TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
666
Views

Re: TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX

666 Views
Message 1 of 25

@GailL1 wrote:

@byrondennis

 

 

Think about those last (3) paragraphs - DO YOU THINK THAT IS TRUE ?

 

 

 

Sorry Gail but I have no opinion about a proposal that does not exist. The way this often works (can't say that this is what is happening in this case) is that a left wing ideologue named Michael Phelan of a Democratic Party front group called Social Security Works plants fake news with the left-wing Associated Press, which puts a half-paragraph (really only one sentence) reference to the possibly fake news in a 30-paragraph AP article that is about another subject that could be taken to be loosely related to Phelan's possible fake news sentence.

 

Here is the half paragraph in the 30-page article in this instance (and yes it is pretty much the same wording as in VOX):

  • "One (piece of a half of an idea) circulating this past week would change the House Republican plan to eliminate much of the payroll tax and cut corporate tax rates. This would require a new dedicated funding source for Social Security. The change, proposed by a GOP lobbyist with close ties to the Trump administration, would transform Brady's plan on imports into something closer to a value-added tax by also eliminating the deduction of labor expenses."

 

No source is provided for this little half paragraph but it is supposedly someone with close ties to "the Trump administration" (not Trump, mind you; note that when the leftists do propaganda every word is important). The half idea is "something closer to a value added tax," whatever that means. This is not a proposal; there is nothing to discuss.

 

But then the left-wing AP article is quoted as if the whole article, instead of one unsourced sentence, was about cutting the payroll tax by

  • the left wing socketpuppeteer Michael Hiltzik of the LA Times who was fired from his job at the Times in 2003 for journalistic ethical violations
  • the left wing 'journolist'ers at VOX who perfected fake news during the 2008 presidential campaign by agreeing on a Google Group every morning what every one of them would write about that day in favor of the Democrats (and they are probably still doing that, possibly even on this issue)
  • the left wing folks at CBS who make up stories on 60 Minutes and their news shows all the time (remember Dan Rather's forged documents about Bush)   
  • the left wing elites at the far left wing taxypayer-supported Public Broadcasting System, the Democratic Party propaganda division of the U.S. government
  • Other far-left-wing news outlets and web sites like Salon, HuffPo, Salon, CommonDreams, etc. pick up on it.
  • Note that -- based on a Google search so I cannot be totally sure -- this fantastically important "news" has not yet appeared in WaPo or NYT or Boston Globe as lefty as they are (although Jennifer Rubin suggested it last month it in another context).

By the way the actual full 30-paragraph AP article on the actual subject does appear in a few places that regularly pick up the AP article. So the one little fake-news sentence gets filtered around that way anyways.

 

So if that is what is happening in this case, why would the far lefty Phelan and the Democratic Party front group Social Security Works do this.  Primarily they want their sucker mailing list to send them money (see NOTE). Secondarily they want to scare senior citizens.

 

NOTE: The far left wing Board of Social Security Works is listed here. The organization in turn has been funded by a group called The Atlantic Philanthropies, which apparently has used up all its funds putting Social Security Works into tough financial times. I can't find much about Michael Phelan so I guess he is just some kind of lefty community organizer type -- I picked him or her for this example because he was listed as the author on the first comment on the original topic on this subject posted on this discussion board a few days ago (there has been five or more such posting since all basically saying the same thing and by the same person I think). Phelan seems to do more for a back group  called StrengthenSocialSecurity, where Phelan appears to be the only one who writes anything on a sort of a blog, than for the front group Social Security Works

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
666
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
689
Views

Re: TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX

689 Views
Message 2 of 25

@GailL1 wrote:

 

Would you care if it were more of a welfare program?

Would you care if the funds came from some other type tax - perhaps creating a program that could be more progressive?

 


No, I don't think that I would like to see SS  converting into a welfare program,  what I would lke to see, is people that know, to come up with whatever,so that they can fix Ss without putting into the ground.
If I knew the solution I would tell you, but I don't but, what I have read here I understand enough not to like it one tiny little bit.
I am sure that if there was really a will, to fix SS they would find the solution, but I also believe that the will has always been to defund SS. and that is why they come up with the ideas like the ones that you have stated.

no name
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
689
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
694
Views

Re: TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX

694 Views
Message 3 of 25

@Roxanna35 wrote:

My guess is that SS is a program that will eventually cease. The Republican establishement have been against SS since FDR proposed it an implemented it. They are now in the best position that they have ever been since FDR to be able to really gut the program and leave all seniors without it.
The time has come that all seniors better really better stand together if they want to see SS in their old age.

 


The way the system is today, based on contributions of workers, may not last.  Notice this table from SSA.  In 1940, there were 159 workers for every beneficiary.  1950, 16.5 workers for every beneficiary.   1960, 5.1 workers for every beneficiary.  2013, only 2.8 workers for each beneficiary.

Social Security Administration: Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries

 

It is being starved by workers paying in contributions.  Automation and whatever else is reducing workers.  These workers pay the benefits of current beneficiaries and we don't have enough of them to support the huge number of boomers in or going into the system and receiving benefits.

 

Would you care if it were more of a welfare program?

Would you care if the funds came from some other type tax - perhaps creating a program that could be more progressive?

 


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
694
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
702
Views

Re: TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX

702 Views
Message 4 of 25

My guess is that SS is a program that will eventually cease. The Republican establishement have been against SS since FDR proposed it an implemented it. They are now in the best position that they have ever been since FDR to be able to really gut the program and leave all seniors without it.
The time has come that all seniors better really better stand together if they want to see SS in their old age.

 

no name
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
702
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
706
Views

Re: TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX

706 Views
Message 5 of 25

@byrondennis

I guess I was more interested in finding out more about the actual plan especially after I read that Australia and New Zealand, both fund their programs with general revenues.

 

From the Vox article - maybe it was in the AP article but I don't think in this detail.

 

One circulating this past week would change the House Republican plan to eliminate much of the payroll tax and cut corporate tax rates. This would require a new dedicated funding source for Social Security.

The change, proposed by a GOP lobbyist with close ties to the Trump administration, would transform Brady's plan on imports into something closer to a value-added tax by also eliminating the deduction of labor expenses. This would bring it in line with WTO rules and generate an additional $12 trillion over 10 years, according to budget estimates. Those additional revenues could then enable the end of the 12.4 percent payroll tax, split evenly between employers and employees, that funds Social Security, while keeping the health insurance payroll tax in place.

. . . . The monumental change, though, is overhauling how Social Security is funded — from a payroll tax paid in part by workers to a tax paid, at least directly, entirely by businesses.

 

To understand the rest of the proposal, we have to look at another piece of the Republican plan — something called the border adjustment tax . . . .

 

The border adjustment tax is complicated, but the gist is this: Companies would not be taxed on goods they export out of the United States, but would be taxed on goods they import into the US. It would fundamentally change how American businesses are taxed, prioritizing domestic production.

 

The trouble is, other countries might object to the plan and appeal to the World Trade Organization, which oversees global trade policy. Republican leaders have argued their plan adheres to international rules, but that argument could be put to the test.

 

This new plan appears to be an attempt to solve that problem, . . . . .   It changes the border adjustment tax to bring it more in line with the WTO’s rules — we’re veering into extremely wonky territory here, but it would prevent companies from deducting their labor expenses from their taxable income.

 

That change would increase taxes, which would likely trickle down to workers one way or another. So the plan would simultaneously repeal the payroll taxes to avoid a big tax hike. Whether they would completely offset depends on the details, which we don’t have yet, but that is the general idea.

 

The big question that must be answered is: If you repeal those taxes, how do you fund Social Security?

 

The usual answer is more or less the same proposal being reported by the AP, something known as a value-added tax or VAT. The AP report isn’t totally clear about this, but experts I asked on the right and left both interpreted it as putting the new revenue into Social Security to replace the lost payroll taxes.

 

There’s an argument in favor of it is this, as Scott Greenberg at the Tax Foundation told me:

There are a few potential reasons why a Republican administration could warm to the approach of replacing payroll taxes with a VAT. For instance, generally speaking, one would expect a value-added tax to be both more economically efficient and more progressive than current US payroll taxes. As a result, this could be a policy that appeals to an administration that is interested in economic growth but has also given some indication that it would like to focus tax relief on the middle class.

. . . . Social Security advocates argue that overhauling the program’s finances would undermine it in the long run. 

 

The thinking goes like this: Right now, people feel a strong attachment to Social Security, because they pay into it and receive benefits based on what they paid. If you break that connection, support for the program could erode over time.

 

“Reducing the linkage between what people pay for Social Security through the payroll tax and the benefits they get out would in the long run weaken public support for Social Security,” Paul Van de Water at the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities told me. “And [it would] provide a further rationale for cuts in benefits.”

 

read more at the link ~ http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15258672/social-security-trump-tax-reform

 

Think about those last (3) paragraphs - DO YOU THINK THAT IS TRUE ?

If so, IMO, any proposal to raise the cap WITHOUT some benefit increase for those who would be paying in more would be doing the very same thing ! !

 

And again because of automation, we do need to think of another way to fund some if not all of the SS program.  Think about it - if we do not have to attach the benefit to the contribution (or earnings), it could become even more progressive or leave out those over a certain income all together, leaving more for those who need it more.  Can't do that now unless you make it into a welfare program and weaken public support.

 

 

 


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
706
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
708
Views

Re: TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX

708 Views
Message 6 of 25

The original post was an article by Mr. Hiltzik. Apparently you can't get over my comment on that article about him being a national treasure, as you've mentioned his name in every post since.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
708
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
715
Views

Re: TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX

715 Views
Message 7 of 25

@GailL1 wrote:

@sp362  wrote

This conversation should be about the proposal not Hiltzik which you keep steering it towards.

-----------------------------------

 

Doesn't seem we are discussing the whole proposal, just the "yelling FIRE in a crowded room " part of it.

 

The rest of the story . . . . .

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15258672/social-security-trump-tax-reform

 

Don't you like political leaders who think outside the box?

 

Our country has changed a lot since 1935 when the Social Security system was created.  We have made big changes to it during this time both in who is covered, how and assuring it has enough revenues flowing in by raising these payroll taxes, taxing benefits and who has been brought into the program.

 

The main source of funding is being depleted by automation - we no longer have as many workers per retiree paying into the system.

 

Gail

 

I agree with your last two paragraphs but there is nothing different in the VOX article about SS that is not in the AP article (VOX actually just screenscraped the same non-specific half paragraph from AP that you first pointed us to yesterday). VOX follows that by a variation on more of Hiltzik's nonsense. Like Hiltzik, VOX does not even describe SS correctly, leaving out the billions in SS funding that come in from the self employed. 


Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
715
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
718
Views

Re: TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX

718 Views
Message 8 of 25

@sp362 wrote:

@byrondennis wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@byrondennis wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

byrondennis,  Regardless of what you think about Michael Hiltzik, you do realize what this proposal means?  Of course it is being advertised as saving a working person 6.2% and also saves the company they are working for 6.2%.  So, do you think all of these companies will immediately give this extra money they are saving back to their employees, or will they just keep it as an extra profit?


Sorry but I find it very hard to comment on a "proposal" that does not exist. This is the second day in a row that the same commenter (chronological comment 1) has posted basically the same fake news. Yesterday I gave my comment on the actual AP story referenced by Hiltzik, which -- by the way -- was nothing like what Hiltzik claimed the AP wrote.


The "proposal" means they are talking about doing it.  Here is a news source that you probably accept.  It is in paragraph 9.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/10/trump-administration-back-to-square-one-on-tax-reform.htm...


1. No, that is not what the word "proposal" means. "Talking about doing" something does not mean the same thing as "proposal" in English. There is no proposal anywhere in public that I can find that relates to eliminating the SS payroll tax. But irrelevant to that...

2. Unbelievably you simply provided me a link back to the same AP story (only I looked at it on the actual AP web site--I always go to the source, something sorely lacking here) that I commented on yesterday. It's an AP article that  -- as I wrote earlier on this thread -- bears no resemblance to what Mr. Hiltzik of the LA Times claims the AP wrote.


Definition of proposal "a plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration or discussion by others." If they are "shopping it around", it is in the proposal stage.  This conversation should be about the proposal not Hiltzik which you keep steering it towards. 

 

Whomever claimed the corrupt fired sockpuppet Hitzlik was a "national treasure" steered it to Hitzlik, not me.

 

As for the totally undefined, informal, not written down half-paragraph statement by one unknown person (identified by AP as a consultant that Trump knows) that the SS payrol tax be replaced by a VAT tax, I commented on that yesterday on a different thread


Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
718
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
728
Views

Re: TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX

728 Views
Message 9 of 25

@sp362  wrote

This conversation should be about the proposal not Hiltzik which you keep steering it towards.

-----------------------------------

 

Doesn't seem we are discussing the whole proposal, just the "yelling FIRE in a crowded room " part of it.

 

The rest of the story . . . . .

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/12/15258672/social-security-trump-tax-reform

 

Don't you like political leaders who think outside the box?

 

Our country has changed a lot since 1935 when the Social Security system was created.  We have made big changes to it during this time both in who is covered, how and assuring it has enough revenues flowing in by raising these payroll taxes, taxing benefits and who has been brought into the program.

 

The main source of funding is being depleted by automation - we no longer have as many workers per retiree paying into the system.

 

 


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
728
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
740
Views

Re: TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX

740 Views
Message 10 of 25

@byrondennis wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@byrondennis wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

byrondennis,  Regardless of what you think about Michael Hiltzik, you do realize what this proposal means?  Of course it is being advertised as saving a working person 6.2% and also saves the company they are working for 6.2%.  So, do you think all of these companies will immediately give this extra money they are saving back to their employees, or will they just keep it as an extra profit?


Sorry but I find it very hard to comment on a "proposal" that does not exist. This is the second day in a row that the same commenter (chronological comment 1) has posted basically the same fake news. Yesterday I gave my comment on the actual AP story referenced by Hiltzik, which -- by the way -- was nothing like what Hiltzik claimed the AP wrote.


The "proposal" means they are talking about doing it.  Here is a news source that you probably accept.  It is in paragraph 9.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/10/trump-administration-back-to-square-one-on-tax-reform.htm...


1. No, that is not what the word "proposal" means. "Talking about doing" something does not mean the same thing as "proposal" in English. There is no proposal anywhere in public that I can find that relates to eliminating the SS payroll tax. But irrelevant to that...

2. Unbelievably you simply provided me a link back to the same AP story (only I looked at it on the actual AP web site--I always go to the source, something sorely lacking here) that I commented on yesterday. It's an AP article that  -- as I wrote earlier on this thread -- bears no resemblance to what Mr. Hiltzik of the LA Times claims the AP wrote.


Definition of proposal "a plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration or discussion by others."

 

If they are "shopping it around", it is in the proposal stage. 

 

This conversation should be about the proposal not Hiltzik which you keep steering it towards. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
740
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Now until February 11, play this classic game online at AARP. Get in the game and play now.


jeopardy for aarp logo

Top Authors