A BRIEF NOTE ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY:

Franklin Roosevelt 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 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 US.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

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!

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!

thus this is why the open discussion on the new plan GWB would like to introduce the the American people!!!!

it's not to be a tug of war on who did it... but a discussion on how to fix it...

no disrespect intended in my post Mo'sMan...

Hog

Mo'sMan

i thought i was being taxed on my entire soc sec check, not 85% as you mentioned. i will have to ask my accountant.

as far as immigrants receiving soc sec, i read somewhere and can't back track the info, that the cubans that have come to florida either by "escaping" from castro or whatever they called that group that castro allowed to leave some years ago, immediately draw money from the government. i don't know what fund it comes from, but they draw in many cases more then i do from my soc security.

Mo'sMan:

Before you post check out your facts. Most retirees pay 0 on their Social Security receipts. The income is taxable only if it exceeds $25,000 for single or head of household taxpayers, or $32,000 for married filers. VERY FEW retirees enjoy that level of income.

It is this type of garbage that so many of these Bush supporters use to support their (and Bush's) opinions.

Wagner

Nope, it's the type of lies the democrats offered then renegged on. The old bait and switch. So big gov't takes your money and then when they give it back they take some more? UNREAL!

Mo'sMan:

Hey guy, can't you read? Your post contained erroneous information. The Democrats didn't lie and distort the facts--YOU DID!

To repeat, most seniors pay NO tax on their Social Security benefits. They must earn more than $25,000 if single or $32,000 if married before any benefits are taxed. Most never reach this level.

Can you hear me now???

Wagner

No, I can read. People do, however many, pay taxes on social security. How did this come about?

Mo'sMan:

Here it is right from the IRS website:


Taxability of Social Security Benefits

Tax Tip 2005-31, Feb. 14, 2005

The IRS says that whether your Social Security benefits are taxable depends on your total income and marital status. Form SSA-1099, which Social Security recipients should receive by January 31, shows your total benefits, but determining your taxable benefits requires putting pencil to paper.

Generally, if Social Security benefits were your only income, your benefits are not taxable and you probably do not need to file a federal income tax return. If you received Social Security benefits plus other income, the answer to how much, if any, is taxable can be found in the worksheet in the Form 1040 or 1040A instruction book.

For a quick computation, add one-half of your Social Security benefits to all your other income, including tax-exempt interest. If this amount is greater than the base amount for your filing status, a part of your benefits will be taxable.

The 2004 base amounts are:

$25,000 for single, head of household, or qualifying widow/widower with a dependent child
$25,000 for married individuals filing separately who did not live with their spouses at any time during the year
$32,000 for married couples filing jointly
$0 for married persons filing separately who lived together during the year
If your benefits are taxable, you can avoid estimated tax payments and minimize your tax bill next year by having federal income tax withheld from your benefits. Simply complete Form W-4V, Voluntary Withholding Request, and file it with the Social Security Administration.

For additional information on the taxability of Social Security benefits, see IRS Publication 915, Social Security and Equivalent Railroad Retirement Benefits. Publication 915 and Form W-4V can be downloaded or ordered by calling 1-800-TAX-FORM (1-800-829-3676).

Wagner

Mo'sMan:

To answer your final question--it has been taxable to higher income individuals (as it should be) for years--well before Al Gore.

Wagner

Now I gotta question your reading ability, because that's not what I asked. My question never included, "when", or, "how long", but "who brought this about"? Care to go ahead and answer?

Mo'sMan:

Here's your question (and the incorrect answer you provided) word for word from above:

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.

Who can't read???

Wagner

Hmmm......you! I'll ask again,

which party proposed the legislation that started taxing Social Security?

It's important to note that IF the government were running the SS system by the same rules as they hold insurance companies to, there would BE NO PROBLEM with solvency ...

But, because despite the name, there IS NO TRUST FUND at all ... social security is being run on a Ponzi scheme basis ... if it the same thing were being done by a private firm to volunteers, the perpetrators would be brought up on charges and put in jail ...

As it is, SS is nothing more than a gigantic boondoggle and only a complete fool wouldn't realize that collapse is the inevitable result ...

Mo'sMan:

Here you go man--signed into law by your REPUBLICAN president Ronald Reagan.



TAX TREATMENT

Taxation of Social Security and Railroad Retirement Tier 1 Benefits

Beginning in 1984, includes in taxable income up to one-half of Social Security (and railroad retirement tier 1) benefits received by taxpayers whose incomes exceed certain base amounts. The base amounts are $25,000 for a single taxpayer, $32,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly and zero for married taxpayers filing separately. Income for purposes of figuring these base amounts includes adjusted gross income under prior law, plus nontaxable interest income, and one-half of Social Security and railroad retirement tier 1 benefits. The amount of benefits that could be included in taxable income will be the lesser of one-half of benefits or one-half of the excess of the taxpayers' combined income (AGI + one-half of benefits) over the base amount. The provision for including nontaxable interest income is intended to provide similar tax treatment of benefits received by individuals whose total incomes consist of different mixes of taxable and nontaxable income and to limit opportunities for manipulation of tax liability on benefits.

Mo'sMan,your lack of knowledge and unwillingness to look things up on your own astounds me. Maybe if you tried you could learn something, and then try to contribute to the knowledge of others (rather than just pass around wrong information). It does you and your party no good to look like a fool.

Wagner

No matter how you look at it, we shouldn't be paying ANY tax on money we get BECAUSE we were taxed.

All these years you pay taxes into Social Security... then when they give it to you, they TAX IT!??

No amount of it should be taxed. Regardless of your income.

That's my take.

MAC:

Maybe so--but how are you going to pay for an expensive war, coupled with the most liberal spending president in history who still has yet to veto his first approprations bill) especially after the wealthiest in the country got huge tax cuts? Somebody's got to pay--don't they?

Wagner

Given by Republican house and Senate 108th CONGRESS
DEDUCTION FOR OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE TAXES OF EMPLOYEES AND SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:11:./temp/~c108yipJpb ::

here you go... read it and weep... Social Security Taxes you can even get the facts first hand on who sponsored what and who signed on to that sponsored bill??
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query 

Wagnor, Reagan may have signed that into law.. but lets not forget during his time in office the House and Senate were controlled by the Democrats ;0) shall we dig deeper in to that issue? or just take what we have to work with now and support a plan that may work??

knowing where to find the information is the first step... knowing who was involved as if it matters to some is the next step... but finding and fixing the problem is the end resolution!!!!!!

Hog

More Interesting Reads
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query 

Hog

hog:

WTF??? He could have tried to veto it but didn't. It was necessary because of his excessive liberal republican spending habits. The same problem the current republican in the white house has. They are like drunken sailors with no ability to exercize self (or party) restraint.

Wagner

hog:

WTF??? He could have tried to veto it but didn't. It was necessary because of his excessive liberal republican spending habits. The same problem the current republican in the white house has. They are like drunken sailors with no ability to exercize self (or party) restraint.

Wagner