Despite deal, taxes to rise for most Americans

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 4, 2013 10:18 p.m.

    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.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 6:33 p.m.

    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 informed.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 6:25 p.m.


    And 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 government should.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 11:23 a.m.


    The 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.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 1:03 a.m.

    "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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 3, 2013 12:24 a.m.


    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:

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 3, 2013 12:08 a.m.


    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.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 6:15 p.m.

    @lost in DC

    The 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.

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    Boehner must go.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 4:27 p.m.

    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.!

    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.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 3:25 p.m.

    "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.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 2, 2013 3:20 p.m.

    "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.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    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 thing.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 2, 2013 2:44 p.m.


    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.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 2:11 p.m.

    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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    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.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 2, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    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 crying "Mine!"

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    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 the rich.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    Mr.Obama cut the payroll tax in 2010.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    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.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    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!

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    how can something that is mandatory be "willful"?

    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.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    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 FDR.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    According 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.

    Grover 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.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    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 second part?

  • ShaunMcC La Verkin, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    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.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    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.

  • md Cache, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Penalize success. What a great way to create a country full of people who have no reason to excel.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    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.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    Horror of horrors! A temporary tax break that is actually allowed to expire as it was originally intended.

  • aunt lucy Looneyville, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    Ouch, sure am glad I'm not rich!

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 2, 2013 7:08 a.m.

    This is wonderful news for Democrats who have never met a tax on other people they don't love!