Idiotic e-mail re: Social Security

dammit... is it even worth it to respond?

Gawd I hate this shit.



Many years ago in Seattle, two wonderful neighbors, Elliott and Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on a regular basis. They were a great couple full of laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel at.

Both are now deceased, but their stories remain. During the years of our friendship we had many, many discussions about his parents (President Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother never intended for the Social Security and Welfare programs to turn out the way they are today. Elliott used to say that if his mother returned to earth and saw what the politicians had done to their programs she would have burned all of them in hell.

Here is a story I received today regarding the Social Security Program and I immediately thought of Elliott's comments.

Hope you will read this and think about it. Margaret




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,
This one is my favorite... yeah, and the founding fathers never set up an income tax... why can't regressive idiots figure out that sometimes change is necessary, and sometimes even BENEFICIAL?

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?

AND MY FAVORITE:

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 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!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be
planted and maybe good changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.

That thing gave me a headache. Wrong, wrong, wrong. x(

SOCIAL SECURITY:

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

In 1932 President Hoover - a Republican - recommended that the concentration of health education and recreational activities be incorporated into a single executive department. FDR followed up on this recommendation, and in the first 100 days of his Presidency, Congress committed the country to extraordinary reforms with the Federal Government assuming responsibility for the welfare of millions of unemployed. (http://www.ssa.gov/history/1930.html)

The Ways & Means Committee Report on the Social Security Act was introduced in the House on April 4, 1935 and debate began on April 11th. After several days of debate, the bill was passed in the House on April 19, 1935 by a vote of 372 yeas, 33 nays, 2 present, and 25 not voting.

The bill was reported out by the Senate Finance Committee on May 13, 1935 and introduced in the Senate on June 12th. The debate lasted until June 19th, when the Social Security Act was passed by a vote of 77 yeas, 6 nays, and 12 not voting. (http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally.html) (Note: Apparently, this was a fairly popular bill, seeing how neither vote was exactly along party lines)

Here is the bill in it's entirety: http://www.usconstitution.com/SocialSecurityActof1935.htm


He promised:

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

- This refers to States, not individuals. States can voluntarily join or not join. Individuals must follow the decision of their state of residence.

Also note that according to section 906, engaging in “interstate commerce” doesn't get you out of paying your social security contributions to your state.

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

- Wrong again, alligator teeth - try the first $3000, as spelled out in the Social Security Bill H.R. 7260, Public Law No. 271, 74th Congress (see above link)

(SEC. 811. When used in this title- (a) The term wages means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include that part of the remuneration which, after remuneration equal to $3,000 has been paid to an individual by an employer with respect to employment during any calendar year, is paid to such individual by such employer with respect to employment during such calendar year.)

- and the tax rate was, 1% only from '36-42, 2% from '43-48, and 3% thereafter, as signed into law overwhelmingly by Congress and FDR. The increasing rate was due to the assumption that the U.S. and the world would be slowly pulling out of the Great Depression, and Congress and FDR knew that keeping money in the hands of the Working Class was the way to drive the economy. Since the Working Class were the ones paying for this (the upper class would have barely noticed the deduction from their first 3 grand), Congress and FDR wanted recovery to be well under way before fully funding Social Security through payroll deductions.

(SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date: (1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum. (2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall be 1 per centum. (3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum. (4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 per centum. (5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum.)

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

- Wrong again. Sheesh! Social Security Payroll taxes have NEVER been deductible for individual workers. Employers, on the other hand may deduct their portion of S.S. contributions for their employers from their business income for tax purposes. Again, from the original bill as passed by Congress and FDR (I left out the part that says employers can deduct. See sections 901 and 902 under section IX for that clause)

DEDUCTIBILITY FROM INCOME TAX

SEC. 803. For the purposes of the income tax imposed by Title I of the Revenue Act of 1934 or by any Act of Congress in substitution therefor, the tax imposed by section 801 shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year in which such tax is deducted from his wages.

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,

- This is the first correct thing you've said so far. Congratulations, you got one mostly right. You win a cookie. (primarily spelled out, albeit very succinctly, in section 201 d and e)

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

- I can find no provision in the bill to this effect. If you find something in the bill, please point it out to me. Until such time as someone points out this provision within the bill, you are WRONG AGAIN!! BWAHAHAHA!!!

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% (safe bet that nobody reading this is getting taxed on anything close to 85%, and if you are, you're making so much freaking money that I have no sympathy because you can afford it anyway) 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? Neither. This never happened. See below, from the SocialSecurityOnline History pages (http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html and http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html)

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."

(For a detailed explanation of how the Trust Fund works, provided by the Social Security Administration's actuaries, see the material available elsewhere on our website.)

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. (The budget treatment of the Trust Funds is explained in more detail elsewhere on our website.)

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. Wrong!!! See above, you twit.

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

A: The Democratic Party. Wrong again. Neither party did. There NEVER was an income tax deduction for Social Security withholding. Sheesh, do you ever get ANYTHING right?

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. You are SO pathetically wrong. I feel sorry for you. Reagan did this in 1983. Are you stupid, or just completely misinformed? Read below and weep, dimwit: (also from the SSA Online history page) Note that in '93 legislation was passed that allowed for higher income beneficiaries to have up to 85% of their S.S. benefits taxed. However, most people paid tax on the 50% (Reagan) rate, or none at all. See the two articles below for details.

RE: Taxing SS benefits:

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.

The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.

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.

Re: 85% of benefits subject to taxation:

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.)

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? Neither (this is getting tedious, don't you think?

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! You are SO wrong. Does your mom have to tie your shoes for you, after she takes them off and switches them so they're on the correct feet? Nobody collects unless they pay into the system, period. Read below, AGAIN.

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 (a Republican) 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.

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving (you have monster balls to be talking about lying, dude) 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! It's truly amazing what uninformed citizens believe. For instance, Iraq was involved in 9/11, had WMD's, had links to Al Qaeda, and was an imminent threat to America, and that Social Security is in a crisis. But those are different rants.

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year! No doubt about that! That's twice you've been correct. You win a Cupie Doll.

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

How many people can YOU send this to? Tell you what, I'll post it so all 4 of our readers can see it!

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

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

You know, it really hacks me off when people are so frikking lazy that they have to borrow words from other people and not even give credit to the person who's words they borrow. This last quote was originally said by Ronald Reagan. You're welcome.

:yourock:

Bookmarking this for the next time it comes up... which I'm sure it will.

Thank you thank you thank you thank you.

People like you are what make this place so wonderful. :hi: