| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Pending Secret Agreement - US Agreed To Pay Illegal Aliens Social Security In 2004 |
| 2007-01-01 |
| After numerous refusals over three and a half years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has released the first known public copy of the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement. The government was forced to make the disclosure in response to lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act by TREA Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million-member nonpartisan seniors advocacy group. The Totalization Agreement could allow millions of illegal Mexican workers to draw billions of dollars from the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund. The agreement between the U.S. and Mexico was signed in June 2004, and is awaiting President Bush's signature. Once President Bush approves the agreement, which would be done without Congressional vote, either House of Congress would have 60 days to disapprove the agreement by voting to reject it. "The Social Security Administration itself warns that Social Security is within decades of bankruptcy -- yet, they seem to have no problem making agreements that hasten its demise," said Ralph McCutchen, Chairman of the TREA Senior Citizens League. The U.S. currently has 21 similar agreements in effect with other nations, which are intended to eliminate dual taxation for persons who work outside their country of origin. All of the agreements are with developed nations with economies similar to that of the U.S. For example, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under totalization agreements, workers are allowed to combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits. The Agreement with Mexico, like other totalization agreements, would allow workers to qualify with just six quarters, or 18 months, of U.S. coverage. But Mexico's retirement system is radically different than that of other participating countries. For example, only 40 percent of non-government workers participate in Mexico's system, whereas 96 percent of America's non- government workers do. In addition, the U.S. system is progressive, meaning lower wage earners get back much more than they put in; in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus accrued interest. "I applaud the persistent efforts of TREA Senior Citizens League to try to get documents from the U.S. Government about the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement," said Rep. Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record) (R-N.C.). "The American people are finally beginning to get some of the information regarding this Agreement that they have been seeking for so long." According to the SSA, the Social Security Trust Fund will begin paying out more than it is taking in by 2017, and will be exhausted by the year 2040. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #22 Here ya go, ZF. Apparently it's been repealed, but Florida did assess a tax based on the value of assets like stocks, bonds, etc. I first ran across this when we applied for a mortgage. We had to pay a one-time tax based on the value of the loan. BTW, the retirees come here for two real reasons, neither one of them the lack of a state tax. Sunshine and early bird specials! ;) |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2007-01-01 23:22 |
| #21 HC: Florida taxes security holding assets. Tax-deferred retirement funds are exempt. Florida taxes principal? I've looked it up and don't see it. Besides, retirees wouldn't flock there if it did. In fact, I don't see that Florida taxes either capital gains or dividends. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-01-01 20:18 |
| #20 I see your point ZF. But I think you are asking the wrong question. We should be asking which is the larger demographic group - those who saved for retirement or those who didn't. Its not old vs young but those who planned ahead and saved enough vs those who didn't save enough or depend entirely on SS. I'm not sure which is the larger demographic group. Most of the retirement funds these days are done 'pre-tax' in that it is not taxed when it is earned and placed in the fund but when it is withdrawn - this is usually when you are retired and have a smaller income (and lower tax rate). I'll eventually have to pay taxes on that $100 I placed in my 401K last month but it will be at a lower tax rate - since I will (presumably) have a lower income. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2007-01-01 20:10 |
| #19 "On security holdings? Don't know any place stateside that has them." Florida taxes security holding assets. Tax-deferred retirement funds are exempt. |
| Posted by: Hupeger Creamble4059 2007-01-01 18:56 |
| #18 I'm as much of a hard-shell Republican as you'll find around here, but if G-Dub signs this abortion, I'LL support impeaching his ass! |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2007-01-01 18:53 |
| #17 The capital markets can deal with capital gains taxes and dividends taxes. What it cannot deal with is a tax on principal. The Thai stock market went down 20% in a single day because the central bank decided to try out an indirect tax on the principal itself. I can't see federal policymakers doing anything so self-defeating economically, not to mention fatal to their political ambitions. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-01-01 18:50 |
| #16 CF: I can see the Feds taxing your retirement income easily. They already tax the regular [earned] income of the productive segment of society to give [unearned] to the unproductive segment (welfare). Its a simple step to taxing the [earned] retirement savings of those who saved for their retirement to give to those who didn't save for theirs. Income and savings are two different things. There are no taxes on savings today, only income from savings. Say you have $1000 in a savings account. The government doesn't tax you on the $1000 principal - it taxes you on the interest income generated from the $1000. Could the government start taxing savings? Sure. But let's look at this rationally. Which demographic group is most inclined to vote, and which demographic group has the most savings? It's not young people. Wherever Social Security funding is coming from, it's not coming from a tax on savings. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-01-01 18:46 |
| #15 CF, Social Security retirement benefits are already taxed as income by the FEDS. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-01-01 18:32 |
| #14 I can see the Feds taxing your retirement income easily. They already tax the regular [earned] income of the productive segment of society to give [unearned] to the unproductive segment (welfare). Its a simple step to taxing the [earned] retirement savings of those who saved for their retirement to give to those who didn't save for theirs. After all people shouldn't be denied the 'good live' during their retirement simply because they chose (of their own free will) to spend their income rather then save it. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2007-01-01 18:22 |
| #13 And a Federal property tax would be a new and interesting phenomenon. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-01-01 17:55 |
| #12 NS: They're called property taxes. It's actually a very fair way to tax. On security holdings? Don't know any place stateside that has them. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-01-01 17:54 |
| #11 To date, I've only ever heard of taxes on gains, not on the assets themselves. They're called property taxes. It's actually a very fair way to tax. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-01-01 17:38 |
| #10 DFMD: Zheng Fei - or the government can tax the hell out of our kids and place a hefty tax on the assets of anyone who had the foresight to save for retirement. I would bet on reneging - even the Euros are cutting benefits. And Euro politicians are pretty insulated from taxpayer displeasure. Plus - even if they place a 50% tax on your retirement assets, you still have 50% left.* 50% of nothing is nothing. Like I said, nobody wants to hear it, but the only prudent thing to do is to accumulate savings *today* for your retirement - they're the equivalent of rainy decades. * To date, I've only ever heard of taxes on gains, not on the assets themselves. Unless you're dealing with a tax-deferred IRA account. But that's a different story. You gotta pay taxes sometime. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-01-01 17:36 |
| #9 Zheng Fei - or the government can tax the hell out of our kids and place a hefty tax on the assets of anyone who had the foresight to save for retirement. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2007-01-01 17:22 |
| #8 Good to see the PR Newswire is on top of things. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-01-01 15:58 |
| #7 DFMD: In 2040 when you're retired and eating tins of cat food - at least you'll know where the Soc. Sec. money went. If you're relying on Social Security to furnish your retirement income... Let's just say that that you're better off spending 10% of your paycheck on Lotto tickets. Nobody wants to hear it, but saving for a rainy day is always the best policy. And retirement means decades of rainy days, given today's life expectancies. Start saving today, because the government will inevitably have to renege, either by dropping benefits or raising the eligibility age. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-01-01 15:42 |
| #6 In 2040 when you're retired and eating tins of cat food - at least you'll know where the Soc. Sec. money went. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2007-01-01 14:45 |
| #5 wxjames: Scuse me ? If you are an illegal immigrant working and paying into SS, then you are a criminal, and should be deported. The only thing you get to bring back with you are the hairs on your ass. I understand and sympathize with your point of view. If I had my druthers, we'd confiscate everything they own, give each of them twenty lashes with a sturdy rattan cane and imprison them for three years apiece before deporting them. Like Singapore. But our current policy is to not confiscate their assets. I would consider what they've paid into Social Security their assets. If we're going to take that money, we should take everything they own as well. And I don't have a problem with that. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-01-01 14:42 |
| #4 This is abso-fucking-lutely wrong! Streamline USCIS procedures for legal immigration so it is not such a costly bureaucratic nightmare for many applicants. But not this crap. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-01-01 14:35 |
| #3 under whose name and SSN did the illegals pay in? This sounds like another loan to Mexico via the citizens to try and keep that kleptocracy afloat...talk about pissing me off |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-01-01 14:30 |
| #2 Scuse me ? If you are an illegal immigrant working and paying into SS, then you are a criminal, and should be deported. The only thing you get to bring back with you are the hairs on your ass. Another thing; who made this secret agreement ? The SS administration ? What the hell is going on here ? If some bureaucrat made this agreement, then I want his lifeless limp body hanging from his jail bars. The reason this democracy works so well is that laws are debated and voted on before being dumped on the masses. We can watch this on CSPAN and CSPAN2. We must put an end to legislation which is added to bills without open debate. Time to write your representatives again. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-01-01 14:13 |
| #1 Article: The Agreement with Mexico, like other totalization agreements, would allow workers to qualify with just six quarters, or 18 months, of U.S. coverage. If they paid in, they should get bennies. But after 18 months of contributions? How do Americans get in on this deal? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-01-01 13:41 |