Talk:Social security

Human rights NA‑class High‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Process for the disabled

No mention here of the "social security process" for the disabled, it can take an disabled individual 6 months to several years to get SSA and SSI. I would recomend a lawyer at the earliest stage!!! gilgameshfuel, nov 16, 2004

Social Security cards

What about social security cards, what you use your number for, and how it identifies you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.165 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 December 2004 (UTC) hala! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.215.203 (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security Reform?

Is there any int

Headline text

erest in adding a secfadafasfadafddafafdaffdafation on social security reform? I think that a discussion and addition would be of great benefit. If so should I start a new page or add it to this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francm (talk • contribs) 00:11, 14 January 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SS fund is going broke since the US government is bliking it

Roosevelt promised that SS benefits will never be taxed. Well, they are, and heavily. If ones income exceeds $44,000/year, the benefits are taxed at an 85% rate. I have no problem telling the 'well endowed' that their income disqualifies them from full benefits, and reduce the SS amounts to equate the net that would have been retained by the beneficiary. The payment of full benefits to the retiree and have the US government take it away as taxes is simply dipping into the SS fund through the beneficiary who is serving as a conduit for that robbery. I wrote letter to the Alameda Papers, in California, to Pete Stark, a congressman, to Feinstein, a senator, but they all keep MUM, why? Amos Picker --The preceding comment was added by Picker1 17:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoor Relief

Outdoor relief redirects here. Outdoor relief is a (predominantly 19th century) term for social security to be contrasted with indoor relief which involved people who required assistance receiving it in workhouses. That's more or less all that can be said about outdoor relief - not enough for its own article but there's no sensible place for it in this one without creating a huge 'history of social security' section, which I haven't the knowledge to do. Suggestions? See Talk:Poor Law for why this came up --Cherry blossom tree 21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a stub for this type of poor relief see outdoor relief 195.93.21.9 19:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security cap

According to the Trustees' report, an increase of 1.89 percent in the Social Security payroll tax would keep the account full for the next 75 years. To achieve similar results, benefits would have to be cut 13 percent. My question is how much higher would the present $90,000 cap have to be raised to have the same result? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musichouse (talk • contribs) 05:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding what Social Security is

We have no idea where people get the idea that there is a retirement account, or retirement insurance in their name building up for their own retirement. Sure some people call it “the Social Security retirement program” or “retirement insurance” and the “I” in “FICA” stands for insurance, but the Social Security Act of 1935 describes no such account or retirement system. Said Act does describe the Social Security General Trust Fund, which is a fund dedicated to meeting the general expenses of the United States Government and it is kept together with all of the other general funds held by the United States Government. When people say, “We want to close out our social security accounts with a full refund.” There is no such account existent. To clarify funds deposited in the Social Security General Trust Fund are not refundable. Its accounts are depository in nature, meaning that they are collections at debt to the United States general depository funds (the person making such deposits has no right to them, whatsoever).

From all available evidences (which are significant), the relationship most people have with the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) is that the SSA created a Trust at the person's request (i.e. Creator = SSA; Beneficiary = General Trust Fund; Trustee = the person for whom the application was made). As a matter of law the Trustee can never threaten the Beneficiary (i.e. the depository account in the Beneficiary's fund is not yours and it is not the Trust's and there is nothing there that will ever be “returned” to you under any condition). Some people would allege the relationship shown here is either not a trust at all or is a “cestui que trust” in nature. To resolve forever such foolish allegations we respond with the following:

As to the allegation that the relationship is not a trust at all, we note that on application the SSA creates a name and account number then they send a social security card to the person for whom the application for the relationship was made. In the code it plainly states, ‘the card does not belong to the person'. This fact is made quite clear either with a statement on the back of the card, or in the documents that come with the card, or both. Now notice, if the card does not belong to you, it must belong to someone; and if it belongs to someone it must have value; further the card is held by the person that it was sent to; as a matter of law it cannot be used, or be compelled to be used, as identification; further, the person the card was sent to is the only person that has ever had any authority to use the name and number on that card for the purposes of transacting any business relationship of any kind. Now we ask you, “What is the nature of the relationship we just described here?” Remember, the definition of a trust is any situation where one person is in control of, or holds, a thing for, or in the benefit of, another person. Is that not exactly the situation described by the factual relationship demonstrated by the SSA when they send that card out and request the person that receives it to hold it in recognition of their capacity in relationship the SSA created on application? The answer is undeniably, “Yes!” We rest the case of the nature of that relationship and any contest to the same—it is a Trust.

Now we address that allegation that said application for a relationship with the SSA creates a “cestui que trust”. In this allegation it is important to notice that its promoters would have you believe that you are the person related to in the “cestui que” nature of the trust. So let's first discover the plain English definition of “cestui que trust”; it is an Anglo~French phrase, literally meaning: “he for whom (the) trust (is held)”. In other words, it means the Beneficiary of a trust. Now, return to the last paragraph, and notice what your capacity would be in relation to any such trust. Are you the one that controls its activities (employment, bank accounts, etc.), or are you the Beneficiary? The answer is quite simple and was already related in the last paragraph. Your capacity is the one that holds the card, the Trustee, not the Beneficiary. Further, every court case that has ever gone before the United States Supreme Court attempting to compel forth the person’s interest in “their Social Security funds” that have accumulated in their interest has come down with the same ruling, there are no such funds—the program is not a retirement program, it is not an insurance program, there are no funds held secured for them of any relation to their participation in the Social Security program. Therefore, we rest the allegation that you are the subject of some “cestui que trust” relationship as the Beneficiary of such a trust, there is a “cestui que trust” relationship as there is in any trust—that is, all trusts have a Beneficiary; in this case the Beneficiary is the United States government's General Trust Fund, not you. If people are looking for a tax refund, by challenging the Social Security program, they are barking up the wrong tree in this relationship; it is unlawful for the Trustee to threaten the Beneficiary in any Trust. The way to get IRS collected tax refunds is to file IRS returns in accord with IRS regulations, using the proper Office of Management and Budget authorized IRS forms.

The aformentioned goes through the factual elements proving the trust relationship that was created by Social Security Administration when they issued the Social Security Card to the individual that uses the name and account number printed on it in commerce and industry. Accepting the factual nature of such trusts then reexamine who the party that purchased the car was — did that person at any step of the process use its Social Security number on any of the documents in either acquiring or applying for the Title Insurance (Certificate of Title) with the Corp. State or thereafter registering the car with Corp. State? If they did, then the records would show you the man did not own or acquire the car (unless you subsequently received it from that trust). And, what is a trust? It is a business entity that holds property in trust for its actual or equitable owner, the Beneficiary — Corp. U.S. Now that realization should be a real eye opener. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigenous1778 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about enumeration?

Enumeration is not mentioned- it is an important comcept and might be included in future revisions. Valerie 03:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revision to first paragraph

Attempts to clarify

Protection is offered, not automatically given
Tax is automatic, not optional
Mandatory support is for those in need,
Social Security is not an annuity

Current Content

Social security primarily refers to a field of social welfare concerned with social protection, or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment, families with children, and others. In fact, Social security refers to a slightly broader concept compared with social protection, but some publications use them interchangeably.

Proposed change

Social security primarily refers to a field of social welfare “wherein the individuals of a society are offered protection from recognized conditions in turn for all working individuals’ mandatory support of those in the society in needing “ protection against “those same” socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment, families with children and others. In fact, Social security refers to a slightly broader concept compared with social protection, but some publications use them interchangeably.” --65.80.255.90 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about social security in the world, not the particular rules of social security in the United States. None of the proposed points is generally true for all countries. Social security is not necessarily tax financed; many European countries have independent or quasi-autonomous funding arrangements. In several Scandinavian countries social security was not compulsory until the early 1990s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.42.153 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Social Protection

Old merge proposal that seems never to have been discussed. No opinion. Pairadox 17:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Net Worth of the Social Security system?

Does anybody know what the net worth (total assets minus total liability) of the social security system is? You would think that this information would be public but I'm having a hard time finding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.68.47 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get any kind of reasonable answer to that question you'd need to define your terms - do you mean net worth to the individual or the the country affected? Which country? Because that would affect the answer quite considerably. Would you include medical care? Social housing? Housing payments/rent? Unemployment benefits, sicknes benefits, disability benefits... the list is endless.

--Lexin (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a tax or is it a contribution?

When you pay this out what kind of money is it? a tax or a contriubtion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.248.139 (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some teachers exempt from paying into SS ?

It appears that teachers can avoid paying into social security... If you're a teacher in the following states:

Alaska Maine California Massachusetts Colorado Minnesota Connecticut Missouri Illinois Nevada Kentucky Ohio Louisiana Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.248.139 (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

The hatnote is unnecessary and provides undue weight these programs174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many people think "Social Security" means the name of the social security program in their own country. They come here looking for information about that specific program. The hatnote enables them to go immediately to the article they really want, without having to wade through this entire article and get to the "See also" section. JamesMLane t c 22:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is national insurance included?174.3.99.176 (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's have the hatnote list all and only the national programs that have "Social Security" in their titles. In the body of the text, delinking Social Security (United States) makes the link less useful to the reader; repetitive linking is allowed where the earlier link occurred some distance away in a different section. So we should re-link that reference and add a section about "Social security around the world" or the like, which would have all the wikilinks to articles about national programs, with no such links in "See also". That should be less work than it sounds like. I'll tackle it tomorrow. JamesMLane t c 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]