Useless News Today makes a patently false claim about Social Security

[T. A. Gardner]

Here's a clearcut case of disinformation in an article in USA Today (aka Useless News Today, aka the McPaper):

In this article, it is claimed that:

The elderly are especially dependent on the program, with almost nine out of 10 Americans aged 65 and older collecting benefits to make ends meet.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/07/11/social-security-benefits-taxable/70391651007/

Yet, the Social Security Administration says this:

Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 37% of men and 42% of women receive
50% or more of their income from Social Security. *

Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 12% of men and 15% of women rely on
Social Security for 90% or more of their income. *

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf

They do state this:

Nearly nine out of ten people age 65 and older were receiving a Social Security benefit as of December 31, 2022.

Useless News conflates the two into a lie. While roughly 9 out of 10 people 65 and older get Social Security only a small fraction of them rely on it as a primary, or only source of income. In other words, Social Security is a supplemental rather than a primary source of income for most people.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Where are all the Leftists and Socialists to defend Social Security?

 

[domer76]

Here's a clearcut case of disinformation in an article in USA Today (aka Useless News Today, aka the McPaper):

In this article, it is claimed that:

The elderly are especially dependent on the program, with almost nine out of 10 Americans aged 65 and older collecting benefits to make ends meet.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/07/11/social-security-benefits-taxable/70391651007/

Yet, the Social Security Administration says this:

Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 37% of men and 42% of women receive
50% or more of their income from Social Security. *

Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 12% of men and 15% of women rely on
Social Security for 90% or more of their income. *

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf

They do state this:

Nearly nine out of ten people age 65 and older were receiving a Social Security benefit as of December 31, 2022.

Useless News conflates the two into a lie. While roughly 9 out of 10 people 65 and older get Social Security only a small fraction of them rely on it as a primary, or only source of income. In other words, Social Security is a supplemental rather than a primary source of income for most people.

12-15% is a small fraction? (For the only source income from SS)
40% is a small fraction? (For the majority income from SS)

Where the fuck did you learn math?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

12-15% is a small fraction? (For the only source income from SS)
40% is a small fraction? (For the majority income from SS)

Where the fuck did you learn math?

40% rely on it for less than 50% of their income. Of that the SSA doesn't tell us what percentage actually need it to make ends meet. At 50% of your income, your total income per year would be about $36,000 on average. Only about 1 in 9 people rely on SS for more than 90% of their income. You can't fix stupid...

 

[domer76]

40% rely on it for less than 50% of their income. Of that the SSA doesn't tell us what percentage actually need it to make ends meet. At 50% of your income, your total income per year would be about $36,000 on average. Only about 1 in 9 people rely on SS for more than 90% of their income. You can't fix stupid...

If your only source of income is SS, that 12-15%, it is the ONLY thing to “make ends meet”.

40% rely on it for MORE than 50% of their income, not the other way around.

Tell us again, dumbfuck, how 12-15% is a “small fraction”.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Here's a clearcut case of disinformation in an article in USA Today (aka Useless News Today, aka the McPaper):

In this article, it is claimed that:

The elderly are especially dependent on the program, with almost nine out of 10 Americans aged 65 and older collecting benefits to make ends meet.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/07/11/social-security-benefits-taxable/70391651007/

Yet, the Social Security Administration says this:

Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 37% of men and 42% of women receive
50% or more of their income from Social Security. *

Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 12% of men and 15% of women rely on
Social Security for 90% or more of their income. *

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf

They do state this:

Nearly nine out of ten people age 65 and older were receiving a Social Security benefit as of December 31, 2022.

Useless News conflates the two into a lie. While roughly 9 out of 10 people 65 and older get Social Security only a small fraction of them rely on it as a primary, or only source of income. In other words, Social Security is a supplemental rather than a primary source of income for most people.

What was their evidence? Or did they just pull the number out of thin air?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What was their evidence? Or did they just pull the number out of thin air?

Useless News Today conflated (mixed up) the fact that 9 out of 10 people 65 and older get Social Security with the fact that less than half of those people really need it to get by. For about 4 out of 10 it makes up 50% or so of their income. Of those 4, for about 1 to 2 it makes up 90%.

So, the elderly aren't nearly as dependent on social security as the article makes out. The article claims all 9 out of 10 over 65 need it when only about 4 out of 10 kind of need it and 1-ish of those four are totally dependent on it.

That is, put another way, the reverse of what the article claims. 1 to 2 in 10 people over 65 are dependent on social security, and another 2 to 3--totaling 4--rely significantly on it. For the other 6 in 10, social security is to a varying degree gravy and unnecessary for living comfortably in retirement. That is, the truth is the reverse of the Leftist narrative that most people desperately need social security to get by when they get old.

 

[Noking]

This is a case of cherry picking the facts


Fact Sheet
SOCIAL SECURITY
In 2023, an average of almost 67 million Americans per month will receive a Social Securitybenefit, totaling over one trillion dollars in benefits paid during the year.

Snapshot of a Month: December 2022 Beneficiary Data

ο Retired workers 48.6 million $88.7 billion $1,825 average monthly benefit
dependents 2.7 million $2.4 billion
ο Disabled workers 7.6 million $11.3 billion $1,483 average monthly benefit
dependents 1.2 million $0.6 billion
ο Survivors 5.9 million $8.5 billion

Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly.

ο Nearly nine out of ten people age 65 and older were receiving a Social Security benefit as of December 31, 2022.

ο Social Security benefits represent about 30% of the income of the elderly. *

ο Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 37% of men and 42% of women receive
50% or more of their income from Social Security. *

ο Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 12% of men and 15% of women rely on
Social Security for 90% or more of their income. *

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Useless News Today conflated (mixed up) the fact that 9 out of 10 people 65 and older get Social Security with the fact that less than half of those people really need it to get by. For about 4 out of 10 it makes up 50% or so of their income. Of those 4, for about 1 to 2 it makes up 90%.

So, the elderly aren't nearly as dependent on social security as the article makes out. The article claims all 9 out of 10 over 65 need it when only about 4 out of 10 kind of need it and 1-ish of those four are totally dependent on it.

That is, put another way, the reverse of what the article claims. 1 to 2 in 10 people over 65 are dependent on social security, and another 2 to 3--totaling 4--rely significantly on it. For the other 6 in 10, social security is to a varying degree gravy and unnecessary for living comfortably in retirement. That is, the truth is the reverse of the Leftist narrative that most people desperately need social security to get by when they get old.

While I agree the fact sheet doesn't specify "make ends meet", you just made the same mistake yourself. Why are you having a conniption over this, Terry? Bored? Fox News got you all spun up?

Technically, I use SS to "make ends meet" since my wife and I are living on SS and DFAS. What this also means is that I don't have to touch our savings. In about 10 years, when we're in our 70s, we'll sell our place and move to a retirement facility. Around Texas/Oklahoma, they're about $5K/month. Higher for assisted living or memory lane. I have a Plan B for the memory lane scenario. LOL

From the linked fact sheet: https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf
Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly.
ο Nearly nine out of ten people age 65 and older were receiving a Social Security benefit as
of December 31, 2022.
ο Social Security benefits represent about 30% of the income of the elderly. *
ο Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 37% of men and 42% of women receive
50% or more of their income from Social Security. *
ο Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 12% of men and 15% of women rely on
Social Security for 90% or more of their income. *

 

[T. A. Gardner]

While I agree the fact sheet doesn't specify "make ends meet", you just made the same mistake yourself. Why are you having a conniption over this, Terry? Bored? Fox News got you all spun up?

Technically, I use SS to "make ends meet" since my wife and I are living on SS and DFAS. What this also means is that I don't have to touch our savings. In about 10 years, when we're in our 70s, we'll sell our place and move to a retirement facility. Around Texas/Oklahoma, they're about $5K/month. Higher for assisted living or memory lane. I have a Plan B for the memory lane scenario. LOL

From the linked fact sheet: https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf
Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly.
ο Nearly nine out of ten people age 65 and older were receiving a Social Security benefit as
of December 31, 2022.
ο Social Security benefits represent about 30% of the income of the elderly. *
ο Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 37% of men and 42% of women receive
50% or more of their income from Social Security. *
ο Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 12% of men and 15% of women rely on
Social Security for 90% or more of their income. *

My point was that USA Today, a national paper outright lied in an article on social security. They produced disinformation, and it wasn't called out and they weren't smacked down for it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

My point was that USA Today, a national paper outright lied in an article on social security. They produced disinformation, and it wasn't called out and they weren't smacked down for it.

Okay.

In the interest of fairness, do you apply the same standards to Fox, OANN and Newsmax?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Here's a clearcut case of disinformation in an article in USA Today (aka Useless News Today, aka the McPaper):

In this article, it is claimed that:

The elderly are especially dependent on the program, with almost nine out of 10 Americans aged 65 and older collecting benefits to make ends meet.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/07/11/social-security-benefits-taxable/70391651007/

Yet, the Social Security Administration says this:

Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 37% of men and 42% of women receive
50% or more of their income from Social Security. *

Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 12% of men and 15% of women rely on
Social Security for 90% or more of their income. *

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf

They do state this:

Nearly nine out of ten people age 65 and older were receiving a Social Security benefit as of December 31, 2022.

Useless News conflates the two into a lie. While roughly 9 out of 10 people 65 and older get Social Security only a small fraction of them rely on it as a primary, or only source of income. In other words, Social Security is a supplemental rather than a primary source of income for most people.

I wonder how you are able to survive in the world with your inability to understand simple things.
Needing money from a source to make ends meet doesn't mean it has to be the primary source.
If a person that is 80 years old pays rent of $900 per month, Insurance of $300 per month, medicine at $250 per month and food at $300 per month and they get $1200 per month from an annuity, do they need the $1000 per month from SS to make ends meet? Because SS isn't their primary source of money, does that mean they don't rely on it?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Okay.

In the interest of fairness, do you apply the same standards to Fox, OANN and Newsmax?

Yes, not that I bother with OANN or Newsmax much.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, not that I bother with OANN or Newsmax much.

I look forward to seeing you calling out Fox News on their lies.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I wonder how you are able to survive in the world with your inability to understand simple things.
Needing money from a source to make ends meet doesn't mean it has to be the primary source.
If a person that is 80 years old pays rent of $900 per month, Insurance of $300 per month, medicine at $250 per month and food at $300 per month and they get $1200 per month from an annuity, do they need the $1000 per month from SS to make ends meet? Because SS isn't their primary source of money, does that mean they don't rely on it?

I wonder how you can't grasp that the point of my making this thread was to point out the lie in an USA Today article about social security, not to enter a discussion about how many people need it, want it, or get it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I wonder how you can't grasp that the point of my making this thread was to point out the lie in an USA Today article about social security, not to enter a discussion about how many people need it, want it, or get it.

The point he's making is that your point has no point.

FWIW, I think the article is a bit misleading on the part you are complaining about but not an outright lie as you are claiming. That said, no journalist should be unclear, misleading or spinning data. They should stick to the facts.

The point you don't want to talk about is the gist of the article: Paying taxes on social security benefits.

"“Most people are going to rely on Social Security to some extent,” said Eric Bronnenkant, CPA/CFP and Head of Tax at investment advisor company Betterment...

...In 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed a new law that included taxing the benefits themselves. The idea was that higher-income American seniors could help add revenue back into the program and avoid the cutting of payouts...

...For the most part, there are two groups of people who have to pay taxes on their Social Security benefits:

• If you file your federal tax return as an “individual” and your “combined income” is between $25,000 and $34,000, you may be required to pay taxes on up to half of your benefits. If your income is more than $34,000, you’ll have to pay taxes on up to 85% of your benefits.
• If you file a joint return, and you and your spouse have a “combined income” between $32,000 and $44,000, you may be required to pay taxes on up to half of your benefits. If you make more than $44,000, that percentage goes up to 85%.
• You’ll also probably pay taxes if you’re married but file a separate return."

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The point he's making is that your point has no point.

FWIW, I think the article is a bit misleading on the part you are complaining about but not an outright lie as you are claiming. That said, no journalist should be unclear, misleading or spinning data. They should stick to the facts.

The point you don't want to talk about is that gist of the article: Paying taxes on social security benefits.

"“Most people are going to rely on Social Security to some extent,” said Eric Bronnenkant, CPA/CFP and Head of Tax at investment advisor company Betterment...

...In 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed a new law that included taxing the benefits themselves. The idea was that higher-income American seniors could help add revenue back into the program and avoid the cutting of payouts...

...For the most part, there are two groups of people who have to pay taxes on their Social Security benefits:

• If you file your federal tax return as an “individual” and your “combined income” is between $25,000 and $34,000, you may be required to pay taxes on up to half of your benefits. If your income is more than $34,000, you’ll have to pay taxes on up to 85% of your benefits.
• If you file a joint return, and you and your spouse have a “combined income” between $32,000 and $44,000, you may be required to pay taxes on up to half of your benefits. If you make more than $44,000, that percentage goes up to 85%.
• You’ll also probably pay taxes if you’re married but file a separate return."

My point has a point. When a major newspaper lies about something it needs to be called out and corrected. Or, do you really think that many people reading that article will simply buy that 9 out of 10 people on social security are dependent on it as an major income source? The SSA says it's more like 4 in 10. That's a huge difference.
The USA Today article makes it out that social security is an indispensable source of income for virtually the entirety of the population while the SSA says less than half of people are heavily dependent on it, and I'll add, many are not at all.

That, in turn, makes a big difference in the argument that the Left makes about cuts to social security and how vital the program itself is. Yes, for some it's vital. For a tiny fraction of the population, it's everything. On the other hand, just as many, possibly more, see it as gravy. For them it's simply extra income and for another small fraction of the population, irrelevant. That changes the arguments for and against social security substantially.

 

[BidenPresident]

My point has a point. When a major newspaper lies about something it needs to be called out and corrected. Or, do you really think that many people reading that article will simply buy that 9 out of 10 people on social security are dependent on it as an major income source? The SSA says it's more like 4 in 10. That's a huge difference.
The USA Today article makes it out that social security is an indispensable source of income for virtually the entirety of the population while the SSA says less than half of people are heavily dependent on it, and I'll add, many are not at all.

That, in turn, makes a big difference in the argument that the Left makes about cuts to social security and how vital the program itself is. Yes, for some it's vital. For a tiny fraction of the population, it's everything. On the other hand, just as many, possibly more, see it as gravy. For them it's simply extra income and for another small fraction of the population, irrelevant. That changes the arguments for and against social security substantially.

You have the reputation of deliberately lying.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You have the reputation of deliberately lying.

Claims one of my biggest detractors...

 

[BidenPresident]

Claims one of my biggest detractors...

Because you lie all the time. And you call yourself a troll.