10 Things You Didn't Know About Social Security

Reader Comments
Back to article

I have worked over 46 years and paid into SS the whole time, anyone thinking of cutting back on the benefits should try and live on 1250.00 a month, like the guys in Congress who can vote themselves a raise. It is tuff enough with costs rising on everything. For those people who come here and think they have a right to benefits think again, if you didn't pay in, you don't get a pay out.

schultz of WI 9:16AM January 11, 2013

The Social Security Fund was supposed to be kept apart from other government agencies and, if that had been maintained, would still be operating in the black. It was only when it was transferred into the General Fund that the system ran into trouble. Congress should put it back where it belongs, separate and unavailable for any other purpose.
The 'cost of living adjustment' as it now stands, does not take into consideration rises in the cost of foodstuff or gasoline; two of the major causes of inflation here in the U.S. How can that possibly be considered a true rate of inflation ???
The article states that since its inception in 1937 until 2007, the S.S. fund has taken in a total of 13 TRILLION dollars, whilst expenditures have totaled 10.6
TRILLION. So what happened to the other 2.4 TRILLION ????
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING AT IT"S BEST !!!

Dennis Turner of CA 7:01PM January 10, 2013

if the goverment would pay back what they borrowed it would be fine.
i worked meny years to get it.

pete of IN 6:16PM January 10, 2013

i worked on and off though out my teen years, all my grown up years, had a business and still paid in to SS and i get 781 which is okay, UNTIL i found out that a person, not ever paying into SS and had a business, worked all the time until recently is collecting 1/2 of her husbands SS, and he gets his full amount also. OKAY, I feel this means something is wrong. Why should she get any at all if she didnt think she had to pay in. And then there are the people that come here from other countries, dont work, but get still more than all of us who worked, this is where the program has to change BIGtime........THANKS FOR LISTENING, I GUESS.........

SDAVID of CO 3:27PM December 29, 2012

What about people that is on disability. I had to come out of work I think it was in 1997 because of a illiness I had and I didn't want to then but the doctors may me. I thank my god I get what I get but I am concern about what is going to happen with my check am I going to draw more or less. I'm very concern about this.

Gail Saylors of SC 4:00PM December 27, 2012

I have worked from age 16 I am now 63 I have raiwsed 2 girls and am now helping them both since the economy tanked. I would love to retire at 66 but that will not happen .I will have to work until 70 or I drop dead first. What gets up my nose is I have contributed to the fund all these years and my hard earned money is funding wars we have no business being involved in and spending my money for unnecessary things and programs we don't need . WAKE UP Washington. The fools running congress are already wealthy so why should they care about the average person struggling to make ends meet. Congress ,walk in my shoes for awhile,stop doing all the favors for elsewhere in the world and focus on home and the needs of middle America, folks

Ann Gilchrist of NV 10:28AM November 30, 2012

The do-over fact is ENORMOUS. Unless you are very math challenged or into self loathing, it makes no sense not to collect starting at age 62.
If you collect say 1800 per month at 62, you receive 21600 per year (plus cost of living adjustments averaging 3.5 percent per year or enough for 28,000 by age 70. But if you give SSI back the probable 208,000 max you collected you restart at 46000 per year. Thus the 18,000 dollar a year difference means it takes (with CPI adjustments) less than 10 years to get even and after 80 its all gravy, you are way way ahead because the CPI increases on a much much bigger base. At average 3.5 CPI (Obamas borrowing has guaranteed more) you will have by 100, an annual SSI cash flow of around 100,000 per year or 40,000 dollars more per year than if you had NOT paid back 200K at age 70. So you are ahead by 15x20k per year or 300K if you live to 100. Beats working to get 300 K NET !!
So at any level it makes no sense to NOT collect at 62. The Social Security people discourage it because they are betting you will DIE before 70. But we Baby Boomers have figured it out and are retiring at the rate of 10,000 per DAY. Roughly 80 percent of Baby Boomers are collecting

Charles Littleton of GA 7:40AM November 13, 2012

Why does the government put the income from workers into the general fund and then use the surplus for other things for which it is not intended.Should not the surplus stay in a fund for times of job shortages that limit the money coming into the fund.What gives the government the right to take the surplus social security money.I,ve been lied to before by the social security administration.The congressmen keep their pension money in private trusts in the pastand now as far as I know.Am I wrong?If I am right,then this is wrong and corrupt,just like them giving themselves big raises.

Jack Atkinson of VA 6:40PM November 10, 2012

Nothing has ever been done for notch babies who's Social Security was figured at a different scale which was less than everybody else got. My dead husband was one of them and my Social Security was based on his because I was hurt in car wreck and didn't finish out my last segment even though I paid into it my whole working life for 25 years, I was not allowed to draw on any of my own even though my husbands was less than other peoples and being a woman I am
pentalized all around because of the wage disparity.

Marilyn Miller of IL 1:22AM November 06, 2012

Your article was very good. Would have been excellent if you incuded how congress has RAIDED SS funds for several years. The SS system would otherwise be solvent and no changes necessary. SS could have been placed in private investment firm or firms, accepting the same overhead cost, the fund would exceed the value needed with no changes. And if they RAIDED the fund, it would be criminal. Isn't it interesting how in todays world, out leaders can do anything they want and call it, POLOLITICALLY CORRECT.

B J Littleton of TX 3:35PM October 26, 2012