General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If you're displaying all of this outrage over CCPI to help the President [View all]Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm
"The reforms enacted under the 1983 act worked well if one was only concerned with Social Security's finances. The number of people mandated to participate was expanded, creating a larger pool of participants. Revenues increased faster than expenses after the deal was made, creating a huge surplus to raid for other purposes. But make no mistake, this wasn't a good deal if you're someone who planned on retirement in relative comfort.
The regressive payroll tax was increased, which hits lower-income people especially hard. The retirement age was raised by two years, to 67. Let there be no doubt, raising the retirement age is cutting benefits. The "windfall" of collecting both a pension and Social Security was curbed. The new law introduced taxation on Social Security benefits for "windfall" earners. While Social Security may have looked great from 50,000 feet after these reforms, on the ground the situation was nothing more than a tax increase and a benefit cut.
So where exactly did the good deal for people coming in? In hindsight, it now appears that all that Tip O'Neill agreed to do is mostly cut benefits and raise taxes on regular folks. "
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/20/947379/-The-Reagan-O-Neill-Social-Security-deal-was-
a-bad-deal
But don't let the facts stop that spin cycle! Reagan raised FICA taxes, raised the retirement age, taxed SS benefits.