Is your 'stuff' stressing you out? TV personality Matt Paxton has tips for downsizing and decluttering in our free, two-part webinar! Register now.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
464
Views

Re: SOCIAL SECURITY FACTS

464 Views
Message 1 of 29

@GailL1 wrote:


1.  No, it is only a combination of these things, + others, which have been proposed as a suggested course of action -

What do you call raising the cap if it isn't raising the FICA tax?

Did you know that the vast number (majority) of people are taking early retirement at 62 -

and everytime that Full Retirement Age marches closer and closer to 67, they receive less and less.

 

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/10/22/why-do-so-many-people-claim-social-security-at-62.aspx

 

So if we don't change the early retirement age - and leave it at 62 - JUST LIKE WHAT WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY - people won't care - they will just keep filing at the earliest possible date.

 

2.  In order to do what you suggest as far as " keep the FICA, retirement age and benefits unchanged for everyone." - the formula will have to be changed to do that because the cap is being changed.  The reason for the "CAP" is to correlate it to the maxiumum benefit that can be drawn.

 

I am not for leaving the maxium benefit at the current level but raising the cap to who knows what -

that just turns Social Security into a welfare program. 

 

Gail,

 

"turns Social Security into a welfare program"? SS is an organization not a program.

 

Early retirement? 62? What are you talking about?The SS program that is in financial trouble is the Disability Insurance. That is not a retirement program.You have to be "under" 65 to get anything from it.

 

As you well know, fix that insurance, don't, either does nothing to us retireed (over 65). So why are you talking about it as though it does?

 

 

 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
464
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
488
Views

Re: SOCIAL SECURITY FACTS

488 Views
Message 2 of 29

@GailL1 wrote:

that just turns Social Security into a welfare program. 

 

 


Oh please. Raising the cap would not turn Social Security into a welfare program because of one, and only one, distinction - nobody can GIVE you the needed Social Security credits, you have to EARN them.

 

Enough hyperbole!

 

 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ (11 pages of lies and growing)
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
488
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
497
Views

Re: SOCIAL SECURITY FACTS

497 Views
Message 3 of 29

@umbarch64 wrote:

A former friend of mine followed this progression. 

 

Married a fine lady whose family was deeply involved in the evangelical movement in which Bill James Hargis had been a major player. 

 

Became a regular, along with his wife and family, at the various functions of the movement. 

 

Espoused ideological convictions that crossed over from the religious to the political.

 

Experienced a major business failure that approached personal bankruptcy.  Experienced an 'awakening' at a religious function that, as he said, caused him to march down the aisle and be 'born again'.  From that point on felt it was 'wrong' to expose himself or his family to anything that did not 'reinforce his belief' and refused to do so.

 

Early on embraced the TEA party,  the NRA and the neo-conservative movement, but never again engaged in business on his own, working for corporations servicing public pharmaceutical needs.  

 

Considered 'his' secular affiliations an integral part of the evangelical movement and therefore his 'duty' to promulgate and proselytize. 

 

Considered the Supreme Court, as configured, to actually BE a 'work of the devil', consisting of too many apostates, illegally 'legislating from the bench', destroying our Nation and his personal religious rights. He said, 'anything at all to rid ourselves of this apostasy is God's will and we must do it'.  He meant it.

 

He became ever more 'conservative', intolerant of everything not conforming to his religious beliefs, teaching the same multiple times weekly to youth groups in his congregation and in any affiliated congregation across the country when he and his wife traveled.  That intolerance was specififcally directed at Mexican Immigrants, legal and illegal, who he blamed in part for his business failure, mainly because of the sociological shifts in his community caused by their arrival, including depressed property values he attributed to their arrival.  He held the same attitude toward Aftrican Americans; I can't repeat the term he used for them here. His once rational reasoning became increasingly non-rational, excluding any alternatives to what he 'believed' for that was the Truth...nothing else.

 

Obama was understandably anathema to him.  So was anything associated with Obama.  Obama was black...he wasn't born here..he intended to Make America Black. Obama was the devil personified and the Supreme Court was composed of his disciples.  Trump's promise vis-a-vis the Supreme Court rang true to him and he stated emphatically that he would vote for Trump because of that despite all else.  He became an ardent Trump supporter supporter and to my knowledge remains so today.  I couldn't say for sure....we don't talk much anymore.

 

I tell you all this because I think this is not a unique story by any means.  I think this story recurs with some variation throughout the political base that put 'the donald' and his devotees in office.  I think what the Republican Party sought to 'exploit' became Frankenstein's Monster, impossible to control.  I think this 'Monster' is a tragic figure just as Frankenstein's was.  

 

 Not unique at all. My former neighor became enamored of Rush Limbah in the 90's, and literally worshipped the guy. He himself became a walking talking limbah parody, attacking anyone that had a belief out of line with limbahs. Back then I had a huge firepit and always a party going, and he went from coming over to join in to just getting drunk and insulting everyone, to the point he threatened to hit my wife in a discussion about burning books with his son ( his son is huge, and told him he would kick his ass if he didnt leave).. he now supports it. Odd for a jewish guy who lost family in the holocost and spent time on a kibbutz. He is now a christian fundamentalist, and fancies himself a big shot republian, have gotten won a slot as a precinct delegate recently and getting his pic taken with a tea party senate candidate. Ive known him 20 years. He used to cheat welfare like nobodies business, belonged to a local sex club where he went for spankings ( no kidding ) . His kids actually turned out to be liberals, and they tell me its because their Dad was always defending stupidity. He never has been able to handle his liquor..and doesnt care. He lost the family house because he was making house payment for a female version of himself he  met online. lol. ANyway. Yeah he is an upstanding member of the county party, and people seek his counsel. He is now living with a woman he met at a bondage club, in a house his parents trust paid for.  I rented him a house for 5 years at below market rent, and he screwed me when he moved out. 

 

Unique? pretty small crowd that inhabits this board and here is 2 of us.

 


 

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
497
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
498
Views

Re: SOCIAL SECURITY FACTS

498 Views
Message 4 of 29

@GailL1 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:


 

Excellent fact sheet on who has been attacking SS. I'd hasten to add:

 

1. It is only REPUBLICANS who insist the way to "save" Social Security is for the FICA withholding and age of eligibility to increase while the benefits decrease.

 

2. It is only DEMOCRATS who will raise the "cap" to the level it was under Reagan so a few more of the top 10% pay the same portion of income into the system as the bottom 90% already pay, and keep the FICA, retirement age and benefits unchanged for everyone.


1.  No, it is only a combination of these things, + others, which have been proposed as a suggested course of action -

What do you call raising the cap if it isn't raising the FICA tax?

Did you know that the vast number (majority) of people are taking early retirement at 62 -

and everytime that Full Retirement Age marches closer and closer to 67, they receive less and less.

 

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/10/22/why-do-so-many-people-claim-social-security-at-62.aspx

 

So if we don't change the early retirement age - and leave it at 62 - JUST LIKE WHAT WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY - people won't care - they will just keep filing at the earliest possible date.

 

2.  In order to do what you suggest as far as " keep the FICA, retirement age and benefits unchanged for everyone." - the formula will have to be changed to do that because the cap is being changed.  The reason for the "CAP" is to correlate it to the maxiumum benefit that can be drawn.

 

I am not for leaving the maxium benefit at the current level but raising the cap to who knows what -

that just turns Social Security into a welfare program. 

 

 


Progressives want to raise the CAP, which will have NO effect on the bottom 90% of workers.

Regressives want to raise the RATE, which will effect 100% of workers, but will fall most heavily on the bottom 90%.

 

MOST of the people taking SS retirement before age 67 are doing so BECAUSE THEY LOST THEIR JOBS and need the money to survive.They are NOT doing this because they think they'll get a better deal in the long run, they do it to try and survive in the short run.

 

Their reduced benefits more than offset the lost revenue to the SSTF because they're not contributing. This was intentional to discourage RETIRING early, nobody considered the Corporate oligarchs would simply eliminate the jobs of the older, more "expensive", workers at the rate they have been over the last couple decades.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
498
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
506
Views

Re: SOCIAL SECURITY FACTS

506 Views
Message 5 of 29

@Olderscout66 wrote:


 

Excellent fact sheet on who has been attacking SS. I'd hasten to add:

 

1. It is only REPUBLICANS who insist the way to "save" Social Security is for the FICA withholding and age of eligibility to increase while the benefits decrease.

 

2. It is only DEMOCRATS who will raise the "cap" to the level it was under Reagan so a few more of the top 10% pay the same portion of income into the system as the bottom 90% already pay, and keep the FICA, retirement age and benefits unchanged for everyone.


1.  No, it is only a combination of these things, + others, which have been proposed as a suggested course of action -

What do you call raising the cap if it isn't raising the FICA tax?

Did you know that the vast number (majority) of people are taking early retirement at 62 -

and everytime that Full Retirement Age marches closer and closer to 67, they receive less and less.

 

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/10/22/why-do-so-many-people-claim-social-security-at-62.aspx

 

So if we don't change the early retirement age - and leave it at 62 - JUST LIKE WHAT WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY - people won't care - they will just keep filing at the earliest possible date.

 

2.  In order to do what you suggest as far as " keep the FICA, retirement age and benefits unchanged for everyone." - the formula will have to be changed to do that because the cap is being changed.  The reason for the "CAP" is to correlate it to the maxiumum benefit that can be drawn.

 

I am not for leaving the maxium benefit at the current level but raising the cap to who knows what -

that just turns Social Security into a welfare program. 

 

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
506
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
522
Views

Re: SOCIAL SECURITY FACTS

522 Views
Message 6 of 29

I told Soosie that she should never put things about SS that she didn't research. because this was not the Forum to do so.

MOst of our posters probably know more about SS than anyone one They live to see and protect SS in all aspects.

Only the ones that want to accept the non facts of cartoons are the ones that could believe anything that silly.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
522
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
534
Views

Re: SOCIAL SECURITY FACTS

534 Views
Message 7 of 29

@sp362 wrote:

Directly from the social security website:

Debunking Some Internet Myths- Part 2

(See also, MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY- Part 1)

 

MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY- Part 2

Myths and misstatements of fact frequently circulate on the Internet, in email and on websites, and are repeated in endless loops of misinformation. One common set of such misinformation involves a series of questions about the history of the Social Security system.

One Common Form of the Questions:

Q1: Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

Q3: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Q4: Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

Q5: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?



THE CORRECT ANSWERS TO THE FIVE QUESTIONS

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?


A1: 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."

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 effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

 

Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A2: 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.

(The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.)

 

Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3. 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 went on to later become the 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.

 

Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

A4. 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. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)

 

Q5. Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A5. 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 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.

 

As far as your last point, raises are determined by COLA, not a political party.  I suggest you look it up.

 

Are those facts good enough for you, or would you like more?

 

https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html


Excellent fact sheet on who has been attacking SS. I'd hasten to add:

 

1. It is only REPUBLICANS who insist the way to "save" Social Security is for the FICA withholding and age of eligibility to increase while the benefits decrease.

 

2. It is only DEMOCRATS who will raise the "cap" to the level it was under Reagan so a few more of the top 10% pay the same portion of income into the system as the bottom 90% already pay, and keep the FICA, retirement age and benefits unchanged for everyone.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
534
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
539
Views

Re: SOCIAL SECURITY FACTS

539 Views
Message 8 of 29

Q: Which Party stopped tax deductions for Sociaol Security payments?
A: Payments? I think you mean payroll deductions - not "payments". (See next question)
Social Security withholding has never been deductible from income for tax purposes. The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that monies paid into Social Security via payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions.


Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security payments?
A: Prior to 1984, income derived from Social Security benefits was exempt from taxation.
Responsibility for this change cannot fairly be assigned to either political party. The idea originated with a proposal issued by the bipartisan Greenspan Commission, which had been created by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican.
The amendments were passed by a House of Representatives in which the Democrats held a clear majority and It was signed into law by President Reagan.


Q: Which Party started giving your Social Security money to immigrants who have not paid into it?
A: No one — whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien — is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system.
Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) — the latter is a federal welfare program “designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income” by providing “cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.” Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes.
SSI was not enacted by the administration of President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat); it was created and signed into law in 1972, during the administration of President Richard Nixon (a Republican).


Q: - Which Party has not given Social Security a decent raise in 8 years?
A: - Neither. (I guess the key word in the question is "decent" raise).

Social Security Administration uses the COLA formula based on inflation and energy costs.

 

Since there are so many inaccuracies in this meme, it should be rated as fake.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
539
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
551
Views

Re: SOCIAL SECURITY FACTS

551 Views
Message 9 of 29

@nctarheel wrote:

@Richva wrote:

Wow talk about "fake news".  I don't think any of those things in the latest kiddie cartoon was accurate. 


The ORIGINAL POSTER was invited to post the "FACTS" of their meme with resource material to prove "THOSE FACTS" credible but has yet to do so.

 

Be patient, maybe she will.

 

 


I not holding my breath. She rarely comes back to discuss any of the cartoons she so regularly posts.

TRE45ON
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
551
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
561
Views

Re: SOCIAL SECURITY FACTS

561 Views
Message 10 of 29

@Richva wrote:

Wow talk about "fake news".  I don't think any of those things in the latest kiddie cartoon was accurate. 


The ORIGINAL POSTER was invited to post the "FACTS" of their meme with resource material to prove "THOSE FACTS" credible but has yet to do so.

 

Be patient, maybe she will.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
561
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark

Top Authors