Posted on 09/17/2012 8:21:38 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
LOL. Here is what the Social Security Administration calls them
When I write a check to State Farm for auto coverage, that money is no longer "mine" either. That doesn't make it any less of an insurance payment, and it certainly doesn't make it a "tax."
You don't have to write a check if you choose not to own an auto. SS is mandatory if you work except for a very few exceptions. The amount you pay into the system depends on what your income level is. That amount is expressed in a percentage called a social security tax rate. The amount of your auto insurance doesn't depend on your income and you can adjust the amount you pay depending on what kind of deductibles you choose.
Your argument that there's no "trust fund" is nonsense, and determined to miss the point that workers who contribute to Social Security aren't contributing to the general welfare, they're contributing to their own. OF COURSE THERE IS NO TRUST FUND Anyone who understands basic economics knows that the existence of a "trust fund" held by the government is fundamentally impossible in anything resembling a free market system.
LOL. Of course there is a trust fund. It is set up by law. I never said the SSTF didn't exist.
"There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. These funds are accounts managed by the Department of the Treasury. They serve two purposes: (1) they provide an accounting mechanism for tracking all income to and disbursements from the trust funds, and (2) they hold the accumulated assets. These accumulated assets provide automatic spending authority to pay benefits. The Social Security Act limits trust fund expenditures to benefits and administrative costs.
Benefits to retired workers and their families, and to families of deceased workers, are paid from the OASI Trust Fund. Benefits to disabled workers and their families are paid from the DI Trust Fund. More than 98 percent of total disbursements in 2011 were for benefit payments.
A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.
As stated above, money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.
Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.
Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 20 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.
People who work and don't pay income tax are deadbeats, whether they're rich deadbeats like the Secretary of the Treasury or live in double-wides on the wrong side of the tracks. You're mentality is that it's perfectly acceptable for the leftists to attack people who actually built and maintain the country as not paying their "fair share," but when a politician finally tells the truth and says that you can't be paying your "fair share" if you're paying nothing at all is an unacceptable game-changing gaffe. It isn't a gaffe.
Your quarrel is with the progressive tax system we have. People who work and don't pay income taxes are doing so because they aren't earning enough minus deductions to be taxed. That is the law of the land. I would not call low income workers deadbeats. Nor would I call people like Mitt Romney who pay a total tax rate less than many because of the source of his income--capital gains and dividends--as not paying their fair share.
I am all for rolling back the welfare state, but make no mistake about it. This will mean cutbacks in the entitlement programs. We can't afford them.
I don't understand your specious argument that the SS and Medicare payroll taxes should not be labelled as such. It just perpetuates the myth that somehow people are getting back their own money, but the truth is that they are getting back much more. In the case of Medicare, the average recipient gets back more than three times what they paid in payroll taxes.
Did you know, that by law, the premiums collected for Medicare Parts B and D only pay for 25% of the costs? The rest must come from the General Fund, which is why if Medicare is not reformed, it will consume the entire federal budget. The Medicare Trust Fund (Part A) has been running in the red since 2008. In order to make up the shortfall, they have been cashing in the IOUs in the Medicare Trust fund, which must be redeemed by the General Fund. And 42 cents of every federal dollar spent is borrowed.
INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES
SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date:
(1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.
(2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 1/2 per centum.
(3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum.
(4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 1/2 per centum.
(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum.
DEDUCTION OF TAX<./u> FROM WAGES
SEC. 802. (a) The tax imposed by section 801 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid. Every employer required so to deduct the tax is hereby made liable for the payment of such tax, and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any such payment made by such employer.
(b) If more or less than the correct amount of tax imposed by section 801 is paid with respect to any wage payment, then, under regulations made under this title, proper adjustments, with respect both to the tax and the amount to be deducted, shall be made, without interest, in connection with subsequent wage payments to the same individual by the same employer."
The reason that the liberals call it a tax is because it really is a tax and because they want to create a sense of entitlement, i.e., you paid for those benefits and those benefits should not be considered welfare. The reality is that they are welfare and tax redistribution schemes.
"I would not call low income workers deadbeats."
Of course you wouldn't, you probably are one; which is why you have tried to spill a lot of irrelevant verbiage which doesn't change the fact that: 1) SS/med is not for the general welfare, but for the welfare of the individual contributing to it. 2) There is no trust fund, because the money has been spent and the "full faith and credit" of a country willing to print money to cover its shortfall is not credit -- in good faith or otherwise -- at all.
"Nor would I call people like Mitt Romney who pay a total tax rate less than many because of the source of his income--capital gains and dividends--as not paying their fair share."
That's mighty white of you, but the truth is that Romney should NOT be paying taxes on that "income" at all -- he has already paid taxes on it once before at the full rate (or his father or grandfather did.)
"And 42 cents of every federal dollar spent is borrowed."
And that is because 47% of all working Americans are freeloaders.
The complaint is not with progressive taxation; I would have no problem with progressive taxation -- starting at around 10% minimum and going to 25% maximum. Paying no tax isn't "progressive," neither is receiving money instead of paying taxes. The first is freeloading, the second is welfare. It isn't taxation under even the most fanciful definition of the term "progressive" or otherwise.
As for entitlements: "we can't afford them."
Seriously?
We NEVER could afford them, and in the correct and original understanding of the US Constitution they are a violation of the highest law of the land. There is no Constitutional basis for them, and even if we could -- by some magic of economics never before seen in the history of the science --afford them, they are still an affront to a limited government with specifically enumerated powers, and they should not exist.
Nevertheless, the IOU's will be paid, and they will be paid by everyone, even fans of "progressive" taxation such as yourself; we will NEVER muster the will to deny benefits, and that means the only route to payment is monetization. That is a cowardly tax that everyone -- even people who don't work -- are already paying, and it's going to get a lot worse.
OUTSTANDING and you should send that to Mitt’s campaign. He should hire you.
LLS
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.