Posted on 12/21/2011 3:29:04 AM PST by Son House
I'm talking about the direct constitutional, virtue-of-the-law way that Social Security's paid for is with that one deduction on your paycheck, FICA. I don't remember what it stands for and it doesn't matter. Now, my point about this is, here you have a Democrat president, who wants to cut the payroll tax by 4%, he wants that large a tax cut in the payroll tax, which would blow a $250 billion hole in Social Security funding at a time when everybody knows that we're short on being able to pay all the obligations now. We have reached the tipping point. People who are receiving Social Security payments are now receiving more than they contributed. That's not a knock. I don't want to get any phone calls, I don't want to hear it.
We're getting to the point now where the youngsters in America know full well that it's probably not gonna even be viable by the time they retire, and yet here is a Democrat president advocating a huge tax cut in the sole funding mechanism for Social Security. If this were a Republican president, folks, we wouldn't be having the argument about whether to extend it for two months or a year. The Republican president would be in the process of being destroyed as somebody who wants to kick senior citizens out of their houses, deny them health care, force them to eat dog food. This is so damn topsy-turvy, the news media and the rest of the Democrats have managed to convince the American people that cutting Social Security funding by hundreds of billions of dollars is a good thing.
Meanwhile, when George W. Bush came along and wanted to privatize a portion of Social Security, or allow individuals to, so as to increase, maximize the returns, make their stash bigger, you remember the demagoguery. Bush wants Social Security recipients to go broke. Look at what happens in the stock market, want to turn it over to those Wall Street people. It's another get rich quick scheme for Wall Street people. Now we have a Democrat president, Democrat Senate doing everything they can to blow holes and underfund Social Security under the guise of a reelection tactic for the president and putting money in people's pockets.
"Mr. Limbaugh, you're leaving out something very key, and that is how the president is choosing to pay for it." There's no paying for it. Raising taxes on millionaires and so forth, there's no paying for this thing, there never is any of this paygo stuff never happens, it never works. Folks, this goes to show you two things, the raw power of the media but also the unrelenting power of propaganda and the absolute lack of objectivity on the part of the news media covering this, because I am here to tell you that if anybody with a capital R beside their name were proposing a one-month cut, if he were a president, in the payroll tax, my God, there would be an endless parade of seasoned citizens in Washington with pitchforks, and they'd be hunting down members of -- remember what they did with Rostenkowski in Illinois? They surrounded his car. And that was over a tiny little Medicare thing.
I find this bizarre. I find this truly bizarre. And Obama's out there saying, "Well, we've got more important things to worry than politics right now." By that I mean his Hawaii vacation and his reelection. I'm gonna tell you something else about this two month business and I'll make this a little selfish. Like some Americans, I pay my taxes every, on average, three months, quarterly estimates. The second estimate of the calendar year, that's the bear, because that comes in two months. For those of us that pay our taxes this way, on April 15th we pay whatever we owe, and we always structure it so that we owe a little. You pay what you owe for the year you file, then you have your quarterly estimate for the first quarter of the current year. And then two months later you have the second. That June 15th estimate, that's a bear.
My point is, they're gonna extend this, they want to extend this payroll tax cut for two months, but it's an accounting nightmare for people who file quarterly estimates, and there's a lot of self-employed, entrepreneurs, contract hires, this kind of thing, independent contractors. And this is what the report out yesterday said. We can't implement this. Two months is not enough time to rewrite the software, we just can't. This is nothing but a political football that's being kicked around, and the House is the only place where there's a rational belief or policy involved here. Senators of both parties want to cut payroll taxes for two months. House Republicans want to cut payroll tax for the full year and just be done with it.
Now, for those who want to know, FICA equals the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. And the FICA tax is 6.2%. If you're self-employed, you pay the whole thing. It's a mess. I don't even want to get sidetracked on that. But we have here a Democrat president and a Democrat Senate cutting Social Security funding by $250 billion with a payment mechanism that doesn't exist. There is no paying for this. And people don't associate a payroll tax cut with Social Security. That's why I asked, "How many people know what the FICA number is on their pay stub or on their statement?" I find this literally amazing. At any rate, Obama's out there, you know, yapping on the Republicans. Now Boehner is taking his turn. Our microphones are there, if there's anything interesting being said we'll have it for you.
And when was state run media going to explain what a “payroll tax cut” really is?
“I find this bizarre. “
Maybe the Clown President wants a crisis in funding so that he can step back and say ‘see, the cutting taxes thing NEVER works’! If that seems stupid I can only point to the fact that this is the guy who staged occupy America...
The FICA tax is the only tax paid by some, Obama and the rats want to eliminate their base from paying any taxes whatsoever. Raise the income tax on those who actually pay it to cover the entire s.s. system. What they want to do is that simple.
So the money is coming directly out of the SS fund. But it has to be paid for so they are tacking a fee to new mortgages. And that fee lasts for the loife of the mortgage and the monies collected go into the general fund not the SS fund.
Rush - “But we have here a Democrat president and a Democrat Senate cutting Social Security funding by $250 billion with a payment mechanism that doesn’t exist. There is no paying for this.”
They expect to pay part of the short fall by raising the fees associated with P.M.I., Private Mortgage Insurance issued by and required by the federal government. Required of purchasers who don’t pay a minimum of 20% down on a mortgage insured by the federal gov. Private lenders require this too under the same conditions, same fee to the feds. This won’t cover the short fall, it is just one of the “fees’ to be instituted or increased.
“Payroll tax-cut extension adds $17 a month to typical mortgage”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2822158/posts
The liberals will find other ways to squeeze taxes and fees out of normal tax paying working people.
When I bought my first house in the early 70s it was a V.A. backed loan and P.M.I. was required but when the balance reached a certain point I was allowed to drop it.
“tax inflows from Social Security are to be made up from general funds collected?”
Yes. This is the Cloward-Piven strategy of overloading the “system” and forcing a “national solution”. I would theorize once SS is overloaded, and Congress has to fund it, Politicians might get the idea that They can then determine how much the checks will be. A SS check would no longer be determined by how much you contributed. “Elect ME....I’ll Raise Your Social Security”.
“Maybe the Clown President wants a crisis in funding so that he can step back and say ‘see, the cutting taxes thing NEVER works’”
No, he wants a STALEMATE so his allies in the media can blame those “EVIL REPUBLICANS WHO RAISED YOUR TAXES!”.
Never mind that Republicans have passed bill after bill, after bill, only to see them sit on Reid’s desk. The meme is “Republicans refuse to compromise!”
The truth no longer matters now, those days are gone in America. The only thing that matters is who is controlling The Narrative.
You’re so right. Last night on Mad Money, Cramer called out the house republicans for blocking the tax cut. The media will never tell the whole truth. That’s why we have to use social media as much as possible to inform our own circle of friends and acquaintances. I know it’s difficult to always be the serious conservative in every group but the next election could be life changing for our kids and grand kids.
Our society has become little more than an interwoven matrix of lie stacked upon other lies. The average moron in this country is hopelessly uninformed and stupid.
This is why zero is likely to get another term. The average dope does not understand the payroll tax.
And it's also incorrect, at least as a blanket statement.
If you retired long ago, and are in your late 80's or 90's now, you have probably received more than you contributed.
But, if you are nearing retirement (i.e. you are in the baby boomer generation) or are still working, you most likely will not receive anything close to what you contributed.
It depends on your income level over your lifetime. If you were low income (i.e. under about $2,000/month, in 2011 dollars), you will collect more than you contributed. But, if your average income was greater than that, you will have contributed more than you receive in benefits. For the highest income taxed by Social Security (about $9,000/month), you will get about 50% of the benefits you could have received.
Other factors affect this as well. My calculations assumed average life expectancy: you die at age 81. If you live longer, you'll get a better return. If you die earlier, you will get a worse return.
The mistake that most people make in comparison is leaving out the "time value" of money. If you are willing to give me up to $6,000 a year for 35 years, in exchange for giving only you contributions back in the future, I'll gladly do so. No bank will loan you money on those terms, and you shouldn't be loaning money to the federal government for nothing, either.
By simply factoring in the average annual long term Treasury bond rate each year and crediting those dividends to your accumulated balance, you get a huge boost to your effective contribution. For me, my career contributions are about $250,000, but another $500,000 would have been accumulated in dividends. I used the real yields from long-term Treasury bonds during that period, so this isn't a hypothetical return. And since the "trust fund" is invested in special long-term Treasury bonds, it's a reasonable representation of what we should be receiving.
It’s not amazing when considering Cloward and Piven. Collapse the system.
Reducing payments into an already-ailing system will only hasten that collapse.
He’s pure evil.
The deal is to underfund Social Security and fund it with a millionaires tax. $250,000 is Obama’s definition of millionaire. This is a transfer of Social Security funds to the Government. It effectively takes income from Social Security and moves it to the General Fund. Once it’s in the General Fund, Congress will spend it on anything else they want. It’s a Democrat sponsored $250B theft from seniors.
This payroll tax cut never ever should have gotten started. I have lived through many recessions and never once did they stop taking the witholding out of my paycheck. If we are going to have Social Security we have to pay for it.
Republicans should rename FICA to Social Security tax and shift the full costs upon the individual.
It is dishonest to say the least put half its costs in the hands of your employer.
I also believe one of the goals of ObamaCare is to kill off seniors before they get to the break even point on what they get back by denial of service for the aged that would prolong life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.