Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Subject: Who taxed Social Security?
Unknown | 7-31-03

Posted on 07/31/2003 6:58:04 AM PDT by SheLion

Subject: Who taxed Social Security?

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!


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: fica; socialsecurity; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last
To: dalereed
It is not a ponzi scheme. It is a scheme that works well for one generation, the generation that does not pay in but gets something back. After that, as long as the population increases, it is a good deal, but not a free lunch like the 1st generation. Of course, eventually, the population stops increasing, then there is no free lunch and the program starts looking pretty unattractive.

I'm just trying to explain the popularity and success of the system. A lot of people got a free lunch, but the free lunch works only once. Who the hell doesn't like a free lunch ? I think the free lunch is coming to an end however.
21 posted on 07/31/2003 7:27:02 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
To be more accurate, it was raised to 85% in '93
22 posted on 07/31/2003 7:28:55 AM PDT by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
It is not a ponzi scheme. It is a scheme that works well for one generation, the generation that does not pay in but gets something back. After that, as long as the population increases, it is a good deal, but not a free lunch like the 1st generation. Of course, eventually, the population stops increasing, then there is no free lunch and the program starts looking pretty unattractive.

That's pretty much the definition of a Ponzi scheme. About the only difference is that the Government doesn't even pretend to invest in anything. They just count on being able to take enough taxes from this generation of workers to pay the last. From http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues98/dec98/ponzi.html:

[Charles] Ponzi claimed to have found a way to profit by speculating in international postal reply coupons — a form of prepaid return postage for use in foreign correspondence. After he had paid off his first round of investors, Darby relates, he scarcely had to repeat his story. All that anyone cared about was that he paid 50 percent interest in 90 days. Later, he shortened the investment period to 45 days.

In no time, the money was rolling in. "At the height of his success, Ponzi had offices from Maine to New Jersey." The problem, Darby explains, was that there was no actual investment going on; the only activity was the shuffling of money from new investors to old ones. This kind of swindle, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, is also known as a pyramid scheme or — since 1920 — a Ponzi scheme.

"Half-a-dozen banks crashed in the aftermath of Ponzi's fall," reports Darby, who is currently working on a screenplay about the charming con artist. "His note holders received less than 30 cents on the dollar." But, she asks, was Ponzi's proposition, which snared nearly 40,000 would-be millionaires, "any more absurd than the promise of a $59,000 loan in exchange for $20 sent to a post office in Las Vegas?" Pitches like this one, says Darby, are now popping up on the Internet, and as long as people are more worried about their profits than their principal, Ponzi schemes will continue to part fools and their money.

23 posted on 07/31/2003 7:39:51 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Paranoia is when you realize that tin foil hats just focus the mind control beams.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
A ponzi scheme fails because each generation wants more than they paid in and wants the return to be within a few years. This leads to eventual collapse.

The social security system differs in that most people can get out what they paid in except for the first generation who get the free lunch and the last generation who get screwed. The beauty of social security is that presumably there will be no last generation and if there is, the last thing they will care about is getting a ss check.

With a ponzi scheme, the last generation shows up wanting money and the thing fails. With social security, (and the national debt), there is no last generation. Hence, you can get 1 free lunch for the first generation.
24 posted on 07/31/2003 7:49:30 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Subject: Who taxed Social Security?

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!

===

Ain't nothin' democratic about the Democrat party -- the "Party of Treason".

25 posted on 07/31/2003 8:47:22 AM PDT by dark_lord (The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
OJO - INTSUM
26 posted on 07/31/2003 9:29:29 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
Then it is really a PONZI SCHEME
27 posted on 07/31/2003 9:32:01 AM PDT by y2k_free_radical (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: anoldafvet
When FDR started Social Security, he never intended to pay any benefits since the retirement age was 65 and the average male only lived to be 59

He knew that all could not be gotten in one swoop, ergo incrementalism.

28 posted on 07/31/2003 10:47:16 AM PDT by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GoOrdnance
The intent of social security was never to "put away" money for the individuals who paid in. It is not a personal retirement account.

Then why do we pay INTO it all those years we have been working??!!

29 posted on 07/31/2003 5:23:17 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge; metesky; ozone1; pkmaine; Atomic Vomit; ROCKLOBSTER; mlmr; bogeybob; BM.Maine; ...
Ping!
30 posted on 07/31/2003 5:24:05 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: y2k_free_radical
Then it is really a PONZI SCHEME

Uh huh, just like "globalization".

31 posted on 07/31/2003 5:35:57 PM PDT by lewislynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: y2k_free_radical
That's all it's ever been.
32 posted on 07/31/2003 5:46:33 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
In the thirties, when SS was passed by the FDR (spit) controlled congress, the average life span for an American male was 58.1 years and most women didn't work.

The freakin' DemonRats thought they'd never have to pay.

How'd it work out?

33 posted on 07/31/2003 5:54:22 PM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metesky
I get the honor of paying:
Todays two week payroll statement
Federal Income Tax. -74.81 YTD $1036.88
Social Security Tax.. -85.52 YTD $1124.36
Medicare Tax...........-20.01 YTD $ 282.96

Insurance.............-95.82 YTD $1245.77
(Health/Life/Short term disability)
401K.................. -29.17 YTD $ 383.26

SS recipient looking me straight in the eye while receiving an annual COLA raise and lobbying for a prescription drug program
..........................priceless....priceless
34 posted on 07/31/2003 6:30:16 PM PDT by sarasmom (Punish France, Ignore Germany, Forgive Russia. Canada-well they are mostly French)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson