These payroll tax cuts are foolish and poorly thought out

@Taskr36 (13924)
United States
December 24, 2011 4:07pm CST
Someone needs to say it. Social Security is NOT SUSTAINABLE. It's a Ponzi scheme that is not properly funded. Everyone knows it. When it started there were 16 people paying in for every ONE person collecting it. Right now the ratio is 3 to 1 and soon it will be 2 to 1. So how do we fix that? We don't. We just REDUCE the amount being paid in to make sure it goes broke faster. How is that a good idea? I know we all want to pay less taxes. I know that the 47-51% of people in this country that don't pay a dime of federal income tax want to make sure they pay EVEN LESS into a system that they can't wait to collect from, but that money has to come from somewhere. Either that, or we just let SS go broke and nobody gets to collect anymore. The whiners who keep demanding "the rich" pay their fair share need to open their eyes and see that if they don't pay THEIR fair share the system will crumble. The politicians are BUYING YOUR VOTE with this crap. You are literally being bribed with other people's money to support them.
2 people like this
5 responses
@dragon54u (31638)
• United States
25 Dec 11
SS was fine when people who collected it only did so for a year or two but now we're refusing to die when our bodies fail us and SS is, as you said, unsustainable. It's not fair to burden young workers with supporting old people who live way beyond their natural lives. I say this as a 57 year old that hopes not to live past 72-75! The only solution to SS is to phase it out ASAP but the success of that depends on the revamping of family values as they used to be--when families cared for each other and lived together or very near each other. If mom and Dad or the grandparents got sick or infirm they got taken in by the younger people and the young knew that they would be supporting their parents in their old age. But this was so long ago and the family has been chipped away at so severely that I don't know this is a viable solution. I'm one of the lucky ones, my kids expect me to live with them when I'm old. This Ponzi scheme that's robbed us for so long will either fail or bankrupt our finances. It all comes down to reviving family values, which politicians have steadily worked to destroy over the past 50 years.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27240)
• United States
28 Dec 11
Are you actually saying it's not "the rich" but the REST of us who are not paying our "fair share"? With all due respect, Taskr, I'm in favor of those with incomes over a million dollars paying a very small percentage more on each dollar OVER the first million and I don't consider myself a whiner, not by a long shot. I'm also glad there's such a thing as an EIC so lower income earners with children can stay out of poverty. Some people who have been very lucky in life don't seem to realize if these people were made to pay more in taxes they'd have NOTHING left to help get and keep the economy moving along and to help the rich stay that way and get even richer. That 47-51% is a constantly changing group of people in general since usually it's only families with dependent children who are eligible for the EIC and whose incomes after deductions and exemptions are low enough that they owe no federal income taxes so once their children reach 18 they lose them as dependents. Also, for anyone who isn't aware, only two children can be used as dependents in order to be eligible for the EIC; any additional children won't increase the credit at all. I agree, changes are needed in order to sustain Social Security for future generations. That's why I agreed with the "millionaire's tax" to pay for the payroll tax holiday extension. The measly $7 per $1000 in taxes on income over a million won't stop one single job from being created but the extra $1000-2000 per year is - in the words of our Vice President - a big f#@*ing deal! I also think the cap on income subject to the payroll tax should be removed or at least increased substantially. I know you disagree with me and that's fine, but I have a feeling on of the main reasons you're against this particular tax cut is that the Democrats and especially the President are FOR it! Annie
@Taskr36 (13924)
• United States
28 Dec 11
Annie, are you saying that the 47-51% of earners in this country that don't pay a PENNY of federal income taxes are paying THEIR FAIR SHARE? I know you would rather have the millionaires, that evil 1%, foot the bill for everyone else, but people like you are the same ones who are now pushing to prevent millionaires from COLLECTING social security and medicare once they reach the age of eligibility. The fact that the president and democrats are for it is irrelevant. Most republicans are for it too. Anything with the words "tax cut" present will make republicans blindly support it. Cutting funds to a program, which is already not being funded properly, is beyond foolish. We might as well just drop the ponzi scheme and start giving people back what was stolen from them so they can invest it as they choose.
@anniepa (27240)
• United States
28 Dec 11
Taskr, we simply have a philosophical difference of opinion here and will have to agree to disagree. That evil 47-51% may not be paying federal income taxes for what is usually a brief time of their working lives, but they certainly DO pay plenty of other taxes. I know you're too young to remember it personally but surely you know Ronald Reagan was a huge proponent of the EIC. I don't consider the "rich 1%" to be "evil"; I simply think they should be willing to give back a very small amount more than they are now. Many, if not most of the wealthiest Americans agree they should be paying more. I can guarantee you the thought of paying an extra 7 bucks per thousand over a million doesn't make ME not want to be part of the 1% and it wouldn't prevent me from doing a heckuva lot of stimulating to the economy! "...but people like you are the same ones who are now pushing to prevent millionaires from COLLECTING social security and medicare once they reach the age of eligibility." Actually, most on the left are opposed to means-testing Social Security and Medicare. I admit to having mixed feelings on it and would have to study it more closely before making up my mind. Annie
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
1 Jan 12
The problem is it doesn't matter how much you take from the rich ultimately. You simply can't make a ponzi scheme work, no matter what % you use. It simply doesn't make a difference how you change the rules, a ponzi scheme simply won't work. If you imposed a 100% tax on income over $250K per year, you still wouldn't have enough money to make a ponzi scheme work. In fact, I would bet you would have less. Because it's a universal economic truth that capital (money) flees taxes. CEOs would simply get compensation different ways, or they would move their operations out of the country. You complain about companies moving jobs out of the country, and yet advocate the exact policies that cause that.
@dark_joev (3043)
• United States
27 Dec 11
Well Social Security isn't sustainable to begin with so I mean making it fall faster is a good thing for this country maybe people will wake up and realized they should take care of their own Retirement. Just sayin' also I am pretty sure that i don't pay anything more than payroll tax and I get that back at the end of the year anyway because I don't make enough income. I am however against payroll/income taxes to begin with so yeah lowering these taxes are a good thing. Just my thoughts oh and they aren't buying my vote as well I will more than likely be voting Libertarian as I did in 2010 as I have a feeling the GOP will pick Newt or Romney.
• United States
26 Dec 11
Right now, everything seems broken. They Social Security system, health care, and pretty much you name it. It's all bad right now.
@gtargirl (5385)
• United States
26 Dec 11
Well said. And I was gonna add my two cents but so far everyone has said it so much better than I could have.