This should really bother U= copy/paste

Subject: Your SOCIAL SECURITY… and how it has changed…

Good to be reminded, know we all worked hard to get our SS.
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card

Just in case some of you didn’t know this. It’s easy to check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.

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% on the first $90,000

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…

Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore, Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

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 'T

from you own copied post…

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

so without the foresight of a democrat…we wouldn’t even have a program that provides some sort of financial security for our elderly, 99.999% of which are either immigrant citizens or descendants of immigrants.

quote:
Originally posted by sea tonic

from you own copied post…

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

so without the foresight of a democrat…we wouldn’t even have a program that provides some sort of financial security for our elderly, 99.999% of which are either immigrant citizens or descendants of immigrants.


…or “illegal Immigrants”…

Yea ; but also read who’s been stealing it ever since:imp::imp::imp::imp::imp::imp:

quote:
Originally posted by sea tonic

from you own copied post…

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

so without the foresight of a democrat…we wouldn’t even have a program that provides some sort of financial security for our elderly, 99.999% of which are either immigrant citizens or descendants of immigrants.


No matter who started it, who’s been mismanaging it? More Democrats than republicans. But both parties are doing a terrible job with it. All politicians need to be but on S.S. and then it would most likely get fixed.

If you add in all the illegals it still wouldn’t be 99.999%. Did you know that Native Americans make up 2% of America. Not sure the % of Illegals using Mine and your S.S. money but I’d say a good amount. So let’s just say that anyone other than Native Americans are immigrants? Come on sea tonic. I don’t consider myself after 5 generations to be an immigrant. I’m an American.

“If Bruce Jenner can keep his wiener and be called a woman, I can keep my firearms and be considered disarmed.”

GW, did you bother to vet any of that? Here’s a start, what’s the difference between Social Security benefit payments and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments? There are several that should be of interest …

Thanks Gail.

I had forgotten some of those elements of the Social “Security” system.

******************************************************

Here are a few more that many people have forgotten:

If you look up on the internet, the original 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said, “After the first 3 years - that is to say, beginning in 1940 - you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. . . beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. . . . And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year.”

Then Congress added a lying promise: “That is the most you will ever pay.

According to Webster’s Dictionary, the definition for the word “ever” contains descriptions like: “at all times,” “always,” and “at any time.”

Had Congress lived up to its promise, our maximum Social Security tax this year would be $90 instead of $7,866.40 for 2017. The Social Security Act of 1935 would have never been enacted had Americans back then known that we’d be subject to a $7,866.40 tax.

Another lie in the Social Security pamphlet is, “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. . . . The checks will come to you as a right.

Americans were led to believe Social Security was like a retirement account and money placed in it was our property. The fact of the matter is you have no property right whatsoever to your Social Security “contributions.”

You say, “Bottom Scratcher, that’s crazy; what do you mean?”

In a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case, Helvering v. Davis, the Court held that Social Security was not an insurance program saying, "The proceeds of both employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the treasury like any other inte

Kind of like, If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor:wink:

The democrats created SS as a slush fund and as a way to sway the masses to vote for them. Never did they intend to use it as it was offered.

The Ghost of Beardsley Ruml</font id=“size3”>

What?

Now, Bottom Scratcher you have really lost your marbles.

Hold on, everyone. You are FAR more acquainted with Beardsley Ruml than you think.

Ever look at your paycheck?

Let’s say you make (to keep the math easy for me) - $10/hour. You work 40 hours per week. Doing the math, you took home $400 last week, yes?

No?

Bottom Scratcher, of course I didn’t take home $400 last week – I have “withholding” taxes.

Exactly. The ghost of Beardsley Ruml has “struck” once again.

In the early 1930’s, Beardsley Ruml was treasurer of R.H. Macy & Company, the large New York based retailer. While with Macy’s he found that customers didn’t like big bills. As a solution, Ruml came up with the idea of breaking down customer purchases into monthly payments. As part of this idea he also attached an interest charge. Nevertheless Macy’s customers preferred installment payments, even if they had pay interest to relieve their pain.

A few years later, our Progressive President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed Beardsley Ruml to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Ruml’s role at the Federal Reserve included the legislation that gave us withholding taxes as we know it.

In those years Washington was busy marshaling the forces of the American economy to halt Japan and Germany. In 1942 lawmakers raised income taxes radically, with rates that aimed to capture twice as much taxes as the previous year. They also imposed the income tax on tens of millions of Americans who had never been acquainted with the taxes before.

But even in this most patriotic of moments, it was not evident that Americans were willing to pay the new tax. In those days, taxpayers sent one big check to the government. And as spring arrived in 1943, it appeared that many citizens might not ante up and file returns. Henry Morgenthau, the Treasury secretary under Roosevelt, confronted politicians about the nightmarish prospect of mass