lost in DC said "whether you are compelled to pay it is beside the point. SS
beneficiaries have claims based on what they paid in." No what I get out has
nothing to do with what I put it in, it has more to do with when I die, and how
old my dependents are when I die. Lets see, I am compelled to pay,
I may or may not get something out of it, and some people get more than others,
sounds like pretty much any other tax I pay currently. As far as
the democrats raiding social security, the raiding of social security funds has
gone on through both democratic and republican presidents, as well as democratic
and republican controlled congresses.I always like when republicans
try to convince people that only democrats overspend and create deficits and I
am even more amazed when people believe it. I guess it does go to prove that
Rush is right, there are a lot of low information voters out there, he is just
confused about which side of the political spectrum they reside on.
Killpack, plenty of people understand Social Security and how it works. It
really is not that complicated. Just because you do not understand things
don't think that there are not people that do. Nobody is hiding anything
from you concerning Social Security. Just because you chose to be uninformed
does not mean the information is not out there. It is and easily accessible.
Dude, all the information you want is out there,, just because you are to lazy
to look for it, and you choose to be ignorant, and then you whine that nobody
will tell you. . . Please. Just like conservatives. I have never seen a group of
people that enjoy being so uninformed, and absolutely refuse to became better
@markAnd yet you failed to prove a single statement wrong.Are you all leftest talking points or do you care to back your claims with
evidence?It is amazing how the left desperately clings to the belief
that government actually cares about them or will take care of them, or that
@markThe idea that no one understands Social Security is evidence
alone of its failure. The SSA should report regularly a balance sheet, income
statement and, most importantly, a statement of cash flows, just like everyone
else. But in this they fail. And the media is totally complicit in the cover up.
So no one understands, not because we are lazy or negligent, but because it is
hidden from us. The idea that the inept federal government hasn't totally
raided the Social Security Trust Fund has to be proven to me for me to believe
it. And they are $16 trillion in debt going on 20. You are going to sit there
and tell me they have the discipline, the competence and the integrity to leave
Social Security alone, after years of complete financial mismanagement? Then
prove it! I don't think you can! Can you show me that the Fund has the
actual cash that individuals have contributed and not worthless IOUs from a
degenerating US Treasury? If so, then by all means, do it. I know I'd sleep
a lot better at night.
"Once taken it (payroll tax) goes into the general pot like any tax and you
have no access to it,""the idea was to set the age so high
that most would die before ever collecting,""An empty
promise that started bankrupting America. . ."Not one of these
statements are "the truth."It is amazing how little people
understand about Social Security.
UtahBlueDevil,Seventy percent of our national debt has come in the
passed four years."its a fun comparison". Can't spin
that.A wise man once said:(Half, or more of what you
read, or hear are false.)--If you don't believe that, you'll spend
your life being a fool. an once said:
UtahBlueDevil,Who said anything about not caring for your neighbors?
I have three grown kids, and I didn't pamper them while growing up.
Without parental, or government help, they all worked their way through college,
and are very successful today. Just like I did.From a religious
stand point, that's why we're here. To work, learn, and battle
through life. You don't do anyone favors by taking away their struggles.
Where is the growth in that?Look at the condition of our country.
Do you see determination, and grit? A religious man doesn't take away a
persons pride by providing an excess of entitlements.
@Fred44@lost in DC@UtahBlueDevil@My2CentsThe SS is
most certainly a tax,Once taken it goes into the general pot like
any tax and you have no access to it,and it is NOT YOURS, because
you can not get back until a certain age,and then when you can start
getting it back it is just given to you in part with horrible interest rate,and if you die before that age, you and your family can NEVER get it at
all,the government just takes it away from you and your family,worst of all they take away interest free, and is paid back below inflationary
rates, So the SS you are forced to pay loses value before you can ever
collect from it.It is a tax, and it is very horrible deal.We got the wrong end of the deal and government gains power over our
pocketbooks.The original deal was designed to take money away from
businesses and individuals to pay for FDR's programs, the idea was to set
the age so high that most would die before ever collecting, An empty promise
that started bankrupting America when people started living longer.
Boehner must go.
Killpack,Is 2+2=4 old? Did it change to be 2+2=3? Just because
it is old does not mean it is not true.Dude, your assault on me
assumes I agree with SS; I would rather I could invest my own money the way I
want to, but even though I do not have that option does not mean the funding
structure is any different than how I described it. Nor does the fact the
politicians have used it for a piggy bank change facts, either. Lighten up,
Bro.!Fred, whether you are compelled to pay it is beside the
point. SS beneficiaries have claims based on what they paid in; the same is NOT
true for income taxes; if it were, the "one percenters" would have MUCH
more claim on government services than the rest of us. Is that what you are
arguing for?And yes, I know the dems have been raiding the SS trust
fund to pay for their vote-buying for years.I am sorry you were
confused by the term “earmark”. Try substituting
“designated” or some such synonym.
"Without SS millions of our elderly would be homeless or living and
dependent upon family."So instead of being dependent on family,
as they should, they are dependent on PERFECT STRANGERS?!?!? How is that fair?
An American I don't know isn't any better of a person than a Ethiopian
I don't know. But rest assured, I would much rather give money to the
Ethiopian who hasn't eaten in a couple of days so he or she can buy a plate
of beans and rice. The same money gone to some lazy, undisciplined American will
be squandered at Outback Steakhouse.
"I will not receive anything from it: so why should I care if it
ends?"Beautiful attitude. Thanks heavens the generations before
us didn't have such narcissistic attitudes. Only if it benefits
"me" do I care.Real nice.Worf... really...... we
should go back to the "survival of the fittest" mentality. I love it.
Now just show me one case any where in the worlds history where this utopian eat
or be eaten philosophy has improved the human condition. And not sure if your a
religious person, but I would love to see scripture if you are that supports
this philosophy of take care of your own.... don't care for your
neighbor.... or only if you feel like it.
social security tax should go down each year. we should only pay out what is
coming in. eventually we can wean everyone off of the welfare program.I
will not receive anything from it: so why should I care if it ends?I am
saving for my own retirement: those on social security should have done the same
FT,Without government assistance:* The elderly would
have prepared better for retirement* Students would figure out their own
college expensenses.* People would care for each other, and supply their
own food, and needs.* We the people would do a better job of educating our
children.We're like lions raised by people, and would starve if
put in the wild. We're raised by government.
FT, while I like what you said, the only thing I would suggest is that you, as
well as the other's that state the government is raiding the SS fund, learn
what is actually happening with the excess funds in SS, and why.
Stop to think how America would look and be without social security. In a
perfect world, everyone had the means, personal responsibilty, and luck to set
aside enough money for retirement and there would be no need for SS. That world
does not exist. Without SS millions of our elderly would be homeless or living
and dependent upon family. Social Security is one of the greatest pieces of
legislation ever passed and is proof of how a civilized society. The only crime
is how our leaders spend SS in the general budget instead of managing it as how
it was created to be.
Ok... so let me understand this correctly. The vast majority obviously
didn't read the article, or are just working off the "standard tea
party comments for everthing" pages. This is not a tax raise.
Do you consider it that when a store has a sale, then the sale expires, that
this is a price increase for the product? The tax holiday was part of that
viled stimulas all complain about that did no good. This part of the stimulas
expired at the end of the year - probably becuase you all complained so much
about the stimulas package. So the rate is going back up to the Bush era
rate... and you complain.A couple of things are becoming really
self evident. 1) facts - not worth worrying about. 2) what ever the news
is... even if it is going right back to where it was under the Republican
control, is a bad thing. Matter of fact, everything is a bad thing.I am beginning to thing we just have a couple of generations of complainers,
who were evidently not held enough as children. Everything should be free....
and you want everything without any responsibility. Reminds me of little kids
lost in DC,Am I compelled to pay it? Is the government putting my
money in bank locked away for me to access it when I retire? Since I am not
currently getting a SS check can you guarantee that I will get one in the
future, and if so, will it be what I put into the system? You
mentioned that SS money is a "designated set-aside", which in theory is
true, but I assume you know that the government has been raiding that account
for years to pay for things that are normally paid for by income tax. I am not sure what earmarking has to do with how a tax rate is set. In Utah
my income tax is "earmarked" for public education. I have no kids in
the system and I do not get a direct benefit, should I still pay more than those
with kids? I am not complaining about this tax or any other tax, I
am simply stating that a tax is a tax, and we talk all the time about the rich
paying more, well this is a tax where the poor and middle class pay more than
Mr.Obama cut the payroll tax in 2010.
So rasing the debt limit didn't work last year? Just like it didn't
work all the other times they didn't raise it? It's time to make them
pay off the national debt by force.
lost in DC,This argument is getting so old. If Social Security is
really is a place where the government parks your money until you retire, then
why have it to begin with? Why not let people do it themselves? It makes
absolutely NO SENSE to take someone's money, by force, and just put it in a
supposed fund, where it won't be touched, and then give the money back to
that person fifty years from now, interest free. It doesn't make any sense,
because it doesn't happen! Get real, dude! The government spends that money
so fast, on things that are supposed to be funded by income taxes, and then just
writes a worthless IOU. This is why it is such a scam. Do you really think a
federal government that is $16 trillion in debt going on 20 is going to let a
supposed 'Social Security Trust' just sit there and do nothing? If
that were true, then why have it? Because it isn't true. They have that
money marked for spending before they even get a hold of it. Wake up!
My2cents,how can something that is mandatory be "willful"?Fred,what you get out of SS when you retire is based on what you
put in while you were working. Take a look at your next W-2 and you will see it
has a box for Social Security wages. those who make above the SS cap also have
their SS benefits capped. It is only fair. SS withholding is a
designated set-aside, established to fund a particular program - SS. It is
unlike general income taxes, which are NOT earmarked for any particular program.
General income taxes are supposed to fund government, thus there is no cap on
income to which income taxes are applicable. Comparing the percentage of income
taxed for SS purposes and general income tax purposes is like comparing apples
to tornadoes - they are not even close.
Social Security, the biggest fraud of our day, where poor young people, whose
real wages are eroding and whose futures are VERY uncertain right now, pay, BY
FORCE, for the elderly who were too undisciplined to save for retirement. Thanks
Re:PatriotAccording to the Tax Policy Center, more than 60% of those
non-income tax paying households did pay federal payroll taxes.Of
the 18.1% of U.S. households that paid neither income nor payroll taxes? More
than half of them were headed by a senior–in other words, by someone who
paid payroll taxes and likely some income taxes too, in the past.BtwGrover Norquist favored passage of the Senate bill, stating
technically it wasn't a tax increase (since taxes were going up), but was
actually a tax cut. Even "wealthy" people benefit from the lower tax
rates on lower levels of income.
Let me see, now if I need to balance the budget in my home and don't have
enough money, I probably need to make more income and cut back expenses. It
seems like you government is trying to do the first part, but what about the
Until we understand as a society that we don't take too little from the
people, but that we spend too much, we will never solve the problem. We will
just keep kicking it down the road to the next crisis until it can no longer be
solved. If and when there is an economic collapse, perhaps we will finally
figure out what our politicians are doing to our future and our children. Kudos
to Mike Lee for standing up against this stupidity.
This should be a tax the republicans like because the rich pay a much smaller
percentage of their income than do the poor and middle class. So I guess this
is a good tax because it doesn't "punish" success.
To fix the deficit, taxes need to rise and spending needs to decrease. One or
the other will not fix the problem. Both need to happen. So the article's
title is actually a good thing.
The Social Security tax goes back to what it has been since 1983. The 2% rate
reduction was meant as a temporary measure to stimulate the economy. It was
never intended to be permanent.
Penalize success. What a great way to create a country full of people who have
no reason to excel.
We will not see our taxes rise a single dime in any form, and the deficit will
be cut in half.Imagine how great this country would be if campaign
words were true.
Horror of horrors! A temporary tax break that is actually allowed to expire as
it was originally intended.
Ouch, sure am glad I'm not rich!
FYI, SS is not a tax, its a willful "donation" to your retirement trust
fund. The dropping the defunding policy will help the SSA and the future of
every working american who has dreams of retiring, if they can have the
Obamacare they are being promised now. SSA is the only guaranteed system and is
the only system not affected by stock market crashes and dissolved investment
accounts. And hands off to congress. This breakdown of class warfare
designation is fake and meaningless because the middle class income level is
about $250,000/yr so it is they who will suffer the greatest loss, middle income
survivors. The congress is creating poverty as middle income prosperity, if you
use debt to subsidize a depreciating poverty. Its the first time in history of
the US that depreciating poverty is considered economic growth.
This is wonderful news for Democrats who have never met a tax on other people
they don't love!