Social Security to be called a "Federal Benefit Payment?"

The Social Security check is now (or soon will be) referred to as a “Federal Benefit Payment?” I’ll be part of the one percent to forward this. I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you. Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it.

The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a “Federal Benefit Payment.” This isn’t a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too. It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.

If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that’s close to $180,000 invested in Social Security.

If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you’d have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved!

This is your personal investment. Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you’d receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.

That’s almost three times more than today’s average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it’s a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you’re 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.

Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger “Ponzi scheme” than Bernie Madoff ever did. They took our money and used it elsewhere. They forgot (oh yes, they knew) that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn’t have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them. And they didn’t pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently they’ve told us that the money won’t support us for very much longer.

But is it our fault they misused our investments? And now, to add insult to injury, they’re calling it a “benefit”, as if we never worked to earn every penny of it.

Just because they borrowed the money doesn’t mean that our investments were a charity!

Let’s take a stand. We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government.

Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it.

Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income.

99% of people won’t forward this. Will you?

1 Like


I got 1/3 through this and skipped to the bottom, expecting to see this line and I was not disappointed!


People work for their benefits, too. Things like health insurance, 401K, pension, vacations days, sick days, etc. All of those are referred to as benefits. Employers don’t refer to those things as charity, though many of them are optional, not mandated.

I’m still a ways away from collecting Social Security, but still try to follow what’s going on somewhat. I haven’t heard the term Federal Benefit Payment before. If they choose to call it that, what’s the difference?

But I sure wouldn’t call it an investment. An investment is something that I can choose to make, or not. I can choose to direct that investment into a savings account, CD, stock, bond, mutual fund, etc. I can invest as conservatively or aggressively as I’m comfortable with as the years pass or my mood changes. I can choose to direct my investments myself or pay a fee for someone else to do it.

Paying FICA isn’t a choice. It’s a tax, plain and simple.


This has been deemed mostly false by Snoops.

See George2001’s post above


I’ve never heard that term thrown around either, but if one were to speculate:
At some point part of balancing Social Security will probably involve means testing recipients. Before that can happen there needs to be a paradigm shift in terms of how people view the Social Security program.
Rebranding it as a tax and the payments coming out as benefits would be a logical step in that direction.

1 Like

[quote=“gwraigty, post:4, topic:1880”]
If they choose to call it that, what’s the difference?
[/quote]I concur, they can call it whatever they want, even sugar coat it or whatever…it doesn’t make a difference.

For us, we’re not relying on our SS pensions, if it’s there then we’ll take what’s rightfully ours, but IF (big IF) “rumors” about gross mismanagement of the funds are true and there’s very little we can collect later, we will still survive with our investments here and overseas.

1 Like

Nonsense. Government “Forced Contributions” would not pass the supreme court. It’s a tax you pay.


You’re probably right. That’s going to be difficult. It’ll be easier to shift perspectives among the younger folks. For those already collecting, forget it. Like in the OP, they think of it as their money and you’d better not touch it.

It already does - the amount your SS contributions are worth in terms of dollars of monthly retirement income varies by about 3x depending on if you contributed a lot or only a little. Those who minimized their SS tax but still qualified for their benefits by working for just enough quarters will get a much better deal, all else being equal, than those worked longer or at higher wages.


Not to mention that up to 85% of Social Security can be subject to taxation if you have a lot of investment income, whether than income is taxable itself or not. It’s kind of a back-door means test right now. They can, and probably will, find more upfront ways though in future.

1 Like

This posts looks to have been spam. I let it play out because there was some discussion. But absent a request to reopen this topic, I’ll keep it closed.