Social Security Beneficiaries Top 62,000,000 for First Time

[Sanguine]

By Terence P. Jeffrey | May 7, 2018 | 4:53 PM EDT
(Screen Capture)

(CNSNews.com) - In the first quarter of 2018, the number of Social Security beneficiaries topped 62,000,000 for the first time, according to data released by the Social Security Administration.

In fact, people receiving Social Security benefits in the United States now outnumber the population of Italy....

The 62,233,678 Social Security beneficiaries at the end of the first quarter of this year included 45,876,131 retired workers and their dependents, 5,990,290 survivors of deceased workers, and 10,367,257 disabled workers and their dependents.

The Social Security program includes Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI). ...

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/social-security-beneficiaries-top-62000000-first-time?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWWpKbU5XUTBPVE5pTURkayIsInQiOiJmclB3NmY3ckpBV2JcL2ptZEV1VUpISkI3NGZpU0VBUVdTTjFLQXk5elhEUDBZUUtJRytXbzduRDBCS0o1U2M2SkZiRzhsYzVDVnF6bmtWUEZwclQwcmdVUjVoNU0xWlwvTjlmdlRPTmNXd1BWTUN1RHJ0K1M0NnViVGxcL21hdXBZWiJ9

[LMAO]

Which will make necessary entitlement reform  much more difficult

[DCPatriot]

NOTE: Do NOT trust any 'scientific' study targeting seniors that say dark chocolate will make you live longer.  They're trying to kill us off.     

[Right_in_Virginia]

NOTE: Do NOT trust any 'scientific' study targeting seniors that say dark chocolate will make you live longer.  They're trying to kill us off.     

 

[Sanguine]

NOTE: Do NOT trust any 'scientific' study targeting seniors that say dark chocolate will make you live longer.  They're trying to kill us off.     

But, we will go happy.

[edpc]

They’ll need to raise the taxable income (currently 128K), retirement age, or both.

[Oceander]

They’ll need to raise the taxable income (currently 128K), retirement age, or both.

And means test.  There is no godforsaken reason why someone with millions of their own wealth should be receiving social security. 

[Sanguine]

And means test.  There is no godforsaken reason why someone with millions of their own wealth should be receiving social security.

Other than because they paid into it.

[Oceander]

Other than because they paid into it.

Hardly.  They paid nothing more than an additional income tax with a fancy-sounding name.  They didn’t buy an annuity, they didn’t make contributions to a pension plan.  They paid tax, pure and simple.  You aren’t entitled to get 110% or more of your regular income taxes back in the form of government welfare, why should that change just because a fancy label is applied to another income tax?

[Frank Cannon]

But, we will go happy.

With dark chocolate? You wash that down with red beet juice when you are really living it up?

[goodwithagun]

With dark chocolate? You wash that down with red beet juice when you are really living it up?

Try red wine instead.

[edpc]

Try red wine instead.

A good bourbon goes with it, too.

[Sanguine]

Hardly.  They paid nothing more than an additional income tax with a fancy-sounding name.  They didn’t buy an annuity, they didn’t make contributions to a pension plan.  They paid tax, pure and simple.  You aren’t entitled to get 110% or more of your regular income taxes back in the form of government welfare, why should that change just because a fancy label is applied to another income tax?

Just like every one else who pays into it.  I don't believe in demonizing wealthy people any more than we should demonize poor people.

[Sanguine]

A good bourbon goes with it, too.

Merlot or Dewar's work just fine.

Beet juice?  Where the heck did you get that, @Frank Cannon? Ick!

[Frank Cannon]

Merlot or Dewar's work just fine.

Beet juice?  Where the heck did you get that, @Frank Cannon? Ick!

I was thinking of disgusting stuff I saw people drink at a nursing home once. Come to think of it could have been cranberry juice. That's red too.

[Oceander]

Just like every one else who pays into it.  I don't believe in demonizing wealthy people any more than we should demonize poor people.

They didn’t pay into anything, they paid taxes.  Social security benefits are not a return on an investment, they are government-funded welfare, pure and simple, and they should be means tested the same way Medicaid is.

This simply shows what a good con-job Roosevelt and the liberals pulled when they enacted the taxes and the welfare program:  even intelligent people think they bought into something that’s theirs and which they’re entitled to get a return on. 

That’s a pure lie, fed to us by progressives. 

Until you can get over your addiction to liberal lies, you’re just part of the problem. 

[Sanguine]

They didn’t pay into anything, they paid taxes.  Social security benefits are not a return on an investment, they are government-funded welfare, pure and simple, and they should be means tested the same way Medicaid is.

This simply shows what a good con-job Roosevelt and the liberals pulled when they enacted the taxes and the welfare program:  even intelligent people think they bought into something that’s theirs and which they’re entitled to get a return on. 

That’s a pure lie, fed to us by progressives. 

Until you can get over your addiction to liberal lies, you’re just part of the problem.

Pffft.  Until you can get over your jealousy of those wealthier than you, then you're part of the problem.  (See how that works?)  Or, even better, as long as you continue to treat everyone on this board with naked contempt, you will probably get back what you put in.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.  Duh.  The point that I made very clearly and that you managed to avoid, is that if it is a tax and a Ponzi system for wealthy, then it is for those less wealthy too.  If you pay into it, you should benefit from it. 

Or, my preference, get rid of it because of its numerous problems.  Make people responsible for their own destinies.

[edpc]

Or, my preference, get rid of it because of its numerous problems.  Make people responsible for their own destinies.

Privatization would be nice, but I think those days are gone.

[Sanguine]

Privatization would be nice, but I think those days are gone.

We can dream.

[truth_seeker]

Hardly.  They paid nothing more than an additional income tax with a fancy-sounding name.  They didn’t buy an annuity, they didn’t make contributions to a pension plan.  They paid tax, pure and simple.  You aren’t entitled to get 110% or more of your regular income taxes back in the form of government welfare, why should that change just because a fancy label is applied to another income tax?

Or in effect more income & wealth redistribution, like beloved Europe.

[LauraTXNM]

I really don't even know what to say about SS any more.  At some point it's going to fail, and a lot of people probably around my age are going to be royally ___ed. 

[edpc]

I really don't even know what to say about SS any more.  At some point it's going to fail, and a lot of people probably around my age are going to be royally ___ed.

I've paid into it since I was 15 and I'll be surprised if I see it in 20 years.  From time to time, they send a statement of my payments and earnings over the past 3 decades.  It's like they're rubbing it in.

[LauraTXNM]

I've paid into it since I was 15 and I'll be surprised if I see it in 20 years.  From time to time, they send a statement of my payments and earnings over the past 3 decades.  It's like they're rubbing it in.

@edpc It's nice to meet someone else who's around my age!  It'll be great to have company as we sink ;(.  Part of me is fighting very hard not to be angry with our elders ;(.

[LMAO]

They didn’t pay into anything, they paid taxes.  Social security benefits are not a return on an investment, they are government-funded welfare, pure and simple, and they should be means tested the same way Medicaid is.

This simply shows what a good con-job Roosevelt and the liberals pulled when they enacted the taxes and the welfare program:  even intelligent people think they bought into something that’s theirs and which they’re entitled to get a return on. 

That’s a pure lie, fed to us by progressives. 

Until you can get over your addiction to liberal lies, you’re just part of the problem.

And this is why reforms are so difficult. People have this idea that they “paid into” “their” Social Security and they are “entitled to it.”

Too many conservatives even believe that

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Hardly.  They paid nothing more than an additional income tax with a fancy-sounding name.  They didn’t buy an annuity, they didn’t make contributions to a pension plan.  They paid tax, pure and simple.  You aren’t entitled to get 110% or more of your regular income taxes back in the form of government welfare, why should that change just because a fancy label is applied to another income tax?

That 'hardly' sure seems a term a haughty well-heeled lawyer might use doesn't it?

Most people do not think that way, but why should you be able to comprehend that?

And exactly how do you determine when an individual gets 110% or more of regular income taxes back in the form of government welfare anyway?

You may call this 'another income tax' but the government sure didn't when it took the money out of a paycheck.