Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Latest RW disinformation email, RE: SOCIAL SECURITY, DEBUNKED

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 01:01 AM
Original message
Latest RW disinformation email, RE: SOCIAL SECURITY, DEBUNKED
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

Apparently the anonymous little troll who churns out disinfo for the GOP never rests, coming soon from an ignorant freeper near you: bullshit "facts" about Social Security!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2467685/posts

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65%

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

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,



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. interesting. My brother has already sent me this - twice
I assumed that much of it was true, but I still thought it was a crap argument. First, I pointed out that $1,400 in 1935 is about the same as $23,000 today. Second, I said that it only seems fair to tax higher incomes too. I make $12,000 a year (about). If FICA taxes were only assessed on the first $12,000 in income, then I would be paying a 6.2% tax rate while a person making $24,000 a year would only be paying a 3.1% tax rate and a person making $48,000 a year would be paying a 1.65% tax rate. That would be very unfair, in my view, to lower income workers. Third, I said that the cap could be lower and the rate lower in 1935 because there were more working people per retiree. Now, because most people are not having such large families, there are not nearly as many workers for each retiree.

Then I probably mentioned Peter Peterson or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. All myths will be debunked soon
including the myth of solvency, the myth that there is a "trust fund", or the myth that any person under the age of 55 is going to collect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. way to pass on the right-wing propaganda. good show!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. It ain't propaganda
Simple facts about SS:

#1 - in 1950 the Supreme Court ruled that paying SS tax entitles the payer to exactly nothing.
#2 - the alleged "trust fund" consists of pure intragovernmental debt. This is like me alleging that I have a billion dollar retirement fund because I have put a billion dollar liability on the other side of my balance sheet to pay for it.
#3 - the SS balance of payments went negative last year.

If you hold onto the myth that SS will be there for you when it comes your time to retire, you have one nasty surprise coming. It will definitely NOT come as a surprise to those of us who are paying attention and following the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. everything in your post is right-wing propaganda. good show!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Go ahead stick your fingers in your ears
and pretend it ain't the truth.

But don't do everyone else here the disservice of leading them to believe something will be there for them when the laws of mathematics forbid it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. i'm not sticking my fingers in my ears. i heard your right-wing talking points.
Edited on Wed Mar-10-10 02:31 AM by Hannah Bell
like i've heard them for the last fifty years.

good show!

"straight outta fairfax"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. If it won't be there, it would be because Republicons squandered it
as usual...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 05:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. There was no 1950 Supreme Court ruling regarding Social Security.
Edited on Wed Mar-10-10 05:09 AM by Lasher
If you think it's bad for the Trust Funds to consist of "...pure intragovernmental debt" then please tell me what else you think it should consist of.

At the end of Calendar Year 2008 the Social Security Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds had a balance of $2.42 trillion. The balance at the end of 2009 was $2.54 trillion, reflecting a net gain of $120 billion. And yet you say the balance of payments went negative last year. The balance of payments was negative last year, but only during the third quarter.

There is much more seasonality in trust fund income compared to trust fund outgo. There are 2 reasons for this:

  1. Tax income reaches a peak in the second calendar quarter when many self-employed people pay their taxes with their income tax returns. After the second quarter, tax income falls as earnings of more and more people reach the taxable maximum for Social Security.


  2. Interest on special-issue securities is paid on June 30 and December 31. While relatively small amounts of interest are paid in every month when securities are redeemed, interest income is always largest in the second and fourth quarters.


The combination of the seasonality in tax and interest income has made total income lowest in the third quarter of each year.

When you said, "the SS balance of payments went negative last year," you didn't bother to mention that this was only during the third quarter, or that last year's net balance of payments was positive, or that the yearend balance of the Trust Funds was higher than ever before. Too busy paying attention and following the money, I'll bet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
3. that's been around for a long time. but i'm sure as the effort to reduce benefits gears up, it will
increase circulation too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
6. The troll that pushes this stuff actually costs us money, when SS has to spend time debunking it.
Edited on Wed Mar-10-10 02:20 AM by Historic NY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. check this thread. straight from winger talking points central.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. There are a bunch of RW trolls
on DU now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
11. These are the facts, from the SSA debunking link cited in the OP.
Not that the facts matter to the Reich Wing Corporatist hand-puppet delusionals.

From http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary

Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.


Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

(The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year

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.)


Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be 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

The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, 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 myth 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 affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. (The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.)

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department. (A detailed explanation of the 1983 Amendments can be found elsewhere on our website.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. But wait, there's more.
Edited on Wed Mar-10-10 06:06 AM by Lasher
Social Security Administration: Debunking Some Internet Myths Link furnished in the OP and by you.
Social Security Administration: Debunking Some Internet Myths - Part 2
Snopes: Social Security Changes
FactCheck.org: FDR’s “Voluntary” Social Security
TruthOrFiction.com: Social Security Origins?

Now that Obama has created a commission to cut costs, we'll be seeing this and other rightwing chain emails more often as the campaign to gut Social Security gears up yet again.

Edit: Links posted here in the DU Propaganda Debunking Group

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. those links are probably worth saving
I am sure I will need them again at some point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. I posted them in the Propaganda Debunking Group so they would be easy to find later.
So even if you don't save them you'll be OK if you can just remember the Propaganda Debunking Group. And yes, we're going to see all that bullshit recycled again this year. But that's OK, debunking rightwing chain emails has become somewhat of a hobby for me and Social Security is one of my favorite subjects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
16. One big paragraph he didn't add that is TRUE and Not FALSE
if Reagan had taken most of the surplus in the social security fund to balance his budget after he gave those big big tax cuts to the super rich and corporations, social security would be on solid ground.

If the MSM wanted to really tell a story why do they always skip that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
17. K & R!
There's some worthwhile discussion here. That was the first time I had herd of that alleged "Supreme Court decision", but it probably won't be the last!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-10-10 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
19. Thanks. Debunking repuke bullshit on SS is always worthwhile! - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC