"if Obama hasn't completely raided it in the next 86 days" shows your lack of knowledge of how SS works.

Gandalf, they're smart enough to not run on destroying SS, but if they win will destroy it by "fixing" it. Just as Walker didn't actually tell his plans when running for governor. A lie of omission is still a lie.

Social Security was the original "spred the wealth" Democrat move to socialism. Democrats seem to feel people in general are too stupid to take care of themselves. Now that we've spent several generations forced to be apart of it, it would be nice just to get our money back if Obama hasn't completely raided it in the next 86 days.

BTW: For the first time I remember, I checked the boxes NO for contributing $3 each from myself and my wife to go to the election campaign on our 2011 taxes. WHY? Because the major players turn down this money so they can raise unlimited funds for their negative ads. Our $6.00 in taxes will be better spent going into the general tax fund (not much better but perhaps some). Suggest you think of doing the same.

How can Republicans and Democrats support lowering the Social Security tax rate for individuals from 6.2 to 4.2 percent for the last two years? And insist it is a tax increase if allowed to go back to the 6.2%. It is a program already in long term trouble and they allow less money to go in. Why? Simple ... VOTES. I can see it was the easiest functional way to get this 2% tax reduction on working people. Not nearly as messy as trying to adjust tax tables. (Note: also provided no help for retirees). However, I believe at the end of the year the government should have had to figure the total amount not brought in and reimbursed the Social Security Fund from the General Tax Fund. BTW .. to those who say the government should pay back the system all the money they have diverted elsewhere so the people are taken care of .... With whose dollars? More taxes on the people from whom they already diverted the funds from.

there should be an option for people paying in who won't retire in time to receive their benefits..opt out of paying in to the broken system...

less than 10% of people who retire have more than $50K saved for the future. If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

I didn't consider return on investment since the government doesn't invest the money for return. It's just money in/money out to the feds. I only looked at money paid in vs. money paid out. Since the article only talks about money contributed by a worker, I don't see how any couple could contribute $598,000 in payroll taxes.

The feds could learn a lot from the WRS.
Put the money in an untouchable trust fund.
Put all the money there that's supposed to go there and don't let any politicians touch it.
Invest it wisely.
Only let people who have put into it and retired get money out of it.
Result = fully funded pension plan.

dtb, you also forgot to calculate investment gains one would have achieved in your scenario on your 12:18 post. Assuming there are any when you hand over your money to the gov'mt.

If your over 60 -SS is great
If your under 40 -SS is horrible
If your between 40-60 -SS is ???

Ezoner said, "I would dare you to take the tone you do on this board in person with me."

Does a statement like that enhance a person's credibility?

And if that doesnt work -- they just call you a racist or a hater.

Far lefters like Walter and Gandy want to apply pure definitions when they do not agree with the logic of an arguement, yet expand arguements to include rediculous comparisons when trying to support an arguement they are in favor of. I have seen them do it many times and as a result, significantly reduce their credibility.

apparently what I posted did not sink in for a couple of people, so I will post it again for them:

“Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct”……”That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths.” - Joseph Goebbels

...and I am betting that I will get more comments about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme thus validating that they follow the above belief.

Typical gandalf, attacking the messenger without addressing anything related to the substance of the topic. The fact remains, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but it makes a nonsensical sound bite for the haters to deny it. By the way, there is equivalence between claims made by left wingers complaining over Fox News when all they watch is MSNBC.

SS is not a Ponzi Scheme in the literal sense. A PS has investors, and early investors are paid inflated returns using the money from later investors. Since SS is a government program and not a free market investment, it is not literally a PS.
But as a metaphor, in my opinion it holds up very well. Early beneficiaries received many multiples of their original "contributions". Even people starting to draw SS benefits today stand to get back more than they put in. Or not. At any rate, the benefits received vs. the "contributions" made will continue to decline overall, because of several factors already mentioned that make the program unsustainable. And like a PS, this unsustainability will eventually bring the entire system down. In our lifetimes, we will most likely witness a continued degradation of benefits and increase in mandated payroll taxes.
I thought the article stated it very well.

really theres opinion matter blogs with no comments http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/opinion-m... gazette extra is a joke

"Regarding the “Ponzi Scheme” comments that have been repeatedly debunked by credible sources (sorry about that Fox News viewers):"
-
So says an msnbc viewer, yeah that leads to credibility.

Regarding the “Ponzi Scheme” comments that have been repeatedly debunked by credible sources (sorry about that Fox News viewers):

“Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct”……”That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths.” - Joseph Goebbels

Oblamer, the quote you cited does nothing to support your claim of fascism. It appears that you need to research fascism. I would hope you understand that fascism is not an economic system and fascist governments, while displaying similar nationalistic characteristics, have not shared, to any where near that same degree, economic policies.

For those like 916WI and Oblamer, who have saved the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed for a comfortable retirement, the following links probably won’t be useful. For the AVERAGE wage earner, it’s very difficult saving enough to finance the last 20 (or more) years of your life once that steady stream of wage income ends. Those who think social security is not necessary must have a fool-proof plan on how to care for those who lack the resources to save hundreds of thousands of dollars especially after Republicans shift more of the Medicare burden onto retirees. Anyone who claims it’s the governments responsibility to provide for you once you’ve retired is misinformed. But of course none of the rightwing nuts will take my word for it so here are some links that explain the realities of social security and why it works. Read slowly Oblamer so as not to miss the facts.
-
Why social security is a good deal.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-02-...
-
Why social security is not a problem.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011...
-
Why social security cannot go bankrupt.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/...
-
Why social security is NOT a ponzi scheme.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/...

The actuarial problems with Social Security have been apparent for over 20 years (remember Ross Perot's warnings in 1992). Both political parties are historically to blame since it is so easy to keep promising for political gain. The underlying premise of Social Security is unsustainable. Unfortunately, Liberals and Democrats are now providing the resistance to reform. They try to stick to the original flawed politics used to pass the program - the notion that it is an insurance program and not a government benefit. That explains liberal resistance to means or wealth testing for benefits (what an irony for the so called defenders of the poor). Sadly, when the chickens come home to roost, it will be the least among us who will suffer the greatest pain. The longer reform is resisted, the greater that pain will be. There seems to be little sign of reform among Democrats. How I long for the vision of the late Paul Tsongas.

......and shut down Obama's $2 trillion HCR until the existing entitlements are proven to be financially viable.......

The only way to fix this and a myriad of other problems is to increase the amount of people actually working in the USA. Not China or Mexico or South Korea, but here. Then there'd be more taxpayers for the government to fleece, errrr, tax.

That means tapping energy reserves and selling the product on the world market. That means building refineries and nuclear power plants. That also probably means restrictive trade laws/tariffs. One party will not agree to the latter and the other will not agree to the rest. So it goes.

What does the author mean "still"? It never was a good deal.

*Heck, in the old days, the elderly and disabled would go out in the winter and freeze themselves to death so as not to be a burden to their struggling families -- maybe we can go back to doing it that way, huh?*

How about families take care of their own? Oh, wait, no, the boomers didn't feel like having kids so they can't be taken care of by them. How about saving for your own old age? Oh, wait, no the boomers didn't feel like doing that either. Oh, well--I guess it's the ants that have to take care of the grasshoppers as usual.

Gandalf....It's worse than a ponzi scheme......The government is basically forcing us into an "investment" that we are going to lose money on. At least with a ponzi scheme a person has the option of walking away......no??

OK I forgot about the employer contribution, which cuts my numbers in half. Still, a combined income of $107,000 over the last 45 years seems high.

Does the math here seem suspect to anyone else? Even at 6.2% contribution, to pay in $598,000 means the couples combined earnings for their career would have to be over $9.6 million. If you assume they both worked for 45 years before retiring, their combined income would have to around $214,000 per year. That's hardly what I would call average.

When was the fund raided and for what purpose? I can find many articles speaking about it as though it were a constant occurance, but I can't find any examples. What am I missing?

Gandy -- I both agree and disagree to some extent with your comments and would add something additional. The problem I see is that the money is not set asside in some account or fund. The government has not securely stored the money for distribution nor invested the money for some retun on investment. So there is no certainty that the money can or will be paid -- other than the publics outrage that would result if the program totally was eliminiated.

As for changes -- I would be willing to see changes to entitlements, but they should affect all entitlements. There are many people that are gaming the system, many that I have seen. Should we be truning these people in -- yes... but that makes for a very difficult environment for all. Does the government have the resources to investigate all illegitimate claims, I sincerely doubt it. That being said, we should be looking at all entitlement programs including the new healthcare law -- which on the surface -- given the way other government programs have been administered, does bode well for us the do pay taxes into these systems.

Granted -- there are people that really do need support. But there are many that take advantage of those that contribute and therefore affect public opinion.

Gandalf

SS= Money paid to retirees (original investors) funded by taxes of current workers... By definition, this is a ponzi scheme. What makes it worse, in my opinion, is that you have people that collect SS that have never contributed a dime, or individuals that collect far more than they contribute. It was a temporary solution that was left in place far too long. Given the economic climate, there are only a few ways to prolong it-to last my generation who will retire in the next 20-30 years.
1. Raise taxes
2. Cut benefits-not just on the rich or middle class, but also on the poor-even across the board.
3. Have more contributors-increased workforce (this just creates a problem for a future generation)
4. Eliminate benefits for non-contributors, or only pay what is contributed (at that level...you work 10 years, you get 10 years worth of benefits-not 60)
5. Government bite the bullet and set end-date for current plan and allow workers to individually manage plans (with a realtively conservative mutual fund option(s))

mteg: To add to your list -
6. The government runs the system.

Resident, the real problem is that when you retire in 20+ years there won't be enough people working and paying in to support you. And if those fewer people all have low wage jobs, that's even less money coming in for the program. There isn't a "trust fund", you don't have an account, it's just money that comes in the government every month and money they spend every month. You better hope Walker doesn't turn the WRS into a 401k or you won't get that state pension either.

I have no problem supporting those who are truly disabled and unable to work as a result...that is a safety net I want for that "just in case" scenario. I do have a problem, though with throngs (and no, I'm not exaggerating) of suddenly "disabled" individuals who are milking the system. My friend who works in the medical field has told me for a couple years now how their practice has become almost exclusively exams and paperwork to get on to "disability". About 80% don't get the OK, but then they just keep doctor shopping until someone will sign their paperwork.

-----

Social Security will be gone by 2035. It cannot survive in its current form unless:
1. The cap on contributions is lifted.
2. Disability is separated from retirement benefits
3. Fraud is more carefully regulated (probably the most important)
4. People stop relying on SS as their sole retirement income. (fund those IRA's and 401k plans, folks!)

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/plan...

http://oney.usnews.com/money/blogs/plann...

The way I have this figured is there will be no social security left by the time I retire. Why because the money will be gone by then I am 43 this year and have paid in all my life. Problem is there are to many people abusing the system and to many people getting on SSI that should not be getting those benefits For example illegals tat slip through the cracks or people that get on SSI that commit fraud to get free money those are the people running the system. Another example f the miss management my best friend last year was diagnosed with stage four Lymphoia Cancer was denied because the condition was not sever enough that was wrong but he is still working how dose that work.Yet I see people with getting SSI and there is nothing wrong with them other than they just want the free money. See the way I see it Veterans who have served should be qualified for SSI along with Seniors and people who retired from their job Disabled and people with Cancer. The people who should not be on SSI are Illegals and people who attempt to defraud the system. If they want to fix SSI they should start there or by the time I reach retirement the system will be bankrupted.

There are several problems
1. People collecting more than they contribute
2. SS doesnt factor in inflation and cost of living
3. People collecting that shouldnt
4. More people collecting than contributing
5. People living longer

Ponzi scheme
Definition
Pon·zi scheme[ pónzee skm ]Pon·zi schemes Plural

NOUN
1. U.S. pyramid investment swindle: a pyramid investment swindle in which supposed profits are paid to early investors from money actually invested by later participants

By definition, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.

Carlito, the disability payments do vary, depending on whether they are based on a parent's income (for those disabled as children who become adults, like my autistic BIL) or if they were wage-earners, they had to work enough quarters to qualify, and the payments are not all $801 or whatever for everyone.
In the past, one reason people didn't save money for retirement was they (ON AVERAGE) had much larger families to provide for with every paycheck and wages were comparitively lower, and they also didn't expect to be retired long before dying. These days, people live paycheck to paycheck even if they make good wages because they "have to" buy every tech toy that comes out, dress their kids in designer clothes, buy more house than they can afford, and have a new vehicle every couple of years. It reminds me of that fable where whatever animal played all day and then expected the one who worked to store food for the winter to support one who played. And you wonder why those of us who worked and saved get tired of sharing with the rest of you who make bad decisions, knowing someone will shore you up anyway.

BTW 801.00 Is not a whole lot to live on when you have paid in all your working life and become disabled, because of years of hard work , Those that have never worked get the same amount. NOW THAT IS WRONG. Have to pay for medicare out of that money and higher co-pays for meds and those that never worked pay less co-pays and no cost for medicare. THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE OR STOP

Social security was intended for those who paid in. For those who worked their whole life or was injured while WORKING or a real medical problem. Not for self induced drug and alcohol issues. Not for people that find doctors that will say they have issues Put them on meds that they do not need (just a legal way to continue to be HIGH)Then the people find away to get their kids on SS and have never worked a day in their life and never will. I know many that are on SS. that do not deserve it They get their prescriptions paid for by Tax payers and sell them. The money should go to those that pay in and not the ones that are able to work , never have worked and find doctors that say they are unable to work and bleed the system dry. There are people that need assistance for legit reason. BUT TO MANY ABUSE IT THAT NEVER PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY.... This is not a gift to those that paid in THIS WAS EARNED.

I agree with Hardtobelieve and Professor. The federal government should pay back what they owe (they would make US pay THEM back if/when we owed them something!).. and remove the cap! How can they not SEE what really needs to be done? (because the federal government doesn't want to pay back the people!!)

So how are we going to fix this mess? By giving workers a "tax holiday" and taking less SS out of our checks. The 12.4% mentioned above is only 10.4% right now - you "get a break" and only pay 4.2% and your employer pays 6.2%. We've got a SS system going broke, and Washington thinks it's a good idea to reduce its funding by 2% across the board. With that kind of thinking, I'm surprised it's not bankrupted already.

During the second quarter this year there were more people going on social security disability(246,000) than found jobs (225,000). It is a ponzi scheme.

here is a nice link on why the New Deal was a raw deal. http://www.cato.org/publications/comment...

Clearly many think everyone should blindly follow, regardless of the ponzi-scheme. How soon the media and the left forget the success a few counties and many public workers did when they opted out of sociual security for a much better deal.....shhhhh, don't let others know the truth.

"More scare tactics by the right"
-
????

From the above story; "People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press."

Since when did the AP become the right wing?

The 'important part' here is to keep the checks rolling to us retired participants. We've planned on this income, contributed as required, and now are getting our fair share. I expect future generations will also receive a benefit from their current and future contributions - keep 'em coming and keep the dream alive.

More scare tactics by the right, who would dearly like to replace social security with privatized programs that will make SOMEBODY a profit, not that they actually care about the outcome for anyone else in society. Heck, in the old days, the elderly and disabled would go out in the winter and freeze themselves to death so as not to be a burden to their struggling families -- maybe we can go back to doing it that way, huh?
.
There is in fact no evolutionary or biological guarantee that as a species we will have "more" workers than those receiving benefits. Heck, we could have evolved to have ten years of good working life and a hundred of utter dependency, either as children, elderly, or the disabled. In that case it would never be remotely possible for the average person to get "more" out of the program than they put in. As it happens, we have adjusted social security to be a more robust and broadly applicable program. This is not a failure of the program, it is a change in the way it has been applied and used, and it's something that we can choose to adapt to -- or maybe that whole freezing ourselves to death thing is what we want instead. Cruelty as the moral choice.

"A person making $500,000, a million or a billion dollars a year pays no more into the system than a person making $110,000. Why?
-
The answer is simple, they will not collect anymore than the person making $110,000. This is funded via specific laws based on the expected costs and expected outlays. It was never created as "flat-tax" funded system.

Here's the problem exactly: "The tax is applied to the first $110,100 of a worker's wages, a level that increases each year with inflation."

So the middle class foots a disproportionate portion of the bill. A person making $500,000, a million or a billion dollars a year pays no more into the system than a person making $110,000. Why? So the rich can drink better booze, buy more houses and vacation properties, own more cars and toys, take more trips, and continue to give half of everything they own to two or three ex-spouses (and a bit here and there to a few odd paramours) over the course of their "salad days"? Fix that flaw and you will have a system that works for all! It couldn't be any clearer or simpler!

And while you're at it, weed out the lazy that we've allowed - almost encouraged and now entitled - to become "disabled" as soon as they reach the age of majority (hey, what other skills did their "parents" have to teach them?) from the small percentage that are really disabled and do need help to close that unnecessary gaping hole as well! "Anger management problems"? Hard work will burn off that puppy energy - give us a call when you get hungry enough to get that adolescent excuse for poor behavior under control enough to cowboy up and get a job!

One other big problem is that people originally got SS at 65, when life expectancy was 67. The average worker got 2 years of payments from SS, but now people live much longer.

Can you imagine if they raised it to 85, before you can collect. People would be in an uproar, but it would also help it to be more stable long term.

Also, estimates show that traditional SS will be out of money by 2031, but the part of the program designed to pay for disability is scheduled to run out in 2018.

Big problems and I think we need big solutions, not more band-aids.

I laugh at most of the postings below. The claim that a government program that has exploded costs by many times the initial and countless restructured govt estimates is deemed a success is laughable. The only thing more funny is thinking taking more money from a sliver of the population will fix it...

And after the grammar is corrected he can say "libtards" and it will be okay? Or was there more you left out....

Hwkwind...Before you refer to people as libtards, you might want to take a refresher grammar class.

No matter Dem or Rep.
Seniors - unless historically wealthy- were the poorest of the poor prior to its enactment.
Seniors of all stripes have paid their dues for a long time.
It has been the best creation since woman suffrage and before the GI Bill.
Read the article again: Neta gets it.

Talk about puting the horse befor the cart.The problem with social security is that it wasn't intended for the mentally ill.It was intended as an insurance for those that were under paid and under insured in the agriculture and surrounding business'.Like the so called Americans that are to lazy to do that kind of work..so they have to get mexicans to do it now phraze from the same idiots that want to do away with social security.
I don't care what the libtard nation has to say about it.Social Security was not intended for workers and under paid,not the mentally-ill.If ever there were a reason to see clearly the policies of the two politicle monopolies,this would be it.there is absolutly no race on the face of the planet that would stand with a double standard system of ripping us all of for their own geedy problems and lack of ability to run a nation.To put hard workers that help to feed this nation at such a low level while they create an occupation swing in the mental heath department is as far as this thing will ever get.
If you are related to a farm/field worker,or someone that is under insured,(and i think that we can all relate to that when it comes to eating)why would you want to sit around and listen to this kind of non-related topic of the econonomics that both sides insists is due to the lack of work ethic here in america.This tacktic of the mental heath society to create all occupations around them is going to cut all your throats.And I don't see either party attempting to do anything about it except pitting people against each other.
You do what you want to do.But by the sounds of it to me,a vote for none of the above means a vote for someone else untill we get the candidates that we want.Obama isn't the gut for the job.Neither is Romney.Comparing one idiot to another isn't the way to look at things unless you get a government check and are two affraid to get into the mix of things lest you loose out on all of your security.

Social Security provides not only retirement and disability benefits, but survivors benefits as well. It has been one of, if not the most popular of New Deal programs.
Congress, from time to time, has made various adjustments to the program in order to ensure its long term sustainability. Social Security has always been a pay-as-you go program and changes have been made to accommodate our nation's aging population.
I am confidant that Congress will continue to make these necessary changes to ensure the future for Social Security.

If you want to make participation in Social Security voluntary, be careful for what you wish. The U.S. Social Security program is nearly universal for all workers (the vast majority of your federal, state, and local government employees, even Congress) are covered under the Social Security program.

@truth1- Finally we agree on something. The SSI rolls are climbing and people are getting on the SSI dole at an alarming rate. It started, at least in Wisconsin, when Thompson made the sweeping changes to the Welfare system back in the 90's. I have had the priviledge of dealing with people who were applying for SSI. They had not worked enough quarters for regular disability so they wanted the SSI route. I used to tell them they were insuring certain failure in life- but they thought $600.00 per month was a lot of money. It is a severe problem not only to the economy but to people's perspectives of themselves.

Funny how Ryan wants to "reform" (eliminate) SS when he benefited from it. SS is a great supplemental program that should be protected.

Good points jilie. If everyone had to pay payroll taxes on all income and if the pols hadn't repeatedly raided the "fund" (and it had actually been put into an untouchable fund) SS would be and will be fine.

sheesh...even Wiki knows American Enterprise Institute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_En...
Tea Party/ALEC shill article? Or maybe we'll get lucky and Paul Ryan will be Mittens choice as VP (and lose).

winstonchill I agree with you I would just add it is also harder and harder to plan for retirement with wages stagnating the past 20 or so years and with people living well in to their 90s. Professor i think you are spot on if we have to pay Fica tax on 100% of our income everyone should, it is only fair

If future generations are not required to contribute to this "forced savings" they will have nothing but their own savings...and we know how that will go. They will save nothing.
The rest of us will have to support them anyway.
Yes, SS is designed to be supplemental, so it it would be best to keep reinforcing that fact with the younger folks who do not feel any need to save anything and would even opt out of SS if they could.
If you retired folks are getting by on only Social Security, with no other money saved, then you either are incredibly unfortunate...or incredibly stupid.

Fuuny an ad at the bottom of this page is for a social security disability law firm LOL

One of the granddaddies of the entitlements, and like all of them, long-term unsustainable. SS started off as a lie (everyone has their own account). Eventually the politicians admitted that the system is pay-as-you-go, meaning current payers fund current recipients. Top it off with the fact that surplus money paid in by those of us in the baby-boomer generation has already been spent by the feds, and you have a guaranteed future crisis. But a crisis that will likely continue to be met with smaller monthly SS checks, and higher "contributions" (a term that I do not like because it makes it sound voluntary). Just another Ponzi scheme, and, as always, only government benefits and the citizens are cheated. And please don't tell me how your Aunt Gladys depends on SS - that's the whole point! Re-read my comments, which are at a macro-level. (For those of you in Rio Linda, that means a high-level analysis).

Nothing is ever a good thing if it's not voluntary.

Add to that the ones who collect Social Security "Disability" who aren't disabled and a whole HOST of others leeching off it fraudulently...Most would be SHOCKED if they knew about all the fraud with "Social Security" now days....I think it is even much worse than welfare abuses...People are going to be shocked when it's bankrupted and it won't be long.

Quote: For the early generations, it was an incredibly good deal," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy Social Security commissioner who is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "The government gave you free money and getting free money is popular."

This so called scholar thinks it is the governments money, and IT'S FREEEE.

Sorry Mr. Biggs, there is no free lunch! Someone always pays.

When the government prints money to give away, the people, especially retirees pay at the pump, grocery store, pharmacy, energy bills, utilities with a debased currency.

Remove the cap; that's all that is needed to fix S.S. virtually forever. This is a GREAT program that should be supported.

If Social Security is considered to be one of the "entitlement" programs that some want to get rid of or reduce, why is it that we pay in usually more than we receive. Then it no longer becomes an entitlement program. It is a forced savings program that most would not participate in if it was left up to the individual. If Congress had not borrowed from this fund over the years or even paid back what they owe, this fund would not go bust. Plus, if we just raised the limit on the amount of money that is taxed by social security, then the program would also survive quite nicely. My mother would have nothing, if it were not for Social Security. Where would she be then? I am taking mine at 62 this year because I could be dead at 65.