Obama wants to extend SS tax cut - GOP wants to end it. Partisan to the bitter end..

[senseamp]

By your logic you would agree that the democrats did the same thing between 2007-2009 when they controlled both houses of congress to insure a democratic presidency.

You are doing a fine enough job self pwning that I don't even need to respond.

 

[sandmanwake]

BS, The social security trust fund is a myth. There is no money to support it and all payments come from the general fund.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/07/debt-crisis-punctures-social-security-trust-fund-myth

This right here is exactly the type of shit I'm talking about. The money paid into social security gets put in the general fund, it gets spent and in its place are IOU's/government bonds, and instead of recognizing that those IOU's/government bonds represent debt that should be paid back, we have idiots who think that SS has no money because government debt shouldn't be paid back or it shouldn't be paid back from the very fund that stole from it in the first place.

I say the general fund should get split into two--one in which tax dollars goes and one which has money coming in from agencies that are self funded and which is used purely for those agencies. The tax dollar fund should be used to pay for things that run purely off tax dollars and if there's not enough, the other fund can't be touched. Either raise taxes to pay for whatever pet projects Congress wants or not fund it at all. No more trying to rob the parts of government actually able to carry its own weight and then wanting to default on the debt owed to those parts.

 

[MovingTarget]

I'm not going to believe anything from that Right Wing rag...

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/index.html

Facts. They are quite refreshing. :thumbsup:

 

[Fern]

If would go read the current law, the money lost from the SS shortfall is replaced from the general revenue...

Really?

I've never heard that (but must admit I never looked for it.)

IF, the SS cut was reducing SS revenue, I could certainly see the Repubs opposition to extending it. They seem (excessively IMO) concerned about the finances of the program.

Personally, I've always been opposed to it because I think it 100% ineffective.

Fern

 

[Engineer]

Personally, I've always been opposed to it because I think it 100% ineffective.

Fern

From the last 10 years, what tax cuts have been effective?

(other than helping lower revenues which add to the deficit/debt)

 

[Engineer]

Really?

I've never heard that (but must admit I never looked for it.)


Fern

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

The reductions in 2010 and 2011 tax revenue due to lower tax rates will be made up by transfers from the general fund of the Treasury to the OASI and DI trust funds

 

[Fern]

From the last 10 years, what tax cuts have been effective?

(other than helping lower revenues which add to the deficit/debt)

If you mean a specific provision, I'll go with section 179 (equipment) expensing. I've absolutely seen it encourage businesses to go out and buy business equipment they otherwise might not; particularly when it's a 1 yr special deal.

If you wanna discuss tax cuts in general and their effect on the economy, IMO, no need to go through that argument here. It's about as useful as arguments here on MMGW, everyone has their position and no one ever changes their mind.

Edit: Thanks for the link above :thumbsup:

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

If would go read the current law, the money lost from the SS shortfall is replaced from the general revenue, so in essence, it's just a general tax cut (making deficits bigger). And I agree that we need to quit kicking the can down the road and RAISE taxes for all to help pay for the debt/deficits that we ALL ran up (not just a SS payroll tax cut reprieve).

Really?

I've never heard that (but must admit I never looked for it.)

IF, the SS cut was reducing SS revenue, I could certainly see the Repubs opposition to extending it. They seem (excessively IMO) concerned about the finances of the program.

Personally, I've always been opposed to it because I think it 100% ineffective.

Fern

Of course any shortfalls will need to be covered from other revenue sources. That was obvious when contribution levels were raised back in 1983 to grow the trust. Boomers were asked to pay it forward, build the trusts to partially fund their own retirements. Prior to that, SS had been a pay as you go system, the trust acting as a relatively small buffer. In the meanwhile, SS became a giant cashcow, & the trust balance grew to its current $2.6T.

And everything would have been peachy, except that Repub Admins have used that cashflow to offset tax cuts for the wealthy, and to borrow even more money. Reagan/GHWB quadrupled the debt, GWB doubled it again. Now that we're approaching the crossover point, where payback needs to occur, Repubs say we can't afford it, and, uhh, sacrifices will need to be made- by the same people who sacrificed to pay extra for the last 28 years, not the wealthy whose tax rates have fallen by a third over the same period. That's because, uhh, because the wealthy are the Job Creators, yeh, that's it, and because they need low taxes to create jobs, even though they aren't.... Nevermind that the top 1% share of national income more than doubled during that period, and that they now feel put upon to pay taxes at all- taxes are for the little people, after all. Ask Grover Norquist or Steve Schwarzman.

They want it to be like the middle ages, when the peasants paid taxes directly to them, the economic royalty. They just have new titles- Chairman, CEO, CFO, Vice president, Board Member, so forth & so on...

At least they didn't win those titles with swords, huh?

 

[mchammer187]

I am against Obama on this and I do think it needs to end but the hypocrisy on the other side is astounding.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

And I agree that we need to quit kicking the can down the road and RAISE taxes for all to help pay for the debt/deficits that we ALL ran up

How about cutting spending? I'm so tired of you idiots who think that it's possible to tax enough to make up for out of control spending. Cut taxes AND cut spending, balance the budget, and return to constitutional government. It's really not that hard.

 

[Engineer]

How about cutting spending? I'm so tired of you idiots who think that it's possible to tax enough to make up for out of control spending. Cut taxes AND cut spending, balance the budget, and return to constitutional government. It's really not that hard.

I never said anything about spending as this is a TAX THREAD. I agree 100% that we need to cut spending.

If the idiot remark was for me, stick it. If not, carry on.

 

[child of wonder]

The tax break should end. I've already budgeted for 2012 assuming it will.

Oops! Stupid responsibility.....

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I never said anything about spending as this is a TAX THREAD. I agree 100% that we need to cut spending.

If the idiot remark was for me, stick it. If not, carry on.

Sorry, got carried away with my knee-jerk reaction to your comment.

The "RAISE taxes for all" was the part I hated. We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem. Taxes and spending are two sides of the same coin, and there is no need to raise taxes on anybody. The government already has too much of my money. The problem is the out of control spending. Raising taxes will only empower the idiots in DC to put off long term solutions to the spending problem.

JR

 

[Generator]

Funny watching the Republicans getting to the right of their own ideas. But that is what Obama does, he takes Republicans shitty ideas...dare these morons to agree to their own vomited stupidity and then the country gets to watch your everyday numbskull Republican tie himself into knots in avoiding their own ideals. They don't even need to compromise, it was their idea to begin with and yet they refuse lol.

The political jousting must take place on a ring or track of some sort. Because when you go to the right of the RIGHT, you go left and look like an absurd hypocrite.

 

[Wingznut]

We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.

Actually... it's both. And also, we have a debt problem. You could defintely say that we have a tax problem, if you look at all the loopholes and maneuvering to get around paying taxes.

There's all this disagreement about whether we should fix the tax code, raise taxes, or cut spending. Why do we presume those have to be exclusive options? Can't the reasonable thing to do for our long term economic health be a combination of all of the options?

 

[werepossum]

I have to side with the GOP on this. SS needs the funding- it actually needs more funding if it's to survive.

I've entertained a humble notion of how to kill two birds with one stone- raise revenues & put SS off the table. Apply the employee's portion of SS taxes, 6.25%, to all personal income, regardless of source. Add new benefit levels to SS disbursements up to ~$200K of income, following the current math of it all, where high earners benefits are somewhat lower per dollar contributed than low earners. Work out a pro-rate schedule to handle the changes.

SS would immediately become bulletproof, contributing huge amounts of money to the general fund every year for the foreseeable future. The trusts would simply be a method of accounting for where the money came from, not anything that would have to be paid back at all. 90% of the population would pay no more, and the next highest 9% only marginally so. Earners at the $200K level would only pay 3% more of their income in taxes, and could take solace in the fact that those below them still pay more into SS as a portion of income than they do.

Too easy, I'm sure.

And, yeh, the GOP never met a regressive tax they didn't like...

This is eventually going to have to happen. The cut-off is in place because Social Security is a self-funding program and that amount is the most that is needed to fund each person's retirement, and I fully support the concept of a cut-off. However the Social Security trust fund has been systematically raided for general fund spending and consequently is nothing but a giant electronic piggy bank full of IOUs. The only practical way to keep Social Security solvent as a separately funded program is to remove the salary cap. Sucks, but it's going to have to happen.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm not going to believe anything from that Right Wing rag...

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/index.html

Is FactCheck.org also a Right Wing rag?

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

 

[First]

lol Republicans.

 

[Ausm]

Is FactCheck.org also a Right Wing rag?

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11943/SocialSecurity_SummaryforWeb.pdf


http://mediamatters.org/research/201101280020

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11943

 

[dmcowen674]

It just goes again to show you that the Republicans only support the elite.

Just can't imagine anyone making under 500k voting Republican.

People are just stupid.

This

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11943/SocialSecurity_SummaryforWeb.pdf


http://mediamatters.org/research/201101280020

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11943

From the CBO report noted in your first link. So is the CBO is just another Right Wing rag also?
"In calendar year 2010, Social Security’s outlays will exceed tax revenues (that is, the trust funds’ receipts excluding interest) for the first time since the enactment of the Social Security Amendments of 1983.

Over the next few years, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects, the program’s tax revenues will be approximately equal to its outlays. However, as more of the baby-boom generation (that is, people born between 1946 and 1964) enters retirement, outlays will increase relative to the size of the economy, whereas tax revenues will remain at an almost constant share of the economy. Starting in 2016, CBO projects, outlays as scheduled under current law will regularly exceed tax revenues."

Source: CBO "Combined OASDI Trust Funds; January 2011 Baseline" 26 Jan 2011.
Source: CBO "Combined OASDI Trust Funds; January 2011 Baseline" 26 Jan 2011.
​

 

[dmcowen674]

From the CBO report noted in your first link. So is the CBO is just another Right Wing rag also?
"In calendar year 2010, Social Security’s outlays will exceed tax revenues (that is, the trust funds’ receipts excluding interest) for the first time since the enactment of the Social Security Amendments of 1983.

Over the next few years, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects, the program’s tax revenues will be approximately equal to its outlays. However, as more of the baby-boom generation (that is, people born between 1946 and 1964) enters retirement, outlays will increase relative to the size of the economy, whereas tax revenues will remain at an almost constant share of the economy. Starting in 2016, CBO projects, outlays as scheduled under current law will regularly exceed tax revenues."​

Garbage and you know it

 

[Ausm]

From the CBO report noted in your first link. So is the CBO is just another Right Wing rag also?
"In calendar year 2010, Social Security’s outlays will exceed tax revenues (that is, the trust funds’ receipts excluding interest) for the first time since the enactment of the Social Security Amendments of 1983.

Over the next few years, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects, the program’s tax revenues will be approximately equal to its outlays. However, as more of the baby-boom generation (that is, people born between 1946 and 1964) enters retirement, outlays will increase relative to the size of the economy, whereas tax revenues will remain at an almost constant share of the economy. Starting in 2016, CBO projects, outlays as scheduled under current law will regularly exceed tax revenues."

Source: CBO "Combined OASDI Trust Funds; January 2011 Baseline" 26 Jan 2011.
Source: CBO "Combined OASDI Trust Funds; January 2011 Baseline" 26 Jan 2011.
​

Never claimed the CBO was a right wing rag

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Never claimed the CBO was a right wing rag

Yes or no...are we currently running escalating SS deficits and are these deficits being funded by the general fund as was originally stated by boochi?

 

[Ausm]

Yes or no...are we currently running escalating SS deficits and are these deficits being funded by the general fund as was originally stated by boochi?

The government pays Social Security benefits with the revenue collected from the payroll tax and the excess goes into a trust fund. The rest is explained by the following link.


http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.