General Discussion

tabatha

(18,795 posts) Fri Dec 23, 2011, 10:34 AM Dec 2011

Factcheck - on Tax Cut, Social Security and the General Fund. [View all]

This was a fact check of Bachmann who got most of it wrong. Some here also get it wrong.

Bachmann said she didn’t support the payroll tax cut because “it denied $111 billion to the Social Security trust fund”and “put senior citizens at risk.” That’s false. The shortfall will be covered by the government’s general fund.

=> Reducing the Social Security payroll taxes paid by employees by 2 percentage points (to 4.2 percent) obviously brings in less money for Social Security. But the trust fund isn’t suffering as a result. The government must cover the shortfall with general fund money.

The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees said in its 2011 report: “The loss of payroll tax revenue due to this one-year reduction will be made up by transfers from the General Fund of the Treasury to the OASI and DI Trust Funds and will thus have no financial impact on either program.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/bachmann-wrong-on-social-security-jobs-debt/

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Factcheck - on Tax Cut, Social Security and the General Fund. [View all] tabatha Dec 2011 OP

The Payroll Tax Cut opens a door between the General Fund and the totally separately taxed fund for RC Dec 2011 #1

That is the real reason this particular tax cut was set up as it was in the first place, tabatha Dec 2011 #3

Why the money shuffle? grantcart Dec 2011 #9

How is "no cap" more progressive in this economy? phleshdef Dec 2011 #18

Thats an empty "slippery slope" argument. The "open door" is a product of ideological imagination. phleshdef Dec 2011 #16

Just to be clear, you're siding with Michelle Bachmann on this? MilesColtrane Dec 2011 #19

You are seeing what you want to see. RC Dec 2011 #21

There is already a maximum yearly payout for SocSec eridani Dec 2011 #24

Which is funny because creeksneakers2 Dec 2011 #29

No, it wouldn't. The rich would still get benefits eridani Dec 2011 #32

That's not possible creeksneakers2 Dec 2011 #28

Who exactly is behind this conspiracy? creeksneakers2 Dec 2011 #27

The Neocons are. They want to make the general fund a sacred cow that cannot do social spending. joshcryer Dec 2011 #37

Thank you. They want to be able to say that the Government has to fund SS turning it into a sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #31

So the "general fund" should be untouchable? joshcryer Dec 2011 #38

The general fund has been giving iou's to the social security fund for years. shraby Dec 2011 #43

Why cut payroll taxes, then? PETRUS Dec 2011 #2

I think it is because it helps businesses. tabatha Dec 2011 #4

That's a reasonable supposition. PETRUS Dec 2011 #6

Yes, there are better options. But they would not be passed by the House. tabatha Dec 2011 #8

Tabatha, what you seem to fail to realize is that the coupling of GF and SS is the real problem ThomWV Dec 2011 #5

"The problem is that by following our current practice of using Social Security System income" tabatha Dec 2011 #7

The trust fund represents *future obligations* ("DEBT") to US taxpayers--there is no Romulox Dec 2011 #10

Social Security Trust Fund - the facts tabatha Dec 2011 #11

None of that contradicts anything I posted. The "Trust Fund Surplus" must be collected in NEW TAXES Romulox Dec 2011 #12

The Trust Fund Surplus has been accumulating since the days of Reagan. tabatha Dec 2011 #14

Nope. Every penny has been spent. SS is 100% Pay-As-You-Go. nt Romulox Dec 2011 #15

Wrong. The trust fund was built up starting in the 80s to PREPAY boomer retirement eridani Dec 2011 #25

Every red cent has been "lent" to the US government, and spent. It's sad, but true. nt Romulox Dec 2011 #26

In the form of T-bills. If those are imaginary, then so are the ones that China-- eridani Dec 2011 #33

No. They aren't "T-Bills" (they're "special issues".) But that's not the point. Romulox Dec 2011 #39

Future taxpayers are the third party creeksneakers2 Dec 2011 #30

Nonsense. SS is supposed to be INTERGENERATIONALLY SUSTAINABLE. Future taxpayers Romulox Dec 2011 #40

I don't get what you mean creeksneakers2 Dec 2011 #42

Social Security is an entitlement program by virtue of the fact that participants are entitled to it lumberjack_jeff Dec 2011 #17

You don't have a right to receive any specific amount of SS. So that logic is off. nt Romulox Dec 2011 #41

I'm sorry but that argument doesn't really add up at all. phleshdef Dec 2011 #20

..and after the economy recovers... kentuck Dec 2011 #22

Let everything revert, including all the Bush tax cuts. Or completely redo the entire code. phleshdef Dec 2011 #23

Indeed, and that will happen, people don't get this. joshcryer Dec 2011 #35

SS has been part of the unified budget since 1969. joshcryer Dec 2011 #34

I understand the fear of changing the assets from 'SS' to the General Fund. freshwest Dec 2011 #13

I don't understand it unless we're to believe the "general fund" is untouchable. joshcryer Dec 2011 #36