General Discussion

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)

14. Do you even know the reasons why SS was started?

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 03:55 PM

Dec 2013

It wasn't started so the rich could be secure in their old age.

The Act was an attempt to limit unforeseen and/or unprepared for dangers in the modern life: including old age, disability, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widow(er)s with and without children.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should Social Security benefits be taxed? [View all] BlueCheese Dec 2013 OP

They weren't taxed until Reagan, & taxes were stepped up under Clinton. I don't think they El_Johns Dec 2013 #1

hell no SummerSnow Dec 2013 #2

No. But otherwise all sources income (wage, dividend, capital gains, interest) should be taxed same on point Dec 2013 #3

It should be taxed based on total income madville Dec 2013 #4

People with over a million $ saved for retirement should pay 100% tax on SS. L0oniX Dec 2013 #5

that makes no sense - did they not contribute? DrDan Dec 2013 #6

It's not an investment fund. L0oniX Dec 2013 #7

you contribute - you collect once you reach a certain age - that applies to EVERYONE DrDan Dec 2013 #8

The Koch thieves collecting SS is a stupid idea. WTF! L0oniX Dec 2013 #9

if they pay into the program, then they should get a check once they reach DrDan Dec 2013 #10

Well then there should not be a cap. They get a break? L0oniX Dec 2013 #12

I agree with eliminating the cap - terribly regressive DrDan Dec 2013 #13

Do you even know the reasons why SS was started? L0oniX Dec 2013 #14

if you raised the top income tax rate on their wages and income, I would have no problem with that DrDan Dec 2013 #15

The history of SS is easy to find and the intent of its use is very evident. L0oniX Dec 2013 #16

from the beginning, social security was established to provide (among other things) DrDan Dec 2013 #18

No one contributed as it was first started yet they collected because it was designed for the needy. L0oniX Dec 2013 #20

you are correct - no contributions when SS started . . . however, there were also DrDan Dec 2013 #40

I don't really care about being correct. I try to care about people who need help. L0oniX Dec 2013 #41

so I am confident you realize Social Security initially paid ONLY a retirement benefit DrDan Dec 2013 #43

so when the rich reach retirement age, cut them a check for their... grasswire Dec 2013 #33

Social Security pays for more than a "retirement" check - contributions from the wealty are needed DrDan Dec 2013 #37

It was started as a tax on workers to fund their own retirement security program -- not as a welfare El_Johns Dec 2013 #21

Read up... L0oniX Dec 2013 #31

I have read a great deal. The way a program is funded is crucial to its designation as a "welfare" El_Johns Dec 2013 #32

"SS was established as a program to benefit workers" It's not exclusive to workers. L0oniX Dec 2013 #36

It IS exclusive to workers. Only the widows/widowers & children of workers who paid into the El_Johns Dec 2013 #39

I agree if the Koch brothers or Bill Gates paid into SS doc03 Dec 2013 #47

What makes you think the Kochs paid any significant amount of SS tax, since they inherited El_Johns Dec 2013 #25

It's a Metaphor ...but that may be a challenge to assume with me not actually saying so. L0oniX Dec 2013 #27

I don't understand your sentence: El_Johns Dec 2013 #28

This message was self-deleted by its author Skittles Dec 2013 #51

No, they shouldn't and weren't until Reagan. trof Dec 2013 #11

I amlimited to how much I can take out of my 401K hollysmom Dec 2013 #17

Same here I am single and my pension puts me over $25000 so that makes doc03 Dec 2013 #48

I have to pay income taxes on mine madokie Dec 2013 #19

Bipartisan "reform" El_Johns Dec 2013 #22

Changes originate out of Congress madville Dec 2013 #24

Bipartisan Congresses signed on to both, under both R & D presidents. El_Johns Dec 2013 #26

I was working full time while collecting Social Security. RebelOne Dec 2013 #23

Additionally, the deduction they take out for Medicare is based upon..... northoftheborder Dec 2013 #29

No (nt) bigwillq Dec 2013 #30

For people who make a lot, yes, but 25K is too low treestar Dec 2013 #34

Absolutely not! llmart Dec 2013 #35

taxing social security more? why not go after religious organization tax beachbum bob Dec 2013 #38

No I don't believe it should Packerowner740 Dec 2013 #42

No, absolutely not. ananda Dec 2013 #44

When raising taxes, WJC made a maximum of 85% of social security benefits subject to taxation, indepat Dec 2013 #45

I am a single retired steelworker, I get a pension that certainly isn't doc03 Dec 2013 #46

Up to $100,000 other taxable joint income should be tax free Omaha Steve Dec 2013 #49

That is like me taking a cut of my kid's allowance. indie9197 Dec 2013 #50