What the tax compromise could mean for the future of Social Security.

[Better Believe It]

Don’t Compromise Social Security
What the tax compromise could mean for the future of Social Security.
by Doug Pibel
December 10, 2010


Part of the proposed deal struck between President Obama and Republican legislators is a one-year, two-percent “tax holiday” on payroll taxes—the taxes that fund Social Security.

But whether or not the tax holiday makes economic sense, it represents an enormous change—and threat—to Social Security. There has never before been a payment from the nation’s general fund into Social Security. Maintaining the distinction between the two is critical, according to Nancy Altman, co-director of Social Security Works, speaking in the same press conference. Altman’s credentials include acting as Alan Greenspan’s assistant when he chaired the commission that amended Social Security in 1983. “I think it’s unfathomable that this is only going to last a year,” Altman said. “If this gets extended, we’ll have increasing costs. Congress will then have an unpalatable set of choices: Either extend funding and cut other spending, or cut Social Security.”

It’s ironic that this is being sold as a temporary cut in the context of extending the Bush administration’s supposedly temporary tax cuts. In fact, Republican legislators have already announced that, when it comes time for the payroll tax holiday to expire, they’ll be calling it a tax increase, and fighting to extend the decrease.

There’s even a great way to make it seem like a really scary increase: The tax holiday will take the worker’s share of payroll taxes from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, a 2 percent decrease. But when comes time for the holiday to end, it’s going to be called a 50 percent increase. That’s mathematically correct, since two is about half of 4.2. But that sounds much worse than an increase of two percentage points.

Read the full article at:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/dont-compromise-social-security

[Poll_Blind]

1. As soon as I'd recced this it was unrecced as well. Strange days.

PB

[Scurrilous]

2. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Poboy]

3. recommend

[ProSense]

4. Oh brother

"But whether or not the tax holiday makes economic sense, it represents an enormous change—and threat—to Social Security."

How could a threat to SS make sense?

Claiming the payroll tax holiday is a threat to SS is more hype than reality.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pholus]

12. Yeah, let's "Starve the Beast!"

Big tax cuts, looming deficit "crisis" next year. Who'da thunk.

Well, pretty much everyone except the hostage negotiators it seems.

[aquart]

6. It is NOT a "compromise." It is a capitulation.

[vssmith]

7. We are being bullshitted by the government

Since 1937 Social Security has collected a substantial surplus.

As of 2009 the SSA has collected $2,540,348,000,000 more than it has paid out.
In 2009 it collected $807,490,000,000 and paid out $685,801,000,000

The info can be found at: http://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html
Please note that the data in this table are in millions

[KansDem]

8. If Social Security goes the way of health care...

We'll be paying 33 cents of every privatized Social Security dollar on CEO salaries and bonuses!

[BrklynLiberal]

9. This attack on SS is the part of this capitualtion that pisses me off the most.

This will cause the most pain in the long run, and I cannot understand how any Democrat in his right mind could support this..

SHAME ON YOU ALL. especially AL FRANKEN!! Your wife's family survived on SS after her father died. You have told that story dozens of times!!

Why isn't this being screamed from rooftops by Democrats, Liberals and Progressives everywhere???

This is EXACTLY what the repukes have been waiting for since the FDR days!!!!!!!!

[polichick]

10. I'm with you - this is the most disturbing part of the whole thing. nt

[xchrom]

11. We need to wrap our minds around the fact that the party at it's leadership heart

Is neo-liberal.

It pays lip service to certain ideas and programs from
FDR and the union movement and progressive movement --
But it has every intention of bargaining off government to
Corporations because they believe it's right.

That's the deal.