But our kids will pay for your social security??

mostly in the UK, but it will happen in america and everywhere else

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4077140/A-century-after-its-birth-is-the-state-pension-on-its-last-legs.html

The old-age pension is 100 years old this week - and like any centenarian, it is almost on its last legs. The cost of sustaining an adequate state pension for a generation that is living for 20 or even 30 years after retirement has become prohibitive.

The reasons are simple. There are currently more than 11 million people of pensionable age. By 2020, that total is predicted to reach 14 million, the inevitable result of a world in which privation is rare and good health is sustained well into old age. This demographic timebomb has been ticking from the moment the first old-age pension was paid out; yet governments down the years have been complicit in the pretence that the state would provide for old age, when they knew that it never could. Such is the shortfall that the official state pension of about £4,300 a year would need to be tripled to reach the poverty line.

So how can we pay for our pensions? This week, it was reported that a Green Paper due later this month will propose that those in work should pay a compulsory insurance levy to subsidise their care after they retire. The idea that the state can provide for old age is no longer feasible, if it ever was – especially given the extra burden of paying for the personal pensions of public-sector workers, estimated at £650 billion by the Government and up to £1 trillion by the CBI and others. So dire is the situation that some are muttering that we might now be better off had we never relied on the state pension, and the false promise it held, in the first place.


It seems hard to imagine a world without some sort of government provision for old age – indeed, we now consider it the hallmark of a civilised society. But to the Victorians and Edwardians, the idea of a payment by the state for retirement was considered bizarre, the very antithesis of personal responsibility. People were expected to save in order to avoid becoming reliant on charity or Poor Law relief. In 1893, the social reformer and slum renovator Octavia Hill testified against state provision before a Royal Commission that included the Prince of Wales among its members. "I should describe it as the most gigantic scheme of inadequate relief ever devised by any human being," she said. "It seems to me it would not be adequate. I cannot believe it would promote thrift… [and] it would do a great deal to destroy one thing that is most desirous to cultivate, the sense of responsibility of relatives."

As Hill's comments suggest, few, if any, social policies have been more argued over, more controversial or more problematic than the idea of a state pension. When the idea was revived, after the Liberal election victory in 1906, it was because David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, then in the Liberal government, believed social reform would bolster the party's position against the threat from the newly established Labour Party, which was vying to become the representative of the working classes. The consequences would be far-reaching: to start with, it had to be paid for (£16 million a year at first). And so Lloyd George, as Chancellor, introduced his People's Budget in 1909 to increase income and estate taxes on the better off to fund his social programme.

This led to a monumental clash with the House of Lords, which rejected the budget; a general election, which the Liberals won; and the introduction of the Parliament Act to assert the primacy of the Commons over the Upper House. From the very start, then, the pension had the capacity to cause political ructions on a grand scale.

But what, precisely, was all the fuss about? When it came into force, in January 1909, Lloyd George's measure offered an initial payment of five shillings a week (7s 6d for a married couple) to all retired workers over 70. It was known colloquially as the "Lord George", because only a lord could be so generous – yet in fact, the level of benefit had been deliberately set low, to encourage people to make their own additional provision for retirement.

In order to be eligible, workers had to be earning less than £31.50 per year and to be of "good character" – a condition dropped within a few years. Also excluded were those in receipt of poor relief; "lunatics" in asylums; persons sentenced to prison, for a decade after their release; persons convicted of drunkenness (at the discretion of the court); and any person who was guilty of "habitual failure to work".

A century later, and the notion that the state will provide in our old age – even for drunkards and layabouts – is so ingrained in the national psyche that any alternative seems impossible to contemplate. But the fact that millions of us have our own provision funded by private and employer contributions indicates that the basic pension is not enough. And how could it be? When the first was paid out 100 years ago, relatively few people lived beyond 70, and then for just a few years. The financial burden was manageable; but over the years, successive governments have sought popularity by promising to provide a pension that was sufficient for retirement, yet which never could be.

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

When I was in school, it was made very clear to us in economics class that there would be zero government pension for the old people by the time we get to 65. Or 70! Looks like they were right. Then again, who the hell wants to live on ten government dollars a day? That's not living. And just as I object to kiddies presuming that taxpayers ought to support their existance, I also believe there's a limit to what the wrinklies can expect from the taxpayer too. Everyone needs to stand on their own two feet, I say.

- - - - - - - -
"The death of creativity is a pram in the hallway"
- Cyril Connolly

The United States is looking at the same situation, although the politicians prefer to stay away from the subject. They also like to keep us confused regarding the different "funds" or accounts that are actually connected with social security to be received at age 65 (or whatever it is now) Regular old social security, aka "old age income" is based on amount paid in and years worked, vs SSI, which is basically welfare that was originally intended to be public assistance for disabled adults who had not paid into the social security system to be able to qualify for SSDI. It confuses the hell out of me, but SSDI is based on what you have paid in and can be up to about $2200 a month (I think) and is for a disabled adult who has not yet reached age 65. SSI is welfare and the max that can be drawn is about $600 a month, IF the person is disabled.

Now, where the problem really comes in is WHERE or ON WHICH social security fund do all of these fucking KIDDIE disability checks get written out? This is one of the most confusing and senseless piles of dung I have ever tried to figure out in my life. WHY would a child need "replacement" income for being "disabled"? The "disabled" (so called) kyds,ALREADY get free medical, including psychological care and pharmaceuticals, and if moomie is poor (which ironically is USUALLY the case, mmmmmm?) then they ALSO get cash ON TOP of their kiddie disability check from Aid for Dependent kyds, foodstamps, and subsidized housing. I know that the "disabled" kyds get a monthly check from SSI, JUST LIKE disabled adults get who have never paid in. They get checks from SSI for ADHD, Awwwtism, ODD, Bi-polar, and ADD, to name a few. YOUNG children get these diagnoses AND checks as young as 3 years of age, until they are 18, at which point they can file for it again as an adult and they may NEVER work and pay into social security.

I have seen/heard politicians tap dance around this and claim that the SS taxes that everyone pays in goes into the SSDI and "old age" social security. SO, WHERE or WHAT taxes pay for SSI? It's very name on the payer line of their monthly checks gives us a small clue, Social Security Income. So, I suppose that kiddie "disability" checks could come from some magical fund or tax which I am unaware, but IF it comes from Social Security taxes, then THAT'S where all of our future social security earnings that we won't get are going, to "the chhyldren", or to their moocows I should say. SSI for welfare and kiddie disabilities HAS to come from some sort of tax that we are all paying here in America. So, these bitches who say, "my kyds will be paying your SS",can SFTU, because THE KYDS are draining OUR "social security" straight into their welfare whore moomie's $200 pocketbooks right now, as we speak. I am SICK of that bingo because it is an OUTRIGHT lie.

Kim, if I may, I can answer some of your questions and clear up a few things.

First, SSI stands for "Supplemental Security Income", not "Social Security Income." The program is administrated by the Social Security Administration but it is funded by general tax revenues, not Social Security taxes.

This link has a list of the FAQs about Social Security and SSI:

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php?p_page=1&p_cv=1.48&p_pv=&p_prods=&p_cats=48

This should be good enough for you to start with.

By the way, I have been studying the issue of Social Security for about 10 years.

Ok, however, social security is a gigantic ponzi scheme (dwarfing even the infamous Mr Maddox (?)) which will collapse in 15 years or so, give or take. It could conceivably collapse in the next few years if this depression really works up steam.

One of the compuserve newsforum members who shows up in chat on occasion (for our weekly trivia games) is more pessimistic than I am. He thinks that todays young amoral bastards would cheerfully run a concentration camp. Take that as an assumed given: it would not be a far jump to euthanize folk when they run out of funds, whatever they might be or where they come from. I have no doubt of it actually: I think this society has been gearing up for this for a loooong time.

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.

Quote
deegee
Kim, if I may, I can answer some of your questions and clear up a few things.

First, SSI stands for "Supplemental Security Income", not "Social Security Income." The program is administrated by the Social Security Administration but it is funded by general tax revenues, not Social Security taxes.

This link has a list of the FAQs about Social Security and SSI:

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php?p_page=1&p_cv=1.48&p_pv=&p_prods=&p_cats=48

This should be good enough for you to start with.

By the way, I have been studying the issue of Social Security for about 10 years.

Thank you so much for enlightening me as I have been confused and angry about it for quite some time, but not apparently enough to do any research. . I will go read that site later, (btw thanks for posting it!) and it may answer my questions. However, pressing on my mind now of course is which taxes fund the "general fund" and just how many different welfare "funds" do we have? Does the Kiddie SSI come from the same fund as moomie's aid for a no daddy baybee check does? Is the "supplemental" part, that I had always mistakenly thought stood for "social", meant to add to THEIR (the disabled kyd) income? That's what I don't get; A chyld doesn't have an income so how can this be "supplemental"? If it means supplemental to the moocow's income, then WHY, if they already get free medical, medications, psychologist's visits if needed ????? etc........ I DO understand the need for a supplemental income at most all famblee income levels if the child has a SEVERE disability such as wheelchair bound cerebral palsy AND mental retardation because they will obviously need to "supplement" their earnings for things that I can't even probably think of beyond what a "normal" kyd might require.

However, an ADHD kyd shouldn't be getting $600 (and beyond) a month, which some I know claim that they do. Whatever taxes they are eating up with their ADD, ADHD, Awwtism spectrum, etc........must be in some fund which is a bottomless pit, the way they keep tapping into it.

Social Security pension system as the world's biggest Ponzi Scheme!

I like it! Thanks Twocents.

- - - - - - - -
"The death of creativity is a pram in the hallway"
- Cyril Connolly

Kim, SSI comes from general tax revenues, which means all the taxes we pay to the federal government other than those which are dedicated to a certain function or program such as Social Security. Other examples of "dedicated" tax revenues are the federal gasoline tax going to the Highway Trust Fund and Medicare (payroll) taxes going to Medicare. SSI's revenue stream is not a dedicated revenue stream funded by a specific tax, it comes from the general pool of (other) federal taxes such as personal income taxes and corporate income taxes, to name two.

As to your other questions about SSI, you should check the website. As is often the case with these programs, the name has less and less to do with the actual purpose of the program if/when it is expanded to cover other things beyond the program's original intent.

An adult friend of mine was receiving SSI many years ago (he is partially disabled) while he was unemployed after his unemployment insurance expired. Once he got a job again soon thereafter, the SSI stopped, of course.