From the Washington Post:
Another document signed by Trump on Saturday attempts to defer payroll tax payments from September through December for people who earn less than $100,000. The impact of this measure could depend on whether companies decide to comply, as they could be responsible for withdrawing large amounts of money from their employees’ paychecks in a few months when the taxes are due.
Are we in a situation now where Republicans, no longer content with trying to undermine Social Security in subtle ways, decide to really own the libs by completely destroying the program’s finances? If Trump gains re-election does he dispense with ordinary American governance and rule by fiat?
17 comments:
An empty jester into the oblivion. *whispers* "dont pay your taxes, I will forgive you later" The con is so obvious no employer will fall for it meaning no one will know it was offered.
I am not in favor of this move but where was the outrage when it was reduced 2% for two full years for everyone? Were the Democrats and Obama trying to ruin Social Security?
@11:33 PM
I think a lot of the outrage stems from the fact that the president did this unilaterally, against Congress's expressed will, and with an expressed lack of interest in whether his action is legal. I think a lot of outrage also stems from the fact that this provides little (if any) help to the unemployed, and was deceptively framed as a "payroll tax holiday," when in fact it provides nothing more than a four-day delay in payroll tax withholding (after which everyone has to repay any taxes they owed anyway!). Essentially, he's creating a huge mess through unlawful action, which Congress is going to have to turn around and clean up when the chickens come home to roost at the end of the year. And to top it all off, he's telling people he'll forgive the deferred tax payments (which he can't do, of course, without buy-in from Congress that is never going to materialize), but ONLY IF the masses re-elect him. Oh, and he's doing with funds earmarked by Congress for natural disaster relief, admits what is forecast to be one of the most active hurricane seasons in recent memory.
So forget your "what about Obama" nonsense. This is outrageous.
Lots of folks didn't like that 2% cut, and there were complaints about it for a lot of reasons. That is not equivalent to this. The Obama action was a bill, this is an executive order. This is "no taxes, for now (and if elected, I'll make it permanent) (unsaid is, if not elected, well, enjoy the paycheck hit when the taxes come due.)
Obama's action was paid for as the bill had general revenues make up the difference to the trust funds. This executive order cannot do that, Trump hasn't the authority. Nor does he have the ability to change the law requiring employers to pay the tax on his own.
In short, these are not at all equivalent actions.
The paranoia and overreaction regarding everything this president does is ridiculous. Come on, you folks are smarter than this. You sound like a bunch of Chicken Littles - "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." Ya'll really need to turn off CNN for a while, its turning your brains into mush.
I am in favor of it.
Really.
If we can create a larger more immediate threat to benefit reduction, we might actually get the hard stuff done. Lets face it, FICA needs to be increased. You can raise it on the rich all you want, but the real actual thing is the average person is going to have to pay more. We all know it and try and deny it but we need to bite the bullet and do now what should have been done 40 years ago.
@12:06 PM
"FICA needs to be increased. You can raise it on the rich all your ant, but the real actual thing is the average person is going to have to pay more."
Really? You think the problem is that those earning less than $137,000 aren't paying enough, and not that those earning far more every year aren't paying a dime in FICA on their earnings above $137,000?
12:28What percentage of Americans make more than $100000 per year?
9%
According to new data from polling company YouGov exclusively shared with Yahoo Finance, just 9% of Americans are earning $100,000 or more a year.
You going to take all of it?
Face it, come to grips with it. Middle and lower income are going to have to pay more into the system. They are the ones that are counting on it. They cannot pay to hide the income. Sure, it is great to say tax the rich. But guess what, they dont pay taxes like everyone else. They will find ways around it, like before.
It is time to face the truth and do the hard thing that is actually going to save the program. Or, you can keep this mentality that we have seen for decades and run out of cash in 20 years.
@12:06
The total FICA now is 15.3 %, I think. How much do you want it to be?
Raise the cap and include all income from any source. Non-earned income can be taxed at the half rate. Then increase benefits but in an inverted pattern. Low income payers get a larger increase than high earners.
@2:17 PM
Ah, the old "rich people don't pay their taxes anyway." Truly your logic is unassailable. I raise my white flag. Our nation has gotten what it deserves.
You cant do it on the rich alone, there just isnt enough to tax. You are going to have to put some of the burden back on the middle class. It is unavoidable.
So, you have a choice, somebody has to pay and there are more somebodies in the middle class.
Unfortunately, the current ruling class has never learned this, tried to protect themselves and created this problem. STOP BOOMER THINKING!
Trump: I will permanently cut the payroll tax if re-elected.
That is the same payroll tax that funds Social Security benefits. Without that payroll tax revenue Social Security will quickly run out and be unable to pay benefits.
So, anyone who wants to keep their Social Security benefits had better vote against Trump to prevent the payroll tax cut and resulting demise of Social Security. Am I missing anything here?
The outrage mainly seems to be that it is Trump doing it and the method he is using. But the result is very similar to President Obama's similar program several years ago. Both bad plans.
There was some commission many years ago that came out with numerous ideas (seems like 30+) to cut the amount that goes out without a major disruption or cut in benefits.
Raise the FICA rate from 7.65% to 8.15%. That's $250 a year for someone making $50K a year. Raising the max would bring in more money but the really rich would probably try to find ways to avoid that tax, which would hurt Medicare as there is no limit on it. If one were to make the tax on all income, how would you feel about selling a second house and having to pay 7.65% or more on the net proceeds?
Since most take retirement at age 62, how about pushing the first COLA to age 65 to encourage people to work longer since DRCs don't seem to be doing that too well?
Wouldn't save much but it's ridiculous to give DRCs to widows who take benefits at age 60 and switch to retirement at 70. Do away with those. Just pay them their FRA retirement.
Social security is not an entitlement, it is a trust formed with the employed and the employees paying into a TRUST fund which our government keeps stealing from.
@2:17 - oooh, I see. The rich hide their money. So instead of working on the tax loopholes and making people pay a fair share, we should leave the rich to their own devices and tax the lower class more. Got it. Brilliant.
939,236 here. You make some good points. But I think the cap should still be raised, with no loopholes for the rich. Your comment about tax on the sale of a house is a good one and there could be a carve out for increased value under 300k or something along those lines. Even a carve out for the first 100k in regular capital gains.
I definitely think that with the lost art of compromise resurrected, a good plan could be worked out that would make SS a more secure safety net and preven its depletion.
Otherwise we are headed for 1787 or there abouts. Heck, we are just about there now.
Post a Comment