History Lesson on Your Social Security Card (Your Social Security)

I lost my card a long time ago. Am I in trouble?

not only is this hilariously out of date, it is also wildly misleading. congratulations!!

and stop posting stupid email forwards from 2005.

kaitainen - it has a plausible ring. if you can't refute it, direct us to someone/site who can.

Get your facts straight. Since you are wrong on #2 I question your facts in some of the others.

For 2009 and 2010 the rate for what you are referring to as social security is 6.2% applied to the first $106,800. This was for OASDI. (Old-age survivors and disability insurance). THis is then matched by the employer.

On top of that there is 1.45% which has no dollar limit. This is the Medicare portion.

However, if you have paid any attention, there is a proposal for 2011 to limit the employees portion to 4.2%.

Now if you want facts: The republicans whined and moaned about athe 800 billion baleout, but are willing to allow the wealthy to avoid any potential tax increase (although few of the wealthy were complaining about an increase) which will cost an estimated 800-900 billion over the next two years.

scottdye wrote:

Get your facts straight. Since you are wrong on #2 I question your facts in some of the others.

For 2009 and 2010 the rate for what you are referring to as social security is 6.2% applied to the first $106,800. This was for OASDI. (Old-age survivors and disability insurance). THis is then matched by the employer.

On top of that there is 1.45% which has no dollar limit. This is the Medicare portion.

However, if you have paid any attention, there is a proposal for 2011 to limit the employees portion to 4.2%.

Now if you want facts: The republicans whined and moaned about athe 800 billion baleout, but are willing to allow the wealthy to avoid any potential tax increase (although few of the wealthy were complaining about an increase) which will cost an estimated 800-900 billion over the next two years.

Get your facts straight. The tax rate is double what you have posted. If you think you are not paying that portion, you are wrong.

gewk wrote:

kaitainen - it has a plausible ring. if you can't refute it, direct us to someone/site who can.

sorry, i'm not inclined to take the time to do either. the $90,000 limit is from 2005, that is how it is clear this is an out of date email forward. i'm not going to take the time to refute, point by point, a nakedly and stupidly partisan email forward from 5 years ago.

if you want a head start, pay attention to how many non-committal words there are in the text, relating to plans or promises or "up to". it is all designed to be misleading. don't fall for it.

This is probably futile because conservatives as a group aren't going to let the facts interfere with a good made up controversy, but the facts are:http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/fdrs-voluntary-social-security/

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

Yup, uninformed citizens believe crap like the OP posted all the time...

twisted logic. If the employer didn't have to pay the similar amount (which is what I assume you meant by double) he certainly is not going to give it to the employee. So don't try to make it look worse than it is with statements that the tax rate is double.

scottdye wrote:

willing to allow the wealthy to avoid any potential tax increase ... which will cost an estimated 800-900 billion over the next two years.

Allowing people to keep money they earned is not a "cost."

scottdye wrote:

twisted logic. If the employer didn't have to pay the similar amount (which is what I assume you meant by double) he certainly is not going to give it to the employee. So don't try to make it look worse than it is with statements that the tax rate is double.

While the incidence of the SS tax may not fall 100% on the employee as the other poster claimed, it certainly is not 50% as the OP claims. The consensus seems to be that 100% is closer to the truth than 50%.

Bear of Bad News wrote:

scottdye wrote:

twisted logic. If the employer didn't have to pay the similar amount (which is what I assume you meant by double) he certainly is not going to give it to the employee. So don't try to make it look worse than it is with statements that the tax rate is double.

While the incidence of the SS tax may not fall 100% on the employee as the other poster claimed, it certainly is not 50% as the OP claims. The consensus seems to be that 100% is closer to the truth than 50%.

Yes, let's conduct a little test. If the employer had to pay the entire 12.4% on the first 100K of pay, and 2.9% on the entire pay, isn't the employee actually paying that (the employer is just paying it for them as a convenience)? IOW, the FICA number on your pay stub is 50% fiction. Sorry if this bursts your bubble of innocence...

scottdye wrote:

twisted logic. If the employer didn't have to pay the similar amount (which is what I assume you meant by double) he certainly is not going to give it to the employee. So don't try to make it look worse than it is with statements that the tax rate is double.

Try working for yourself and get back to us on what the real FICA tax rate is. You'll be unpleasantly surprised.

Participation in Social Security was never voluntary and was never intended to be so. That has been the case since day one.

The rate was initially 1%, but the cap was higher and FDR himself raised the rate. There was never a promise that it would remain at 1%.

It was never tax deductible. Ever. From day one it was not tax deductible. Are you just making this up?

Hey, did you know that Reagan passed a tax break for pimps, making all the money that they made from the prostitution business tax deductible? It's Absolutely True(tm)!

No, it's always been part of the general fund.

Generally a bi-partisan decision designed to keep SS solvent. I'm sure you agree. It is true that annuity payments originally weren't taxed, but that was never a promise. We started taxing them in 1983. I'll let you work out who was running the Senate then and who was President.

Buddy, I am an immigrant. I paid into social security with every paycheck. Perhaps you should explain to me why I should not be eligible to receive these benefits.

Illegal immigrants don't receive social security. Never have. Legal immigrants are actually in the same boat as citizens - they get social security to the extent that they paid into the system. So, if your claim is that someone could move to the US at age 65, become a permanent resident, and start getting social security... well, you are wrong.

Take note - nearly every statement you made was factually incorrect. Ten minutes research would have shown you this. But no. Not only are you wrong, you are lazy. You can't even be bothered to do the minimal amount of checking of your statements. Apathy and ignorance is not a point of view. Next time you have an opinion, please shut the hell up and let the adults talk. You are free to enter the conversation when you've actually put a coherent thought together that is supported by something other than your own masturbatory fantasies.

Have a really super day.