Social Security [in the U.S]...

[TwoTone]

Our Social Security

_____________________________________________

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social

Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be

completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay

1% of the first $1,400 of their annual

incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put

into the Program would be deductible from

their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the

independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the

General operating fund, and therefore, would

only be used to fund the Social Security

Retirement Program, and no other

Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees

would never be taxed as income.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are

now receiving a Social Security check every month --

and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of

the money we paid to the Federal government to "put

away" -- you may be interested in the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the

independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the

General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically

controlled House and Senate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax

deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social

Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the

"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the

Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving

annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.

Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,

began to receive Social Security payments! The

Democratic Party gave these payments to them,

even though they never paid a dime into it!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating

of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats

turn around and tell you that the Republicans

want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

[TwoTone]

Just had an after-thought...

This thread will probably end up being censored because we all know Gore invented the internet...

[Pugwash]

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving

annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.

Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,

began to receive Social Security payments! The

Democratic Party gave these payments to them,

even though they never paid a dime into it!

I'm a UK Citizen and even I know this one to be [censored].

"No one — whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien — is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) — the latter is a federal welfare program "designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" by providing "cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes. SSI was not enacted by the administration of President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat); it was created and signed into law in 1972, during the administration of President Richard Nixon (a Republican)." - Snopes

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp

Honestly, politics aside, does no-one fact check any more?

[Pugwash]

This thread will probably end up being censored because we all know Gore invented the internet...

You're mistaking politics with humour again ...

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." - Al Gore

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

[Guest TTK]

That of course will be from a no-spin Republican.....

[TwoTone]

That of course will be from a no-spin Republican.....

[Willith]

So, TT are you from the US or Mexico? I'm guessing you aren't getting social security or you don't like paying into it. I think it's a failed system and I wish I had the option to withdraw my funds and invest it myself, I have given too much money to them for them to blow it all on other crap along with the rest of the "general fund".

[manuel]

Hi, can anybody explain me why democrats are seen as pussycats and republicans are seen as the one and patriotic choice?

[Pugwash]

Hi, can anybody explain me why democrats are seen as pussycats and republicans are seen as the one and patriotic choice?

Because Republicans are louder.

What I want to know is why Liberal is a dirty word, seeing as the Statue of Liberty is based on what a Liberal is.

ps. The word Liberal in the UK doesn't mean anything politically like the same thing.

[manuel]

The Statue of Liberty was a gift from the French to the Americans.

kerry was democrat and was ridiculized him as the French Fry...maybe was because his wife has Heinz connections, you know, funny anyway.

[ArtM3]

both parties are full of shyte...and they have us where they want us, divided, fighting and distracted...while they do wetf they want...

keep playing their game boys...drink the kool-aid...

btw: they are not taxable...if your sole income is SS (which will be less than 32k/yr) it is not taxable...

iirc only 50% is taxable above that amount...

this pretty much shoots holes in every one of the above 'facts' http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp

Edited November 26, 2006 by ArtM3

[jkerouac]

Since when do mods have to worry about censorship?

In any case, from the Social Security Web site, a few "corrections:" (http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html)

MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY

Myths and misstatements of fact frequently circulate on the Internet, in email and on websites, and are repeated in endless loops of misinformation. One common set of such misinformation involves the history of the Social Security system.

One Common Form of the Myths:

"Franklin Roosevelt introduced the Social Security (FICA) program. He promised:

1) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary;

2) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program;

3) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year;

4) That the money the participants paid in would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program.;

5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income."

CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary

Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.

Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

(The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year

There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.

(The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. (The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.)

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department. (A detailed explanation of the 1983 Amendments can be found elsewhere on our website.)

[TwoTone]

kerry was democrat and was ridiculized him as the French Fry...maybe was because his wife has Heinz connections, you know, funny anyway.

[Craytonic]

Because Republicans are louder.

What I want to know is why Liberal is a dirty word, seeing as the Statue of Liberty is based on what a Liberal is.

ps. The word Liberal in the UK doesn't mean anything politically like the same thing.

The word has many meanings. For instance: classical liberalism vs. modern liberalism. Wikipedia has a nice article on classical liberalism.

I only know one thing, my [censored] hurts every time I see what is deducted in taxes (lots of watches, nice genuine watches). When I see it wasted on all sorts of silly programs, it hurts even more.

[slay]

I hope your republican friends never notice your interest in the expsoed feminin sex. dont you know that masturbation makes you blind and nudity leads to hell?

[eddhead]

Because Republicans are louder.

What I want to know is why Liberal is a dirty word, seeing as the Statue of Liberty is based on what a Liberal is.

ps. The word Liberal in the UK doesn't mean anything politically like the same thing.

You know what's scary? Look up Liberal in a dictionary ... progressive!! when progressive gets a negative connotation, that is scary.

[Craytonic]

and progressive means to always advance. Should all things always advance? Certainly some should, but probably some should not. I can think of several historial figures that technically "progressive" in their agenda, although I doubt you would approve of it.

Words in politics don't really mean much anyways. For instance while I was in college the muslim student association and the israli student association HATED each other. One group hosted a speaker, and the other group protested to the university that it would disturb the "excellent relations" between the two groups. This was BS, everyone knew that particular group just didn't want that person to come and it had nothign to do with "excellent relations," - they hated each other. But, it got the event cancleled. Good example of telling a lie that it is hard to be called out on - use positive spin to cover up real agenda.

Edited November 26, 2006 by Craytonic

[Pugwash]

this pretty much shoots holes in every one of the above 'facts' http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp

... which is why I posted it as the first reply to the original post.

[Pugwash]

You know what's scary? Look up Liberal in a dictionary ... progressive!! when progressive gets a negative connotation, that is scary.

... and the opposite of Progressive is Conservative.

Yes, I get it, and I don't understand how fear of change and belief in something because "that's the way we always dun it" can be seen as a positive stance.

[JKTOWN]

Our Social Security

_____________________________________________

Wow TT a little political satire (very good)......GOOD THING you didn't get into religion.....some of our members would have crucified you........JKT

[gioarmani]

... we all know Gore invented the internet...

Does no one pay attention to Bush?! It's "internets".

[Pugwash]

Does no one pay attention to Bush?! It's "internets".

I thought Bush never used the term "Internets" but in fact said "An Internet".

Anyone got the actual quote to hand. I'd love to have got this one wrong as your version is funnier.

[gioarmani]

It was on Youtube...let me see if I can find it.

[gioarmani]

First quote:

"I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft."

—second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

Second quote:

Bush using "The Google", probably on the internets.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/23/bush-s...ses-the-google/

I hope history will duely record this fool as one of the most ignorant, uneducated, and just plain worthless men to ever enter American politics (if he hasn't already carved it in stone himself). He's single-handedly made me question whether Americans should even be allowed to vote.

[Craytonic]

... and the opposite of Progressive is Conservative.

Yes, I get it, and I don't understand how fear of change and belief in something because "that's the way we always dun it" can be seen as a positive stance.

I think the same could be said of change for the sake of change itself.

There is no correlation between something changing and it getting better. Things can and do change for the worse as well. I'm not advocating one or the other in this post, but that people seem to get too hung up on the change/no change issue.