TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
515
Views

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

515 Views
Message 21 of 25

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?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
515
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
518
Views

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

518 Views
Message 22 of 25

@Albion61 wrote:

 

 

Mr. Hiltzik is a national treasure, a staff writer for the L.A. Times who keeps close track of the continuing Republican efforts to damage and degrade Social Security. His many excellent articles on the subject can be accessed by search: "Hiltzik Social Security".

 

Just to set the record straight Michael Hiltzik is a far left wing ideologue who basically invented fake news in the Interet era and was dumped from his real job at the LA Times for sockpuppeting in 2006. Even today, over a decade later, you cannot look up the definition of sockpuppet without his or her name appearing. Hiltzik's a laughing stock among journalists.

 

Not surprising then, his or her facts about Social Security in his or her far left wing opinion column (screenscraped into the first chronological comment--is that legal?) are as off base as his fake news blogging. Despite the claim that "That’s essentially the Social Security retirement system we have today," the Social Security System today is nothing like FDR's SS system. It has all changed, particularly with the Reagan/O'Neill deal in the 1980s. 


Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
518
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
521
Views

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

521 Views
Message 23 of 25

albion61--

Trump has surrounded himself with multi-millionaires and billionaires, who have no idea what it means to sit down every month and manipulate liquid funds so that monthly bills can be paid, much less any extras.  I would hope that Congress has enough people in it who are more in touch with real life reality's when it comes to this proposed "tax cut," but I have little confidence that this is the case.

  I used to have confidence that our reps., (Repub or Dem) would, even at a minimal level, keep the well being of the little people in mind.  I know longer feel this way, especially since the advent of the Tea Party. It is hard to shut my mouth when I hear people speak about what a good job this pres. and this Congress is doing.

Since Trump has taken office, I feel that the American people wake up every day to find themselves under seige.  Each day we hear that our financial and medical securities are under seige.  We see our country's environment being threatened, women's rights threatened, financial restrictions, put in place to prevent another near depression, ripped away.  We see war looming, and, really, cannot be reassured by a president who lies with every phrase that spews from his ignorant mouth.  We have the respect of no country, and as the American people are forced to hear their president talk about all sorts of conspiracy theories, none of which have any validity, we have no respect for the man who is supposed to lead ours.

As our financial security is being threatened, we see the man whom only the minority of people chose and whom , according to Mark Warner, Vice Chairman of the Intel. Committee just made clear today, was helped by Russia's  manipulation of the election by the flooding the market with "fake news" with regard to Trump's opposition, squander taxpayer money to take almost weekly trips to Florida, where he, at times has compromised National Security by holding literal "round table discussions" in front of patrons in the  dining room of his Mar-a-Lago country club, and whom has sent Intel agencies on wild goose chases tracking down his conspiracy theories, again wasting money.

We are under seige, and those who don't see it, will be impacted just as negatively as those who are cognizant of the threat that this country is under by its own president. 

There will be an outcry about this further raping of our social security.  The people will once again rise up and resist.  There should be no need to do this.  Our president should be watching out for all Americans, not the few who are wealthy.  I am tired.  You said that it is as though the Republican minority want America to fail, maybe they are hoping that we will all just get so tired of fighting their attacks upon our country, that we will give up.  I will again start calling my Republican representatives on an almost dailty basis.  I encourage all who see the extreme threat of this Congress and Trump to do the same.

WE ARE INVOLVED IN A CIVIL WAR IN WHICH THE RIGHT IS PITTED AGAINST THE LEFT.  THE LEFT MUST NOT LOSE, OR OUR COUNTRY WILL BE LOST.

 

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
521
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
524
Views

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

524 Views
Message 24 of 25

"It’s almost as though the Republican-majority panel wanted to see damage occur, because the best way for any consumer-facing organization’s reputation for quality to be destroyed is for its phones to go unanswered and its offices to be locked and dark during what normal people consider to be business hours."

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-social-security-20160610-snap-story.html

 

Mr. Hiltzik is a national treasure, a staff writer for the L.A. Times who keeps close track of the continuing Republican efforts to damage and degrade Social Security. His many excellent articles on the subject can be accessed by search: "Hiltzik Social Security".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
524
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
521
Views
24
Replies

TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX

521 Views
Message 25 of 25

Trump's proposal to eliminate Social Security payroll tax may be his worst idea yet.

Michael HiltzikContact Reporter
Los Angeles Times

President Trump’s tax reform agenda is in trouble. That’s not news, but one proposal that his team has floated as a way, ostensibly, to cut taxes on the middle class is. According to the Associated Press, they’re toying with the idea of eliminating the payroll tax, which funds Social Security and part of Medicare, or cutting it drastically.
This is an absolutely terrible idea, partially because it smells like a back-door way of cutting Social Security benefits. It needs to be nipped in the bud.
“This proposal is a Trojan horse,” the veteran Social Security advocate Nancy J. Altman told me. “It appears to be a gift in the form of middle-class tax relief, but would, if enacted, lead to the destruction of working Americans' fundamental economic security.”
To understand why, one needs to examine the history and mechanics of Social Security, something the Trump team hasn’t tried or doesn’t care to do. But we can.
This proposal is a Trojan horse ... [that] would, if enacted, lead to the destruction of working Americans' fundamental economic security.
— Social Security advocate Nancy J. Altman

The “contributory” nature of Social Security, through which beneficiaries pay for their eventual benefits via the payroll tax, dates back to its very origins in 1935.
The most commonly quoted defense of the payroll tax comes from Franklin Roosevelt, who called the feature “straight politics” and explained: “We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions. … With those taxes in there, no **bleep** politician can ever scrap my social security program.” But FDR didn’t say that until 1941, six years after enactment, when he was interviewed for a government study.
The real rationale for the payroll tax was more nuanced. FDR’s Committee on Economic Security, which drafted the program in 1934, had engaged in a spirited debate over whether to fund Social Security via general government revenues or from worker contributions.

Trump's budget director revives a fact-free conservative attack on disability recipients
There were several reasons to choose the latter. One was to make clear that Social Security wouldn’t be a welfare program, but a retirement insurance benefit provided by right. Inevitably, the committee reported, a “gratuitous” pension — one funded by the general budget, “must be conditioned upon a ‘means’ test,” which meant it would be delivered only to the poorest Americans and fulfill only the slighted needs.

“The gratuitous pension, in fairness to the legitimate demands of other needy groups, must hold all grantees down to a minimum standard,” the committee advised Congress. A contributory system that amounted to an annuity, “can be ample for a comfortable existence, bearing some relation to customary wage standards.” That’s essentially the Social Security retirement system we have today.
Social Security’s creators thought that the contribution system would not only ensure that benefits would be reasonably large, but that they wouldn’t get too large. The idea was that the strain on workers’ take-home pay resulting from too much expansion in the program would stay Congress’ hand. As it happened, Social Security proved to be so popular that the public remained on board through several expansions, including coverage of spouses and dependents, and the addition of disability insurance in 1956.
As FDR foresaw, endowing Social Security with its own revenue stream has protected it over the years from grasping politicians — mostly conservatives, who have aimed since 1935 to eviscerate the program. The weekly or bi-weekly payroll deductions that go to the program have given workers a proprietary interest in benefits that has been hard to undermine.

The GOP unveils a 'permanent save' for Social Security — with massive benefit cuts
That’s why President Obama’s 2010 deal with Congress to cut the employee share of the payroll tax temporarily — to 4.2% of wage income from 6.2% — also was a terrible idea. (Employers pay another 6.2%, but their share wasn’t affected by the 2010 deal.)
The tax cut was a device to put a few more bucks into families’ pockets during the depths of the Great Recession. But although it was understood that the lost revenues would be made up dollar for dollar from the federal budget, the arrangement risked permanently undermining the system’s finances. Making it worse, the cut failed to steer the additional funds to the families who needed it the most. Every worker got the same tax break — billionaires got the same maximum $2,136 cut as anyone else earning the maximum $106,800 in wages subject to the payroll tax at the time.
Under the targeted Making Work Pay program that was replaced by the payroll tax cut after Republicans refused to continue the program, low-income families were entitled to up to $800 — any family earning $40,000 or less would have received more from Making Work Pay than the tax cut, while everyone else, including CEOs and members of Congress, did better under the new arrangement.
The full payroll tax eventually was restored after two years, but the erosion of the link between wages and Social Security has lived on; to this day, some people still think Social Security is financed by the federal budget, even though that’s not the case.

This maker of a 'smart' garage door opener chose the dumbest response to a customer's bad review
The Trump proposal potentially raises the manipulation of the payroll tax to a new level. The details reported by the Associated Press are sketchy and preliminary. But thus far, there’s no indication that Trump views this change as a temporary measure. If it’s designed as a permanent conversion of Social Security’s revenue stream from the payroll tax to general revenues, that’s a wide-open door to budget-cutting at the expense of retirees and workers.
Already, conservatives and budget hawks repeat as a mantra that the cost of Social Security is “unsustainable.” That’s their claim even though the program runs a surplus today and ensuring its fiscal stability for the future would require a modest increase in the tax rate or removal of the cap on taxable wages ($127,200 this year).

Customers still seem wary of doing business with Wells Fargo — with good reason
Scrapping the payroll tax would make it easier for Congress to cut Social Security benefits under the guise of saving the government money. And that’s just another way to funnel more money to the rich, at the expense of the working class. And who needs that, other than people who already have enough?

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
521
Views
24
Replies
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