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
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: Stop it, stop saying Social Security needs reform, you are a Democrat, right? [View all]HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)84. it's you who's misunderstanding. nothing changed under johnson in the disposition of SS funds.
what happened was a matter of paper accounting only -- whether the accounting of SS was placed 'off-budget' or 'on-budget'.
In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a "unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."
SS accounting was taken 'off-budget' again by Reagan:
In the 1983 Social Security Amendments a provision was included mandating that Social Security be taken "off-budget" starting in FY 1993...This change was in fact enacted into statute in the Social Security Amendments of 1983, signed into law by President Reagan on April 20, 1983.
So, to sum up:
1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
SS isn't "in the general budget" in any way different from how it was when it began. Initially SS went into a special account; the TF was established in 1939, before payments started being made.
In the Social Security Act of 1935 the income from the payroll tax was to be credited to a Social Security "account." Benefits were to be paid against this account, but there was no formal trust fund as such. Taxes began to be collected in January 1937, and monthly benefits were to be paid starting in January 1942 (later pushed forward to January 1940). So the payroll taxes were just credits in the Social Security account on the Treasury's ledger under the initial law. The investment rules governing payroll tax income were also established in the 1935, and are essentially the same ones in use today.
In the 1939 Amendments, a formal trust fund was established and a requirement was put in place for annual reports on the actuarial status of the fund..."
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
In the 1939 Amendments, a formal trust fund was established and a requirement was put in place for annual reports on the actuarial status of the fund..."
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
211 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
Stop it, stop saying Social Security needs reform, you are a Democrat, right? [View all]
FogerRox
Mar 2013
OP
Alas, I am not on Twitter. But there are other ways to contact the people involved.
CaliforniaPeggy
Mar 2013
#10
We want to blow up twitter and Facebook with these graphics and #HandsOffSocialSecurity #noSScuts SS
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#12
Raising the income cap is a no-brainer. It's so frustrating that we can't even get this simple
Flatulo
Mar 2013
#67
The SS Trust Fund is not part of the General fund. It never was Since it was set up Jan 1 1940
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#34
No. From the beginning of Social Security, any excess SS taxes were borrowed by the federal
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#85
I think that's why he did it too. And not him, really -- Greenspan and his allies. And also to
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#89
that's always been my feeling about the reagan-era changes. there was no reason to jack
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#106
I've posted it here before, without much interest, but I'll look for the post and try again.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#138
i kicked it again and it didn't show up either. weird. i have another op that the same thing
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#194
it's you who's misunderstanding. nothing changed under johnson in the disposition of SS funds.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#84
"how to win an election then abandon the reasons you won - coming soon to amazon nt
msongs
Mar 2013
#5
no. that's not a problem. it's being sold to you as a problem, but it's not.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#92
Currently Ave male 18k, average female 13k, max benefit 30k, I know the numbers by heart
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#64
The people who created the program knew what they were doing. Lifting the cap means
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#93
1937? The Trust Fund was started in 1940. 2037 is total bullshit, an unrealistic prediction
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#27
It's best to study the SS Trustees' reports for oneself, instead of relying on what politicians say.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#96
Actually, it wasn't until around 1985 that the tax was raised to create a cushion
JDPriestly
Mar 2013
#177
Did you make up the 1937 date? Original Law 1935, SS ammedments wet into effect in Jan 1, 1940
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#49
Since there's $3 trillion owed to SS, why do you want to raise the cap and collect even*more* money
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#94
Raise income taxes on capital and let them PAY BACK THE MONEY THEY BORROWED FIRST.
reteachinwi
Mar 2013
#139
create jobs and raise min wage SS is good thru 2090 according to the Trustees 2012 low cost scenario
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#36
A few years ago it was 10 years. I got a flyer in the mail from the Soc Sec Admin.
Honeycombe8
Mar 2013
#188
The ratio of FICA that goes into the 2 funds, (OAS & DI) has been changed in the past.
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#77
The SS Trustees, in their middle forecast, say it will go into the red in 21 years. That's the
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#99
It makes sense that current forecasts would be depressed because of the recession.
Honeycombe8
Mar 2013
#190
yes indeed. one reason why the numbers should be taken with a big grain of salt. as should
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#100
Because in fact, the low-cost forecast has been the most accurate over time. And because
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#101
I think anyone who claims to be able to guess what long-term unemployment will be from 2030 to
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#134
He did it by creating a real estate bubble that almost caused a systemic collapse.
dkf
Mar 2013
#160
" The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate for the future behavior "
dkf
Mar 2013
#51
The pessimistic projections are used by people like you to advocate for SS abolition
duffyduff
Mar 2013
#88
The same is true of investments in the stock market and for the same reason.
JDPriestly
Mar 2013
#63
"We have to raise the minimum wage and the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes."
ProSense
Mar 2013
#105
I'm actually not surprised at your attempt to blur the distinction between LABOR INCOME &
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#109
The cap on income is raised every year. There's a good reason for having a cap, it's the
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#108
this year's cap is $113.7 K. Only wage income has SS taxes taken out, not capital income.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#117
I believe the people who set up SS were wiser than you. The cap exists for a reason, and that
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#122
yes, raising the cap to keep it around 90% is fine by me. I read different accounts in the media
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#128
link? it's a bit unbelievable to me that $215K = 90% of covered income when $250K = top 2%.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#176
The question is, *why* did my hypothetical high earner receive an income tax cut, while
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#123
I don't think we're following each other. At least, i have no idea what you're talking about.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#129
I agree that the Social Security tax should be imposed on all income including
JDPriestly
Mar 2013
#198
I would impose the Social Security tax on all income regardless of the source.
JDPriestly
Mar 2013
#197
IT'll be better after creating 20 million jobs, I think Sir, you bypassed that little tid bit.
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#74
When did anyone other than you, and then as a strawman, say "everything is better the way it is"?
AnotherMcIntosh
Mar 2013
#90
If people are not working, they sure as hell are not paying in, and Richie Rich knows that. Why do
lonestarnot
Mar 2013
#68
Amen HiPointDem, good to see you in the House. SKinner said yes to my request for
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#81
I'm not on facebook or twitter but if you want me to do something here i'll be happy to.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#111
Bill Gates doesn't pay social security taxes. david rockefeller doesn't pay social security taxes.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#119
I want to know what we are prepared to about it when they come out with their "compromise"?
Egalitarian Thug
Mar 2013
#110
JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"
graham4anything
Mar 2013
#133
If you don't like Iraq, blame Ralph Nader and Ron and Rand Paul.They got the Bush's elected
graham4anything
Mar 2013
#202
2 ways, you can click the facebook logo that says like, found at the bottom of the OP
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#143
Rasie the cap? Hom much- just enough for a COLA, Ok sure. Increasing benefits
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#152
Eliminate the cap completely. There is no logical or moral justification for it.
Romulox
Mar 2013
#156
:~) well okay, Social Security isnt about progressive taxation, its wage insurance.
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#161
Nonsense. If Social Security is "welfare", then the entire government is "welfare".
Romulox
Mar 2013
#165
Onnce more. IF we remove the cap, and then cap benefits, we are means testing SS, yes or no?
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#167
Of course. It's your framing of "welfare" I reject, not the mathematics of the thing.
Romulox
Mar 2013
#172
I appreciate you making shit up, its indicative of your character. Pleasant dreams.
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#169