Talk:Ida May Fuller

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Tax pay[edit]

Moved from main page:

The annualized return is closer to 42%.

Firstly, the midpoint, not the endpoint (which would yield the 22%), of the 35-year payout period should be used in the estimate, because the $22,888.92 was paid out gradually over this period.

Secondly, $49.50, not $24.75, was contributed, considering the employer's matching contribution, which is generally considered, in the long run, to reduce the employee's pay by an equal amount, since an employer has a predetermined amount he is willing to spend retaining an employee.

$49.50 x 1.42^17.5 = $22,890 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTAR (talk • contribs) 11:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--ImmortalGoddezz 19:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calculating return based on midpoint is also incorrect due to the exponential growth of interest. Consider that her monthly checks for the first year were $22.54. Thus, her payments for the first year totaled $270.48. With a principal of $49.50, that kind of return is completely unrealistic from a normal investment. A 42% interest rate would have yielded only $70 at the end of the first year. For the first generation of recipients, the benefits were essentially a gift. This massive discrepancy between the contributions and benefits is the "Legacy Debt" that is built into the system. -- N. Dantam, 26 May 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.108.238 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an (unsupported) and widely incorrect statement about an annual return of 22%; since her monthly paycheck from Social Security was roughly what she contributed in total, her monthly return is on the order of 100%. Which is irrelevant - Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, not a return-on-investment system, and always has been. (As to what the Social Security system should be, ideally, that's not for discussion on this page.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much is that in today's dollars? These figures are meaningless because we don't know how much spending power the money had from 39-75. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.146.146 (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont girl[edit]

The article states she lived in Brattleboro her entire life, but the new external link says Ludlow: what's correct? Extremely sexy 12:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not correct or needs to be clarified[edit]

Either the article is not correct or it needs to specify that she's the first ongoing check receiver. The government paid some lump sums in the same month the taxes began being taken out. source: https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Lack of Sources.[edit]

Does wikipedia print everything the government tells them too without a single unbiased independent source to cooperate the information? (If yes) Really? Why not just print everything government tells you too without any citations? I mean, what's the difference? Who can tell? This is atrocious propaganda until there is a valid independent source to verify the claims made herein. This is BS. 24.89.60.158 (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]