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
I wish I could be a young Whippersnapper................. :'(
And some of you want change! You had better be careful about what you wish for!
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
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.
well, they stuck with part of the original plan anyhow. It doesn't provide a living income. >:(
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?
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.
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.
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
I do hope you are correct Waldo, I was just going by what I heard John McCain say.
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT AND HAS NEVER SUBSIDIZED THE OIL INDUSTRY,. EXXON MOBIL MADE 11.68 BILLION DOLLARS IN THE SECOND QUARTER AND PAID 32 BILLION IN TAXES , HOW CAN YOU SAY THEY ARE SUBSUDIZED, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT MARKET CAPITAL, AND WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM HOW MUCH IS SPENT AND WHAT RISKS ARE TAKEN WHAT THERE CAPITAL OUTLAY IS.
Looks like he did say something along that line.
A web site says:
"He may extend the retirement age to 68 and reduce cost-of-living adjustments. He says point-blank that promises to retirees can't be kept. We can't keep promises made to retirees."
However, the annual cost of living adjustment law has been around since 1974 and would require Congressional action to make any changes.
I cannot see Nancy or Harry going along with him any time soon. They get too many senior citizen votes.
Quote from: W. Gray on August 13, 2008, 08:39:22 PM
Looks like he did say something along that line.
A web site says:
"He may extend the retirement age to 68 and reduce cost-of-living adjustments. He says point-blank that promises to retirees can't be kept. We can't keep promises made to retirees."
However, the annual cost of living adjustment law has been around since 1974 and would require Congressional action to make any changes.
I cannot see Nancy or Harry going along with him any time soon. They get too many senior citizen votes.
I don't believe mcaine is that stupid either. IF he touched Social Security there would be wor over it. Seniors soon to be recipients would definately take up arms over it.
The oil industry currently receives 14 BILLION dollars yearly in tax breaks and incentives, I would consider that indeed a subsidy. I think you made a typo Frank, Exon Mobil did make over 11 BILLION dollars in profit last quarter, but I doubt that they paid 32 Billion in taxes. Even if they did pay that much, 11 BILLION dollars profit is a lot of money, and there is no reason that the American taxpayer should be subsidizing this industry.
SDM, I posted this else where on the forum. It gives a good general idea of Exxon's taxes profits etc compared to other industries. I checked out the numbers listed in the article against stock info sites and the numbers in this article check out.
David
What Is a 'Windfall' Profit?
Wall Street Journal
August 4, 2008
The "windfall profits" tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a "windfall" profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales -- or does it merely depend on who earns it?
Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's "emergency" plan, announced on Friday, doesn't offer any clarity. To pay for "stimulus" checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take "a reasonable share" of oil company profits.
[Barack Obama]
Mr. Obama didn't bother to define "reasonable," and neither did Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, when he recently declared that "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." Really? This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing.
Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any "windfall" tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we're missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.
Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon's profits don't seem so large. Exxon's profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).
If that's what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery -- both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau's industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.
In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year and wasn't investing enough in "renewable" energy. This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%.
If Senator Obama is as exercised about "outrageous" profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett's outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin -- if that's the relevant figure -- was 11.47%, which beats out the American oil majors.
Or consider Google, which earned a mere $4.2 billion but at a whopping 25.3% margin. Google earns far more from each of its sales dollars than does Exxon, but why doesn't Mr. Obama consider its advertising-search windfall worthy of special taxation?
The fun part about this game is anyone can play. Jim Johnson, formerly of Fannie Mae and formerly a political fixer for Mr. Obama, reaped a windfall before Fannie's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal. Bill Clinton took down as much as $15 million working as a rainmaker for billionaire financier Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Companies. This may be the very definition of "windfall."
General Electric profits by investing in the alternative energy technology that Mr. Obama says Congress should subsidize even more heavily than it already does. GE's profit margin in 2007 was 10.3%, about the same as profiteering Exxon's. Private-equity shops like Khosla Ventures and Kleiner Perkins, which recently hired Al Gore, also invest in alternative energy start-ups, though they keep their margins to themselves. We can safely assume their profits are lofty, much like those of George Soros's investment funds.
The point isn't that these folks (other than Mr. Clinton) have something to apologize for, or that these firms are somehow more "deserving" of windfall tax extortion than Big Oil. The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.
It's what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.
I understand this point of view, however that does not take into account that no matter what condition the economy is in this industry is going to profit on a finite product that is required for the well being of this nation. However the previous conversation had nothing to do with windfall, but income taxes and profits for the first quarter of this year. I am certainly no expert and do not pretend to be one, however I do read and try to be informed. I am certainly astounded that John McCain wants to balance the budget by placing the burden on middle class and seniors and continuing to bolster industrys with tax dollars whilst they are making record profits.
I know this should go in the oil thread, but right now is the time that the question is entering my mind. Are these huge profits before the cost of exploration or after? The cost of exploration should be deductible on the corporations income tax returns, thus reducing the amount of taxes they have to pay. If after deducting the cost of exploration, they still have to pay billions in taxes, they should be doing more exploration.
Government has no business telling any one company they make "too" much money and margin, no matter what area it is in.
For anyone in government to say that we are going to subsidize a "stimulus" check by taking a "reasonable" portion of a companies profits is criminal. We do not live in a single class society. If someone in this society wants better, then my advice is simple. Either get off your ass and do something about it or don't. Just don't expect to ride coat tails on people that are getting it done.
I hope every American company and person makes 11 billion dollars!! Isn't that what it's all about?? I would challenge any one person to reply to this and tell me that they have turned down a raise because it was just too much. No, you wouldn't do that. Wouldn't make any sense. I don't see the Raytheon workers striking for less pay and benefits. They are striking for more. Free Market dictates all. Supply and demand.
Raise taxes and tax revenue will fall. It has happened every time it has been done in the past. Lower taxes and tax revenue increases, as does productivity. Why work when the gov't will pay you not too.
Kind of rambling, sorry not as good with analogies as pep, but I will keep trying.
Dan, you did fine and I love to see young people that are willing to work and earn a living, start their own business. The people talking about the so-called oil subsidy, know absolutely nothing about the size of the oil industry in America, it has a market cap of between one and two trillion dollars, compare that to the subsidy they keep making noise about, it is less than 1%. The subsidy is not a subsidy at all it is the tax break to write of dry-holes which are expensive and there is no way to recover a dry hole except through a tax write off. The oil industry is not just Exxon Mobil it is thousand of small operators and millions of people. I have seen investors and small operators loose everything they have exploring for oil and drilling dryholes. I am sick of the people and their attitudes that want to kill capitalism and put in Communism and Socialism in this country. Under our current Capitalism system every person has the opportunity to be what ever they want to be, they just have to work for it, under socialism everyone will be poor. Young people like you and many others that I see on this forum are the hope of the future, you are all willing to work hard and make your own destiny, instead of wanting the government to take from those that have worked hard to make more. People should look at where the tax revenue comes from in this country and they might think different. Our system has flaws in it but it is still the greatest system, greatest country and the greatest place to live on Earth hopefully we can keep it that way. I have been in lots of other countries and I can tell you there is no place out there with the standard of living, Medical Facilities, Doctors and opportunity that even comes close to comparing to what we have. People that want the goverment to control everything and give them their fair share should go to the countries where that is available, like Cuba, China, Russia, Angola, Nigeria, and others like them. I try to look past these people but I can't as I want my Children and Grandchildren to grow up and live in a Democracy, frr society where that can be anything they are will ing to work for.
ENOUGH SAID
THANKS DAN
Quote from: sixdogsmom on August 14, 2008, 09:33:16 AM
I understand this point of view, however that does not take into account that no matter what condition the economy is in this industry is going to profit on a finite product that is required for the well being of this nation. However the previous conversation had nothing to do with windfall, but income taxes and profits for the first quarter of this year. I am certainly no expert and do not pretend to be one, however I do read and try to be informed. I am certainly astounded that John McCain wants to balance the budget by placing the burden on middle class and seniors and continuing to bolster industrys with tax dollars whilst they are making record profits.
Show me one place where John McCain said he was going place the burden on Seniors and Middle Class, not some made up interpretation but where he plainly said that. Seniors and the middle class have never carried the tax burden and I doubt if they ever will, and I can tell you they don't now,.
Tax system is fair; wealthy pay bulk of taxes
Q: Wall Street executives are making millions, paying tax rates of 15%, while the average guy is paying 30% in taxes. Is this system fair?
A: Everybody's paying taxes, and wealth creates wealth. A vibrant economy creates wealth. Revenues are at an all-time high.
Q: So you're saying the system is fair?
A: Sure it's fair. The bulk of the taxes are paid by wealthy people. Should we reform our tax code? Absolutely we should fix our tax code, and we should fix it immediately.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007
Quote from: sixdogsmom on August 14, 2008, 12:09:08 PM
Tax system is fair; wealthy pay bulk of taxes
Q: Wall Street executives are making millions, paying tax rates of 15%, while the average guy is paying 30% in taxes. Is this system fair?
A: Everybody's paying taxes, and wealth creates wealth. A vibrant economy creates wealth. Revenues are at an all-time high.
Q: So you're saying the system is fair?
A: Sure it's fair. The bulk of the taxes are paid by wealthy people. Should we reform our tax code? Absolutely we should fix our tax code, and we should fix it immediately.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007
Actually the ONLY fair tax system would be a national sales tax and eliminate all income taxes period. What you make is what you take home. then if you buy something, pay the sales tax. This has been shown to not even raise the prices of things if it were to go into effect. The imbedded taxes would disappear and the increase in sales tax would take the place of the imbedded tax and more revenue would be raised as a result.
John linder and neal boortz put out a awesome book on it. just think of all the money that could be saved if we eliminated the IRS.
Taken directly from the 2007 tax charts.
Married filing jointly:
taxable income-------20,000 tax=11%
30,000 tax=12%
100,000 tax= 18%
over $349,700 taxable income the tax = 35%
However, at this amount the tax can be reduced by $27,794.00 which results in a tax rate of 27%.
This seems to be the top rate for individual income tax. The allowed reduction is the same for any amount over the 349,700.00 so for larger amounts the percentage would go up. I hope I am right about this. My mind doesn't comprehend amounts of that much.
All arguments about oil companies aside..... I watched a report on the CBS news last night about 65% of foreign companies not paying taxes,I get that because giving them tax breaks is how we get them to do business here, most countries do that. But they also said about 62% of american companies don't pay taxes. Does anybody know anything about this?
Quote from: pam on August 14, 2008, 02:49:34 PM
All arguments about oil companies aside..... I watched a report on the CBS news last night about 65% of foreign companies not paying taxes,I get that because giving them tax breaks is how we get them to do business here, most countries do that. But they also said about 62% of american companies don't pay taxes. Does anybody know anything about this?
Corporations don't pay taxes. Most of the corps are small corps in which are set up to protect assets. The corp spends all the money on equipment expansion ect and the profit is salary to the owner. that is taxed as income for the owner.
the fastest way to build this country and economy is if we invited businesses to be opened up by outside countries and let them operate tax free. IF that were to happen you couldn't fill all the good paying jobs that would become available.
Thanx
Quote from: srkruzich on August 14, 2008, 10:47:42 PM
Quote from: pam on August 14, 2008, 02:49:34 PM
All arguments about oil companies aside..... I watched a report on the CBS news last night about 65% of foreign companies not paying taxes,I get that because giving them tax breaks is how we get them to do business here, most countries do that. But they also said about 62% of american companies don't pay taxes. Does anybody know anything about this?
Corporations don't pay taxes.
Sorry, but corporations do pay taxes. We pay corporate income taxes, state income taxes, and matching Federal and State withholding taxes. At least my corporation does.
That's right, Dan. When I was working income taxes, we did taxes for corporations. I didn't personally. We had a CPA come in to do the corporations.
The highest federal income tax bracket for married couples occurred in 1952 when 92 percent was due for anything earned over $400,000.
The lowest was in 1913 when seven percent was due for amounts earned over $500,000.
As late as 2002, the top tax rate was 38.6 for taxable income over 307,050.
In 1980, the top tax rate was 70 percent.
In 1990, 28 percent.
In 2000, 39.6.
In recent years, the marginal rate has had a tendency to go up when there is a Democrat president and down when a Republican.
When married couples face any tax rate, they do exactly as corporations or proprietors do. They make every possible effort to legally maximize their deductions so their total tax bill will be lower. It would be foolish for them to do otherwise.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) does not have anything to do with tax rates. When AMT for individuals started, it was aimed at a handful of people who owed no income tax. A Similar AMT was started for corporations. AMT decreases the mount of deductions one can take when income gets to a certain level. AMT is not indexed to inflation and it hits more and more people each year. Under AMT, one might have a higher taxable income and a higher tax payment but the tax rates remain the same.
Quote from: DanCookson on August 15, 2008, 07:56:57 AM
Quote from: srkruzich on August 14, 2008, 10:47:42 PM
Quote from: pam on August 14, 2008, 02:49:34 PM
All arguments about oil companies aside..... I watched a report on the CBS news last night about 65% of foreign companies not paying taxes,I get that because giving them tax breaks is how we get them to do business here, most countries do that. But they also said about 62% of american companies don't pay taxes. Does anybody know anything about this?
Corporations don't pay taxes.
Sorry, but corporations do pay taxes. We pay corporate income taxes, state income taxes, and matching Federal and State withholding taxes. At least my corporation does.
That's what I thought! Was just wondering where the info on the report came from, they didn't go into any great detail. It was one of those if you blinked you missed it reports, it just caught my attention because I knew why foreign companies get tax breaks
Quote from: DanCookson on August 15, 2008, 07:56:57 AM
Quote from: srkruzich on August 14, 2008, 10:47:42 PM
Quote from: pam on August 14, 2008, 02:49:34 PM
All arguments about oil companies aside..... I watched a report on the CBS news last night about 65% of foreign companies not paying taxes,I get that because giving them tax breaks is how we get them to do business here, most countries do that. But they also said about 62% of american companies don't pay taxes. Does anybody know anything about this?
Corporations don't pay taxes.
Sorry, but corporations do pay taxes. We pay corporate income taxes, state income taxes, and matching Federal and State withholding taxes. At least my corporation does.
Well if you have taxable income yea, but most corps don't. They invest back into their business or take whatever profit there might be and that goes to salary which is taxed as income tax.
Usually a corp can come up with enough deductions to eliminate taxes. I know 2/3'd of this countrys corps don't pay taxes at all.
NYT did a big article on it recently.
Hmmmmmmmm...sounds like those corporations meet with their Farm Management personnel. I guess it's hard to hide a good thing like not paying taxes. Now...did that get everyone going again? It's been WAY too quiet on here.