephant in the room because of skyrocketing health care costs. The recently passed health care reform bill contains some cost containment features which will help but which are probably not sufficient to do the job. This will require more work by Congress is health care cost increases are to be reined in. Until they are Medicare funding will be insufficient.

            replyreport
   4. 60

      JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      This morning, Obama named Social Security as one of the many "entitlement" programs in the US that we have to find the money to pay for through some kind of additional tax.  News to many that it's now an 'entitlement'.

      replyreport
2. 94

   Rochelle Frankposted 14 years ago

   I think it is not technically mandatory (Some of the Old Amish don't have them) but  a social security number is required for parents to claim their children as dependents for federal income tax purposes, and the IRS requires all corporations to obtain SSNs from their employees.
   It is difficult to apply for a loan or a bank account without one. Companies may refuse to provide service to an individual who does not provide a SSN.

   replyreport
3. 69

   MikeNVposted 14 years ago

   Just another one of those "optional" programs used to track you.  Saying it's optional is like saying you can choose to eat or not.  Sure you can. But the result of choosing not to participate or not to eat is less than desirable.
   
   The Social Security card was never intended as a form of Identification now that seems to be it's primary purpose.
   
   You can't trust anything that comes from Big Government.
   
   I hope when you retire you get something out of your mandatory investment.  Most people don't know that right now the Social Security Fund still is working... for a few more years. But the Federal Government is borrowing from Social Security and issuing them IOU's.
   
   People are sadly mistaken if they believe the Federal Government can ever repay it's debts.  The money comes from YOU... and the people are tapped.  It's game over.  Now we just watch to see how long before the big crash takes place.  In the meantime you'll be spoon fed lie after lie.
   
   The math speaks for itself.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      dugger62posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The government never borrows anything they just take / steal it-  then lie about it.

      replyreport
4. 94

   Rochelle Frankposted 14 years ago

   The cards used to say that it was "not to be used as a form of identification". Did anyone notice that particular line is no longer on newer cards.

   replyreport
5. 60

   Ohmaposted 14 years ago

   Rochelle you have kind of made my point you and Mike both. How can I be required to join a voluntary program and how can I be discriminated against for not joining. Our government makes no sense.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      dugger62posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      What people don't seem to realize is that is the same for a birth certificate.
      I have researched some of this- but haven't gotten to my point of satisfaction before I write completely with comfort-
      
      But the Birth Certificate came into play in 1933 as a way to - well let me put it this way- what parents don't  know- when the baby is born-  have you ever seen a hospital throw a fit cause you don't have a name for your child?
      
      Well once you get that birth certificate- your baby is the governments- (he/she is listed as a title) on the stock market- but  unknown to the parent.  Kind of like slavery. Because of the depression  they started the birth certificates as it is ON BOND PAPER!  And the number on the Birth Certificate is red, green or black-
      
      You can believe me or not that is fine. But go research it- I have nothing to gain by sharing this information.  There is an amount placed on the child when the baby is born- every thing is all in Capital letters on the birth certificate, and drivers licenses.  Look around at every Business- what do you see??? Capital letters.  I went one day to get my birth certificate and the woman handed me a form to fill out- I asked her why I had to and she said so she can (copy ) the information and place it in the computer so it will print out what I gave-  so I listed my name and info in ALL   LOWER LETTERS-   when I got my certificate it was in ALL CAPS.  So what does that tell you?

      replyreport
6. 60

   Ohmaposted 14 years ago

   All very good points Lisa. I did not mean to sound as if I resent SS it is just that I do not care for the government using all of the SS fund to support every other failing project they set up and then will have to some day tell me sorry no money for you even though by the time I retire at 72  I will have chipped in for 58 yrs.
   I also do not care for the backdoor politics that say it is not mandatory BUT you can't do anything in the USA without it including take your children home from the hospital when they are born.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Ohma, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you did resent it - only pointing out that I didn't. 
      
      I sure know what you mean about the government and questionable spending/choices, though,  As far as the "back door" type of thing, I know what you mean about that one too.       I think people (the government, individuals, companies, whoever) will come up with something that will be "the new retirement insurance" (or else, when it comes down to it, the government will get yet more money it doesn't have until someone thinks up what to do about things).  Not that this would be a good solution, but I picture something like "just expanding the welfare roles' and giving elderly people money under a different name.  Who knows - maybe they'll have to boot other people off welfare (or something like that).   

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Social Security was  more than the Federal Income Tax taken from my paychecks when I was working. And don't remember having a option to pay or not pay.

      replyreport
7. 60

   Ohmaposted 14 years ago

   Logic,
   that is mostly the way I see it too. I do however understand that some of our elderly are in a tough spot because of situations beyond their control to. As I said in another thread when I lost my job it took away the supplemental insurance we had for my disabled husband and in 6 very short months his medical bills wiped out our entire savings. If this was the only thing we had going on we would be in serious trouble.

   replyreport
8. 60

   Ohmaposted 14 years ago

   band aids stop sticking when you put to many of them in the same spot.

   replyreport
9. 94

   Rochelle Frankposted 14 years ago

   When SS was first implemented the average life expectancy for a man was about 62. Social Security insurance was instituted for those who unexpectedly reached 65 and more. Even though the  payout dates are starting to be raised, average life expectancy has increased a lot (to about 77), so a great deal more money is being paid for a longer time.

   replyreport
10. 60

    Ohmaposted 14 years ago

    Thank-you for taking the time to explain. I am convinced about 99 percent of the time that I agree with most of what you said. I still worry about the program going belly up before it does me any good but I guess we will just have to wait and see.

    replyreport
11. 61

    Wealthmadehealthyposted 14 years ago

    We are asked at birthing children to sign them up for a social security number.  If you do not have your child or somehow yourself have escaped all your life without one, before doing anything now, a job, a credit card, a loan, you have to have this "number" 
    
    As far as social security benefits being paid.  Very shortly there will be nothing left in that account with the government to pay anyone with.  But you have to have one of "those numbers" before you can do anything....and if you don't do it when your child is young, you get asked a multitude of questions as to why not.   This may not explain exactly why we have to do it, it is just another gvt thing....as far as it being mandatory, they make it that way....

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       There will be money available to pay Social Security benefits. Just curious, what makes you think there won't? Your claim wrt Social Security is about as accurate as your hub claiming that the President was born in Kenya.
       
       "The Trust Fund will gradually be drawn upon to cover the difference between tax receipts and benefit payments. It will be completely depleted by 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration) or 2052 (according to the Congressional Budget Office). However, if the US economy performs better than the economic assumptions and projections used by the SSA and CBO, the trust funds may remain in surplus indefinitely." [Source: Wikipedia.]
       
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

       replyreport
12. 60

    Ohmaposted 14 years ago

    I do not see it as an entitlement at all I mean yes we pay a nominal fee each week but that fee is paid over a lifetime so how can it be an entitlement?

    replyreport
    1. 60

       JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       You should probably ask someone in the Obama Administration.

       replyreport
13. 69

    Michael Willisposted 14 years ago

    What gets me about SS is those who don't pay a dime in and get SS when they retire!
    
    I am talking about those who work and pay nothing in, but get the benefits...like government workers. They should pay in or get nothing in return.
    
    I know this because a cousin of mine is a government employee and when he retires his SS benefit will be more than double than what I will be eligible for.  He pays NO SS or Medic-Aid with his Taxes on income yearly. But....He will reap the benefits when he retires and at a greater benefit as I do as one who Pays for it yearly!!!!

    replyreport
14. 0

    cosetteposted 14 years ago

    hey, maybe they will issue IOUs
    
    that's probably what it will come to by the time i am at an age to claim my share of what i have been contributing to all these years (grumble grumble)
    
    hi Michael

    replyreport
15. 60

    JWestCattleposted 14 years ago

    Obama referred to Social Security as an 'entitlement' yesterday morning.  There have been some other references to SS by this administration that make it clear that despite the fact that you have paid in, you just may not get it.  Undoubtedly, a new policy will be implemented that prevents anyone from getting SS if they have X dollars in assets or X dollars in some kind of other retirement annuity -- that is the nature of an entitlement.  Your Grandma had to sign over all but her homestead in anticipation of needing 'entitlement' funds, which have not as yet included SS, to survive.  You will too, to get your SS.
    
    The fact is there are lots of people who have planned for SS, and I don't believe for one second that under this administration the 'entitlement' to SS will not be attempted to be changed via legislation to assure that the poorest get theirs and those that paid more, worked perhaps harder, will not get theirs, if they have as well provided for their retirement through eating fewer Big Macs and working in a corporate sweatshop that doesn't buy a 40 hour week as enough.  The 40 hourers and give me my 15 minute break, will be fine.

    replyreport