What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Zone1 Social Security Scam

Ame®icano

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
24,256
Reaction score
7,200
Points
280
Location
Michigan
If you look up info about Social Security, you'll find that it's established by FDR to "address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly by creating a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through taxes paid while employed. " A lot has changed since then, and today the Social Security is mostly used as Democrats political tool to get and/or keep elderly votes, mostly by straight up lying about what their political opponents, Republicans, are intending to do with it. Only thing is, they're omitting the truth that they're the only party that is destroying the very purpose and future existence of the Social security. So, let's talk about it.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced Social Security, he promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary. As we know, it's no longer voluntary.
Second, he promised that participants would only have to pay 1% of their first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program. Today, you're paying 6.2% into the program, or 12.4% if you're self employed on first $147K.
Third, he promised that the money the participants elected to put into a program would be deductible from their income tax purposes each year. As you all know, that tax is no longer tax deductible.
Fourth, he promised 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 any other government program. Well, under LBJ, that money was moved to the government's "general fund" and spent.
Fifth, FDR promised that annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton and Gore, up to 85% of your social security can be taxed.

Since many of us have paid into Social Security for years, and are receiving Social Security check each month, only to find out that they have been taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away, you maybe interested in following questions:

Q. Which political party took Social Security from the independent "trust fund" and put it into the general fun so that Congress could spend it?
A. It was Lyndon Johnson and the House and Senate controlled by Democrats.

Q. Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security 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 vote as President of the Senate, while he was VP of the US.

Q. Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A. It was Jimmy Carter and the Democratic party gave immigrants that moved into the US Social Security payments at age 65, even though they never paid a dime into it.

As you can see above, it's not Republicans that are destroying the Social Security as we know it. the Democrats are doing it since it's inception, while blaming everyone else for their failures.
 
Last edited:

Rambunctious

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
56,371
Reaction score
45,529
Points
3,605
And today's elderly on SSI have Nixon to thank for this years rise in their monthly check... he tied the payment increase percentage to the inflation rate.... a republican....
 
OP
Ame®icano

Ame®icano

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
24,256
Reaction score
7,200
Points
280
Location
Michigan
And today's elderly on SSI have Nixon to thank for this years rise in their monthly check... he tied the payment increase percentage to the inflation rate.... a republican....

We all know they're getting increase thanks to Biden. Why they deleted it?

1667775838007.png
 

MarathonMike

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
34,650
Reaction score
41,433
Points
2,945
Location
The Southwestern Desert
If you look up info about Social Security, you'll find that it's established by FDR to "address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly by creating a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through taxes paid while employed. " A lot has changed since then, and today the Social Security is mostly used as Democrats political tool to get and/or keep elderly votes, mostly by straight up lying about what their political opponents, Republicans, are intending to do with it. Only thing is, they're omitting the truth that they're the only party that is destroying the very purpose and future existence of the Social security. So, let's talk about it.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced Social Security, he promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary. As we know, it's no longer voluntary.
Second, he promised that participants would only have to pay 1% of their first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program. Today, you're paying 6.2% into the program, or 12.4% if you're self employed on first $147K.
Third, he promised that the money the participants elected to put into a program would be deductible from their income tax purposes each year. As you all know, that tax is no longer tax deductible.
Fourth, he promised 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 any other government program. Well, under LBJ, that money was moved to the government's "general fund" and spent.
Fifth, FDR promised that annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton and Gore, up to 85% of your social security can be taxed.

Since many of us have paid into Social Security for years, and are receiving Social Security check each month, only to find out that they have been taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away, you maybe interested in following questions:

Q. Which political party took Social Security from the independent "trust fund" and put it into the general fun so that Congress could spend it?
A. It was Lyndon Johnson and the House and Senate controlled by Democrats.

Q. Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security 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 vote as President of the Senate, while he was VP of the US.

Q. Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A. It was Jimmy Carter and the Democratic party gave immigrants that moved into the US Social Security payments at age 65, even though they never paid a dime into it.

As you can see above, it's not Republicans that are destroying the Social Security as we know it. the Democrats are doing it since it's inception, while blaming everyone else for their failures.
That's the problem with all sweeping Federal laws. They may start off with good intentions but they will certainly morph into a gargantuan tax sucking mess.
 

Woodznutz

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
7,428
Reaction score
3,259
Points
208
If you look up info about Social Security, you'll find that it's established by FDR to "address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly by creating a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through taxes paid while employed. " A lot has changed since then, and today the Social Security is mostly used as Democrats political tool to get and/or keep elderly votes, mostly by straight up lying about what their political opponents, Republicans, are intending to do with it. Only thing is, they're omitting the truth that they're the only party that is destroying the very purpose and future existence of the Social security. So, let's talk about it.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced Social Security, he promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary. As we know, it's no longer voluntary.
Second, he promised that participants would only have to pay 1% of their first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program. Today, you're paying 6.2% into the program, or 12.4% if you're self employed on first $147K.
Third, he promised that the money the participants elected to put into a program would be deductible from their income tax purposes each year. As you all know, that tax is no longer tax deductible.
Fourth, he promised 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 any other government program. Well, under LBJ, that money was moved to the government's "general fund" and spent.
Fifth, FDR promised that annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton and Gore, up to 85% of your social security can be taxed.

Since many of us have paid into Social Security for years, and are receiving Social Security check each month, only to find out that they have been taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away, you maybe interested in following questions:

Q. Which political party took Social Security from the independent "trust fund" and put it into the general fun so that Congress could spend it?
A. It was Lyndon Johnson and the House and Senate controlled by Democrats.

Q. Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security 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 vote as President of the Senate, while he was VP of the US.

Q. Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A. It was Jimmy Carter and the Democratic party gave immigrants that moved into the US Social Security payments at age 65, even though they never paid a dime into it.

As you can see above, it's not Republicans that are destroying the Social Security as we know it. the Democrats are doing it since it's inception, while blaming everyone else for their failures.
The program was updated to bring it in line with the economic realities of the times. It is still the most successful government program ever conceived.

The SS Trust Fund is indeed borrowed by the government, which pays interest on the funds it borrows. Those funds will be recovered by SS as needed.
 
OP
Ame®icano

Ame®icano

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
24,256
Reaction score
7,200
Points
280
Location
Michigan
Social Security works

It is an important safety net for tens of millions of Americans

Nobody is disputing it's importance. The problem is that it doesn't work, it's run as a ponzi scheme and it's being destroyed by the the same people in government that established it.
 

debbiedowner

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
11,067
Reaction score
2,566
Points
275
If you look up info about Social Security, you'll find that it's established by FDR to "address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly by creating a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through taxes paid while employed. " A lot has changed since then, and today the Social Security is mostly used as Democrats political tool to get and/or keep elderly votes, mostly by straight up lying about what their political opponents, Republicans, are intending to do with it. Only thing is, they're omitting the truth that they're the only party that is destroying the very purpose and future existence of the Social security. So, let's talk about it.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced Social Security, he promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary. As we know, it's no longer voluntary.
Second, he promised that participants would only have to pay 1% of their first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program. Today, you're paying 6.2% into the program, or 12.4% if you're self employed on first $147K.
Third, he promised that the money the participants elected to put into a program would be deductible from their income tax purposes each year. As you all know, that tax is no longer tax deductible.
Fourth, he promised 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 any other government program. Well, under LBJ, that money was moved to the government's "general fund" and spent.
Fifth, FDR promised that annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton and Gore, up to 85% of your social security can be taxed.

Since many of us have paid into Social Security for years, and are receiving Social Security check each month, only to find out that they have been taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away, you maybe interested in following questions:

Q. Which political party took Social Security from the independent "trust fund" and put it into the general fun so that Congress could spend it?
A. It was Lyndon Johnson and the House and Senate controlled by Democrats.

Q. Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security 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 vote as President of the Senate, while he was VP of the US.

Q. Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A. It was Jimmy Carter and the Democratic party gave immigrants that moved into the US Social Security payments at age 65, even though they never paid a dime into it.

As you can see above, it's not Republicans that are destroying the Social Security as we know it. the Democrats are doing it since it's inception, while blaming everyone else for their failures.
Wrong on this:
Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3.
The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.

The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).

The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.

President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.

Wrong on this:
Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1:
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 question 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 effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
Q5. Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A5.
Neither immigrants nor anyone else is able to collect Social Security benefits without someone paying Social Security payroll taxes into the system. The conditions under which Social Security benefits are payable, and to whom, can be found in the pamphlets available on our website.
The question confuses the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program with Social Security. SSI is a federal welfare program and no contributions, from immigrants or citizens or anyone else, is required for eligibility. Under certain conditions, immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits. The SSI program was an initiative of the Nixon Administration and was signed into law by President Nixon on October 30, 1972.
An explanation of the basics of Social Security, and the distinction between Social Security and SSI, can be found on the Social Security website.



 
OP
Ame®icano

Ame®icano

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
24,256
Reaction score
7,200
Points
280
Location
Michigan
The program was updated to bring it in line with the economic realities of the times. It is still the most successful government program ever conceived.

The SS Trust Fund is indeed borrowed by the government, which pays interest on the funds it borrows. Those funds will be recovered by SS as needed.

How is successful if is running out of money?

The problem is that you on the left want to run Social Security as a welfare program, where you intend to redistribute taxes from one to another by removing the cap. As a tax, the cap makes Social Security highly regressive, and makes the program punitive to workers.

If the program is social insurance, where the government is requiring workers to contribute to a pension, the cap stays. FDR would have wanted it that way. He said, “We put those pay oll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.” FDR didn’t want politicians like Sanders and McConnell debating who does any who doesn’t need benefits.

If you want Social Security to be a welfare program, then you are not fixing Social Security. You are scraping it, and creating a new program with the old name to appease people who aren’t paying attention. If Social Security becomes a welfare program, you will have annual debates about the priority of benefits against every other political priority of the day. Today, younger workers might decide that student loan reform should get more resources than the elderly. Given poverty rates, they might well win.

Also, if you are taxing Social Security payments, then why not to start taxing state and local workers too? These people pay zero into Social Security, and then complain about not getting full benefits. The US would have been better off if Social Security had been established on a fiscally sustainable basis, instead of as a government mandated ponzi scheme.
 
OP
Ame®icano

Ame®icano

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
24,256
Reaction score
7,200
Points
280
Location
Michigan
Wrong on this:
Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3.
The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.

The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).

The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.

President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.


I see "googling" is not your strongest virtue. If there are any.

While you are correct about when taxing of Social Security started, Reagan did not put a tax on Social Security. Congress did. They did it because the program’s long term finances were unacceptable to the voting public. There are some things that you need to understand... The legislation’s success depended upon the taxation of benefits. It accounted for about one third of the overall solution. At the time, it effected only 5% of retirees. The money raised is returned to Social Security. The tax was expanded in 1993 as part of Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act to effect more that 50% of retires with higher-income benefits, and that money didn't go back to Social Security but to Medicare.

Since you already reached Social Security website, you could've go little bit further and see how and why tax on Social Security was introduced and expanded. Let me help you with it.

Social Security - Taxation of Benefits

“The Senate Report thus acknowledged that one motivating factor in introducing this change was to raise revenue for the Trust Funds.”

I'll reply on rest little later.
 
Last edited:

Woodznutz

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
7,428
Reaction score
3,259
Points
208
How is successful if is running out of money?

The problem is that you on the left want to run Social Security as a welfare program, where you intend to redistribute taxes from one to another by removing the cap. As a tax, the cap makes Social Security highly regressive, and makes the program punitive to workers.

If the program is social insurance, where the government is requiring workers to contribute to a pension, the cap stays. FDR would have wanted it that way. He said, “We put those pay oll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.” FDR didn’t want politicians like Sanders and McConnell debating who does any who doesn’t need benefits.

If you want Social Security to be a welfare program, then you are not fixing Social Security. You are scraping it, and creating a new program with the old name to appease people who aren’t paying attention. If Social Security becomes a welfare program, you will have annual debates about the priority of benefits against every other political priority of the day. Today, younger workers might decide that student loan reform should get more resources than the elderly. Given poverty rates, they might well win.

Also, if you are taxing Social Security payments, then why not to start taxing state and local workers too? These people pay zero into Social Security, and then complain about not getting full benefits. The US would have been better off if Social Security had been established on a fiscally sustainable basis, instead of as a government mandated ponzi scheme.
I'm collecting SS, and paying taxes on 85 percent, and I'm delighted with the program. Are you on SS?
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
10,682
Reaction score
7,101
Points
938
SS payments need to be doubled or tripled to reflect real inflation, and imported goods taxed to make up for the reduction in revenues to it from off-shoring and the failure to increase wages to reflect real inflation as well, which greatly reduced revenues; do that and you can reduce the percentages down for both employees and employers to less than half what it is now.

Adding 50% of SS earnings to gross income is deceptive, but it is still not a tax on it directly for most people. It is used to jack up the taxes on earned income, which is of course unfair.

It should also be tax exempt as a forced savings program, or else the standard deduction raised to what minimum wage should be adjusted for real inflation, which is around $45K to $60K, depending on what method is used to reflect inflation; I prefer the gold standard, which is what I use to calculate my own gains and losses as opposed to the current govt.s skewed and ridiculous fake stats on inflation.

Of course even better is not taxing wages at all, since they aren't really 'income', they're barter for time, basically an even trade, not real income or gain for workers in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Woodznutz

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
7,428
Reaction score
3,259
Points
208
SS payments need to be doubled or tripled to reflect real inflation, and imported goods taxed to make up for the reduction in revenues to it from off-shoring and the failure to increase wages to reflect real inflation as well, which greatly reduced revenues; do that and you can reduce the percentages down for both employees and employers to less than half what it is now.
Reduce payments to SS by 50 percent
while doubling or tripling payments to recipients.
How would that work?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
68,245
Reaction score
22,893
Points
2,260
Social Security works

It is an important safety net for tens of millions of Americans

It works when the demographics of the country allow for continued growth in the working age population.

And we don't have that right now.

Also the use of surplus funds as a band aid for deficits in the general fund is finally coming home to roost.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
257,675
Reaction score
77,330
Points
2,260
Reduce payments to SS by 50 percent
while doubling or tripling payments to recipients.
How would that work?

Gradually raise the age to 70 and increase the threshold where you no longer pay to $250,000
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
68,245
Reaction score
22,893
Points
2,260
Gradually raise the age to 70 and increase the threshold where you no longer pay to $250,000

That's like fixing a leaking toilet on the Titanic.
 

Woodznutz

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
7,428
Reaction score
3,259
Points
208
Also the use of surplus funds as a band aid for deficits in the general fund is finally coming home to roost.
We can't keep those surplus funds stuffed into a mattress. To do so would starve the economy of billions in economic activity, as well as needed tax revenues.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
68,245
Reaction score
22,893
Points
2,260
We can't keep those surplus funds stuffed into a mattress. To do so would starve the economy of billions in economic activity, as well as needed tax revenues.

They could have actually been invested like a pension fund is supposed to do.

They were "invested" in IOU's from the general fund, and now the general fund has to pay it back using current inputs.

Trillions lost in interest and dividends that could have propped up SS for decades.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
68,245
Reaction score
22,893
Points
2,260

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top