Payroll Tax Cut AKA Social Security Tax Cut
By sierras236
@sierras236 (2739)
United States
December 11, 2011 4:53pm CST
I know how most of you feel about Social Security. But this discussion is about the Payroll tax cut or the Social Security tax cut as it is otherwise known as.
Normally, I am for tax cuts. However, this one had me seriously thinking about the unintended consequences of this tax cut. It directly cuts the funds going to Social Security.
As far as how to pay for the tax cuts, I am seriously against both the Republican (Shocking, I know) and the Democrat plans. But not for the normal reasons. My concern is that whatever method used to pay for the tax cuts will wind up in the general fund instead of in Social Security. In fact, that is almost guaranteed. Which means that out of necessity, the Government will have to borrow strictly for Social Security.
Social Security is already upside down. You can read that for yourself. Yes, it happened on President Obama's watch.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html
5 responses
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
12 Dec 11
NOTHING is paying for it right now. We have a $1.4 trillion deficit. If our budget were balanced, or anywhere near balanced, we wouldn't have to find some way to pay for it or continue some already present way of paying for it. The reason there's talk about paying for it now as opposed to previously is the whole pay-as-you-go bit. Granted, it has so many exceptions as to border on meaningless, but this is apparently not one of the exceptions.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
12 Dec 11
The current legislation has no plans to pay for this shortfall. If anything, the Government has to borrow more to make up for the current upside down situation.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
13 Dec 11
Wait Social Security is still getting money put into it. I thought that all of it went to the General Fund. (Looks at the post before mine) oh I see I was right. I mean the Government is going to have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and who knows what other entitlements are going by then in a state of insolvency by 2036. That is from Cato take it how ever you like. Their numbers are from CBO. Anyway I think we do need to keep the tax cut in place and make some serious hard choices about just what the Federal Government is in charge of running in our society. Personally as many of you may of guessed I am a restrict the Government down to the Article 1 Section 8 sort of level. I think Jefferson was right the Federal Government is limited to its enumerated powers and that is it unless by Amendment which takes quite a lot of effort on the part of congress to get accepted.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
13 Dec 11
I understand what you are saying. However, there does need to be a gradual decrease instead of a sudden stoppage. Which will happen with the current tax cut in place. What the essential problem is behind this is that the Government will keep borrowing just to pay out claims. That is what I have a major problem with.
@djbtol (5493)
• United States
12 Dec 11
For some time everyone has known that the social security program is a train wreck waiting to happen. Tell me then, how could the leaders of this country reduce the amount of money coming in to the fund? Likewise I'm sure they have done nothing to reduce the ways that people are able to raid the SS funds. Is no one mature enough to take into account the consequences of such actions?
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
12 Dec 11
Apparently, not. Clearly, this is a political power play with Social Security funds. Sometimes, it is hard to see the unintended consequences of a bill until after it is passed.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Dec 11
Sadly, it's been a long time since there was an actual "social security fund" that all the money we pay through the SS payroll tax goes to. Remember Al Gore's "Social Security Lock Box" idea? Remember how it was made fun of by Republicans and Democrats in Congress?
To them, a separate SS fund just means money they don't get to spend.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
12 Dec 11
Yep, and creating these bills means they get more money to spend without putting it back into Social Security.
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
11 Dec 11
Part of the problem with Social Security is that the government has been borrowing from that fund and not paying the money back. That happened long before Obama. If congress doesn't act, there are numerous tax deductions that will expire or be decreased in the next two years. The social security fund is in no immediate danger of going bankrupt. The problem is that it will soon be running deficits. Even then it will not run out of money although it may need to reduce benefit payouts.
