Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Real Entitlements, and the Numbers...Welfare Entitlement of the Rich [View all]n2doc
(47,953 posts)4. Not exactly true
For an average-wage-earning, two-income couple turning 65 in 2010, the pay-in, pay-out ratio for Social Security by itself will actually be slightly negative - the couple will have paid $600,000 in lifetime Social Security taxes and will receive only $579,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits. (Remember, the couple didnt literally pay out $600,000; thats the current value of what they paid out over the years, plus an additional 2 percent they may have gotten had it been invested.)
source
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/
It used to be that people got paid back much more than they paid in. Not anymore. Medicare however still does pay out more than it pays in.
From the same article:
If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.
source
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/
It used to be that people got paid back much more than they paid in. Not anymore. Medicare however still does pay out more than it pays in.
From the same article:
If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The Real Entitlements, and the Numbers...Welfare Entitlement of the Rich [View all]
mother earth
Apr 2015
OP
I suspect it is the retirement age & just how many years one has beyond it, since it seems to be
mother earth
Apr 2015
#3
To show the profound ignorance of your position: FDR would not qualify for President nt
okaawhatever
Apr 2015
#37
"Profound Ignorance"??? FDR didn't sell influence to get his fortune, it was inherited.
NYC_SKP
Apr 2015
#38
YOUR words: anyone worth that much has a built in conflict of interest. You don't mention how they
okaawhatever
Apr 2015
#39
That is actualy true, regarding the meaning of entitlements as opposed to assistance or charity
Dragonfli
Apr 2015
#11
I'm Ready For Oligarchy - Are You? - Vote HRC - What Better Way To Enrich The 1% Even More
cantbeserious
Apr 2015
#28
LOL. People are so afraid of her ability to beat their imaginary candidate they just lash out
okaawhatever
Apr 2015
#40
IMO, this hatred of the poor is why many (who deem themselves as "upper class") GOP'ers are in that
mother earth
Apr 2015
#44