Social Security

[Jane]

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this.

Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what.

And it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat of Republican. Facts are facts!!!


Our 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 in to 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,
they 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 violating 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 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.

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT

FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!



'A government big enough to give you everything you want,

is strong enough to take everything you have.'
-Thomas Jefferson

[Teresa]

I wish I could be a young Whippersnapper.................

[Jody]

And some of you want change!  You had better be careful about what you wish for!

[W. Gray]

I draw social security but am not otherwise knowledgeable on the subject.

However, I began wondering about some of the comments and in particular the one about social security deductions being at one time a tax deduction on Federal 1040.

Social Security Administration says that is not the case.

Workers pay in 7.65 percent of their salary up to a maximum and the employer matches that amount and takes it as a business expense.

A self employed person may take the 7.65 percent employer contribution as a business expense but he may not take his own 7.65 percent contribution as a business expense.

I am thinking that it may have been at one time an employer was able to take both as a business expense,  but that was eliminated to make the employer be on par with everyone else.

Actually only 6.2 percent of the 7.65 percent goes to Social Security. The 1.45 percent remainder goes to Medicare.

Below is the Social Security Administration's general take on the subject:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

[indygal]

I'm certainly no expert on this topic, but it was covered in great detail during one of my American History courses at WSU. My professor, Dr. Jay Price (who is a superb history teacher, btw) explained how the Social Security system was designed to as a safety net to help elderly folks with little or no income survive either on their own (those who didn't already live with family members) as well as those who did live with family to help with additional expenses. It was not intended to provide a living income, just a supplemental one. At the time it started, there was no mandatory retirement age, and life expectancy was much lower than today. There also were plenty of young workers paying into the system. Those three components have changed, with people retiring in greater numbers, living longer, and families having fewer children (hence fewer workers paying in). No doubt this is why the taxation changes occurred through the years.

[flo]

well, they stuck with part of the original plan anyhow.  It doesn't provide a living income. 

[sixdogsmom]

If John McCain is elected he plans to have ZERO percent raise in the social security cost of living next year. We only got 2.5% last year' the seniors are going down fast! Yet we still subsidize big oil?

[dnalexander]

Money has been used out of Social Security by government no matter if they were Democrat or Republican. Much of the funds have been used as loans to other government needs. When the money coming in by young workers falls  below those drawing it creates a disaster, when this house of cards will come tumbling down is somewhat up for debate. If you are expecting anything from Social Security in the future and you plan on drawing it past 2030 this is more important to you than it is to the current government. For those of you with 10 to 20 years left to live it might be a problem for you too. Not so many months\years ago this was a big issue now it has disappeared from the political discussion among Congress and Presidential canidates. We could argue but pure math, accounting, and actuarial statistics says Social Security is in bad shape what worries me as a Baby Boomer is no one is talking about it anymore.

[W. Gray]

The president does not have authority to set the Social Security cost of living adjustment, so I do not know how he could plan to have a zero adjustment.

The Social Security cost of living adjustment is set by law for an automatic adjustment each December 1 (with payment the following Jan 1) and uses a formula pegged to the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers.

The latest consumer price index (for July) for urban wages earners and clerical workers is scheduled for release tomorrow, the 14th.

The figure released on October 16 (for September) will be used along with the releases for the two previous month's. The average for those three months will be compared to the average for the same three months of last year.  The percentage increase will be what next year's adjustment will be.  

Next year's adjustment should be much more than 2.6 percent.

[dnalexander]

Waldo, you make a good point while the President does have certain powers, influence etc. Congress is more to blame for things good or bad. During elections and when things are bad the President gets a lot of blame. The action or inaction in Congress is what really effects what happens in the United States.

David