We pay for Social Security – it is ours.

[SnoopDog]

6.2 percent of our paycheck goes into Social Security. Our employers match that amount. To our employers: thanks - we deserve it. The US Government administers Social Security (thanks SSA) – it seems that this is the only thing our government does for us. Technically or fundamentally, our government has nothing to do with Social Security save 1) enforcing employer matching funds, and 2) the administering of the funds.

Since we ‘pay’ for Social Security, our government has no right to mess with it. It works. The only thing that we should allow is to remove the salary cap. Our government has no right to screw it up.

The money in Social Security is ours – it came out of our paychecks.

The only real reason bush wants to destroy it is because our government has been looting OUR Social Security money and they simply 1) do not want to pay it back, and 2) since they are destroying Social Security, why not line the pockets of Wall Streeters.

The only permissible change to Social Security is to STRENGTHEN it.

I recommend you write/email/fax your Congressmen/women.

[Trailrider1951]

1. Also, one other reason in addition to the ones you have listed:

I've also come to believe that the corporations do not want to continue to contribute that matching 6.2%. It cuts into their profits, just like paying pensions used to do.

[SnoopDog]

3. yes you are right - employers do not...

want to pay the 6.2 matching...

But now days, it is one of the only 'benefit' employees get from their employer...

[frankly_fedup2]

2. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN! Uh oh, I'm not suppose to know

the "Christian lingo" as they say. I will pray for them. Uh oh, I'm not suppose to understand the Bible, it's teachings, or even have values in my life. Well, Damnit, I do. (Also, I won't go to Hell for saying Damnit either). Also, I do have values which I consider scruples. The Rights values is a term they use to hide their bigotries.

[Frances]

4. Thanks for the post

You inspired me to call both my senators and my representative.

[SnoopDog]

6. Thanks Frances...

That was one of my goals - to get people to write!

We need to make sure this evil administration does not destroy one of the few things that our tax dollars actually buys us.

[Inland]

5. Bush and USG took my money. If he wants to back out of the deal,

just return my taxes. Of course, Bush wants to keep the money while ending the benefit.

I came into the work force just in time to pay the higher SS payroll taxes in the early eighties. Twenty years of higher taxes to build an SS trust fund and save social security. Just as the trust fund reaches its highest possible amount----Bush says, let's just take that away and pretend it doesn't exist. What a dick.

[SnoopDog]

7. Thats why we must continue to fight this

sonnofabitch...

This is totally our money. I like knowing that when I reach a certain age - I will be able to collect the money I put into it - just like it has been for the past 70 years.

[siteleader]

8. It's our money and we should be allowed the freedom

to invest where we see fit. Since our money enters the general fund it is spent by the gov't as they see fit, often funding programs that I do not agree with. I should have a choice where MY money goes.

[Inland]

9. The freedom to break the deal with me? No, thanks.

After all, now that my taxes have built up the trust fund, why should it go to something other than the original compromise worked out in 1983?

Now that the goverment has my taxes, the rules are going to change for freedom. Well, fine. Just give me back my taxes and we'll call it a day. Bush can borrow a hundred trillion and then you can have all the choices that leaves you.

[siteleader]

11. I'm not implying that existing money in the fund changes

only my future deductions. I think I can do better job than the gov't in deciding where my money goes.

[Inland]

12. Hey, me too. Can I have my income taxes back?

I think I can do a better job than THIS government any day of the week. I bet I wouldn't have lost $9 billion in Iraq just with bad accounting. I bet I wouldn't be burning $4-6 billion a month in an occupaiton.

But you weren't talking about THAT. You were thinking that you could do better with your taxes than allow the goverment to keep its promise to me. "Better" means you get the benefit of my being screwed over. No, thanks.

[siteleader]

13. It's my money, funding my retirement

You can do with your money as you wish. This is what I mean there are no choices and I am pro choice.

[SnoopDog]

15. If you think you are so good at the stock market...

why don't you just use your own money. It would seem you have the knack to win the market - you should do that.

How about this - use your own money and make alot of money, but when it comes time for you to retire - you will have the money from Social Security as well!

[Inland]

32. And its my money, funding my retirement. But nobody is going to let me

take it back. Instead, the choice is limited to taxes paid going forward--so that people who have paid into the system pursuant to the promises of social security find that all they get is a broken promise.

Until the day comes that a choice includes going back in time, just admit that there is a lot less choice for me than for you in the privatization plan. My choice is limited to watching my benefit disappear, and your choice is limited to watching your taxes diverted into a private account, depending on age. Both "choices" are strictly circumscribed, mine to a single bad "choice" of the government reneging on its promises, yours to the choice of reaping the benefit of that breach of trust.

[UdoKier]

47. The money you pay into SS is NOT your money.

It is not an investment plan, it is an insurance plan, intended to make sure there would be something to retire on for people who could not afford to save for retirement. If you're rich, it wasn't intended to help you. That's why income over 90K is not taxed.

You are not a democrat. Why are you here?

[SnoopDog]

14. That still bugs me...

Billions of our money pissed away... They say the Pentagon cannot account for Trillions.

I would prefer to use that money for education, health care, pollution controls - you know things that are a benefit to the people...

What a concept.

[siteleader]

16. My point exactly !

The pentagon is squandering my money. This money is my taxes and my retirement is at stake. The "SSA Trust Fund" buys Gov't bonds. Which are just pieces of paper and the cash (S.S. taxes)goes directly into the general fund to keep the Gov't going funding policies that I agree or do not agree with.

[SnoopDog]

17. A better approach -

prevent the misappropriation/looting of our tax dollars...

Especially from this evil and disgusting bush administration.

America is being taken to the cleaners by the BFEE.

[siteleader]

18. I agree with you....but

prevention of misappropriations or looting does not change the fact that my freedom to determine where my SS taxes is invested is taken from me.

[UdoKier]

49. SS taxes are not yours to invest.

Where did you get the idea that SS was an investment plan?

If you are wealthy enough that you make big money on the stock market, then you are not paying on your income over $90K anyway.

[SnoopDog]

10. You have a right to a different opinion...

But I must admit - your idea is a dangerous one.

The current system is almost failsafe.

When you get old and retire - the money IS there. If you follow your leader bush - you run the risk of loosing your money on a stock market downturn.

That is why the word Security is part of the name - you will be secure when you retire. Please think about that. It has worked for over 70 years.

Edit: nice first post by the way...

[Malva Zebrina]

19. I guess it is a good idea to do away with all taxes

You don't want to pay taxes, right? Do you take medication or have a loved one that does? Now there is a real privatization initiative, open markets, competition, and we know a good investment on the stock market. Did you know that all of the research and development done by pharmaceutical compainies comes from the government? We should really stop coporate welfare and refuse to pay taxes so they can innundate tee vee with their very expensive ads to "ask your doctor", while they are selling something to YOU. We should also refuse to pay taxes to fund any arm of the government that you do not approve of. Why should anyone pay for the funding of their salaries when we could do just as good a job of passing out money our money. Why should my money be spent on the Coast Guard, when I live in the middle of the country and on no coast. Let the people on the coast spend their money on it. I can spend my money better than other various and sundry government offices. Why should I pay taxes to fund the upkeep on the monuments in DC when I never went there, and don't plan to go there. Let them privatize and someone else's money who wants to pay admission to the mall, pay for it. Citizens should have all their own hard earned money to spend as they like. and on and on.

You don't want to pay taxes, right?

For that matter, why should my money go to pay for college tuition handed out to soldiers, when I have no one in the service, and no one in my family is in the service. Let them pay for their own college tuition.

Take you money and hide it in your mattress and spend it as you like or invest it in some company that rips off people like you and me.

[SnoopDog]

20. I think people should pay taxes -

I have no problem paying taxes if I get something in return. It is only fair to pay you way.

With regards to Coast Guard, monuments, etc - the idea is that the cost of these programs and all other government programs/expenditures is 'spread out' of the millions of people of the USA. So, we pay 'alittle' (although it always seems like alot) to get 'more'.

[Malva Zebrina]

22. self deleted

[siteleader]

21. I wish I could say

that only Bush is guilty of sacking the Social Security. But it has always been a pay as you go account. The funds collected have always gone back into the General Fund after paying current retirees. I don't mind paying taxes, it is a neccesity, I am not an Anarchist. Do your own research into what companies you choose to invest with or for that matter put it into a money market account or bond fund. I'm just saying I would like the freedom to choose.

That being said, withdrawing your money should not be allowed in a lump sum, which I think the Bush proposal would allow. Seniors could be taken advantage of, or retiremnet funds could be squandered too quuickly.

[FromTheLeft]

23. SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A RETIREMENT FUND

It was not set up to be and is not supposed to be now.

Open your eyes for a minute. Do have any idea how few people in this country have the time or energy needed to make wise stock market investments, let alone bonds and securities tradings?

Just because you think, and I do say think, you can do better doesn't mean that everyone can. Social Security is a safety net that was set up in response to the GD to take care of the elderly and those unable to the labor that was available at the time. Today it has become a social contract between our government and every person that pays in obligating them to never let our seniors and handicapped starve as they did in the '30. Never make them go back to work that their body's can't handle in their 80's. Make sure that they have the health care necessary to be a positive influence in their grandchildren's lives SO THAT WE NEVER FORGET THINGS LIKE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. If I had the patients right now I would write a history lesson on the great depression to bring back to your mind what you were supposed to learn in high school history, but I don't. GO ASK A HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER.

You can do better...you can do better for you maybe. You can't do better for everyone and that is the concept of social security. The good of the many over the good of the few...it's not about those who think they know better, its about a promise that Bush wants to break...

[SnoopDog]

26. Well put...

After working for 30 years or more, it is an extremely nice comfort to know that a check comes each month to pay for food, clothing, medicine, etc. And, it is these people who already paid into the fund - they deserve to get the money they contributed to Social Security.

And yes, it was and still is the means to protect our senior citizens from poverty. Hopefully, we will all grow old - and have a means to pay our way.

[BansheeDem]

37. This is a common misconception about the proposed plan ...

Open your eyes for a minute. Do have any idea how few people in this country have the time or energy needed to make wise stock market investments, let alone bonds and securities tradings?

The proposed plan is modeled after the THRIFT savings plan afforded to all current government workers who came into the system after the development of THRIFT. Under this plan, an indexed portfolio of stocks, bonds, real estate, and commodities is used and managed by a professional investment firm. The employee does not make the decisions concerning what stock, or bonds, or commodities to purchase or sell. This is no different than most managed 401k accounts who base their purchases and sales on something akin to the S&P 500.

I have had a THRIFT savings account for nearly 20 years and have seen an average return on my money of 9 percent. It has managed to thrive through the Enron and tech market collapses. And no wonder why - it is invested in a very diverse portfolio.

I wish our party would stop telling these untruths about the plan - it only makes the Democratic party look like they are whining. This is a great opportunity for us to take back an issue that was ours to begin with.

[FromTheLeft]

46. Can you please point me

to a refrence source for that information. I heard him say that in his state of the union address, and then I saw the republican implimentantion plan which made no mention of it. Until I see it on paper I won't believe that, and even when I do I will have a hard time believe it's not a step towards full privitization.

[Malva Zebrina]

24. Do you really think that you will control your own money? The government

will still control your investments and you will be dependant upon them to choose for you.

YOU are paying for ME. I suspect that is what you do not like. For all you know, I could be a millionaire that goes to Florida in the Winter and summers in Maine, goes on three cruises a year, and invests in the stock market for extra money,Nevertheless, I paid in to the insurance for the generation preceding me and deserve the insurance, or I could be sick and damn, why should YOU pay for my health and well being,even though I pay a Medicare premium that has gone up at lest 50% since Bush took office and have no other income that would make it up .

From an e-mail I received today

Women have a lot at stake during the national debate on Social Security.

Women are less likely to have income from pensions then men and their pension benefits are, on average, less than half of men’s. As a result, women rely on Social Security for a larger part of their income in retirement then men do.

Women’s life expectancy is nearly 5 years longer than men, so women rely disproportionately on survivor’s benefits.

Without Social Security benefits, the Institute for Women’ Policy Research estimates that more than two-thirds of unmarried elderly women would live in poverty.

They and I am of the Greatest Generation. You know, the ones that built this country and the one which you enjoy right now and we paid in for the generation preceding us and never complained a damn bit, never even thought about it and never selfishly decided we could do better if we had control over OUR money, because what is the most repulsive to seniors is the possibility they will have to "burden" their children with supporting them in their old age.

[Bridget Burke]

28. So you, also want to get rid of Social Security.

I received social security money from the time of my father's death until I was in college. My mother did, that is.

Apologies...

[fat free goodness]

25. Well, not quite.

“Technically or fundamentally, our government has nothing to do with Social Security save 1) enforcing employer matching funds, and 2) the administering of the funds.”
Don’t forget enforcing your “contribution.”
But in reality this is not true. We do not pay into a managed “social security fund” and then later withdraw our money from that fund. We are taxed current rates to pay current benefits to current recipients. In the future, then-current workers will be taxed at the then current rate to pay our benefits. The important point is that money being collected NOW is (mostly) used to pay benefits NOW.
The “fund” is a relatively small amount of “extra” money collected, which is supposedly put aside to cover times when there may be a relatively small shortfall in collections.
There is no way to pay benefits for any significant time out of the fund – it is only to "even-up" slight variations in collections.

”Since we ‘pay’ for Social Security, our government has no right to mess with it. It works. Our government has no right to screw it up.”
One could make the same argument (we pay for it, and it’s ours”) concerning every government program, from national parks, to the military, to … well … everything. On the other hand, the government is “we the people.” Saying “the government” has no right to change “our programs” is nonsensical. One could as well say the government had no right to establish social security in the first place, or that the government has no right to alter any program.

”The money in Social Security is ours – it came out of our paychecks.”
I agree, sort of. But this is no different from any other government money. (ALL government money comes from the people. But recall that the money you (will) get from social security is not money you paid in, it comes from current taxes.)

If you don’t like the Republican plan to “improve” social security, then by all means work to prevent the change, or suggest a better change of your own.

I am self-employed, and 50 years old. I have every reason to think I am entering the highest earning years of my life. If I had the right to opt completely out of social security right now, forfeiting any right to collect when I retire, I would do so. From my (personal, selfish) standpoint, social security as it now stands stinks.
I pay 12.4% of everything I make to social security, in good years and in bad. In bad years (like when I made maybe $10,000) this REALLY hurt!
Now that things are really looking up, I would rather save/invest my own money. For one thing, I could invest the money in my business – at a good return, and of immediate benefit. For another, the money could eventually be passed to my grown children.
I recognize that your mileage may vary, especially if you are not self-employed and are paying a smaller percentage. Also the self-employed are perhaps less risk-averse.

[Malva Zebrina]

27. just curious

in real dollars, how much do you estimate you can stash away before retirement age, let's pick the age of 65?

That would be fifteen years from now, for you.

[FromTheLeft]

29. Your wrong

1) The fund was set up to specifically cover the time period when the 'Baby Boomer's' are retiring, not to take care of small deviations in the pay out schedule. This is not even close too all the money that will be paid out during those years according to every independent audit other than the white houses.

You are right that money collected now is being paid now,that is because doing so is just proper investment management, you do not dip into savings until debts are greater then credits period. This is what allows the fund to grow.

2) Of course we pay for everything the government does, and the great preponderance of those programs are what we vote on our elected Representatives to handle. Social Security on the other hand is one of the few where we are promised something very specific in return, that being 'our money', and that is why the government has no right to mess with 'our money'.

3) This goes to basic banking. When any individual puts money into a bank account they never get their money back. The bank doesn't just hold it for you and oh by the way here is some interest on it, the lend it out for mortgages, car loans, etc. the money you get when you withdraw from a bank is the interest payments that are coming in for those who are borrowing money. Very similar principle with social security. You put your money in the government uses it to pay other people and when it comes time to collect yours they will get it from others who are paying in. But like every bank the have to have money to cover, which is where the trust fund comes in.

4) I have written to my father, who is a tax accountant, to verify this but I believe if you get your business Incorporated you do not have to pay the SS on money reinvested in the business. I am not positive about this one, but as I said I am looking into it for you.

[SnoopDog]

31. I am an S-corp...

I pay myself with a payroll check and I get the 6.2 taken out of my pay check, and also another 'business tax liability' line item - employer portion of SS is paid from my s-corp.

So basically I pay 12.4 percent for ss. Any profits from year end, however, are reflected in a K1 tax form as is 'investment income' on my 1040.

[FromTheLeft]

38. But on money that your

S-corp makes that you do not write yourself a payroll check for, you don't have to pay SS on that correct? It can go directly back into you business after paying corperate income tax, right?

[SnoopDog]

41. Correct...

You take your sales minus payroll minus expenses and that is your s-corp profit. An s-corp does not pay corporate taxes. Instead the profit flows to your personal investment income (or more precisely to the stock holders - I am the only one) and you do not pay Social Security taxes on that. One only pays Social Security taxes from your w2 payroll.

[SnoopDog]

30. Actually, I am in a similar boat...

First off, I am self employed - I have been responsible for my own income for the last 15 years. And I am a couple of years younger than you.

On to your comments:

You are right - IRS enforces us pay our 6.2 percent.

The thought I had about paying into 'social security' is that it is an actual line item on my W2. It is my not my fault they lump it into the general fund or loot from these monies. (Actually, this is something we the people should mandate - put the Social Security money in a real fund and leave it the fuck alone - save investing).

The above comment addresses your second point. Once again, specific money is taken out of my paycheck specially for social security. It is finite and observable. Our other tax dollars do not specifically go into a 'defense budget' or 'parks', etc.

And yes, I am fighting what the REPUKS are doing. This most evil and worst president we ever had is simply destroying Social Security for the benefit of Wall Street and also because I think REPUKS just don't give a damn about the citizens of the USA.

I hope you do well in your self employment. Your self employment indicates you are a worker and are motivated - so do what I do - I invest my money in funds and stocks.

But lets help protect ALL AMERICANS with social security - it makes ALL OF OUR LIVES BETTER.

[Inland]

36. That's not right either.

1. The social security system was pay as you go until 1983, when the payroll taxes were hiked on the concept of building a trust fund to save for the future. I dont' have the dollar figure on the trust fund, but it is large enough to cover a shortfall in revenues from about 2018 to 2042 or forever, depending on whether one takes an incredibly pessimistic view of future economic growth. At least 24 years strikes me as a significant length of time, indeed, probably longer than the government plans on anthing. Bush won't even provide a budget estimates ten years out anymore, on the ground that they are unreliable tools.

2. It is true that the goverment has the right to change the program. But only a scumbag would do it. In 1983, conservatives and liberals alike agreed to raise taxes on wages, on the working poor, on penny one earned from work, in order to save the system. A tax on wages and a tax on the poor was and is acceptable only for the limited purpose of the safety net. To take the collections for the system from wages and the poor and then renege on the benefit is an act of piracy and a breach of faith with the taxpayer.

I love the Bush argument that the weakness of SS is that the benefits aren't guaranteed and the promise to pay from the fund can be broken by future governments. Then he takes that predicition and makes it true by pushing for cuts in benefits and declaring the trust fund non-existent. Bush manages to make the worst case scenario--a dirtbag at the wheel--a self fulfilling prophecy by being a dirtbag. He fits in so well with the general fact that republicans win campaigns on the slogan that you can't trust the governement, and then when in power, make the slogan true by screwing us all over.

3. There isn't any need to suggest any change. I, for one, like it exactly as it is. For Social Security to go broke and have to cut benefits, we would have to have thirty and more years of historically bad economies, averaging 1.6% growth in GDP per year, less than half the growth this past century. This won't happen. Ask Bush, who likes to estimate closer to four percent when he makes his budgets.

But suppose we did have 1.6% growth for thirty years. Our nation would be so far in the toilet that all age groups would be in poverty, and who wouldn't want to cut SS benefits then? Why wouldn't the elderly share in the dismal failure of America? And going back to Bush's concern about the distant future limited to SS, if we have that bad of economic growth, the solvency of SS and poverty of seniors is going to be the least of the promises broken as America turns into a nation of poor people, unable to sustain any of the military, social and cultural standards of today.

So as far as I am concern, a cut if the next three years if the economy is circling the drain is fine by me. Self correcting to adjust to the end of America as we know it, in my estimation.

[simcha_6]

33. I don't actually agree

SS is a social program. If it were me, there'd be some formula determining the cost of living from retirement age (upped to 67) and people who have 1.5 times the amount to live on that wouldn't get anything. The point of SS shouldn't be to hold money over for retirment; I could easily take 6% of my paycheck and put it in the bank, IRA, etc. Instead it's to keep older people off the streets and make it so they don't have to get jobs street sweeping- go to Baku and see how sad it is. If I have enough to get by, I'll probably just give my check to charity or not cash it at all.

[FromTheLeft]

39. I'm sorry, but I find your sentence structure

very confusing and I want to make sure I understand you.

1) You believe that people who have 1.5 times what it would cost to live from the age of 67 till some point in time sholdn't get SS.

2) Part 2 I have no idea what your trying to say.

3) If you have enough to live on your going to give you social security away.

Please explain part 2 to me like I'm a two year old and verify that I am right on the rest.

[simcha_6]

44. Okay, here goes

I'm a student at the University of Denver and last December I went on a trip through my school to Baku, Azerbaijan. The streets are crowded with old women. The lucky ones make their own brooms and sweep streets for pay. (Baku feels like Chicago- cold and wet). The unlucky ones beg. The reason- after the Soviet Union collapsed, these people had no pensions.

It seems to me that one of the greatest victories of the United States is the fact that few senior citizens have to go through what these women experience day to day. I see two reasons for this. Pensions from jobs, and social security (SS), which guaruntees that none of them starve.

Now, they say SS is running out of money. Changes must be made in the system.

Bush wants to privatize SS, under the argument that it is our money and we should be allowed to invest it.

I say that SS is a government program, not to act as a pension program for all citizens, but as a safety net, so my grandparents never have to beg or sweep the desolate winter streets for lousy pay.

Under this logic, my payroll tax goes, not into a bank account that will pay me back in a few decades, but toward the care of those who don't have a pension/can't live on their pension and savings.

If this college education I'm getting pays off like I hope it does, I'll make enough to save and invest, and I'll probably have a decent pension too. Once I hit retirement (I believe retirement age should go up two years or so) I'll most likely see how much I have saved and figure out if it will support me for the rest of my life. If I can live comfortably without SS, I see no reason why the government should waste its money on me rather than saving it for some senior who really does need it.

There are groups of people who donate their SS checks to charity because they don't need the money. If I don't need the money, and if the government sends me the check anyway, I hope I'll have the honesty and dignity to give it to others or return it to the *trust* fund.

This view of SS doesn't sell in America, I realize, but it's the way I see it. I say 1.5 times (see first post) because I figure government policy should take into account the possibility of catastrophic change, giving people a safety net.

[FromTheLeft]

45. Thank you for clarifying

And I totally agree with you on most points and I commend and also plan to donate my SS checks so long as I don't need them. The problem is that the future at the age of retirement is an unforeseeable one. There is no way to know how long someone is going to live, if the money they have saved is going to be enough, if both spouses are going to need medical procedures, where they are going to live (remember cost of living is different all over the country).

The way I see it is that people who don't need it should give it away, or be given an option to leave it in the fund, but you cannot dictate by law what people morally should do, because that is the most morally reprehensible crime of all.

[ArkDem]

34. Impeccable logic.

[SnoopDog]

35. Thanks...

You know, Social Security is about the only thing our government does for us - that and make and improve our streets and highways (but that is so we buy more gas).

I will keep on fighting this evil and disgusting administration. It seems that their only course of action is to destroy... - well, destroy everything - destroy OUR America.

[Spacejet]

40. Actually

If you're paying in to it now it's NOT yours - it's whoever is getting it right now. It's not a savings account despite what bush told you.

The money the generation BEFORE yours pays will be yours. NOT the money you are paying now.

My only problem with SS is that they take it out of low-wager earners. IMO no SS or taxes should be taken from anyone making under $8/hr.

[SnoopDog]

42. It is like a prepayment plan...

You are correct - the money I pay in is used for today's SS checks. But it is still 'my/our money'.

We all have opinions on such things as 'wages $8/hour and below' should be exempt'. To those issues it is hard to know the best course of action. Yes, if someone is making $8/hr - I am sure they need that money to survive. But, then again, they start to contribute immediately and are part of the system.

[SnoopDog]

43. One more point..

This sonuvabitch president has:
1. Sent our jobs overseas
2. Has not created a new job at all since he was selected.

So we now have fewer employees contributing to Social Security all due to the evil madman president.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. You got it

And also Bush just doesn't want to have to pay any money back that he "borrowed." :eyes: Never held responsible.

[UdoKier]

50. Well, yeah, as opposed to it being a handout.

We pay into it, thus we are entitled to the payout later. IE entitlement.

But the way you worded it kind of plays into the rhetoric that it's "our money, so we should be able to invest it as we please" - it isn't ours to do with as we please. It's an insurance plan, one that the government should have no right to raid for their other spending.