View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 24th, 2017, 5:37 am



Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
 Social Security??? 
Author Message
Megatron
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12532
Post Social Security???
This was in an email I received.....


Quote:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

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

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

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

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

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:
--------------------
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
--------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.
--------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
-----------------
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

-------------------
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

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

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.

But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?


Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
Please forward this E-mail to others so that they can be informed of the truth.


_________________
Quote:
Detroit vs. Everybody
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


February 14th, 2006, 9:09 am
Profile
Post 
Nice little snippits... I don't believe they're all true, but there are some interesting points there...


February 14th, 2006, 3:03 pm
Varsity Captain
User avatar

Joined: October 14th, 2005, 9:02 am
Posts: 309
Location: Oceania
Post 
Almost entirely false.

If you're interested in the facts, check out http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp

For those who don't know, snopes.com is a website that investigates urban legends in the electronic age.

_________________
"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.." - Carl Sagan


February 14th, 2006, 7:18 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Joe Marciano

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
Bush's SS reform movement was just another bait and switch to transfer money from the middle class to the uber-wealthy. That does not mean that SS is viable without honest reform. The real problem is not government management of personal savings, but a good new story. Humans are living longer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060221/ts ... ngresearch

I do believe that when FDR instituted SS the life expectancy was 62. Within within years it could be 95. There in lies the problem. The simplest reform is simply to raise the age in which you become a beneficiary to recalibrate the program to its original ideals. A degree of personal choice could also be accomodated. Half benefits at 68, full benefits at 75 for example. You could also index it by profession so that blue collar workers with a shorter life expectancy could qualify earlier. It is a pity that a real debate about this important issue is locked in the elitist politics of bankrupting the state with the expressed goal of "shrinking government until you can drown it in the toilet." It always surprises me how willing some people are to be swindled out of their money.

_________________
Far and away from the sound and the fury. . .


February 21st, 2006, 2:03 pm
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3312
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post 
Yorick wrote:
Bush's SS reform movement was just another bait and switch to transfer money from the middle class to the uber-wealthy.

I just don't understand how you can possibly think that. How does allowing people to invest a small percentage of their money (yes theirs, not the government's) instead of putting it into social security amount to transferring money from the middle class to the uber-wealthy? You would still get to keep your money, and it is a virtual certainty that you would have more money in the end than if you just left the money in social security.

I really don't understand the logic here....


February 21st, 2006, 7:25 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Joe Marciano

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
Yes, under the Bush plan you would be able to transfer 10% of your own money to an account owned and controlled by you. Nothing wrong with that. But ask yourself what happens to the 90% you continue to pay into SS? That gets thrown into an insolvent system so you are basically throwing it in the trash. What about the money you already had invested in the system before privitization? Once the system collapses you would lose that money too.

Scenario A: Keep system as is, you are 45 and have put 200,000 into SS. Since the system is solvent until 2050 at least, you could live till 95 and collect your money, say 22,000 every year from 2030 until 2050.

Scenario B: Initiate all of Bush's SS reforms. The system running at a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit in its first year would have to start cuttting benefits right away and keep decreasing them as the number of beneficiaries increased and the amount being paid in decreased. By 2020 at the latest the system would be in complete default and assuming that the feds cannot increase the budget deficit, SS would be dead as Bush desires. Now, you are about to retire in 2030 so you would have lost the 200,000 you put in by 2006. Plus 90% of the money you paid into SS after privitization in 2006 until it went insolvent by 2020 was also lost. Now you do have 10% of the money you invested since 2020 in your retirement. Say that was 500 dollars a year, or 10% of 5000 dollars you paid into SS. If you retire at 2030 that means you have 5000 dollars plus 10% historic return or about 20,000 dollars which is entirely yours in 2030, but you have no payment coming after that. If you lived to 95, rather than collecting 440,000 you would be collecting 20,000. In other words you would have lost 420,000 of your own money.

So who does this "reform" benefit? You guessed it, the uber wealthy. If you are a millionare the money you pay into SS is disproportionate to the money you can draw out.

If you are interested in how and why Bush is trying to bankrupt the state look up Grover Norquist. He is Bush's other brain.

I am not for privitization because I think people need to have a secure investment and the stock market is too volatile or too inexperienced. Still, Bush's plan is not about privitization at all (that is the bait and switch) but actually about eliminating the middle class' investment in social security. If he really believed in privitization at all he would have to do is say that every individual, regardless of their wealth, is entitled to an equal percentage of their SS investment. Basically his plan was nothing but highway robbery and soundly rejected. Unless you are a millionare or just entering the workforce the plan does not benefit you.

_________________
Far and away from the sound and the fury. . .


February 21st, 2006, 8:28 pm
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 7:20 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Pittsford Michigan
Post 
Quote:
Yes, under the Bush plan you would be able to transfer 10% of your own money to an account owned and controlled by you. Nothing wrong with that. But ask yourself what happens to the 90% you continue to pay into SS? That gets thrown into an insolvent system so you are basically throwing it in the trash. What about the money you already had invested in the system before privitization? Once the system collapses you would lose that money too.


Yorick, i would rather see my 90% thrown into the trash, as opposed to all 100% of it. That 10% that part of the people will invest is not going to collapse the system.

The SS system has always been a insolvant system, now its only getting worse.

Thats the other options?, raising the retirement age, increasing taxes, lowering benifits.

Fact is the SS system is a money pit that someone will eventually have to pay for, the working people of this country are all ready not getting what they paid for from SS, and IMO any money that a worker can control themselves instead of being wasted by the government is a good thing.


February 21st, 2006, 11:46 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 2:10 pm
Posts: 2478
Location: Michigan
Post 
HunterMSU wrote:
Quote:
Yes, under the Bush plan you would be able to transfer 10% of your own money to an account owned and controlled by you. Nothing wrong with that. But ask yourself what happens to the 90% you continue to pay into SS? That gets thrown into an insolvent system so you are basically throwing it in the trash. What about the money you already had invested in the system before privitization? Once the system collapses you would lose that money too.


Yorick, i would rather see my 90% thrown into the trash, as opposed to all 100% of it. That 10% that part of the people will invest is not going to collapse the system.

The SS system has always been a insolvant system, now its only getting worse.

Thats the other options?, raising the retirement age, increasing taxes, lowering benifits.

Fact is the SS system is a money pit that someone will eventually have to pay for, the working people of this country are all ready not getting what they paid for from SS, and IMO any money that a worker can control themselves instead of being wasted by the government is a good thing.



I hate seeing 1 percent of my money thrown into the trash. I play it safe in the stock market. I'd

a) rather have a hand in my money and making it work for me

b) rather borrow monies from myself and pay myself back at an honest interest rate

c) rather pay less taxes by putting the maximum amount into said investments and reaping the benifits or or lack there of by my own decisions.

d) rather see government work for the people, but hey - you can't have everything

While I agree the "stock market" is risky and a place where major shareholders (i.e. uber wealthy) make money off of the little people, it is a place where if you follow closely and make good decisions, will eventually have something to show for it. The same can not be said about social security and the joke of a government we have running it

_________________
[b]New York Giants 26 - San Fransisco 3 - CandleStick Park - Who's got it better than us???[/b]


February 22nd, 2006, 1:40 am
Profile WWW
Post 
Ferris wrote:
HunterMSU wrote:
Quote:
Yes, under the Bush plan you would be able to transfer 10% of your own money to an account owned and controlled by you. Nothing wrong with that. But ask yourself what happens to the 90% you continue to pay into SS? That gets thrown into an insolvent system so you are basically throwing it in the trash. What about the money you already had invested in the system before privitization? Once the system collapses you would lose that money too.


Yorick, i would rather see my 90% thrown into the trash, as opposed to all 100% of it. That 10% that part of the people will invest is not going to collapse the system.

The SS system has always been a insolvant system, now its only getting worse.

Thats the other options?, raising the retirement age, increasing taxes, lowering benifits.

Fact is the SS system is a money pit that someone will eventually have to pay for, the working people of this country are all ready not getting what they paid for from SS, and IMO any money that a worker can control themselves instead of being wasted by the government is a good thing.



I hate seeing 1 percent of my money thrown into the trash. I play it safe in the stock market. I'd

a) rather have a hand in my money and making it work for me

b) rather borrow monies from myself and pay myself back at an honest interest rate

c) rather pay less taxes by putting the maximum amount into said investments and reaping the benifits or or lack there of by my own decisions.

d) rather see government work for the people, but hey - you can't have everything

While I agree the "stock market" is risky and a place where major shareholders (i.e. uber wealthy) make money off of the little people, it is a place where if you follow closely and make good decisions, will eventually have something to show for it. The same can not be said about social security and the joke of a government we have running it


Ferris...
Your plan of having 100% of your own money isn't really feasible... The gov. did something like that they would basically cancelling social security as we know it, and everyone receiving benefits would then be without. That's not right.. They paid in at some point too...

Sure it would have been nice if the government would have done something like this right from the start, but rather mandated that people save a certain % (or just took a certain % and appropriated it directly to them and kept track), but that's not what they've done. IMO, like Hunter says, at least having 10% of your contributions directly attributable to you would be better than 0....

Yorick, I really don't see how the Bush plan benefits the wealthy... If you're saying they can sock more away, so be it... Who cares??? They have it to sock, and they should be able to do so. How does that make them able to contribute less and draw out more??? I really don't see it... As pretty much everyone well knows... The top 10% of tax payers bear 90% of the tax burden. I would love to draw more out of those stingy bastards, but the fact remains... you can't... Anyone educated in politics and policy will tell you... the more you raise taxes A) the less they do with their money, and B) the more they do to get around paying taxes. Is it right? Personally I think it is... I would honestly do the same if I had it, and most of their efforts are purely legal and legal without loopholes and such....


February 22nd, 2006, 4:41 am
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 2:10 pm
Posts: 2478
Location: Michigan
Post 
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Ferris...
Your plan of having 100% of your own money isn't really feasible... The gov. did something like that they would basically cancelling social security as we know it, and everyone receiving benefits would then be without. That's not right.. They paid in at some point too...


No JB - You misunderstood (more than likely my fault)

I was just saying I don't even think about the money the government takes from me, I just don't plan on seeing it again with the exception of perhaps small quantities every tax season.

I'm saying I pay into the 401k so I have control over my future, and won't depend on the government.

_________________
[b]New York Giants 26 - San Fransisco 3 - CandleStick Park - Who's got it better than us???[/b]


February 22nd, 2006, 10:26 am
Profile WWW
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3312
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post 
Ferris wrote:
I'm saying I pay into the 401k so I have control over my future, and won't depend on the government.

That is the smartest thing for all of us to do. Do not depend on the government. They have a long and distinguished track record of not delivering on their promise when it matters most. There are very few things the government can do well, and retirement planning is certainly not one of them.


February 22nd, 2006, 11:53 am
Profile
ST Coordinator – Joe Marciano

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
"Yorick, i would rather see my 90% thrown into the trash, as opposed to all 100% of it."

Your belief, perpetuated by propaganda, is erroneous. The OMB itself estimated that the SS system is solvent at least until 2050. Some tinkering then by the way of raising the age of beneficiary or lowering benefits would keep the majority of your investment in tact. Bush's plan makes the system insolvent in the very short term which can mean only one result: a total loss of all the money that you personally invested. Why throw away your money? People look down on "entitlements" these days, but all this word means is that the government is obligated to return the money you paid into the system. Bush wants to reneg on that promise and take your investment and in return he gives you----10% of the money you invest in the future. I know a losing proposition when I see one, and fortunately so do most Americans.

_________________
Far and away from the sound and the fury. . .


February 22nd, 2006, 1:05 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 6:20 pm
Posts: 2522
Location: Michigan
Post 
I believe the idea of volunatary private savings accounts is a sound idea for the future and would spur savings.

The issue at hand is that those paying in now are funding those retiring now and into the near future. They need our money.

Any discussion of allowing folks to keep their own money in an account with their name on it must also include a rock solid program to meet the current and near team obligations to retirees. Even then folks may be afraid to go along with it.

It really isnt a complicated issue to solve, but its a very emotional and politically charged issue.. and nothing will likely be done until it becomes a crisis which at this time it is not.

Closer to a crisis is the rate at which health care costs are rising in the country.

my 2 cents

_________________
POTENTIAL is Nothing. PERFORMANCE is Everything.


February 22nd, 2006, 1:57 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 13 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.