What is an "entitlement"?

[SoSimple]

Remind me to never again talk politics with people I don't know very well - especially when they sit in an office just down the hall from me.

Anyway . . . I managed to get myself embroiled in a political discussion of sorts (Never Again!!!) and one thing puzzled me: the concept of "welfare is an entitlement but social security is not". Perhaps I'm used to the consistent logic of the conservatives that post here (which I may disagree with, but respect), but the argument as presented to me seemed to be this:
People on welfare never pay into it, so don't deserve it, so therefore it's an entitlement. I pay into social security, therefore I deserve it, so therefore it's not an entitlement.

Leaving aside the factual accuracy (or not) of the statements as given, do you see social security as an entitlement like welfare or as something different? And if it is different, why?

[iris lily]

Remind me to never again talk politics with people I don't know very well - especially when they sit in an office just down the hall from me.

Anyway . . . I managed to get myself embroiled in a political discussion of sorts (Never Again!!!) and one thing puzzled me: the concept of "welfare is an entitlement but social security is not". Perhaps I'm used to the consistent logic of the conservatives that post here (which I may disagree with, but respect), but the argument as presented to me seemed to be this:
People on welfare never pay into it, so don't deserve it, so therefore it's an entitlement. I pay into social security, therefore I deserve it, so therefore it's not an entitlement.

Leaving aside the factual accuracy (or not) of the statements as given, do you see social security as an entitlement like welfare or as something different? And if it is different, why?

All of the social welfare handouts, including the ones I participate in, are entitlements.

I'm not sure of your point in defining "entitlements" in any way other than the commonly accepted definition which seems to me to be these ongoing social programs that we've promised citizens will be there for them.

If someone you argued with doesn't accept the conventional definition, well, ok, so what? It hardly matters what you call some of the programs, I think it is no surprise that some of us think some of these programs are more justified than others.

[loosechickens]

Of course Social Security is an entitlement, and the average person pulls out every cent they ever paid into Social Security in the first three or four years they get a check. And from that point on, for the rest of their lives, they are sucking off the public t*t in exactly the same way as any folks on welfare, dependent on the contributions of the people currently working to pay their checks. Next time, drop that little fact on them.

If they are still working, every year, they get a statement from Social Security that shows exactly what they have paid into the system, and what their check will be at a certain age. Depending on whether they take their check at 62 or wait until full retirement, the time may vary, but have them divide their total contribution by the amount of that check, and watch the surprise as they realize that after a very few years, they are sucking down all taxpayer money just as if they were on welfare.

Now, if they die in just a few years after retirement, then they paid their own way.....but if they live more years than that.....nope....sucking right on that government t*t.

And people who receive welfare have, in many cases, in the past been taxpayers themselves and paid taxes.

Actually a surprising number of the people receiving things like WIC, food stamps and other government welfare assistance programs work fulltime jobs, and usually much harder, dirtier jobs, for low pay than the people who look down on them. The stereotype of the welfare queen is alive and well, but a poor description of most people needing that assistance.

The difference is really semantic only. Just try to explain sometime to one of those folks who think that about Social Security how absolutely socialist it is, completely socialist, in fact, and watch their heads spin off, hahahaha......

When "those people" get it, it's undeserved, and when "I" get it, it's different. That is what is mostly at work.

I remember talking to one of those kinds of folks one time about those "immigrants" and "welfare people" sucking up the taxpayers money, and in almost the next breath, the person was telling me how they managed to spend down her father's money (this was back before they had the five year rule), and salvage several hundred thousand dollars for themselves before getting him set up on Medicaid in a nursing home.......

Don't waste your breath.

[freein05]

Are you telling me that I am a Socialist because I get Social Security and I am covered under Medicare. I went on Medicare last year and it is the best invention since sliced bread.

Maybe Socialism is not so bad.

[Zoe Girl]

Oh dear, I would have had to hum and walk away. There are some gaps we just are not going to cross.

As I understand it Social Security also has an element of evening out the finances in retirement, so a lower wage worker is going to get a bit more than they put in compared to a higher wage worker. Now don't go telling people that!!

I did have WIC at one point and yes both parents were working in the family. I am now a single mom and above getting any assistance which I am extremely grateful for. However me and most of my family work in education and social services. My job is paid for by grants and I had an interesting conversation one day. Someone assumed since we worked with low income families and our services were grant based that we just warehoused the kids after school. Not at all! We have so many criteria we have to meet and enrichment goals to attain. There are other private organizations who want to promote things like science who offer programs and materials that we really must use. And what does the society get for the money put into the grants? Well a lot of children are safely cared for so there are not as many ER visits for kids left alone or police calls for crimes. The school also saves on remedial education because we are supervising homework, doing fun and enriching activities and continuing behavior plans from the school day. Yes it is a form of assistance, and I think if you ran the numbers it works out pretty well. If we didn't have things like welfare and WIC there would be a cost somewhere eventually, maybe it wouldn't be your relative living in the garage so of course it wouldn't be your problem.

Sorry that is my social support cost rant which may or may not really address the issue.

[loosechickens]

yep, Free.....Medicare.....pure socialism. Single payer, government run, taxpayer supported for the most part......

I kissed my Medicare card when I got it.......peace and security......and I also just LOVE those other pure socialistic things like public libraries, public school systems, roads and bridges.........

The 10 countries in the world with the highest standards of living are pretty much what right wingers would call socialist countries......

And the U.S. is the only developed democracy that only provides socialized medicine to its elderly and its poor.......the rest of 'em also take care of the middle class, and provide universal access to care, unlike the U.S. who has more than fifty million with no health insurance at all, and 750,000 families per year who go bankrupt because of medical bills, which includes some that actually HAD health insurance, but were either dropped, denied, the co-pays amounted to huge sums, or they hit a limit on benefits, which can happen quite easily with catastrophic illness or long term conditions.......

don't get me started........ ;-)

[redfox]

I decided to start with the dictionary definition:

Definition of ENTITLEMENT - Webster's Online

1.a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
1.b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2: government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

Legally, all government programs are entitlements, as they are established by law.

[ApatheticNoMore]

If they are still working, every year, they get a statement from Social Security that shows exactly what they have paid into the system, and what their check will be at a certain age. Depending on whether they take their check at 62 or wait until full retirement, the time may vary, but have them divide their total contribution by the amount of that check, and watch the surprise as they realize that after a very few years, they are sucking down all taxpayer money just as if they were on welfare.

I'm not sure I understand how this works. Is the dollar figure on the statement the actual dollar amount I will get or will it be inflation adjusted so that I'll actually get a much bigger dollar figure than printed on the statement (due to 30 years of inflation)? If it's the actual dollar amount, do I adjust it down for say 30 years of inflation before doing the math? I suppose so if I want to compare it to an investment that exactly breaks even with inflation. I'd estimate 30 years inflation just by going by the past 30 years since it's as good as estimate as any I figure. Then I supposed I'd have to adjust past contributions up due to inflation. And does the payout also increase the more years I work (years of working yet in my future)? I don't know how to estimate that. The math could get pretty complex.

If I have to do all the inflation adjustments I think I will have paid in about 5 years worth of SS collected at full retirement if I never work another day in my life. Which is a good deal because if I had an average lifespan I'd live about 10 years. Of course the never work another day in my life assumption is not correct.

[dmc]

On Social Security, are you counting in your employer match and a return on the investment? How much would you have saved up if you saved 15% of your salary and invested it in say, savings bonds over 40 years? I would think you could make it for more that just a couple of years.

[dmc]

Ok, I looked it up and your actually paying in 12.4%, except for 2011 where Obama reduced the amount by 2%, I guess because the country is in such great financial shape. So on a $50,000 income, you pay in $6,200. $6,200 X 40yrs @ 4% interest = $642,491. At 6%, you would have $1,017,095.

I'm pretty sure I would have been better off by saving for my own retirement. And I know in Missouri, the public teachers pension is actually in sound financial state, because the teachers pay in around 13% of their salary including the district match. But they don't pay into Social Security. They can retire at 30yrs with something like 75% of their highest 3 yr pay. I'm pretty sure the highway dept has the same deal. It must be nice to be a government worker and be able to opt out of Social Security. The rest of us never got that option.

[LDAHL]

In political parlance, I’ve heard the term “entitlement” used in two ways. One refers to entitlements as a general class of federal spending, usually payments to or for individuals (Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, etc.) that represent a large portion of the budget currently, and for which future liabilities are debated as either a sacred trust that must be honored or an unsustainable burden that will eventually cripple us.

The other sense I’ve seen it used is as a distinguishing term from “rights”, with “entitlements” referred to as goods, services or privileges provided by taxpayers through government, and “rights” as individual activities in which government (and others) should be restricted from interfering. This is not necessarily a trivialization of entitlements, although it is often seen so by advocates with an interest in elevating anything from public education, government funded abortions or collective bargaining for government employees to the status of “rights”. Its one of several areas in which liberals or conservatives talk past each other.

[creaker]

SS is an entitlement. You meet the qualifications, and the government gives you something.

"People on welfare never pay into it, so don't deserve it, so therefore it's an entitlement. I pay into social security, therefore I deserve it, so therefore it's not an entitlement."

I would think most on welfare have paid or will pay into the system so while it may be true in some cases, in many it is not.

[jody]

dmc, exactly what I was thinking as I was reading loosechickens post.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't count on a real return. And I wouldn't have saved in my 20s without SS for sure (who knew to save at that age?). I didn't think it entirely unreasonable to posit that one's money merely keep up with inflation though if the amount projected is in mere dollar figures.

[Spartana]

And public education is also an entitlement. One that each person is able to use for free for approx. 13 years irregardless of family income. Donald Trump's kids can use public education for free just as kids on welfare can. It's probably the biggest entitlement there is out there - often paid for by childless taxpayers who have never used it, and never will. And it something that isn't "earned" by the people who use it - just have to be born to have that privilege. I also consider SS, Medicaid, Medicare, etc... all entitlements ( and socialist too - not that I dislike that!!) even if people have made contributions in some form or another during their lives. I drive a compact car so pay less gas tax but am still able to benefit from the mega-monster truck drivers who fund a larger part of the roads I drive on.

[ApatheticNoMore]

We all used public education at one point. The only problem is that in all honesty most of that education was so bad it was more a liability than an asset. I don't say that about the college system, the college system has some value. K-12 OTOH ... well it's kind of like if I got free food and it could be argued it kept people from going hungry, but the food was so bad that 90% of the people ended up obese and 70% had type 2 diabetes by the age of 18. Well yea thanks, but no thanks, you know ...

[Spartana]

We all used public education at one point. The only problem is that in all honesty most of that education was so bad it was more a liability than an asset. I don't say that about the college system, the college system has some value. K-12 OTOH ... well it's kind of like if I got free food and it could be argued it kept people from going hungry, but the food was so bad that 90% of the people ended up obese and 70% had type 2 diabetes by the age of 18. Well yea thanks, but no thanks, you know ...

Yes but having kids is a choice and it isn't something forced upon them like starvation or illness or injury. If parents hate the idea of public education and can't afford private education, then they can choose not to have kids. As for myself, even though as a childless person I hate the idea of having to pay for Octo-Moms gazzillion kids, I still love the idea of socialized education (and healthcare at al) and think it's important. I had a very good public education in a working class neighborhood so in many cases it is what you make of it. I'd rather have a potentially crappy option than no option at all.

[peggy]

We all used public education at one point. The only problem is that in all honesty most of that education was so bad it was more a liability than an asset. I don't say that about the college system, the college system has some value. K-12 OTOH ... well it's kind of like if I got free food and it could be argued it kept people from going hungry, but the food was so bad that 90% of the people ended up obese and 70% had type 2 diabetes by the age of 18. Well yea thanks, but no thanks, you know ...

Well, in all honesty it isn't as crappy as the right would have you believe. In fact, it's pretty good. I know it's popular to bash the educational system but in all honesty it's pretty good for the MAJORITY of Americans. Are there bad schools? Well sure. But the good ones far outweight the bad.

[SoSimple]

Thanks all. To give a little more context, her argument as to what is/is not an entitlement was used as the basis of why welfare should be cut, but social security should not. Now, there may be valid reasons to cut one and not the other, but I didn't think that bending generally accepted definitions was one of them. My point to her (in an attempt to find common ground, and where this arose) was that fiscal responsibility is something that is everyone's responsibility, and that all should share whatever pain is necessary, equally.

Some of what she said was downright offensive and not worth repeating here and I suppose I was just shaken up by the vitriol I felt from her - some of which was personal in nature. For the record, I barely expressed my opinions at all and tried very hard to find common ground.

[razz]

Sounds as though she is not well prepared for her future and is very fearful thus the vitriol.

[Spartana]

Thanks all. To give a little more context, her argument as to what is/is not an entitlement was used as the basis of why welfare should be cut, but social security should not.



I know I said in a post above that I though of SS as an entitlement and therefore on equal footing with other entitlement programs like welfare, but after thinking it about it I changed my mind. I guess I think of SS as more of a benefit than an entitlement. It's basicly the same as a private annunity in that you are agreeing to give an investor (insurance co., bank, whatever) money now in exchange for a guareented income as long as you live in the future. And like a private annumity, you can't get it unless you paid into it and you may use more - or less - of what you put in depending on how long you live. So I guess I can see how your co-worker would not consider SS an entitlement. I guess it's the same with a disbaility insurance benefit or workmans comp - you can't get it unless you've been employed, can no longer work (or have a disability that would cause you to be unemployable at your current job) and had enough of whatever qualifications (time on the job, etc...) to qualify for the benefit. Where as welfare, medicare, public education, etc... can be recieved by anyone who has the need. And things like government pensions (civilian or military) are also benefits that may far exceed what a person puts into iif they live long enough. I don't consider those entitlements either even though a part of it is paid for by tax payer dollars. To me (who get's a military disability pension as well as a govmint job related pension) I just consider them benefits that I paid into and then recieves later in life. I may die before I use up the amount that I put in, or I may outlive that amount and it has to be payed for by the tax payers. I guess I see SS the same way.

That brings up other questions: Should people who are wealthy for go SS? Should wealthy people pay for their own private health insurance rather than get Medicare? Should parents with money pay towards their kids public education beyond taxes? Should they remove the tax break for dependents for people with higher incomes? Should people who will get lifelong disability pension (like my military service connected disability) continue to recieve that benefit if they are employable in another field and are working or have another source of income? Enquirering minds want to know what you all think!

[mm1970]

Should people who are wealthy for go SS? Should wealthy people pay for their own private health insurance rather than get Medicare? Should parents with money pay towards their kids public education beyond taxes? Should they remove the tax break for dependents for people with higher incomes? Should people who will get lifelong disability pension (like my military service connected disability) continue to recieve that benefit if they are employable in another field and are working or have another source of income? Enquirering minds want to know what you all think!

Why shouldn't people who paid into SS get it back? Should someone who is wealthy because they saved and saved NOT get SS, and someone else who made the same amount of money but spent it on booze and women get SS? Yeah, big generalizations, I know.

Don't wealthy people already buy their own insurance?

In our public schools parents are always getting hit up for money, and wealthier parents do pay more. Those that don't switch to private school that is.

Don't they remove the tax break for dependents already? Or is that just for childcare? (I confess, my spouse does our taxes.) All I know is that at our combined income, we don't get a lot in tax breaks. They all seem to start to phase out at around $120k.

If you are eligible for disability in the military, then you are eligible. Should you still be allowed to collect your retirement benefits/pension if you retire at 50 and work until 80?

[Spartana]

[QUOTE=mm1970;16086] spent it on booze and women [QUOTE]

well I spent mine all on booze and men :-) but I agree. I think that is what makes SS, et al, a benefit rather than an entitlement. An entitlement is something that you basicly get for free (you didn't contribute into it except for general income taxes), and probably wouldn't get if you had the income or resources to cover the need. Except for public education that is - everyone gets that irregardless of their incomes, how many kids they have, or how much they payed in taxes. And parents who contribute money to their kids school do so on a voluntary basis and can choose not to contribute at all irregardless of how many kids they have in public school or how large their income are. Same with the tax breaks - my understanding is that each dependant child, as well as both parents, can get an exemption of $3,650 each. So Octo-Mom gets 15 x $3650 worth of tax deductions each year. It's in the very first section of the 1040 forms. I'm not saying that weathier parents shouldn't take the tax deduction and should be required to fund some of their kids public eductaion, just saying that I consider public education an entitlement rather than a benefit that the parents are paying for. It's a free-be for parents irregardless of their income.
As for weathy people buying their own medical insurance.??? Well I don't know but I do know that they are entitled to go on Medicare at age 65 just like everyone else for the same cost and benefits.

[mira]

I'm not sure how it works exactly in the States, but the UK "social security" equivalent includes contributions that go towards certain welfare/state benefits. So surely both would be entitlements? If I lose my job and sign on to start receiving employment benefit, I'm receiving money from a 'pot' that I've also paid into myself, so...

[Alan]

Social Security in the US is a hard one to peg. As it was set up, it is more of a forced insurance policy than an entitlement. But as is usually the case with any government run social service, it's been abused by the people in charge. They've used the individual proceeds to fund other areas of government and replaced the revenue with IOU's which must then be funded through other means of taxation. We've also opened it up to be a sort of general entitlement for people who have never paid into the system.

It seems to me that SS is not an entitlement for all of us who have spent entire lifetimes paying into the system while hoping to receive a return on that forced investment, but is an entitlement for those who have received far more in benefits than their original investment could have generated even in the free market.

I think how you classify it depends on how it is used.

[freein05]

Social Security in the US is a hard one to peg. As it was set up, it is more of a forced insurance policy than an entitlement. But as is usually the case with any government run social service, it's been abused by the people in charge. They've used the individual proceeds to fund other areas of government and replaced the revenue with IOU's which must then be funded through other means of taxation. We've also opened it up to be a sort of general entitlement for people who have never paid into the system.

It seems to me that SS is not an entitlement for all of us who have spent entire lifetimes paying into the system while hoping to receive a return on that forced investment, but is an entitlement for those who have received far more in benefits than their original investment could have generated even in the free market.

I think how you classify it depends on how it is used.

Allen makes an important point. The major reason SS is causing budget problems is the government has spent the trust fund money on other things. So now the government must borrower money to pay SS recipients. One of the people who was on the committee that put through the last changes to SS in the 80s said recently that they took into account the baby boomers. He said the baby boom problem will start correcting itself when they start dieing in 2030 and they will be dieing like fly's by 2140. I have not heard any of the talking heads say anything about the fact that the baby boomers will not live forever.

[Deborah]

ss is purchased and not sure but maybe welfare come from the budget? I haven't read the other posts yet. It'll be interesting if I guessed right.

[loosechickens]

Of course, some Republicans are making it clear what they really want to do. From www.americablog.com

"House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor at a recent speech at the Hoover Institution. Cantor tried to send a clear signal to key voters with concerns about the GOP's plans.

Rep. CANTOR: 'I mean, just from the very notion that it said that 50 percent of beneficiaries under the Social Security program use those moneys as their sole source of income. So we've got to protect today's seniors. But for the rest of us? For - you know, listen. We're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be'.

Said at a recent speech at the Hoover Institution."

I guess some of it really just comes down to our views as to what kind of a country we want to live in. The dog eat dog world of social Darwinism, or a society that recognizes the need to care for the old and the helpless.

It's all fine and dandy to talk about reducing government, but to go after the old and the sick, while shoveling money to large corporations in subsidies and tax breaks (note that G.E. paid NO corporate income taxes on five or six billion dollars they made recently in U.S. business, because of loopholes), just strikes me as truly terrible.

Surely his idea of how he wants America to be, and mine are far, far apart.