(Lake Martin Specific)
111,183 messages
Updated 6/9/2024 1:00:09 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,677 messages
Updated 6/15/2024 9:40:12 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,197 messages
Updated 6/10/2024 5:39:11 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,171 messages
Updated 5/29/2024 10:51:34 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,170 messages
Updated 6/10/2024 6:29:37 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,261 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,977 messages
Updated 6/10/2024 6:30:23 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Social Security
|
|
Date:
|
9/15/2008 5:32:06 PM
|
It doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or 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 may
now be 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!
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Social Security
|
|
Date:
|
9/15/2008 5:58:54 PM
|
Facts ARE facts, but wrong is also wrong; a little research can help you discern real facts from internet fodder. Case in point: this popular email that you have posted, which is easily busted by Snopes.
"The Social Security system has been a contentious political issue ever since it was proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and implemented in 1935. Arguments regarding how the system should be used, administered, and funded — and even whether it should exist at all — have been the subject of debate for many decades now. In this vein, the above-quoted item seeks to enumerate (and assign blame for) alterations to Social Security that have supposedly betrayed the intent of the system as originally conceived back in the 1930s. Most of the entries contained therein, however, are inaccurate regarding what changes were made and/or who was responsible for making them:
. . . participation in the Program would be completely voluntary
There was no provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 (nor has there ever been any provision) for the payment of Social Security payroll taxes (now commonly known as FICA, from an acronym for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to be voluntary. Since the inception of the Social Security program, the law has required that payroll taxes for persons working at jobs covered by Social Security "shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid."
It is true that Social Security provisions originally applied only to "workers in commerce and industry (except railroads) under age 65 in the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii, and on American vessels," and thus those who worked in fields not designated as "commerce and industry" (e.g., government workers, farm workers, doctors, lawyers) neither paid into the Social Security fund nor received benefits from it. Nearly all of those exemptions have been since phased out.
. . . participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program
Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was there any provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 to permanently fix the tax rate at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years:
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 1 1/2 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 1/2 per centum.
(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum.
These figures have been adjusted many times over the years. Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, as of 2005 participants pay 6.2% of the first $90,000 of their income (with their employers contributing a like sum) into what is commonly known as OASDI (from an acronym for Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance, the official name of the basic retirement benefits portion of the Social Security program).
. . . the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year
The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that Social Security payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions:
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.
Social Security payroll taxes have never been deductible from income for tax purposes, either when the program was originally instituted or at any time since.
. . . 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
The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the "general operating fund."
However, whether the Social Security Trust Fund can truly be said to be "independent" is problematic. The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only "be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government," such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). The government "pays back" this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds, but critics of the program contend Social Security will eventually fall into deficit by 2018, and the Treasury won't have the necessary cash on hand to redeem the bonds and pay back the fund. As the Social Security and Medicare Trustees themselves noted in their 2005 Annual Report:
In 2005 the Social Security tax income surplus is estimated to be more than offset by the shortfall in tax and premium income for Medicare, resulting in a small overall cash shortfall that must be covered by transfers from general fund revenues. The combined shortfall is projected to grow each year such that by 2017 net revenue flows from the general fund to the trust funds will total $515 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP. Since neither the interest paid on the Treasury bonds held in the HI [Hospital Insurance] and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of the required Treasury payments to these trust funds must be financed by some combination of increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing and debt, or a reduction in other government expenditures. Thus, these payments along with the 75 percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI will add greatly to pressures on Federal general fund revenues much sooner than is generally appreciated.
. . . the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income
It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983.
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.
As noted above, the monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been "put into the general fund." The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that a
URL: Easy-to-read version
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Social Security
|
|
Date:
|
9/15/2008 8:22:15 PM
|
Thanks for admitting you were wrong.
|
| Name: |
Lady
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Social Security
|
|
Date:
|
9/15/2008 9:20:57 PM
|
Huh? Who was wrong? MythBuster was 100% correct. Check out the FACTS!
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Social Security
|
|
Date:
|
9/16/2008 4:51:26 PM
|
Help me out with something ...
Why is it that our elected officials in congress do not pay FICA and can have their own self directed pension fund, but when Bush proposed giving ALL americans that option for just a portion of their SS payments (and phased in based on age) ... the democrats in congress screamed that it would destroy SS.
Do you think it was because they like access to that money? Doesn't it make sense to have a fund for each person rather than a pool of money with no "earnings" like interest or dividends?
I am 52 years old. The govenernment can have all the money I have paid in ... just let me out.
But instead, Obama proposes to tax and even higher level of wages and still leave the rate the same. So let me get this, based on wanting to go back to 50% federal tax on high wage earners, plus 12% for SS & Medicare, plus 6-8% for most state taxes .... that is 68% of my earnings will be paid in taxes. Then I get to keep 32% of what I make and pay sales taxes on what I buy, and property taxes.
At very least if he plans to tax all wages, then lower the percentage ... that would even help the lower income earners. He just doesn't get it.
And all of these higher taxes will not hurt the economy? People have less to spend and less to invest. Oh yeah, that is a great economic policy and will really incent people to work harder to pay more taxes.
God help us !!!!
|
| Name: |
Lady
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Social Security
|
|
Date:
|
9/16/2008 5:29:34 PM
|
This is to those that have not made up their mind about whom you will vote for in the upcoming election! Some of you will vote for McCain (no matter what) and some of you will vote for Obama (no matter what). If you're in these groups, stop reading now.
But if your mind is still open, I'd like you to consider this.
I watched both the Democratic and Republican conventions. One of the often repeated assertions during the Republican convention was that taxes would rise under Obama. I did some investigating and this is what I found (published by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institute). The Republicans are incorrect, unless your income is over $227,000.00. The table below shows you how your taxes will change under both McCain and Obama. In other words, if your income is between $66,000 and $112,000, you'd pay $281.00 less if Obama is President. If your income happens to be somewhere between $38,000 and $66,00, you'd pay $723.00 less a year under Obama. It's pretty easy to see that McCain really does favor tax breaks for the wealthy and Obama favors them for the middle class. Let me encourage you to look at your income on this table and see the change that will occur.
MCCAIN OBAMA
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892
Under $19K -$19 -$567
Obama would increase the top income tax bracket from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. So there’s no argument that for the wealthiest Americans, the taxman cometh under Obama’s plan. But there would be no change in tax rates for families with an adjusted gross income of less than $250,000. Translation: most Americans. Obama also would increase capital gains and dividend taxes rates from 15 percent to 20 percent for those who make over $250,000. Obama also proposes a $1,000 tax credit on income for working families ($500 for singles), to offset payroll taxes.
There are a host of stories and editorials from major newspapers and political Web sites that conclude Obama’s plan would result in a tax cut for most middle class Americans. There’s even an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that concludes, “Overall, Sen. Obama’s middle-class tax cuts are larger than his partial rollbacks for families earning over $250,000, making the proposal as a whole a net tax cut and reducing revenues to less than 18.2% of GDP -- the level of taxes that prevailed under President Reagan.”
|
| Name: |
Lady
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Average tax bill
|
|
Date:
|
9/16/2008 5:38:24 PM
|
I'll try one more time to make the chart in the above post more clear.
...................................MCCAIN....................... OBAMA
Income...................... Avg. tax bill.................... Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M................... -$269,364................. +$701,885
$603K and up................ -$45,361................... +$115,974
$227K-$603K.................. -$7,871.................... +$12
$161K-$227K................... -$4,380.................... -$2,789
$112K-$161K ...................-$2,614.................... -$2,204
$66K-$112K.................... -$1,009..................... -$1,290
$38K-$66K....................... -$319 ......................-$1,042
$19K-$38K........................ -$113...................... -$892
Under $19K....................... -$19......................... -$567
Again, check your income. Which will be better for you?
|
| Name: |
AUCATZ
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Average tax bill
|
|
Date:
|
9/16/2008 6:27:53 PM
|
First of all, this will never happen. Congress has been in the hands of the 'reformer' Democrats for the last few years. What has happened in that time? Where are all the changes they were going to make? They have the lowest approval rating of all time because they have done nothing.
Everyone wants 'Change'. Everyone wants a better life. Not everyone depends on the government to provide that for them (welfare, more government spending, socialized health care, etc.).
I don't vote for a party - I vote for a person. In this election I am not avidly 'for' either candidate. However, I won't vote for smoke and mirrors. That is what Obama is providing - a lot of pretty speeches with no substance. Will McCain be better? I don't know, but what I DO know is that he has a proven record of actually accomplishing something tangible over the years of public service. What we have from Obama is pretty much nil. The one piece of legislation his party is claiming is the sex education piece. He voted for Bush policy more than not - only superceded by his 'present' votes which count for nothing.
I am very tired of all the petty personal attacks on both sides. All either party needs to do is provide the facts and let everyone decide. Not, mind you, a skewed version of the facts - but the entire story. Of course, when you don't have a track record to provide, then you have to do your magic act.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Wrong Again
|
|
Date:
|
9/16/2008 7:20:40 PM
|
1st he can not do what he is saying along with $1 trillion of new spending ... yes trillion.
Also the "reduction" you show under McCanin is not a reduction, it is maintaining the rates in place now. And your increase is understated because it is on top of letting the Bush tax cuts expire so your "increase" is understated and your "decrease" is over stated since much of that is in place today.
On top of that, one of the MOST important tax cuts Bush implemented that created jobs was the section 179 deduction for small businesses. This would go away under Obama as he lets the tax cuts expire. This hurts the "little" guy the small businesses that create the most jobs in our economy. Not the big corporations.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
