What is the proper word for Social Security: Insurance or Entitlement?

DUers are wasting a lot of time arguing about whether to call Social Security and "entitlement" or "insurance"?

Here is what the law, the US Code calls it.

(a) Old-age insurance benefits
Every individual who—
(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414 (a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title),
shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—
(A) in the case of an individual who has attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title), the first month in which such individual meets the criteria specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), or
(B) in the case of an individual who has attained age 62, but has not attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title), the first month throughout which such individual meets the criteria specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) (if in that month he meets the criterion specified in paragraph (3)),
and ending with the month preceding the month in which he dies. Except as provided in subsection (q) and subsection (w) of this section, such individual’s old-age insurance benefit for any month shall be equal to his primary insurance amount (as defined in section 415 (a) of this title) for such month.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00000402----000-.html

I don't find the word "entitlement" in that Code section. If it is used in the Code, it is not the primary focus.

Social Security is most definitely insurance. I will post this separately to clear up the confusion.

Please refer to Social Security as insurance, not as an "entitlement."

that is how I have referred to it. I don't remember hearing the word "entitlement" before last year.

Otherwise it would be SSDE :)

It is only an "entitlement" plan to those who are Blue Dog Dems and the Republicans.

Meanwhile, while Social Security is about to be taken away from those of us who have contributed, SEVENTY BILLION in Afghanistan has gone "missing." And much of it has probably ended up in the hands of those we are fighting there.

President Obama, if you really wanna help the nation's deficit, end the damn wars.

to Rights.

In order to be true to the principles that you are explaining?

The fact that the term "entitlement" requires a two sentence explantion, while the average FOX listener can't comprehend anything above a five second attention span, tells me exactly why the term is used.

People around here are losing it over the meaning. Folks, we PAY for it so whatever you call it...we OWN it (SSI). It is our entitlement and it is our insurance for a retirement. People are using the word, entitlement as meaning it is voluntary or optional - that is NOT what the word means.

to embarrass those who are receiving Social Security. It is used as a pejorative term although there really isn't anything pejorative about it.

Technically, legally, however, we are as entitled to our retirement insurance -- i.e., Social Security, as we are to any other insurance benefit.

Obama should NEVER say, "Cut entitlements..." he should
say "Cut SERVICES".

I can't believe any self-respecting Democrat would EVER
talk in terms of "entitlements", or expect half to the
country to think its a "bad" thing if he cuts them.

"Services", on the other hand, they wouldn't want cut -- ever.

Is there any thing in that definition you would disagree with?

If we want to win this fight we need to understand how to frame this issue and not fall into the trap of debating this within the right-wing framing. Referring to SS as insurance that we have already paid into rather then as an entitlement makes a very big difference on how the issue is perceived.

Whatever a legal dictionary says, Social Security, specifically and by law is properly referred to as "insurance."

Entitlement may be a broader term for a lot of programs, but the specific program, Social Security, is an insurance program.

Social Security must be differentiated from other "entitlement" programs that exist because Congress authorizes them as budget items.

Social Security does not exist because Congress authorizes the expenditure out of general funds.

Social Security is a separate kind of program, apart from "entitlement" programs. It is more like an insurance policy than like some of the entitlement programs such as Medicaid or food stamps which are funded out of the general fund by congressional authorization.

of social equality or enfranchisement. It is based on a concept of insurance. You pay in. Your money is invested. When the event occurs for which you paid the insurance, you receive your benefits.

You pay for insurance.

It is very important to remind the American people of this fact.

I know an elderly woman whose father had a store. When he died, he left her a bundle of money. She lived on the money and lost most of it in 2008.

She never paid into Social Security and is not eligible for benefits because she never worked.

Sad story. But that is the way Social Security works.

It is not a program based on social equality or enfranchisement. Other programs may pay money to those not insured by Social Security. Social Security is a specific insurance policy.

What is disgusting is that the government bailed out the too big to fail insurance company, AIG to save Wall Street, but now it does not want to tax the rich to pay back the MONEY OWED BY THE GENERAL FUND TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY INSURANCE TRUST FUND.

That is what this is all about. Rich guys like Pete Peterson do not want to have to pay their taxes. The government borrowed from Social Security in order to give rich people mega-tax-breaks. And now, the rich do not want to repay the money borrowed to give them their breaks.

It is very important to inform people about just what Social Security is.

We are all being cheated. It is not some social justice scheme. It is a matter of stopping criminal conduct. Theft from an insurance fund. If someone embezzled money from an insurance company in this way, they would be tried and probably spend time in prison.

The goal is not to right a social wrong. The goal is to make sure that everyone who works and pays their taxes has retirement insurance that is guaranteed by the government but not a give-away at taxpayer expense.

Anti-trust laws are progressive also. (They were Teddy Roosevelt's idea baby.) But they are to prevent the exaggerated power of monopolies, not to achieve social justice.

There is no guarantee that small companies serve social justice better than monopolies. In fact, one could argue that monopolies are more efficient and provide services and goods for lower prices. Yet, the anti-trust laws are progressive and, in my view, essential to encouraging creativity and innovation.

That is the complaint. In an informal context, just find another synonym for it.
Such as "BENEFIT"
Social security is a benefit of citizenship.

Just because YOU have swallowed the false right-wing definition of the word, that doesn't mean that everyone else should follow you off the cliff.

Maybe we wouldn't be HAVING this problem if people had actually bothered to educate themselves and stand up for the poor welfare mothers of America, back when they were being demonized by the right-wing. If people had objected to the re-definition of "entitlement" back when it was only a problem for poor people, we wouldn't be IN this situation.

Will we learn from that mistake? Probably not. But the least we can do is to refrain from rolling over like beaten, cowardly dogs, allowing the right-wing reframe our political debate language at will.

The very post they made makes that clear, had they swallowed then ipso facto they would have no interest in pursuing this linguistic change.


Furthermore you state
'wouldn't be HAVING this problem if people had actually bothered to educate themselves and stand up for the poor welfare mothers of America, back when they were being demonized by the right-wing.'

First off we are never going to win anything if we are waiting for people to educate themselves, we need to put the information out there and make it as easy to understand as possible. Secondly we don't have the option of time traveling to 'back when' we need to deal with the world as it is now.

Since you clearly accept the premise that we do have a problem and that the demonizing already took place back when, then it doesn't make sense for you to attack the OP for offering a prescriptive measure for improving the linguistics and framing of the ss debate.

I did not write the Code of course. I am just quoting it.

I think some people don't understand that.

Please don't be offended if you do. I'm just frustrated that people are trying to argue with the Code concerning Social Security.

It's like arguing that the local police are the same as the Navy. There is no similarity. None at all. There are some similarities, but they are very, very different.

That's the US Code I quoted. That is the legal authority.

Congress does not call Social Security an entitlement. Congress calls it insurance -- over and over and over -- and if you actually go to the link you will see the law that sets up a trust fund for the insurance money.

Calling it an entitlement is legally and technically incorrect.

You will see that some of the other benefits paid out of the Social Security insurance trust fund are referred to as "entitlement," such as the widow's benefit. That is differentiated from the insurance that the primary insured receives. The primary insured recipient must have paid into the system in order to be eligible for the insurance benefits.

So the payments to those who actually paid into the system are not entitlements -- not at all.

as I have PAID for it, each week with each paycheck.

I have been collecting benefits for the past 7 years, and I am entitled to every last cent that I have put into it.

and have been working for over 40 years, paying in every step of the way. I fully intend to collect.

I reluctantly started collecting a couple of years ago (no jobs).

Any trust I ever may foolishly have had in my government will completely vanish if they tamper with the Social Security program. I can't say I paid in my whole life because I lived overseas while my husband worked there.

But I paid in every single hour that I worked with the exception of babysitting I did in high school.

I paid in and I trusted that our government would take care of the money for me. Apparently they haven't.

My husband served four years in the military.

How can they cheat Americans in this way. We paid in. If they want our trust, they have to pay out the full measure they promised us.

Last week I got a call from a friend who started up with a discussion on Social Security.

He said that people think "there's an account out there with their name on it". Then said that when SS was created, it was for children whose parents had died, and they would then have income to live on.

I am not a walking encyclopedia like many on this forum. I cannot do battle with most people who come along and try to pull the legs out from under me/us.

Is this guy telling the truth? I ask because he is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. Even so, the common understanding is (in fact we get our SS statements in the mail saying so) we paid into something with our wages, and we are not just expecting, but told that we will receive payments beginning at a certain time, and for a certain amount. It's as though we DO have an account with our name on it, for all practical purposes.

He also says "Obamacare", which tells me about all I need to know about the guy.

a) Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund

There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the “Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund”. The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old-Age Reserve Account and the amount standing to the credit of the Old-Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940, which securities and amount the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, and, in addition, such gifts and bequests as may be made as provided in subsection (i)(1) of this section, and such amounts as may be appropriated to, or deposited in, the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund as hereinafter provided. There is hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, and for each fiscal year thereafter, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, amounts equivalent to 100 per centum of—
(1) the taxes (including interest, penalties, and additions to the taxes) received under subchapter A of chapter 9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (and covered into the Treasury) which are deposited into the Treasury by collectors of internal revenue before January 1, 1951; and
(2) the taxes certified each month by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as taxes received under subchapter A of chapter 9 of such Code which are deposited into the Treasury by collectors of internal revenue after December 31, 1950, and before January 1, 1953, with respect to assessments of such taxes made before January 1, 1951; and
(3) the taxes imposed by subchapter A of chapter 9 of such Code with respect to wages (as defined in section 1426 of such Code), and by chapter 21 (other than sections 3101(b) and 3111(b)) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to wages (as defined in section 3121 of such Code) reported to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue pursuant to section 1420(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 after December 31, 1950, or to the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegates pursuant to subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 after December 31, 1954, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury by applying the applicable rates of tax under such subchapter or chapter 21 (other than sections 3101 (b) and 3111 (b)) to such wages, which wages shall be certified by the Commissioner of Social Security on the basis of the records of wages established and maintained by such Commissioner in accordance with such reports, less the amounts specified in clause (1) of subsection (b) of this section; and
(4) the taxes imposed by subchapter E of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, with respect to self-employment income (as defined in section 481 of such Code), and by chapter 2 (other than section 1401(b)) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to self-employment income (as defined in section 1402 of such Code) reported to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on tax returns under such subchapter or to the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate on tax returns under subtitle F of such Code, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury by applying the applicable rate of tax under such subchapter or chapter (other than section 1401 (b)) to such self-employment income, which self-employment income shall be certified by the Commissioner of Social Security on the basis of the records of self-employment income established and maintained by the Commissioner of Social Security in accordance with such returns, less the amounts specified in clause (2) of subsection (b) of this section.
The amounts appropriated by clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection shall be transferred from time to time from the general fund in the Treasury to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, and the amounts appropriated by clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (b) of this section shall be transferred from time to time from the general fund in the Treasury to the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, such amounts to be determined on the basis of estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury of the taxes, specified in clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection, paid to or deposited into the Treasury; and proper adjustments shall be made in amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior estimates were in excess of or were less than the taxes specified in such clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection. All amounts transferred to either Trust Fund under the preceding sentence shall be invested by the Managing Trustee in the same manner and to the same extent as the other assets of such Trust Fund. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in any case in which the Secretary of the Treasury determines that the assets of either such Trust Fund would otherwise be inadequate to meet such Fund’s obligations for any month, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to such Trust Fund on the first day of such month the amount which would have been transferred to such Fund under this section as in effect on October 1, 1990; and such Trust Fund shall pay interest to the general fund on the amount so transferred on the first day of any month at a rate (calculated on a daily basis, and applied against the difference between the amount so transferred on such first day and the amount which would have been transferred to the Trust Fund up to that day under the procedures in effect on January 1, 1983) equal to the rate earned by the investments of such Fund in the same month under subsection (d) of this section.

There is more at

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00000401----000-.html

Ask your friend to give you the link for any code he may be referring to.

There most definitely is a Social Security Trust Fund.

My Congressman explained to a group of his constituents just yesterday that the fund is reviewed to insure that it will remain solvent for 75 years into the future.

So, the trust fund has plenty of money. The money is invested in securities -- the securities that the Republicans want to default on. Not all of the securities are held by the Social Security trust fund. Some are held by other Americans who buy the securities or bonds. Some are held by foreign investors.

Your friend is trying to scare you.

What is really happening is that Bush fought two wars without imposing taxes to pay for them. He also added another generous (albeit necessary) program to Medicare without imposing taxes to pay for it. Finally, he gave his rich friends a huge tax cut (as well as smaller ones to the rest of us) without considering how our government could pay for that.

To cover the government's expenses without raising taxes to pay for the new ones, the Bush government borrowed big time (as had other governments since Reagan) from the Social Security trust fund. The money had accumulated in the Social Security trust fund because the generation of the baby boomers, huge in numbers, paid their FICA (Federal Insurance Compensation Act) taxes into it.

Your friend is part of a scheme by rich people to keep their tax breaks. They are, in effect, stealing from the Social Security trust fund that working people paid into out of the first dollars in their paychecks.

It takes a criminal mind to perpetrate such a scheme. Criminal.

is not used to refer to the insurance benefits of those who qualify for the benefits because they, personally, paid in.

The word "entitlement" is used for, as an example, the widow's pensions which are paid out although the widow may not have paid the insurance premiums out of checks she received for her work but is entitled to coverage only by virtue of being married or having been married to an insured under the program.

We pay in expecting to get paid back more than the amount we contribute similar to a savings account.

It' a gamble by the insurer(SSA) that many won't be able to reclaim all they have contributed. Similar to life insurance.

Wish I could pull it out in a lump sum.

is reviewed regularly to insure that it will be solvent for the next 75 years.

The problem is not Social Security. The problem is the Bush tax cuts for the rich and Bush's unfunded wars as well as the cost of healthcare (mostly the skimming from our healthcare dollars by the health care insurance corporations).

Social Security guarantees a right, based in the statute you cited, to access benefits defined in the same statute. The legal term doesn't have any connotation other than that. The "social insurance" aspect of Social Security Act is pertinent only in how the benefits and eligibility requirements are defined. It doesn't make sense to make any other kind of distinction; the various kinds of insurance schemes that operate through the Social Security Act are still entitlements even though the function as insurance schemes because everyone has a right to the benefits. Just like the old age pension system of Social Security is still an entitlement even though it doesn't function like an insurance scheme. How the benefits are defined is, for the most part, immaterial. What makes something an entitlement is that, by law, you are entitled to the benefits it provides.

What you're likely trying to do is draw a distinction between entitlements and assistance programs purely for the poor (what is colloquially defined as "welfare" in the United States and pretty much nowhere else in the world), a rhetorical line that conservatives have been intentionally blurring for half a century.

into the Social Security Insurance Trust Fund as entitlements.

It specifically uses that term with regard to beneficiaries such as the widows of payors.

Read the Code yourself. The distinction in the language is clear.

However, it takes on the appearance of an entitlement because it is mandatory, and it is government backed.

others such as their widows or dependents also to benefits under certain conditions.

WHO DO NOT SET REPUBLICANS, AND HENCE AMERICA, STRAIGHT ON THIS, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.

"Entitlement" is a bullshit Republican talking point and it pisses me off that any "Dem" would use it.

I only checked one page, here are three usages. "Insurance" appears also. Please have SSA correct their website.




http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-entitle-ussi.htm


SOCIAL SECURITY ENTITLEMENT REQUIREMENTS

Social Security Entitlement2011 Edition

Many people who are eligible for SSI may also be entitled to receive Social Security benefits

Oh, and unrec.

are entitled to claim benefits!!

soc sec people use 'entitlement' and various forms of that word.

I pay dental insurance premiums every month. I am 'entitled' to benefits according to the plan I purchased.

I don't understand all the wadded panties about the word.

We should continue to call it Unemployment INSURANCE -- !!



"Entitlement" however is just another good word which has been demonized by

the rw in their usual Goebbels' style of attack and reporting!!


People are "entitled" to the pensions they have paid into all their working lives!!

why do we allow the right to hijack the language?

Hello?