Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Attempt to Harm Social Security? Impeachment is on the table. [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)83. Clearly, they
impeached Clinton for the wrong reason. Clinton increased the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxes.
<...>
Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).
The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.
President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.
A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.
Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?
A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.
This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.
(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).
The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.
President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.
A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.
Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?
A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.
This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.
(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
Let's see, under Reagan benefits of $1,500 would see about $750 of that taxed. At 15 percent, that would be about $112.
Under Clinton, the taxable amount rose to $1,275. At 15 percent, that would be about $191, an increase in taxes of about $78.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
111 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sure. High crimes and misdemeanors means what ever Congress can get the votes for.
TheKentuckian
Apr 2013
#94
"High crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever a majority of the House says it means.
Bake
Apr 2013
#36
biden? lol. the senator from the tax haven of delaware. it's not even a state, it's a fiefdom.
HiPointDem
Apr 2013
#108
what's delusional, nutty, is thinking impeachment for making changes to Social Security
cali
Apr 2013
#71
This is absurd. Many budget cuts could, theoretically, indirectly lead to fatalities.
TimberValley
Apr 2013
#22
By that logic, Republicans in the House should definitely impeach themselves over Benghazi
Proud Liberal Dem
Apr 2013
#86
Why don't we go after the gas, oil, and electric companies for raising their prices....
OldDem2012
Apr 2013
#34
Sigh. Please show me a link where the President has actually cut one cent from SS. nt.
OldDem2012
Apr 2013
#89
So, you want to impeach the President for a suggesting that SS be cut, even though....
OldDem2012
Apr 2013
#18
Please stop. He knows that the Senate Dems will never agree to cuts in any earned benefit program...
OldDem2012
Apr 2013
#28
Did the sequester affect earned benefits in any way? No. So, what's your point? nt.
OldDem2012
Apr 2013
#35
Did the sequester affect earned benefits in any way? No. So, what's your point?....
OldDem2012
Apr 2013
#44
Sorry, and I don't want to sound calloused, but that's not an earned benefit. Try again. nt.
OldDem2012
Apr 2013
#63
Wow. My posts are very clearly written for anyone with basic English reading skills....
OldDem2012
Apr 2013
#92
The hole you're digging with each post is under your own feet. Please stop. nt.
OldDem2012
Apr 2013
#97
I'd probably want to see the actual budget proposal before calling for impeachment
bhikkhu
Apr 2013
#19
All of this impeachment crap is starting to sound like what we hear all of time from....
OldDem2012
Apr 2013
#31
This is what happens when the POTUS acts like he doesn't care about people. nt
Chef Eric
Apr 2013
#48
No, it's what happens when people have immediate knee-jerk reactions to anything that....
OldDem2012
Apr 2013
#55
Who, me? LOL! I'm not angry about anything. In fact I'm greatly amused by the OP and....
OldDem2012
Apr 2013
#64
I can see very clearly that you need a class on basic English comprehension. nt.
OldDem2012
Apr 2013
#90
I don't think it is any dumber than posts claiming Obama is playing "chess" with his opponents
duffyduff
Apr 2013
#68
Who gives a shit what it is for? Throw him to the wolves and give yeas for whatever token nonsense
TheKentuckian
Apr 2013
#95
Whatever. Go hug a teddybear while adults make the adult decisions. Kids don't always like what has
Pisces
Apr 2013
#65
"Attempt to Harm Social Security? Impeachment is on the table"??? GROW UP!!!!!
George II
Apr 2013
#87
Take a deep breath partner. As usual, people are jumping off the deep end WAY too early.
RBInMaine
Apr 2013
#91