16 replies to this topic

[cw68]

Not so fast. Don't be one of those uninformed citizens.

1. There was no provision in the 1935 act (or ever) for the payment to be voluntary. However, it did originally apply only to "workers in commerce and industry" (except railroads). Gov't workers, farm workers, lawyers, and the like didn't have to pay. Now nearly all those exemptions have been phased out.

2. It was never limited to the first $1,400 of income, nor to permanently fix the rate at 1%. It had a built-in increased contribution rate from the start, though it did end at 3% in 1948.

3. The original 1935 act specifically stated that SS payroll taxes were NOT to be allowed as income tax deductions. They've never been deductible.

4. The funds haven't ever been put into the "general operating fund." However, this issue is a little sticky. See link for details.

5. The Treasury Dept ruled in 1938 and 1941 that SS benefits were not taxable income, it wasn't ever part of the SS act (or any other law). Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the act enacted in 1983. Reagan's Greenspan Commission proposed it. The House, with Democrat majority, passed it with votes from both parties and Reagan signed it into law.

6. NO ONE - whether a citizen, immigrant or illegal alien - is eligible to collect SS benefits unless they (or parent/spouse) has paid into the system. That's Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is financed by general revenues and not Social Security (SS) taxes. That was enacted and signed into law in 1972, during Nixon's administration (a Republican).

http://www.snopes.co...ity/changes.asp

[folsombound]

Not so fast. Don't be one of those uninformed citizens.

1. There was no provision in the 1935 act (or ever) for the payment to be voluntary. However, it did originally apply only to "workers in commerce and industry" (except railroads). Gov't workers, farm workers, lawyers, and the like didn't have to pay. Now nearly all those exemptions have been phased out.

2. It was never limited to the first $1,400 of income, nor to permanently fix the rate at 1%. It had a built-in increased contribution rate from the start, though it did end at 3% in 1948.

3. The original 1935 act specifically stated that SS payroll taxes were NOT to be allowed as income tax deductions. They've never been deductible.

4. The funds haven't ever been put into the "general operating fund." However, this issue is a little sticky. See link for details.

5. The Treasury Dept ruled in 1938 and 1941 that SS benefits were not taxable income, it wasn't ever part of the SS act (or any other law). Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the act enacted in 1983. Reagan's Greenspan Commission proposed it. The House, with Democrat majority, passed it with votes from both parties and Reagan signed it into law.

6. NO ONE - whether a citizen, immigrant or illegal alien - is eligible to collect SS benefits unless they (or parent/spouse) has paid into the system. That's Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is financed by general revenues and not Social Security (SS) taxes. That was enacted and signed into law in 1972, during Nixon's administration (a Republican).

http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp

Thanks for setting the record straight. These 'Tea Party' accusations are getting old.

[cw68]

Thanks for setting the record straight. These 'Tea Party' accusations are getting old.

From my brief readings this has been circulated since 2001. No Tea Party then.

[folsombound]

From my brief readings this has been circulated since 2001. No Tea Party then.

They were there, just didn't have the name attached.

[The Average Joe]

Thanks for setting the record straight. These 'Tea Party' accusations are getting old.

Yes, yours are.

[Folsom_Blues]

Why are people so against Social Security? Are ya'll independently wealthy? Stock market whizzes? Go ahead and lookup senior citizen poverty before and after SS was enacted. It's a runaway success. I wish SS was BIGGER. I save quite a bit of my money, but I feel like sometimes I am playing with sharks. One market crash can wipe out decades of savings.

Here's an article touting a larger, more robust SS:
http://www.slate.com...nvestment_.html

[Carl G]

Why are people so against Social Security? Are ya'll independently wealthy? Stock market whizzes? Go ahead and lookup senior citizen poverty before and after SS was enacted. It's a runaway success. I wish SS was BIGGER. I save quite a bit of my money, but I feel like sometimes I am playing with sharks. One market crash can wipe out decades of savings.

Here's an article touting a larger, more robust SS:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/12/28/social_security_is_the_best_investment_.html

If all the money I've put into SS went into a personal account for myself, I would have WAY more money than I will ever receive. When I retire SS will be heavily means tested so people such as myself who actually saved for retirement will never collect anything close to what I was forced to invest.

[andy]

If all the money I've put into SS went into a personal account for myself, I would have WAY more money than I will ever receive. When I retire SS will be heavily means tested so people such as myself who actually saved for retirement will never collect anything close to what I was forced to invest.

Your first statement is simply not true...though if you could put away 6 percent of your income and retire comfortably do it...the money SSI is taking from you doesn't really stand in the way. Of course, one bit of bad luck and you'll starve, but what the heck?

The second statement is just conjecture about the future not based in fact...want to avoid that future? Don't vote for the people like Paul Ryan trying to dismantle government as we know it.

SSI does a lot more for us than you think...it's not just old people. When my uncle died unexpectedly in an accident and left two young children, SSI was there for them. It's one of the greatest programs our government has ever developed.

We form governments and civil societies to protect us from the harshest of realities. SSI is merely an extension of that mindset. From my perspective, dismantling for the sake of individual greed is a step backward, not forward.

[Carl G]

Your first statement is simply not true...though if you could put away 6 percent of your income and retire comfortably do it...the money SSI is taking from you doesn't really stand in the way. Of course, one bit of bad luck and you'll starve, but what the heck?

The second statement is just conjecture about the future not based in fact...want to avoid that future? Don't vote for the people like Paul Ryan trying to dismantle government as we know it.

SSI does a lot more for us than you think...it's not just old people. When my uncle died unexpectedly in an accident and left two young children, SSI was there for them. It's one of the greatest programs our government has ever developed.

We form governments and civil societies to protect us from the harshest of realities. SSI is merely an extension of that mindset. From my perspective, dismantling for the sake of individual greed is a step backward, not forward.

My first statement is very true. If you don't believe me, check what the SSA says about your rate of return. If I'm reading it correctly, my best rate of return is 2.62%. I don't know about you, but my retirement savings do WAY better that 2.62%.

Its already been discussed, but SS is going broke. There won't be enough people paying in to guarantee that SS pays out. This is why I believe that SS will be means tested. Again, those of us who have been responsible in planning for our retirement will support those how haven't.

[Folsom_Blues]

Well, if your money was invested with MF Global, 50% could be wiped out at any time due to corporate malfeasance.

http://www.bloomberg...-memo-says.html

[Robert Giacometti]

Well, if your money was invested with MF Global, 50% could be wiped out at any time due to corporate malfeasance.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-23/mf-global-s-corzine-ordered-funds-moved-to-jpmorgan-memo-says.html

Who do you think has lost more money since their existence through malfeasance, MF Global or our Government?

[Robert Giacometti]

Your first statement is simply not true...though if you could put away 6 percent of your income and retire comfortably do it...the money SSI is taking from you doesn't really stand in the way. Of course, one bit of bad luck and you'll starve, but what the heck?

The second statement is just conjecture about the future not based in fact...want to avoid that future? Don't vote for the people like Paul Ryan trying to dismantle government as we know it.

SSI does a lot more for us than you think...it's not just old people. When my uncle died unexpectedly in an accident and left two young children, SSI was there for them. It's one of the greatest programs our government has ever developed.

We form governments and civil societies to protect us from the harshest of realities. SSI is merely an extension of that mindset. From my perspective, dismantling for the sake of individual greed is a step backward, not forward.

As a self employed person I have to pay twice as much into SS compared to the typical employee. If I had all the money I've paid into SS over the last 42 years earning the the same rate of return that SS earns, I'd be out bassfishing today on my new bassboat, RETIRED!

I'm a big supporter of SS and don't dwell on the fact that I'll never get back what I paid into the system, because I know both sets of my grandparents and my mother & father have benefitted from this program. I worry about what is going to happen to my children.

[The Average Joe]

That's why you don't put all your money into one thing whether a single fund, real estate, bonds or tangible assets.
Paul Ryan is the only one I've seen that actually HAS A PLAN to cut spending and eliminate the deficit. What exactly do you not like about that? Or are you merely parroting talking points? Obama's plan adds 10 trillion dollars to the deficit over the next ten years with NO PLAN to EVER cut the deficit.
The dems haven't even PROPOSED a budget in nearly 1100 days. That's over 3 years of malfeasance.

But yeah, spout on about how Paul Ryan is dooming us all...

BTW, the last dem attack on Paul Ryan's budget from last year (granny over a cliff) was classified as the liar, liar, pants on fire lie of the year by politifact.

The house WILL pass this budget. What will the democrats in the senate do? Kill it without a vote. Cry evil reps. Scare old folks with blather..

AND OFFER NOTHING IN THE WAY OF A PLAN IN SPITE OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE TO DO SO.

[andy]

Paul Ryan is the only one I've seen that actually HAS A PLAN to cut spending and eliminate the deficit. What exactly do you not like about that?

That's because some of us (including a lot of decorated economists) don't believe that we need to cut spending and that this is the wrong time to worry about the deficit. Hence, his is the only plan to do those things. I'd prefer he focus on accomplishing something rather than proposing things that won't happen.

I recently read Bill Clinton's book "Back to Work" - a lot of folks may not agree with his politics, which is okay, but his book was really informative about business, finance, and government opportunities that folks on both sides are missing out on as obvious solutions to our problems that both sides ought to be able to live with.

Hopefully sometime soon both sides will work on something everyone can accept and resolve our issues. It worked in the 90s; it can work again.