Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/22/2004 4:27:28 PM EST
... Although this isn't a substantial issue to me this election year, it is to a huge voting block.

... I want to believe in President Bush's call for privatized Social Security, but hey, it's been four years and nothing of substance has happened that will allow me more control over how I invest for my retirement.

... Seriously, an easy option is John Kerry's proposal - Just raises the tax. I think a lot of baby boomer's will agree.

.. Your opinions / suggestions / rants solicited
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 4:32:43 PM EST
Social security is a scam. It's a ponzi scheme, it simply uses the current people to pay for those that come before.

It's going to have to go away eventually, unless it becomes a government-mandated savings plan.

So can it now, before we go broke attempting to pay for it.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 4:36:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/22/2004 4:37:01 PM EST by warlord]

Originally Posted By ASUsax:
Social security is a scam. It's a ponzi scheme, it simply uses the current people to pay for those that come before.

It's going to have to go away eventually, unless it becomes a government-mandated savings plan.

So can it now, before we go broke attempting to pay for it.


The system only worked because they were/is a huge number of baby boomers supporting it. When the baby boomers stop supporting it, the pyramid scheme is going to collapse. And the boomers start to draw on it. Its a double-whammy.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 4:37:14 PM EST
I would prefer to save it on my own, so i know it will be there for me when i need it. You always hear about SS being in trouble. I sure would like to have back what i have put in so far.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 4:38:13 PM EST
Privatize hell. Give me my money back that I've put in so far, with the interest I'm due, and never take it out of my paycheck again. I'll betcha I can invest it for my future better the the .gov can provide for me.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 4:42:58 PM EST
I can think of a hell of a lot of places to put what they deduct from my check each week! Privatizing makes sense, most private companies really HAVE to have a balanced budget to stay in business, what does the .gov know about balancing the budget? Higher taxes just mean more burden on the middle income folks. Give us back the money so it can be invested for each person's individual future.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 4:51:58 PM EST
food for thought

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 would therefore only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program.
>
> 5. That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
>
> Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and some 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" decisive 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 Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even thought 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!
>
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 5:08:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/22/2004 5:10:20 PM EST by Winston_Wolf]
... woulda, shoulda, coulda

... Looky, many of us here have paid in the MAXIMUM for years, and may never see anything to show for it. In principle, I am for the idea of social security. I see too many elderly friends and relatives that RELY on SS for sustenance. My monthly contribution isn't gonna be missed by me, as bad as my auntie not getting enough money to cover her electric bill.

... I'm not talking the past, I'm asking you good people how it can be saved.

... Just in case something goes south with your retirement plans and there is nothing but SS for you to fall back on
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 5:09:26 PM EST
I have never counted on relying on "Social Security". I consider payments into it to be just the same as the rest of my taxes, going into a big hole and I'll never see it again.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 5:11:24 PM EST
i love working two jobs just so i have more money to pay out to grandma.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 5:16:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... Seriously, an easy option is John Kerry's proposal - Just raises the tax. I think a lot of baby boomer's will agree.

Sure it's an easy solution. And 20 years from now when it isn't enough anymore it'll be just as easy to increase the tax again. Everytime it starts to run out, just increase the tax. Nice and easy. Anybody who can't see where that road leads is stupid enough to vote democrat.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 5:22:12 PM EST
Privatize. This is part of the overall Republican/Bush plan to create "ownership" and a stake in all facets of economic life in America for all our future citizens. There are many other parts to this overall grand scheme too...but this is a fundamental pillar: Get people off of the government teat and start depending on themselves rather than patronage from politicians and stolen money from other citizens for their support.

This would represent a major sea change from the nanny state first fully implemented by the Democrats in the '30s. This is a GREAT idea...and would do wonders to stir the economy and create a great class of entrepenurial investors.

Protect the old dodos (Me included!) but let the kids make investments that best suit themselves!

Damn! When I consider how much money I'd have now had I been investing just say...25% of my SS tax throughout my lifetime...I'd be one RICH MoFo. Instead, I've been just giving it all to Uncle Sugar for "him" to "hold" for me...when I retire. Ain't hardly going to be enough.

Bush is right...Kerry is a socialist boob who thinks gubmint can do a better job than we can with our money. BS! Since I began investing my $$$ after I retired from the Navy, I've done very well...and a DAMN sight better than what SS has been "earning" me over the same number of years.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 5:28:38 PM EST
"give me my money back" isn't constructive at all.

Your money's been spent, the trust fund is full of bonds, backed by the states ability to tax you some more, and nothing more.

SS isn't going away, much as it should. Only a complete breakdown of the system will kill it, and that's a likely outcome since the vast majority of the unfunded liabilities are medicare obligations and that program will run a deficit NEXT YEAR.

Bush's plan to put 3% of your contribution in a private account is a sneeze in a hurricane.

I'm not sure what Kerrys plan is but taxes will have to raised AND benefits cut to have any hope of making the system solvent.

The new Bush prescription drug plan added $6Trillion to the unfunded liabilities, the democrats plan woulda been worse.

If I were in charge I'd remove the cap from the payroll tax, seperate the revenue stream from the general fund so we're not spending it on other expenses, MONETIZE THE DEBT currently in the trust fund, and make the resultant cash and any future surpluses available for long-term financing on private infrastructure projects like energy and transportation.

If that wasn't enough I'd start means testing for benefits, and if that wasn't enough I'd make it mandatory to turn in your drivers license to draw retirement benefits, get the old farts off the roads.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 5:42:20 PM EST
Privatize it before it destroys the economy.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 5:44:13 PM EST
Chile privitized the whole system years ago and all are better off. A number of the newly freed Eastern European Countries have done the same and their people will be better off. Start at age 21 and save $2000 per year and you will have well over a $million at 65. At 65 under SSN you have a lot less.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 5:49:47 PM EST
That's true but how do you fund the system for 40 years until people who've been paying in to the socialist system die off?

If we're going to kill it we should kill it, privatization is a pipedream.

Those investment models are bogus. over generational timeframes the return from the stockmarket barely beats inflation, particularly when you start with P/E multiples where they are now.

Recent market returns and inflation rates are not typical or sustainable.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 6:27:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/22/2004 6:29:45 PM EST by Atencio]
Pretty much read all your questions word for word from the Social Security website under "myths" so take it as you see fit.


Originally Posted By leo6223:

food for thought

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

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



Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes. The only exception is if your job is not covered by Social Security such as mine.



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 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.


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


There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.


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


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." This story got started when Johnson enacted a single federal budget on paper.


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


Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program.


In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department


Can't argue with this one other than the Amendment was the creation of Regan/Greenspan


Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and some 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.



see number 4 above.


Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding:
A. The democratic party


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


Q: Which political party started taxing social security annuities?
A. The Democratic party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" decisive vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice-President of the U.S.



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. (This question is actually funny because in a previous question you mention the 1983 Amendments and blame Congress then but then in this question blame Al Gore who if I remember rightly was not Ronald Regans Vice President. )
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.



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 Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even thought they never paid a dime into it!!!!


There's a little more to the story than that. The U.S. government has agreements with 20 odd foreign countries that under a totalization agreement between two countries, workers could accumulate enough credits to qualify for Social Security benefits in either country. So technically it could benefit a U.S. worker also though the benefits are far greater for the other country, ie: Mexico.

Also do not confuse social security benefits with the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) which is a welfare program and open to anyone in need regardless of citizenship.


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!


I know you probably pasted the info word for word from another source. As is usually the case much of the info given falls into the category of "Hi, I am a Nigerian banker and I need your help"

But you ended up disappointing me, you left out one of the questions:

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

see you screwed up on this one. Up above when you mentioned Al Gore as casting the "tie breaker" on the "Which political party started taxing social security annuities?" question, it actually had to do with this question.

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

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

Now lets get out there and not be uninformed citizens.




Link Posted: 9/22/2004 7:27:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By Atencio:
Now lets get out there and not be uninformed citizens.







Do we HAVE to? Being uninformed is so much easier !!
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 8:10:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By Atencio:

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



... That, my friend, is all I was asking

... I vote for fiscal responsibility, that's all
Top Top