Social Security
Dec. 31st, 2017 12:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
charisstomahttps://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/benefit.asp
Likewise, the word “entitlement” has long been the standard terminology for payments made under government programs that guarantee and provide benefits to particular groups. Persons who have demonstrated their eligibility to claim such payments are entitled (i.e., “qualified for by right according to law”) to receive them. The usage has nothing to do with pejorative connotations associated with the word (e.g., “a sense of entitlement”) which are often applied to denote people expecting or demanding something they do not merit.
As for the calculations about savings detailed in the latter half of the above-quoted example, they’re far off the mark for a number of reasons:
Assuming the aggregate Social Security contributions for any individual to be equal to 15% of his lifetime income is a flawed approach, because the required levels of Social Security contributions have varied across time, and Social Security contributions from individuals and employers combined have never “totaled 15% of your income before taxes.” The current contribution level is 12.4%, and historically the contribution rates have been significantly less. (Many people confuse Federal Insurance Contributions Act [FICA] payments, which are currently assessed at a 15.3% rate, with Social Security, but they are not the same thing. FICA payments include both Social Security and Medicare taxes.)
Assuming the Social Security contributions for any individual to be equal to a percentage of his average lifetime income is a flawed approach, because Social Security contributions have a yearly cap (i.e., contributors never pay more than a specified maximum amount, no matter how much money they make in a given year). A person who earned $80,000 in 2001 would have paid just as much into Social Security as a person who made $750,000 in 2001, so assuming that the Social Security contributions for each equalled 12.4% of their income that year would produce a grossly inflated figure in the latter case.
The dollar figures provided are a mish-mash that take neither past nor future conditions into account. It’s wrong to assume that Social Security contributions equal “15% of your income before taxes” because (as already noted), Social Security contribution levels have varied across time, they have never been as high as 15%, and there’s no guarantee of what they will be in the future. It’s wrong to assume that a typical current retiree (i.e., someone who started his working life 40+ years ago) earned an average of $30,000 per year across his lifetime, as the median household income in the U.S. didn’t even reach that level until 1993. And it’s wrong to assume that a current wage earner could safely see a 5% return on his money if it weren’t paid into Social Security, as the average interest rates for savings accounts and certificates of deposit have been well below that figure (typically under 1% or 2%) for several years now.
Likewise, the word “entitlement” has long been the standard terminology for payments made under government programs that guarantee and provide benefits to particular groups. Persons who have demonstrated their eligibility to claim such payments are entitled (i.e., “qualified for by right according to law”) to receive them. The usage has nothing to do with pejorative connotations associated with the word (e.g., “a sense of entitlement”) which are often applied to denote people expecting or demanding something they do not merit.
As for the calculations about savings detailed in the latter half of the above-quoted example, they’re far off the mark for a number of reasons:
Assuming the aggregate Social Security contributions for any individual to be equal to 15% of his lifetime income is a flawed approach, because the required levels of Social Security contributions have varied across time, and Social Security contributions from individuals and employers combined have never “totaled 15% of your income before taxes.” The current contribution level is 12.4%, and historically the contribution rates have been significantly less. (Many people confuse Federal Insurance Contributions Act [FICA] payments, which are currently assessed at a 15.3% rate, with Social Security, but they are not the same thing. FICA payments include both Social Security and Medicare taxes.)
Assuming the Social Security contributions for any individual to be equal to a percentage of his average lifetime income is a flawed approach, because Social Security contributions have a yearly cap (i.e., contributors never pay more than a specified maximum amount, no matter how much money they make in a given year). A person who earned $80,000 in 2001 would have paid just as much into Social Security as a person who made $750,000 in 2001, so assuming that the Social Security contributions for each equalled 12.4% of their income that year would produce a grossly inflated figure in the latter case.
The dollar figures provided are a mish-mash that take neither past nor future conditions into account. It’s wrong to assume that Social Security contributions equal “15% of your income before taxes” because (as already noted), Social Security contribution levels have varied across time, they have never been as high as 15%, and there’s no guarantee of what they will be in the future. It’s wrong to assume that a typical current retiree (i.e., someone who started his working life 40+ years ago) earned an average of $30,000 per year across his lifetime, as the median household income in the U.S. didn’t even reach that level until 1993. And it’s wrong to assume that a current wage earner could safely see a 5% return on his money if it weren’t paid into Social Security, as the average interest rates for savings accounts and certificates of deposit have been well below that figure (typically under 1% or 2%) for several years now.
