Don't Pay, Don't Gripe

[nathanm]

Insert standard statements about payroll tax and modify bottom earners to about 10% plus being forced to pay into a system that will keep them from starving in their old age. Oh, and for those of us that are not self employed, your employer is paying an equal amount toward your old age financial security.  It it unlikely that you would get that in a pay raise if your employer's portion were suddenly no longer necessary.

If the payroll tax were actually segregated, and if leading Republicans (and many Democrats) weren't talking as if we're going to stiff the trust fund, I might agree with your assessment as to how social security tax works. The fact of the matter is that workers have (well, had until the last couple of years) been paying 2-3 times as much social security tax as was necessary to keep the program running. Twice it was used to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest that did little for those at the bottom. Even if I buy into your view, everyone still pays federal taxes, whether it be excise taxes, airport fees, or whatever else I can't think of at the moment.

As far as getting a raise if payroll tax went away, most economists disagree, but they're economists. It's part of your pay package today, after all. Like your pension, if you have one. (My SO does, surprisingly)

[Red Arrow]

Even if I buy into your view, everyone still pays federal taxes, whether it be excise taxes, airport fees, or whatever else I can't think of at the moment.

Which is why I left the bottom group at 10%.  I merely deducted the Payroll tax and decided that your 17.5% number included the things you just mentioned.  I agree that the SS fund is being inappropriately squandered but paying the tax is enabling the miracle, kind of like buying a lottery ticket with nearly a 100% chance of winning.  Nearly because you may die before receiving benefits.  I don't see SS going away completely in any of our lifetimes.

[RecycleMichael]

So that is what Social Security is. I thought it was a facebook page for jailers and prison guards.

[Red Arrow]

So that is what Social Security is. I thought it was a facebook page for jailers and prison guards.

Could be that too.  Lots of words and terms have multiple meanings.  Check any dictionary.

[nathanm]

I don't know. For some reason I think it would be best if the people who got the benefit of our paying far too much SS tax had to pay it back. It shouldn't take too long, after all, a dollar "borrowed" in 1990 can be paid back with a current dollar worth only 61 1990 cents.

[Red Arrow]

I don't know. For some reason I think it would be best if the people who got the benefit of our paying far too much SS tax had to pay it back. It shouldn't take too long, after all, a dollar "borrowed" in 1990 can be paid back with a current dollar worth only 61 1990 cents.

I expect we are about to diverge again.  I think everyone gained something by "borrowing" from SS, not just the rich.  Given that premise, everyone should pay it back but not necessarily on a flat scale.

[nathanm]

I think everyone gained something by "borrowing" from SS, not just the rich.  Given that premise, everyone should pay it back but not necessarily on a flat scale.

You think the folks who paid the vast majority of the surplus tax should also pay it back? There's definitely some divergence of opinion there.

(It helps when I don't leave out words or have a surplus of them)

[Red Arrow]

You think the folks who paid the vast majority of the surplus tax should also pay it back?

I think everyone gained something by "borrowing" from SS, not just the rich.  Given that premise, everyone should pay it back but not necessarily on a flat scale.

For starters, how much trouble would SS be in if that "surplus" had been left in SS?  Would there be some for a "rainy day"?  I believe some of that "surplus" was to account for the amount of Baby Boomers retiring and less younger workers contributing.  You will have to convince me there was actually an actuarial surplus and not just a short term amount of money burning holes in Congress' pockets.  You will also have to convince me that no one but the rich benefited from the spending of the money that should have been held in reserve.  So, yes, to some degree even the folks who paid the vast majority of the spent "surplus" should contribute to repaying the fund.

[nathanm]

I believe some of that "surplus" was to account for the amount of Baby Boomers retiring and less younger workers contributing.  You will have to convince me there was actually an actuarial surplus and not just a short term amount of money burning holes in Congress' pockets.  You will also have to convince me that no one but the rich benefited from the spending of the money that should have been held in reserve.

It's pretty clear that both parties have it out for Social Security and will not allow it to run into deficit (other than the occasional year here and there from un/underemployment) and thus redeem the securities it holds. If that turns out to be the case, I think we can both agree that it doesn't matter what the surplus was intended to be used for and instead we should look at where it actually went.

Much of it went into the Reagan tax cuts. More went into the capital gains cuts and the AMT realignment. Yet more went into the Bush tax cuts. I'm not going to do the math this very moment, but I suspect those items account for most of the $2.5 trillion collected in excess of need. The benefits of all of those cuts went mainly to those at the very top of the income and wealth distribution. Some went to upper middle class folks. The rest of us got a small benefit. This wouldn't seem so much like outright theft to me if there were no cap on Social Security contributions. Since there is, it looks an awful lot like a direct transfer of wealth from the lower rungs of the income distribution to the upper rungs of it, in effect, if not in design.

I did not say that only those at the top benefited, but it's pretty clear (if my estimates are not wildly incorrect, anyway) that most of the benefit went to them. If the schemes to kneecap Social Security do not succeed, the transfer is much smaller, as it was only a loan to (mainly) the wealthy rather than an out and out giveaway.

[guido911]

A large percentage of the people that don't pay taxes are retirees that have paid in plenty over their lives, it's like almost 1/3 of the total of people not paying taxes. They often at paid at much higher rates than are paid today. Do they get a say?

If you are not paying federal income tax, then in my opinion you do not get to grumble about the rate that people who do pay that tax. Period. It is none of your business.

I do not understand the circumstances issue either. If you are retired, or do not earn enough to pay federal income tax, what's the point? You are still bitching about people who are paying that tax not paying enough. I guess I cannot understand where some people get the damned gall to do such. Seriously, just enjoy the ride and be quiet.

[Red Arrow]

It's pretty clear that both parties have it out for Social Security and will not allow it to run into deficit (other than the occasional year here and there from un/underemployment) and thus redeem the securities it holds. If that turns out to be the case, I think we can both agree that it doesn't matter what the surplus was intended to be used for and instead we should look at where it actually went.

Wrong assumption.  I do think it matters what the surplus was intended for.  It gives us a reason to restore it.  We do need to look where it actually went and make those projects pay.   The rich may not have paid as much tax as you want but that is not where the money was spent.

[Red Arrow]

Seriously, just enjoy the ride and be quiet.

Everybody wants a better ride.

[guido911]

Everybody wants a better ride.

I'm looking to unload my pickup for something new soon. 

[swake]

If you are not paying federal income tax, then in my opinion you do not get to grumble about the rate that people who do pay that tax. Period. It is none of your business.

I do not understand the circumstances issue either. If you are retired, or do not earn enough to pay federal income tax, what's the point? You are still bitching about people who are paying that tax not paying enough. I guess I cannot understand where some people get the damned gall to do such. Seriously, just enjoy the ride and be quiet.

So the fact that they paid a much higher rate during their working lives while you were a snot nosed non-tax paying, in fact tax sucking, child is irrelevant? You can call to cut your taxes and their benefits as you like and they just need to shut up?

Makes sense.

[guido911]

So the fact that they paid a much higher rate during their working lives while you were a snot nosed non-tax paying, in fact tax sucking, child is irrelevant? You can call to cut your taxes and their benefits as you like and they just need to shut up?

Makes sense.

I don't remember bitching about how much/little those paying taxes (higher rate or otherwise) were paying while I was being snot nosed. Perhaps I just couldn't get the nerve to demand someone who is paying more than me should pay more.