Payroll tax hike - like it or dislike it?

[The Riddler]

If you think a little bit more out of your paycheck is the only "new tax" you're paying then just wait until April when you guys do your taxes... If you thought you were going to get a refund, you better start thinking again. King Gummint needs your money for its ??? programs.

"Social Security? Oh - yeah - sorry - we spent all that money on ??? a long time ago. You aren't an unpatriotic jerk, are you? Just because we blew your money on ??? doesn't mean you don't still have to pay all the bills we're racking up on ???, XXX, YYY, and ZZZ you selfish bum. What? You want US to spend less money? Why you evil, self-centered, lazy, good for nothing pleb!"

[ptwonline]

That doesn't change the fact that our shifting dependency ratio is going to open the floodgates on what money SS DOES have.

The unfortunate truth is that we need the baby boom generation to die off (and soon) if we're to have any hope of SS surviving in its current state.

I'd personally rather scrap the program tomorrow and liquidate assets on a prorated basis to people who've already paid in.

A more "correct" way to do it would be to tell everyone who's 45 years old today that they will be ineligible for Social Security upon retirement and cut SS taxes gradually for the next 20 years.

Why on earth would you scrap it when it's not that hard to fix it? Especially when without it you'll have millions of people who will go through their senior years in deep poverty and all the negative things that come with it.

[Daerio]

Why on earth would you scrap it when it's not that hard to fix it? Especially when without it you'll have millions of people who will go through their senior years in deep poverty and all the negative things that come with it.

Social Security isn't meant to be another form of welfare. It's supposed to be self-sustaining. If you don't pay INTO SS, you don't get an SS check when you retire. That's how the system works. The issue is that the government never does what it's supposed to with money. So you're FORCED to pay into it, and you MAY OR MAY NOT get your money back when you retire. It's a scam.

It's a travesty that it was created in the first place - the government stealing our money and doing whatever they want with it. A way around calling it a straight tax increase, playing musical chairs with the payouts. It SHOULD be scrapped, people can take care of themselves - and if they can't, it isn't the government that should be taking care of them.

[Puremallace]

I dislike the fact I'm losing money towards a program (SS) I will never get.

If it does somehow survive for me, I guess I wouldn't mind as it does need to be paid for.

This is why SSI is going broke. As they keep giving inflation increases to people over 65 who do you think pays for that? Also SS was used as a slush fund by congress for the past 10 years and that is why it is going broke.

[Tinykong]

It wasn't "robbed blind". It has billions of dollars that the government will have to pay back, just like all the other debt that the government has that eventually matures and has to be paid back. The gov't simply has to issue new private debt to stay funded as part of the debt owed to SS comes due, the same way they would have to issue new debt when a loan owed to an investment fund came due.

Billions of dollars the government will have to pay back, which it won't ever be able to pay back under current conditions.

Think that about defines "robbed blind."

[Laize]

Why on earth would you scrap it when it's not that hard to fix it? Especially when without it you'll have millions of people who will go through their senior years in deep poverty and all the negative things that come with it.

Not that hard to fix? You mean by raising taxes or cutting benefits?

That dependency was created by the government to begin with.

That said, there are ways to scrap it without affecting those in retirement already or retiring soon.

[ptwonline]

Billions of dollars the government will have to pay back, which it won't ever be able to pay back under current conditions.

Think that about defines "robbed blind."

The government is not in any real danger of defaulting on it's loans unless conservatives block the ability to repay them.

SS was not "robbed blind" by any stretch of the imagination. The gov't simply borrowed from them (as required by law) instead of from other lenders.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 08:09 PM ----------

Not that hard to fix? You mean by raising taxes or cutting benefits?

That dependency was created by the government to begin with.

That said, there are ways to scrap it without affecting those in retirement already or retiring soon.

Raise taxes, cut benefits, or increase the pool of taxpayers (by including more people, admitting more immigrants, increasing the birth rate, etc). A mix of all three are likely.

The reason such a program exists is because nobody wants to see our seniors living in poverty in their old age. Once upon a time many workers could rely on pensions or their own savings, but now that businesses have done away with most pensions and reduced worker compensation to help make record profits, people will rely more on programs like SS in their retirement. That's why I also think corporations need to be taxed more to help restore the previous equilibrium. Or you can tax those who benefit most from coporate profits (the wealthy) at a higher rate to again help restore the previous equilibrium.

If you cut SS then more seniors are simply going to go on welfare. Instead of a self-funded system you now have a system that actually does take money from the general pool to fund it.

[Daerio]

If you cut SS then more seniors are simply going to go on welfare. Instead of a self-funded system you now have a system that actually does take money from the general pool to fund it.

I still get the feeling like you think SS is a welfare program, when I already explained it isn't. People are directly paying for it, and benefiting only based on what they paid in. This isn't redistribution of wealth, it's stealing from individuals and promising at the end of the day they'll get their money back.

Raise taxes, cut benefits, or increase the pool of taxpayers (by including more people, admitting more immigrants, increasing the birth rate, etc). A mix of all three are likely.

This only extends the problem. You're taking in more money from people, for less benefit to them in the longrun. That's stealing, any way you cut it.

When the government gets to the point that everyone is better off investing in their own retirement program, then the government program is entirely meaningless. And don't pretend retirement programs don't exist outside of the government.

[Tinykong]

The government is not in any real danger of defaulting on it's loans unless conservatives block the ability to repay them.

SS was not "robbed blind" by any stretch of the imagination. The gov't simply borrowed from them (as required by law) instead of from other lenders.

Right, we're in "no danger" of being unable to pay our bills, except we've been running huge deficits for 50+ years with no end in sight.

[Porcell]

I logged into the Social Security website to check on my account. Total SSI tax paid by me is $26700 and total SSI tax paid by my employer is roughly the same, a little bit more. I would be 100% okay with them just cutting me a check for $26700 and strike me off the rolls, and never collect the 4.2% or 6.2% or whatever it becomes in the future from me ever again. Let me off the system, I don't want your social security. The amount my employers paid; keep it, give it back, give it to me, I don't really care.

I'm getting forced to put like $3000 per year into the social security system while I'm also putting $16000 into my own 401k. Social Security is like "It's your retirement, but we'll hold on to the money for you. Don't worry, when the time comes we'll give it back." How about I deal with my own retirement.

[Kujako]

Its not a tax hike, its an expiration of a tax break. We've known for years that it was only temporary.

[Tinykong]

I logged into the Social Security website to check on my account. Total SSI tax paid by me is $26700 and total SSI tax paid by my employer is roughly the same, a little bit more. I would be 100% okay with them just cutting me a check for $26700 and strike me off the rolls, and never collect the 4.2% or 6.2% or whatever it becomes in the future from me ever again. Let me off the system, I don't want your social security. The amount my employers paid; keep it, give it back, give it to me, I don't really care.

They can't do that, because they need you paying into the system in order to keep the pyramid from toppling under the weight of the ever increasing pool of retired people.

[Porcell]

They can't do that, because they need you paying into the system in order to keep the pyramid from toppling under the weight of the ever increasing pool of retired people.

But the gist of it is that THOSE retired people are just getting back the money that they paid into it. If the government borrowed the money from the SSI Fund, then un-borrow it. Oh, they can't? Not my problem, that's not a valid answer. It's a self-funded program, therefore the money should be there. If it's not, then get it back, and eliminate the program (by dispersing all owed money) and shut it down.

Look, if I have $100,000 in my 401k investment, I understand that $100,000 isn't just sitting there in $100 bills waiting for me to withdraw. The bank who holds the investment has "borrowed" that money to pay / invest in other things. That doesn't mean when I show up to collect my $100,000 they can say "Uh, sorry, we spent that."

[Tinykong]

But the gist of it is that THOSE retired people are just getting back the money that they paid into it. If the government borrowed the money from the SSI Fund, then un-borrow it. Oh, they can't? Not my problem, that's not a valid answer. It's a self-funded program, therefore the money should be there. If it's not, then get it back, and eliminate the program (by dispersing all owed money) and shut it down.

Look, if I have $100,000 in my 401k investment, I understand that $100,000 isn't just sitting there in $100 bills waiting for me to withdraw. The bank who holds the investment has "borrowed" that money to pay / invest in other things. That doesn't mean when I show up to collect my $100,000 they can say "Uh, sorry, we spent that."

But, they aren't. They are often getting back more than they paid into it. People are living longer, and the retirement age is the same, and benefits increase. Social Security can't sustain itself, because populations constantly increase, and economies do not.

[ptwonline]

Right, we're in "no danger" of being unable to pay our bills, except we've been running huge deficits for 50+ years with no end in sight.

The US could run deficits for infinity and still be able to pay it's bills. At some point there could be some very bad side effects, but to simply pay it off is not a problem.

We are not on the gold standard. There is no fixed amount of money. Money is just a unit of measurement against the size of the economy. The US could indeed simply create money out of nothing to pay off its debts. Yes, it would cause inflation, but it still could be paid.

If you actually understand money, then you also understand that debt is not necessarily a bad thing. Basically, debt is a shift of money from the government to the private sector, allowing the economy to expand more rapidly. By running surpluses and paying down debt you actually contract the amount of money in the private sector and can slow down growth. Now, of course you likely don't want to run deficits forever because of the risk of inflation, but deficits and debt in and of themselves are not bad per se.

BTW, your premise of "running huge deficits for 50+ years with no end in sight" is actually false. Deficits were not that big a deal until Reagan 30 years ago. They were mostly brought back under control under Clinton until Bush Jr caused them to explode again. Going forward, a large chunk of the deficit problem is actually solved assuming that Congress actually makes their mandated spending cuts. If the Bush tax cuts had also been allowed to expire then most of the deficit would have been gone once the economy recovered.

[sheffield]

just like communism.. great in theory but doesn't really work

whether it's "right" or "wrong" doesn't mean i have to like it.. any time you take money from me, i'm going to dislike it

[DEATHETERNAL]

Social Security needs an opt out so that you wouldn't have to pay the tax at all if you think you can save for your own retirement. The program has become nothing more than a redistribution of income (from the young to the old, and the rich to the poor) to subsidize the stupidity of people who aren’t smart enough to save for retirement on their own.

If the program is going to stay (which it sadly will), then the tax needed to go back up otherwise the program would very quickly begin to increase the deficit in a meaningful amount (even faster than it is projected to).

The government is not in any real danger of defaulting on it's loans unless conservatives block the ability to repay them.

Even if the debt ceiling isn't ever raised again, the country would still be able to pay the interest on its loans and avoid default unless the President chose that interest to be one of the things that would not get paid (and even President Obama would not be that foolish). There is absolutely no chance of default on government loans due to the debt ceiling. Everyone talking about debt default like it is a realistic possibility is either being willfully deceptive or simply does not know what they are talking about.

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

Social Security needs to be something that the funds aren't allowed to be use for ANYTHING else.

If they ever stop the program, I want every dime I've put into it.

[SL1200]

Fica tax should never have been cut to begin with. It's going to hurt people now that its back, and the social security fund shouldn't have been robbed like that.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

But, they aren't. They are often getting back more than they paid into it. People are living longer, and the retirement age is the same, and benefits increase. Social Security can't sustain itself, because populations constantly increase, and economies do not.

By that logic, nothing can sustain itself.