Republican big bill breaks promise on ending tax on soc. security but does something better

[Dan O]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Is half not a large part? I'm thinking it is. 

your explanation is flawed as usual. It's clearly split 50/50 unless you are self employed. 

[ThreeCardMonte]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Why so greedy? You're stealing from our children.

Negative.  I’ve paid into it for 40 years.

 

They can too.

[gamb00ler]

20 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Liar. Employers pay a large part of it, 

 

Your ignorance is truly stunning.

You're correct that employers pay 50%... I stated that in my previous responses in this thread.  I was never an employee so I funded 100% of my benefit.  But that 50% from the employer is like a forced retirement contribution that matches the employees contribution.  It is not a tax that goes into the government's general funds.   Both contributions go into the SS/Medicare trust funds which can only be used to fund benefits to the qualified contributors.

 

That's the legal environment under which employment takes place in the USA.  None of those funds ever could be available to anyone's children unless given to them by the employer or employee. 

 

If you wish to live in a lawless land.... you've come to the right place.

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, Dan O said:

your explanation is flawed as usual. It's clearly split 50/50 unless you are self employed. 

Is 50% not half? That seems like a large part to me. 

[ThreeCardMonte]

42 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I think you need to read the details about FICA deductions a few more times.   The money you contributed towards SS benefits (and Medicare) was not subjected to Federal income tax.  Those funds have never been taxed.  The amount of FICA taxes you paid were deducted from your wage/salary income and income tax was levied on the remainder after that deduction.  If you were self-employed you paid 100% of the FICA taxes but if you earned a salary/wage you only paid 50% of FICA and your employer paid the other 50%.

 

To make it 100% clear... if you earned $1000/week you paid about 75$ in FICA tax and so did your employer.  You paid income tax on only (1000-75) 925$ and all of the $150 went into the SS and Medicare trust funds.

 

I don't think federal income tax was charged on any of the funds that were paid into the SS/Medicare trust funds.  When qualified contributors reached retirement age they receive Medicare and retirement benefits.  Only the retirement benefits are taxed after some exemption and the marginal tax rate is never higher than 85% of the regular marginal income tax rate.

Good post.

 

I should research a bit more.  It appeared as taxes on my payroll statements and w-2.  Never explained to any of us the details other than 7.5 % paid by me and 7.5 % paid by the company.

 

 

[gamb00ler]

19 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

SS has run a deficit since 2010.   The taxes collected for SS do not cover the deficit.  The shortfalls is made by money from the general fund.  

 

https://www.pgpf.org/article/social-securitys-funding-gap-is-12-of-gdp-heres-how-we-can-close-it/

NO!  You did not understand that article correctly.  Read it again... it addresses the gap between the payouts and the replenishment from current contributions.  The gap is real but your assumption that the gap is covered from general government revenues is INCORRECT!  The gap is covered by a slow contraction of the SS/Medicare trust funds.

 

The SS/Medicare funds initially built up a very large reserve when the demographics of working population were much more tilted towards younger contributors.  As the baby boomers started to retire, the outflow of benefits began to exceed the inflow of contributions.  As a result the large reserve declined probably starting prior to 2010.  But... the reserves are still there but quickly declining.  The reserves will be totally spent in about 10 years from now. EVEN THEN current law will not allow general government revenue to cover the shortfall.... this will cause the SS benefits to be reduced by about 20%.

[NoDisplayName]

15 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

That's not a realistic view at all..... your employment exists in an environment where you and the employer are subject to the laws of the land.  One of those laws is that the employer has no option other than to pay the FICA.  So.... there is no lost "potential" wage in a land of laws.

 

You're right! 

 

It's NOT realistic to think the employer is just gonna eat the FICA taxes and medicaire and unemployment insurance and any other goodies the federal or state governments decide to mandate.

 

You think those costs don't enter into the formula when determining wage offers?  Nope, mean old management is gonna reduce whatever salary offer accordingly, unless you're critically needed, in which case it'll be passed on to the customer......you.

 

You're paying for it, just like you'd be paying for "free" healthcare.

[gamb00ler]

3 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

You think those costs don't enter into the formula when determining wage offers?  Nope, mean old management is gonna reduce whatever salary offer accordingly, unless you're critically needed, in which case it'll be passed on to the customer......you.

So... if the employer's obligation to pay the payroll tax magically disappears.... do you think management is going to immediately up everyones cheque?   Of course not... so your theory about a potentially higher wage is unfounded in reality.  When such a higher wage could be paid.... it ain't gonna be.

[TedG]

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

NO!  You did not understand that article correctly.  Read it again... it addresses the gap between the payouts and the replenishment from current contributions.  The gap is real but your assumption that the gap is covered from general government revenues is INCORRECT!  The gap is covered by a slow contraction of the SS/Medicare trust funds.

 

The SS/Medicare funds initially built up a very large reserve when the demographics of working population were much more tilted towards younger contributors.  As the baby boomers started to retire, the outflow of benefits began to exceed the inflow of contributions.  As a result the large reserve declined probably startomg prior to 2010.  But... the reserves are still there but quickly declining.  The reserves will be totally spent in about 10 years from now. EVEN THEN current law will not allow general government revenue to cover the shortfall.... this will cause the SS benefits to be reduced by about 20%.

 

You don’t understand.  The SS Trust fund consists of Treasury bonds.   Ie IOU’s to the dept of SS.  The money was spent. 

 

the US government did not save any of the excess payroll taxes the Treasury Department collected when Social Security was running a surplus. Instead, the US government turned around and spent those payroll taxes on other things.

 

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/social-security-spending-adds-national-debt

[NoDisplayName]

10 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

So... if the employer's obligation to pay the payroll tax magically disappears.... do you think management is going to immediately up everyones cheque?   Of course not... so your theory about a potentially higher wage is unfounded in reality.  When such a higher wage could be paid.... it ain't gonna be.

 

Up to you to negotiate a higher wage.

If you're worthy.

Or go someplace else where your masters in gender studies will be biglyer appreciated.

 

When Trump's tariff taxes magically disappear during his next 3am poop tweet, retailers will have to lower prices or consumers will shop elsewhere.

[gamb00ler]

8 hours ago, TedG said:

 

You don’t understand.  The SS Trust fund consists of Treasury bonds.   Ie IOU’s to the dept of SS.  The money was spent. 

 

the US government did not save any of the excess payroll taxes the Treasury Department collected when Social Security was running a surplus. Instead, the US government turned around and spent those payroll taxes on other things.

 

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/social-security-spending-adds-national-debt

NO... you don't understand... of course the money is spent... or invested in infrastructure, or education grants, or federally backed student loans... or defense procurements.... all considered useful places for the government to invest funds..

 

The government has already committed to those above expenditures/investments and to do so they would need to borrow money by selling Treasury bonds.  The can either sell those bonds to other purchasers or they can sell them to the SS trust funds.  Regardless of the existence of the SS trust funds... that money is going to be borrowed.

 

So there is no flow of money from the government general revenue to the trust funds except to pay the interest on the money they have borrowed in the form of the "special" Treasury bonds bought by the SS trust funds.  The government would pay almost exactly the same amount of interest to other lenders if not for the SS trust fund bond purchases.

 

Sure.. it may seem like magical accounting ... but it is not.... it is very normal and straightforward practice.

 

Instead of repaying the special SS bond purchases the US federal government issues payments to the SS benefit collectors from the Treasury and then reduces the balance of what they owe to the SS trust funds.

[TedG]

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

NO... you don't understand... of course the money is spent... or invested in infrastructure, or education grants, or federally backed student loans... or defense procurements.... all considered useful places for the government to invest funds..

 

The government has already committed to those above expenditures/investments and to do so they would need to borrow money by selling Treasury bonds.  The can either sell those bonds to other purchasers or they can sell them to the SS trust funds.  Regardless of the existence of the SS trust funds... that money is going to be borrowed.

 

So there is no flow of money from the government general revenue to the trust funds except to pay the interest on the money they have borrowed in the form of the "special" Treasury bonds bought by the SS trust funds.  The government would pay almost exactly the same amount of interest to other lenders if not for the SS trust fund bond purchases.

 

Sure.. it may seem like magical accounting ... but it is not.... it is very normal and straightforward practice.

 

Instead of repaying the special SS bond purchases the US federal government issues payments to the SS benefit collectors from the Treasury and then reduces the balance of what they owe to the SS trust funds.

 

You are wrong.  The government does not invest it spends. 

 

 

When the dept of SS cashes in the bonds, where does the money come from?   Think about it.   it’s either via taxes or more debt.   

[Jingthing]

Of course SELF employed people pay for all of their SS contributions.

 

There is never going to be a SS system that is fully fair. As stated before minority groups (collectively) get totally screwed by the system as statistically they die younger and disproportionally never live to claim one penny. How unfair is that?  Of course there could be a pollical remedy for that which of course will never happen.

 

Anyway, this article goes into a lot of useful about who will benefit from the current proposed plan, and who doesn't.

 

As said before the lower income SS recipients ALREADY pay no tax so nothing would help them related to taxation except to raise their benefits! 

 

Do you have Social Security and other savings? You are possibly one of the hardest hit by the GOP tax bill

[Yellowtail]

17 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

So... if the employer's obligation to pay the payroll tax magically disappears.... do you think management is going to immediately up everyones cheque?   Of course not... so your theory about a potentially higher wage is unfounded in reality.  When such a higher wage could be paid.... it ain't gonna be.

Do you believe that the profitability of a company has no impact on how well their workers are compensated? 

[jimmybcool]

Interesting a mention of phasing out SS.

 

While the libertarian in me likes the idea the realist in me accepts that a large percentage of humans do not make good decisions in life and will be destitute when they can no longer work if the smarter ones among us don't plan for them.  SS is this concept.  No, no one has a good retirement lifestyle off of SS but it keeps them from being completely cut off from an income. 

 

Also the comments that contributions no longer cover expenditures that is absolutely understandable with the largest population bump (boomers) hitting retirement and medicine keeping more of us alive longer. 

 

The libertarian side of me abhors these very socialist programs but the compassionate side accepts my fellow man is comprised of many sub-100 IQ specimens. 

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

Interesting a mention of phasing out SS.

 

While the libertarian in me likes the idea the realist in me accepts that a large percentage of humans do not make good decisions in life and will be destitute when they can no longer work if the smarter ones among us don't plan for them.  SS is this concept.  No, no one has a good retirement lifestyle off of SS but it keeps them from being completely cut off from an income. 

 

Also the comments that contributions no longer cover expenditures that is absolutely understandable with the largest population bump (boomers) hitting retirement and medicine keeping more of us alive longer. 

 

The libertarian side of me abhors these very socialist programs but the compassionate side accepts my fellow man is comprised of many sub-100 IQ specimens. 

Phasing out SS is just the left lying to try to sabotage the Trump administration. 

 

Same with all the talk of tax breaks for billionaires and starving kids. They're leftists. No one wants their policies, all they can do is lie.