Social Security tax cut affects all, pumps 120 billion into economy

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Come again?

http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2365&catid=44:legislation

President's Social Security Statements Break Moral and Legal Commitment
"Some people in America ... think that the federal government all these years has been collecting your payroll taxes and we're holding it for you. And then when you get ready to retire, we give it back to you. That's not the way it works."
- The President, April 15, 2005

Since President Bush took office in 2000, the federal government has borrowed more than $500 billion from the Social Security system. The President's most recent budget projects that the federal government will borrow an additional $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years. This money has been used to pay for government expenditures that have included multiple rounds of tax cuts for the very wealthy.

your numbers don't add up at all bro. That surplus was chump change compared to the $1.2T/year in additional spending that Social Security is going to cost as 80m baby boomers start drawing on Social Security over the next 10 years, at $1k/pop average payout/month.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,374
12,520
136
Set to music -

Where have all the teabagger gone, whining about deficits,
Where have all the Republicans gone, long time ago....................
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Are you really saying that Social Security benefits should be lowered?

Not at all. I'm saying that we are watching starve the beast put into effect. We are already running a deficit on SS and now we just cut about 16.1% of the revenue off (2% out of 12.4%). The GOP got their tax cuts and the starve the beast all in one.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Not at all. I'm saying that we are watching starve the beast put into effect. We are already running a deficit on SS and now we just cut about 16.1% of the revenue off (2% out of 12.4%). The GOP got their tax cuts and the starve the beast all in one.

Starving the beast doesn't really work all that well though, as cuts just make each department less effective.

In this case, social security is one step closer to going belly up.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Starving the beast doesn't really work all that well though, as cuts just make each department less effective.

In this case, social security is one step closer to going belly up.

That's the point. Starve the Beast (SS in this case) and it dies. GOP dream.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
LoL to a "dual income family earning $200k"...They should use the average dual income for the US.

It's about a cost of living adjustment for those that haven't gotten one in years.
 

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
Can we just have an option of whether we want to contribute to, and benefit from (lol), social security or not. I don't need the government to babysit my retirement.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
Can we just have an option of whether we want to contribute to, and benefit from (lol), social security or not. I don't need the government to babysit my retirement.


And for every 1 person that applies to there are a hundred more that it does not.

Read up on why SS came to be. 2 big reasons. 1 free money from dumb people that die early and a large growth of elderly that could not afford even basic living.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
can we lay to rest the BS uncertainty rhetoric now?


seriously...


Oh btw any of you who even mention the deficit from now on who agree with the tax cuts for the top brackets are living in a fantasy world....


seriously..

Raise taxes on the lower brackets. Make them pay their fair share.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
And for every 1 person that applies to there are a hundred more that it does not.

Read up on why SS came to be. 2 big reasons. 1 free money from dumb people that die early and a large growth of elderly that could not afford even basic living.


Some of that money from #1 goes to help #1 offspring below ages of 18.

Also, what about those that are disabled and can not work?
 

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
And for every 1 person that applies to there are a hundred more that it does not.

Read up on why SS came to be. 2 big reasons. 1 free money from dumb people that die early and a large growth of elderly that could not afford even basic living.
Those that are too dumb to plan and handle their own money can just be on their own then, or keep working until they die. Or they can choose to contribute and have it partly handled for them.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Means dick to working people making less than 50K a year, they will get less than the previous Making Work Pay credit. Yeah it means more for those earning 70K a year since that was the cutoff previously.

Not sure where some people are pulling this 4K number from, unless you're making 300,000K+ and year...keep dreaming. More like ~$1200 a year if you're making 70K.
 

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
Means dick to working people making less than 50K a year, they will get less than the previous Making Work Pay credit. Yeah it means more for those earning 70K a year since that was the cutoff previously.

Not sure where some people are pulling this 4K number from, unless you're making 300,000K+ and year...keep dreaming. More like ~$1200 a year if you're making 70K.
Wasn't Making Work Pay just $400? That would mean people making over 20k would benefit. Although it's really a benefit for everyone regardless; Making Work Pay was leaving anyways.

Pretty sure 2% of 70k is $1400.

$2000 basically the max benefit, $4000 if filing together.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Means dick to working people making less than 50K a year, they will get less than the previous Making Work Pay credit. Yeah it means more for those earning 70K a year since that was the cutoff previously.

Not sure where some people are pulling this 4K number from, unless you're making 300,000K+ and year...keep dreaming. More like ~$1200 a year if you're making 70K.

The HCE limit is 106,000. After that you don't pay social security. If you and your spouse both make 106,00 or more you will get an additional 2% from each salary.

100,00 * .02 = 2000 dollars. Dual income family, each earning 100,000 or more = 4000 dollars.

It's real simple to figure out, just multiply 2% times gross yearly wage. At 50,000 GROSS that's 1,000. Not chump change and larger than the making work pay. At 70,000 that's 1400. That's a whole lotta stimulus and money in peoples pockets, of course it was theirs to begin with.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,651
2,932
136
When Bush gave that $600

I'd just like to point out that a case could be made that Bush wasn't responsible for that stimulus check. While Bush claimed credit for it when it happened I also received a postcard in the mail that:
1) told me to expect my $600 or $1200 check soon
-and-
2) told me to thank Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for the stimulus

I shit you not, I actually got a postcard from the government telling me who to thank for the stimulus. Not only was the money itself a waste, but they also wasted money telling me who to thank for the waste.
 

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
By the way, I wish we could see the breakdown of what people do with this "extra" money. Personally, I probably won't do anything but save it. In the long run, it may reduce the time until I buy a house by like....5 weeks. But thats ~1.5-2 years away.

Probably a 40&#37; of people just blow it immediately, which is fine, that's what they want people to do. Some will probably increase their retirement savings. Hmm.