I got paid today. It was a bigger check because of the payroll tax cut.

[bluestateguy]

I'm just sayin'.....

[Better Believe It]

1. You mean the Social Security payroll tax cut?

If the government would just eliminate the Social Security payroll tax for you and your employer that would give you even more cash and boost business profits.

Of course, you'll never see a Social Security check.

You could "invest" your pay increase in a 401K or buy stocks directly and hope for the best.

Just sayin.

[Statistical]

6. Social Security wasn't cut. $80B from general fund will offset the $80B in workers checks. n/t

[Better Believe It]

10. That means for the first time that Social Security is contributing to the nation's deficit.

Are you OK with that?

And that's all the excuse deficit hawks need for cutting social security benefits.

Don't you get it?

[Statistical]

12. SS would begin contributing to the budget/deficit beginning in 2015 anyways.

So I doubt 4 years really matters. If this is the death knell of Social Security than it was going to be killed anyways.

[Better Believe It]

13. Why do you think that? The Social Security trust fund has 2.5 trillion set aside in surplus funds

[Statistical]

14. And when the SSA starts redeeming those $2.5 trillion in bonds where does the $$$ come from?

Here is a diagram.

SS current year surplus -> Use cash to purchase bond -> Cash transfer from SSA to general fund = + effect on general fund budget
SS current year deficit -> Redeem bonds for cash -> Cash transfer from general fund to SSA = - effect on general fund budget


What did you think the trust fund was? It is $2.5 trillion in treasury bonds. It is an asset for the SSA and a liability for the general fund. When a treasury bond is redeemed who pays for it? Why the general fund of course. Thus when SSA begins redeeming those bonds (and it will need to starting in 2015) it will require money/cash to be paid from general fund to SSA trust.

Now the General Fund SHOULD repay the trust fund but the process of doing so will contribute to the deficit. Those redemptions will be line item in the General Fund budget.

So consider 2011 a "test run" for Democrats to get the message right. SS will start affecting the budget and deficit in the future (as it should) Democrats had better be ready to explain that to general public in a manner that makes sense.

[rfranklin]

24. Time to raise taxes...

and the Democrats will be too timid to broach that subject.

[Statistical]

26. Well we likely will have no choice but to raise taxes.

Still the Republicans will claim SS is contributing to the deficit.
Even with a balanced budget that cost will contribute to the budget.

So my point is Democrats need to get in front on this "talking point". In the future SS WILL contribute to the deficit that is a certainty. So if that talking point kills SS then SS will die. I don't think it will but Democratic leaders need to somehow condense this complicated topic into a talking point. Like "SS is simply being repaid in good faith just like anyone who lends money would expect" or "We honor our obligations it is the American way" or something like that.

[rfranklin]

36. Absolutely...but too often they just acquiesce to the rightwing talking points...

Why should this be different?

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[Hannah Bell]

61. you'd like people to think so.

[Better Believe It]

59. The funds are provided by the Treasury Department. That's what happens to ALL government bonds.

These treasury bonds are no different than the ones cashed in by individuals, pension funds and foreign governments.

The United States treasury HAS NEVER defaulted on their bonds, not even during the Great Depression.

If they have to, they will print money to cover the interest and principal on government bonds.

States, cities and individuals can't do that to cover their bonds or debt.

But, we aren't anywhere near that point.

[Statistical]

67. Exactly that is the point.

When SSA cashes in bonds the money will come from the general fund and it will acts as a negative factor on deficit.

I never said (nor do I think) the govt will default on the bonds.

"These treasury bonds are no different than the ones cashed in by individuals, pension funds and foreign governments."
Exactly. When you cash in a T-bond it affects the deficit as every $ spent paying you is a dollar of expenditures to the general fund.

[Better Believe It]

75. The SS payroll "tax cut" scheme gives legs to Republican claims that SS needs to be cut.

And you seem to believe those Republican claims and are reinforcing them.

Buying government bonds was just one of three reasonable options the Social Security had for handling Social Security tax surpluses.

It was the safest thing to do.

The other options were to put 2.5 trillion dollars in cash under a very large mattress or put the funds to "work" in the stock market.

The Social Security treasury bonds are no different than other government bonds in the sense that they are guaranteed and backed "with the full faith and credit of the United States government.

However, the Social Security bonds along with all revenues and expenditures are not and have never been co-mingled with general treasury funds .... until President Obama's tax deal with Republicans.

That's why the Social Security payroll "tax cut" needs to be ended next year and the tax CAP needs to be raised.

It will be difficult to do that given Obama's Republican tax cut deal and this bi-partisan scheme makes it easier for anti-Social Security deficit hawks to advocate Social Security cuts claiming that Social Security adds to the federal government deficit.

In other words, they will make the same false claim that you seem to be making.

[Statistical]

76. I never said anything different.

"Buying government bonds was just one of three reasonable options the Social Security had for handling Social Security tax surpluse"
Of course it was

"The Social Security treasury bonds are no different than other government bonds in the sense that they are guaranteed and backed "with the full faith and credit of the United States government."
Yeah. I have argued that exact point.

"However, the Social Security bonds along with all revenues and expenditures are not and have never been co-mingled with general treasury funds .... until President Obama's tax deal with Republicans."
You are right however starting in 2015 it would have anyways. Even without payroll tax holiday or the recession starting in 2015 SSA expenses would exceed revenue and they would begin redeeming bonds. This would contribute to the deficit as it will for next 50 years. So the belief that 2011 vs 2015 is going to be the death knell of SS is hyperbole at best.

"In other words, they will make the same false claim that you seem to be making."
I made no false claims. Please try re-reading again. You entire post was of "facts" that I never disputed.

[Hannah Bell]

60. it matters a great deal.

[kctim]

41. That would be awesome

Hell, even a CHOICE in the matter would be good enough.

[mmonk]

2. I guess the question will be whether the trade off be worth it in the long run.

[Statistical]

3. Hopefully people will spend a significant portion of that $80 billion in aggregate.

Rising aggregate demand -> rising employment -> rising aggregate demand -> etc.

The virtuous cycle.

[eridani]

80. Not bloody likely. Any extra that people just hanging on get--

--goes straight into paying off debts, or for the more frual among us, savings. Anyone who'd make major spending decisions on the basis of an extra $10/week shouldn't be allowed out in public without an escort.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Funny, my Social Security was down $106 and my federal income tax was up $53.

[Statistical]

7. The making work pay credit of 2009/2010 expired. That is $400 per year.

[sinkingfeeling]

54. Don't think I got that, because of my salary. The year we deducted it from our tax returns (2009), I

didn't receive anything.

[Statistical]

56. Even if you were ineligible to receive it everyone withholding was updated.

Essentially the withholding tables for a given amount of income for 2009 & 2010 were $400 less than in 2008 or 2011.

[sinkingfeeling]

74. Except it was phased out for singles making over $75,000

[Statistical]

77. The credit was however the witholding was the same.

Witholding was $400 less for every single person for 2009/2010. Now if you ended up ineligble for the credit when you filed your tax return you simply paid $400 more in taxes. However you witholding was reduced just like everyone else. There was no way to avoid it.

The witholding schedule for 2009/2010 was reduced by $400 annually compared to 2008 and 2010.

[WinkyDink]

37. Exactly. Retirees are the flotsam and jetsam.

[snappyturtle]

5. THis fact will be used by repukes to kill SS....it's underfunded, you know.

:sarcasm:

I am not criticizing you...bigger checks are always nice to see.

[Myrina]

8. ... make sure you stash that money somewhere ...

... so you can either pay it back next year when they ask for it (like the Bush-bribe $300 or the 'first time homeowners credit - which is actually a loan) or have it when you're old and rusty and need a couple hundred bucks to keep your lights on.

[Statistical]

11. Neither of those were repaid.

First time homebuyer tax credit isn't a loan.
The $300 bush tax credit wasn't repaid by anyone.

Where do you get these ideas?

[elocs]

9. What you are not saying is how much bigger it is when "bigger" could just be pennies.

What? A few dollars? More? Enough to make a significant difference in anything?

[dkf]

15. If you give that number you might as well announce how much you make to everyone.

[Statistical]

17. Exactly. Here is the formula.

Gross Wages = (Reduction in payroll taxes) * (number of paychecks per year) / (0.02)

[Bunny]

49. Wow. Your formula is not even close to equaling my gross wages.

[slackmaster]

57. Formula is crude, should account for deductions i.e. AGI as opposed to gross income

It overestimates my gross income by about 12%.

[Statistical]

65. What does AGI have to do w/ Social Security?

Payroll tax is 6.2% on gross wages. Or am I mistaken?

[slackmaster]

69. Maybe I'm wrong, but the forumula overestimates my gross pay significantly

Wiki article gives the figure as "6.2% of wages up to an annual wage maximum ($106,800 in 2010) plus a tax of 1.45% of total wages."

[Statistical]

70. Maybe some payroll items are exempt from SS taxes.

For me at least last year SS taxes were 6.2% of my gross pay. This year they are 4.2% of my gross pay.

Maybe some people have some benefits which are exempt from SS?

[lonestarnot]

18. Who cares. If he/she works for a living, it's not enough to get by w/o struggle. Richies have seen

to that.

[elocs]

27. Then the "bigger" is really meaningless.

I'm willing to say how much bigger mine is. It is not bigger at all since I am out of work.

Wow! Did I just announce how much I make to everyone, or not make? But then again I am an anonymous poster on an internet discussion group.

[Statistical]

28. There is a lot of wealth envy on DU.

Some people have proposed punitive taxes for those making as little as $100,000. I guess they think people have mansions and man servants at the $100K mark.

Some have also said anyone with $30K in retirement income should have SS checks seized. SS is to prevent poverty and nobody with $30K in retirement income need Social Security.

So I can see why some might not want to indicate their compensation.

[hfojvt]

31. "as little as $100,000"

wow, there is a phrase

and punitive taxes? Really? Punitive?

[dkf]

38. For two people that isn't very much in Hawaii.

Average house above $500,000, highest electricity costs in the nation, at the top in cost of living, etc.

Yeah it will be great in a lot of mainland small towns or cities, but that won't provide a healthy retirement, child care, college fund for kids, mortgage, etc easily in Hawaii.

Or SF or New York for that matter.

[hfojvt]

50. well that is kinda odd

because according to this http://www.city-data.com/income/income-Maalaea-Hawaii.html

almost 55% of families make less than $75,000 in Hawaii, and only 28.3% make more than $100,000.

Yes, it must really suck to be in the top 30%.

Do you ever wonder what the people in the bottom 30% think about $100,000 incomes?

I bet they don't think things like "as little as $100,000"

[Statistical]

52. You seem awfully concerned about what other people make.

If a family making $100K (two people making $50K each) had their pay cut to $70K ($35K ea) would that somehow make your life better?

$100K in income isn't rich. If you think it is then then the real rich (people with millions and billions in WEALTH) just laugh all the way to the bank at your misplaced ire.

[hfojvt]

81. and you seem awfully concerned with standing up for the 100K club

100K in income isn't poor either. It's kinda ludicrous to say "as little as $100,000" when so many people in America make so much less.

If their income was reduced because of progressive taxes and then that tax money was given to the states to support their public employee pensions - you know, the pensions that might be cut because Republicans and their ilk keep cutting taxes for people with incomes over $80,000 and would not think about raising taxes on that group.

It's not me attacking the poor, poor $100K + club that helps the rich. What helps the rich is that the $100K + club is always right there supporting policies that help people making over $100K. Policies that especially help the so-called "real" rich.

The Bush tax cuts for people with incomes over $250,000 was $700 billion over ten years. The whole package of Bush tax cuts was something like $4 trillion over ten years. I don't have exact figures, but I would wager that over half of that $3.2 trillion is going to people with incomes over $100,000. But, oh noes, we cannot reverse the Bush tax cuts for people with incomes over $100,000 because people making $140,000 would scream bloody murder if their taxes went up by a whole $1200. And 80% of elected Democrats would jump right up to defend "the middle class".

Never mind that because of this, the so-called "real" rich thereby gain much larger benefits, getting to pay lower tax rates for their income from $100,000 to $250,000. Yes a mere $4500 each to ten million of them means $45 billion a year, or $450 billion over ten years.

Meanwhile, my social security benefits will probably be cut and my retirement age will be raised - because the government does not have enough money to allow me to retire earlier.

Yeah, why should I care about progressive taxes? I am just a jealous loser.

[Statistical]

83. I support repealing all Bush tax cuts

or at a minimum those making over $250K. Since I make more than $100K and less than $250K I would support repealing the tax cuts above $100K if I thought that had any chance of passing.

However that doesn't change the fact that there IS wealth envy by some on DU. There are some advocating punitive taxation, confiscation of wealth, and means testing SS. Not just repeal of Bush tax cuts or modest raising (say 3% to 5%) of the two highest income bracket (which I also support) but 50%, 60%, 70%, even 99% taxes on the so called "rich". I am not ashamed of making a good income. I work hard for what I earn. I generate many multiple of my compensation in value for the company I work for. If I made less it wouldn't make anyone else's life better.

BTW I also support raising the SS rate and raising the cap to strengthen SS without reducing benefits.

[old mark]

16. K&R- If you really want to piss them off, don't spend it...put it in a credit union.....nt

[TBF]

19. Ours takehome has been lower - both January checks . Just sayin' nt

[dkf]

21. Some employers didn't get it perfectly right yet.

Were you expecting to pay more?

[TBF]

42. I'm thinking it was off-set by a small raise my husband got -

which may well kick us up into a higher bracket. I won't know until I sit down with Turbo Tax in a few months.

Really wish they wouldn't have given that payroll tax holiday though, I'd like Social Security to be left alone, even if it means we have less take-home.

[dkf]

45. Well some of the people who are getting less because making work pay is cut are

Upset. I guess they needed even more than the cut they got.

[Hello_Kitty]

64. IOW, shut up paupers, it could have been worse.

Never mind that you're the only people getting less money in your check this year than last. Your betters are getting thousands more, as they deserve.

[Kweli4Real]

20. What's amazing ...

is that there many, many critics of PRESIDENT Obama's "caving" deal are oh so quite now that the vast majority are getting more in their paycheck and have avoided the tax increase that they would have received had PRESIDENT Obama not "caved."

While I don't expect trumpets to sound, a simple acknowledgement that ... "well, yeah. A majority of us did benefit from the deal" would be appropriate.

But like with many republicans, an honest acknowledgement of reality would be asking too much because it runs counter to a good rant.

[Statistical]

23. Also I don't think many people realize how much smaller their checks would be.

If the President had done what some wanted and allowed all Bush tax cuts to expire.

For example anyone making over $15,000 would have seen their taxes rise $800
$400 from the expiration of the 10% bracket & another $400 from loss of making work pay credit (w/ no offset from payroll tax holiday). If you are married and both spouses work it would have been double that.

Anyone with a kid would have seen their taxes rise $600 as the increased child tax credit expired.

Anyone married would also face the marriage penalty which for a family making $50K would be another $400.

So say married couple with $50K in income and two children. They would be facing $800 + $800 + $600 + $600 + $400 = $3,200 in higher taxes. Paycheck would shrink $133 ever two weeks. At a time when most people budgets are strapped as it is.

Obama knew this and that is why he paid the high price to ensure the tax cuts didn't expire.

[Hello_Kitty]

66. And it's just worthless poor people and retirees who are getting a bit less this year

Who gives a shit about us?

[hfojvt]

33. oh that is so cute

now we are hypocrites because we aren't still whining about water under the damn.

I still think the Republicans would have blinked.

And as for paying more taxes. In 2009 I applied $100 of my refund to my next year's taxes. In 2010, my income taxes were less than zero as I knew they would be since I only make about $12,000 a year, but I still applied my entire refund to this year's taxes.

This year I am gonna make the Obama administration borrow it from China, or print it, and give the money back to me. Even though I will get paid a mere .5% interest when I put that money in my savings account. I don't need the tax cuts I got, but I will take them instead of lending them to the Obama administration at zero percent. Ask not what I can do for Obama if rich people are not made to do anything.

[Hello_Kitty]

62. And the people getting less in their checks don't count.

The Important People are getting more. That's all that matters.

[Coyote_Bandit]

22. Well

good for you.

I'm guessing that you're going to donate those extra funds to your local food bank to help the the long-term unemployed.

Just sayin'.

[frustrated_lefty]

25. Must be nice to have a job.

[Enrique]

29. they should get rid of the whole tax

then your check would be even bigger!

[Statistical]

30. You joke but I would love to see ALL taxes replaced with a single progressive income tax.

Sales tax, real estate tax, excise taxes, gasoline tax, payroll taxes, etc.

All gone and replaced with just a state & federal income tax.

[Enrique]

32. not a fan of Social Security and Medicare?

:shrug:

[Statistical]

34. I am but there is no reason why all government benefits can't be funded via a single tax.

Especially Medicare. The payroll tax for Medicare comes nowhere near the cost of implementing the program thus having a "dedicated" tax makes little sense.

still in the interest of simplicity if people want to keep SS separate fine. There is still no reason for the two dozen or so other regressive taxes. They could ALL be replaced by a single progressive income tax.

[Kweli4Real]

68. And, I suspect, ...

(though I haven't run the numbers) if all income (e.g., all passive, unearned income) is included, the taxation rate can be lowered significantly without a lose in revenue.

But I also suspect this won't happen because it would shift the tax-burden upward. (But I guess that's why you would refer to this as "progressive income tax" scheme.

[Statistical]

71. Yeah. I mean am not holding my breath. I doubt it will ever happen.

However this belief we need to get a little tax here, a little tax there is silly.

It simply raises the complexity of the system, makes it more difficult for people to know how much they are paying in taxes, and adds to the overhead in collection, auditing, enforcement.

The rich love to mention the top X% pay some big number of the INCOME tax. The implied message is the rich pay most of the taxes. Of course that ignores the two dozen or so regressive forms of taxation. If we had a single tax it would be immediately obvious who is paying what and how fair the system is.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[TBF]

43. Yeah, that was my problem with his post as well.

We actually got a raise (my husband that is), and I think it kicked us into a higher bracket, so our take-home was less anyway. Just thrilled to still be employed though after the last couple years. Wish it wasn't all going to war - would love to pay in more if it actually went to benefit folks directly via health care and social security.

[taught_me_patience]

72. There is no way a raise would result in less take home pay

Tax rates are marginal, so the higher rate only applies to the higher amount.

[Erose999]

39. I got $3 more. But its just a change in the withholding rate. I didn't actually make more $$. nt

[Enrique]

40. where'd you go?

what was the purpose of this thread?

Any answer to anyone who has responded to you?

[TBF]

44. I think he accomplished what he wanted to and he left. Typical. nt

[bluestateguy]

53. Reply #46

nt

[bluestateguy]

46. For the record, I think this payroll tax cut should only be a one time thing

Fact is that it will pump consumer demand in 2011, and we sorely need that. I think Making Work Pay should have been extended too, but alas it didn't happen.

and I might add that for this year the revenues taken from Social Security are being replenished into the SS trust find. If, however, that were to change, then I would oppose that. In the long-run a good trade-off might be to lift the earnings cap for FICA taxes but keep the level at 4.2% for employees for awhile.

[Coyote_Bandit]

82. So.................?

"...pump consumer demand..."

Why? Because shopping is fucking patriotic?

A shopping spree will not fix the fundamental flaws in our broken economy.

[bluestateguy]

84. I was going to respond

But I don't respond to people who use abusive language to make their arguments.

[Coyote_Bandit]

86. Ummmm......

Welcome to my fucking ignore list.

I absolutely believe in censorship.

[Cleita]

47. I hope when time comes for you to retire that

you will enjoy the smaller retirement check you might get because Social Security can only pay out 80% of full benefits. Hopefully, Obama has an increase on raising the cap up his sleeve down the road to make up the deficit this could cost.

[Statistical]

48. The payroll tax holiday has no effect on the finances of SS. None. Not a single penny. n/t

[KillCapitalism]

51. Well, since we never got single payer...

my paycheck has went down despite the payroll tax cut due to increasing health insurance premiums.

[Vinca]

55. So what's it going to be? A Lexus? Mercedes? Beamer?

Bus fare?

[JuniperLea]

58. The only way to stimulate the economy...

Is through consumer spending, and consumers won't spend without money. This will help in the long run.

Had we been given the TARP funds instead of the banks, we would be out of this hole by now.

[ipaint]

73. Thank the working poor

they took the hit so you could gloat.

[Marr]

78. Cool-- if you invest that weekly 3 cents now, you might be able to

buy an icecream cone with it in your old age, and reminisce about how nice Social Security was, way back in the day.

[eridani]

79. Great. Help fuck your own retirement. n/t

[quaker bill]

85. Me too.