To refresh readers' memories, Social Security payroll taxes are what support Social Security benefits. Current workers pay into the program with each paycheck and those pay-ins support current retirees. However, the pay-ins are unequal, mainly owing to the "payroll cap" which prevents billions of additional dollars from flowing into the Social Security Trust Fund. That cap is currently set at $160,200 which means anyone earning at least $1 million a year automatically stops paying into Social Security once that tax threshold is reached. That threshold will be attained this year at barely 7 weeks into the year according to the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM).
Many of us who belong to that organization have made the case for years that raising the payroll tax cap is the most painless and efficient way to shore up the program so that its benefits don't have to be cut - projected now for 2035 if congress takes no action. Furthermore, let us note the payroll cap is not "engraved in stone" and has been raised many times since the inception of the program. Further, the payroll cap for Medicare (yes, there is one) was eliminated in 1994.
Still loud, brash voices continue to inveigh against any raising of the cap such as that of one recent WSJ Op-ed contributor, Prof. Travis Nix (Higher Taxes Won’t Save Social Security , p. A16, Feb. 7). According to Nix:
... the main purpose of the (payroll) tax hike would be to let politicians avoid making the difficult decisions that might put Social Security on the path to long-term solvency
But what are the alternatives that Nix himself proposes and the Reeps are keeping well concealed ("hard decisions?", which is why they yelled out "Liar!" when Biden brought up the looming cuts at his State of the Union. According to Nix:
Lawmakers
need to think bigger to offer real solutions. By raising the retirement age,
letting workers put their tax in personal accounts instead of Social Security,
and shifting Social Security to a flat benefit to make it a true antipoverty
program, lawmakers could begin to address the crisis.
These of course constitute the nightmare scenario the Reep n'er do wells are keeping hidden despite them all being part of Louisiana GOP Senator Bill Cassidy's long term plan, not to mention that of Sen. Ron Johnson (Wisconsin). Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Scott in his 'Rescue America' proposal wants to "sunset" the program by subjecting it to budget scrutiny every year. Congrats to President Joe Biden, meanwhile, for holding a media info event in Madison, Wisconsin yesterday in which he shared Rick Scott's (and Ron Johnson's) published brochures summarizing their sunset, cutback plans for Social Security. LIARS? Only the GOP House scum - 150 of whom are election deniers- fit that category.
Let's look at each part of Nix's plan in turn:
- Raising the retirement age in most GOP plans means to 70. (From 62)
That is, no benefits forthcoming until workers hit three score years and ten, which means "toiling in physically demanding jobs" unless one can secure disability benefits. This according to the latest NCPSSM Newsletter I received Wednesday.
- Personal Accounts:
Letting workers put their money in personal Social Security accounts was the basis of the Bush privatization plan (2005) which had Wall Street sharks drooling at the prospect of sinking their paws into the Trust Fund's trillions. It sounds terrific on the surface, especially for Young Turks in their 2os, 30s, but it's a fool's bet. It means your money is variable month to month altering with the volatility of the DOW or NASDAQ or other stock portfolio.
With a variable income there is simply no practical way to plan ahead, budget or sustain one's cash resources in a crash or prolonged downturn. There was an alternative version of individual accounts the Bushies had advanced which was for those unwilling to put their accounts in the stock market. Then they could have the option to receive instead a fixed stipend of $400 a month. Which today would be barely enough to buy a week's groceries and gas, far less pay rent or a mortgage. Do the young 'uns really want to go that route?
-Flat benefit
Is almost as bad as the "flat tax" that the likes of Steve Forbes has often advocated for, since the year dot. It means you are allocated a fixed benefit, say $1300 a month, in perpetuity. NO more cost of living allowance increases such as we received this year and which is a critical factor for living with inflation. If you relish the prospect of eating pet food in a few years then a flat benefit is your option.
But the biggest lie in Nix's piece is the following:
Uncapping the payroll tax is anti-worker in all regards. It will directly reduce people’s take-home pay, decreasing the incentive to work and pushing some of the most innovative workers out of the economy
Let me be clear here, as an NCPSSM Leadership Council member, the uncapping of the payroll tax is NOT "anti-worker" in any regards. Which one would have thought a law professor at a Catholic University (Georgetown) would admit. And it would not reduce a worker's take home pay. I am talking here about the ordinary American worker, not the millionaires or billionaires who can certainly afford to pay the higher payroll taxes once the cap is removed. Again, raising or eliminating the cap is not the same as increasing payroll taxes across the board. It will only affect those who would hit the cap threshold ($169,200 this year), i.e. MILLIONAIRE income earners.
See Also:
by David Badash | February 9, 2023 - 8:12am | permalink
— from The New Civil Rights Movement
Excerpt:
Many across the nation were likely horrified but not surprised Tuesday night when Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and several other House and Senate Republicans lashed out at President Joe Biden as he delivered the State of the Union Address, falsely branding him a “liar” for telling the truth: The GOP has consistently called to gut, sunset, or otherwise dramatically alter or dismantle the critical, life-saving social safety nets of Social Security and Medicare.
But it’s no secret Republicans for years, including recently, have wanted to take an ax to these programs, and other “entitlements,” despite proof they literally save lives.
And:
by Joan McCarter | October 19, 2022 - 7:43am | permalink
Excerpt:
If the GOP regains the House, four of the leading Republicans contenders for the House Budget Committee chair have all vowed to demand cuts to Social Security and Medicare in return for their cooperation in raising the debt ceiling next year. To be clear, that’s Republicans saying they will crash the U.S. economy to force President Joe Biden to give into their demands.
Now would-be House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has confirmed that yes, that’s exactly what Republicans intend to do. That continues to generate yawns from the super savvy reporters in D.C. and New York, who largely ignored the first reports of this threat. Now they’re continuing to try to downplay it. But it’s as real and as dangerous as can be.
No comments:
Post a Comment