| 50 % of US Families on Gov't Dole | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 26 2012, 01:22 PM (356 Views) | |
| Mason | May 26 2012, 01:22 PM Post #1 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Approx 50% of U.S. households on the Government dole. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/26/number-of-the-week-half-of-u-s-lives-in-household-getting-benefits/ |
![]() |
|
| kbp | May 26 2012, 02:12 PM Post #2 |
|
Seems like the middle class is drifting into the dependant class. A percentage of those is certainly a result of having learned they could live on money from others. Here’s a good example….
Just avoid any blame on color, maybe a little towards the race-baiters getting mo money. The SOLUTION is what makes the problem grow, if you teach households they can live on money from others. This case tells me of a dozen households the state is helping to manage, The "daddy" is certainly unable to care for all of them and I suspect that was NEVER a concern that crossed the minds of those involved in creating these households. Back to the thread topic... it's quite a monster were feeding here. Even if we trim its diet somehow, the mouths to feed will keep growing just from the baby boomers. ADD: makes a guy consider finding some way to promote the FREE PILL Edited by kbp, May 26 2012, 02:14 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Baldo | May 26 2012, 02:49 PM Post #3 |
|
I would like to get a breakdown of those benefits. I paid over 40 years into Social Security & 30 of those I paid double as employer & employee. I don't think I will count that as a govt dole. Nor all the money paid into that was never paid out to departed before they could get any payments. I am upset about those that didn't contribute & receive benefits like Obama's Auntie Zeituni. |
![]() |
|
| Duke parent 2004 | May 26 2012, 02:56 PM Post #4 |
|
You beat me to it! The Journal article misleads, but in more than one direction. Why imply that Social Security payments are government benefits that recipients and their employers haven’t paid for?. Many recipients will never receive in benefits the sum of those contributions and the interest that would have been applied to them had they been invested.. Especially vulnerable are self-employed persons and the owners of small C corporations; these folks pay into the system 12.4% (temporarily reduced to 10.4%) of their compensation, up to the wage base.. Married persons receiving retirement benefits are cut off at the second death; there are no legacies for their children.. Regarding single persons, who on the average die sooner than married persons, and married persons who go down together on that Cessna—well, I suppose someone has to pay for those of us who do live long enough to "beat" the system. And lest we forget, up to 85% of Social Security retirement benefits are taxed at ordinary-income rates by Uncle Sam. In the "other" direction I count as benefits tax breaks, such as deductibility of mortgage interest, and subsidies, such as below-market rates of interest on government-guaranteed student loans.. I'm confident readers here can supply other examples of government largesse not mentioned in the Journal article. Regardless of how the numbers work out, George Will was right when many years ago he predicted that big government would eventually provide its own foundation bolts by making beneficiaries of just about everyone, and most importantly of those who ultimately pay for the goodies. Edited by Duke parent 2004, May 26 2012, 03:07 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | May 26 2012, 04:00 PM Post #5 |
|
Was not SS originally to only covere those who would live longer than most anticipated they would? |
![]() |
|
| abb | May 26 2012, 04:06 PM Post #6 |
|
I agree. I received my very first payment from SS a week ago. I would gladly forgo future payments in exchange for a one-time payment of what I and my employers paid in for about forty years. I have an excel spreadsheet with those numbers tabulated. And save a couple of years, every W-2. Any discussion of SS should include a study of this pertinent case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor |
![]() |
|
| abb | May 26 2012, 04:12 PM Post #7 |
|
It was and is an inter-generational tax scheme. When it first was enacted in 1935, average life expectancy was about 61. Now it is 78. Ida Mae Fuller (the first recipient) paid in only $24.75, but received $22,889 in benefits. But she lived to 100. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | May 26 2012, 04:20 PM Post #8 |
|
If the Nestor case had been around near '08, he probably would have been a good political candidate or even appointed as a czar. If he's alive still, it's a sure thing that they would not deport him today. Edited by kbp, May 26 2012, 04:21 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Toast | May 26 2012, 04:41 PM Post #9 |
|
Receiving Social Security retirement and/or military pension checks does not mean a household is "on the dole". Very misleading. Households with people who have the physical and mental capacity to work, but who choose to live in subsidized housing, and eat through the use of food stamps, and have all their children on Medicaid, and on free lunch programs and free child care programs (for WHAT? if they don't have a job?!!!). THOSE people are "on the dole". Of all the people I know who are "retired" and receiving SS retirement checks and/or military pensions probably 80% of them are working. Some are working full time, but most are at part-time jobs. They are working either to make ends meet, or to save so they will have something when the government runs out of money. The 20% not working are either over 85 years of age and becoming frail, or already were on some type of social security disability income before they reached retirement age and long ago lost any incentive to earn money on their own. (And yes, there are SOME "disabled" people who really are incapable of holding any job. I would put them at a low % of those who actually receive SS disability checks. Maybe I'm wrong there, maybe the fraudsters are the low %. Obviously, I am cynical about that.) I'd better stop now. Smoke and fumes abound. anybody got a fire extinguisher? (Need a firefighter emoticon!) (did you know hairspray is flammable? )Edited by Toast, May 26 2012, 04:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| retiredLEO | May 26 2012, 04:58 PM Post #10 |
|
I was going to comment about that myself, retirement for militay or receiving SS, are they considered on the government dole? I myself recieved a pension after retiring from the police department I worked at. Then at age 60 I started recieving my pension benefits from my service in the US Marine and the Marine reserve, that total service time was 42 years, 18 to 60. My wife continues to work, but most of our income is from the penions I recieved. Does this article include me in those statistics? When I was younger I thought I was earning those benefits, now I'm on the dole. The people writing these articles should do a better job of explaining themselves. |
![]() |
|
| Foxlair45 | May 26 2012, 06:17 PM Post #11 |
|
Desmond Hatchett's lady friends are likely "on the dole." I have not yet tapped into the pension I earned from my former employer (following a lay off 3 years ago); I got another job and am still working at 66. I will most likely die in my traces...but I am now receiving my full SS. I've contributed to SS since the age of 13 and do not consider myself as being on the dole. I worked damned hard for that SS check and I am still paying into it! |
![]() |
|
| cks | May 26 2012, 06:29 PM Post #12 |
|
I will soon (Six years) be eligible to retire and receive social security (that along with the very poor pension that the archdiocese has now frozen since it is having problems funding it due to legal payouts to the victims of its pedophile priests - Toast, I join you in burning just thinking about that issue, but I digress). Both Mr cks and I figure that we will be working until we are carted out in a horzontal position from which one never again is vertical. In part because I do not think that the monies will exist to pay out benefits for all the boomers who will more likely than not live much past the life expectancy upon which ss was predicated. Those like my grandmother, who paid in to ss from the beginning until she died at 73 - she did not retire because as she said she had worked all of her life - what would she do all day? - are going to be few and far between (those not drawing any benefits). With a declining population of workers from whose pay the social security benefits are paid and with the exponential numbers of babyboomers eligible for ss each year, the bankruptcy of the system is not far off. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 27 2012, 07:57 AM Post #13 |
|
Deleted User
|
Social Security retirement benefits should be off the table when defining those who are taking their day to day income from government. The real issue is the multiple welfare programs in place for people who don't want to work, those who have been laid off from a job, etc. Women and children have available to them more programs to milk government than you can count, including free cell phones. A friend of mine met a woman who works in a beauty supply store. The clerk was expecting a baby, her second or third child, married but did not declare her husband on the birth certificates of the children so that she could qualify for assistance. On the news this past week, a congressman was talking about the need to stop allowing illegals from declaring children when paying taxes with no SS number. That is a huge loss in revenue apparently. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |






anybody got a fire extinguisher? (Need a firefighter emoticon!) (did you know hairspray is flammable?
)
2:34 PM Jul 11