snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07 September 2008, 08:44 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,359
Icon605 Why does McCain get Social Security?

Comment: Is this true? Does John McCain collect Social Security? Why?

http://podcastpatriot.com/2008/07/18...cial-security/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07 September 2008, 08:57 PM
RoseyDawn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

IMHO, it is probably true. Social Security is age based. I do know the benefit is reduced from retirement age to I think it is 70. After that there is no limitation on earnings.

So it is quite possible that once he reached the age of no income limit, he could collect his full benefit.

Personal Opinion: While our social security fund is in trouble, I have no problem with the wealthy, including Sen. McCain, taking their benefit. In theory, they and their employer(s) funded their benefit over all the years worked. It is theirs.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07 September 2008, 09:10 PM
rhiandmoi's Avatar
rhiandmoi rhiandmoi is offline
 
Join Date: 27 July 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 12,729
Default

This had me cracking up:
Quote:
It is in all of our self interest to help the unfortunate. Not all poor people are lazy drug addicts. It isn’t like someone tried a few hits of poverty at a party and then found himself totally addicted to living in a crappy bug-infested apartment with no job prospects.
I agree with the blogger, that people like McCain who are well off and absolutely don't need the money should waive their benefits, but I think it would be extremely hard to take something that we have all payed into thinking we would get our money back if we lived long enough and turn it into welfare for old people. If it was just plain old taxes that we paid I think it would be different, people would complain, but not be as mad. I think this would be seen like coming into people's private savings accounts and taking their money.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07 September 2008, 09:13 PM
Tarquin Farquart's Avatar
Tarquin Farquart Tarquin Farquart is offline
 
Join Date: 20 November 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 16,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoseyDawn View Post
In theory, they and their employer(s) funded their benefit over all the years worked. It is theirs.
Exactly. If he's paid for it, he should be able to take the benefits.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07 September 2008, 10:07 PM
covel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

McCain has reached the social security retirement age, 65 is the retirement age for his birth year. At retirement age there is no reduction in benefits based on earnings- he could earn $200 million a year and still collect social security.
Social Security Website

As already stated, why shouldn't he receive social security? He paid into it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07 September 2008, 10:38 PM
rhiandmoi's Avatar
rhiandmoi rhiandmoi is offline
 
Join Date: 27 July 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 12,729
Default

But he's also paid into WIC, Food Stamps, and Section 8 Housing, and probably tons of other programs that I don't even know of.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07 September 2008, 10:39 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,359
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhiandmoi View Post
But he's also paid into WIC, Food Stamps, and Section 8 Housing, and probably tons of other programs that I don't even know of.
He probably doesn't meet the eligibility requirements for any of those programs.

- snopes
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07 September 2008, 10:44 PM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 9,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhiandmoi View Post
But he's also paid into WIC, Food Stamps, and Section 8 Housing, and probably tons of other programs that I don't even know of.
Unlike those things, the entire basis for Social Security is that it is in essence a retirement fund--you are paying in and will later collect. It is not a form of welfare.

Avril
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07 September 2008, 10:44 PM
blucanary blucanary is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,330
Default

I would prefer if we treated Social Security like an insurance plan. It's there in case you need it but you don't get it if you don't really need it. I have fire insurance on my stuff but I don't plan to burn it down so I can get that money back.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07 September 2008, 10:51 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,359
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by blucanary View Post
I would prefer if we treated Social Security like an insurance plan. It's there in case you need it but you don't get it if you don't really need it. I have fire insurance on my stuff but I don't plan to burn it down so I can get that money back.
But you have the option of whether or not to insure your belongings. The public doesn't have the option of declining to participate in the Social Security system.

- snopes
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07 September 2008, 10:53 PM
rhiandmoi's Avatar
rhiandmoi rhiandmoi is offline
 
Join Date: 27 July 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 12,729
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
Unlike those things, the entire basis for Social Security is that it is in essence a retirement fund--you are paying in and will later collect. It is not a form of welfare.

Avril
Except that it is not, in essence, or otherwise a retirement fund. It is funded by taxes. The people collecting benefits today are not getting back what they put in, they paid the benefits for the retirees when they were young and working and they are getting back what today's workers are putting in. It is welfare. Only the eligibility requirements are so loose that nearly everyone qualifies for it.

Mr. McCain on the subject:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain...race_0710.html
Quote:
"Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today," he said. "And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed." Some Democrats criticized the remarks because McCain basically was describing how Social Security has always worked. Current retiree benefits are supplied by payroll taxes from current workers.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07 September 2008, 11:05 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhiandmoi View Post
Except that it is not, in essence, or otherwise a retirement fund.
Er, the Social Security benefit that is being discussed most certainly is a retirement program.

Quote:
It is funded by taxes. The people collecting benefits today are not getting back what they put in, they paid the benefits for the retirees when they were young and working and they are getting back what today's workers are putting in. It is welfare. Only the eligibility requirements are so loose that nearly everyone qualifies for it.
That doesn't change the fact that Social Security pays a benefit to retirees. At least those who have paid into the system.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07 September 2008, 11:17 PM
RoseyDawn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhiandmoi View Post
But he's also paid into WIC, Food Stamps, and Section 8 Housing, and probably tons of other programs that I don't even know of.
The distinction is that while he (and all of us who pay income taxes, excise, etc), social security is a unique tax: FICA and its accompanying Medicare percentage.

The programs you mentioned, WIC, Food Stamps and Section 8 Housing are all supported by the general fund appropriations:

WIC
The WIC Program is a grant program funded by federal appropriations, with some states supplementing their federal grant with their own funds. Grants are made to State Health Departments and Indian Tribes which operate the program in local health clinics.
THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS AND CHILDREN (WIC)
Food Stamps:
The federal government pays 100 percent of food stamp program benefits. Federal and State governments share administrative costs (with the federal government contributing nearly 50 percent).
Food Stamp Program
Section 8 Housing
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program was created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Funds for Section 8 are provided by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Section 8 Housing Texas -- every state has its own program; TX had the simplest statement of the underlying funding scheme.
Where I believe some of the confusion comes in is that while the moneys paid into Social Security are forbidden by law from being used for any other program, there is no regulation, law, etc. which prevents those moneys from being loaned to the U.S. Government for whatever function its needs in the general fund. At one time, the U.S. Government had to pay market rate interest on the loans. I don't know if the requirement to pay interest on the loan is still in effect.

Originally, this seemed like a win-win. The Social Security funds were earning the same rates they could earn by investing in the public market (without also depressing the private market by surplus of funds) while the government could balance (koff) its budgets by use of this borrowed money.

IMHO, had this practice never begun, the social security fund would have billions (trillions?) when adding in the interest earned on those funds over the last 60+ years. Recipients *would* be receiving the return of their own 'investment + income' and not using todays contributions by todays workers to fund their benefit. The problem arises because our various administrations have continued to borrow and borrow from the fund without making repayments in sufficient amounts to enable the fund to recover without using today's deposits to pay benefits.

Disclaimer: Oh, yeah - this is a very simplistic description! But I'm really not in the mood to try composing a treatise on "what happened to our social security fund?"

Last edited by RoseyDawn; 07 September 2008 at 11:18 PM. Reason: ETA correct millions to "billions (trillions?)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08 September 2008, 12:34 AM
Mr. Furious's Avatar
Mr. Furious Mr. Furious is offline
 
Join Date: 13 January 2001
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 12,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
That doesn't change the fact that Social Security pays a benefit to retirees. At least those who have paid into the system.
I may be completely wrong about this, but I vaguely recall a conversation with my dad in which he indicated that he is not eligible for Social Security benefits because of his government pension. As I recall, his pension payments were inordinately low at first, because they were under the mistaken impression that he was eligible to collect Social Security, and they corrected it when they learned that he wasn't.

I may have to ask him for details. He certainly paid into the system throughout his 30-year USPS career, and at a relatively high rate when he was a Postmaster.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08 September 2008, 12:39 AM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Furious View Post
I may be completely wrong about this, but I vaguely recall a conversation with my dad in which he indicated that he is not eligible for Social Security benefits because of his government pension. As I recall, his pension payments were inordinately low at first, because they were under the mistaken impression that he was eligible to collect Social Security, and they corrected it when they learned that he wasn't.
It could be that he participated in a separate retirement system, CSRS, maybe?

Quote:
I may have to ask him for details. He certainly paid into the system throughout his 30-year USPS career, and at a relatively high rate when he was a Postmaster.
If CSRS was the system he is covered by, he did not pay into SS.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08 September 2008, 12:50 AM
KKHB
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
It could be that he participated in a separate retirement system, CSRS, maybe?



If CSRS was the system he is covered by, he did not pay into SS.
It could be that he did both.
Quote:
Retirement—Postal Service career employees, like federal career employees, are covered by one of three retirement systems administered by OPM: the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and by CSRS Offset. FERS is a retirement system with both defined benefit and defined contribution components. Under FERS, employees receive retirement benefits from a federal retirement annuity, Social Security, and the Thrift Savings Plan. The FERS annuity benefit, while also based on an employee’s high-three average salary and years of service, produces a smaller benefit than CSRS does. CSRS is a defined benefit retirement system. Annuity benefits are based on an employee’s high-three average salary and years of service. CSRS Offset is similar to CSRS but requires Social Security contributions. Upon Social Security eligibility, the CSRS annuity is reduced by any Social Security benefit resulting from periods of CSRS Offset service, to produce a benefit equivalent to what would have been received under CSRS.
http://www.federaldaily.com/postal/overview.htm
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08 September 2008, 12:52 AM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KKHB View Post
If he did both, he'd be eligible for both, though. Or should be. It depends on when he retired and how long he'd paid into SS.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08 September 2008, 12:53 AM
Judecat's Avatar
Judecat Judecat is offline
 
Join Date: 24 January 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 714
Default

I do know that my MIL, at age 76 is still a full time Psyciatrist - and when I questioned why she was getting Social Security I was told that there is not an option to refuse it. After a certain age you're getting social securty whether you need it or not.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08 September 2008, 12:56 AM
KKHB
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
If he did both, he'd be eligible for both, though. Or should be. It depends on when he retired and how long he'd paid into SS.
Yes, but the amount would be offset so that it was the same as just the CSRS. The confusion in amounts and whether or not he was eligible for SS that Mr. Furious described, led me to believe it is likely that he did both and it took some fiddling for the offsets etc. to get it right.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08 September 2008, 01:51 AM
Mr. Furious's Avatar
Mr. Furious Mr. Furious is offline
 
Join Date: 13 January 2001
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 12,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
If he did both, he'd be eligible for both, though. Or should be. It depends on when he retired and how long he'd paid into SS.
He retired late in 2004. As for the rest, I'll have to ask.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.