# Let us not forget who dipped into SOCIAL SECURITY



## RodISHI (May 20, 2017)

HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) 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 NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION message was removed.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. His promises are in black, with updates in red.

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, and 15% on the first $90,000 if you’re self-employed],

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 [Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and Spent], and

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 ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

AND MY FAVORITE:

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Now, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, though. Some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so — but it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.


----------



## The Irish Ram (May 20, 2017)

Very good post.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (May 20, 2017)

*****SMILE*****


----------



## gipper (May 20, 2017)

..and let us not forget that Obama cut SS just a year and half ago, and the MSM ignored it.    

Baby Boomer Social Security Shocker

Obama cuts social security...


----------



## RodISHI (May 20, 2017)

The Irish Ram said:


> Very good post.


I merely bummed it from a friend. I have elderly aunts that worked their whole lives paying into the program. They barely make ends meet and it galls me to think that some of these foreigners and brats believe that they have a right to take away from my aunts just because they think they can.


----------



## gipper (May 20, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
> 
> Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) 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.
> 
> ...


I am willing to bet that a majority of D voters don't know anything about this, but they do know the R party is the party of the 1% and the D party is the party of the little guy.


----------



## RodISHI (May 20, 2017)

gipper said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
> ...


My dad was a lifetime D and me I got to know good honest people in the R's. There was a time when the D's had very good people in their party but when crooked drugged out lawyers got in there they turned that party into a shit pit of snakes. Not that I believe all R's are perfect as I know better but I do have to go by the history I personally know of and the overall historical records.


----------



## The Irish Ram (May 20, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Very good post.
> ...



Then you have wise friends.  

If one googles, _who stole from the SS Fund_, we see that every president has helped himself. Trump will too.  It is like their ATM.  Because the money is gone, they are now stealing from our children in order to meet the obligation to seniors.  And are teaching our snowflakes that seniors are sucking our economy dry, with an unrealistic entitlement. 
And we keep right on giving. 

My father's local union was the richest in the country because he had a clause inserted in their contract that the money was not allowed to be touch by the international branch.  For our children's sake we need that on a federal level.


----------



## jwoodie (May 29, 2017)

Social Security has been a Ponzi Scheme from the get-go and, no matter how much feed is thrown at them, the chickens are coming home to roost.


----------



## JoeTheEconomist (Jun 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
> 
> Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) 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.
> 
> ...



It is internet spam.  Here is the Social Security Administration's pages on urban legends.

Social Security History

Social Security History


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
> 
> Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) 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.
> 
> ...


Half of the 15% on self employed is covered by the govt.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 1, 2017)

The Irish Ram said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


That is because it was an off-budget item, then when it was switched to an on-budget item it was pilfered.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Very good post.
> ...


Bummed or not, it needs a link or plagiarism will be triggered.


----------



## RodISHI (Jun 1, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
> ...


We had to pay ours in from our own pocketbooks.


----------



## RodISHI (Jun 1, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Oh well, I liked it so bummed it and shared it. I snagged it from Rod's FB page and no I won't link that here.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


Maybe the mods will never notice, or the spy bots.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


You never did the SE form where you deduct the amount from the total due? It is on line 5 of form SE.
Deduction for one-half of self-employment tax. Multiply line 5 by 50% (0.50). Enter the result here and on Form 1040, line 27, or Form 1040NR, line 27
If not, you paid too much.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Jun 2, 2017)

JoeTheEconomist said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
> ...



Does that mean the money is still there?  Whew, for a minute there I was worried....


----------



## JoeTheEconomist (Jun 2, 2017)

The Irish Ram said:


> JoeTheEconomist said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



What money that was put in is there earning interest.  The problem isn't the amount of money that was taken, but rather how little was put into the program in the first place.  Originally workers were supposed to pay 6% of wages.  Congress kept it at 2%, and in the 1950s turned the program into a reelection campaign fund.  By 1960, an average couple expected to collect $8 for every $1 contributed on an investment adjusted basis.

The lesson here is that you can't sell dollars for dimes.  The other lesson is that the problem isn't with the dime, it is the $0.90 that was never contributed that is the problem.

But it feels good to beat our chests about how the money was stolen, and the government cheated us.  It feels better than hearing that we just weren't paying attention.


----------



## Supposn (Jun 5, 2017)

RodISHA, I’m a U.S. citizen and a populist that’s unaware of any populist factions of populists anywhere in the world that are not proponents of government policy to, (as is expressed within USA’s constitution’s preamble), “promote the general welfare” of their nations.

Many other national governments’ regulations and purposes are somewhat similar to United States Social Security’s regulations and purposes.  The preponderance of those nations are, (similar to the United States), democratic republics.

Populists should be grateful for posts such as yours.  They bolster our populist positions and reduce the political power of those that oppose us.  No nation, particularly no democratic republic has or will ever rescind without satisfactorily replacing government regulations that provide for purposes similar to our Social Security regulations.  Posts and other expressions such as yours serve to reduce the political powers of our enemies.

Gratefully yours, Supposn


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jun 22, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
> 
> Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) 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.
> 
> ...


*You are not complete in as you left out that the Government has been issuing IOUs to the SS fund for many years....Or are you like me and losing information as we get older.*


----------



## 12icer (Jun 23, 2017)

You need to read the actual actions not the synopsis of your links They don't exactly match the narrative by some archive employee. Just like a lot of the bills brought from the Thomas Library have a new narrative to twist the readers view to a liberal view like the second amendment narrative.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 23, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
> 
> Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) 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.
> 
> ...


So typical of everything from the Right, ALL LIES!

For example:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Truth: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. *The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."*

Example # 2:
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

Truth: *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.


----------



## gipper (Jun 23, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
> ...


Yet Obama cut SS and no one knows about it.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 23, 2017)

gipper said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


Probably because it never actually happened.
 Please link to the LAW he signed.


----------



## gipper (Jun 23, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You just proved once again how uninformed you are.  When will you learn?

Linked it months ago when it happened.  Even linked the thread I generated.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 23, 2017)

gipper said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


So, you are trying to pass off the removal of a loophole that was abused by WEALTHY COUPLES who try to game the SS system as a cut in benefits to ALL  collecting SS. A typical CON$ervoFascist half-truth/whole-lie.

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.
- Seymour Essrog


----------



## gipper (Jun 23, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Can't you be honest about this?  

I can see cutting this benefit but the fact remains, Obama CUT SOCIAL SECURITY!!!

You didn't even know about  this as most Americans don't, thanks to a dishonest media.

Trick Question:  If W or Trump did this, would the DNC media still have kept you in the dark?


----------



## RodISHI (Jun 23, 2017)

gipper said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Thank you!


----------



## RodISHI (Jun 23, 2017)

12icer said:


> You need to read the actual actions not the synopsis of your links They don't exactly match the narrative by some archive employee. Just like a lot of the bills brought from the Thomas Library have a new narrative to twist the readers view to a liberal view like the second amendment narrative.


Creative accounting is the same as theft.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 23, 2017)

Rodishi is right. Just this year, the state of Oregon determined that the Dept. of Human Services can verify identity using..not just a social security CARD...but the number itself. As long as it shows up on the SSA record screens that the state has access to.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 23, 2017)

gipper said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


No he didn't, he cut cheating SS by using a loophole only available to wealthy couples.


----------



## gipper (Jun 23, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Oh brother, no one was cheating.  The stinking lying criminal ruling class passed changes to SS, allowing it.

Don't be a dumb ass.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 23, 2017)

gipper said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


No, that is not how it was intended to be used. Slick tax cheats figured out how wealthy COUPLES could pervert the law for their personal gain, and Obama closed the loophole on the tax cheats. If you were not a tax cheat or were single, closing the loophole had no effect on you.


----------



## gipper (Jun 23, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Bull shit.  People were allowed to do it.  It was the law.

Stop with your foolishness.  

I could have used this loophole as could have millions of Americans.  I am not of age yet, but would have used it if it were available.  I am not rich or a tax cheat...fool.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 23, 2017)

gipper said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


The loophole applies only to COUPLES who work after retirement age and make OVER a certain threshold in adjusted income. The tax cheats worked a way around the threshold limit thus perverting the law, that loophole only was removed.


----------



## Supposn (Jun 30, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> ...  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 [Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and Spent] ...



Rodishi, social security funds were not, (as you contend), "dipped" into.

Tax revenues allocated for Social Security are not spent for other purposes.  The money is held as U.S. Treasury securities earning interest on behalf of Social Security administration until the moneys are spent for their intended purposes.

There are those uninformed and/or illogical and/or thoughtless people unable to understand or appreciate this concept; there are disingenuous politicians to placate such people.

Respectfully, Supposn


----------



## Supposn (Jun 30, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
> 
> Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) 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.
> 
> ...



Rodishi, defecation occurs; but I’m unaware of any illegal changes to our social security system.  You’re not opposed to Social security simply because the systems’, (as all laws and regulations) may be subject to change?

You apparently believe some changes to our Social Security systems are unreasonable or unjustified.   Precisely identify and explain why those modifications should not have been made and what remedies are you advocating?


Respectfully, Supposn


----------



## regent (Jul 23, 2017)

`If only Republicans had started Social Security think of the shape it would be in now. 
Of course the Republicans were afraid the USA would go communistic if passed, so those brave warriors fought it all the way. Of course the Republicans fought other programs to save America from communism, and they are now engaged in a similar battle to rid America of Obama-care.


----------



## Supposn (Sep 25, 2017)

regent said:


> `If only Republicans had started Social Security think of the shape it would be in now.
> Of course the Republicans were afraid the USA would go communistic if passed, so those brave warriors fought it all the way. Of course the Republicans fought other programs to save America from communism, and they are now engaged in a similar battle to rid America of Obama-care.


Social Security is a constant and great irritation to the Republican Party.
In the 9130s', Republicans were the extremely unpopular minority party; Republicans in congress couldn't possibly prevented Social Security from being enacted. Since its enactment, Republicans could not directly kill it, and their efforts to undermine or otherwise weaken it have all thus far failed. It remains a constant and great irritation to the Republican Party.

Now due to medi_cal technological advancements, life spans have increased; (but the quality of those increased years have not been equally improved)._

_Since 1975, (despite Republicans effort to prevent it's enactment), Social Security retirement benefits have been pegged to the U-CP index and retain their purchasing powers. Social Security benefits continue to reduce poverty among the elderly, their families. Thus it continues to be of net benefit to USA's economy._

_Other than the actual amounts and method of funding Social Security retirement, I'm aware of no significant administrating fault within our federal Social Security program._

_I advocate the FICA 15.3% taxes upon payrolls be reduced to 6.2% and the tax revenue will be Increased by a replacing effective 4.55% general federal sales tax. This would net increase federal tax revenue.
It would eliminate half of FICA payroll contributions to Social Security, FICA's entire contributions to Medicare, and reduce each employee's and employer's FICA contributions by 4.55% of payrolls._

_Refer to A populist tax proposal_

_Respectfully, Supposn_


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 25, 2017)

Social security was set up as an off budget item, yet it is currently an online budget item which means they can play with funds if need be..


----------



## Supposn (Sep 25, 2017)

koshergrl said:


> Rodishi is right. Just this year, the state of Oregon determined that the Dept. of Human Services can verify identity using..not just a social security CARD...but the number itself. As long as it shows up on the SSA record screens that the state has access to.


KosherGrl, "Rodishi is right" concerning what?  Respectfully, Supposn


----------



## Supposn (Sep 25, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> Social security was set up as an off budget item, yet it is currently an online budget item which means they can play with funds if need be..


MoonGlow, has any taxes or funds allocated to Social Security been diverted for other purposes? You can provide authoritative links?

Respectfully, Supposn


----------



## JoeTheEconomist (Sep 26, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> Social security was set up as an off budget item, yet it is currently an online budget item which means they can play with funds if need be..


 
It was initially off-budget.  I was moved on-budget in 1969 because the system was a pay-as-you-go system that didn't accumulate any cash to play with.  As part of the 1983 Social Security reform, it was moved off-budget again as of 1990. It remains off-budget.

Budgets by the way do not move money or play with money.  Budgets explain where money went.  Social Security was moved off budget because the 1983 reforms moved the higher tax rates forward in time which did generate billions of excess dollars.  It was moved off budget so that Congress would not be tempted to play with the money.


----------



## JoeTheEconomist (Sep 26, 2017)

Supposn said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Social security was set up as an off budget item, yet it is currently an online budget item which means they can play with funds if need be..
> ...



Having done considerable research on the issue, I can provide the links that say there hasn't been any excess money to divert.  This is my article, which provides links to data from the SSA on the revenue and expense of the program.

The Myth of the Missing Social Security Trust Fund : FedSmith.com

It was written in 2015.  The conclusion was the Trust Fund is mostly interest and interest on interest.  That is the purchase of time, and does not enable the government to spend the money on anything but time.  That was about 60% of the fund, and that percentage is now closer to 70%.  Of the remaining money, more than half of it comes from general fund subsidies, meaning that every penny that has EVER been borrowed from Social Security was spent on one program : Social Security.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 4, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
> 
> Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) 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.
> 
> ...



Reagan begun taxing SS and under Clinton the higher earners were also taxed, I mean why should the lower earners just be taxed??


----------



## Penelope (Oct 4, 2017)

_AND MY FAVORITE:_

#_A: That's right!_

#_Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, they began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them even though they never paid a dime into it!_

#Damning stuff, eh? Too bad it isn't remotely true, according to Snopes:

#_No one  whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien  is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI)  the latter is a federal welfare program "designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" by providing "cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes. *SSI was not enacted by the administration of President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat); it was created and signed into law in 1972, during the administration of President Richard Nixon (a Republican).*_

‘Social Security' E-mail Debunked By Snopes


----------



## RodISHI (Oct 4, 2017)

Social Security History

Social Security History


----------



## JoeTheEconomist (Oct 4, 2017)

Penelope said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
> ...



I am writing a piece on these taxes this AM, and if you would like an answer to your question let me know and I will send you the link when it is published. Long article short, because Social Security would hit insolvency a heck of a lot faster and the cuts would be even larger than they are projected today.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 4, 2017)

JoeTheEconomist said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


 
Yes that would be great. Thank you. Personally I have no issue with the taxes on SS.  Too keep up with the times, the tax on SS AGI should be raised,  and there should be a tax at 100% of SS income as well.


----------



## Supposn (Oct 4, 2017)

Supposn said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Social security was set up as an off budget item, yet it is currently an online budget item which means they can play with funds if need be..
> ...





Moonglow said:


> Social security was set up as an off budget item, yet it is currently an online budget item which means they can play with funds if need be..


MoonGlow, why haven't you provided any responsive link?
Respectfully, Supposn
\


----------



## JoeTheEconomist (Oct 6, 2017)

Penelope said:


> JoeTheEconomist said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


 
I do not have an opinion on whether the benefits should be taxed.  My concern is that few policy makers realize how important this income is to the system. JMO, the rules need to be revisited but we need to put more thought into crafting a solution than we put into creating the problem.

Tax Overhaul Without Social Security Reform Is Meaningless


----------



## Votto (Oct 6, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
> 
> Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) 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.
> 
> ...



Like a frog in a pot of water, just slowly crank up the heat and the frog stays put till it's dead.


----------



## debbiedowner (Oct 14, 2017)

JoeTheEconomist said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > JoeTheEconomist said:
> ...



Isn't that already taxed when we earn it?  If so why should it be taxed again?


----------

