Despite all the noise to the contrary in the background, the reason Social Security is on the table

[Samantha]

is because Corporations no longer want to pay the FICA tax. That is it in a political nutshell.

Sam

[Dept of Beer]

1. Well, fuck them.

[indurancevile]

2. no reduction in fica taxes has been proposed, to my knowledge.

[Samantha]

4. How about the one just enacted by President Obama

for 2011? For all of the focus on how much workers would benefit from the increase in their paychecks (peanuts, really) no one, not one person that I heard anyway, zeroed in on how such reduction collectively would positively impact large corporations. But that was the reason it was passed, it was a perk thrown to them, not us.

Sam

[indurancevile]

7. That is a short-term reduction. The options under discussion for a permanent fix

(of something that doesn't need fixing) include fica HIKES or benefit CUTS -- not fica tax reductions.

and the temporary reduction applies only to the EMPLOYEE portion, not the employer portion. Employers are still paying at the same rate. Employees, rather than paying 6.2% of their paychecks, are now paying 4.2 & get to pocket the 2%.

http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/employmenttaxes/a/Tax-Relief-Act-Reduces-Employee-Withholding-For-2011.htm

The facts don't support your theory. They are trying to reduce benefits or increase taxation so that they don't have to pay back the $2.6 trillion borrowed from the social security trust fund.

[The Magistrate]

10. Worth Pointing Out, Ma'am, that the 'Employer Portion' Is a Fiction Anyway

The whole tax in reality is borne by the employee, whose pay would be higher if no 'employer portion' was assessed. The whole tax collected by the government is levied against the amount the employer is willing to pay to get a job done, or in other words, against what is paid for the services of the employee.

[Samantha]

15. Well that is very true

Employers have always calculated the cost of an employee benefits-wise to their bottom line (down to the worth of the vacation pay and sick days paid) and subtracted the cost of the benefits from the salary the employee earns.

Sam

[indurancevile]

16. Also worth pointing out that employers get a deduction for their portion.

[Samantha]

19. Also very true

But that doesn't keep them from complaining about the tax and all of the paperwork it necessitates. When one looks at the profits these companies makes and realizes that tax even collectively for their employees is peanuts, one truly realizes how penurious these people are.

Sam

[stevedeshazer]

3. Tough shit.

Then I can't pay for their roads, bridges, schools, maritime services and all the other shit that makes them rich in the first place.

Our entire infrastructure is falling apart.

Let them eat cake.

And don't forget that Saint Ronnie Reagan doubled the FICA tax.

+1

[Samantha]

20. Yes, he increased the FICA taxes in the 1983 reform in preparation

for the onslaught of the babyboom retirement now underway. That is exactly why babyboomers OVERPAID their FICA for a couple of decades to put money in the so-called bank (read treasury bonds) to what amounts to a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus. It was acknowledged that the current system (1083) could not afford these massive layoffs coming on or about 2011 unless a financial preparation was laid. And so it was. Now that the babyboomers are retiring, the surplus is in place, what do we hear? Social Security is broke. Social Security is not broke, unless one wants to dispute what is commonly referred to as full faith and credit in U.S. Treasury Bonds, and we can't have that, can we, because no one else, meaning foreign investors among others, would buy them.

Sam

[The Magistrate]

5. Close But Not Quite, Ma'am

The governing elite, whether in office or in the board-room, wants to welsh on its markers. It is getting to the point where the Treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund will need to be redeemed in cash. To do so, there will need to be either some reduction in spending on other items, or some increase in taxes. Neither politicians nor those who purchase politicians in wholesale lots want to do either thing. What they do want to do is continue to use the regressive pay-roll tax as a principal source of general revenue, as they have in effect been doing with the amounts collected by this levy in excess of immediate pay-outs for many decades. The F.I.C.A. tax already amounts to over a third of taxes collected against income by the Federal government. Keep the F.I.C.A. rates going up, as rates on income and capital gains are cut further for the wealthy, and as benefits for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are reduced, and this proportion will only increase. The aim is to produce a Federal tax system sufficiently regressive as to shock even a medieval cleric.

[WillyT]

6. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

Thank you!!!

:yourock:

:hi:

:kick:

[Samantha]

11. I totally agree with everything you say

But those often-discussed payroll holidays and payroll cuts do give instant relief, don't they? Here in Washington, politicians "give them what they want" and they (Corporations) want it now.

Always a pleasure to read your words of wisdom,

Sam

[BeFree]

12. well put, sir

[Mimosa]

14. ^ K&Ring your must read post, Magistrate. ^ ;) n/t

[defendandprotect]

8. That -- and Wall Street wanting to get their hands on the money --

Not to mention making another huge segment of the population less independent,

less viable -- in fact, POOR!!!

[Samantha]

18. That is something not exactly kept secret here in Washington

over the last few decades, the fact Wall Street wanted to get its hands on the monies the U.S. Government collected in Social Security taxes to "invest" the surplus. It has only been recently (say in the 90s) they have totally abandoned their shame and made their wishes known publicly through their conservative spokesmen.

I asked the question here on DU if Bush* had been successful in privatizing Social Security, how much of the surplus would have been lost during the economic crash. Two days later, Paul Begala publicly answered that question on one of the talk shows, saying 40 percent would have evaporated.

Sam

[defendandprotect]

23. I imagine that many young people have been scammed by Wall Street in the

various "crashes" --

I know my son and his wife lost 3/4's of what they had invested -

you know that one where you can't get thru your broker to say "sell" --


And a friend of his later lost some part of her IRA -- evidently she

didn't know that she had an account where principal could be lost!!


Tell GOP you want to stop crime and they'll say you want a Nanny State!! :rofl:

No wonder they're fighting Elizabeth Warren so viciously!!


Thanks for the info -- !!

Also consider what's left of the pre-Bush dollar -- !!

[RegieRocker]

9. Exactly as I have stated before and....

they want you to buy into their 401k's so they can use your money for their business. Then if their stock drops so does your 401k. I'm not that dumb. I invest my money in land.

[Samantha]

24. Civics 101 - Property equals security

It doesn't really matter what the market value is if you have no plan to sell. What all poor people truly know is that the important thing is to keep a roof over your head. Once you have that, you can always acquire food. You can grow it, you can take advantage of charities, you can hunt, you can fish, but without that roof over your head, everything else becomes elusive. I believe you are correct, you did the smart thing.

Sam

[Mimosa]

13. That's IT!

Of course we self-employed pay our own as well as an 8% extra.

[Samantha]

21. That is true, and it is overall a pretty hefty tax

for many people self-employed who don't have a truly large profit.

Sam

[jwirr]

17. You are absolutely correct.

[Samantha]

22. Thank you and here is a postscript to my original thread

There are many, many angles one can look at the debate over Social Security and come up with many, many goals by many, many politicians with regard to this program. Some long-term goals have been stated here. And they all true. But applying logical arguments to a totally illogical situation can drive a reasonable man or woman crazy, and this is what this is -- a totally illogical situation.

It defies reason why anyone looking at our deficit spending at a critical time when the question of raising the debt ceiling has arisen and must be resolved within days, would put on the table the only Federal program running in the black and not contributing to the deficit. You must pick up the "cover" and look at what is underneath and there you will find the answer. FICA taxes are chronically complained about by very profitable corporations, and cutting them TODAY gives them instant relief. It is giving them part of what they want, and that is right out of the political Washington handbook. But the way it is always presented, is that it is relief for the little guy. Little guy, my posterior!!!! It only amounts to peanuts, but it is a hefty amount to an employer with a huge number of employees. And it is instant relief. You never hear that angle discussed, do you?

[Hotler]

25. FICA is just another hindrance to big business. n/t

[Samantha]

26. Exactly

It is a deduction from their bottom line, and that is unacceptable. Just get rid of it, and do it now. Sell the reduced payroll tax as a financial consideration awarded to the little guy, whatever, just give me what I want, and give it to me NOW.

You got it.

Sam

[mistertrickster]

27. Absolutely . . . it's the one big pot of money they haven't raided yet.

It must be looted.

[SammyWinstonJack]

28. The way WallSt and Corporate America burns through money, the SS surplus won't last them long.

And then what will they raid and loot? :shrug:

[mistertrickster]

29. Good question, but you're thinking long term. They only think short term. nt