Slashdot Mirror

Not to sound cruel, but at 87 years old she was expected to die any day any minute.

False.

In 2006 the life expectancy of an 87 year old female was 5.78 years. Actuarial Life Table

The issue in a case like this is financial responsibilty. Fundamentally, it shouldn't matter whether it is your four year old kid who puts a woman in the hospital or your three year old German Shepherd.

You were the one who thought they were ready to be let loose on the sidewalks.

The average cost of an assisted living facility is $38,000 a year. The nursing home bed starts at about $72,000 a year and rises dramatically with the level of care required. The Average Cost of a Private Nursing Home Bed

Social Security is not "other people's money". Workers pay into Social Security our whole lives, which the Federal government borrows from to pay for the $TRILLION wars you Teabaggers love instead of, say, better and more universal education, more effective transit infrastructure, or other investments in our people. Social Security gets interest on those extremely safe Treasury bond investments, paying a minimum pension of about $14,000 annually per worker, substantially above the $11,000 poverty line. A government pension that people pay into themselves,

Social Security is a taxpayer funded pension with wealth redistribution components. Low income households get back 27% more income than they put in while middle income get back 5% more than they put in and high income get back less than they put in. That's not a big surprise and is another reminder that it's not really a personally funded pension program. The actual tax is twice the rate most folks realize because the company funded component is passed on to workers in the form of lower wages. (How else do you think companies pay for it?) The surplus borrowed against by the government to pay other bills effectively co-mingling Social Security and regular Federal funds. The notion that the money is sitting somewhere waiting for the day it is needed is ridiculous. The money will only be if we heavily tax future generations to "pay back" the loans on those "high quality" treasuries.

I'm fascinated by your offer to both stop posting Teabagger propaganda and to deliver more propaganda about Teabagger conspiracy theories targeting "liberals" (anyone more liberal than some arbitrarily selected Teabagger) who make Teabaggers look racist. When it's Teabaggers like Mark Williams, Tea Party Express spokesman and Conservative Party USA chief who are undeniably racists. Now you'll tell me that "the" Tea Party kicked out Williams after his racism went beyond any excuses, but that's just damage control.

But I'm even more fascinated by

No, we want all government programs including Medicare audited for constitutionality and for waste and cut back as necessary. I personally want Medicare completely eliminated, as well as the Medicaid, Social Security and all Unemployment Benefits. If we want to help our fellow citizens (and I do) we should do it voluntarily through charity. We have no right to do it with other people's money.

Social Security is not "other people's money". Workers pay into Social Security our whole lives, which the Federal government borrows from to pay for the $TRILLION wars you Teabaggers love instead of, say, better and more universal education, more effective transit infrastructure, or other investments in our people. Social Security gets interest on those extremely safe Treasury bond investments, paying a minimum pension of about $14,000 annually per worker, substantially above the $11,000 poverty line. A government pension that people pay into themselves, rather than the private corporate pensions that routinely disappear, especially when you Republicans are running the economy. Medicare is also funded by its recipients, mostly, with subsidies earned on the basis of the common good, like investing in preventive care rather than much more expensive (in care and lost productivity) responsive care. Government pensions and healthcare make our labor force more competitive with global labor, and easier for entrepreneurs to start and run companies without being arbitrarily forced into the healthcare or retirement business. Not to mention that most Americans don't want the country's grandmas living off catfood and freezing to death, which is exactly what used to happen before we got civilized with these social programmes. Yet you Teabaggers turned out to vote for the Republicans who almost privatized Social Security, right before it would have lost 40% or more of its savings in the stock market crash you shephered in.

Yes, taxes are going up. You Republicans fight tooth and nail to stop the Walmart family from paying the Estate Tax, and any other taxes, while borrowing at something like 50% total interest $TRILLIONS for wars, including totally unnecessary ones, for bank bailouts, for oilco/pharmaco/agrico/telco/whateverco subsidies until the system crashes expensively. All that debt and rotten infrastructure is even more expensive to pay off, but you still refuse to pay the taxes.

But this is all just a load of details, all of which are against you Teabagger Republicans, but against which your corporate PR organizers have ginned up any number of shallow rationalizations. The simple fact is that you Republicans insisted on the government that caused these problems, primarily the torture, domestic spying, deregulated banks, insane and catastrophic wars, but never blinked at the costs - either monetary or to our democracy - until a Black Democrat showed up to start shoveling us out. Then you strutted around in public wearing guns, talking about your love of a country you'd long ago sold out. You're clamoring for another chance at the power you've used to do nothing but ruin the country, and you've learned nothing from it except that you could get the power back again.

You AC -- you are wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

Though widely used, the term "Social Security Trust Fund" is something of a misnomer, as the Social Security Administration of the United States actually oversees two separate funds that hold federal government debt obligations related to what are traditionally thought of as Social Security benefits. The larger of these funds is the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust those funds that the federal government intends to use to pay future benefits to retirees and their survivors.[2] The second, smaller fund is the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust those funds that the federal government intends to use to pay benefits to those who are judged by the federal government to be disabled and incapable of productive work, as well as to their spouses and dependents.[3]

The practice of issuing SSNs at birth wasn't started until 1987 As you can see from the timeline, what was originally promised as just a unique identifier for one's Social Security "Insurance" account has been given more and more uses by congress over time. Once the camel gets its nose in the tent, it is only a matter of time before you've got the whole camel in there...

Actually, you can buy and sell with cash just fine... no SS# required for that. Which means, you can buy goods at the store, ride a bus/taxi/train/airplane, go to concerts/plays/carnivals, etc.

You can even coax credit card companies and banks to issue you an account without one. It's not easy, but they can do it.

Also: US Social Security numbers are issued by way of a piece of paper you're *not supposed to carry with you* (see http://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/ ), and they are certainly not marked on your body.

From the Social Security Administration via that link... "You need a Social Security number to get a job, collect Social Security benefits and receive some other government services. But you don't often need to show your Social Security card. Do not carry your card with you. Keep it in a safe place with your other important papers."

It's not hard to get a job that pays cash under the table, though.

It's possible that you're not from the US, but if you are... you really ought to learn how these things work.

John3:16 has been a somewhat popular name in the Bible Belt of the U.S. for many years. However attempting to check for its frequency of occurrence in the Social Security Administration's data base: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/ revealed that only "alphabetic characters" are allowed!

On a related note, I'd like to know what China does that is "communist." After all, when I buy a t-shirt made in China, it often says "Nike" on it. Does the t-shirt factory in China have a government quota for how many Nike shirts they produce, and who they can sell them to? When Adidas calls and asks for a t-shirt order, do they have to check with the government first?

Does the Chinese government write checks for all its citizens, promising to take care of them in old age? If I sneak into China on the back of a Mongolian horse-archer, will the government issue me a social security card, a driver's license and the right to vote?

China has a $1T budget and a $5T GDP, for an effective tax rate of 20%. I bet the "socialist" countries in northern Europe that tax at 80% are probably a lot more "communist" than China.

If every American were taxed at 100% *from now on* that STILL wouldn't be enough to retire the Federal deficit OR pay for all the programs that the Gubmint has instituted.

...what are you talking about? The US gross public debt is currently around 80% of GDP (ref), which is certainly lower than the historic peak. It's also shot up recently, not due to public spending increases, but due to a major drop-off in tax revenue from Bush tax cuts and the general drop in GDP over the last few years (ref on GDP levels).

So, basically, wait for the economy to recover, repeal the tax cuts, and we'll be paying down debt again in no time, just like we were under Clinton.

Medicare costs are projected to reach around 11% of GDP -- in 2083; at which time Social Security costs will be around 5% of GDP (ref). That situation isn't good, but it's hardly the end of the world; Medicare costs need to be managed, but it seems that any attempt to do that will be demonized by the likes of McCain (and his proposed amendment preventing anyone from ever decreasing Medicare spending levels...)

These are not mystically insolvable problems. Every advanced country in the world deals with them. They aren't perfect either; they do cost money and it's difficult to manage that cost, but it isn't the disaster scenario you're painting.

Yes, there is a secular reason, it is cultural in nature.

I already stated this. Culturally derived from Religious nature. The whole "Seven days" thing is also religious in nature. There is no such time keeping in cultures that were isolated from the world for a few thousand years, like the tribes of South Americans or Pacific Islanders (before White men).

Now if you're saying that the culture of white men is our culture, then you're also saying that that culture is derived in part from the Judeo Christian religious influences.

And if you're saying that, then you're saying there is no such thing as "Separation" of church and state, since the state is beholden to the cultural influences of Judeo Christian religious experiences.

And the whole Saturday/Sunday thing is culturally insensitive to the Muslims, who's holy rest day is Friday. Not to mention the Pastafarian Rest day which is (I believe) Tuesday.

And I think that if you want to work for the feds, you should be willing to work an extra 28% more for your salary which is almost 45% more than the average worker (http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm and http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html).

(please note, my posts are filled with tons of SARCASM which you haven't detected)

Umm your worldview is outdated, since the late 1990's there are only temporary welfare payments to non-disabled persons under 65 (those that are either disabled or over 65 do get benefits from social security and or Medicaid/Medicare but I have a feeling you were talking about non-seniors that can work but choose not to). So unless your community has a separate welfare system that is completely supported by State or Local taxes what you are complaining about isn't really possible, as eventually their checks will stop being sent. Now they could be broke and homeless and still come to the library because it's a free public space that provides shelter and internet access during the day but they wouldn't be on welfare.

Sorry, but my understanding is that women who keep getting knocked up continue to keep getting welfare benefits, and also the millions of "disabled" people out there who have "disabilities" such as not being able to read, or having a "back problem". There's an incredible amount of disability fraud out there.

Then you're understanding is wrong on both counts.

To start with "women who keep getting knocked up" are owed money, but since 1996 this money is supposed to come from the men who "knocked them up" not the general tax payer. While there still are programs like TANF, they are by nature temporary and most recipients have real incentives to get off as soon as possible.

Here is a link to a fairly concise explanation of what the Social Security Administration considers an applicable disability (hint: simple illiteracy isn't one of them and learning disabilities may fall under the American with Disabilities Act for educational and workplace accommodations but that has nothing to do with disability welfare benefits). "Disability checks" could also come from the SSI, but that also requires a source of legal income since it is an income supplement. Finally on the subject of disabilities fraud, if you have probable cause that any specific person or persons are fraudulently claiming benefitsthese people would love to hear from you!

And yes, I'm talking about non-seniors who are able-bodied but too lazy to work; anyone who's genuinely disabled, or has earned Social Security benefits through a lifetime of work, is not in the same class as these lazy cheats that our stupid system keeps enabling with my tax dollars.

While our system is far from perfect I hope you look at the links I provided and see that for over a decade it hasn't the open-ended system you described it as.

Umm your worldview is outdated, since the late 1990's there are only temporary welfare payments to non-disabled persons under 65 (those that are either disabled or over 65 do get benefits from social security and or Medicaid/Medicare but I have a feeling you were talking about non-seniors that can work but choose not to). So unless your community has a separate welfare system that is completely supported by State or Local taxes what you are complaining about isn't really possible, as eventually their checks will stop being sent. Now they could be broke and homeless and still come to the library because it's a free public space that provides shelter and internet access during the day but they wouldn't be on welfare.

Sorry, but my understanding is that women who keep getting knocked up continue to keep getting welfare benefits, and also the millions of "disabled" people out there who have "disabilities" such as not being able to read, or having a "back problem". There's an incredible amount of disability fraud out there.

Then you're understanding is wrong on both counts.

To start with "women who keep getting knocked up" are owed money, but since 1996 this money is supposed to come from the men who "knocked them up" not the general tax payer. While there still are programs like TANF, they are by nature temporary and most recipients have real incentives to get off as soon as possible.

Here is a link to a fairly concise explanation of what the Social Security Administration considers an applicable disability (hint: simple illiteracy isn't one of them and learning disabilities may fall under the American with Disabilities Act for educational and workplace accommodations but that has nothing to do with disability welfare benefits). "Disability checks" could also come from the SSI, but that also requires a source of legal income since it is an income supplement. Finally on the subject of disabilities fraud, if you have probable cause that any specific person or persons are fraudulently claiming benefitsthese people would love to hear from you!

And yes, I'm talking about non-seniors who are able-bodied but too lazy to work; anyone who's genuinely disabled, or has earned Social Security benefits through a lifetime of work, is not in the same class as these lazy cheats that our stupid system keeps enabling with my tax dollars.

While our system is far from perfect I hope you look at the links I provided and see that for over a decade it hasn't the open-ended system you described it as.

LOL, bingo! I love how the subject line of the OP is phrased in such a way as to imply that some shadow group had exacted revenge on an evil Ponzi scheme mastermind.

Speaking of Ponzi schemes, have you guys heard about the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time? http://www.ssa.gov/

http://www.ssa.gov/employer/

...All budgets borrow from Social Security. That's the way the program is set up. If there is excess in the SS trust fund, and there has always been, and will be for the next several decades, it gets loaned to the general budget, ...

Less than one decade. In 2016 SS will be at the point where it has to pay out more than it takes in, so the government will have to start paying back those IOU's.

In 2037 the IOU's (assuming they are actually paid) will be exhausted and SS will only be able to pay 76% of the benefits.

Source: The 2009 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds. Available here: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/index.html

do you really think the expense to provide medical care for the majority of the elderly is actually going to exceed the cost to feed, clothe and house them?

Healthcare accounts for 17.6% of GDP. Social Security is only 4.4%. So, yes, much much larger, even considering any fictitious "savings" postulated by replacing a free market with government healthcare. In reality, of course, as government subsidizes healthcare more and livespans continue to increase, both the costs of Social Security and healthcare will increase.

By your logic we don't have to worry about any of this because perfectly designed robots will eventually take care of all of us.

Well, we would if there were any incentives for such a thing. Unfortunately there aren't. Government doesn't incentivize technological innovation through full-employment policies and entitlements. It incentivizes pointless make-work and reproduction.

What's even sillier is how you have this image of limitless medical technology in the near future, yet you're convinced that it will only prolong the lives of "worthless" and "drooling" elderly. If these advances are so great, why would we still have these incapacitated elderly?

Because having government provide healthcare by force "in perpetuity" (your words) provides no incentive for improving quality of life, only it's extension.

They could support themselves.

Why would they work at all? They're retired because the elderly already own 90% of everything and receive the majority of government benefits.

Actually, the phrase you are looking for is "non-interest-bearing Treasury Bills".

Actually, every source I've found says they're interest-bearing bonds. For example, according to the 2009 trustees' report, the funds earned a combined $116.3 billion of interest in 2008.

You say "non-interest-bearing" many times, but what makes you think that's what they are?

Note that in scenarios (1) and (2), our responses to not having enough revenue are the same whether the IOU's are real or not. And in scenario (3), we never find out if the IOU's are real or not.

You act like there's some question as to whether or not these Treasury bonds are "real". What, do you think they're forged? What reason is there to think these bonds wouldn't be honored like any other Treasury bonds?

You also act like even the process of redeeming a "real" Treasury bond is a sham. Is everyone who buys Treasury bonds the victim of a con? Are they doing us a disservice by lending their money to the government, since the government will have to "borrow extra money" to pay them back?

But your wages aren't keeping up with bills/inflation/whatever.

Um...the cost of living is (officially) down. Matter of fact, that's been the source of a minor political argument: people whining that they deserve an automatic raise in their SS cheques despite the fact that the cost of living has gone down since last year.

I'm glad to hear that.

I'll be sure to inform my bank, grocery store, electric company, oil company, and gas company. I'm sure they'll be happy to comply with the government order to reduce my cost of living.

Meanwhile, in the world I live in, I haven't received a raise in multiple years. My bills, however, have gone up. And, again, I'll point out that I'm not the only one in this situation.

Sure, whatever numbers the government crunches for its Social Security department show the cost of living has gone down on average - that's great. But that doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of the situation for many (most?) people.

But your wages aren't keeping up with bills/inflation/whatever.

Um...the cost of living is (officially) down. Matter of fact, that's been the source of a minor political argument: people whining that they deserve an automatic raise in their SS cheques despite the fact that the cost of living has gone down since last year.

And Medicare is just about bust. I'd hardly call it a shining example of how to do anything. Don't take my word for it. From the A SUMMARY OF THE 2009 ANNUAL REPORTS Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html:

Medicare's financial status is much worse. As was true in 2008, Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets. Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2017, after which the percentage of scheduled benefits payable from tax income would decline from 81 percent in 2017 to about 50 percent in 2035 and 30 percent in 2080.

We'll not even get into whether the care provided is worth the price of admission. Bottom line. Medicare is unsustainable.

And you want the same people who run this to run ObamaCare because...?

>>>baraknaphobia got to him, it appears.

I haven't changed. I've always disliked big spenders that borrow money and drive us deeper into debt ($130,000 per U.S. home and climbing). BTW did you know, due to the recession, Social Security is now projected to go bankrupt in 2017? Yay.

Did they change the definition of "bankrupt" recently? Social security's costs will exceed its revenues in 2017; that does not mean Social Security will go bankrupt in 2017. The Social Security trust fund is expected to run out of money in 2037. And that assumes nothing is done about it in the next twenty-eight years. I don't want to give the government too much credit, but, for better or for worse, they can probably figure something out in that amount of time. According to the report by the trustees (see link), any healthcare-related cost-containment would immediately improve the outlook for the trust fund, so the ongoing discussion in congress about healthcare reform stands to ameliorate the situation with Social Security and Medicare if it does manage to lower healthcare-related expenses (again, for better or for worse; I don't know enough about the debate to call it either way).

... is just as bad as a person who's murdered his own countrymen for decades.

Ahh, like Saddam Hussein? To be consistent I'm sure you have praised Bush for bringing him to justice? And what, no mention of cop-killer Bill Ayers, buddy to Our Dear Leader?

You have called me an idiot 3 times. It has been my experience that those who resort to name-calling do so because they are intellectually bankrupt, and so no offense is taken. I know (as do you apparently) there is clearly nothing substantive behind your feeble attempts to belittle my intelligence.

And now, regarding your quote from the Wik ... I call BS. Yes, that quote appears on the Wik, but did you happen to go look at that quote in context? Well I did. I went to the BNC's web page (via the reference provided in the Wik article). Here is a quote from their policy statement on healthcare:

For decades, the British National Health Service was looked upon by the rest of the world as one of the most successful state run health services in the world. Today, it is a laughing stock. The NHS is critically ill. NHS Trusts are sacking staff, closing wards, cancelling operations and refusing patients vital life-saving drugs. Meanwhile, 'health tourists' are costing the NHS £2 billion a year, and diseases such as TB and AIDS are on the increase as a result of immigration ... Sixty percent of NHS staff are bureaucrats, and there are now more managers in the NHS than beds -- with many earning more than £100,000 per year.

In short, while socialized medicine may be laudable from a naive and idealistic perspective, every implementation to date has become, or will soon be, a disaster. And this is no surprise, because that is what happens when you socialize anything. Quality drops through the floor, and costs rise out of control. And why is that? Human nature. Where there is no competition and no profit incentive people lose their initiative and become lazy. Look at the USPS ($11B loss last year), or public schools (shudder), or insert your favorite government agency ... RMV? DHS? FEMA? Or instead of those tangential agencies, let's consider instead a direct analogy ... Medicare? Costs are spiraling out of control -- it is a ticking timebomb. Here are some interesting references (warning, they are not written in crayon):

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29339.html
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3700

The only remedy will be to severely rationing care, after first taxing the crap out of "the rich" until they are no longer rich, find even more creative ways to hide their income, or leave the country.

No thanks.

You can get an answer to all your questions by simply visiting the Social Security Administration website

Yes they do have a regional based numbering system
BTW

Social Security's financing problems are long term and will not affect today's retirees and near-retirees for many years, but they are very large and serious. People are living longer, the first baby boomers are nearing retirement, and the birth rate is lower than in the past. The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16.5-to-1 in 1950 to 3.1-to-1 today. Within 20 years it will be 2.1-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates.

Do SSNs get reused?

Yes, going from a previous article here on that subject.

SSA doesn't think so. It sounds like they will change the numbering system (add some digits probably) when they run out intead of reusing numbers. It ought to be an interesting Y2K-style programming exercise when that transpires.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?

A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 415 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

Actually, SSNs do not get reused. I recently met someone who works for the SSA who told me that they are currently trying to figure out what to do about this. The obvious solution -- increasing the number of digits, like what happened recently to the ISBN -- takes a lot infrastructural changes, both in government and the private sector. He said congressmen often told the SSA "Just do it!" and used things like this as an example of how bureaucracy is slow and inefficient, but that most of them now understand that the civil service doesn't always drag its feet because they resist change, contrary to what Sir Humphrey may have made them think.

Your insurance company would be bankrupt too, if Congress had a freehand to siphon-off its excess assests for decades, as they did with the Social Security Fund. If the SSF had been kept seperate from the general operational funds, as it originally was when the SSA was established, it would be totally solvent today! Oh and the SSA's administrative expenses last year were only 0.9% of the 2008 contribuitions. Does your insurance company use only 0.9% of its revenue for administrative expenses? Of course you won't acknowledge any of this, because it conflicts with your world-view.:P

Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?

A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 415 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Try again?

http://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnvshandbk/glossary.htm

SSN - Social Security Number; a unique nine (9)-digit number assigned by SSA to identify an individual when reporting wages, paying taxes and collecting benefits.

-m

Although is is actually illegal to use a SSN for identification

No, it's illegal for the Government to use it other than for its intended purpose. Companies can do what they like with it.

From the Social Security Website: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=78

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your number, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means.
[emphasis mine]

Looks like it shouldn't work anymore: http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/misused.html

• FAQs - Frequently Asked Questions

Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?

A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 415 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

Actually, even SSN are not 'unique'. They try and keep it unique for each generation, but they've already started reusing numbers.

SSNs are not currently re-used. They may potentially be reissued but we are talking 50+ years from now. See http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill.

Amen :)

Socialized health care on the other hand understands that humanity has a dignity and if you are unjustly disadvantaged then you can still get treatment according to fairness with everyone else.

Socialized health care undermines my dignity when it takes away my freedom of choice. It also makes health care a political matter. Is Obamacare going to cover birth control? Abortion? Don't even bother to answer -- whatever answer you give is going to alienate 50% of this country and set up a policy that's likely to change every time the majority party in Washington changes.

If I was in the US I'd be living on the street talking to the birds

Says who? You'd be receiving SSI disability payments at the very least and probably medicare as well.

So, the conundrum for the US style of care is: what if you are incapable of caring for your self?

Then a combination of charity and government is there to assist you. I am capable of taking care of myself and don't need Uncle Sam to do it for me.

BTW, for what it's worth, my best friend growing up was diagnosed with schizophrenia. It's a nasty disease and it was really hard to watch him go through it. I've also seen it first hand at work (mental health hospital). I'm not in favor of a policy that would throw schizophrenics out on the street to talk to the birds. I'm just not convinced that turning over our health care system to the Government is going to represent any real improvement. I also resent the inherent loss of freedom that's going to come with anything the Government runs.

The median is widely used for reporting average wages in the U.S. For example:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.nr0.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

It is even discussed in contrast with the mean:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html

(The graph on that last page is terrible, the median wage increases by more than 60%, while the ratio of median to mean decreases by about 10%, but at a glance, the latter appears to have changed by 3x more than the former)

The first five digits aren't guaranteed to have anything to do with the person's place of birth, and the date of birth doesn't really have any say in the matter anyway.

Information on the derivation of a person's SSN can be found on the SSA's website.

Before 1972, the first three digits came from blocks assigned to the state from which the SSN was issued. After 1972, the first three digits came from the ZIP code of the applicant's mailing address (which, as you may expect, is not guaranteed to be the same as the actual place of residence).

Myself, I was born in one state, raised in another, but my SSN reflects the state I was living in at the time my mother applied for it. (I'm old enough where I was not issued a number at birth, like my children were.) I have fun with people who try to show their intelligence with comments like "Oh, you're from [State], huh?" :)

Social Security Numbers have been around since 1963 (says Wiki).

I think you've got an accidental transposition here... According to the SSA, the first card was issued in 1936, not 1963.

Tax Reform Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-455) included the following amendments to the Social Security Act:

* To allow use by the States of the SSN in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver's license or motor vehicle registration law within their jurisdiction and to authorize the States to require individuals affected by such laws to furnish their SSNs to the States;
* To make misuse of the SSN for any purpose a violation of the Social Security Act;
* To make, under federal law, unlawful disclosure or compelling disclosure of the SSN of any person a felony, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
* To amend section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide that the SSN be used as the tax identification number (TIN) for all tax purposes. While the Treasury Department had been using the SSN as the TIN by regulation since 1962, this law codified that requirement.

Social Security Number Chronology

The rich are no more generous than the middle class for social security. 2009 - 6.2% on earnings up to $106,800. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10003.html

It is entirely possible to *legally* have the same SSN as another person, but with a different birth date.

SSN - Social Security Number; a unique nine (9)-digit number assigned by SSA to identify an individual when reporting wages, paying taxes and collecting benefits. - http://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnvshandbk/glossary.htm

The IRS wouldn't like that very much, since they don't ask for your birthdate on a tax return.

The birthdate is generally used as a secondary qualifier on most SSN checks because the SSN verification system can check the first 5 digits to see when and where a SSN was generated. So if you see a 18-year old from New York use a SSN that was issued in 1968 to someone in California, you might just have a problem.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.14/handbook-1401.html

-m

The "middle 2" are assigned in a non-sequential way http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html

The SSN wasn't required by a child until the 1980's when it was required to be used as a identifier on the tax return to claim as a deduction.

-m

I'm pretty sure that in Canada they would ask you for a SIN and not a SSN.

Yes, that is correct. Since 2008 in the United States only the IRS, employers, banks, and very few specific institutions are still allowed to require you to submit your SSN. Even a landlord cannot legally ask people for their SSNs anymore and if he turns you down because you refuse to give it to him, you can report him. As an attorney it is a mystery to me that so many people are still not informed about the law and let companies get away with asking for SSNs.

The SSA contradicts you.

SSA.gov, questions, "When am I legally required to provide my Social Security number?"

"If a business or other enterprise asks you for your number, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means. "

They *can* take a deposit instead; nothing *requires* them to.

Landlord laws vary wildly by state. AFAIK in NC it's perfectly fine to ask for a SSN and deny if they don't provide.

I also would think that a SSN is a Number for your Social Security. It should be used only for that. No excuses, no exception.

It is really confusing actually. If you believe the social security department, Sprint should be fined bundles of cash each time they ask this question of someone. If you believe the real world however, your SSN is the country wide standard identification number for you.

The back of my SSN card clearly states it is a crime to use that number for any purposes outside of social security, and is not to be used for identification purposes.

I keep my original card at home in a safe. This has always been 'best practices' recommended by the social security department.

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10002.html#protect

From their own website:

Giving your number is voluntary even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask:

        * Why your number is needed;
        * How your number will be used;
        * What happens if you refuse; and
        * What law requires you to give your number.

The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours

I'm thinking I need to create a front/back print out of this card, but both sides are a copy of the back side :P
Then hand that out whenever I am asked for it.

Your whole argument that SS isn't a ponzi scheme boils down to "hey, if the government finds other sources of money to pay into it, it's still viable!" You can tweak the system all you want, all you're going to do is delay the inevitable implosion. Social Security is inherently inviable program. It depends on more and more workers every year to support an ever-growing number of retirees. At the time the program was implemented the numbers worked out fairly well, but now life expectancy is WAY higher than it was in the 30s and as a result there are far too many people drawing SS checks than the system can support. This isn't just my opinion, this is well documented and EVEN THE GOVERNMENT admits the problems:

I hear that Social Security has a big financial problem? Why?

Social Security's financing problems are long term and will not affect today's retirees and near-retirees for many years, but they are very large and serious. People are living longer, the first baby boomers are nearing retirement, and the birth rate is lower than in the past. The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16.5-to-1 in 1950 to 3.1-to-1 today. Within 20 years it will be 2.1-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates.

That's straight from the horse's mouth, at http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm, BTW.

We already have a national ID card and everybody already has it. It's your social security card.

Social Security cards are not id cards. From the SSA:
"You need a Social Security number to get a job, collect Social Security benefits and receive some other government services. But you don't often need to show your Social Security card. Do not carry your card with you. Keep it in a safe place with your other important papers."

Falcon

One of the reasons for Real ID was because some state drivers licenses were too easily to fake. And in some states, the identity checks you have to take to get the license were too lax. (i.e. the "can you drive" parts were more important than the "are you who you claim to be" parts)

Guess what? A driver's license is supposed to say you can drive, not you are who you say you are. Social Security numbers too are used as ID, heck at least some states require a Social Security card to get a license, but they were never meant to be used as an ID. The Social Security Administration even says "You need a Social Security number to get a job, collect Social Security benefits and receive some other government services. But you don't often need to show your Social Security card. Do not carry your card with you. Keep it in a safe place with your other important papers." I don't know if the cards still do but they used to say something along the lines "This is not an identification card".

Falcon

Here.

Trustees Reports issued over the last several years have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become insolvent sometime in the next 30 to 40 years under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. Various proposals have addressed this long-range solvency problem. These proposals are generally intended to restore, or largely restore, solvency for the long-range period (the next 75 years).

So, we need to come up with some changes to the system in order to keep it solvent in 40 years. This is not an emergency. Recent market events have once again illustrated what a terrible idea it is to tie retirement to something as volatile as the stock market.

And, like all of the fiscal nightmare scenarios cooked up lately, it's easily fixed by reducing our military spending. Here are the contracts we awarded just yesterday, which totals $1,250,643,816.00. And that only reports contracts worth less than 5 million dollars.

Why don't you go after Social Security http://www.ssa.gov/budget/ instead? There's more being spent on Social Security than on defense http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/defense.html.

That's why Ponzi schemes make for poor retirement plans.