Zone1 Social Security Scam

[dblack]

A Ponzi scheme is not covered financially

Social Security is

Covered. LOL.

But again, I agree, SS is not a Ponzi scheme. If someone screws over investors with a Ponzi scheme, they go to jail. If they do it with a government program, they get re-elected.

 

[rightwinger]

Covered. LOL.

But again, I agree, SS is not a Ponzi scheme. If someone screws over investors with a Ponzi scheme, they go to jail. If they do it with a government program, they get re-elected.

Social Security worked
Americans love it

 

[Couchpotato]

A Ponzi scheme is not covered financially

Social Security is

The fact at the government can compel investment doesn’t change what’s happening.

 

[rightwinger]

The fact at the government can compel investment doesn’t change what’s happening.

Of course it does

You are a citizen you participate in our society
It is not optional

 

[Couchpotato]

Of course it does

You are a citizen you participate in our society
It is not optional

That doesn’t change the dynamics of what the government is doing. It’s running a ponzi scheme that it has exempted itself from and using force to make everyone invest. Its worse than a scam.

 

[rightwinger]

That doesn’t change the dynamics of what the government is doing. It’s running a ponzi scheme that it has exempted itself from and using force to make everyone invest. Its worse than a scam.

You belong to society you follow the rules
You pay taxes, follow our laws, contribute to Social Security, obtain healthcare

If you do not like it, you can get the rules changed or leave

 

[Couchpotato]

You belong to society you follow the rules
You pay taxes, follow our laws, contribute to Social Security, obtain healthcare

If you do not like it, you can get the rules changed or leave

You're just unwilling to actually discuss SS on the merits. Probably because on the merits SS is a losing argument.

 

[DGS49]

Calling it a "Ponzi scheme" is rather ignorant. It is unconstitutional and perhaps unwise, but like a lot of Government foolishness, scores of millions of Americans depend on it.

When the Boomers (like me) were in their peak earning years, SS was collecting much more than it was paying out, and beneficiaries who lived to a ripe old age were getting a far better "ROI" than most people in managed funds.

The politically relevant facts are as follows:

• SS will NEVER be allowed to "run dry,"
• Long before that happens, Congress will have taken measures to increase revenues in line with projected outlays. The cap on earnings subject to the Payroll Tax will either be increased or eliminated entirely, and there is a slight chance the retirement age(s) might be "adjusted." Probably not. The Employer Payroll tax rate could be increased slightly, but that would be a surprise.
• NOBODY's SS monthly stipends will EVER decrease! The worst-case scenario would be that through some means-testing process, some peoples' payments might be frozen for a time (no COL increases) until the overall payment structure is more socialist in its effect.
• "Means testing" will eventually be a part of it, but not in this round of adjustments...that will take place 10-15 years out. After all, it makes NO SENSE to be sending many thousands of dollars a month to (for example) multi-million dollar Condo's on the Florida coasts.
• Finally, Democrat politicians LOVE to frighten their low-information Senior Citizen constituents with tales of how the mean old Republicans (sorry for the redundancy) want to change or eliminate SS.

The current grist for this foolishness is a Republican suggestion that the "Trust Fund" fiction be eliminated, so that SS can be budgeted just like every other ENTITLEMENT, with a five-year "sunset" provision. But see my first bullet above. It is not for nothing that SS has long been called the "third rail" of American politics, because just like the physical third rail of the NYCTA if you touch it, you die (politically).

 

[Couchpotato]

Calling it a "Ponzi scheme" is rather ignorant. It is unconstitutional and perhaps unwise, but like a lot of Government foolishness, scores of millions of Americans depend on it.

When the Boomers (like me) were in their peak earning years, SS was collecting much more than it was paying out, and beneficiaries who lived to a ripe old age were getting a far better "ROI" than most people in managed funds.

The politically relevant facts are as follows:

• SS will NEVER be allowed to "run dry,"
• Long before that happens, Congress will have taken measures to increase revenues in line with projected outlays. The cap on earnings subject to the Payroll Tax will either be increased or eliminated entirely, and there is a slight chance the retirement age(s) might be "adjusted." Probably not. The Employer Payroll tax rate could be increased slightly, but that would be a surprise.
• NOBODY's SS monthly stipends will EVER decrease! The worst-case scenario would be that through some means-testing process, some peoples' payments might be frozen for a time (no COL increases) until the overall payment structure is more socialist in its effect.
• "Means testing" will eventually be a part of it, but not in this round of adjustments...that will take place 10-15 years out. After all, it makes NO SENSE to be sending many thousands of dollars a month to (for example) multi-million dollar Condo's on the Florida coasts.
• Finally, Democrat politicians LOVE to frighten their low-information Senior Citizen constituents with tales of how the mean old Republicans (sorry for the redundancy) want to change or eliminate SS.

The current grist for this foolishness is a Republican suggestion that the "Trust Fund" fiction be eliminated, so that SS can be budgeted just like every other ENTITLEMENT, with a five-year "sunset" provision. But see my first bullet above. It is not for nothing that SS has long been called the "third rail" of American politics, because just like the physical third rail of the NYCTA if you touch it, you die (politically).

SS is only the "political third rail" because we have led people to believe that they are in fact storing up money for their retirement and that if they don't receive that money the Government is stealing it and they are being screwed. The issue is that if we tried to stop it we would either have to just set a date where if you were born later than that date you wouldn't receive it, you would still have pay the tax you just wouldn't get the benefits. Or over time pare it back until it was gone. Either way people would be forced to pay SS for decades some their entire working life and not get their old age welfare when they turned 68. That's the reason it's political suicide. If SS werent a Ponzi Scheme this wouldnt be an issue. Since it is....

 

[dblack]

Social Security worked
Americans love it

Not all of them.

 

[Penelope]

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.

You seem to blame the older people for not having an income.
What do you have against older age??

 

[Blues Man]

Well, we did elect Trump

I didn't.

 

[sartre play]

Actually, we need to raise the retirement age gradually to 70 and increase the cap on contributions to $250,000 a year

AGREE on increase of the cap, Any age increase needs to be tiny, last time adding 3 months did not alter life much.

 

[rightwinger]

AGREE on increase of the cap, Any age increase needs to be tiny, last time adding 3 months did not alter life much.

They are not going to tell someone who is 65 that they will now have to wait until 70
But someone who is 55 may have to wait till 67
Someone who is 50 may have to wait til 68
Anyone still in their 30s will have to wait till 70

That is how it was done last time

 

[Couchpotato]

You seem to blame the older people for not having an income.
What do you have against older age??

Is it not reasonable to expect someone regardless of their age (so long as they are an adult) to do a modicum of financial planning? At what point are we just rewarding someone for not doing what should be seen as the minimum? You don't have to put away a huge amount of money each month throughout your working career in order to have enough to retire on without old people welfare, which is what SS is if it's not a "trust fund or Ponzi Scheme, and that seems to be the contention now. I understand that not everyone will be responsible. I understand that bad things happen and as a society we cant punish people for that. I also dont think it should be the state POLICY to reward people for not planning ahead and thinking about how they are going to support themselves in retirement. Doing so breeds that type of behavior which should not be the behavior you want if you want a successful society. My children (who are adults now) understood the concept of putting money away for the future before they were teenagers. It's not a difficult concept to teach or grasp. I'm betting even public schools could teach it. Certainly, they could at the HS level and it would be skill/concept people would use in their life far more than Algebra or Calculus. How often are people really using the things they learned in Algebra in their life/career?

 

[flacaltenn]

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."

No Debbie -- your source is BLATANTLY wrong. For all the years that SSoc ran HUGE surpluses, All that excess yearly cash flow was SPENT BY CONGRESS. The ONLY thing that went into the Trust Fund were "Inter-Agency NON NEGOTIABLE IOUs" for the FICA tax that Congress squandered. None of that has a dime of value to paying CURRENT recipients since SocSec income to payments went negative (12 years ahead of projections) under Obama.

Since then with NEGATIVE yearly balances -- NOT ONE DIME came out of the phony ass Trust Fund. The Treasury had to issue NEW DEBT to cover the shortfalls. It's phony accounting ALL THRU the yearly SS Balance statements. I've read several. And that SAME ROSY HYPE is on many pages. But at the VERY BACK of the yearly statements -- you'll find shit like this that just BLOWS YOUR MIND.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Social Security’s annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this
year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby-boom generation retires.

(NOTE by FCT -- This was a 2009 SSoc Statement. They MISSED the year that deficits exceed cash flow projection by about FIVE YEARS. Deficits started around 2011 }

The combined difference grows each year, so that by 2016, net revenue flows from the general fund would total $369 billion (1.8 percent of GDP). The positive amounts that begin in 2016 for OASDI, and started in 2008 for HI, initially represent payments the Treasury must make to the
trust funds when assets are depleted to help pay benefits in years prior to exhaustion of the funds.

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation for ya Debbie. Congress and Administrations STOLE the Surplus for a couple decades by taking SSec accounting "off - book" and to make the yearly OVERALL debt look smaller by stealing the excess FICA tax from working Americans. But when the time came to REDEEM the worthless IOUs in the phony ass Trust Fund -- there was NOTHING OF VALUE FOR THE TREASURY TO USE.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

You really want to live in a country that FORCES workers into 6 to 12% cut of their paychecks going to FICA and then makes them WORK until 70? You OK with 69 year old roofers and firemen?

I'm not. It's a cynical trap.. Especially if you dont age very well.
It's supposed to be UNIVERSAL and AVAILABLE. Right now at qualifying age of 63.5 -- more than 70% of workers have NEGATIVE returns on SS investment because they DIE in less 15 years.

You OK with that negative ROI going to 85% ?????

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- the BAD and HONEST news that I posted about "nothing of value" in the Trust fund appears in that 2009 report -- BURIED BACK on about Page 12. After all the first 10 pages of mindless phony accounting using the non-existent assets that were never IN the "trust fund".

 

[Care4all]

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.

Almost everything you posted, is not true....it's an internet hoax/propaganda!

Social Security History

Social Security History

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.)

 

[Care4all]

Here are some more corrections to your myths, it's long, but all public information, for public use.

Social Security History

MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY- Part 2

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 a series of questions about the history of the Social Security system.

​

One Common Form of the Questions: 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? Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? Q3: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities? Q4: Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities? Q5: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

THE CORRECT ANSWERS TO THE FIVE QUESTIONS

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.



Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A2: 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.)



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.



Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.

This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)



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.