The issue
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 party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?

A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?

A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?

A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security.
And the worst part about it is, people believe it! Pass it on please!

2004 Election Issue
This must be an issue in "04". Please! Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth the read. It's short and to the point.)
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election
years. Our Senators and Congress men & women do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan. For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. Nada. Zilch.
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds-our tax dollars at work!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) --we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000. monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

Who would vote to give themselves such a massive pay cut? Doesn't seem possible with the common greed of polititians.

wet1,

A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.

Hold on a second. I'm an immigrant, and I pay taxes and social security just like any American citizen.

It's impossible for an immigrant to not pay for social security, since their employer automatically takes it out of their paychecks.

When you arrived in this country, you had not put anything in to the system. Is it right that we should just fork over bucks because you are new?

While this is something I did not write, I thought that it might be of interest to those here wanting another subject besides, Shrub, Iraq, and Bin Laudin...

If one is foolish enough to rely on the government to subsidize their retirement, then one should plan to be disappointed. If I get anything back when I retire, I will view it as "found money" and spend it as soon as I receive it.

wet1,

When you arrived in this country, you had not put anything in to the system. Is it right that we should just fork over bucks because you are new?

In the U.S. you need 40 credits to be able to receive retirement benefits from Social Security. Since 1 year of work is 4 credits, I would have to work for 10 years (and be 62 years old) in the US to qualify for this Social Security benefit. You're assumption that I can get retirement benefits from Social Security without paying into the system for ten years, is wrong.

I can, however, get disability benefits from Social Security as a result of injury without having to have 40 credits. But so can a newly employed American, who hasn't "put anything into the system", either.

Tom

When I read back over what I had written, it sounded unduely harsh. It was not meant as critizism as much as it was meant to state that nothing should be free just because of coming into the system new.

Thank you, Prosoothus. I stand corrected.

I can’t see anything amiss about being taxed on 85% of the FICA money we paid, as it wasn’t taxed initially. Also sounds like people who have a high income in retirement will be taxed more on the social security benefits they don’t need as much as others.

For your Q&A, I’d want to know more info. There could have been solid reasons for these votes. Like balancing the budget, which the Democrats did under Clinton. It’s easy to be anti-tax when you’re spending the grandkids’ money.

Regarding the special retirement plan for the reps, I’m all for it, just as I’m for $10 million baseball player salaries. Whatever people get paid is what they’re worth. The public implicitly favors this retirement plan, or else they’d yank it. No doubt it works as an incentive to attract better talent into politics. If we yanked it, we could expect even sleazier slime.

For myself, I’d rather that I have control over my FICA investment. But if everyone had control, I believe I’d likely lose my investment in the form of much higher taxes to subsidize the millions of people who would otherwise become destitute because they squandered the money. In any case like immane1 I’m not counting on seeing that money again. At least you get to retrieve it starting at age 65. When I get there it’ll be more like 75.

heyya all :)

wet1...
congrats on a great topic :)
it is a global issue.
regardles of what type of politics are concerned
capitalism/communism/socialism/imperialism/tribalism...
all the top controling jobs are protected by the rich perverts
and have no relavance what so ever to the nature of the political
system!!!
greed covers all races all religions all cultures...
the closest i have seen in a functional non biased method of capital distribution is amongst some of the "wing" religions...
and genraly they (religions) all regard women and children as second class citizens!
so they should not be holding thier hand up for favours from god!

greed based on beliefe of failure is spawning the lazzynes that the perverted protect thier profit structures from.

POINT>>>>>>>>>>>
No person can call themselfs a person of godly intent if they posses fluid wealth that does not return its exces profit into the community that it FEEDS off.

the preditor!
the killing is made easy and deniable if children starve to death or kill themselfs with drugs to escape the abuse of the systems.

lets hope there might be some intellegent people out there reading this who might join in the discussion.
trolls will be cursed!be warned!

groove on all :)
peace light truth love
the path to that we hold above.

Lyndon Johonson lumped social security into the general budget to hide the cost of the war in vietnam. Neither party has seriously mentioned removing it from the general fund, even though over 30 years have passed.

Al Gore's tie breaking vote on taxing social security benifits; was connected with the Omnibus Budget Reconcilliation Act, was primarily supported By the GOP and only effected 10% of SS recipients. The revenue from the taxing of SS is supposed to go to the medicare fund.

When the Omnibus Budget Reconcilliation Act was passed it did help bring about a balanced budget. The tax on SS benifits could also be changed by the Bush administration at any time.

When the Democrats left office there was a hugh budget surplus.
Where is that surplus now?

protection of higher saleries and perks is an epedemic
and
is supported by the greedy aspirations of those who make the pyramid...
and we all know what happens to pyramid companies!!!

why should anyone be (useserp)serprised???

:)

Social security and SSI (supplemantal security income) are two different things. As a previous poster mention anyone needs 40 quarters (about 10 years) of earned income upon which SS taxes are collected to draw SS at age 65.

An immigrant legally coming to this country needs to be in the work force for at least 10 years to be elegible for social security at age 65. Many immigrants were defrauded by employers who witheld the funds from paychecks and kept the money.

Those who can not meet the 40 quarters requirement, are allowed to draw SSI. This includes all Americans, and is essentially, "welfare", and is administered by the individual states.

The Q&A document posted by wet1 has been circulating around the web for several years. It takes what appears to be facts, totally out of context, and uses them for political reasons only.

As I previously posted ," nothing is ever that simple". The immigrant situation is a highly complex and politicised issue. It is the illegal immigrant population that we need to be concerened about.

heyya all :)

i must admit it deeply saddens me that the nature of these
correlations directly "trickles down" to equate to a dollar value on human life.

and yet...

there is ever increasing reduction in investment into schools
(pre-schools)... per person for all you bean counters.
hidden by the gradual increase in classroom numbers.

reduction in teachers wages.
increase in political teachers wages
(people who see teaching as a cameo T.V ratings game)
sucking up to destitute mothers and fathers,
attempting to bulster thier greed through ransom of the childs future welfare.

what is realy funny is how people play the rascism card to try to
increase the rate of incoming cheep technicaly trained people
to increase the poverty,
to create a more intelectual slave for the "rich-perverted".
while there are people starving to death in that very country.

greed and lust know, no socio-political-demographical-class border.

what seems to be missed by most is as much as some people are bound by poverty others are just as bound by wealth.
i.e
all the wealthy want everyone to obey socialistic law
while they profit from dog eat dog business practice.

all the poor want to maintain the dog eat dog untill they get to the top....

anyone hear the word selfishness here?
and ...
where does it start?
is the best quality of a mother or father, to be selfish?
lions are not selfish, ... they are lions.
they eat thier prospective wifes children.
humans stave everyone elses children to death.
or use denial of health care to the same effect.
how much does it cost to raise a child?
once you find the dollar amount its too late because you have nothing in the emotional bank!!!

crazzy crazzy sick feckin world of self destructive morons...
to the casual observer anyway!
who, except form hell, would 'want a bar of it'?

now i just need to decide between prozac ahcohol extasy
or the army...

good luck!
we'l need it!

peace light truth love
the path to that we hold above

does anyone realy care anymore?

I personally am against Social security on principal.

So what principal are you basing your principle on??

I have the opinion that a government has no right to stand in the way of one's prosperity but also no obligation to ensure it. It is someone's own choice to do with his or her money as they please and if it leads to their demise it was their choice.

heyya all :)

Clockwood ...

:eek: (huge sigh) (hands covering face)

so by your "money logic"
it would be ok for someone to use thier money to hire a 'hitman'
to kill you and take all your money!

may i assume you believe in anarchy?
which is actualy "law of the jungle"!
translates to mean you think it is ok for someone to hunt you down and kill you for sport or as you would wish ... PROFIT!

oh dear oh dear
if this is not what you mean could you please expand your theory
so at least one crazzy person (me) can come closer to your reality.

groove on all :)

peace light truth love
the path to that we hold above
:)

Your idea is just exactly what we had before the Social Security laws were passed. Your concept wasn't working then , that is why the USA and nearly every other first world country has a national form of social security today.

Social security in no way insures ones "prosperitiy" it only insures survival after one can no longer provide for himself.

And it protects everyone, even those who planned for their own survival; life wouldn’t be pleasant for them if they had to wade through a crowd of starving seniors to buy groceries.

It also protects those who planned well for survival, and prosperity, but whose hopes and dreams were blown out of the water by unscrupulous corporations and and a failing economy.:(

heyya all :)

justiceusa...
encore please :)

groove on all :)

"When the Democrats left office there was a hugh budget surplus.
Where is that surplus now?"
Justiceusa, do you even know what a surplus is? Why not give your local grocery store 10 dollars extra every time you go shopping. Then, after about 10 or 11 months you would expect your groceries for free for the next month or so, right?

The taxpayers should have SOME say as to where their Social Security money goes.

yes I do know what a national budget surplus is! It is about a lot more than dealing with my grocer. I spent most of my life hearing politicians screaming that the national debt and the interest paid on that debt was America's biggest problem, then when we finally had a balanced budget with a surplus , the screamers pissed it all away.

The taxpayers can have a say in where their social security money goes by electing people who will act on their behalf.

Starting about five years ago all we heard was: "put SS funds into the stock market, privatize SS so that people can put their money into the stock market." WHERE would those people be now???? I have friends with private holdings who lost 40% of their entire investment.

Of course the SS fund should be invested, but the average American simply does not have the knowledge to do that in a cheating lying world. If you look at the statistics you will see that the Average American is in deep credit card debt. If they can't even manage their debt, what makes you think they would become wise investors?

But I actually do see your point. You would like to be able to invest that money as you see fit. And that is fair and logical thinking, but until we can come up with a sound low risk plan to do that, I will go along with what does the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Originally posted by immane1
Why not give your local grocery store 10 dollars extra every time you go shopping. Then, after about 10 or 11 months you would expect your groceries for free for the next month or so, right?

Would you expect groceries for free if you still owed the grocer? Don’t confuse the budget with the deficit. A budget surplus means we have some money left over after paying the minimum monthly payment to the bank. The deficit means we still owe the bank $5 trillion. With the debt load the US has, achieving surpluses should be a high priority and all that money should pay down the debt. What the public does instead (by cajoling the reps to refund the “surplus”) is piss away the grandkids’ future.

Riple: I take to the bare essentials form of governing. Do as little as you can and still retain social stability. Stop violent crimes but ignore victemless crimes (with the exception of things like tax evasion and destruction of state property). Then tax as little as you can and still save a little for a rainy day.

Zanket,
A "surplus", simply put, is the taxpayers having to pay more than the government "asks"(haha) for. You said it yourself. "Money left over". Otherwise known as over taxation.

Do you pay the minimum monthly payment on a credit card? Or do you avoid them except for emergencies, and then pay it off as soon as possible? Which provides a better future?

Many see it your way. If we are to get out of our deepening hole, it may well require higher tax rates to avoid a “surplus.”

heyya all :)
quote...
Clockwood...
Stop violent crimes but ignore victemless crimes.
============
i get the idea that you may have different views on what is legal and WHAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.
that is only natural in my opinion...
however in text format it does sound funny to assume that there can be "no victim from crime"
the fact that it is crime means there is a victim!
and so both ways...
i have certain views which differ from laws and maybe one of my favorite ones would be
public nudity!
i think it sould be acceptable for people to swim in the "nude" at a beach.
!!!why distort reality for the children!
how many children do you see swimming nude with thier parents??? (a realatively common practice amoung "civil" familys in new zealand)
it seems to be more natural to me!
however...
people who are sexualy disfunctional find that they cannot control thier emotions and mostly thier actions when they see a naked body.
this should be a sign to all that they need counselling!
not a sign to attack the child and label it a sexual tool for them to choose to look at!
most people are too "messed up" internaly to deal with such an issue and im curiouse to wonder how many people are currently
having an emotional disfunction from mearly reading this text!

peace light truth love
the path to that we hold above.

"And save a little for a rainy day"

Before we can save a little we need to deal with the national debt, which is currently $6,460,709,299,897.82, and growing daily. This amount is what the government "must"eventually ask us to pay.
Your simplified political double talk does not address that fact.

btw the interst on the national debt for the month of Feb. Is........... $15,835,291,829.89. Will that be cash or charge sir?

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm

Justice: I think this is one of those rainy days we should have saved for. ;)

Riple: I personally believe we should legalize suicide and tax drugs and prostitution. Drug prices would fall so users would not have to commit crimes to pay for their habits. Someone should be able to do whatever they want to themselves as long as they leave the rest of the world out of it.
I say, if its not hurting anyone else or cause social unstability let them do whatever they want. If you dont want to see it dont look or go congregate with people who seel similarly to yourself.

heyya all :)

Clockwood...
i understand the idea you are explaining... to a point...
i feel compelled to point out one minnor issue in regard to your
"rite to self mutalation" theory...
the major problem with this is that it is not a victimles
crime ... why...?
because...
such action would create huge unstability in the Family unit...
and
make victims of their Family members!
and relatives...
at least the ones who love the person doing the "self mutalation".
AND
@ what point would the medical profesionals decide to not treat
someone who had had an accident???
how would you determine an attempted suicide or self mutalation from an accident?

THE U$A is already at this point socialy speaking because of the Sueing laws!
a new zealand guy performed C.P.R (while in the U$A)
on a person who had suffered a HEART attack...
because he was "life insured"
his Ex widow (now wife again) sued the KIWI for the price of the "life insurance"
and won!
so...
good luck you insurance people!
im sure theres a warm seat for you and the wife somewhere close at hand.

Truely sad!!!

peace light truth love
the path to that we hold above.
:)

Originally posted by ripleofdeath
his Ex widow (now wife again) sued the KIWI for the price of the "life insurance"
and won!

I couldn’t find the full text of this interesting story. Do you have a link please?

zanket...
:) (waves)
sorry... it is an old story that was run on our national T.V (government funded) station. (T.V.NZ)
prob now being hunted down to be destroyed. :rolleyes:

aprox ... ???
10 years ago!
hows that for a scarry time factor.

groove on all :)