Question for those who live in California

[two_bit_score]

Same way unemployment is non taxable, no? It's a govt handout so it's non taxable.
Now then, a Social Security payment is not a handout, theoretically you paid in what you are getting out.
SS payments are taxable income.

If you were self employed you paid the entire SS 'contribution'. Employees paid their share and their employer paid a share. But your overall point is excellent!

 

[scootr]

My wife and I are both self employed. We know the pain of SS contributions. Punishment for creating your own job. Plus you get to provide yourself with health insurance.

 

[Hughman]

Now illegal not to count Section 8 voucher amount as income.

So now they say I have to "consider" section 8 applicants, but the last time I read the required contract to join the program, there's no way I would sign it. What's the point?

 

[California]

a Social Security payment is not a handout, theoretically you paid in what you are getting out.

That is the common impression but SS hasn't changed from how it began.

It consists of people working presently, supporting people already retired.

The legislation was passed during the Depression to reduce starvation when the economy collapsed. Soon it became everyone's expectation for the foundation of their retirement planning.

'Getting back what you paid in' is folklore, not real.

 

[jyoutz]

That is the common impression but SS hasn't changed from how it began.

It consists of people working presently, supporting people already retired.

The legislation was passed during the Depression to reduce starvation when the economy collapsed. Soon it became everyone's expectation for the foundation of their retirement planning.

'Getting back what you paid in' is folklore, not real.

Actually most people get back what they contributed plus reasonable interest. And a lot more. Obviously this varies considerably between recipients.

 

[two_bit_score]

'Getting back what you paid in' is folklore, not real.

But it is based on what you paid in. Theoretically.

 

[scootr]

That is the common impression but SS hasn't changed from how it began.

It consists of people working presently, supporting people already retired.

The legislation was passed during the Depression to reduce starvation when the economy collapsed. Soon it became everyone's expectation for the foundation of their retirement planning.

'Getting back what you paid in' is folklore, not real.

I have paid in for 55 yrs. I have just begun drawing out. Your argument holds no water.
It will take 7 yrs for me to get what I put in back at face value. Imagine how much more money it would be today had the govt invested that same $250,000 starting 55 yrs ago. Unfortunate the govt. borrowed the money I put in and spent it on foreign wars and other frivolous crap. Not my problem.
I certainly don't feel like somebody else is working to support me - I'm still working and still contributing to the SS fund.

Show me the money

 

[California]

But it is based on what you paid in. Theoretically.

The formula for your entitlement considers what you put in.

But I expect SS disability, survivor benefits, likely a lot of other factors that send your contributions to others or pay for wars as scootr said, or that adjust entitlements as the rules change, distort one's paid in/get back ratios.

My FIL was a government statistician who assembled employment statistics at one point in his career, so he had insight into how it all works. I don't know if it was SS or something else in his retirement income but he noted he had made a change at some point that meant years later he got back in his first 18 months retired, all the payroll deductions that he had paid in to that category. It may have been that State employees weren't required to join SS in the early days since they already belonged to the state pension program. I never asked him how that worked but I'm sure he knew what he was talking about.

 

[plowhog]

It may have been that State employees weren't required to join SS

A family member of mine worked for the State of CA for 30 years, making zero contributions to Social Security.

 

[ultrarunner]

So now they say I have to "consider" section 8 applicants, but the last time I read the required contract to join the program, there's no way I would sign it. What's the point?

It will be another showdown…

The program bears little resemblance to the early days decades ago… my experience starts 1982.

They use to say totally voluntary but now not.

The water shed for me is Housing no longer has any part in tenant damages… it is strictly between owner and tenant plus now 1 month max is the most for any security deposit for any rental.

I had a roof replaced late in the season… no complaints or issues… just being pro active with exterior paint scheduled for Spring.

December 15 was inspection and I was given 30 days to paint eves and trim… there was frost each morning when not raining… no matter it had to be done or forever loose the rent through abatement until painted and reinspected.

Another was tenant owned stove not working and it was on me to repair/replace

Or another where a tenants ex said he was going to get her thrown out and busted out all the windows at midnight on a Saturday night.

I was out to 4 am boarding up the windows or the city would fit $300 a window…

I have had some wonderful Section 8 but the bad ones were placed in the homes and nothing I could do when head of household passed away and the voucher was given to another family member you would have to be out of your mind to rent to.

 

[jyoutz]

I have paid in for 55 yrs. I have just begun drawing out. Your argument holds no water.
It will take 7 yrs for me to get what I put in back at face value. Imagine how much more money it would be today had the govt invested that same $250,000 starting 55 yrs ago. Unfortunate the govt. borrowed the money I put in and spent it on foreign wars and other frivolous crap. Not my problem.
I certainly don't feel like somebody else is working to support me - I'm still working and still contributing to the SS fund.

Show me the money

I think the money you contributed went to fund your parents retirement, and your children are funding yours. There are no individual accounts set up with our names on it. This is how the program has operated since inception. The current problems are largely because of less people in the workforce due to the aging of the baby boom generation and lower birth rates. SS has never been a retirement investment account.

 

[jyoutz]

A family member of mine worked for the State of CA for 30 years, making zero contributions to Social Security.

It used to be that way for a lot of state and federal employees. Since 1983, all federal employees contribute to social security. And I haven’t heard of any current state employees who also don’t contribute. Maybe there are still some states with exempt employees?

 

[Oaktree]

SS payments are taxable income.

Depending on your total income, not all of SS income is federally taxed. Some states tax it, others don't.

My wife and I are both self employed. We know the pain of SS contributions. Punishment for creating your own job. Plus you get to provide yourself with health insurance.

Which is tax deductable.

 

[scootr]

Mr govt is reprimanding us
Not an acct with my name on it - Really. Gee I thought they had a little pink piggy bank with my name on it

 

[jyoutz]

Mr govt is reprimanding us
Not an acct with my name on it - Really. Gee I thought they had a little pink piggy bank with my name on it

You sure sounded like you believed that. And I don’t believe I have ever made a snide remark about you.

 

[California]

It used to be that way for a lot of state and federal employees. Since 1983, all federal employees contribute to social security. And I haven’t heard of any current state employees who also don’t contribute. Maybe there are still some states with exempt employees?

Many schoolteachers here are in CalSTRS, "largest educator-only pension fund in the world, and the second largest pension fund in the U.S.The market value of the CalSTRS investment portfolio was approximately $331.4 billion as of February 29, 2024."

Instead of SS.

 

[KennyG]

In most states teachers and state workers pay into social security. In others they do not. I don't know if the California pension system is solvent, but in the Midwest, Illinois stands out as about the only state that has a state pension system instead of social security. For years the state has "bribed" the employees with promises of high retirement pensions and diverted the funds to other purposes, leaving the system, by any reasonable measure, bankrupt.

 

[California]

I think the money you contributed went to fund your parents retirement, and your children are funding yours.

But that's socialism, no?

And we appreciate all you guys paying in to fund ours.

Has anyone considered that the deductions from undocumented workers paychecks will never be paid out to them. That money just sweetens the pot. Helps keep your SS rate a little lower.

 

[jyoutz]

In most states teachers and state workers pay into social security. In others they do not. I don't know if the California pension system is solvent, but in the Midwest, Illinois stands out as about the only state that has a state pension system instead of social security. For years the state has "bribed" the employees with promises of high retirement pensions and diverted the funds to other purposes, leaving the system, by any reasonable measure, bankrupt.

A lot of states I’m familiar with treat employee retirement like the federal government. Employees pay into and collect from both a retirement system and social security.

 

[garry1p]

A lot of states pension plans are underfunded and will be looking for the federal government to bail them out.