Talk:Social Security (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Social Security (United States) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 9, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Note: this article was broken in two

This article was broken in two on 21:39, Mar 9, 2005. The following sections can now be found under Social Security debate (United States):

1 The Debate
1.1 Overview
1.2 Proposals
1.2.1 Adjustments within the current framework
1.2.2 Privatization
1.2.2.1 Pros and cons of privatization
1.2.3 Bush's proposal
1.2.3.1 Substance of the dispute over Bush's proposal
1.2.3.2 Politics of the dispute over Bush's proposal
2 See also
2.1 Articles
2.2 Speeches
2.3 Pro-privatization websites
2.4 Anti-privatization websites]]

Be aware that many of the links, but not all, are duplicated on both pages. Also note that the following sections from this talk page have been moved to Talk:Social Security debate (United States): "Structure" and "Breaking the article in two." ô¿ô 19:08, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We need numbers here

There aren't any estimates of the accumulated deficit, or the present value of future payments estimated by various actuaries between 20 to 70 trillion dollars.

Also we need better accounting analysis. Many entries claim there is a surplus, which is definitely wrong.

There is an enormous deficit which is financed by appropriating the contributions of the younger generations.

The so called current PAY AS YOU GO system is a misnomer. It really means that the YOUNGER GENERATIONS pay to finance the retirements of the OLDER GENERATIONS.

Today’s younger generations have less disposable income available, higher overall taxes, and a higher cost of living.

[edit] People who have done such studies

All you need to do is to estimate the intergeneration accounting and search jstor or google for economists like alan auerbach and laurence kotlikoff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chivista (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Related legislation

Why do the 1969, 1976, and 1986 Tax Reform Acts point towards the article on 1986 TRA? I'm removing the link to the 1986 TRA page pending a reasonable explanation.

[edit] Privatization

"The Bush administration's abandonment of the issue" and then "president Bush" "has made clear that he intends to work to privatize social security in his second term". What gives? Did you see WSJ.com - Wall Street Journal Video - Bush at the Economic Conference? And a person doesn't have to put their savings in the stock market. I saw that bit on MSNBC with the message "many questions remain to answered" "what happenes if the stock market crash when someone is about to retire", so DON'T BUY STOCKS then. We'll let the folks decide.- Jerryseinfeld 20:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Franklin Roosevelt's vision for Social Security involved an annuity, a bit of history not mentioned, here.

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS REVIEWING THE BROAD OBJECTIVES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION. JUNE 8, 1934

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#message2 Brian Pearson

I think this bit of history should be part of the article. It should be known that the proposal was to include annuities [1], and that the idea was shot down. Brian Pearson 23:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] * Workers' compensation

Please see my edits re: is this article too long? above. I think that in a discussion of disability benefits it IS appropriate to mention the overlap/offset issue. I agree that it's not a program of the SSA.JenniSue 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I dropped this from the "Programs" list. Workers' compensation is a privately obtained insurance system; the feds don't administer or regulate it. States have set up special adjudication procedures for workers comp. claims, but unless someone can point to a particular provision in the Social Security Act that deals with workers comp., I don't think it sould be considered part of the Social Security system. Ellsworth 17:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified inaccuracies

I suppose that the edit summary "Reverting, these edits are factually inaccurate as written" is better than no edit summary at all, but only marginally. Before we go merrily reverting each other, might you find a moment to elaborate on what's alleged to be inaccurate? JamesMLane 08:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Problems

I also had problems with the Fraud section, which is why I removed most of it. There are all kinds of restrictions on immigrants receiving SSI since all of the Contract With America changes. I do not believe (and have seen no evidence -- and I work with immigrants trying to get SSI) that fraudulent Social Security cards are a big problem. Any immigrant who entered the US after 1996, even if they qualify for disability benefits under the additional restrictive provisions, cannot receive benefits after 7 years in the US. People receiving/signing the checks of dead or incarcerated relatives, people faking disability, people failing to report work are the real fraud issues with claimants. And I won't even go INTO Social Security's "consultative examiners" who claim to do IQ testing, MMPI testing, and a personal interview in 30 minutes. There's some REAL fraud for you. JenniSue 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have significant problems with the Fraud section:

"Given the vast size of the program fraud is guaranteed. Many legal and illegal immigrants qualify under 42 U.S.C. 423(d)-(1)(A), and SSI, 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A) Immigrants on SSI, including legal aliens, refugees, and illegal immigrants with fraudulent Social Security cards, numbered a mere 127,900 aliens (3.3 percent of recipients) in 1982. By 1992 the numbers expanded to 601,430 entitled (10.9 percent of recipients). In 2003, this figure was several million (About 25 percent of recipients)."

Individuals with "fraudulent Social Security cards" would not "qualify" under the statutes provided by the poster. I suggest that this paragraph be removed or otherwise corrected. Traverlaw 20:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


This article is having a real difficulty with Neutral Point of View--and arguably it was much better even just a week ago.

I reject this claim. Instead, your own edits betray your objective - slag work and go back to oversimplified and inaccurate information. Stirling Newberry 01:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are some rather rhetorically abusive things going on here. Consider this:

"Privatization of state-run old-age pension systems had occurred in the late 1980s and through the 1990s in several states throughout the world, most notable in Chile under dictator Augusto Pinochet, where workers were required to pay a certain percentage of their earnings into a retirement account which they could invest in certain approved forms of securities."

"Most notable in Chile under dictator..." talk about an emotional play!

That is who is the spokesman for the American Enterprise Institute on the subject. You should contact them if you don't think it is a good idea.Stirling Newberry 23:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You miss the point by dividing my sentences as you have.

How is that even most notable when, just earlier, we say: "Some nations, such as the United Kingdom, funnel payroll taxes into equities, and retirees then draw on these equities. Such systems are referred to as "privatization" of social security. "

Notable in the fact that it is already going broke 20 years after being instituted, see the daily telegraph's evisceration of Gordon Brown's budget numbers (which was well deserved his budget is an election papering over of serious problems on Labor's watch).Stirling Newberry 23:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What isn't notable is the "Chilean Dictator" business. The failure is relevant but you didn't write that part in to the article.
Please sign comments. And when a group makes a claim, then the credibility of who they have making it is relevant. Stirling Newberry 02:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I intend to attempt to restructure the body to create 1) a section just describing the demographic and revenue projections 2) a section which discusses changes to the structure of the program in response to #1 (well organized into privatize versus stabilize and including in each a subsection about history and a subsection about the proposal in the US) 3) a section which lists the theoretical arguments against the program 4) a section which lists the theoretical arguments for the program. Adjoining each argument can be a counterpoint that relates directly to that argument but what will not be placed there are merely "additional" considerations that do not directly relate.

If that is your only NPOV problem, I would suggest that you have an NPOV problem. Consider that an article on the pro side should have the pro-arguments first if it is an actually implemented program. Stirling Newberry 23:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest an ordering, only that the article is a mess to read right now and encourages POV disputes. I agree that the pro should appear first in the actual body of the article.

You're changes are merely an attempt to erase others work and throw things back to the inaccurate previous information. I'm reverting the page and will continue to do so until you show some signs of wanting to work with people rather than dictate and censor. I find your edits unacceptable and your attitude to be in bad faith. Stirling Newberry 01:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 ::sigh:: I hope someone else here sees some of my work as valuable. If you'd like to point out how I threw things back to the inaccurate previous information, please explain it to me. Please also explain what material I unfairly omited. I attemped the reorganization by mostly cut-and-pasting whole paragraphs. I removed redundant information. I relocated and rewrote scentences to make the document read cleanly. I feel I restructured the page in a valuable way. I think you have a burden of responsiblity to explain your actions.
The burden of proof is on you in this case. Trying to shift it is another example of bad faith. Stirling Newberry 02:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your focus on claiming bad faith is a diversionary tactic. As are your personal attacks on me. Now I gave the reasons for my reorganization before. The document was sprawling. This sprawl was being used to hide bias. I added a very sensible structure to the document. You have a burden because you reverted a good of work on my part with essentially no justification---only a value claim that I was introducing bias. So I repeat: What bias did I introduce? What did I mistakenly change?

For one thing removing the question of projections on the future of social security and changing it to an uncited objection. Given your allergy to statements you don't like, snipping them as "not facts" this indicated bias, dishonesty, bad faith and lack of intellectual integrity. Stirling Newberry 03:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I standby my edits. They distinguish between that which is fact from that which is opinion or disputed fact. You should stop taking my changes so personally. I don't doubt you very strongly believe you have it all figured out (I've read your blog posts advocating "Stabilization"). However, not everything you are certain as being verfiable fact is that. Some of it is opinion and it's very natural when writing to write what you believe to be true as fact but that does not make it so.
Now if in my reorganization, I made something worse, I'm sorry but I would have appreciated it if you had committed the correction rather than just delete my efforts en mass. I would appreciate it if you could be a little more specific as your "for one thing removing" isn't enough of a reference.

Look you are an underinformed pove troll who doesn't even understand TINSTAAFL. Stirling Newberry 04:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank-you for demonstrating that you do not even read my changes before reverting. I understand "There is no such thing as a free lunch" and I did not touch your commit vis-a-vis that principle. Your accusation of vandalism is unfounded. I hope someone else will step in here and support my changes.
  • Rolls eyes* Now you are lying about the statements you've made. Stirling Newberry 06:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? From my perspective, you're making yourself out to be completely crazy. So far as I can tell you claim that I reverted your commit associated with "(Note: every main stream economist agrees the question of pensions is about risk/reward and the ability of the state to cut benefits in a wider risk range environment.)" I did no such thing. I explicitly preserved your addition: "To privatization advocates, individuals are the best deciders of how much risk they should undertake with their retirement funds, where as stabilization proponents argue that if those risks turn out badly, there will be a political push to raise state benefits, which means that the "risks" are without moral hazard." even as I restored my unbiasing of your commits.
If you mean something else, do you care to explain your accusations? Maybe to restore good-will you can stop attacking me personally and bring specific issues to the table that we can discuss. User:Wavestream 06:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Organization of article

I offer the following suggestion as an alternative to both the previous organization and the reorganization proposed by Wavestream:

1 Component programs
2 History
   2.1 Creation
   2.2 Expansion
   2.3 Payroll tax increase of 1983
   2.4 Commission To Strengthen Social Security (2001)
   2.5 List of legislation
3 Current operation
   3.1 Social Security tax
   3.2 Benefits
   3.3 Social Security trust fund
   3.4 Social Security number
4 Demographic and revenue projections 
   4.1 Is there a "crisis"?
5 Proposals for change
   5.1 Adjustments within current framework
   5.2 Privatization 
      5.2.1 The Bush privatization plan
      5.2.2 Other privatization proposals
      5.3.3 Criticisms of privatization
6 See also
7 External links
   7.1 Articles
   7.2 Speeches

As with any article, this wouldn't be cast in stone. I was trying to set up a structure to accommodate the points that are in the article now. The "History" section, in particular, could acquire more subheadings as people add information. JamesMLane 06:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like your idea of putting the Commission in the history section. Vis-a-vis "Is there a crisis? how would this section differ from the "adjustments within the current framework" section? Incidentially, I feel like the section about the social security number should be moved to the page dedicated to talking about social security numbers + this page should be linking to that page as well. Wavestream 06:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The problem here is not organization of the article, it is the desire of various editors to censor information about privatization that they don't like. And don't think it isn't very obvious that this is the case. Until good faith is re-established, "reorganization" is of no use and will simply be an invitation to attempt another under the table round of censorship from the privatization advocates here. Stirling Newberry 06:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Please read the commits you seem to so dislike more closely. I think you'll see they are fair-minded. Wavestream 06:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I had in mind that the section on "Is there a 'crisis'?" would present only the different analyses of the current and projected situation. Part of what's going on in the debate is that people are framing the issue differently, so we can usefully discuss that general question first. Then, under the heading of "Adjustments within current framework", we would present information about the "tweaking" types of changes that have been suggested: raise the retirement age, cut benefits, raise the tax rate, remove the cap, make more of the benefits taxable, etc. That section would refer to specific proposals; the other one wouldn't. As for the Social Security number, it's part of the system, under the general topic of this article, so there should be at least some information. I think the summary form of the current text is at about the right level of detail. Of course, it's correct to wikilink to the daughter article that treats this particular point more extensively.
As for the relationship of reorganization to other disputes, I'm not sure what you mean. For example, it seems reasonable to assume that, under any sensible organization, there will be a discussion of the proposal for privatization, within which there'll be a reference to the Chilean experience. Therefore, the question of whether to call Pinochet a dictator will arise, unaffected by the organization. We can't put all other issues on hold while we try to resolve the "dictator" question. The decision about how to structure the article should be addressed on its own merits. If someone attempts an "under the table round of censorship", it will show up in the page history. JamesMLane 09:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Pinochet, let me clarify my position: Whether or not he was a dictator is open for debate--and certainly there are some scary things about his past if true, but this is an article on Social Security not about Pinochet. Therefore, unnecessary and contested labels can and ought to be omitted. Moreover, I would argue that even if he was a dictator by universal acknowledgment, mentioning him is not germane to the topic at hand unless the author's intention is to denigate his policies by associating them with our emotions regarding dictatorship and human rights issues. I feel that such a rhetorical technique does not belong within the guidelines of NPOV.Wavestream

Is this some sort of joke? from the Pinochet article: "A junta headed by Pinochet was established, which immediately suspended the constitution, dissolved Congress, imposed strict censorship, and banned all political parties." That makes him a dictator -- it is no more open to debate than whether Hitler was a dictator is open to debate. Also from that article: "Chileans remain divided on his legacy. Some see him as a brutal dictator who ended democracy and led a regime characterized by torture and favoritism towards the rich, while others believe that he saved the country from Communism and led the transformation of the Chilean economy into a modern and very successful one." This is an obvious false dichotomy -- regardless of what he may have led or saved the country from, regardless of what success he may have had, he WAS a dictator. Denying it indicates an agenda.

The Pinochet article, like our other articles, is reporting facts -- in this case, facts about opinions. The dichotomy is false in the sense that someone could logically describe Pinochet as a brutal dictator who saved the country from Communism. The dichotomy is accurate, however, as a report of opinions actually held. Most people tend not to think in such complex terms. Pinochet's supporters point to his accomplishments, his detractors point to his crimes, and never the twain shall meet.
Anyway, the issue here is whether the dictatorial nature of the Pinochet regime should be mentioned in this article. Is it relevant? It suggests that the Chilean privatization wasn't adopted through a democratic process. I suppose that U.S. privatization opponents could note that Chile is not an example of another country having made this choice, because it wasn't really the choice of the country, only of the dictator; U.S. privatization supporters could say that the problems that developed in Chile were because the system was adopted undemocratically, so those problems wouldn't arise if we privatized here. Those connections seem fairly tenuous, though. I'd like to hear more from people who think that Pinochet's being a dictator is relevant to Social Security in the U.S. JamesMLane 15:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

re structure, this article is incomplete if it doesn't discuss the legality (specifically the constitutionality) of the program's very existence. i am not just talking about quoting what a supreme court justice has written on the subject; i'm talking about quoting the relevant portions of the US constitution itself (egads!), especially article i section 8, and the 10th amendment. SaltyPig 06:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quoting constitutional text, by itself, is pointless unless it's related to the subject of the article. If there's a notable body of opinion that the system is unconstitutional, it should be possible to insert a reference to the views of a recognized expert in U.S. constitutional law. I didn't include a heading for that issue because I'm not aware of any such dispute. JamesMLane 09:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
i guess the word "relevant" didn't register. are you a "recognized expert" in writing encyclopedias? if not, what are you doing here? that comment is pretty telling. i'll handle the legality issue; i can read. SaltyPig 09:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Supreme Court has considered this question. And rejected those arguments, I can dig up the case references fairly easily. Obviously there are a handful of dissents from the court itself + probably some other people who have argued against the court. But in the latter case, I'd defer to the original poster to find the references. User:Wavestream
right. the supreme court ruled in favor of the expansion of federal power (imagine that), and its decision is worthy of inclusion here, just as the govgoon's have it at their site. however, that's not where the story ends. the supreme court rejecting an argument doesn't remove it from history, nor does it alleviate the truth of it. NPOV requires reference to any substantial dissent. SaltyPig 10:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with referring to any substantial dissent. I used the phrase "notable body of opinion" but I'd guess we're talking about pretty much the same thing, so I'm puzzled by the tone of your responses. No, I am certainly not a recognized expert on the subject of writing encyclopedias; therefore, my opinions on that subject would not merit quotation or reference in a Wikipedia article. By the same token, if you're not a recognized expert on constitutional law, then your opinions on the legality of Social Security don't merit quotation or reference. I don't question your ability to read, but it's not a sufficient qualification. The opinion must be shown to be a significant one. ("If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not." -- from Wikipedia:No original research#Classifying viewpoints by appropriateness) If you identify a prominent spokesperson for the view that the system is illegal, then I'll have no objection to mentioning that POV in the article. JamesMLane 11:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
i'm trying to get this straight in my head: you're not a recognized expert in writing encyclopedias. however, it's okay for you to write an encyclopedia; you just can't write about writing an encyclopedia. there comes a point where these pitiful appeals to "authority" (and you're not the only one doing it, of course) fall down in their illogic. exactly what is a "prominent spokesperson" for something? do you decide that? just to help me understand, must i have a prominent spokesman aver that murder violates the ten commandants? and please don't assume that i'm offering that as a proof/trap analogy. i'm not that stupid. the point is that not every subject requires an expert. i just want to know where it ends. i believe this is one of those clear situations, and can demonstrate it in the writing. however, i'm not asking you to believe that. i'm simply asking you to learn more about it before making arbitrary pronouncements. yesterday, you weren't even aware that there was a constitutional dispute over social security, yet that didn't keep you from declaring how it should be handled. perhaps that declaration was a bit hasty. the thing that surprises me most, however, is that people who are drawn to the wonderful wikipedia would still have an overly cautious, and ultimately destructive, "expert" mind set. prominent experts fail, and are drastically wrong, every day. they do still have their place. granted. btw, i shouldn't have to point out to you that, barring unanimity, there's an implied "prominent spokesman" for dissent in every supreme court opinion.
please don't mistake my argument here as disguise; there is no trouble finding plenty of prominent people, acceptable even to opponents, to counter the view of the supreme court on social security. people like, oh, i dunno... let's say, for example, james madison? and we can move forward from there, except -- lordy lordy -- i can already hear the cries of "antedates!" "not relevant!" yeah, i'll get to that. i sometimes wonder if, when discussing government on wikipedia, many people seriously consider government's opinion to be NPOV. getting over that ridiculous but engrained hurdle is the first step. SaltyPig 01:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To take your example of the Ten Commandments, even that may not be so open-and-shut as you seem to think. Does a government's imposition of the death penalty violate the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"? I think that there are colorable arguments each way. As to who is or is not a "prominent spokesman" for one viewpoint, the American Conference of Catholic Bishops qualifies, a newly appointed altar boy doesn't, and somewhere in between there will be some unclear cases. As to what requires attribution, some things would probably stay unattributed as self-evident unless and until someone challenged them, at which point the easiest way to avert a time-wasting dispute is often to go hunt up a citation, even if you think the point is obvious. In this instance, you would be hard-pressed indeed to maintain the position that the most recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on a constitutional issue is so obviously wrong that our article can simply assert that the Court erred, without attribution. And, no, James Madison by himself is not adequate support for the proposition that Social Security is unconstitutional. He never considered the system, and he died before the adoption of the amendment authorizing a federal income tax, which would arguably be relevant.
At any rate, if you want to think deep thoughts about Wikipedia's approach to the NPOV policy in general, I suggest you do it on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. For purposes of the article we're discussing here, if there's a significant POV that Social Security is unconstitutional, then you should be able to find a quotable spokesperson for that view. If Social Security was upheld in a non-unanimous Supreme Court decision, then, sure, we can summarize the Court's opinion and the dissent. On the other hand, if what you want to add to the article amounts to saying that an anonymous Wikipedia editor doesn't like Social Security and thinks there's an analogy to something Madison wrote in 1817, you can expect to meet some resistance to attempts to insert that fact. JamesMLane 06:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: Here's a real-life example for you. A Baptist church has opined that God sent the Indian Ocean tsunami to kill gay and lesbian Swedes who were vacationing in the area. [2] Is this theological explanation worth quoting in the article on the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, as an alternative to the point of view that the cause was some mumbo-jumbo about tectonic plates? I'd say no. We can't report every crackpot opinion that's out there, and this one just doesn't make the cut. I'll concede, however, that there's no bright line we can point to here. JamesMLane 07:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
i disagree with much of what you wrote, but i think we've reached a starting point. save me a slot; here i come! SaltyPig 09:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of my reorganization proposal

For some reason I was thinking about this article as I walked home today, and it occurred to me that listing Bush's proposal solely under "privatization" was misleading, because important components of (what is likely to be) his proposal don't relate to privatization. Getting online, I saw that Stirling had added information on that very point. Here's what I thought of as a better way to handle the various proposals for change:

5 Proposals for change
   5.1 Adjustments within current framework
   5.2 Privatization 
      5.2.1 Pros and cons of privatization
   5.3 Bush's proposal
      5.3.1 Major components
      5.3.2 Pros and cons of Bush's proposal
      5.3.3 Dispute over Bush's proposal

It could use a better title for 5.3.3. The idea is that, having addressed the merits of the dispute (5.3.2), we report on the politics of it, with stuff like: here's who's contributing money to the ad campaign to push Bush's plan, here's what the AARP is doing, here's how Congressional leaders of both parties are leaning on their members, etc. JamesMLane 00:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Something merely being a fact does not give cause for it's inclusion. If you can find a reference from a prominent individual or peer reviewed source which directly alleges that the campaign donations imply corrupt intent then it would be appropriate to include. However, I urge people to reread the NPOV guidelines. Of particular importantance (in my opinion) is this section from NPOV_tutorial (I applogize for quoting so much, but I don't trust people to actually bother to read from the link... Wavestream):

[edit] Insinuation

While hinting or insinuating may feel weak, it is a powerful tool and abuse of it is a common way of introducing bias. Consider the example:

The minister of parliament has been accused of lacking backbone and of being unwilling to use the armed forces to defend our rights. He acknowledged last month that he is left-handed.

To mention the minister's left-handedness in this context is to imply that it is relevant. As a result, this juxtaposition of otherwise neutral statements has the effect of fostering prejudice, in particular the prejudice that all left-handers are wimps. Insinuations of this sort are guaranteed to prompt complaints. Do not use or tolerate them.

[edit] Bias in attribution: Mind your nuances

It's possible to introduce your own bias even while attributing. Take this sentence as an example:

"Duane Gish said that the Earth and its living creatures were created by God."

This is a neutral statement as it stands. But what if "said" were substituted with:

  • explained
  • pointed out
  • claimed
  • suggested

All have different connotations, which could introduce bias, depending on context. "Pointed out" and "explained" in particular, imply that the Earth indeed was created by God, which many people consider false. In choosing words, imagine how a sentence will read to someone with another POV, and choose carefully. Whenever "said", "wrote", or "stated" are options, they are usually the safest.

[edit] The most important lesson

More important than being able to write neutrally without thinking about it is being willing and knowing how to work with others toward that goal. Be bold in editing pages that are biased, be bold in asking for help, and do not be alarmed when others edit your articles.

Excerpt from NPOV policy quoted by Wavestream ends here.

[edit] NPOV re campaigning

It seems your key point is that "If you can find a reference from a prominent individual or peer reviewed source which directly alleges that the campaign donations imply corrupt intent then it would be appropriate to include." I agree that a charge or implication of corruption would have to be attributed (although I can't imagine how any "peer reviewed source" could support such a statement). I also agree that facts about the campaigning, on all sides, should be reported neutrally -- no references to "Bush's corporate paymasters" or the AARP's "knee-jerk opposition to change" or the like.

Nevertheless, there's no reason to restrict the article to the perspective of a hypothetical reader who just wants help in deciding whether Bush's proposal is a good idea. As the debate unfolds, some readers will be looking for information about who's saying what, where the money is coming from, what alliances are being formed or are falling apart, etc. Those subjects merit inclusion. The notability of the politics of the dispute doesn't depend on any assumption of corruption. JamesMLane 02:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In regards to that particular point I was concerned about insinuation as well. It's one thing to say "xyz donated $q to advocate this proposal" -- and I agree with your reasoning that it is probably useful information to include. I was a bit thrown by the association of your topic heading "dispute over..." and that particular item though--admittedly you did express that you were uncertain about the heading name. To include it under that heading I'd prefer to see a reference of the form I mentioned earlier but in terms of answering "who's saying what" I think you need a more neutral heading. Maybe explicitly create sections for listing supporters and detractors...
I think otherwise you took my commentary on NPOV as intended. This is a very controversal issue and it needs to be handled delicately. Almost everything is disputed by some reputable source or another. But I think if we carefully show how everyone sees things without being judgmental we can do a lot of good. You seem to have the right spirit in mind, and I look forward to seeing some of your suggestions merged in. Wavestream
In incorporating the revision I've tried another version of the affected section headings, calling them "Substance of the dispute over Bush's proposal" and "Politics of the dispute over Bush's proposal". The idea is to keep the discussion of the merits separate from the reporting about what happens in the course of what's shaping up to be a major campaign. I hope this will remove any insinuation of the type that concerns you. Nevertheless, if securities industry interests contribute big bucks to support advertising in favor of privatization, that's a notable fact that should be in the article. Some readers will infer that there is indeed corrupt intent. In general, that's not a subject that we'd be in a position to reach a conclusion on -- i.e., the article shouldn't say that there was or was not such an intent, and I agree with you that what we shouldn't say we shouldn't insinuate. We should, however, present the relevant facts, including properly sourced information about what Wall Street is doing to promote the proposal. JamesMLane 17:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So if you trace back the reference what you find is an online columnist quoting from the actual source of those speculations: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39791-2004Dec31?language=printer As you can see from the washingtonpost article, the information as originally drafted for this page is a jumbling of the actual material in the washingtonpost article.
  • Progress for America "has set aside about $9 million to support the president's Social Security plan as well as other White House domestic priorities in the new year... The group is asking its donors for much more, he said."
  • Club for Growth "has raised $1.5 million and hopes to hit a $15 million target"
  • Their contributions are likely to be dwarfed by those from corporate trade associations, spearheaded by the National Association of Manufacturers
  • "[GOP Officials say that] other likely contributors include the financial services and securities industries and other Fortune 500 companies
  • Stephen Moore Speculates that "It could easily be a $50 million to $100 million cost to convince people this is legislation that needs to be enacted," Moore said. "It's going to be expensive" because "it's the most important public policy fight in 25 years," he said."
all the above information comes from the wp article, which as I mentioned before is the source behind the opinion piece which the current entry currently links to. I'm sorry I didn't pull this information together at this level of detail earlier--before I was only vaguely aware that the information as originally posted was not quite right and written so as to be more dramatic.
My recommendation is that the summary I just gave be commited and that the reference be updated to point to the washington post article. Wavestream
My recollection of the Washington Post policies is that, after 14 days, you have to pay to read an article on the site. I have no objection to linking to the Post site if that URL will always enable a reader to read the article without registering and without paying; otherwise, the AlterNet link would be better. As for the summary, I didn't think our article needed to include every organization mentioned in the source -- just enough to give an idea of the types of donors that were being solicited. Your comment leaves me unclear about what you think the Wikipedia article itself (aside from any links) should say. Could you perhaps post the specific text here? JamesMLane 07:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not sure about their policies. The alternet link though is not to the acticle but to an opinion piece that happens to quote the article.... http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002137378_socsec01.html is a republication of the original--though I don't know their policy either.
It isn't too bad really. Just a small detail.
"To assist that effort, Republican donors were asked after the election to help raise $50 million or more for a campaign in support of the proposal,"
No-one has been asked to raise 50 Million or more. One of the donor organizations predicts that 50-100 Million will be needed eventually. That donor organization is aiming get 15 Million. I would also add in something about other companies being expected to donate money as well. Yes, the security companies have an interest--they stand to make a good deal in fees. Corporations in general have an interest as well--it stands to give them access to more capital.
Like I said before, I really appreciate your work + your taking the time to talk. Thanks. Wavestream


[edit] Temp page as preview of reorganization

In my experience, it's easier to work toward a consensus when there are specific proposals instead of generalized assertions. Therefore, I've gone ahead and reorganized the article along the lines I proposed above, but the article itself is untouched; the reorganized version is at User:JamesMLane/Social Security (temp).

I began by taking the material that was in the article as it stood at 23:35, 11 Jan 2005 and putting into the new structure. That's this version. The reorganization called for some further rearranging, filling in of gaps, and eliminating duplication; that's this version.

If this reorganization is acceptable, I would substitute it for the article, and then duplicate the handful of changes that were made in the main article after I grabbed the text.

Obviously, if we adopt this reorganization, editing will continue. I myself don't agree with everything in the temp version. At this stage I was trying to deal only with the organizational issue. If it meets with general approval, I'd like to implement it as soon as possible, to minimize the number of edits to the main page that have to be duplicated into the reorganized version. JamesMLane 08:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've gotten partway through what I'd like to do, but I'm being Wikifrustrated. My agenda was to import the new organization, then try rewording the headings about the Bush plan to try to address Wavestream's concerns, then duplicate the changes by the anon and by Stirling Newberry that were made after I copied the article to do the reogranization. Apparently, server issues are preventing this, at least for now. Not sure how far I got. JamesMLane 11:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, it should be done now. In adding in the last two edits by Stirling Newberry, I corrected two apparent typos: Opponents "argue that the upfront borrowing costs mean that this plan would produce a lower total deficit in the Social Security fund against current law until around 2030" was missing the word "not" -- the plan would not produce a lower total deficit for years. Also, I didn't copy the fragment "Advoc" at the end of the paragraph. JamesMLane 17:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Was removing the link to the CBO page on SS intentional? Hopefully, I'll have a chance to give it all a good read later . Wavestream
If you mean this link, it's still in there, under the "Major components" heading. If you mean some other link, which do you mean and where was it in the old version? I don't think I removed anything except a few passages that were repetitious in the old version, where the repetition became apparent when I brought them together under a single heading. JamesMLane 04:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: Now that you've added it, I see what you mean. The link to the "Primer" was removed by this edit when you and Stirling Newberry were going at it. The link hadn't been restored as of the version that I copied to do the reorganization, so I never noticed it was missing. I'm having some difficulties dealing with .pdf files right now but I'll try to tackle that one soon so I can join in any discussion about whether to include it. JamesMLane 07:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 81 Percent

Re the demographic trends section. I was under the (mistaken?) impression that the 19% CBO predicted shortfall was the long-run year-over-year number. i.e., that it too started around 2075. However the paragraph flows as: 1) Short fall is expected to begin in... 2) CBO predicts. This implies that the shortfall is expected to be 19% in the first year. However, the numbers I recall is that it will be a mere 16 billion shortfall--that isn't even 10 percent of today's program. Thus I believed that the 81% number was the expected eventual steady-state condition. Can we peg that 81% number down to a specific CBO document so that we know when the CBO thinks that will happen? Wavestream

You're probably talking about two different shortfalls. Expenses exceed payroll tax receipts in roughly 2019 (although that current-accounts shortfall apparently doesn't come until 2029 if you include interest on the notes held by the trust fund). When there's a current-accounts shortfall, the SSA starts redeeming the notes to pay benefits. The accumulated notes are exhausted in roughly 2052, at which time the SSA doesn't have enough money to pay all benefits. At that point, current revenues are about 81% of current expenses, hence the 19% shortfall. The CBO says:
Under current law, trust-fund exhaustion is projected to occur in 2052, so starting in 2053, trust-fund-financed outlays would be limited to annual revenues.... Trust-fund-financed benefits would then be 19 percent lower than scheduled benefits; by 2105, they would be 30 percent lower.
(from [3]) My guess is that the $16 billion figure is the amount by which expenses exceed payroll tax receipts in 2019. JamesMLane 21:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Shifting of Paragraphs in Privatization Section

Revised beginnning would appear as follows:

[edit] Privatization

Though it has its roots going back into the 19th century, the use of a social insurance program to pay retirement benefits is not universal. Privatization of state-run old-age pension systems began occuring in the late 1980s and through the 1990s in several countries. The United Kingdom instituted a system which funnels payroll taxes into equities, and retirees then draw on these equities. Similarly, in Chile, a system was instituted where workers were required to pay a certain percentage of their earnings into a retirement account that they could invest in certain approved forms of securities. Withdrawals before retirement were prohibited, but the funds in the retirement accounts belong to the individual worker and can even be passed on to the worker's heirs at time of death. Such systems are referred to as "privatization" of social security.

In the late 1990s, U.S. based privatization advocates argued that Social Security was missing out on the high rates of return available in the stock market in the 1990s, and argued that Private Retirement Accounts be used in analogy to the IRAs and 401(k) plans.

Proposals for privatization have ranged from those initially suggested by Republican candidates in 2000, which involved setting aside an initially small percentage of each worker's payroll tax in a 'lockbox'--an asset which the worker effectively owned and would be allowed to invest in securities, to proposals which eliminate the Social Security payroll tax completely for workers born after a certain date and allow workers of different ages different amounts of time for which they could opt to not pay the payroll tax, in exchange for a proportional delay in their receipt of payouts.

The commission appointed by Bush issued a report in 2001 that described three possible models for a change based on partial privatization:

  • Two percent of taxable wages would be placed into private accounts for investment (likely in stocks), with the rest of the system unchanged.
  • Four percent of taxable wages, up to $1000, would be placed into private accounts for investment.
  • One percent of wages would be placed into retirement accounts, and 2.5% would be invested.

After Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security (2001) made its report, the topic moved the backburner during the pre-election interregnum, but several influential organizations, most notably the Cato Institute, continued to consider it a crucial issue. After the 2004 election, Bush discussed privatization as one of his goals for his second term.

[edit] Pros and cons of privatization

Several questions posed by privatization are: 1) how much risk should workers be forced to bear, 2) what rewards do they get for bearing them, and 3) what happens to those whose risks turn out badly. To privatization advocates, individuals are the best deciders of how much risk they should undertake with their retirement funds, where as stabilization proponents argue that if those risks turn out badly, there will be a political push to raise state benefits, which means that the "risks" are without moral hazard.

Libertarians commonly criticize social security for returning at a lower rate than other investments, however, their numbers ignore the cost of borrowing for privatization, and the costs of insuring the increased risks that privatization would create. Advocates of privatization, such as the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute criticize the system as being similar to the illegal Ponzi pyramid scheme. [4] Social Security's supporters state that it is only a Ponzi scheme if the United States intends to repudiate its debts.

Critics of privatization point out that in states where "privatization" has occured, costs of the state pension system have risen, because while some workers do better, others do worse, creating increased strain on anti-poverty programs, the United Kingdom is cited as an example of this problem. Another problem in the United Kingdom is the burden on private pensions. The National Association of Pension Funds has praised the "efficiencies of scale" of the U.S. Social Security program. [5]

Privatization has been criticized on the grounds that it would cause substantial cuts in guaranteed benefits, only part of which could be made up by earnings on a private account, and would greatly increase the amount spent on administrative expenses. [6]

[edit] Prescription rather than description

This article starts talking about what Social Security "should be" before it has even established what it "is". The second and third paragraphs in particular are a "prescription" rather than a "description". It is not Wikipedia's aim to say what things should be, so the tone of these two paragraphs is completely wrong. At the moment the article would be improved if paragraphs two and three were simply deleted in my opinion. I would rewrite them if I knew anything about the US Social Security program but I don't, so it's up to you guys to sort it out. And it needs sorting. Good luck. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:17, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

[edit] Some guy's social security reform plan

If they would pay accrued, children, survivors,spouces, and disability benefits under current law, and invest 6.2% of future earning for everyone(even those already drawing benefits and working part time.) if they die before drawing benefits their family would get the present value of benefits,(would be the monthly benefit in current dollars at full retirement age times 140) at the time they changed to the new system plus the average wage growth until age 60 and cpi after that time, plus the money in their private account. the 90%32%15% formula would be changed to 120%18.60% the 120% rate would end at 859.00 in 2005 and adjusted by average wages growth, to figure accrued benefits. that way they wouldn't need a min benefit. retirement age would stay at 66 and not increase to 67 at full retirement age your benefit would be the balance in the private account divided by 140 plus accreued benefits or your life time earnings divided by 420 times the 120%18.6% formula above. people drawing benefits now their formula would be change to 120%18.6% after everyone that paid into the social security before 2005 dies, social security would be 100% privatized except for people drawing survivors, children, spouses, and disability benefits. if you retire early the benefit would be multipied by 140/(140 plus the number of months you started drawing benefits before age 66.

[edit] Economic predictions

Shouldn't the article note, in the section where it talks about the trust fund running out in 2042, note that this is based on one set of economic models, and that ones which predict higher economic growth show this never happening? john k 07:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At one point it did point out that it was midline estimate. I've added a section at the end of the demographic projection section which attempts to clarify this point. Sadly, one individual, who in my opinion, was attempting to turn the article into a platform for arguing a specific reform position, substantially expanded the article. Unfortunately, his non-NPOV and Factual components were very intertwined and we're just working through it now. Thanks for catching this defect that slipped in. Wavestream

[edit] Ending employer taxes

This paragraph has been added:

Some liberals argue that the ultimate goal of privatization is the elimination of Social Security in its entirety. As half of Social Security is paid through an "invisible" 6.2% that comes directly from the employer, these critics argue that the goal of privatization efforts is to relieve companies of this tax burden to increase profits and "invisibly" impoverish the general population.

Who argues that? To say that the Bush administration plan would amount to the elimination of Social Security is along the lines of what some liberals say, but I don't recall seeing anyone say that the goal is to relieve the employers of the burden of paying their half of the tax. Would you please cite a source? JamesMLane 10:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Molly Ivins talks about the Republican's desire to eliminate social security in this article, amognst others: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=18336 Also, House member Brown speaks of it here: http://www.house.gov/corrinebrown/ccorner107/corner.socialsecurity.html And plenty of libertarians in the country actively advocate the elimination of social security. http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/time-to-end-ss.html I realize that the segment on eliminating the 6.2% employer tax is something less frequently commented on and probably should not have been included, but I think discussion of possible elimination of the program is important/worthwhile. --Directorstratton 19:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Made some changes and moved the section around. --Directorstratton 19:56, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of title "President"

I added in a couple of places the word President preceeding the name Bush. Omitting the word President somehow feels biased (if not pejorative) and could be construed as such. If this is common and accepted practice, please forgive me.

OK, you're forgiven! It is indeed the common practice. To assure you that it's not a matter of bias, I planned to mention to you that the article on Bill Clinton was written the same way. Double-checking it first, I found that it's mostly correct, referring to him as "Clinton", but there are a few lapses, which I'll go and correct. Here's our general policy: "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only." (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names) The major exception is that you must maintain the integrity of a direct quotation. If you're quoting a government report that says something like "The commission was appointed by President Bush to consider Social Security...." then you quote it exactly, even though use of "President" doesn't follow our style. If you paraphrase it, this rule doesn't apply, so you could write "The commission appointed by Bush in 2001...." JamesMLane 19:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Debt in the legal sense

I'm not sure what is meant by the phrase at the end of the sentence (Although Social Security benefits to future retirees do not represent debt in the legal sense (Flemming v. Nestor, 1960), money invested in the trust fund does.) in the pros and cons of privatization subsection. As I understand it, there is no money invested in either of the Social Security trust funds. The trust funds currently only contain special government bonds that represent debt from the US Treasury to the trust funds. So what is meant by "money invested in the trust fund"? Even if there were money in the trust funds, who would it be indebted to? My inclination is to switch the sentence back to its original wording, but I'd like to get some feedback first, in case I'm missing something. I'd especially appreciate feedback from Stirling, since he edited the sentence. Thanks. - Walkiped 23:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The treasuries in the trust fund represent legal debt, promised benefits do not,

"As I understand it, there is no money invested in either of the Social Security trust funds. The trust funds currently only contain special government bonds that represent debt from the US Treasury to the trust funds"

Is false, that is like saying that because Wall Street doesn't have a vault with all the money in market capitalization that there isn't "money invested in the stock market". These treasuries do represent debt in the legal sense, where as promised benefits do not. This is the difference that should be made clear. Stirling Newberry 00:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not just a bookkeeping entry, but it's not exactly "debt in the legal sense". If the U.S. refused to honor T-Bills bought by, say, Citibank, then Citibank could bring suit and get a court order directing payment. With the Social Security Trust Fund, it's not realistic to picture the Social Security Administrator bringing suit against another branch of the same government. It's certainly not politically realistic; the government would either appropriate the money to redeem the bonds, or it would cut the benefits so that the SSA wouldn't need to dip into the Trust Fund. The prospect may not even be legally realistic. If, somehow, that situation were to develop, I don't know whether the SSA would have legal standing to bring suit. Unlike Citibank, the SSA isn't a separate legal entity from the debtor. The key point to be made isn't about the legal technicalities, but rather that the government has been collecting extra SS taxes for the last 20 years, to build up this surplus, based on the premise that the surplus would be necessary to cover boomer retirements. It' widely regarded as a moral obligation, regardless of the legal status. JamesMLane 04:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we're roughly on the same page on the status of the bonds in the trust fund. I didn't mean to allege that the trust fund doesn't hold monetary value. My concern, though, is that the previous sentence ("Supporters of the current Social Security system state that it is only a Ponzi scheme if the United States intends to repudiate its debts.") seems to imply that by not paying retirees their Social Security benefits, the government would be "repudiating its debts", which is not the case. In order for the government not to pay benefits to retirees, either Congress could transfer the assets of the trust fund to the Treasury thereby neutralizing the debt (which Congress can do because the trust fund is owned by the government), or the Treasury could pay the SSA the money it owes, and then the SSA could just transfer those funds back to the Treasury (again, by an act of Congress). The point is that no debt repudiation would be necessary for the government not to pay Social Security benefits to retirees. The sentence ("Supporters of the current Social Security system state that it is only a Ponzi scheme if the United States intends to repudiate its debts.") implies that the government would be repudiating its debts by not paying benefits, which is not the case, because at no point is SSA or the trust fund indebted to the retirees. Of course, the political hurdles to cutting off benefits are pretty much insurmountable, because, as JamesMLane points out, the promised benefits to future retirees are widely regarded as a moral obligation -- but it is not a legal one.

I think the two sentences together ("Supporters of the current Social Security system state that it is only a Ponzi scheme if the United States intends to repudiate its debts. Although Social Security benefits to future retirees do not represent debt in the legal sense (Flemming v. Nestor, 1960), money invested in the trust fund does.") should be modified to make clear the difference between debt owed by the Treasury to the trust fund, and the moral obligation (but nothing more) owed by the trust fund to the future/current retirees. I'm willing to take a stab at it myself, but would appreciate any thoughts you have on the matter before I proceed. - Walkiped 01:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One issue is the extent to which this article should get into detail about the nature and status of the Trust Fund. Last week, I made a major edit to the Social Security Trust Fund article to improve the discussion of the different views. Some of the material that's now in Social Security (United States) should perhaps be moved there to augment what I wrote.
Another point to bear in mind is that we're characterizing people's arguments, not adjudicating them. We should report on notable opinions, one of which (because it's widely held) is the opinion that nonpayment would amount to repudiation or default -- i.e., the opinion that the bonds held by the Trust Fund are essentially equivalent to those held by Citibank. If the sentence begins with a phrase like "Supporters argue that..." then you shouldn't edit it to make sure that the argument being presented is correct. Instead, edit it to make sure that the argument is being presented fairly, as its proponents make it. The same applies to the other side. Bush's statement that "There is no trust", which I included in the Trust Fund article, is, in my opinion, somewhere on the range of a gross exaggeration to a flat-out lie; nevertheless, it's a notable opinion that deserves to be presented. JamesMLane 03:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of programs

This list is quite a miscellany. It includes at least one retirement-oriented program (for railroad workers) that's not administered by the Social Security Administration, and at least one non-retirement program (Supplemental Security Income) that's presumably included only because the SSA happens to administer it. The list also includes quite a few red links. It's generally an uninformative and intimidating section to appear so early in the article, doing nothing to draw the reader in. It's also disconnected from the rest of the article, which is exclusively about OASDI.

I suggest that the article should be about what most people think of as "Social Security", namely OASDI. The first reference to the SSA can mention that it runs some other programs, too; the list can be in the SSA article. Somewhere in this article we could add links to other retirement programs. Unless there's a reason to keep the list in its current form, I'll start work on making these changes. JamesMLane 23:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I meant to add that the list of legislation is also offputting and not all that helpful. So as not to lose that information, however, my inclination is to spin it off into a daughter article. JamesMLane 18:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the introduction to the list of programs and I split off the list of legislation to List of Social Security legislation (United States) I included the 1934 original act and the 1939 changes in the new list. There may be more laws that should be added. Perhaps the list of programs should be moved to the end of the article. --agr 22:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think much of the list can simply be eliminated. Here's how I treated each item on the list:
In this shortened form, I think it should be kept at the beginning of the article. It's no longer so visually cluttering, and it may help some readers get to the article they really want. JamesMLane 23:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the payment of SSI should the government default, it should be noted how the government would obtain the money needed to continue to pay SSI should the fund be reduced to a zero cash balance leaving only the bond funds. A point of clarification would be needed, because as I understand it other government programs would need cut or taxes would need raised significantly.

[edit] MSNBC Article

You would think that an article about numbers would be written by someone who knows something about numbers. But that might to too much to ask, right?[7]

Still, because of the massive size of Social Security, with its 154 million covered employees, Mills estimated that even a simple program of individual accounts comparable to the TSP might generate $39 billion in fees, in present-value terms, over 75 years.
That would be just 1.2 percent of the financial sector’s projected total revenue of $3.3 trillion over that timeframe. But a more complex menu of options, which might be offered to participants whose accounts grow beyond, say, $5,000, might generate $279 billion in fees over 75 years, boosting projected industry revenues by about 8.5 percent.

The Bush Proposal, as pointed out by FactCheck[8], doesn't include any options when you get more than $5,000 in your account. This may be because the plan doesn't start until 2009, you can only put $1,000 into your account in a year, so the earliest this would come up is 2014. By that time, Hillary is two years into her lame duck term. But this is just guessing. So why is the Wikipedia reporting options that aren't real? Why not report the net cost of pushing old people down the stairs as some ads reported was the GOP plan? (Net cost = SS savings less cost of hiring people to push "Blue Hairs" down the stairs. Hey, we might even pull a profit on the deal...)

Be that as it may, what are the numbers?

$39 billion in fees on $3.3 trillion is 1.18% (close enough to 1.2% , since all these numbers are guesses). $279 billion in fees on the same $3.3 trillion is 8.45% (again, close enough to 8.5%, etc.). But this isn't a zero sum game. (Most economic items aren't.) The article said additional fees so the total fees would also change. If you add $240 billion (the additional fees between $39 billion and $279 billion) to the $3.3 trillion, the percentage is now 7.88%, not 8.45%. I don't know about you, but I would round 7.88% to 7.9%, not 8.5%.

The article referenced also used the term "windfall" which was in my original edit. You're probably right that it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia, but should an article being referencing as authoritative also be using it? And should high percentages which are generated by options that aren't in the Bush plan be in a section entitled Politics of the dispute over Bush's proposal?

Discussing the Bush plan at this point runs into the difficulty that he's left a lot of details open. The referenced article gives the industry's estimate of what it would gain from private accounts. That's relevant to the "Politics" section. Even if the industry is being too optimistic, by considering a version of privatization that's unlikely to be enacted, their own estimate will affect their reaction to the proposal, and is therefore part of its politics.
On the percentages, I see that the MSN sentence could be interpreted two ways. I read it as meaning that the $279 billion, if available, would boost revenues by 8.5% over what they would have been without any privatization at all (i.e., an addition to the amounr that they'll collect if Social Security continues under the status quo). You're reading it as the "boost" that would come from the $279 billion over what revenues would have been with the lower estimate. Your calculations suggest that the source meant to refer to the addition to the status quo, because that's how all the numbers jibe. Fortunately, the wording of the summary in our article doesn't create this confusion. JamesMLane 05:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FactCheck article

On FactCheck.org, they looked at how much was being paid under the current federal retirement system, which Bush is piggybacking for his SS plan.

The figure that the Campaign for America should have used -- from the same SIA study -- is $39 billion (over 75 years). That's the amount that the SIA study said would accrue to the securities industry under a plan like the one Bush is actually proposing, allowing workers to choose from only a few passively managed funds. But even that figure is way too high, because it is based on an assumption that fees paid to Wall Street would average .035% of assets -- or $3.50 on a $10,000 account. As we've shown, that figure turns out to be 22 times higher than the actual net rate paid to Barclays to manage the TSP accounts. The hard bargain driven by the TSP apparently wasn't known even by the securities industry's own lobby.
The total cost to administer private Social Security accounts under Bush's proposal is bound to be far higher than the 6 basis points that federal workers pay under the TSP. That's mainly because federal payrolls are highly centralized and computerized, and allow efficient administration of the payroll deductions and reporting involved. Expanding such a system to cover millions of small businesses and self-employed individuals, most of them reporting to the government on error-prone paper forms, would obviously run up the costs of administration. In fact, the Social Security Administration's Chief Actuary estimates that the total cost of administering private accounts would be about 30 basis point -- or $30 per year for every $10,000 invested. That's five times higher than the total cost of the TSP, to be sure. But it would still be a far better deal than the fees charged by most privately marketed mutual funds, and it wouldn't mean any higher fees for Wall Street.

Let's run the numbers, again. Remember that according to the MSNBC article, $39 billion is equivalent to 1.2% of their anticipated revenues of $3.3 trillion. If we use the current amount of money going to the securities industry from the current plan, which is 22 times smaller than the percentage used by MSNBC, then the revenues going to the industry would be only $1.8 billion, not $39 billion. To be fair, total revenues for the industry would also drop by a little over $37 billion. So the percentage of industry revenues atributable to the Bush Plan would be 0.054% of total industry revenue. Then FactCheck uses the assumption of the SSA actuary that the SS plan will cost five times more than the current federal retirement system, even though they think economies of scale would lower that estimate. Under that scenario, revenues from SS come to $8.9 billion (still significantly lower than $39 billion) and total industry revenues rise, but don't make it back to $3.3 trillion. The percentage of industry revenues from the SS system under this scenario is 0.27% of total revenues.

Given all of that, the end result is that after the sentence "The Securities Industry Association estimated that fees on the accounts could constitute from 1.2 percent to 8.5 percent of the financial sector's revenues, depending on which options were selected," I'm adding the following sentence: "Other analysis have shown that these estimates may be significantly overstated, with the financial sector receiving only 0.05% and 0.27% of their total revenues from fees on these accounts."

[edit] Summary of daughter article

A while back, we spun off the detailed discussion of Bush's proposal into a daughter article, Social Security debate (United States), replacing the long section with a couple sentences and a link. The link, by itself, is not enough. The issue has arisen before, in other articles: "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a ‘controversial’ section without leaving an adequate summary." (Wikipedia:Article size#Restructuring and splitting articles). Based on that, I've restored the brief summary of each side's arguments. If anything, this summary is too short, rather than too long. JamesMLane 15:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Social security numbers and the Privacy Act

Dear fellow editors: On 27 January 2006, I edited the section on the Privacy Act and the use of social security numbers in the Social Security (United States) article. As previously worded, the article had incorrectly referred to a certain provision of the Privacy Act as "unengrossed." The provision in question, section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974, is more properly said to be "uncodified." Whether a particular statute is "codified" or "uncodified" has nothing to do with its legal validity or the extent to which it is enforced.

Further, I added quotations from section 7 to show why the LEGAL use of the social security number is so extensive. In effect, the exceptions in section 7 go a long way to swallowing the general rule that SSNs should not be used extensively. The laws themselves provide the exceptions -- the most notable of which is perhaps the Internal Revenue Code requirement that SSNs be used as taxpayer ID numbers for individuals.

By the way, the terms "engrossed" and "enrolled" are legal terms referring to legislation at various stages as it moves through the Congress and the legislative process. Those terms have nothing to do with whether a statute, as finally enacted, is "codified" or not. Yours, Famspear 16:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits re disability benefits and fraud

I did some editing to the disability section to make it more accurate, especially as pertains to children. I also added the process for appeals through the system. I disagree with the contention that the federal court system is used "extensively" for appeals -- my experience is that few cases go to federal court because the primary issue is usually credibility and the courts will simply defer to the ALJ on that issue. Also, in many cases, the "problem" (whatever it is) with the case can be addressed on a new application (with or without reopening the previous decision). I would be happy to research the number of Social Security cases in federal court vs. the number of other kinds of cases or vs. the number of cases that end at the Appeals Council. I just don't have time to do it right this second.

If anyone has questions about why my edits are more accurate, I'm happy to provide code and reg cites.

Also, I removed this text from the "fraud" section: guaranteed. Many legal and illegal immigrants qualify under 42 U.S.C. 423(d)-(1)(A), and SSI, 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A) Immigrants on SSI, including legal aliens, refugees, and illegal immigrants with fraudulent Social Security cards, numbered a mere 127,900 aliens (3.3 percent of recipients) in 1982. By 1992 the numbers expanded to 601,430 entitled (10.9 percent of recipients). In 2003, this figure was several million (About 25 percent of recipients).

This is an offensive nonsequitur -- immigrants on SSI do not commit fraud any more often than American citizens do. And when they do commit fraud, it's the same kinds of fraud (faking a disability, failing to report income or work) that American citizens commit. It is misleading and inappropriate to imply that Social Security's fraud problem has anything to do with the number of immigrants receiving benefits. Also, you failed to discuss the fact that NO immigrant who has entered the U.S. since 1998 can receive old-age SSI and that only immigrants within certain categories can receive disability SSI and then only for 7 years. Moreover, it takes more than a Social Security card (fraudulent or not) to receive benefits, so the likelihood that an illegal immigrant would forge a card to appear to be an eligible alien and apply for benefits is pretty low. Especially since that kind of behavior would trigger all kinds of unwanted attention from a variety of federal agencies. Again, I'm happy to get the "official" source for this information.JenniSue 21:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

whoever did the edits on the ALJ process for evaluating disability did a great job John wesley 13:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article too long?

I'm a newbie, so I'm not sure when articles need to be split or if it's my place to do it, but I think this entry contains too many different concepts -- Social Security Retirement, SSI, Social Security/SSI for disability, the history of Social Security, organization of SSA, and how to calculate your benefits. In addition, there is a lot of additional information needed to clarify what is here. My suggestion would be to at least separate "Social Security/SSI Retirement" and "Social Security/SSI Disability." Retirement could include the section on Widow(er)'s Retirement Benefits and what happens when a beneficiary dies (lots of people have questions about this since sometimes they have to return a benefits check and/or don't get the $255 check). Also, how does one go about getting retirement benefits and what happens if you work after age 65? Disability could contain the discussion of both the procedural and substantive issues in determining whether an adult is disabled, as well as a mention of the standard for Child SSI. A discussion of DACIB would be appropriate here, since most kids on DACIB have either received child SSI or the parent has gone through the disability process. In addition, the Back to Work incentives should be mentioned at least in passing, as well as Medicare eligibility. A third "Social Security Administration" entry could be used for the history of the program and its current organizational structure. "Calculating Your Social Security Benefits" could either go here or in it's own section, along with a discussion of the PEBES form (although probably both Retirement and Disability should include a brief mention).

I think it's a good article, this is just an incredibly complex topic that more and more people have questions about. JenniSue 21:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joining Social Security

The article currently states "There is no legal requirement for individuals to join the Social Security program ..."

This is appears to be a distinction without a difference to me. Sort of like sending Al Capone to prison on tax evasion instead of robbery charges. If a person "joins" by getting a SS number, there's not much of a choice involved, since practically all children born in the U.S. these days are being enrolled before their first birthday -- unless their parents made a conscious decision not to claim them as dependents for federal income tax purposes (or to get one of the two alternative ID numbers the IRS allows). The IRS website says "You must include a valid social security number, individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN), or adoption taxpayer identification number (ATIN) for each dependent claimed on your tax return or the exemption will be disallowed." --Catawba 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


The IRS will not give out an ITIN, TIN, or ATIN to anyone that can qualify for an SSN. Treasury Regulations prohibit them from doing so. There is no requirement for someone entitled to Social Security benefits to actually apply for them. That is the true legal opt-out. I wouldn't know what to say to such a person: unless they were a Bill Gates type individual. For a regular, average worker or small business person: I would be astonished to see someone pay years of FICA or SECA taxes, qualify, and then thumb their nose at the program.

The text claims that "ministers" as well as members of "certain" religious groups (e.g. Amish) may "opt out." Who may do this, and how is this determined? GeorgeS


Getting a Social Security number for a child is completely voluntary.[1]


There is no legal requirement for individuals to join the Social Security program. The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work in the United States.[2]

The purported duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security number therefore boils down to this: you get it if you need it or request it. There is no legal compulsion to do so. However, once joined there is no general provision for individuals to opt out of or quit the program.

[edit] 1920's

My Mom was born in the 1920's and there was a reform of Social Security having to do with the people born then. She could not remember when that happened so I thought maybe someone here could point me in the right direction, something about the 'naughts'.


[edit] Dugan v. Sullivan

The citation in the article regarding the court decision in Dugan v. Sullivan appears wrong; a court in one case could not have quoted from a case that was decided many years later. I'm not going to correct it until and unless I have time to get to the source materials. It may just be that the word "quoting" should be changed to "quoted" or something. Maybe someone else can get to it sooner than I. Yours, Famspear 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - The material I'm talking about is currently in footnote 32. It says that the court in its Dugan decision (decided in 1992) somehow quoted from the court decision in Wyatt v. Barnhart (decided in 2003). That would be an impossibility. Yours, Famspear 22:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spousal Benefit

How, if the younger only working spouse is at least 5 years younger, does the benefit begin when the younger spouse turns 88 and the older spouse is 70??????? This must be wrong or I'm having a senior moment!

[edit] 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)
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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

[edit] 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)

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)
Here are a few sources:
KV(Talk) 15:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We should be able to get enough info to form an explanation from there. KV(Talk) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Video link

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)

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)

[edit] 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)