Social Security Discussion

[oldfart]

But, Care...it was on the internet. It MUST be true!

You mean like Snopes ?

This was supposedly in a 1936 pamphlet on Social Security. It does not mean it was in the law. What it does support is FoxFire's assertion that it was sold to the people of that time on this.

Looks like Care needs to understand the difference between what the law says and what people are told what a law will say. And Social Security was sold (like Obamacare) on a helk of a lot of bullcrap.

**************************

The taxes called for in this law will be paid both by your employer and by you. For the next 3 years you will pay maybe 15 cents a week, maybe 25 cents a week, maybe 30 cents or more, according to what you earn. That is to say, during the next 3 years, beginning January 1, 1937, you will pay 1 cent for every dollar you earn, and at the same time your employer will pay 1 cent for every dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. Twenty-six million other workers and their employers will be paying at the same time.

After the first 3 year–that is to say, beginning in 1940–you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. This will be the tax for 3 years, and then, beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. After that, you and your employer will each pay half a cent more for 3 years, and finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay. (emphasis and underlining added)

This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » Three Historical Social Security ?Whoppers?

Further down the link......

Oh, and in case you’re wondering, insipid: the 1936 Social Security pamphlet doesn’t say a damn thing about “insurance” or “premiums”; those words don’t even appear in the pamphlet’s text. (The pamphlet does, however, sell Social Security as a de facto national retirement plan.) The payments made to retirees are termed “Old-Age Benefits”; payments made by employees and employers are clearly identified as “taxes”. Even at this early date, Social Security never called itself – or sold itself as — some type of “insurance”. Calling Social Security “insurance” is simply a bogus smokescreen used by those who wish to obscure Social Security’s true nature: a inter-generational income transfer program, AKA welfare.

Give it up. You lost this debate a long time ago and you are just embarrassing yourself. You look more ridiculous with every post.

 

[RKMBrown]

How does this redistribute income? Like I told Polticalchic, the federal government doesn’t have or not have $$$$ at any point in time. The federal government spends by creating new $$$$ (printing) and destroys $$$$ through taxation (unprinting).

For example, the federal government cuts my grandfather a SS check every month for $1250. Like clockwork, on the 1st or 2nd, his checking account receives a credit of $1250. All that's occurred, operationally, is that some numbers in his checking account have been marked up. Do you think the government used any of our tax revenue to pay my grandfather? Of course not, all the federal government did was increase the numbers in his checking account which created new $$$$. My grandfather then does his taxes and gets everything out to the IRS by April 15th. When the federal government receives his check, it simply debits the $$$$ in his checking account, which destroys $$$$. Numbers are simply marked down. This is how it works.

Your a liar, an idiot, or just plain FOS. We've discussed this dozens of times. No it's not how it works. The treasury most certainly does have a balance. Moving money from one account to another does not destroy it you fool.

I've had this discussion w/you on multiple occasion. Again, I'm simply trying to help educate you about basic monetary operations.

Operationally, in order for us to obtain $$$$, the government must spend first before any $$$$ can be used to pay taxes or any borrowing occurs. For example, if we look at loans from the FED, then I’m correct. Any settlements from bond auctions or tax payments to Treasury can only happen from reserve accounts. The balances in reserve accounts are from previous government deficits, which boil down to credits to reserve accounts or loans from the FED. The FED will make these loans by purchasing private securities, repos, or loans. There must have been previous government spending at some point to settle bond sales or tax payments.

What I'm telling you is widely know by Treasury staffers, FED staffers, and people at major bond desks like myself. Congratulations, you now know more than 99% of the imbeciles in Congress! I accept Amazon Gift Cards as a thank you gift.

Here, let's see what Beardsley Ruml, former Chairman of the FED Reserve bank, had to say:

his article was first published in the January, 1946, issue of a periodical named American Affairs.

TAXES FOR REVENUE ARE OBSOLETE

by Beardsley Ruml,
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Mr. Ruml read this paper before the American Bar Association during the last year of the war [World War II]. It attracted then less attention than it deserved and is even more timely now, with the tax structure undergoing change for peacetime. His thesis is that given (1) control of a central banking system and (2) an inconvertible currency, a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. All taxation, therefore, should be regarded from the point of view of social and economic consequences. The paragraph that embodies this idea will be found italicized in the text. Mr. Ruml does not say precisely how in that case the government would pay its own bills. One may assume that it would either shave its expenses out of the proceeds of taxes levied for social and economic ends or print the money it needs. The point may be academic. The latter end of his paper is devoted to an argument against taxing corporation profits. --- Editor.

The superior position of public government over private business is nowhere more clearly evident than in government's power to tax business. Business gets its many rule-making powers from public government. Public government sets the limits to the exercise of these rule-making powers of business, and protects the freedom of business operations within this area of authority. Taxation is one of the limitations placed by government on the power of business to do what it pleases.

There is nothing reprehensible about this procedure. The business that is taxed is not a creature of flesh and blood, it is not a citizen. It has no voice in how it shall be governed --- nor should it. The issues in the taxation of business are not moral issues, but are questions of practical effect: What will get the best results? How should business be taxed so that business will make its greatest contribution to the common good?

It is sometimes instructive when faced with alternatives to ask the underlying question. If we are to understand the problems involved in the taxation of business, we must first ask: "Why does the government need to tax at all?" This seems to be a simple question, but, as is the case with simple questions, the obvious answer is likely to be a superficial one. The obvious answer is, of course, that taxes provide the revenue which the government needs in order to pay its bills.

It Happened

If we look at the financial history of recent years it is apparent that nations have been able to pay their bills even though their tax revenues fell short of expenses. These countries whose expenses were greater than their receipts from taxes paid their bills by borrowing the necessary money. The borrowing of money, therefore, is an alternative which governments use to supplement the revenues from taxation in order to obtain the necessary means for the payment of their bills.

A government which depends on loans and on the refunding of its loans to get the money it requires for its operations is necessarily dependent on the sources from which the money can be obtained. In the past, if a government persisted in borrowing heavily to cover its expenditures, interest rates would get higher and higher, and greater and greater inducements would have to be offered by the government to the lenders. These governments finally found that the only way they could maintain both their sovereign independence and their solvency was to tax heavily enough to meet a substantial part of their financial needs, and to be prepared ---if placed under undue pressure --- to tax to meet them all.

The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements.

The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks.

The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold.

Free of the Money Market

Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity.

The United States is a national state which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.

What Taxes Are Really For

Federal taxes can be made to serve four principal purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:

1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;

2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;

3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;

4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security.

In the recent past, we have used our federal tax program consciously for each of these purposes. In serving these purposes, the tax program is a means to an end. The purposes themselves are matters of basic national policy which should be established, in the first instance, independently of any national tax program.

Among the policy questions with which we have to deal are these:

Do we want a dollar with reasonably stable purchasing power over the years?

Do we want greater equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone?

Do we want to subsidize certain industries and certain economic groups?

Do we want the beneficiaries of certain federal activities to be aware of what they cost?

These questions are not tax questions; they are questions as to the kind of country we want and the kind of life we want to lead. The tax program should be a means to an agreed end. The tax program should be devised as an instrument, and it should be judged by how well it serves its purpose.

By all odds, the most important single purpose to be served by the imposition of federal taxes is the maintenance of a dollar which has stable purchasing power over the years. Sometimes this purpose is stated as "the avoidance of inflation"; and without the use of federal taxation all other means of stabilization, such as monetary policy and price controls and subsidies, are unavailing. All other means, in any case, must be integrated with federal tax policy if we are to have tomorrow a dollar which has a value near to what it has today.

The war has taught the government, and the government has taught the people, that federal taxation has much to do with inflation and deflation, with the prices which have to be paid for the things that are bought and sold. If federal taxes are insufficient or of the wrong kind, the purchasing power in the hands of the public is likely to be greater than the output of goods and services with which this purchasing demand can be satisfied. If the demand becomes too great, the result will be a rise in prices, and there will be no proportionate increase in the quantity of things for sale. This will mean that the dollar is worth less than it was before --- that is inflation. On the other hand, if federal taxes are too heavy or are of the wrong kind, effective purchasing power in the hands of the public will be insufficient to take from the producers of goods and services all the things these producers would like to make. This will mean widespread unemployment.

The dollars the government spends become purchasing power in the hands of the people who have received them. The dollars the government takes by taxes cannot be spent by the people, and, therefore, these dollars can no longer be used to acquire the things which are available for sale. Taxation is, therefore, an instrument of the first importance in the administration of any fiscal and monetary policy.

To Distribute the Wealth

The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income. It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures.

The third reason for federal taxes is to provide a subsidy for some industrial or economic interest. The most conspicuous example of these taxes is the tariffs on imports. Originally, taxes of this type were imposed to serve a double purpose since, a century and a half ago, the national government required revenues in order to pay its bills. Today, tariffs on imports are no longer needed for revenue. These taxes are nothing more than devices to provide subsidies to selected industries; their social purpose is to provide a price floor above which a domestic industry can compete with goods which can be produced abroad and sold in this country more cheaply except for the tariff protection. The subsidy is paid, not at the port of entry where the imported goods are taxed, but in the higher price level for all goods of the same type produced and sold at home.

The fourth purpose served by federal taxes is to assess, directly and visibly, the costs of certain benefits. Such taxation is highly desirable in order to limit the benefits to amounts which the people who benefit are willing to pay. The most conspicuous examples of such measures are the social security benefits, old-age and unemployment insurance. The social purposes of giving such benefits and of assessing specific taxes to meet the costs are obvious. Unfortunately and unnecessarily, in both cases, the programs have involved staggering deflationary consequences as a result of the excess of current receipts over current disbursements.

The Bad Tax

The federal tax on corporate profits is the tax which is most important in its effect on business operations. There are other taxes which are of great concern to special classes of business. There are many problems of state and local taxation of business which become extremely urgent, particularly when a corporation has no profits at all. However, we shall confine our discussion to the federal corporation income tax, since it is in this way that business is principally taxed. We shall also confine our considerations to the problems of ordinary peacetime taxation since, during wartime, many tax measures, such as the excess-profits tax, have a special justification.

Taxes on corporation profits have three principal consequences --- all of them bad. Briefly, the three bad effects of the corporation income tax are:

1. The money which is taken from the corporation in taxes must come in one of three ways. It must come from the people, in the higher prices they pay for the things they buy; from the corporation's own employees in wages that are lower than they otherwise would be; or from the corporation's stockholders, in lower rate of return on their investment. No matter from which sources it comes, or in what proportion, this tax is harmful to production, to purchasing power, and to investment.

2. The tax on corporation profits is a distorting factor in managerial judgment, a factor which is prejudicial to clear engineering and economic analysis of what will be best for the production and distribution of things for use. And, the larger the tax, the greater the distortion.

3. The corporation income tax is the cause of double taxation. The individual taxpayer is taxed once when his profit is earned by the corporation, and once again when he receives the profit as a dividend. This double taxation makes it more difficult to get people to invest their savings in business than if the profits of business were only taxed once. Furthermore, stockholders with small incomes bear as heavy a burden under the corporation income tax as do stockholders with large incomes.

Analysis

Let us examine these three bad effects of the tax on corporation profits more closely. The first effect we observed was that the corporation income tax results in either higher prices, lower wages, reduced return on investment, or all three in combination. When the corporation income tax was first imposed it may have been believed by some that an impersonal levy could be placed on the profits of a soulless corporation, a levy which would be neither a sales tax, a tax on wages, or a double tax on the stockholder. Obviously, this is impossible in any real sense. A corporation is nothing but a method of doing business which is embodied in words inscribed on a piece of paper. The tax must be paid by one or more of the people who are parties at interest in the business, either as customer, as employee, or as stockholder.

It is impossible to know exactly who pays how much of the tax on corporation profits. The stockholder pays some of it, to the extent that the return on his investment is less than it would be if there were no tax. But, it is equally certain that the stockholder does not pay all of the tax on corporate income --- indeed, he may pay very little of it. After a period of time, the corporation income tax is figured as one of the costs of production and it gets passed on in higher prices charged for the company's goods and services, and in lower wages, including conditions of work which are inferior to what they otherwise might be.

The reasons why the corporation income tax is passed on, in some measure, must be clearly understood. In the operations of a company, the management of the business, directed by the profit motive, keeps its eyes on what is left over as profit for the stockholders. Since the corporation must pay its federal income taxes before it can pay dividends, the taxes are thought of --- the same as any other uncontrollable expense --- as an outlay to be covered by higher prices or lower costs, of which the principal cost is wages. Since all competition in the same line of business is thinking the same way, prices and costs will tend to stabilize at a point which will produce a profit, after taxes, sufficient to give the industry access to new capital at a reasonable price. When this finally happens, as it must if the industry is to hold its own, the federal income tax on corporations will have been largely absorbed in higher prices and in lower wages. The effect of the corporation income tax is, therefore, to raise prices blindly and to lower wages by an undeterminable amount. Both tendencies are in the wrong direction and are harmful to the public welfare.

Where Would the Money Go?

Suppose the corporation income tax were removed, where would the money go that is now paid in taxes? That depends. If the industry is highly competitive, as is the case with retailing, a large share would go in lower prices, and a smaller share would go in higher wages and in higher yield on savings invested in the industry. If labor in the industry is strongly organized, as in the railroad, steel, and automotive industries, the share going in higher wages would tend to increase. If the industry is neither competitive nor organized nor regulated --- of which industries there are very few --- a large share would go to the stockholders. In so far as the elimination of the present corporation income tax would result in lower prices, it would raise the standard of living for everyone.

The second bad effect of the corporation income tax is that it is a distorting factor in management judgment, entering into every decision, and causing actions to be taken which would not have been taken on business grounds alone. The tax consequences of every important commitment have to be appraised. Sometimes, some action which ought to be taken cannot be taken because the tax results make the transaction valueless, or worse. Sometimes, apparently senseless actions are fully warranted because of tax benefits. The results of this tax thinking is to destroy the integrity of business judgment, and to set up a business structure and tradition which does not hang together in terms of the compulsion of inner economic or engineering efficiency.

Premium on Debt

The most conspicuous illustration of the bad effect of tax consideration on business judgment is seen in the preferred position that debt financing has over equity financing. This preferred position is due to the fact that interest and rents, paid on capital used in business, are deductible as expense; whereas dividends paid are not. The result weighs the scales always in favor of debt financing, since no income tax is paid on the deductible costs of this form of capital. This tendency goes on, although it is universally agreed that business and the country generally would be in a stronger position if a much larger proportion of all investment were in common stocks and equities, and a smaller proportion in mortgages and bonds.

It must be conceded that, in many cases, a high corporation income tax induces management to make expenditures which prudent judgment would avoid. This is particularly true if a long-term benefit may result, a benefit which cannot or need not be capitalized. The long-term expense is shared involuntarily by government with business, and, under these circumstances, a long chance is often well worth taking. Scientific research and institutional advertising are favorite vehicles for the use of these cheap dollars. Since these expenses reduce profits, they reduce taxes at the same time; and the cost to the business is only the margin of the expenditure that would have remained after the taxes had been paid --- the government pays the rest. Admitting that a certain amount of venturesome expenditure does result from this tax inducement, it is an unhealthy form of unregulated subsidy which, in the end, will soften the fibre of management and will result in excess timidity when the risk must be carried by the business alone.

The third unfortunate consequence of the corporation income tax is that the same earnings are taxed twice, once when they are earned and once when they are distributed. This double taxation causes the original profit margin to carry a tremendous burden of tax, making it difficult to justify equity investment in a new and growing business. It also works contrary to the principles of the progressive income tax, since the small stockholder, with a small income, pays the same rate of corporation tax on his share of the earnings as does the stockholder whose total income falls in the highest brackets. This defect of double taxation is serious, both as it affects equity in the total tax structure, and as a handicap to the investment of savings in business.

Shortly, an Evil

Any one of these three bad effects of the corporation income tax would be enough to put it severely on the defensive. The three effects, taken together, make an overwhelming case against this tax. The corporation income tax is an evil tax and it should be abolished.

The corporation income tax cannot be abolished until some method is found to keep the corporate form from being used as a refuge from the individual income tax and as a means of accumulating unneeded, uninvested surpluses. Some way must be devised whereby the corporation earnings, which inure to the individual stockholders, are adequately taxed as income of these individuals.

The weaknesses and dangers of the corporation income tax have been known for years, and an ill-fated attempt to abolish it was made in 1936 in a proposed undistributed profits tax. This tax, as it was imposed by Congress, had four weaknesses which soon drove it from the books. First, the income tax on corporations was not eliminated in the final legislation, but the undistributed profits tax was added on top of it. Second, it was never made absolutely clear, by regulation or by statute, just what form of distributed capitalization of withheld and reinvested earnings would be taxable to the stockholders and not to the corporation. Third, the Securities and Exchange Commission did not set forth special and simple regulations covering securities issued to capitalize withheld earnings. Fourth, the earnings of a corporation were frozen to a particular fiscal year, with none of the flexibility of the carry-forward, carry-back provisions of the present law.

Granted that the corporation income tax must go, it will not be easy to devise protective measures which will be entirely satisfactory. The difficulties are not merely difficulties of technique and of avoiding the pitfalls of a perfect solution impossible to administer, but are questions of principle that raise issues as to the proper locus of power over new capital investment.

Can the government afford to give up the corporation income tax? This really is not the question. The question is this: Is it a favorable way of assessing taxes on the people --- on the consumer, the workers and investors --- who after all are the only real taxpayers? It is clear from any point of view that the effects of the corporation income tax are bad effects. The public purposes to be served by taxation are not thereby well served. The tax is uncertain in its effect with respect to the stabilization of the dollar, and it is inequitable as part of a progressive levy on individual income. It tends to raise the prices of goods and services. It tends to keep wages lower than they otherwise might be. It reduces the yield on investment and obstructs the flow of savings into business enterprise.

This article was first published in the January, 1946, issue of a periodical named American Affairs

PDF version from Constitution.org

How many times are you gonna have to be told the FED is not a federal agency, the FED is not the Treasury, and sans congress abolishing our current monetary system our treasury most certainly does not spend money into existence. That would be what he fed does when it lends to the cartel with new money that was not previously paid back.

How many times do you have to be explained these differences before you are gonna stop lying about them? You think you are an expert on our monetary operations, but quite frankly you don't even understand the basics.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your post is NOT filled with FACTS.
Before continuing to pass this "email" of False information around the net Foxfyre, I would suggest that you read this Snopes article...

What you and the emails are calling FACTS have been debunked years ago Foxy...
Read more at snopes.com: Social Security Changes

Please note that I said the Social Security program was SOLD to the people on the premises stated above. I did not call any one of those a FACT. I have read my history and am pretty sure I'm on very solid ground. If anybody had EVER tried to sell Social Security as the huge, unsustainable albatross around our economic necks that it has become, it never would have passed way back then.

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I won't take the time rebut your comments where you have your facts wrong, but Hon, if you think those unspent social security funds are sitting in the vault and aren't spent for whatever, you really are living in a magic world and Reagan did NOT have a Republican controlled Senate all eight years. And it would help if you read more carefully what I am saying before jumping on it. I don't have a clue what 'e-mail' you're talking about.

It is astounding that you would make an erroneous post and then retreat to such a shallow position. What contemporaneous evidence do you have on how Social Security was "sold" contrary to the language of the law itself? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You are saying the American people did not know what Social Security was in 1935?

Do you really take everyone for drooling idiots? (My apologies to the mentally challenged, they are obviously capable of avoiding inane posts such as Foxfyre routinely makes).

Are you intimating that in 1935 the people knew they were creating a system where they would get away with only having to pay 2% of their income but future generations would get screwed by having to pay 15% of their income?

 

[oldfart]

Hi, you have received -1947 reputation points from Toddsterpatriot.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
LOL!

Regards,
Toddsterpatriot

Aw, did I hurt your tender little feelings?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hi, you have received -1947 reputation points from Toddsterpatriot.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
LOL!

Regards,
Toddsterpatriot

Aw, did I hurt your tender little feelings?

Laughing at liberal idiocy never hurts my feelings.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your post is NOT filled with FACTS.
Before continuing to pass this "email" of False information around the net Foxfyre, I would suggest that you read this Snopes article...

What you and the emails are calling FACTS have been debunked years ago Foxy...
Read more at snopes.com: Social Security Changes

Please note that I said the Social Security program was SOLD to the people on the premises stated above. I did not call any one of those a FACT. I have read my history and am pretty sure I'm on very solid ground. If anybody had EVER tried to sell Social Security as the huge, unsustainable albatross around our economic necks that it has become, it never would have passed way back then.

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I won't take the time rebut your comments where you have your facts wrong, but Hon, if you think those unspent social security funds are sitting in the vault and aren't spent for whatever, you really are living in a magic world and Reagan did NOT have a Republican controlled Senate all eight years. And it would help if you read more carefully what I am saying before jumping on it. I don't have a clue what 'e-mail' you're talking about.

It is astounding that you would make an erroneous post and then retreat to such a shallow position. What contemporaneous evidence do you have on how Social Security was "sold" contrary to the language of the law itself? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You are saying the American people did not know what Social Security was in 1935?

Do you really take everyone for drooling idiots? (My apologies to the mentally challenged, they are obviously capable of avoiding inane posts such as Foxfyre routinely makes).

You are saying the American people did not know what Social Security was in 1935?

Democrat members of Congress didn't know what Obamacare was before they voted for it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU]Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[oldfart]

Are you intimating that in 1935 the people knew they were creating a system where they would get away with only having to pay 2% of their income but future generations would get screwed by having to pay 15% of their income?

I have posted this before, but I assume you either did not read it or have forgotten (an easy thing to do in a thread with this many posts, that's why I'm going to spend an hour tracking down my earlier post on this).

In 1935 Social Security was created with what was commonly accepted as a phase-in period. Some of this was to avoid a shock that could have caused a serious recession, which occurred anyway two years later when stimulus was abruptly and prematurely terminated (the Recession of 1937 was more severe than anything since 1933 and before 2008). No one expected the withholding rate to be 2% forever; there were built in increases in the 1935 Act and provisions explicitly added to allow future additional increases if events warranted. Specifically, the drafters were concerned about increases in life expectancy over several decades.

Now do you agree with the previous paragraph as a fair summary of the historical record? If you do not, please provide me with any sources you may have that stated in 1935 that the 2% rate would last forever.

Secondly, the Social Security Act provided a limited "Old Age Benefit" for workers over 65 WHO HAD NEVER PAID INTO THE SYSTEM AT ALL, I believe the first check was cut in January of 1936. The generation paying in 1936--1946 did not "get away" with anything, they helped support workers who were retired from day one.

No one in 1935 had an inkling of what the rate would be decades later. They left that for each generation to figure out. I know you don't like Social Security as presently structured, and that is OK. But don't misrepresent what the drafters of the law did and were trying to do. Contrary to the tone of your posts, no wicked socialists in 1935 were cackling over how they got to screw you personally and your generation in general.

 

[oldfart]

You are saying the American people did not know what Social Security was in 1935?

No, that was Foxfyre's position. I thought in your ringing defense you had adopted it also. If you have decided to switch sides in the debate, please do it a little more clearly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are saying the American people did not know what Social Security was in 1935?

No, that was Foxfyre's position. I thought in your ringing defense you had adopted it also. If you have decided to switch sides in the debate, please do it a little more clearly.

You feel, in 1935, Americans knew the monster Social Security would become?

 

[oldfart]

You are saying the American people did not know what Social Security was in 1935?

No, that was Foxfyre's position. I thought in your ringing defense you had adopted it also. If you have decided to switch sides in the debate, please do it a little more clearly.

You feel, in 1935, Americans knew the monster Social Security would become?

Overall, I think most would agree that Social Security has turned out closer to the original intent than the OSS/CIA/NSA.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, that was Foxfyre's position. I thought in your ringing defense you had adopted it also. If you have decided to switch sides in the debate, please do it a little more clearly.

You feel, in 1935, Americans knew the monster Social Security would become?

Overall, I think most would agree that Social Security has turned out closer to the original intent than the OSS/CIA/NSA.

Original intent, at multiples of cost.

Kinda like Medicare.

 

[Listening]

But, Care...it was on the internet. It MUST be true!

You mean like Snopes ?

This was supposedly in a 1936 pamphlet on Social Security. It does not mean it was in the law. What it does support is FoxFire's assertion that it was sold to the people of that time on this.

Looks like Care needs to understand the difference between what the law says and what people are told what a law will say. And Social Security was sold (like Obamacare) on a helk of a lot of bullcrap.

**************************

The taxes called for in this law will be paid both by your employer and by you. For the next 3 years you will pay maybe 15 cents a week, maybe 25 cents a week, maybe 30 cents or more, according to what you earn. That is to say, during the next 3 years, beginning January 1, 1937, you will pay 1 cent for every dollar you earn, and at the same time your employer will pay 1 cent for every dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. Twenty-six million other workers and their employers will be paying at the same time.

After the first 3 year–that is to say, beginning in 1940–you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. This will be the tax for 3 years, and then, beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. After that, you and your employer will each pay half a cent more for 3 years, and finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay. (emphasis and underlining added)

This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » Three Historical Social Security ?Whoppers?

Further down the link......

Oh, and in case you’re wondering, insipid: the 1936 Social Security pamphlet doesn’t say a damn thing about “insurance” or “premiums”; those words don’t even appear in the pamphlet’s text. (The pamphlet does, however, sell Social Security as a de facto national retirement plan.) The payments made to retirees are termed “Old-Age Benefits”; payments made by employees and employers are clearly identified as “taxes”. Even at this early date, Social Security never called itself – or sold itself as — some type of “insurance”. Calling Social Security “insurance” is simply a bogus smokescreen used by those who wish to obscure Social Security’s true nature: a inter-generational income transfer program, AKA welfare.

Give it up. You lost this debate a long time ago and you are just embarrassing yourself. You look more ridiculous with every post.

You addressed the point...don't think so. I am afraid if anyone is embarrassing themselves, it is you.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you intimating that in 1935 the people knew they were creating a system where they would get away with only having to pay 2% of their income but future generations would get screwed by having to pay 15% of their income?

I have posted this before, but I assume you either did not read it or have forgotten (an easy thing to do in a thread with this many posts, that's why I'm going to spend an hour tracking down my earlier post on this).

In 1935 Social Security was created with what was commonly accepted as a phase-in period. Some of this was to avoid a shock that could have caused a serious recession, which occurred anyway two years later when stimulus was abruptly and prematurely terminated (the Recession of 1937 was more severe than anything since 1933 and before 2008). No one expected the withholding rate to be 2% forever; there were built in increases in the 1935 Act and provisions explicitly added to allow future additional increases if events warranted. Specifically, the drafters were concerned about increases in life expectancy over several decades.

Now do you agree with the previous paragraph as a fair summary of the historical record? If you do not, please provide me with any sources you may have that stated in 1935 that the 2% rate would last forever.

Secondly, the Social Security Act provided a limited "Old Age Benefit" for workers over 65 WHO HAD NEVER PAID INTO THE SYSTEM AT ALL, I believe the first check was cut in January of 1936. The generation paying in 1936--1946 did not "get away" with anything, they helped support workers who were retired from day one.

No one in 1935 had an inkling of what the rate would be decades later. They left that for each generation to figure out. I know you don't like Social Security as presently structured, and that is OK. But don't misrepresent what the drafters of the law did and were trying to do. Contrary to the tone of your posts, no wicked socialists in 1935 were cackling over how they got to screw you personally and your generation in general.

Yes, I agree with your statement that they knew the 2% rate would not last forever. No I don't agree with the statement that there were "no wicked socialists in 1935 [who] were cackling over how they got to screw [my] generation." I find no solace in the fact that some of this generation is doing the same to future generations, quite literally cackling over how they get to screw over future generations by borrowing against their income and failing to stow enough money to fund our SS payments as well as fund prior generation's SS payments. Do you need examples?

 

[oldfart]

Are you intimating that in 1935 the people knew they were creating a system where they would get away with only having to pay 2% of their income but future generations would get screwed by having to pay 15% of their income?

I have posted this before, but I assume you either did not read it or have forgotten (an easy thing to do in a thread with this many posts, that's why I'm going to spend an hour tracking down my earlier post on this).

In 1935 Social Security was created with what was commonly accepted as a phase-in period. Some of this was to avoid a shock that could have caused a serious recession, which occurred anyway two years later when stimulus was abruptly and prematurely terminated (the Recession of 1937 was more severe than anything since 1933 and before 2008). No one expected the withholding rate to be 2% forever; there were built in increases in the 1935 Act and provisions explicitly added to allow future additional increases if events warranted. Specifically, the drafters were concerned about increases in life expectancy over several decades.

Now do you agree with the previous paragraph as a fair summary of the historical record? If you do not, please provide me with any sources you may have that stated in 1935 that the 2% rate would last forever.

Secondly, the Social Security Act provided a limited "Old Age Benefit" for workers over 65 WHO HAD NEVER PAID INTO THE SYSTEM AT ALL, I believe the first check was cut in January of 1936. The generation paying in 1936--1946 did not "get away" with anything, they helped support workers who were retired from day one.

No one in 1935 had an inkling of what the rate would be decades later. They left that for each generation to figure out. I know you don't like Social Security as presently structured, and that is OK. But don't misrepresent what the drafters of the law did and were trying to do. Contrary to the tone of your posts, no wicked socialists in 1935 were cackling over how they got to screw you personally and your generation in general.

Yes, I agree with your statement that they knew the 2% rate would not last forever. No I don't agree with the statement that there were "no wicked socialists in 1935 [who] were cackling over how they got to screw [my] generation." I find no solace in the fact that some of this generation is doing the same to future generations, quite literally cackling over how they get to screw over future generations by borrowing against their income and failing to stow enough money to fund our SS payments as well as fund prior generation's SS payments. Do you need examples?

No, you can just link to the posts where we have discussed the long term viability of Social Security. I have no desire to re-plow that particular ground.

 

[jasonnfree]

I have posted this before, but I assume you either did not read it or have forgotten (an easy thing to do in a thread with this many posts, that's why I'm going to spend an hour tracking down my earlier post on this).

In 1935 Social Security was created with what was commonly accepted as a phase-in period. Some of this was to avoid a shock that could have caused a serious recession, which occurred anyway two years later when stimulus was abruptly and prematurely terminated (the Recession of 1937 was more severe than anything since 1933 and before 2008). No one expected the withholding rate to be 2% forever; there were built in increases in the 1935 Act and provisions explicitly added to allow future additional increases if events warranted. Specifically, the drafters were concerned about increases in life expectancy over several decades.

Now do you agree with the previous paragraph as a fair summary of the historical record? If you do not, please provide me with any sources you may have that stated in 1935 that the 2% rate would last forever.

Secondly, the Social Security Act provided a limited "Old Age Benefit" for workers over 65 WHO HAD NEVER PAID INTO THE SYSTEM AT ALL, I believe the first check was cut in January of 1936. The generation paying in 1936--1946 did not "get away" with anything, they helped support workers who were retired from day one.

No one in 1935 had an inkling of what the rate would be decades later. They left that for each generation to figure out. I know you don't like Social Security as presently structured, and that is OK. But don't misrepresent what the drafters of the law did and were trying to do. Contrary to the tone of your posts, no wicked socialists in 1935 were cackling over how they got to screw you personally and your generation in general.

Yes, I agree with your statement that they knew the 2% rate would not last forever. No I don't agree with the statement that there were "no wicked socialists in 1935 [who] were cackling over how they got to screw [my] generation." I find no solace in the fact that some of this generation is doing the same to future generations, quite literally cackling over how they get to screw over future generations by borrowing against their income and failing to stow enough money to fund our SS payments as well as fund prior generation's SS payments. Do you need examples?

No, you can just link to the posts where we have discussed the long term viability of Social Security. I have no desire to re-plow that particular ground.

I've known people over the years that SS. helped such as survivors. Even paul ryan used it when his father died. I never resented paying it even the percentage was increased in the 80's to keep up with costs. Part of living in a country where you don't want people living in poorhouses. I think the money should come out of a general fund so there's no scare stories about social security going broke. Also eliminate the ceiling. If someone makes a billion dollars next year, he pays ss tax on it.

 

[Toro]

Also eliminate the ceiling. If someone makes a billion dollars next year, he pays ss tax on it.

The reason why FICA taxes are capped is because benefits are capped. If we increase SS taxes, we would increase benefits. Billionaires don't need increased SS benefits.

 

[oldfart]

Also eliminate the ceiling. If someone makes a billion dollars next year, he pays ss tax on it.

The reason why FICA taxes are capped is because benefits are capped. If we increase SS taxes, we would increase benefits. Billionaires don't need increased SS benefits.

Way back at the start of this thread, I gave the computational formula for the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). It has two inflection points and three steps. The first step is at 90% of the average monthly inflation-adjusted earnings; the second tier is 32% and everything over that is 15%. Eliminating the cap therefore would bring in more revenue that added benefits would cost. In fact, it would make up slightly more than the amount needed to fully fund the system for the next 75 years with a little left over to subsidize Medicare.

 

[RKMBrown]

I have posted this before, but I assume you either did not read it or have forgotten (an easy thing to do in a thread with this many posts, that's why I'm going to spend an hour tracking down my earlier post on this).

In 1935 Social Security was created with what was commonly accepted as a phase-in period. Some of this was to avoid a shock that could have caused a serious recession, which occurred anyway two years later when stimulus was abruptly and prematurely terminated (the Recession of 1937 was more severe than anything since 1933 and before 2008). No one expected the withholding rate to be 2% forever; there were built in increases in the 1935 Act and provisions explicitly added to allow future additional increases if events warranted. Specifically, the drafters were concerned about increases in life expectancy over several decades.

Now do you agree with the previous paragraph as a fair summary of the historical record? If you do not, please provide me with any sources you may have that stated in 1935 that the 2% rate would last forever.

Secondly, the Social Security Act provided a limited "Old Age Benefit" for workers over 65 WHO HAD NEVER PAID INTO THE SYSTEM AT ALL, I believe the first check was cut in January of 1936. The generation paying in 1936--1946 did not "get away" with anything, they helped support workers who were retired from day one.

No one in 1935 had an inkling of what the rate would be decades later. They left that for each generation to figure out. I know you don't like Social Security as presently structured, and that is OK. But don't misrepresent what the drafters of the law did and were trying to do. Contrary to the tone of your posts, no wicked socialists in 1935 were cackling over how they got to screw you personally and your generation in general.

Yes, I agree with your statement that they knew the 2% rate would not last forever. No I don't agree with the statement that there were "no wicked socialists in 1935 [who] were cackling over how they got to screw [my] generation." I find no solace in the fact that some of this generation is doing the same to future generations, quite literally cackling over how they get to screw over future generations by borrowing against their income and failing to stow enough money to fund our SS payments as well as fund prior generation's SS payments. Do you need examples?

No, you can just link to the posts where we have discussed the long term viability of Social Security. I have no desire to re-plow that particular ground.

Agreed.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, I agree with your statement that they knew the 2% rate would not last forever. No I don't agree with the statement that there were "no wicked socialists in 1935 [who] were cackling over how they got to screw [my] generation." I find no solace in the fact that some of this generation is doing the same to future generations, quite literally cackling over how they get to screw over future generations by borrowing against their income and failing to stow enough money to fund our SS payments as well as fund prior generation's SS payments. Do you need examples?

No, you can just link to the posts where we have discussed the long term viability of Social Security. I have no desire to re-plow that particular ground.

I've known people over the years that SS. helped such as survivors. Even paul ryan used it when his father died. I never resented paying it even the percentage was increased in the 80's to keep up with costs. Part of living in a country where you don't want people living in poorhouses. I think the money should come out of a general fund so there's no scare stories about social security going broke. Also eliminate the ceiling. If someone makes a billion dollars next year, he pays ss tax on it.

Yeah cause you think your neighbor should pay higher taxes to live and receive the same benefits in this country than you. WOW just WOW... 117k is not a billionaire. You commies are all alike. What can you do for me... such BS.

 

[RKMBrown]

Also eliminate the ceiling. If someone makes a billion dollars next year, he pays ss tax on it.

The reason why FICA taxes are capped is because benefits are capped. If we increase SS taxes, we would increase benefits. Billionaires don't need increased SS benefits.

Way back at the start of this thread, I gave the computational formula for the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). It has two inflection points and three steps. The first step is at 90% of the average monthly inflation-adjusted earnings; the second tier is 32% and everything over that is 15%. Eliminating the cap therefore would bring in more revenue that added benefits would cost. In fact, it would make up slightly more than the amount needed to fully fund the system for the next 75 years with a little left over to subsidize Medicare.

By screwing over the people that make more than the cap.