Discussion Locked

Off topic thread for Maxwell...

0 helpful
20 replies
Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Maxwell, you're a history buff, so I wanted to post a few things to see if you have heard of these.

It's from an e-mail that was sent my way today, and it got me thinking and pondering, and then it dawned on me that you would probably know if it's "the truth" or not. :)

Here it is:

SOCIAL SECURITY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI 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!

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?

Keep this going clear up through the 2004 election!! We need to be heard

End e-mail.

Thanks, I look forward to your and anyone else that wants to respond, responses. That is if y'all want to respond. ;p

Mrafrohead

20 replies

by thechas

Here is the text of an email I received today.

Subject: Keep this going

Keep this going till 2004 election

GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.

2004 Election Issue!!

This must be an issue in "2004". Please! Keep it going.

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?

Keep this going clear up thru the 2004 election!! We need to be heard

Chas

by thechas

While I saw the above email as a whimsical idea, I do have a few ideas that I think could keep our politicians from being as concerned as they are with special interests.

1. Eliminate voted on pay raises for ALL elected officials.
Set up a plan that pays elected officials a, henceforth, fixed multiple of the after tax median per capita income.
This gives politicians an incentive to reduce taxes for the average worker. And, to improve the climate for businesses.

Oh, anyone on public assistance or unemployment counts as having ZERO before tax income!

2. Similarly, the health care plan for elected officials will have the same benefits and contributions as the average US citizen.

3. Retirement plans:
I am flabbergasted at the retirement benefits my state lawmakers can earn with as little as 10 years in office.
Again, public servant retirement plans should not be significantly better than available to the average citizen.
At a minimum, elected officials should not get better retirement benefits than our armed forces.

4. Taxes:
Any benefit or retirement plan taxes MUST apply equally to our elected officials.

I'm sure that some of you will have some more ideas to add to this list.

Chas

by maxwell edison

.
Here's what I know:

In 1936, a government pamphlet on Social Security said, "After the first 3 years -- 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. ... Beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, 12 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."

Yea, right. This year, you and I paid 15%, 7.5% by us and 7.5% by our employer. But don't be fooled by the employer part. Be assured, it's your money, and part of your overall compensation.

Had Congress lived up to its promise, our maximum Social Security tax this year would be $90 instead of over $6,000. Do you think the Social Security Act of 1935 would have ever been enacted had Americans back then known that we'd be subject to a $6,000 tax? Neither do I.

Here's another lie in the original Social Security pamphlet. "Beginning Nov. 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right." Americans were led to believe Social Security was like a retirement account and money placed in it was our property. In reality, we have no property right whatsoever to our Social Security "contributions." And there is no "trust fund".

Consider this:

In 1940, a total of 3% of a person's income was taxed for Social Security, AND there were 35 people contributing for every person receiving.

In 2000, a total of 15% of a person's income was taxed for Social Security, AND there were 3.5 (moved decimal point) people contributing for every person receiving.

In 2040, a total of 15% - OR MORE? - of a person's income will be taxed for Social Security, AND there will be 2 - or LESS? - (estimated) people contributing for every person receiving.

The system is simply not sustainable.

It shows the fallacy of income transfer programs.

Are they (income transfer programs) fair?????

by maxwell edison

.
You are taxed (federal tax) on ALL of your income, unless you have a pre-tax 401(k) contribution. In that case, you are taxed (federal tax) on your total income minus any 401(k) contribution.

You are taxed (social security tax) on ALL your income - period.

Then, when people receive their social security payment, the money on which they paid a federal tax, they receive that payment MINUS a federal tax they are assessed. Double tax on the same dollar.

I'm 50, and I will probably get screwed by social security. (Well, I already am getting screwed - explained below)

You're in your 20s (I think), and you will definitely get screwed by the social security system.

How am I (and you and others) really getting screwed? Here's how.

If all the money that was paid, that's 15% of my income for the past 30 years, had been put into a mutual fund to grow, draw interest, or whatever, based on a very nominal rate of growth, my account would have over a MILLION dollars in it right now. Invested in a safe bond fund or money market fund, that MILLION dollars could have provided a retirement income for me of about $40,000 to $50,000 per year (or MORE if the accumulated total was more than a million), for the rest of my life, without any decrease in the original investment. Then, I could pass the original $$ (a million or more) on to my kids or to charity, or whatever I'd like when I die.

S-C-R-E-W-E-D ..... BIG TIME.

My advice to you, if you want it. Invest the MAXIMUM amount possible into your 401(k) account, and leave it alone. Contribute 15% of your income every year, every year, every year, starting yesterday.

Yes, you can afford it - because you can't afford NOT to do it.

by thechas

One fallacy that is often promoted when people talk about Social Security is that there is an account under your SS number that will be used to pay you back when you retire.

The Social Security system is a "pay as you go" system.

The money you pay in today, mostly, goes to pay the benefits to everyone who is already retired.

Your SS benefit is based on your income the last few years before you retire.
If you are "downsized", and end up as a greeter at Walmart for 10 years before you retire, your SS benefit will be based on those wages, not your 30 years of active employment.

The "primary" problem with the SSI shell game, is that the US no longer has a work-force that is growing faster than the population of retirees.
You "need" to raise 4 to 6 children to have a work force large enough to fund your retirement via SSI.

Yes, there is presently a surplus in the SS fund. This is there to act as a buffer to help keep the system afloat when we "baby-boomers" start retiring.

The SS crisis that Alan Greenspan talks about is another issue. The big problem here is that Congress continues to bower money from the SSI account to fund the US Government.
Greenspan knows all to well that the tax increase and spending cuts that would be required to replace the borrowed funds will never get through Congress.

How did SS get in the shape it is in?
It is VERY easy for politicians to approve the spending of money that is already in accounts.

And, voting for increases in SS payouts is VERY popular with senior citizens.
Since seniors have a record on voting with more regularity than younger voters, it is in the politicians personal interest to keep the seniors happy.

Congress being Congress, they eventually increased benefits beyond the rate of money coming into the fund. This is why both the tax rate and earnings cap for SSI keep being raised.

I may be wrong on this point, but I thought that income tax on SSI benefits only starts if you have other income that is in excess of a threshold.

The biggest argument against eliminating the Social Security program is that the vast majority of Americans will NOT save for retirement unless forced to.

Yes, if you sit them down and talk to them, they understand the need and reason to save.
However, the "need" for consumer goods has far too many people in a credit crunch where they cannot afford to have even 5% go to their 401K account.

Then, there are the companies that have taken the 401K contributions and ran with the money.
This makes many people that I know afraid to join the 401K program where they work, as they know the owners of the companies they work for are crooks.

With the growing number of pension plans going broke, rising medical costs, and companies changing the rules after people have retired, how could we go about reforming the Social Security system?

Since the system is a pay as you go system, which current beneficiaries should have their SSI benefits reduced?

Which of our Aunts, Uncles, and Grandparents don't deserve their full SSI payments?

Are you willing to pay a doubled SSI tax for 10 to 15 years to change the system to individual accounts?

Chas

by syscokid

...but would like to respond to a couple of points.

"Your SS benefit is based on your income the last few years before you retire.
If you are "downsized", and end up as a greeter at Walmart for 10 years before you retire, your SS benefit will be based on those wages, not your 30 years of active employment."

Wrong. In general, it is based on an average of your 35 highest years of earnings from age 23 to age 62. Of course, 10 years in a lower-paying job than you had before will drive down your average

"The primary problem with the SSI shell game, is that the US no longer has a work-force that is growing faster than the population of retirees.
You need to raise 4 to 6 children to have a work force large enough to fund your retirement via SSI".

The problem I have with that is your reference to SSI. Many people do not understand that SSI is a whole different program than Social Security, though it is administered by the same agency. SSI is a welfare program, funded by general revenues, not the trust funds. A prior post mentioned immigrants getting SSI at age 65 even though they never paid into it. Well, there's nothing to pay into. If you're poor enough, you may qualify for SSI even if you never worked a day.

But you're absolutely right about it being a pay as you go system. It always has been.

Well, that's my two cents.

by mrafrohead

I think that that sounds like good advice, and in honesty, I hear that more and more lately. I really need to get it going.

To everyone that responded, thank you, I appreciate your comments!!!

Mrafrohead

by maecuff

That is very good advice that Maxwell gave you. I put off investing for our retirement for a long time (too long). When I finally admitted to myself that my plan to win the lottery probably wouldn't pay out, I finally started contributing to a 401K. And I really haven't noticed it being a hardship. The money is already gone before I get paid and we've absorbed the deficit with very little problem.

by dc_guy

Every law, regulation, and policy enacted by any level of goverment; every department, agency, and job created; every contract and agreement executed, should have a maximum term of fifteen years. Anything involving the transfer of money to or from the government should have a maximum term of ten years.

It's impossible to get legislators to commit to repealing existing legislation, no matter how bad it is, because they're afraid somebody who's gotten used to their "entitlement" will complain. But if they had to reintroduce and rejustify existing legislation in the face of a constituency demanding to know what good it accomplished the first time around, and without an army of freeloaders accustomed to feeding at the public trough, they'd be more likely to let it slide.

btw, I have yet to see a single shred of reasoning to support the thesis that the federal government has a constitutional right to either: 1. Levy an income tax during peacetime or; 2. Administer a nationwide pension system.

A Sunset Law would mitigate the effects of such unconstitutional acts. Even if they squeak through the legislature, get the chief executive's signature, and avoid the Supreme Court's attention, by the time they come up for renewal in ten or fifteen years the opposition will have its constitutional arguments well prepared and the trick won't be so easy to pull off the second time around. And without so many unconstitutional laws cluttering up the books and acting as precedents, the entire legal system would be emboldened to perform its duty and take the constitution more seriously.

by syscokid

The maximum SSI payment in 2004 is $564 (it could be higher if the state you live in chooses to provide what's called a supplement). This is reduced by any other income you have (with certain exclusions). That's not exactly livin' large.

by thechas

Thanks for the update on SS benefits calculation.

I know that it used to be the last 5 or 10 years that counted the most toward determining a personal benefit.

I don't pay as much attention to Social Security rule changes as I should.

As I see it right now, I'll still be working when I'm 80 just to keep my head above water.

Chas

by ucyber2

OK, I don't know if you handle the truth but here it goes - with government references so you can confirm that I'm not making this up.

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

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it
in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

FALSE

These articles should help to clear up the misconceptions.

From the Cato Institute http://www.socialsecurity.org/ SSP Report No. 24
p. 6

"All of those proposals reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the
nature of the trust fund. Social Security payroll taxes are currently
bringing in more revenue than the program pays out in benefits, a surplus
that is projected to continue until approximately 2016. Thereafter, the
situation will reverse, with Social Security paying out more in benefits
than it brings in through taxes. The surplus is used to purchase special
issue Treasury bonds. The Social Security surplus used to purchase the
bonds becomes general revenue and is spent on the government^?s annual
general operating expenses. What remains behind in the trust fund is the
bonds, plus an interest payment attributed to the bonds (also paid in
bonds, rather than cash). Government bonds are, in essence, a form of IOU.
They are a promise against future tax revenue. When the bonds become due,
the government will have to repay them out of general revenue."

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98jul/socsec.htm
"The Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting fiction.

The Social Security tax has been raising more money than is needed to pay
for current benefits, in order to build up a surplus to help finance the
retirement of the Baby Boom generation. All of this surplus is lent to the
U.S. Treasury when the Social Security Trust Fund buys bonds from it. The
money is then used to finance the federal deficit, just like any other
money the government borrows. The bonds held by the fund pay the same
interest as bonds held by the public. These bonds are every bit as real
(or as much of a fiction) as the bonds held by banks, corporations, and
individuals. Throughout U.S. history the federal government has always
paid its debts. As a result, government bonds enjoy the highest credit
ratings and are considered one of the safest assets in the world. Thus the
fund has very real and secure assets."

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/departments/2002/news/0405_news_1.html
"Trust Funds: A Healthy Picture

Although "trust fund" is the term generally used, there are actually four
trust funds - two for Social Security and two for Medicare. At the last
accounting, they held assets totaling almost $1.3 trillion. The
Congressional Budget Office projects they will grow by $2.5 trillion over
the next decade. Their holdings consist of U.S. securities currently
earning 6.9 percent."

These are the 4 Funds: It is in Public Law No: 104-121.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:1:./temp/~c1040uihHp:e30331:
H.R.3136

Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or
Passed by Both House and Senate)

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?

A: The Democratic party.

FALSE

Actually, it was Ronald Reagan, a Republican, who signed a bill taxing
Social Security benefits.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html
"The 1983 Amendments

In the early 1980s the Social Security program faced a serious short-term
financing crisis. President Reagan appointed a blue-ribbon panel, known as
the Greenspan Commission, to study the financing issues and make
recommendations for legislative changes. The final bill, signed into law
in 1983, made numerous changes in the Social Security and Medicare
programs, including the taxation of Social Security benefits, the first
coverage of Federal employees under Social Security and an increase in the
retirement age in the next century."

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?

A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

TRUE

Since the statement does not mention any specific bill that Al Gore cast
the deciding vote, it led to an exhaustive search. As a Vice President,
he could have exercised his constitutional powers to break a tie vote in
the Senate.

I did find as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, the
VP did cast a vote in the Senate to break a tie. This Act was a huge bill
that covered everything from agricultural commodities, licensing of radio
spectrum, luxury automobile taxes, fuels, banking, medicare, etc., etc.
The bill passed in the House by a vote of 218-216 and in the Senate by
51-50.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR02264:|TOM:/bss/d103query.h

Q. Which party decided to give money to immigrants?

A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country at 65 and got SSI
Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they
never paid a dime into it.

FALSE

http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/ssi.pdf
1972
Public Law 92-603, enacted October 30,1972

"Other Eligibility Provisions Citizenship and Residence

The individual must reside within one of the 50 states or the District of
Columbia and be a citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence or permanently residing in the United States under color of law.
Persons living outside the United States for an entire calendar month lose
their eligibility for such a month."
The SSI (Supplemental Security Income) and the automatic annual COLA (Cost
of Living Adjustments) based on the Consumer Price Index were pushed,
signed, and implemented during the Nixon administration. So immigrants
first received SSI under the Republican administration of President
Richard M. Nixon.

It was actually Bill Clinton that signed legislation barring immigrants
from receiving SSI as part of The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This changed the following year
with the signing of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html
"SSI

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social
Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Not Sure can't confirm or deny

There was an attempt in 1996 to pass a bill - To provide for an income tax deduction for the old age, survivors, and disability insurance taxes paid by employees and self-employed individuals. see vote

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00140

There was also a 2nd attempt with a State Bill to allow citizens of Missouri the ability to deduct their SS tax called HB663 in 1999 but it appears to have never made it out of comittee.

See: http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills99/bills99/HB663.htm

So it looks like 1 question is completly true.

P

by thechas

Thank you for doing the research and poking holes in this round of false statements.

I know without researching that a lot of the rule changes for Social Security receive wide range bi-partisan support.

Chas

by maxwell edison

.
...in both age and income range. When we reach 65:

We will have contributed about $240,000 into Social Security.

We can expect to draw about $2,000 a month after age 65. (Married status not taken into consideration. This is an average)

We can expect to draw those benefits until we die at age 78. (Average life expectancy)

This will have provided an annual rate of return of less than 1 percent.

Unless, of course, they "change the rules" - AGAIN - in the next 15 years to give us less benefits because we were wise enough (or stupid enough) to save on own.

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF we had invested in a personal retirement account at an average rate of return of 6 percent:

We still would have contributed about $240,000, but into our own account.

We could have expected to draw about $8,500 a month after age 65.

We would still, on average, die at age 78.

OR

We could have expected to draw about $4,500 a month after age 65.

We would still, on average, die at age 78.

We would pass on to our heirs $945,000.

----------

People are being financially raped by our government under the guise of "taking care of us".

If you aren't as sick as I am about it, I have to wonder why.

And I don't care which political party is to blame. Actually, I blame both of them.

by maxwell edison

.
I ran across that same message that you did (the one you cut and pasted), but didn't really want to dissect it, nor did I want to dissect the original one. (That's why I posted my own "tangent" of a message.) I didn't really want to take the time. Besides, with almost all of those types of things (Internet chain information-misinformation letters), they take an ounce of truth and twist it or distort it in such a way to support their own predisposed desired conclusion.

One such instance where one person could look at it one way, while another look at it another way, both deriving at different conclusions is the tax on SS benefits. The "chain letter" claimed that the Democrats did it, but your message indicated that Reagan, a Republican, signed that bill into law. Well, from an impartial position (if that's even possible - especially for me), both are right. Reagan, a Republican, sure enough signed the bill into law. But Congress, who actually controls the national purse strings, was controlled by the Democrats in 1983. However, there were enough Republicans in Congress who voted for the measure, so blame (or credit?) can go to them as well. In fact, even if Reagan had vetoed the bill, there were enough votes in Congress to override that veto.

Ronald Reagan - Republican.

Tip O'Neil - Democrat.

Blame them all, is what I say.

I could, like I said, dissect each and every item on the list and show where it may be BOTH true and false, depending on how one looks at it - twists it.

"Get the facts first, and then you can distort them as you like."

- Mark Twain

(You gotta' love MT)

by maxwell edison

.
HISTORY OF SOCIAL SECURITY

1935 - The Social Security Act, which covered workers in commerce and industry, was signed by President Roosevelt.

1937 - The Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) required workers to pay taxes to support the Social Security system. Payroll taxes were 2%.

1939 - Social Security was expanded to cover dependents and survivors. Payroll taxes were 2%.

1950 - Coverage was expanded to job outside of commerce and industry, and benefit levels were increased. Payroll taxes were 3%.

1956 - Disability Insurance was created, and expanded over the following years. Early retirement at age 62 for women was permitted. Payroll taxes were 4%.

1961 - Early retirement at age 62 for men was permitted. Payroll taxes were 6%.

1972 - Automatic cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs), which index benefits to inflation, were introduced. The formula to calculate increases initially overstated inflation by 25%, and people born between 1910 and 1916 received an unintended windfall. Payroll taxes were 9.2%.

1977 - The mistake in the benefit formula was corrected. The "notch" refers to the difference in benefits paid to the group that received the windfall and those who retired following the formula correction. Social Security was thought to be actuarially sound. Payroll taxes were 9.9%.

1983 - The National Commission on Social Security Reform was created in response to the actuarial unsoundness of the system. The commission called for 1) and increase in the self-employment tax; 2) partial taxation of benefits to upper income retirees; 3) expansion of coverage to include federal civilian and nonprofit organization employees; and 4) an increase in the retirement age from 65 to 67, to be enacted gradually starting in 2000. Again, Social Security was declared actuarially sound. Payroll taxes were 10.8%.

1985 - The Social Security Trust Funds were moved "off-budget" so that the funds earmarked for the Social Security system would be tracked separately from the rest of the budget. Payroll taxes were 11.4%.

1986 - COLAs were increased to respond to minor levels of inflation. Payroll taxes were 11.4%.

1993 - The amount of taxable benefits for upper income retirees was increased to 85%. Payroll taxes were 12.4%.

1996 - The Social Security Trustees' Report stated that the Social Security system would start to run deficits in 2012, and the trust funds would be exhausted by 2029. All members of the Advisory Panel agreed that some or all of Social Security's funds should be invested in the private sector. To keep the unchanged system actuarially sound, payroll taxes would have to be increased 50%, to 18% of payroll, or benefits would have to be slashed by 30%.

1997 - All members of the presidentially-appointed Social Security Advisory Panel agreed that some or all of Social Security's funds should be invested in the private sector. To keep the unchanged system actuarially sound, payroll taxes would have to be increased 50%, to 18% of payroll, or benefits would have to be slashed by 30%."

1999 - The Social Security Trustees' Report stated the Social Security Retirement System's unfunded liability increased by $752 billion since the 1998 Trustee Report was published. This brings the total long-term unfunded liability to more than $19 trillion.

The System Today
Social Security is the single largest item in the federal budget, consuming over 22% of total expenditures. (For comparative purposes, 17% of the budget is spent on national defense, 0.5% is spent on training and employment, and 2.5% is spent of food and nutritional assistance.) In 1996, the system is projected to collect $387 billion in tax revenues and distribute $355 billion to over 43 million recipients.

Social Security is an entitlement program and is thus funded automatically rather than through the annual appropriations process. All individuals who are legally eligible for benefits automatically receive them. As a result, it is demand, not supply, that sets spending levels for the program. The only way to alter spending for Social Security is to change the guiding legislation.

There are a number of basic principles underlying today's structure of Social Security system, including: The system is work related - Benefit levels for retirees and their families are related to earning history and wage level. The higher the contributions, the higher the benefits. Benefits are not means tested - Benefits are paid regardless of income from saving, pensions, insurance, or other forms of non-work income. Workers do not have to prove need to receive benefits. Universal compulsory coverage - Workers may not opt out of the Social Security system. By mandating participation, adverse selection (the situation that arises when individuals who draw the most from an insurance system are the ones who join it) is avoided. Benefits are defined by law - Any person who meets the legal requirements qualifies for benefits. Disagreements may be taken to court.

Coverage
Ninety-five percent of workers, or 135 million people, are covered by the system. In addition to workers in the U.S. and territories, the system covers work done by U.S. citizens and resident aliens outside of the U.S. who are:

Employed by an American employer;
Employed by an American affiliate who has elected coverage;
Self-employed (in certain circumstances).
Workers who are excluded from coverage include:

Federal civilian employees hired before 1984;
Railroad workers who are covered by the Railroad Retirement System;
Some state and local government employees;
Household and farm workers whose earning don't meet certain minimum requirements;
Self-employed workers whose earnings are very low;
Some children who work in family businesses;
Some people who, for religious reasons, are granted exemptions.
Payroll Taxes
The Social Security system is funded by payroll taxes paid by employees and employers through the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Self Employment Contributions Act (SECA). (The payroll tax is also used to fund part of the Medicare system.) Today the total employee/employer payroll tax is 15.3%, with 12.4% of that going to Social Security. This rate has been increased dramatically since 1937, when the rate was 2%.

Employers and employees each pay a 7.65% payroll tax. They pay 1.45% on all earnings for Medicare, and they pay 6.2% for Social Security up to a capped amount of $72,600. (This cap changes each year.)

Self-employed individuals pay the full 15.3% tax, but one half of the tax can be deducted as a business expense. Because the employer's portion of the payroll tax translates into lower wages for workers, it is most accurate to talk about the combined level of the payroll tax.

Trust Funds
The Social Security payroll taxes are recorded through the different program trust funds, which are used to track the inflows and outflows of the program. The trust funds are presently taking in more money then they are issuing in benefits, and they therefore run annual surpluses. Rather than saving the surpluses, the government spends the money on other parts of the budget, such as defense, domestic discretionary programs and other entitlement programs.

Social Security surpluses will continue until 2014, at which time the program will no longer take in enough money to cover benefits. The government will have borrowed over $3 trillion from the trust funds and not a penny will be left to cover the owed benefits. To repay the $3 trillion, the government will have to either cut spending by $3 trillion, raise taxes on every family in America by $43,000, or increase the national debt by an additional $3 trillion.

Payment Levels
Social Security is structured to replace a portion of beneficiaries' wages lost due to retirement, disability or death. Social Security benefits are calculated based on a retiree's earnings history and are intended to replace, on average, 42% of their peak salary.

The system is also designed to be progressive so that lower income workers receive a greater portion of their previous earning level than do higher income earners.

If workers retire early, their benefits are reduced for each month of benefits received before age 65. The cutback amounts to a 20% reduction for those who start collecting benefits at age 62. Workers who postpone retirement and remain in the workforce after age 65 qualify for inflated benefits, to reflect the additional years of contributions.

Eligibility
Retirement - Currently, workers become eligible for full retirement benefits at age 65 or for reduced benefits at 62.

To qualify for benefits, workers must have been part of the labor force for a set amount to time (usually 10 years) to show labor force attachment. Workers earn credits, up to four credits a year, that go towards their eligibility. Generally, forty credits are needed to qualify for benefits. (Younger people need fewer credits to qualify for disability or survivors benefits). The earning levels for credits change each year. In 1996, $640 earns one credit.

Survivors - Survivors benefits are paid to deceased workers' families. Those who qualify include:

Widows(er)s age 60 or older, 50 or older if disabled, or any age if caring for children under 16;
Children if they are unmarried and under 18, 18 to 19 but in school, or over 18 and disabled;
Parents, if the deceased was their primary means of support.

The average benefits level of a family that consists of a widow and two children is $1,350 per month, roughly equal to the payout from a $295,000 life insurance policy.

Disability - Disability is defined as "an inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity (SGA) by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." Under such conditions, both disabled workers and their dependents can qualify for benefits.

Conclusion
The Social Security system has been one of the federal government's most successful and popular programs, and has helped protect beneficiaries against impoverishment. But the aging of the American population coupled with a slowdown in economic growth threatens the future stability of the system.

Reforms must be implemented to protect current retirees and to ensure retirement security for future generations. By educating the citizenry and reforming Social Security, we can increase economic stability, security and opportunity for all Americans.

History section provided courtesy of:
Economic Security 2000
1522 K Street, N.W., Suite 634
Washington, DC 20005
202-408-5556

by buffalous

Fantastic work. I did the same background checks, and came up with only one addition to what you had.

As far as "Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social
Security (FICA) withholding?", the short answer is, neither of them.

There never was any deduction for FICA withholding, and in fact, the original version of the law expressly forbids this concept. You can see it here (http://www.ssa.gov/history/35acviii.html), under Section 803 - "DEDUCTIBILITY FROM INCOME TAX".

by mhillyer

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 affect 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.

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 is presently serving as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
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.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

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.

The details of these provisions can be found on our website.

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.

(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.

by buffalous

You know, the author of this mass mail really needs to do some basic fact checking on these mass e-mails. Do you realize that each and every point in the post (from a popular forwarded e-mail) is either a straight-up lie, or at the very least, wildly inaccurate? Don't believe everything you read, without at least looking for some kind of reasonable source.

All right, here we go. On a point by point basis... with actual references to actual facts, with links so you can check it out yourself.

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

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

Are you kidding? It's a tax. Taxes aren't voluntary. It is true that when the program first started, many jobs weren't covered by Social Security. If you worked in a job that wasn't covered, you paid no taxes, but also received no benefits. If you had a job that was covered, you paid FICA, and got Social Security. Simple. Not optional (except by intentionally changing careers, I suppose...)

2.) 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 version of the law was 1% each for the employee and the employer on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was raised in four initial steps through 1949 to 3% each for employee and employer on the first $3,000. At no time was it ever the first $1,400 and there was never any mention of a 1% cap.

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

Nonsense. The 1935 law expressly forbids this idea, in Section 803, Title VIII. Feel free to look at the law here (Link: http://www.ssa.gov/history/35acviii.html) See the section titled "DEDUCTIBILITY FROM INCOME TAX".

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,

Yep. This is true, and this is exactly how it has worked from 1939 (when the Social Security Trust Fund was created) until today. Period. The way that fund works has never changed. If you want details on it, see Link: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ASKACT/part6.html. What you're probably referring to here is the way that the Trust Fund is included in the "Unified Budget" (started in 1969, based on action by President Johnson). This confused the Trust Fund with the General Fund for awhile, so in 1990 it was taken back out. This is only a matter of accounting practices, and in no way ever changed the actual handling of the Trust Fund itself. You can see more about this at the same URL as before (Link: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ASKACT/part6.html)

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

Originally, benefits were not taxable. This wasn't a provision of the law, just the way it originally worked out. President Roosevelt couldn't really "promise" anything about this, nor did he. Originally the benefits weren't taxable as a result of a bunch of early rulings by the Treasury Department (you can look at them here: Link: http://www.ssa.gov/history/it3447.html) not by anything Roosevelt did.

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.

Horse hockey. All Johnson did was unify the budget. The spending from the excess funds to Social Security have been done by every single president since him. All of them. Plenty of bi-partisan loathing to go around here.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

There you go again. There was never any deduction. We've already covered the fact that the original 1935 law forbids this idea, but in case you forgot, here's the link again (Link: http://www.ssa.gov/history/35acviii.html)

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.

Eh, not so fast. Feel free to look at this picture of the culprit who signed that change into law. Go ahead - Link: http://www.ssa.gov/history/reagansm.html . Did Reagan become a Democrat while I wasn't looking? And, by the way, the Republicans controlled the Senate from the 97th through the 99th Congress (1981-1987). So, who again eliminated the income tax deduction? By the way, it was recommended by a bi-partisan commision, headed by another Republican that you might know, named Alan Greenspan. If you'd like to read about Greenspan's commission (and see a photo of a much younger, much sexier Greenspan), check out Link: http://www.ssa.gov/history/greenspn.html. Little Bobby Dole's looking good too. Ultimately the 1983 amendments to the tax law were passed in the house on March 9, 1983, by a vote of 282 to 148. On March 23, 1983, it passed the senate 88 to 9. There was only one change in the Senate's version of the bill. It required that tax-free interest income be used in the computation to determine if the thresholds ($25,000 for a single filer and $32,000 for married filing jointly) were exceeded. Then, in a conference on March 24, 1983, the House accepted the senates change. The next House vote went down at 243 to 102 (apparently lots of representatitives got sleepy - it was, after all, 10:25 p.m. that night). Then the Senate got together again, and in the wee hours of March 25, 1983, voted 58 to 14 to pass it (again, lots of them got too sleepy, I suppose). You can see the bill, how it went down, and all of the amendments, sponsors, etc. at the wonderful Thomas site, which has great information about all the bills passed, with their histories, all the way back to the 93rd Congress. Check it out. Link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:HR01900:|TOM:/bss/d098query.html|.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

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

That's wrong! Ah, yes, the great Jimmy Carter. This guy gets more crap for stuff he never did, especially when it comes to those darned immigrants... In reality, in was tricky Dick Nixon who both proposed this, and then signed it into law. The program that you're referring to is called the SSI, or the Supplemental Security Income program. He signed it into law on October 30, 1972, calling it "landmark legislation". You can look at the info here: Link: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/416/416-0101.htm. You might have been correct to say that it was bi-partisan, as it was. What happens next is politics at it's finest... In 1996, Newt Gingrich and his boys decided to cut off SSI benefits for immigrants. There was, as they say, a bit of a public outcry, so they eased back a bit and came up with the Welfare Reform Law, which just cut off benefits for _most_ of the immigrants. Bill Clinton publicly protested the law, but gave in and signed anyway. So then, the Social Security Administration notified more than 660,000 old, blind, and disabled immigrants that their benefits were being cut off at the end of 1997. Well, as you can expect, once the newspapers started carrying reports of some of them killing themselves after being notified, Newt and his boys was in a heap of hot water! But, as you can expect, they stood their ground! Well, no, not exactly... well, uh, when danger reared it's ugly head, they bravely turned their back and fled... Nope. What the Republican congress did instead was a swift about-face, and passed Public Law 105-306, which restored the benefits to pre-1996 immigrants. Passed the Republican controlled house by voice vote, then the Republican controlled Senate by unanimous consent. They did manage to keep some restrictions on new immigrants (post-1996).

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!

Seems to me that perhaps the lying is coming from the author of this popular mass e-mail. Ahem, see above facts. Nuff said.

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

Clearly, uninformed citizens are willing to believe just about anything they read in a mass forwarded e-mail with absolutely no references to authentic facts.

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

Maybe they will, if people were presented with authentic facts.

So, in conclusion - it's really that I just had a problem with the utter regard for facts in every facet of the e-mail you posted that got me to respond. Again, I'm all for a discussion of FICA/the SSA/whatever, but just saying "Democrats suck", again and again, doesn't do it. Especially when each and every point in the mail is either a lie, or at the very least, misleading. Thanks for listening.

This discussion is closed to new replies.