Social (in)Security

[Stick]

Just in case some of you folks didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. 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 should never be taxed as income, since many of have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month then finding that they’re getting taxed on 85% of the money they paid to the Federal government to 'put away.'

Here's a few interesting FACTS:
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 US .
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! It was 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 violating the original FICA contract, 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 know these facts?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM. KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN YOU EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE

[MORTARDUDE]

Anyone who reads the above also might want to read this :

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp

I could not copy and paste it here.

BOTH PARTIES have equal blame as far has continuing the CRIMINAL PONZI SCHEME that Social Security and Medicare have become. No matter if the President is Republican or Democrat, who runs the Senate or the House, UNFUNDED LIABILITES continue to accrue and the "SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND" continues to be filled with IOUs, which are in effect owned by foreign countries, including our enemies such as Communist China. It amazes me how well informed, intelligent folks on here continue to fall for the US vs. Them model, and do not place blame on all the politicians in D. C. for the economic collapse that is looming. The budget that is passed each year is a sham. It does not include "off budget items", "unfunded liabilities", and more. Only in America, does the populace sit back fat, dumb, and complacent while our real national debt is approaching $ 100 TRILLION DOLLARS with 70 MILLION BABY BOOMERS ready to take their share of the nothing that will be left.

WAKE UP.

Larry

[MORTARDUDE]

This is the real story about Congressional pensions. The last line of the first post is BS.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=20

Members of Congress began paying into Social Security in 1983, as part of a government-wide pension overhaul. This is a requirement, and Members may not opt out of it. They then have the option of participating in one of two pension plans, depending upon when they were elected (most of them do). If elected before 1984, they participate in the Civil Service Retirement System; if elected 1984 and after, they participate in the Federal Employee Retirement System. These two plans are also offered to rank and file federal employees, EXCEPT that the Congressional plan's benefit is calculated on a more generous formula than that offered to most other government workers. The "accrual rate" is much higher, and lawmakers tend to be able to retire earlier with benefits than other federal workers (as early as age 50).

Also, Members of Congress may participate in the government-wide Thrift Savings Plan, which works like a federally-managed 401 (k) salary reduction plan. FERS participants are entitled to a government match of up to five percent of salary; CSRS participants may set aside part of their own salary, but they do not receive the match.

In both cases, Members of Congress do contribute to their pension plans, although the rates are somewhat complicated by the fact that since 1983, lawmakers have been required to pay into Social Security. Members elected before 1984 must pay 8 percent of their salaries into the pension plan, but may elect a "Social Security offset" provision that allows them to split the pay-in (6.2 percent for Social Security and 1.8 percent for the pension.) The result is that upon retirement, Members receive a pension that is reduced by the amount of Social Security that is attributable to Congressional service. Members elected in 1984 and thereafter pay 1.3 percent towards the pension and 6.2 percent to Social Security. This only compensates for about 1/5 of the typical lifetime benefit. We cover the rest as taxpayers.

With service of 20-25 years, a Member of Congress could retire with up to 80 percent of his or her final salary replaced. Of course, the only cap on how fast their benefits rise is the rate of increase in CPI. For this reason, Congressional pensions can and frequently do exceed a Member's final salary, but only after a few years in retirement, when COLAs begin to kick in. For example, a Member of Congress who could collect $5 million or more, if he or she retires in his/her fifties, lives until his/her eighties, and elects to leave a part of the pension benefit to a spouse, who then live 10 or more years longer. This could include George Mitchell, especially after his post-Congressional government service. With Cost of Living Adjustments, total payments over a lifetime can reach these levels (though the more typical payout is likely to be between $1 million and $2 million).

In the final analysis, Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector.

[reconeil]

Your:"We cover the rest as taxpayers" & "In the final analysis, Congressional pensions benefits are 2-3 more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector SEZ-IT-ALL,...for; "We The (Schnooks)" and/or bipartisan Big Brother financially-dictated vast majority of the Middle Class Private Sector Taxpayer.

Unfortunately, that's just how it has be.
Whether already wealthy & powerful before entering politics or becoming so (as many) AFTER entering politics, it just doesn't matter. Historically,...career Schnoorers*, Lords, Masters & Ruling Elite always fair much better than Peasantries in general will and ever will,...give or take a few years of TRUE Freedom after some revolution now and then.

Neil

*Schnoorer: a word of Jewish derivative loosely defined as;
"One continually living quite well by and from the labors of others".

[SuperScout]

OK, rather than do that, let's light a candle, to complete the chinese proverb. The GOP proposed a gradually weaning away from the governmental teat by allowing younger employees to contribute a very small portion of their SS into a private fund. Who complained the loudest? If memory serves me correctly, andit usually does, it was the Democrat party, or more affectionately known as Da Dims, who shot down the President's proposal.

Only posible solutions are:
1. Raise taxes to about 50% on everybody, no exceptions, to pay for the underfunded mandates. It might even have to be a higher amount.

2. Raise the amount of income that is taxable. It always mystified me as to why the cutoff amount favored the very high income earners. With a progressive income tax, the wealthier pay a higher percentage and higher actual amount of taxes. With Social security, the lower-wage employees pay a higher percentage of their income. Go figure.

3. Begin a partial privatization, starting with younger employees. With employees now entering the work force, offer them a complete opt-out, with an appropriate amount being invested in stable monies.

[MORTARDUDE]

Originally Posted by SuperScout

OK, rather than do that, let's light a candle, to complete the chinese proverb. The GOP proposed a gradually weaning away from the governmental teat by allowing younger employees to contribute a very small portion of their SS into a private fund. Who complained the loudest? If memory serves me correctly, andit usually does, it was the Democrat party, or more affectionately known as Da Dims, who shot down the President's proposal.

Only posible solutions are:
1. Raise taxes to about 50% on everybody, no exceptions, to pay for the underfunded mandates. It might even have to be a higher amount.

2. Raise the amount of income that is taxable. It always mystified me as to why the cutoff amount favored the very high income earners. With a progressive income tax, the wealthier pay a higher percentage and higher actual amount of taxes. With Social security, the lower-wage employees pay a higher percentage of their income. Go figure.

3. Begin a partial privatization, starting with younger employees. With employees now entering the work force, offer them a complete opt-out, with an appropriate amount being invested in stable monies.

Something needs to be done, like yesterday. Letting folks opt out still does not solve the "illusion" of the "Trust Fund" for everyone else. I suspect if even 20% paid into another fund, our Lifetime-Career-Politicians would find a devious way to use that money too. It not only happened with the FICA money and the Civil Service Retirement Fund, but any number of other "set aside funds". Until, and it will never happen until a true calamity befalls all of us, the Federal Government begins to use "accepted accounting methods" to account for their criminal activities, common sense will prevail.

Larry

[Gimpy]

Originally Posted by SuperScout

OK, rather than do that, let's light a candle, to complete the chinese proverb. The GOP proposed a gradually weaning away from the governmental teat by allowing younger employees to contribute a very small portion of their SS into a private fund. Who complained the loudest? If memory serves me correctly, andit usually does, it was the Democrat party, or more affectionately known as Da Dims, who shot down the President's proposal.

Only posible solutions are:
1. Raise taxes to about 50% on everybody, no exceptions, to pay for the underfunded mandates. It might even have to be a higher amount.

2. Raise the amount of income that is taxable. It always mystified me as to why the cutoff amount favored the very high income earners. With a progressive income tax, the wealthier pay a higher percentage and higher actual amount of taxes. With Social security, the lower-wage employees pay a higher percentage of their income. Go figure.

3. Begin a partial privatization, starting with younger employees. With employees now entering the work force, offer them a complete opt-out, with an appropriate amount being invested in stable monies.

This is just so much more BS!..........And, the American public saw through this a couple of years ago and will NOT stand for it now either!

Let's look at some F-A-C-T-S......., OK?

Fact - Social Security is entirely solvent and will pay full benefits at least through 2042 and even later.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security can pay all benefits through 2042 with no changes whatsoever.

Fact - The Social Security trust fund has accumulated a surplus of more than $1.5 trillion. That occurred because the fund collected more in payroll taxes from our paychecks than it paid out in benefit checks.

Fact - 49 million Americans now receive monthly Social Security checks. Of those, 38% are the disabled, and widows and their children. The remainder are retirees. More than 5 million children receive part of their family income from Social Security.

Fact - The current US Social Security program is a model of financial efficiency both for the government and for banks and businesses, in that 99% of all payroll taxes paid into the trust fund are paid out as benefits. Administrative overhead to run the program is only 1% of all monies paid in by us.

Fact - In 2018 at the earliest, monthly benefit checks sent out will be higher than the monthly payroll taxes collected by the Social Security trust fund. However, the surplus will keep growing until 2028 because of the interest that the Social Security trust fund earns in US Treasury Bonds.


Fact - If nothing at all is done to “reform” social security, it will still be able to pay 70% of full benefits even after 2052, at the worst case.


Fact - Payroll taxes ( FICA) are now withheld from US workers' paychecks on the first $97,000 of their annual incomes. That means that if a person earns $400,000 a year, he pays exactly the same FICA as the person who earns $97,000 a year. (This is the payroll tax cap, because it's capped at $97,000.)


Fact - If the payroll tax cap was raised to $200,000 per year, there would be NO Social Security funding gap for more than 100 years! (Now THERE is a "solution"!----Gimp)


Fact - When President Bush stated that he will not raise taxes to "reform" Social Security, that means he would not ask the wealthy to pay more because he refuses to raise the payroll tax cap. Plain & simple!


Fact - President Bush proposed that Americans be allowed to invest part of their payroll taxes into private saving accounts that would be invested in stocks. These accounts are supposedly like 401(K) accounts. This "privatization" plan has been criticized by a MAJORITY of economists.


Fact - By diverting payroll taxes away from being paid to the Social Security trust fund, Social Security would no longer be able to pay full benefits. Benefit cuts would range from about 15% to 46%. Most economists project that diverting payroll taxes way from the trust fund will result in the phasing out altogether of Social Security! The MOST successful Federal program----EVER!


Fact - Privatized accounts will be reduced as much as 20% to 30% by fees charged by investment bankers, trustees and account administrators. This has occurred in Great Britain, Chile and many other countries that adopted privatization plans in one form or another. In both Great Britain and Chile, privatizing Social Security has been judged a failure because retirees' benefits were greatly decreased by these "fees." It's a FACT JACK-------check it out for yourself!


Fact - The President’s privatization proposals are not intended to and are unable to "fix" any shortages in the Social Security trust fund. ALL----Repeat---ALL economic experts AGREE on this!


The real truth is that conservatives have historically detested and attempted to undermine Social Security since Franklin Roosevelt established it in the dark days of the Depression.


Conservatives opposed and derided it then, and they do now, as an entitlement, akin to welfare. They simply forget that a majority of Americans PAY for these benefits.


Fact - Most Americans believe that Social Security should NOT be privatized. There are many excellent, modest proposals to shore up Social Security long-term, that involve raising payroll taxes and/or making very minor benefits cuts decades from now.


Until then, most Americans see no reason to "reform" a reliable, trustworthy system that's not broken.


The President’s and the Republicans embrace of progressive price indexing for Social Security is just one more clever attempt to kill it. Converting the most successful government program in history into a welfare plan for the poor, practically guarantees it will lose political support and eventually get picked off.


So why is the President and the Republicans trying to fix Social Security if it ain’t broke? It’s all about their "ideology".----- Conservatives have been trying to kill Social Security since it was created. They believe in a survival-of-the-fittest approach to assuring well-being, and they prefer private market solutions, not government programs.


Price indexing is a divide-and-conquer strategy -- The Center on Policy and Budget Priorities projects that the President’s Plan would result in cuts for more than 70% of Americans. If no one but the poor benefits from Social Security, then it obviously becomes a political sitting duck for conservatives.


If Republicans were to be honest, they wouldn’t be spinning up fake financial disasters, they’d be basing their arguments on their own conjectural ideology, which is deduced by defective "guesswork" and/or at best presumptive so-called "evidence". . But they know that’s a debate they can’t win, and so we are treated to yet another wag-the-dog deception about crises that don’t exist coupled with solutions we don’t want.


The American people are finally becoming aware and educated to the falsehoods being put out by these "new" brand of Republicans...........and..........they're going to prove it come next November!


Gimp-----(Your friendly neighborhood purveyor of FACTS!).......

[SuperScout]

Once again, your post shows that youre living in a fantasy world, connected only to some link that helps you regurgitate Da Dims talking points about the SS system. You seem tothink that the 'Trust Fund' that once existed is still alive and well, when in fact allthe collections for the SS system flow into the general treasury. Gee, wonder who engineered this little slight of hand accounting process that was used to pay for his failed 'War on Poverty?'

And nobody is arguing about how many people are benefitting by the SS system, so why waste band length to post that? Oh, that's right, part of Da Dims talking points - how quickly I forget!

Even ol' Slick Willie hisself said that something needed to be done to fix the SS system, but since he's now a convicted perjurist, I guess we can't trust him on that issue either, now can we?

So if the system is about to go tits-up, what solutions do you recommend, more sticking your head in the sand like all the other Dims?

[Gimpy]

Originally Posted by SuperScout

Once again, your post shows that youre living in a fantasy world, connected only to some link that helps you regurgitate Da Dims talking points about the SS system. You seem tothink that the 'Trust Fund' that once existed is still alive and well, when in fact allthe collections for the SS system flow into the general treasury. Gee, wonder who engineered this little slight of hand accounting process that was used to pay for his failed 'War on Poverty?'

And nobody is arguing about how many people are benefitting by the SS system, so why waste band length to post that? Oh, that's right, part of Da Dims talking points - how quickly I forget!

Even ol' Slick Willie hisself said that something needed to be done to fix the SS system, but since he's now a convicted perjurist, I guess we can't trust him on that issue either, now can we?

So if the system is about to go tits-up, what solutions do you recommend, more sticking your head in the sand like all the other Dims?

It sure must be awfully difficult living down there in that "State of Confusion" you reside in.


You want to "blame" someone?


Blame your boy Gee-W!


Bush is responsible for endangering the program by squandering budget surpluses. There was PLENTY of "funds" in the U.S. Treasury when he took office in 2001.


Bush inherited a budget surplus from his predecessor, President Bill Clinton, but he has given that away to record deficits. You can blame his tax cuts, and the Iraq war and the uncontrolled "earmark" spending by the Republican controlled Congress...... (Bush NEVER---not ONE TIME---NADA!---ZIP!---EVER--"VETOED" any Republican "earmarks during the time the Republicans controlled Congress!). I suppose you forgot that, huh????


Public opinion polls consistently show that Social Security is the most popular government program of all time. With almost 50 million current beneficiaries, nearly everyone either receives Social Security themselves or knows someone who is currently dependent on the program.


In many ways Social Security is a model program in that does exactly what it was designed to do. It provides a core retirement income that ensures retirees a decent standard of living. In addition, it provides insurance for workers and their families in the event of disability or early death. There is very little fraud in the program, and the administrative costs of Social Security are less than 1/20th as high as the cost of ANY private insurers.


This background history is crucial because it explains the Social Security "crisis." The public fully appreciates what Social Security does and would never support efforts to privatize the program if they believed that Social Security was fundamentally sound. Therefore, proponents of privatization have undertaken a massive mis-information effort over the last quarter-century (starting under Ronnie Reagan) to convince the public that Social Security is going bankrupt.


The logic is simple; if the public is convinced that the Social Security program can't be sustained, then there is no alternative to privatization. If people buy the Social Security crisis story, then privatization may be the only way to save the program.


A big part of the crisis story is to convince the public that the Social Security trust fund is just an "accounting fiction." Politicians, columnists, and even policy analysts routinely repeat this false assertion. They have gone to great lengths to imply that the trust fund is some bizarre and confusing entity that cannot be relied upon to help sustain Social Security. For example, a couple of years ago President Bush visited the site where the bonds held by the trust fund are stored and announced that these bonds were "just sheets of paper." (Kinda like what YOU claim SuperSleuth).


Bonds are sheets of paper (like stock certificates), but those of us who live in a modern economy should not be troubled by this fact. In a modern economy, claims to wealth are most often just accounting entries - as everyone who uses a bank account presumably understands. (Except maybe those hardheaded "new" Republicans and folks like you in that constant "State of Confusion")...........


There is no real mystery about the trust fund. In 1983 (also under Ronnie Reagan)............., Congress voted to raise the Social Security tax by more than was necessary to help pay for current benefits. The intention was to build up a large trust fund which the program could then draw upon to pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation. The trust fund is approaching $2 trillion, more than $13,000 for every active worker.


Under the law, the trust fund must be held in US government bonds. Government bonds are not very mysterious - the vast majority of the public holds some amount of government bonds (Hell.....even GEE-W has millions of them!), either directly or through a retirement account. The bond commits the government to pay interest each year, and then to repay the bond in full when it comes due (usually in 5 years, 10 years, or 30 years). That is exactly how the bonds held by the trust fund work. (I suppose you forgot that too, huh Super????)


The Social Security privatizers try to make this process sound strange or confusing. They claim that repaying the bonds just means that the government is pulling money out of one pocket and putting it into another. While this is somewhat true, the important point is that the pockets belong to different pairs of pants.


Under the law, the bonds will be repaid from general government revenue. This money comes overwhelmingly from the individual and corporate income taxes. These are relatively simple progressive taxes; especially since the Bush tax cuts........ this money will come mostly from wealthy people like Bill Gates and/or other corporate taxes. On the other hand, the Social Security tax is very regressive. It is paid only from the first $97,000 of wage income. Income from high salaries, stock, and businesses is not subject to the tax. In effect, the bonds require the government to tax high income people to pay Social Security benefits to ordinary workers. What a fuckin shame! Now you know the REAL REASON the Republicans want to 'REFORM Social Security!


Of course, high income people don't want to pay the taxes to repay the bonds. That is why they are so anxious to convince the public that the trust fund is not real. It's been calculated by untold numbers of professional economic experts that defaulting on the trust fund would transfer more than $1 trillion from the bottom 95 percent of the income distribution to the richest 5 percent The richest 1 percent of families would walk away with nearly $750,000 each. No damn wonder they don't want the "trust fund" to be solvent!


In short, there is a lot of money at stake in convincing the public that the Social Security trust fund is not real. That is the reason we hear it called a fiction. In reality, there is nothing more confusing about the trust fund than an ordinary bank account. The public absolutely should demand that the government not default on the bonds held by Social Security and that the Republican politicians and pundits start talking more honestly about the program.


And now you know the REAL.......... F-A-C-T-S!


Don't worry.............I'll be here to help you even further if you need it!


Yo Frand,

The Gimpster...........

[SuperScout]

Your grasp for the obvious is overwhelming. Not surprisingly, the SS program is 'the most popular' of all giveaways. It is no more different of asking lottery winners if they want the money. Duhhhh!

And some of your responses are totally indicative of your lack of knowledge of finance and economics. For a governmental agency, designed to serve taxpayers with taxpayers' money, to buy government bonds, and then task the verysame taxpayers to pay the interest on the government bonds is akin to the starving man who cuts off one of his toes, cooks it over his campfire in the homeless compound, and then wonders (1) why his foot hurts, and (2) which toe to cut off next. The proof of the lie upon which the SS system was predicated was that workers could start receiving benefits at age 65. Actuarial tables in 1933 indicated that the average life expectantcy was less than 65, meaning that generally only the white collar folks, not the blue collar people or the folks that bought into the drivel that FDR was peddling, would ever benefit by the age 65 entry level. So the 'little people' are taxed progressively higher than the white collar people, and never get the benefit. For the 40+ years that Da Dims were in power, they could have fixed this egregious error, or raised the earning limits, or done a multitude of imporvements to the SS system, but Da Dims sat on their hands and other body parts, kept their collective and collectivist heads up their collectivst arses, and now are unwilling or unable to fix the problem.

Budget surpluses or deficits have nothing to do with the actuarial mess that personifies the SS system. That's a red herring, and anyone with the IQ of a radish would know it.