Talk:Social Security (United States)/Archive 2

Congress and passage of this Act

There doesn't seem to be any footnotes to the vote counts and names of the Congresspeople who decided on the bill and its revisions. Other, modern bills have this in their articles; does anyone know where to include that information from? 98.234.188.161 (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about accuracy of 'full faith'

Is this fact accurate?

"Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

On its face, this appears to be an assurance of some materially significant, legally binding promise.

But on further consideration, it seems to be a problematic statement when the owner and the issuer of the bond are the same person or legal entity, as in this case. When the US Government redeems a bond issued by the US Government, no wealth is transferred. Instead, it seems to me that only a bookkeeping transaction occurs, one which has no external effect. From the point of view of the taxpayer or the SS beneficiary, it seems that nothing at all has happened. So it is difficult for me to understand what legal weight a guarantee carry if it is basically a guarantee that a non-transfer will occur. It seems not to be a materially significant promise at all.

To put it another way, if this guarantee is backed by the law, does it mean that, if the US Government failed to deliver money to itself at maturity of the bond, it could sue itself and expect to collect the money from itself? It sounds absurd, like something a court would not even entertain.

Mark.camp (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, full faith and credit is a clause in the Constitution. Juggalo1010 (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutionality of Social Security

I just added this section; I haven't done much wikipedia editting before, but though I'd start here with a short summary of the constitutionality of social security. The bulk of my information was gathered from the website which I quote at the end. I am of course open to any discussion and/or changes that are necessary. I tried to follow the format of the above as far as the way references are cited, but couldn't quite figure it out. When I have time again I'll see if I can go back and clean it up; assuming someone else hasn't taken care of it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiksilverhg (talk • contribs) on 4 January 2007.

Nozick as a crank on taxation and Social Security. The reason is that he is an expert in philosophy as in ideal societies but not on the Social Security program or tax law. When he makes statements amounting to tax law jurisprudence, he is out of his league. Epstein is a legal scholar also, but he limits his analysis to the counterfactual world in which the New Deal court did not rule against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chivista (talk • contribs) on 5 January 2007.

The characterization of the Epstein position on taxes is incorrect. He does not believe all taxes are unconstitutional, but I know Epstein believes Social Security is dead unconstitutional. I'll take a bit of time to track down the precise argument. Mgunn 21:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein believes that taxes should be viewed as takings. But he does not deny that the tax laws are constiutional. He only thinks that the decisions that made them so are illogical or bad policy, not that the laws are invalid. Epstein is law abiding. Please do NOT protray him as someone advocating the defying of federal tax law. Chivista 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original article by John Attarian that I linked to (which apparently has been taken out) did a very good job of explaining why he considers social security to be unconstitutional. You can find it here ~~QuiksilverHg 5-Jan-07

Not to put a TOO FINE point on it -- Epstein is NOT advocating breaking the law. He believes that you would go to jail for failing to pay your tax on FICA. His belief in unconstitutionality is not based on Social Security in particular but the entire Commerce Clause basis for Congressional authority in general, but that does not mean he believes what is and is not constitutional as what he believes as a goiod argument, but that the current law is the law. He thinks it is wrong, not that it is not law. I cannot emphaisize enough how important it is to pay your taxes. He is not a tax resister. Chivista 14:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caution not to Defame of Epstein

Any argument that he is a tax resister would be wrong and possibily defamatory and actionable. He is merely analysing the arguments for the tax and spending authority based on the commerclause. Epstein is not advocatoing breaking the tax law. Please do not constryue any mistaken statemnet about SS's professed unconstitutionality (untrue) cannot be said to be advocacy of lawlessness. :( Chivista 14:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous comment

to the writer of this article. Could you please include the following. 1. Is your income for tax purposes calculated before or after your social security deduction has been deducted. ie. Is your contribution before or after tax 2. You are presumably earning interest on your contribution which, as I understand it, is kept in a government bond. What percent are you earning and is it taxed. If so how much (your marginal tax rate for instance). 3. When you take your money out at retirement, how is it taxed. Does the remainder you have not taken out remain in the scheme and continue to earn interest. Many thanks whg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.174.66 (talk) 14:19, March 5, 2007

1. The employee's income before any deduction is called the gross income. The various taxes such as Social Security, Medicare, State Disability Insurance, etc. are each deducted as a percentage of the gross income. After all the deductions, one is left with the net income.

3. When one receives paychecks from the U.S. Social Security Administration upon retirement, it (s/he) does not pay any taxes as far as I know since it isn't working and does not pay taxes a 2nd time. Furthermore, some people receive more money during their retirement than they payed into the system while others receive less money. This is because the Social Security accounts are not entirely privatized.--71.105.27.126 08:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the system is not privatized, the concept of interest being paid to a specific individual account simply doesn't arise. In years when the system as a whole enjoys a surplus (FICA taxes received exceed benefits paid out), the surplus is invested in U.S. government securities, but the interest payable is credited to the system as a whole, not to any individual. Social Security benefits paid to a retiree are partially taxable under certain circumstances. The details are complicated. It's mentioned in passing at Social Security (United States). A fuller explanation would improve the article but would be a lot of work and might well become outdated. JamesMLane t c 11:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Income tax applies to gross income, not income net of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. (There may be adjustments for 401(k) contributions and other employee benefits, but I won't get into that here.)

2. "Your contribution" isn't yours. It's pooled together with everybody else's contributions to (a) pay current retirees' benefits and (b) put some money aside to pay future retirees' benefits. The money that's put aside for the future is invested in Treasury bonds, as you wrote, but (as JamesMLane wrote) it doesn't belong to individuals, it belongs to the Social Security system.

3. In general, your Social Security benefit is not taxable if your total income (from all sources) is less than $25,000 (individual return) or $32,000 (joint return). Again, as JamesMLane wrote, a portion of your Social Security benefit is taxable if your income exceeds these limits. I think these amounts are indexed every year for inflation.

I'm not qualified to give tax advice, so please don't take my word for any of this. Read the instructions to your tax forms carefully and consult a tax professional for advice. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edit: Loss of jobs vs. Loss of workers

Watersoftheoasis recently changed this sentence:

It was controversial when originally proposed, with one point of opposition being that it would cause a loss of jobs.

to this:

It was controversial when originally proposed, with one point of opposition being that it would cause a loss of workers. However, this would also free up more jobs for the unemployed.

I reverted the edit because I think Watersoftheoasis may misunderstand the criticism. The criticism was similar to today's complaint about a higher minimum wage: if employers have to pay payroll taxes in addition to employees' wages, they will hire fewer workers (i.e., fewer jobs).

I think Watersoftheoasis is referring to another phenomenon of Social Security, which was an intentional benefit of the program. By encouraging older workers to retire (i.e, by providing them with old-age pensions), they will leave the workforce and create opportunities for younger workers, which helps lower the unemployment rate. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up needed

This article has accumulated a number of sub-sections which are placed in illogical sections. I am proposing that the article be rearranged along the following lines:

Intro section. Pretty good, leave as is

History. Move subsection "Joining and Quitting Social Security". It doesn't belong here. Possibly should go under "Current Operations" section. Also move section "Federal income taxation of benefits" to new Taxation section (see below). Also should add a section on when various classes of workers were first required to be covered by the Social Security program, that is, when they were required to start paying taxes into the Social Security System.

Retirement benefits. Rename to "Retirement, Auxiliary, Survivors, and Disability benefits" and incorporated the sub-sections from the following section "Other benefits". Also need to clarify that children of a retired, disabled, or deceased worker can receive benefits.

Other benefits. Delete section and incorporate subsections as above.

Current Operations: As noted, the section on joining and quitting should possibly go here. The section about private pensions should probably be moved to the article Social Security debate (United States) (however see below regarding Social Security debate info in this article). Section on the Social Security Trust fund should remain here. Section "Social security tax on wages and self-employment income" should be moved to new "Taxation" section. Move sections on "Double Dipping" and "International agreements" to this section.

Social Security Number. This section should be about the Social Security number, not a catch-all for miscellaneous information. The section "Groups not covered by Social Security" should be changed to "Groups not currently required to pay Social Security taxes" and moved to new Taxation section. As noted above, "Double Dipping" and "International agreements" should be moved to "Current Operations". "Restrictions on potentially deceptive communications" should be moved to "Fraud". This section should cover the enumeration process, and the use of the SSN as a personal identifier.

OHA and ODAR. Leave as is.

Demographic and Revenue Projections. Leave as is or move to "Current Operations"

Taxation (new section). As noted, this section would cover both taxation of Social Security benefits, and the collection of the FICA taxes to fund the system.

Current Controversies (new section). Should include a brief summary of the debate over privatization, with a reference to Social Security debate (United States) as the main article.

Court interpretation of the Act to provide benefits. Leave as is.

Constitutionality of Social Security. Leave as is.

Fraud. As noted, move "Restrictions on potentially deceptive communications" to this section.

See also. Leave as is

Notes. Can someone fix notes 21 and 22?

Bibliography and External Links. Leave as is

Vgranucci 07:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since nobody seems to be objecting, I'm going to jump right in and start. Vgranucci 03:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes as noted above. I also decided to move "OHA and ODAR" to the "Current Operations section. I'm still not happy with the "Current Controvery" section. And the screwy notes are now 24 and 25. If anyone knows how to fix those, please do. Vgranucci 05:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is totally misleading. It is supposed to be about the United States Social Security, which is reasonable assumed to be about the program and policty of the SS system. Therefore, it can have nothing whatsoever to do with any welfare programs, except in the abstract, nor can it have anything to do with medical coverage or unemployment. These things do not apply. This article needs extreme rewriting. - KitchM (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people here want the article to be one sided and biased.

I've added some stuff, with sources, that are criticl of Social Security. But some people here keep erasing it. You're not supposed to erase stuff that is sourced and documented. Grundle2600 16:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's your POV interpretations that are the problem. There was no "fraud". The document cited was correct BASED ON THE LAW AT THAT TIME. The fact that the law was later changed does not constitute retroactive fraud. Your citation only illustates that the writers of informational pamphets and such need to be careful about words like always, never, forever.

As for the fact that federal employees were not covered by Social Security until 1984, that is covered in the history section. Giving it an additional separate section constitutes undue weight. Vgranucci 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grundle2600, Vgranucci is correct in saying that your interpretations of the pamphlet and tax rates are the original research. Specifically, your interpretation that the original statement was a "promise" and the subsequent change of the tax rate constituted "fraud" are your own original interpretations. The Wikipedia No Original Research policy (NOR) specifically prohibits this type of synthesis:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Regarding your argument itself: fraud is a deception that induces someone into doing something. The 1936 pamphlet cannot have defrauded voters, because it was not an attempt to convince voters to support the enactment of the Social Security Act—the Act had already had already been enacted. Yes, Congress later raised the tax rate—but it did so by publicly changing the law. If enough voters had decided that Congress should have kept to its original tax rate, then the Senators and Representatives who enacted the increase would have been voted out of office and new representatives voted in to change it. The fact that Congress changed the law is no more fraud than it is fraud for a landlord to promise a certain rent level in a contract, and then later re-negotiate the contract with the renter to increase the rent.

Your focus on the original exemption of federal employees gives that exemption undue weight. Read the section Dates of coverage for various workers. Originally large portions of the public were exempt from Social Security, including: farm & domestic workers, self-employed persons (including doctors and lawyers), U.S. citizens employed overseas, ministers, employees of non-profit organizations, and state and local government employees. Federal government employees were only one of many groups exempted from coverage. Your statements about the "politicians who created Social Security exempt[ing] themselves from the tax" are your own point of view, with the bias magnified by the undue weight you give the federal government employee exemption. (By the way, at the time Social Security was created, most federal government employees made mandatory contributions to a pension plan, the Civil Service Retirement System. They did not simply escape the burden of retirement taxes; they had a parallel system.) — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to economics professor Walter Williams talking about the promise regarding the maximum tax rate.

The fact that the politicans who created Social Security exempted themselves from having to pay the tax is a huge thing - it definitley deserves its own section. Grundle2600 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1983 amendments

I changed the heading to delete the reference to the 1983 amendments having created the trust fund. I believe that the Social Security trust fund itself was created long before the 1983 amendments. Also, I didn't see anything in this section that even talked about creation of the trust fund. Famspear 17:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Loss of jobs" is an UNTRUE statement

I've studied the history of the Great Depression in-depth and this uncited statement is untrue: "It was controversial when originally proposed, with one point of opposition being that it would cause a loss of jobs."

In fact, it was the opposite. The whole reason for Social Security was to get older workers off of payrolls, in order to make room for younger workers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.253.230 (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both statements are true. When Social Security was proposed, business groups opposed it on the grounds that the payroll tax would raise the cost of labor and result in a loss of jobs. Sound familiar? It's the same argument that's made every time an increase in the minimum wage is proposed.

On the other hand, as you wrote, one of the "selling points" of Social Security was that it would encourage older workers to leave employment, thereby creating opportunities for younger people to find jobs. This would lower unemployment levels, but I don't know that it was expected to increase the number of jobs.

If you think the statement in the article is untrue, since it's uncited you can delete it. As an alternative, you can add {{fact}} after it, which is basically a challenge for other editors to find a source to support it. Please include your statement, with sources, if you have any. If you think my explanation, though unsourced, seems plausible, you can rewrite the section to describe the two conflicting points of view. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, thanks for clearing that up. I edited the entry to say this: "It was controversial when originally proposed, with one point of opposition being that it would cause a loss of jobs. Proponents, however, argued that that was in fact an advantage: it would encourage older workers to retire, thereby creating opportunities for younger people to find jobs, which would lower the unemployment rate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.254.94 (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hello. I added one word of emphasis to say "can receive disability" in place of "can receive disability". Also I added a "citations missing" tag. OK in advance from my point of view to remove or change either of these edits. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This edit was made claiming there was vandalism. I read it over and looked at the link added. I think it didn't belong there, but it wasn't vandalism, it was just a highly POV edit. Just thought I would note that.KV(Talk) 15:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penalizes the poor and middle-class

This section needs a lot of work. I had not heard this claim before, despite being around people who would be very quick to claim something like that, so I highly doubt that critics often point to that. Most critics tend to criticize it on the other side from my experience. But that's exactly why the weasel wording needs to be fixed, what critics? You have to get a fact for "most". KV(Talk) 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The updated version is markedly better. It even mentions the regressive taxation that I have heard mentioned. Props to the contributor. KV(Talk) 18:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair to mention this "controversy" without mentioning the counter-criticism that Social Security discriminates heavily against the wealthy (which is true, I'm sorry to say).

The Social Security taxe rate is the same 6.2% whether you make $30,000/year or $90,000/year, but the payout for the latter person is far less than 3 times as much. See http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/piaformula.html for an explanation of bend points and how they produce this effect. Also note that while Social Security taxes are not paid above a certain income threshold, benefits are not paid above the corresponding benefit threshold either. In short, Social Security provides far more bang for your buck if you make less money, as do all government programs.

This talk of "regressive" taxation is meaningless; the benefit does not rise in proportion to the tax paid. The same is true of Medicare; the benefit is exactly the same whether you pay tax on $10,000/year or $100,000/year, so it's obviously a worse deal the more you make.

This criticism somewhat overlaps the "low rate of return" criticism, which is definately valid and also disproportionately affects the rich because they would be more likely to invest their money if they didn't have to pay Social Security taxes.

I think we need to either remove or include both sides of the criticism to maintain neutral POV. If no one objects I'll gather official sources and make the addition. Shamanix (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

scan over this

Retirement Insurance Benefits. I pretty much wrote the whole thing so far, and I'm sure it's dry. Surely someone watching this page can spice it up some. I have not touched the historical changes or anything like that there, yet. KV(Talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR Claim

Malik Shabazz is claiming that certain information is Original Research as per WP:SYNTH, which states that if because A and B, therefore C, would be OR unless the reliable sources stated this. The actual edits made from the SSA, were from me here, I took what was already being claimed by someone else and cited, and then I clarified what was being said as they relate to the benefits, adding citations for my changes. These edits were in no way trying to advance any position C, in fact C was already there and cited, I simply added A's and B's which clarified, but did not support position C, nor do they appear to support C. They simply clarify what the Social Security Act allows for or does not allow for.

In fact, because I am editting these Social Security articles from a computer owned by the Social Security Administration, using the connection, while an employee of the Social Security Administration, I am only making edits on a completely NPOV basis. And since the Hatch Act only prevents me from making comments to support the election or defeat of any candidates or parties or partisan political organizations, and does not restrict my stances on policy, I can tell you from here that I do not agree with the criticism itself even, I'm not about to be deleting it though, since that is not what I am here to do, pushing any POV relating to Social Security. I merely added clarification since the sentence misconstrued facts in its wording, misconstrued the source in the wording, and needed clarification. Since I foresaw this as a potential conflict from the original editor, I cited the changes.

In any event, the C was there and cited, it's only additional information that clarified the sentence that was added, not synthesizing sources to come up with a third conclusion.

KV(Talk) 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article claims that there is "Other research [that] asserts that this alleged offset is misleading", but it doesn't cite any such research. Instead, it makes a series of true statements about Social Security and draws its own conclusion ("this alleged offset is misleading"). That's synthesis. If there really is other research, it should be cited. If not, it doesn't belong here.

You say that C was already there and cited. I can't find any cite for C ("this alleged offset is misleading"). The only sources were an article from Reason that says that Social Security discriminates and an article from CNN/Money that doesn't mention Social Security. Neither of those sources back up the article's statement that "Other research asserts that this alleged offset is misleading". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems the problem is that the wording says "other research" rather than that one guy's name who was stating that. Personally, I don't even know why I'm bothering with this, seeing as my effort was just to not have people misled on benefit entitlement as it was worded in the original statement. KV(Talk) 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that alleged "rebuttal" about a progressive formula and survivor/disability benefits should included at all. It is not clear encyclopedic writing (a progressive formula still means the poor pay a higher percentage). More importantly, it does not rebut the critism about poor single people, and the purpose of the section is for criticisms and not Social Security sycophantism in the form of a rebuttal.--Swampyank (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? The poor may pay a higher percentage of total income, but if you compare how much they pay in vs. how much is paid out in a monthly benefit, they pay less than someone who earned a lot more. Whether or not the Primary Insurance Amount formula is progressive has absolutely no bearing on the amount they pay in. KV(Talk) 04:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swampyank, neither of the sources you added says what you claim, that the alleged offset is misleading. In the absence of verifiable "research [that] asserts that this alleged offset is misleading", the information is merely WP:SYNTH — a series of true statements that are being assembled to advance a new argument. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, neither of your sources claim the offset mitigates the effect on poor single people as stated in the initial criticism. A poor single person dying at 62 was the hypothetical not a married survivor. The supporting argument doesn't seem like it belongs there.--Swampyank (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No insurance program, private or social, is a "good deal" from the point of view of every individual. (What about the person who pays health insurance premiums and never gets sick, or the person who buys term life insurance and doesn't die during the coverage period?) That's why insurance is considered on a group basis, not an individual basis, and the research I cited was conducted on a group basis. If there is, in fact, "research [that] asserts that this alleged offset is misleading", cite it and let's move on. So long as your only references are sources concerning the eligibility criteria for Social Security benefits and the socio-economic characteristics of married couples, you're engaging in WP:OR. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No other "insurance" program is forcefully required for all taxpayers including poor wage earners, and no surviving insurance company has a "float" invested below the inflation rate. Systemic discrimination against large subsets (single/poor/minorities groups of individuals) of the population is surely a valid critism if substantiated. I'll try to rephrase the statement of "misleading" to please you assuming you have NPOV reasons for altering the criticism section. Sorry for any misunderstanding.--Swampyank (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways to opt out of social security, most notably for religious objection. The amish, for example, do not pay into social security based on a religious objection that they would not accept payments, since they would consider that charity to themselves. You may want to look into that more, but taxes already paid are non-refundable. KV(Talk) 14:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if changing your core religious convictions is an easy or ethical means of opting out, but obviously you're correct that there are exceptions (although poverty doesn't seem to be one). Most wage earners pay the tax ("premium"), it seems.--Swampyank (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security is a horrible deal for anyone who dies before collecting benefits regardless of income or marriage status. That's obvious. Same as other social programs for everyone who doesn't collect. That's a fundamental argument against socialism.

The point is, there are plenty of great arguments explaining how Social Security discriminates against the rich. If the "regressive tax" criticism is going to be cited, then the counter-criticisms must also be cited to maintain neutral POV. Instead of putting them in the same sub-category, though, they should be broken out into a new "criticism". Shamanix (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can someone define BENDPOINT

I've seen the term "bendpoint" referenced in the social benefit calculation discussions many times, but never seen it defined. I checked for that term in wikipedia and found no other reference than in this article, so it must not be a statistical term, or if it is, it must be rather obscure. The descriprption of the benefit calculation here is the best I've seen anywhere, but, still, I don't understand it because I don't know what a bendpoint is. Mulp (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for a usable definition. But essentially a bendpoint has to do with the graph of Average Indexed Monthly Earnings vs. % used. The bend points are the part in the graph where it "bends" so that you begin receiving a lower return on earnings past that point. I'm sure I can find a good definition in POMS. KV(Talk) 14:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few sources:

KV(Talk) 15:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should be able to get enough info to form an explanation from there. KV(Talk) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might suggest the following edit to explain bendpoints:

"Bendpoints designate the point at which the rates of return on a beneficiary's AIME change<ref>[http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2007-01.html Social Security Administration "Considerations for Potential Proposals to Change the Earliest Eligibility Age for Retirement"]</ref><ref>[https://s044a90.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0300605021!opendocument POMS RS 00605.021]</ref>. In 2008, the bendpoints for calculating the PIA are a change from 90% to 32% at $711 and a change to 15% at $4,288.<ref>[http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/COLA/bendpoints.html Social Security Administration "Benefit Formula Bend Points"]</ref><ref>[https://s044a90.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0300605021!opendocument POMS RS 00605.021]</ref>" KV(Talk) 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video link

The Presidents - A PBS American Experience series: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (free streaming video)

I haven't watched it, but I imagine it would be justified if it told the story of how social security began within it, significantly. Has anyone watched it? KV(Talk) 13:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression from the website is that PBS is promoting a series that will be available over the course of 2008. Specifically, the segment on FDR isn't yet available for watching. You're probably right that it will mention Social Security, but it has a lot of other stuff to cover in one program. (There was some sort of military action during his term, I think.) We need to wait until we can see the program before deciding whether it's worth linking. JamesMLane t c 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joining and quitting

I have begun tightening this up a bit, but the section on "Joining and quitting" still needs some work. The use of language in this section was a bit imprecise, and I think some concepts were being confused a bit. There is a difference between requiring or not requiring that a person have a social security number and requiring or not requiring that a person participate in the Social Security system created by the Social Security Act. The SSN is indeed required for U.S. federal income tax purposes and other federal tax purposes -- but those requirements are found not necessarily in the Social Security Act but rather in other federal statutes -- in particular in the Internal Revenue Code. I added a citation to one of the statutes. Famspear (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another language issue occurs in the sentence "Likewise, SSI is not an entitlement, because there is no right to SSI payments." I'm not sure how to fix it, exactly, but rights and entitlements are very different things, which I think is the point of the sentence but the use of the word 'right' confuses things. 76.105.238.158 (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote #5: Mid-session Review, Budget of the US Govt

I did a cursory scan of this particular footnote. Based on my quick scan, it's not apparent to me that this footnote supports the claim in parentheses that precedes the footnote in the article:

"(because the substantially larger military spending is currently provided in additional steps and also split in a few independent programs)"

Can someone point out to me where exactly this footnote supports that statement? The pie chart on page 4 and Table S-9 on page 34 both seem to suggest that spending on SS and defense are about equal. Also, I'm not even quite sure what the above statement means. Are you saying that part of the defense spending is classified in other departments (i.e. Treasury, Homeland Security)? Can you elaborate? ThanksElwood harvey (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excess funds

I would like to know what has happened to the excess funds that were collected in all of the years past and the ammount the US government owes the SSS/americans with interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.71.18 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, some basics. Like any national government, the US Government has expenditures every year which it funds by a combination of taxes, sales or leases of property, borrowing, and printing money. Because money is fungible (one dollar is the same as any other dollar) it is not possible to say where a particular tax dollar was spent. The answer to "where did the tax money go?" is "it was spent on whatever the US Government bought that year".

From your question it sounds as though you may have a conception (a common one) that SS is like a private pension or insurance program, with the SS payroll taxes being premiums that are then invested in income-producing assets, and that these assets are used to fund the payouts to retirees and other recipients. Although the language used, and the accounting method used, very definitely gives that impression ("trust fund", "invests in securities", etc.), there is only a superficial resemblance to a private pension plan, life insurance policy, or other retirement savings vehicle. As pointed out above, the payments are not actually invested; they are spent in the year received. The payouts to retirees and other beneficiaries are not funded by income from assets or by sale of assets, because that would be impossible--no assets were ever purchased so there is nothing to cash in and no investment income to use. The money paid to beneficiaries this year comes from taxes paid by working people this year (and from Government borrowing, money creation, or property sales as described above.)

So the Government doesn't truly "owe" anybody anything in the sense that a life insurance company or employer pension fund owes payments to its participants. It collected payroll taxes and it has no obligation to "pay back" the taxpayers. If the law this year says you are entitled to a SS retiree payment, then the Government must pay it accordingly, out of the revenue and borrowing it takes in this year.

Mark.camp (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trust Fund Data Investment Holdings as of August 8, 2011: http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/investheld.cgi

"Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government." : http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n7

This is a misrepresentation. The investments SS makes are, by definition, as safe as t-bills because SS only invests in t-bills. This does not mean, however, that an individual's SS retirement benefits are as safe as t-bills. While the law requires SS to invest in t-bills, it does not requre SS to turn the principle and interest over to SS recipients. At any time Congress can (and has in the past) reduced the benefits it had previously promised. Thus, *retirement benefits* are significantly less safe than t-bills. Wikiant (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Estimated net Social Security benefits under differing circumstances

This section seems to include a lot of value judgments ("inequitable"), and I wonder about its encyclopedic value. What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, I agree with you that the use of the word "inequitable" was inappropriate, and I have changed the wording to eliminate it. However, I don't see anything else that is particularly subjective, and I do believe the section provides very useful information.

Nicholas007 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just a word. This section is ringing the changes on the variables, and is inherently evaluative. There will be some who win and some who lose in any insurance scheme, depending on actuarial considerations, and this fact isn't very useful information. If you already know what will happen in your life, the outcome, of course it might make a personal difference.Fconaway (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only actuarial factor is the longevity difference between the genders. The other factors concern congressional policy. Congress established certain arbitrary benefit tiers (90, 32, and 15%), dependent upon one's average annual income. These different tiers explain why net benefits shift with income level. In 1939 (4 years after SS was created) a spousal benefit was added because it was presumed that men with wives needed additional retirement income support. The spousal benefit is very costly to the system, and can have the effect of shifting benefits to high earners. This is why some have advocated means testing the spousal benefit. In addition, FICA rates have varied over the years, and this explains why future retirees can expect to get a lower net benefit. These are policy factors - not merely actuarial differences. IMO, an intelligent debate regarding SS (and possible reform) is not possible unless we consider these factors. Nicholas007 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Social Security (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Delisted

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. Although many inline citations are present, there are several sections that lack citations and there are many "citation needed" tags throughout the article (some date back to March 2007) as well as other cleanup tags. In addition, the lead needs to be cleaned up (see WP:LEAD for guidelines). Add additional sources from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. Although it has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you need assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What program am I thinking of?

Wasn't there a Social Security program that worked essentially like a government-sanctioned pension program? Something that you can start drawing from at the age of 65? What's that called?--Wikieditor1988 (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security provides old-age pensions. See Retirement Insurance Benefits for more information. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privtization

The article says "Because of concerns about the program's solvency ..."

Some who advocate privatization may cite such a concern as being their motivation but saying that doesn't make it so. It surely is visible to almost everyone that Social Security has had enemies since its inception. I'd say that the quoted wording violates NPOV by treating as fact the cover story used by those unalterably opposed to a government-run Social Security program. Those wishing to establish NPOV should note that the category of those who cite solvency problems as a reason to reduce or eliminate the existing Social Security are largely the same ones who would be most aggressive about not funding Social Security in a way that recognizes (or is made necessary by) demographic changes in the US. In other words, their warnings are warnings about themselves. Their warning is "Let us destroy Social Security by privatizing it or we will destroy it by underfunding it." That attitude does not reflect a real concern for the retirement security of working Americans. I'm clearly not qualified to alter the wording to adhere to NPOV. I hope someone else can do it. 66.222.28.8 (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd say that the quoted wording violates NPOV by treating as fact the cover story used by those unalterably opposed to a government-run Social Security program."

While it can't be considered fact until after it occurs, solvency is a reality recognized by the government (Government Accountability Office, starts on page 26). Please read WP's NPOV policies. "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. Also, it doesn't represent a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view — it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints." NPOV is providing a balance of viewpoints and the fact is that there is a large percentage of people concerned about insolvency. According to this poll/article, 62% (vs. 30) of polled persons were skeptical about SS's ability to pay future benefits. Using the phrase "Because of concerns..." is valid as it reflects the public opinion towards the subject when it is editorially necessary. IBstupid (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a projection (disputed by some experts) of a solvency problem. It's certainly a reality that there are current concerns by some people about possible future solvency issues. The existence of the concerns is undeniable. The assertion that the concerns caused the proposed changes is not undeniable, and so should not be reported as fact. The article reports the stated concerns and arguments of those who favor changes in the system. We are not required, or even permitted, to adopt as fact their self-serving statements about their own motivations. JamesMLane t c 03:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move of article

An editor has moved Social Security (United States) to Social Security in the United States without any talk page discussion. The ES says: "moved Talk:Social Security (United States) to Talk:Social Security in the United States: Per consistency with other articles. Science and technology in the United States is not Science and technology (United States), nor is [[Transportation i".

The analogy doesn't hold. There are generic topics like "science and technology" and "transportation" (note lack of capitalization in ordinary usage. The term "social security" can also be used generically. This article, however, is about Social Security, not social security. It's about a specific program -- a program of the United States Government. The former name, which has been in place for some time, is more accurate.

I've reverted the move. If there's much sentiment for the move, those favoring it should start a discussion here before implementing any move. JamesMLane t c 03:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your rationale for moving the article back. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic and revenue projections

I've just reverted 2 edits to this section which i felt violated WP:NPOV. Although one was sourced, the edits were worded so as to evoke "chicken-little" reactions. The Social Security projections are intended to take into account longer term economic factors than the current economic downturn alone. Vgranucci (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of demographic expectations, the paragraph on life expectancy uses life expectancy at birth. Since people who die before entering the labor force do not participate financially in Social Security, and it is widely accepted that life expectancy at birth, as a statistic, is extremely sensitive to infant mortality, this parapgraph needs revision. In addition, it makes sense to base the statistic from the original establishment of social security in 1935 when initial estimates were made, not 1900. There is an external chart of life expectancy by age for the U.S.A. sourced in the life expectancy article. Age 20 might be a good column to use for death benefits, and age 65 for retirement benefits. (Also this paragraph and others are oddly indented from the main text with little explanation.) (76.118.216.33 (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

ponzi scheme

With respect to the archive that touched on social security being a ponzi scheme I highly doubt using the governments sources are good enough to be sourcing on the article. While Wikipedia does permit self-sourcing it's the US government we are talking about here.

Just like in the yearly letters they send out telling you the program isn't broke. Yep SSI isn't broke, in the US Governments world Amtrak, the postal service, general motors, fannie mae, freddie mac are all stellar examples of fiscally responsible company's that are just fine.Woods01 (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Motors isn't a government program... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.183.234 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--It may not be exactly a ponzi scheme, but as more and more people withdraw and less pay in, the system will collaps... We're already seeing it being downsized to provent that! I didn't notice anything about it in the article, but I think it's children born after 2012 will get a lesser payment than those born before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.182.254 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is exactly a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is one in which current investors' money is used to pay off past investors. This is exactly how Social Security works. There is no POV here -- it's simply the definition of "ponzi". Wikiant (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--It's not a Ponzi scheme, it's an insurance program; and more to the point, an insurance program in which current and future policyholders are required by law to pay into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H870rce (talk • contribs) 19:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely calling it an "insurance program" doesn't change the fundamental characteristics of how it is financed and administered. Those characteristics are the same as a Ponzi scheme. If I were running a Ponzi scheme, with current contributors as the source of cash flow for current recipients, I would happily call it an "insurance program" if I didn't have to recruit new contributors but simply require all employees and employers to join. Furthermore, if I could periodically increase the contribution rate (say, from 1% each to 6.2% each, just as SS has done), I would be more than happy: I'd be ecstatic! But wait, there's more! What if I could periodically increase the wage base upon which the contribution rate was based? Now that's a Ponzi scheme I'd love to be running!Tdhfool (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Tom Hinson[reply]

-- It is a Ponzi scheme because the payouts to individuals are in excess of their contributions (duly adjusted for returns). If I pay $100 into a fund, and it pays me out $200 after 20 years when the actualy return on my investment was $50 over the same period, the fund has to make up for the additional $50 from somewhere. When that 'gap' is made up for by taking the contributions of the new entrants into the fund, it is called a pyramid scheme (Ponzi being a famous instance of that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.127.253.12 (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--- A little off the subject, but from the article here on Freddie mac and Fannie mae, they were put under "conservatorship of the U.S. Federal government on Sunday, September 7, 2008." If they were "stellar examples of fiscally resposibilty," They'd still be fine as a private company and wouldn't need the government to "bail" them out! The fact is, it's the tax payers are the ones that have to pay the companies bills now... It's only because Freddie mac and Fannie mae are so important to house and loan mortgages that the government "bailed" them out, any other company would be out of business... Wichovia is prime example! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.61.82 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--- The idea that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme" is clearly politically rhetoric and the comparison should be removed from any reasonable discussion of the history or merits of Social Security. A Ponzi scheme is fraudulently paying current investors with the money coming in from newly recruited investors instead of actual returns. Once the amount coming in from new recruits can no longer pay the promised amount being paid to current investors, the scheme collapses. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go government mandated insurance program. Yes, money from current workers is used to pay benefits to current recipients, but money collected in excess of that is placed in a fund that invests in Treasury bonds. There is nothing illegal about it. Congress has the power to tax and use that money for whatever Constitutional purposes it sees fit. The program has passed Supreme Court challenges and been ruled Constitutional. The process is transparent. Income is subject to fluctuations in population, inflation, and unemployment, but Congress has attempted to face these challenges since the program’s inception. There are certainly problems with Social Security that need to be examined and discussed, but comparing it to a Ponzi scheme is not worthy of an academic look at the history this program.Concerned citizen LA (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned citizen LA's analysis is correct for a 'reasonable discussion' between policy wonks, but please remember that this encyclopedia is for all, and not just subject experts. Since this article isn't just for academics who already understand why the comparison is rhetorical, it's vital that it be discussed in order that this difference be explained. To the lay person, the comparison is either compelling or confusing. It must be described. --Wragge (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--- In the main article it says "One criticism of the analogy is that while Ponzi schemes and Social Security have similar structures they have different transparencies. In a Ponzi scheme the fact there is no return generating mechanism beyond just contributions from new entrants is obscured"

How is the transparency relevant to anything? For instance, if someone is intelligent enough to know that social security is a ponzi scheme there is no way that they can decide to stop paying into it and opt out. If someone were try not paying social security taxes, people with guns would come to their home. Thus, the program is a forced scheme and any "transparency" is unhelpful information to the decision making process. If the federal government had required Berne Madoff's ponzi scheme to be transparent and also forced his investors to continue giving him money that wouldn't mean it is not a ponzi scheme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.198.251 (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wragge made the clearest point here; the others being rather abstruse. People can always just fix the POV in they really care. And people can always go to the larger article for a longer discussion. So I'll take off the tag. The article itself is VERY disorganized with a big lop of unsourced duplication on, I believe, the constitutionality issue. Would love to clean it up but will I ever have the time?? CarolMooreDC 16:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security Act

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I really think there should be another article about the original Social Security Act of 1935? itself, being in the format of a normal article about a bill passed by Congress, and it should have information about the New Deal and Roosevelt. This article (Social Security in the United States) should be about social security as it is now, which is different from the bill passed 70+ years ago. --Wikiperson0202 (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work/retirement test

I'm reverting an edit which inserted information about the retirement test into the section on widow's benefits. While a section on the retirement test would be appropriate for this article, the test does not apply only to widow's/survivor's benefits. Vgranucci (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gov. Robert Moran Jr.

This guy wrote the original bill? Who is this person and why does Google have no reference to him other than quotes from this article? You'd think if he were a governor there'd be some reference to him somewhere. This and the fact that his name sounds like "moron" make me think this is a dumb joke. Anybody agree? Passdoubt | Talk 00:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a contemporary freelance writer named Robert Moran who's ******** (blacklisted) on Social Security. My guess is that it's not a dumb joke about "moron" but a dumb joke by someone who knows the writer. Anyway, I agree with your basic point and I'm removing the spurious reference. JamesMLane t c 14:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of expenditure

Currently the introduction reads:

By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget, with 20.8% for social security, compared to 20.5% for discretionary defense and 20.1% for Medicare/Medicaid.[5] Social Security is currently the largest social insurance program in the U.S., constituting 37% of government expenditure

Is it 20.8% or 37%? This appears to be a conflict.Ordinary Person (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about this too. 140.247.212.208 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! Indeed, that's why I'm here on the talk page. Captain Quirk (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a Section on Exempt

I'd like to see a section discussing those who are exempt from US Social Security or covered under alternate plans. Ministers, Christian Science practitioners, Amish, and Mennonites typically apply for exemption. Mormons may be exemptable also, possibly Quakers. Railroad workers are covered under a plan that pre-existed Social Security (see Railroad Retirement Board). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.106.85 (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Too long article"

Should the article be broken up into a History of Social Security (United States) and keep the rest here? dude❶❽❶❽ (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

"Indeed, the substantial risk from relying on private investment instruments was highlighted with the massive losses suffered to both private and public pension plans in the economic collapse beginning in 2007." And no mention of the reality(or in correct terms probability) that there is no way for SS to be sustainable(deficits, baby boomers retiring...) and that young people today pay SS tax, because they will never get their money back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.79.248 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. SS "safety" is illusory in that the only thing the government guarantees is that SS taxes will be invested in Treasury Bills. There is no guarantee that the government will pay back the money it collects. In fact, SS partially defaulted on its obligations in 1983 when Congress made SS retirement benefits taxable. Wikiant (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Forgot to add a summary to my edit on January 4, 2010.

I forgot to add a summary to the edit I made just now. It's minor: all I did was add a reference for the "citation needed" claim that Social Security's real name is the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance program. trecord (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State and municipal employees exempt?

Are state and municipal employees exempt from participating in the Social Security program? If so, I think this should be stated somewhere in this article. (I'm sure a lot of workers would like to be exempt if they could be allowed to!) The only mention of such exemption, if it exists, is an oblique allusion in the following two sentences in the section "Benefit Payout comparisons", which parenthetically assumes or implies such an exemption without ever directly saying so or explaining why such an exemption exists (if in fact it does):

Workers who spend their entire careers in covered employment would be unfairly treated relative to workers who spend the first half of their careers not covered (as in municipal employment) by OASDI but are covered by an alternative plan. These people who later switch into covered employment would be entitled to both the alternative non OASDI pension (presumably from a state or municipality)....

Captain Quirk (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request review of edits by Nazarranjha

Comparison of pre- and post-Nazarranjha edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Security_%28United_States%29&action=historysubmit&diff=426828479&oldid=426032670

While admirable that a user wants to contribute so much, a large section was added to this article. There is only one citation (which was from a book, nothing online to verify), and it doesn't seem completely NPOV.184.166.26.1 (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definite POV and single-source issues. Since two of us have voiced concern, I'll tag the section. WCCasey (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of this article and NPOV's limits

Since no-one else has mentioned it, I'll point out Scott Rosenberg's critique of this article, Social Security (United States), and the limits of WP:NPOV policy which it reveals. See Scott Rosenberg (13 June 2011). "Whose Point of View?". The American Prospect. Retrieved 20 July 2011. His primary gripe about the article is that it "paint[s] a trees-accurate but forest-deficient picture" (I love that phrase). "[The] article does a lousy job of telling you what that money actually pays for, including most of the positive side of the ledger -- you know, the stuff about helping people.... The factual details weren't erroneous, for the most part, but the overall portrait they created was badly skewed." The failing of NPOV is that (quoting an expert) "the Wikipedia system frequently breaks down over extremely contested subjects. For example, when it's unclear what to call things -- Did the Bush government use torture? Is the Ryan plan Medicare reform or its destruction? -- the Wikipedia method is out of ideas. The best it can do is reproduce the same debate the culture cannot resolve on its own." [Links added by JDLH] The articles is charmingly well-versed about Wikipedia: "By focusing attention on an article's inadequacies, media coverage often inspires editors to remedy the problem. "Social Security (United States)" may already be a better article by the time you read this.)", "SOFIXIT". --Jdlh | Talk 18:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenberg needs to become an editor. When more editors get involved with an article, it tends to improve ("may already be a better article by the time you read this"). Even so, NPOV problems can crop up when an article's subject becomes part of a current political debate (as with the recent edit wars in Paul Revere). I think the best editors can do is:

1. Stick to the dry, encyclopedia facts. Don't include "facts" that are really interpretations, whether sourced or not. (a side benefit of this approach would be to radically shorten a lot of articles)

2. Where #1 doesn't work, insert language noting that a subject is controversial, then try to include sources that represent different points of view.

3. Tag problems per WP policies

4. Try to improve articles - don't just complain on the Talk page.

"The Wikipedia method is out of ideas?" It's not supposed to have ideas. "The best it can do is reproduce the same debate the culture cannot resolve on its own." That's OK with me; debates are never "resolved", in WP or anywhere else. WCCasey (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FICA taxes (insurance analogy)

The article previously asserted that "[c]onfusion, or misrepresentation of the nature of Social Security has often muddied debate over the program." It then supposedly cleared up that confusion by stating that payroll taxes were not, in fact, "simply 'taxes'" and that "Social Security is an insurance program... . This is similar to any other insurance program, public or private..." The whole paragraph was an argument for recharacterizing FICA payroll taxes as insurance premiums in terms of the "debate over the program" and there were zero references in the entire 400 word FICA section. That this paragraph should exist should perhaps not be entirely surprising given that in the Propect article a pro-SS lobby group admitted to editing the page after hiding its identity.

It is highly POV to insist on the insurance analogy without acknowledging the magnitude of the criticism out of there about the suitability of this analogy. Theda Skocpol, a SS supporter, has reviewed some of the history of SS and has noted that SS has been marketed as insurance from the beginning for political reasons even though the program is legally structured as a tax and spend program and significant differences remain relative to private insurance.

While retaining the proferred insurance analogy, I've changed this piece to read "arguably analogous" and condensed it in order to add a modest amount of referenced material indicating that the insurance analogy is limited, disputed, and/or threatened by the fact SS is currently only partly funded by payroll taxes. The breakdown in the insurance analogy by this last point (currently partly funded by general revenues, which being in deficit means currently adding to the general national debt) is indeed a key reason why there is presently opposition coming from the left re further extending the 2011 payroll tax cut. Some editors apparently feel that these changes earn a POV tag. I would challenge the tag adder to explain how adding references and dialing down the unqualified claim that SS "is similar to any other insurance program" constitutes an increase in bias as opposed to a decrease.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal for "History" section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was split to History of Social Security in the United States. --George Ho (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff said that the section may be notable enough to be split into an article. "{{very long}}" is too basic and too vague to add back, as there are already "{{lead too long}}" and "{{split section}}" to address specific concerns. I don't know, but I'm abstaining this discussion. However, if split, title should be Social Security (United States) in the 20th century or similar to that in the 20th century. Feel free to discuss this proposal. --George Ho (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the introduction to make it shorter and more concise, and I fully agree that the article should be split, but I don't think that would be the best title. I'm thinking History of Social Security in the United States or something similar to that. Juggalo1010 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support splitting this article apart. It is very long, and several articles can be split off from this, leaving a summary style summarization behind. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I mildly prefer History of Social Security in the United States. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Misc material deleted/re-instated

An anonymous editor deleted a section of text with the explanation

"Deleted three statements. The first entirely unsubstantiated. Th second dubious, citing highly contentious claims by feldstein. The third again dubious"

See: [1]

I re-instated the material.

First, unless I missed something, all the material was indeed sourced, so the claim that the material is "unsubstantiated" appears to be without merit, at least on its face. Perhaps the editor could be more specific about his/her objection.

Second, the fact that material is considered by an editor to be "dubious" or "highly contentious" is not a valid reason for removing the material from Wikipedia. Neutral point of view in Wikipedia does not mean that the claims of reliable previously published third party sources are not allowed to be "dubious" or "contentious." Indeed, many reliable sources will disagree with each other. So, by definition, much of the material in Wikipedia will indeed be contentious -- even contradictory. In Wikipedia articles, the sources are not required to be unbiased. Neutral Point of View in Wikipedia means presenting opposing and contradictory material in a neutral way -- without taking sides.

This rule, of course, does include the proviso that not all sources need to be given equal weight in Wikipedia. For example, if 99.99999% of all reliable sources say that The Moon is made of moon dust, rocks, etc., etc., we do not need to give equal weight to the 0.00001% that say that The Moon is made of green cheese.

The objection that the material is "dubious" fails along similar lines. Whether the material is "dubious" or not is not the main issue. The main issue is: Is the material properly sourced, based on reliable, previously published sources. We as Wikipedia editors do not have to "agree" that the material is or is not "dubious." Famspear (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the section, "Saving Behavior" was very poorly worded, and I could barely understand it. the orginal text read,

"Social security affects the saving behavior of the people in three different ways. In the wealth substitution effect when a person is paying for his social security, it is expected that he will save less because he knows that in the event of his old age social security will take care of him. In the retirement effect, increases the savings because people would like to retire earlier and this will induce them to save more because now they have to pay for more years after retirement. The bequest effect also increases saving. Because people want to save for children, when they will pay for social security, this will decrease resources and they will save.[120]"

I attempted to re-write it, but I have questions about the content's legitimacy and relevance.Stu18401 (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graph In the Info Bar

The front page graph is Figure 1-2 on Pg. 18 of this CBO report. It is showing total U.S. Federal Government expenditures, not U.S. Social Security spending. It looked odd to me that it showed Outlays far surpassing Revenue (when this is not the case for the SS program). It took me a bit to realize what I was seeing. Shouldn't this graph be of S.S. Expenditures VS. Revenues? Or maybe have the total budget graph, and a separate one for the SS program. There's a good one on the cover of another CBO report. Thoughts? Duffer (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not 'pay-your-own-way'?

So, if I recall correctly, one does not contribute for one's own care later in life, but instead fulfills an inter-generational contract (which, of course, present payors never agreed to, since it was put in place before they were born) whereby newer generations pay for the care of older generations, ad infinitum.

This doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the article with any force. Perhaps it should be added to the history or definition somewhere?

There has, I believe, been some debate on whether reforms should include making the system pay-your-own-way, whereby a generation's care is paid from the funds collected from that generation, rather than a generation mortgaging its descendants' futures to pay for their own care in the present.

Anyway, just figured I'd mention the oversight, in case anyone wants to add some neutral verbiage along those lines. 67.138.177.30 (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

There is a need for improvement on the introduction. In my opinion, it is way too long and needs to be reduced considerably to about a paragraph. Juggalo1010 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "lead too long" to address your concerns. --George Ho (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. The Plan allows that as wages go up, and with them the cost of living, the cap on wages needs to rise. Its no longer the case that the average wage is $3000 as it was when the plan started, its now more like $50,000 and its no longer the case that the maximum deduction is $.03 on the dollar or 3%; its now 6.2 %. Since both the cap and the rate are regularly raised why aren't they raised as necessary to keep the trust fund solvent?

Why can't Social Securities "Statement of Account" be regularly adjusted by increasing revenues to keep it solvent and by lowering costs such as disability payments to people injured or killed fighting foreign wars by avoiding the practice of putting Americans in harms way.

Presumably the hidden tax of economic slowdowns can be countered by putting more people to work fixing Americas crumbling infrastructure at higher prevailing union wages. ARRA style subsidies to American industries manufacturing infrastructure used by cities and towns kills two birds with one stone.

By placing higher taxes on foreign corporate raiders like BP with enormous profits being generated by taking America's natural resources with little thought for costly environmental impacts, we could provide part of the cost of that investment to the treasury and encourage policies which keep more well paid American jobs instead of shipping them overseas. 12.187.94.90 (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a need to reconcile info here and on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller re: "paid $44" vs "compared to her contributions of $24.75 to the system". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.9.171 (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Private retirement savings crisis

Regarding this revert, the answer to the question in the edit summary ("what does this have to do with the history of Social Security?") is, from the deleted text, "In 2010, the median household retirement account balance for workers aged 55 to 64 was $120,000, which will provide only a trivial supplement to Social Security benefits, but third of households had no retirement savings at all." Most retiring workers are going to take a serious standard of living hit when they retire, and many if not the vast majority will have to move somewhere much less expensive if they rent or still owe on their home. This hasn't been true until recent retirees have had a much more substantial portion of their work life with asset values higher when they were working than now, and who are far more numerous, as the beginning retirees from the Baby Boomer demographic. Some parts of http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v72n3/v72n3p59.html explain this, e.g. Chart 3, but not very well, and but that source has what I consider relatively misleading use of dispassionate language for a very troubling situation, which the journalists I cited avoid.

Also, the "Claim that it gives a low rate of return" section here is based on people retiring in 1996, when the stock market was still below today's real level, so it gives a distorted impression without a discussion of subsequent private investment history. EllenCT (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all important information, but I just don't see how it's related to the rest of the content in Social Security (United States)#History. Maybe it belongs in its own section (as opposed to a subsection of the History section). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes perfect sense. I replaced it under "Current controversies" and added a paragraph to the "Claim that it gives a low rate of return" refuting its flawed assertion and using some of those sources to explain why only 90s retirees could do so well. EllenCT (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issue with section

This section seems to have an issue with NPOV. There is a lot of opinionated and unsourced phrasing here which I don't think is appropriate for WP:

Despite the large fraction of Social Security taxes already paid by those making high salaries a very small fraction of Social Security benefits actually go to the wealthy. Excluding them as "punishment" for being wealthy saves little, costs more to administer and is a large breach of faith with working Americans who have already been taxed for multiple decades before they can retire. Benefits are already very modest for higher paid wage earners—more a welfare plan than a decent retirement plan.

Any thoughts? Chris M. (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some very unorthodox expressions of what is and is not egalitarian recently. I think to some extent it's very healthy, but so much of it seems intended to try to bias the reader. That just ends up making Wikipedia look stupid. EllenCT (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation-adjusted stock values have declined since 1996? That seems wrong.

The article currently states: "However, inflation-adjusted stock and related investment values rose from the 1980s to 1996, but mostly declined from 1998 to 2012." Then it points to footnote 93, a chart from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis showing the ratio of stock values to the consumer price index. However, the chart clearly shows that stock values have increased over time relative to the CPI since 1996. Now, the idea that might be expressed here is that stock investment yields have declined. But that's not obvious from the chart, so it's original research. (Calculating investment yields would be complicated.) I'm not going to change it, because I'm not even sure what the author was trying to say when he or she wrote it, but I encourage someone to.71.76.241.41 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just tagged

RE: [However, inflation-adjusted stock and related investment values rose from the 1980s to 1996, but mostly declined from 1998 to 2012^[1]^{[dubious – discuss]} so the vast majority of retirees, including the very populous baby boomer generation of new retirees, have been unable to recognize such beneficial investment returns.^[2]^{[dubious – discuss]}]

I just tagged the above as "dubious" (the whole paragraph), and, lo and behold, someone already is discussing it here (from 5 months ago). The references in that section do not bear out the claims, and will be removed until some genuine sourcing is put up. I'm curious about that, but as it stands, this section is Not NPOV. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cite error: The named reference stockreturns was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Anguelov, Chris E. (2012). "Shifting Income Sources of the Aged". Social Security Bulletin. Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, U.S. Social Security Administration. Retrieved 5 April 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Incorrect statement in "Claim that it gives a low rate of return"

Factually incorrect statement in "Claim that it gives a low rate of return" The article states: "Social Security benefits are guaranteed, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government" Social Security benefits are NOT guaranteed. A 30 year treasury bill is a contract to pay, while no EXPLICIT contract exists. There could be a World War 3 or other event and the Federal Government may opt, through legislation enacted by elected representatives, to stop paying any Social Security benefits. Social Security benefits are NOT guaranteed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tables should be sortable

All of the tables in this article should be sortable (ascending/descending by column). It would be appreciated if a technically inclined user could convert them. Mamyles (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Social Security (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Current Version is Confusing for Readers Looking to Estimate their Retirement Benefits

The current version of this article is unclear for readers trying to estimate their retirement benefits. I could not find anywhere where even a rough estimate or average benefit was listed in relation to average income. I imagine that many of the people who are looking at this page will be interested in answering a simple question: "how much can I expect from Social Security when I retire". Can anyone please give a simple and clear answer to this obvious question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.172.227 (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to give an "average" benefit based on "average" income. As the article shows, there are two many factors involved in the computation. If you want that information about your specific case, you can contact the Social Security Administration and ask. Also there are some benefit calculators at their site, ssa.gov . Loraof (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to eliminate the projected Social Security shortfall

The Section:Tighten up Disability Rules requires editing. Factually, there are three factually incorrect statements made in this section:

"The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations two year investigation has found widespread fraud in the Social Security Administration's Disability Program. The rampant fraud with disability claims have so proliferated in recent years, that the Social Security's Disability Trust Fund may run out of money in only 18 months. Up to 10% of the residents in some small towns receive disability payouts.[89][90][91][92]" 1)

The sentence "The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations two year investigation has found widespread fraud in the Social Security Administration's Disability Program." is incorrect. Indeed, Tom Carper, the Chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee himself notes in his introduction to the report: "we don't have any evidence that this is more than an isolated case". This refutes the current Wikipedia claim of "widespread fraud".

Source: http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/hsgac-senators-release-social-security-disability-fraud-report

2)

The current Wikipedia section states: "The rampant fraud with disability claims have so proliferated in recent years, that the Social Security's Disability Trust Fund may run out of money in only 18 months"

This is incorrect and misleading. In fact,

"The projected point at which the combined Trust Funds will be exhausted comes in 2033" Source 1: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/funds.html

Source 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

3)

The current Wikipedia section states: "Up to 10% of the residents in some small towns receive disability payouts."

Response: This is irrelevant to any serious and educated discussion on the topic of Social Security Disability. There are no sources for this likely limited cherry picking of data, which offer little in the way of facts or objective analysis of the overall situation.

While the current Wikipedia post lists four 'sources', these links do not offer substantive support to the claims made in the Wikipedia section.

I am willing to accept sources as long as the information they present is accurate, informative and at least somewhat objective. I think Wikipedia deserves information on this topic that is based on evidence and reason. The current section is not accurate, objective or informative.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Social Security (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20041231%2FZNYT02%2F412310311
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060216052920/http://germaniapublishing.com/ to http://germaniapublishing.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Social Security (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105205325/http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf to http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Social Security (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-193SP
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051203030331/http://www.csss.gov/ to http://www.csss.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early Social Security benefits and the earnings test

I reverted an edit that added the sentence "The amount of benefits payable before full retirement age is calculated using an Earning's Test." as the second sentence in the "Normal retirement age" section. Not only is "earnings test" misspelled, the sentence is untrue.

A retiree's early benefit is calculated by multiplying her or his full benefit by a reduction factor based on the number of months early: 5/9 of 1% for each of the first 36 months and 5/12 of 1% for each additional month. Besides the amount of the retiree's full benefit, the reduction is the primary determinant of a retiree's early benefit. The early benefit may be further reduced by an earnings test (i.e., reduced $1 for every $2 in earnings in excess of a threshold), but that's a minor adjustment compared to the 70% or 80% factor that applies for early commencement. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Full Faith and Credit" citation

Others argue that it has specific legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt.

I used the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (link) to justify this claim. The amendment, section 4, reads:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

I am using this citation to justify "which has an obligation to repay its debt". I am 'not' using this citation to justify "Others argue that it has specific legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government". Unfortunately I'm not sure how to construct the citation such that this difference would be clear. Hopefully it makes sense this way. WP:BB WP:BRD tsilb (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Life Expectancy argument

As there any reliable source that points out the totally idiocy of using Life Expectancy at birth as a benchmark regarding Social Security's future solvency and reason for increasing the age at which one can qualify for it (not counting SSI and SSD)? The main reason Life Expectancy was so low in the past was high child (ie people who wouldn't pay into the system) mortality rate. A higher Life Expectancy means more people to pay into the system as they live to working age.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump statements on payroll taxes

QUESTION: Should the following news reference (re "Donald Trump: If Reelected, I will 'Terminate' Social Security" )^[1]^[2] be included in any of the many Social Security articles on Wikipedia? - or Not? - not clear about this at the moment - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Benesch, Linda (August 8, 2020). "Donald Trump: If Reelected, I will "Terminate" Social Security". SocialSecurityWorks. Retrieved August 8, 2020.
^ Hiltzik, Michael (August 10, 2020). "Column: Following order on payroll tax, Trump threatens to kill Social Security if reelected". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 10, 2020.

BRIEF Followup: Relevant edits have now been added to the "Political positions of Donald Trump" article at => "Political positions of Donald Trump#Social Security and Medicare" - Please see related comment(s) to similar questions on the "Donald Trump" and "Political positions of Donald Trump" talk-pages at => "Talk:Donald Trump#Donald Trump statements on payroll taxes" and, particularly, "Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump#Donald Trump statements on payroll taxes" - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No - Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." But it IS totally relevant in the other articles you mentioned above in the follow-up, just not this one. If/when some change actually happens, than we could add what changed. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[stockreturns-1] Cite error: The named reference stockreturns was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[ssashift-2] Anguelov, Chris E. (2012). "Shifting Income Sources of the Aged". Social Security Bulletin. Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, U.S. Social Security Administration. Retrieved 5 April 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[SSW-20200808-3] Benesch, Linda (August 8, 2020). "Donald Trump: If Reelected, I will "Terminate" Social Security". SocialSecurityWorks. Retrieved August 8, 2020.

[LAT-20200810-4] Hiltzik, Michael (August 10, 2020). "Column: Following order on payroll tax, Trump threatens to kill Social Security if reelected". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 10, 2020.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]