Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)8. Nope, pleased as punch. What worried me was failing to fund Social Security properly
and the treasury pass through.
I deeply regret the cut was ever offered, it was stupid politics. Too few noticed the benefit but everyone will notice the difference the other way.
Now we'll have wall to wall bellyaching about the Social Security contribution.
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
98 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yes, people making minimum wage were probably close to starving two years ago.
NCTraveler
Jan 2013
#73
That would be really interesting as so many of them want SS protected at all costs. n/t
Sekhmets Daughter
Jan 2013
#79
Tell you what .. Let's cut other taxes, and leave the Payroll Tax where it should be ...
Trajan
Jan 2013
#7
Nope, pleased as punch. What worried me was failing to fund Social Security properly
TheKentuckian
Jan 2013
#8
Social Security was still being funded. Nothing changed in the money going into the trust fund.
RomneyLies
Jan 2013
#11
This tax is what supports social security - I would be more concerned if it did continue.
jwirr
Jan 2013
#16
So I lose $50 a paycheck. That means only one bender at the bar per pay period rather than two.
Recursion
Jan 2013
#24
It will make a difference. That was the rationale for it in the first place.
Skip Intro
Jan 2013
#34
If you want SS to stay solvent, this is a good move. This money comes back to receipients. nt
kelliekat44
Jan 2013
#41
No one will notice. Fox told them Obama raised their taxes even though he'd lowered them.
JoePhilly
Jan 2013
#44
My check was $2.40 less than it normally is. I think I can handle the increase.
glowing
Jan 2013
#62
you can start collecting at 62, but you get more if you wait longer. n/t
NRaleighLiberal
Jan 2013
#69
I'm bummed about it but it was clearly defined as a "holiday" in the first place
gollygee
Jan 2013
#64