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: Someone didn't get the lesson in 2010 [View all]octoberlib
(14,971 posts)39. The 1% just doesn't want to keep their end of the deal.
Starting in 1983, the payroll tax was deliberately set higher than it needed to be to cover payments to retirees. For the next 30 years, this extra money was sent to the Treasury, and this windfall allowed income tax rates to be lower than they otherwise would have been. During this period, people who paid payroll taxes suffered from this arrangement, while people who paid income taxes benefited.
Now things have turned around. As the baby boomers have started to retire, payroll taxes are less than they need to be to cover payments to retirees. To make up this shortfall, the Treasury is paying back the money it got over the past 30 years, and this means that income taxes need to be higher than they otherwise would be. For the next few decades, people who pay payroll taxes will benefit from this arrangement, while people who pay income taxes will suffer.
If payroll taxpayers and income taxpayers were the same people, none of this would matter. The trust fund really would be a fiction. But they aren't. Payroll taxpayers tend to be the poor and the middle class. Income taxpayers tend to be the upper middle class and the rich. Long story short, for the past 30 years, the poor and the middle class overpaid and the rich benefited. For the next 30 years or so, the rich will overpay and the poor and the middle class will benefit.
The trust fund is the physical embodiment of that deal. It's no surprise that the rich, who didn't object to this arrangement when it was first made, are now having second thoughts. But make no mistake. When wealthy pundits like Krauthammer claim that the trust fund is a fiction, they're trying to renege on a deal halfway through because they don't want to pay back the loans they got.
Now things have turned around. As the baby boomers have started to retire, payroll taxes are less than they need to be to cover payments to retirees. To make up this shortfall, the Treasury is paying back the money it got over the past 30 years, and this means that income taxes need to be higher than they otherwise would be. For the next few decades, people who pay payroll taxes will benefit from this arrangement, while people who pay income taxes will suffer.
If payroll taxpayers and income taxpayers were the same people, none of this would matter. The trust fund really would be a fiction. But they aren't. Payroll taxpayers tend to be the poor and the middle class. Income taxpayers tend to be the upper middle class and the rich. Long story short, for the past 30 years, the poor and the middle class overpaid and the rich benefited. For the next 30 years or so, the rich will overpay and the poor and the middle class will benefit.
The trust fund is the physical embodiment of that deal. It's no surprise that the rich, who didn't object to this arrangement when it was first made, are now having second thoughts. But make no mistake. When wealthy pundits like Krauthammer claim that the trust fund is a fiction, they're trying to renege on a deal halfway through because they don't want to pay back the loans they got.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/no-social-security-trust-fund-isnt-fiction
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
119 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
Aided and abetted 100% by any criticism of the President. The old Nader strategy to divide
graham4anything
Apr 2013
#38
Cause and Effect-person NOT for the democratic candidate EFFECT-votes the repub.in
graham4anything
Apr 2013
#48
In hindsight, every fracture put the republicans in office. INCLUDING 1968
graham4anything
Apr 2013
#55
The way the primaries were done then most likely HHH would have been the nominee, not Bobby
graham4anything
Apr 2013
#57
Smoked filled rooms taught a lesson. Those days are gone in the Democratic party
graham4anything
Apr 2013
#61
But the Republicans suffer their own fractures. They are fracturing right now.
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2013
#90
If Mary Landrieu were running in 2016, it would be easy for her. 2014 it will be very hard.
graham4anything
Apr 2013
#91
Ok, but if we take the threat of, for instance, staying home in droves off the table
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2013
#92
Getting rid of the 4 Draconian governors is reward enough, don't you think?
graham4anything
Apr 2013
#102
Use Mr. Spock logic and raw statistical analysis. Any way you look at it, my statement is true.
graham4anything
Apr 2013
#85
Mr. Spock would probably say 'That statement is not mathematically sound'.
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2013
#89
"I need to work harder to convince Democrats they have to accept entitlement cuts"
FiveGoodMen
Apr 2013
#76
Of course, some people are slower than others. Some are really slow to catch on.
AnotherMcIntosh
Apr 2013
#4
I think he's doing exactly what he's always wanted to do. He just no longer has to pretend
forestpath
Apr 2013
#5
+ 1 million. It was the casual voters who thought their lives might improve who stayed home
eridani
Apr 2013
#41
I understand, but now is not the moment for worring about winning future elections
Tom Rinaldo
Apr 2013
#113
No, really we lost the independents all the song and dance is supposed to appeal to
TheKentuckian
Apr 2013
#96
Do you think this OP boils down to "tearing Obama down every chance I get"?
Tom Rinaldo
Apr 2013
#44
Hillary as 45 instead of 44 makes Hillary able to achieve more of what was started
graham4anything
Apr 2013
#49
When you are lecturing us that "The mid term elections ... are a chance for you to make the house
AnotherMcIntosh
Apr 2013
#35
People that didn't show up to vote in 2010 are getting what they deserve.
Comrade_McKenzie
Apr 2013
#16
I personally am more concerned about why any democrat would want ANY guns/bullets
graham4anything
Apr 2013
#52
Sorry but you have a misguided fight IMHO, this is not about R vs D ...
slipslidingaway
Apr 2013
#30
The problem with your philosophy is you pretend the Republicans don' t have the house
treestar
Apr 2013
#68
Utterly trivial. What Repubs are really saying to Dems supporting chained CPI is
eridani
Apr 2013
#104
Irrelevant. What is relevant is that Obama has handed them a club to beat Dems over the head with
eridani
Apr 2013
#106
"health care reform" hrmm am I the only one who remembers "universal health care"?
L0oniX
Apr 2013
#67
I sure as hell am not urging anyone to stay home and not vote in 2014, but...
Tom Rinaldo
Apr 2013
#71