Thread: Millionaire Collects Food Stamps

Originally Posted by Prince

So a retired American citizen that wins $2 million (a million clear) should no longer be eligible for the benefits he is rightfully due? Why should his winnings change anything?

Word, just like someone that happened to accumulate a decent amount of money for retirement. Is he not entitied to SS money all of a sudden?

Originally Posted by Prince

So a retired American citizen that wins $2 million (a million clear) should no longer be eligible for the benefits he is rightfully due? Why should his winnings change anything?

rightfully due? Cant that also be read "entitled"? The guy is a douche bag who found a loophole in the system. If he would have taken it as an annuity he wouldn't be getting the welfare.

I don't know if you have ever been to Saginaw, or Michigan for that matter, but there are plenty of mouths who could really use that $200 a month in food.

Originally Posted by sprayherup

Word, just like someone that happened to accumulate a decent amount of money for retirement. Is he not entitied to SS money all of a sudden?

Apples and Oranges.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

Apples and Oranges.

Not really. You're saying because "he doesn't need" the money that he shouldn't keep taking the food stamps.

From the looks of it he informed the state about his windfall yet the system keeps giving him the food stamps. It's not like he's out there purposely hiding his money to keep getting the food stamps. Like a lot of people out there do.

Originally Posted by sprayherup

Not really. You're saying because "he doesn't need" the money that he shouldn't keep taking the food stamps.

From the looks of it he informed the state about his windfall yet the system keeps giving him the food stamps. It's not like he's out there purposely hiding his money to keep getting the food stamps. Like a lot of people out there do.

Like I said, it's a loophole in the system

S.S. is a government forced retirement plan. Actually if you really study it, it was just another tax that nobody was ever expected collect on.

Welfare is a government program designed to feed the less fortunate during times of need. He obviously is not experiencing a time of need.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

Like I said, it's a loophole in the system

S.S. is a government forced retirement plan. Actually if you really study it, it was just another tax that nobody was ever expected collect on.

Welfare is a government program designed to feed the less fortunate during times of need. He obviously is not experiencing a time of need.

It is not a loophole, the system is designed this way for a purpose, by very deceptive politicians as a way to get them reelected.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

Like I said, it's a loophole in the system

S.S. is a government forced retirement plan. Actually if you really study it, it was just another tax that nobody was ever expected collect on.

how do you figure? it's been in place since Roosevelt and the New Deal in 1935 and this year is the first time there has ever been talk about reducing it. it's never been an issue until this last recession. it was instituted because of the stock market crash in '29 and economic instability that was surely going to follow it.

considering that wages have remained stagnant for decades, less and less employers are offering pensions and only 401K's and the service sector averages wages from $8-$14 more people in the future are going to rely on SS because they do not make enough in wages to pay bills and save any measurable amount of monies for the future.

decades ago it supplemented peoples retirement income from pension and or 401K's, etc. now it accounts for 40-90% of the retirement incomes of some of the ederly depending on their marital status etc.

Every OECD country has some form of social security for those no longer in the work force, it's not a US thing, it's a modern society thing...

at the current rate of inflation you pretty much need to triple the amount that you plan on retiring with with due to the loss of purchasing power from inflation. so if a person wants to retire with 1m dollars in 30 years they would need to have 3m to have the same buying power as today...

Originally Posted by Prince

So a retired American citizen that wins $2 million (a million clear) should no longer be eligible for the benefits he is rightfully due? Why should his winnings change anything?

I don't get it. People seem to think it's written in stone to get freebies - and now not only that, winning the lottery should be not affect the goodies. Someone that is able to support themselves should not be able to get government goodies at our expense. Logic for this program has turned upsidedown and now people that are not even close to being in these situations have it that government programs are a right and should be given out on a whim. WHO IS PAYING FOR IT? Him? Yes. (in one lump sum) You? Yes. (over time) Are you getting the free bennies as well? NO.

And you wonder why we are going to shit in this country. Sure, there are a myriad of reasons, but this is a big one.

Originally Posted by LAM

how do you figure? it's been in place since Roosevelt and the New Deal in 1935 and this year is the first time there has ever been talk about reducing it. it's never been an issue until this last recession. it was instituted because of the stock market crash in '29 and economic instability that was surely going to follow it.

considering that wages have remained stagnant for decades, less and less employers are offering pensions and only 401K's and the service sector averages wages from $8-$14 more people in the future are going to rely on SS because they do not make enough in wages to pay bills and save any measurable amount of monies for the future.

decades ago it supplemented peoples retirement income from pension and or 401K's, etc. now it accounts for 40-90% of the retirement incomes of some of the ederly depending on their marital status etc.

Every OECD country has some form of social security for those no longer in the work force, it's not a US thing, it's a modern society thing...

at the current rate of inflation you pretty much need to triple the amount that you plan on retiring with with due to the loss of purchasing power from inflation. so if a person wants to retire with 1m dollars in 30 years they would need to have 3m to have the same buying power as today...

LAM, I think he said that because the age of death was allot lower back when it first started - hence they never figured many people would collect. At the rate as it is now, they will have to move it to 85 or older in order for it to equalize and gain again. Also, the SS impending disaster has been talked about for many, many years - not starting from this recession.

Originally Posted by phosphor

I don't get it. People seem to think it's written in stone to get freebies - and now not only that, winning the lottery should be not affect the goodies. Someone that is able to support themselves should not be able to get government goodies at our expense. Logic for this program has turned upsidedown and now people that are not even close to being in these situations have it that government programs are a right and should be given out on a whim. WHO IS PAYING FOR IT? Him? Yes. (in one lump sum) You? Yes. (over time) Are you getting the free bennies as well? NO.

And you wonder why we are going to shit in this country. Sure, there are a myriad of reasons, but this is a big one.

you have to earn social security by working, filing a tax return and earning credits. those with 40 credits get the max benefits, those with zero credits get none...

Warren Buffet collects SS. by law he is allowed he has earned it, morally should a person worth 50B collect, I say no.

this is the type of American greed that I always talk about...people only do what is required of them by law, no more no less...hell of a society we have created here in the US

Originally Posted by phosphor

LAM, I think he said that because the age of death was allot lower back when it first started - hence they never figured many people would collect. At the rate as it is now, they will have to move it to 85 or older in order for it to equalize and gain again. Also, the SS impending disaster has been talked about for many, many years - not starting from this recession.

yep.....people were not expected to live that long after retirement but advances in health care have extended the lifespan greatly. now you retire at 65 and live close to 80.

Originally Posted by LAM

how do you figure? it's been in place since Roosevelt and the New Deal in 1935 and this year is the first time there has ever been talk about reducing it. it's never been an issue until this last recession. it was instituted because of the stock market crash in '29 and economic instability that was surely going to follow it.

considering that wages have remained stagnant for decades, less and less employers are offering pensions and only 401K's and the service sector averages wages from $8-$14 more people in the future are going to rely on SS because they do not make enough in wages to pay bills and save any measurable amount of monies for the future.

decades ago it supplemented peoples retirement income from pension and or 401K's, etc. now it accounts for 40-90% of the retirement incomes of some of the ederly depending on their marital status etc.

Every OECD country has some form of social security for those no longer in the work force, it's not a US thing, it's a modern society thing...

at the current rate of inflation you pretty much need to triple the amount that you plan on retiring with with due to the loss of purchasing power from inflation. so if a person wants to retire with 1m dollars in 30 years they would need to have 3m to have the same buying power as today...

Since 1935 when Social Security was created, life expectancy has increased by 26% to age 78, while Social Security’s retirement age has gone up just 3 percent, to 67. The government was rolling the dice, when it was created the odds are you died before you withdrew your money.

Originally Posted by vortex

It is not a loophole, the system is designed this way for a purpose, by very deceptive politicians as a way to get them reelected.

K, not much argument with that.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

Since 1935 when Social Security was created, life expectancy has increased by 26% to age 78, while Social Security’s retirement age has gone up just 3 percent, to 67. The government was rolling the dice, when it was created the odds are you died before you withdrew your money.

all these freaking government websites yet nobody seems to utilize them...

Life Expectancy for Social Security
Life Expectancy for Social Security

the age of retirement varies from OECD countries depending on the infant mortality rate...

Originally Posted by phosphor

You keep on believing your pipe dream. There are millions of other ways the government can waste his 'contribution' on. The only way that much money would feed a 1000 families is if it went into a legit charity - the gubment might make it to 100, but that may be stretching it with it's superior efficiency.

i know. the government is a money wasting crack whore. i should have said his million dollars COULD feed him and 1000 other families.

Originally Posted by Little Wing

i know. the government is a money wasting crack whore. i should have said his million dollars COULD feed him and 1000 other families.

It has nothing to do with "government" it's simply a bureaucracy thing. anytime an organization is based on a hierarchical structure were one level reports to the one above and controls the one below, each has limited knowledge, function, resources, etc. anyone that's been in the military knows it's the exact same way.

I forgot I had this study from 2000 that was performed by an international agency called the Frazer Institute in Canada, been meaning to post it.

The US ranks #12 out of the 23 OECD countries right in the middle, with Luxembourg at #1.

In terms of population the US has triple the population of the 2 largest OECD countries less populated than us...at 4.5% of the worlds population Japan and Mexico have 1.8% and 1.6% respectively.

The US government is not as inefficient as people think when you look at all the services provided by the various levels compared to the services offered by other countries...

Originally Posted by hoyle21

rightfully due? Cant that also be read "entitled"? The guy is a douche bag who found a loophole in the system. If he would have taken it as an annuity he wouldn't be getting the welfare.

I don't know if you have ever been to Saginaw, or Michigan for that matter, but there are plenty of mouths who could really use that $200 a month in food.

then the laws need to change.

Originally Posted by Prince

then the laws need to change.

If there was enough public outrage about this, it would change.