General Discussion

Selatius

(20,441 posts)

108. Bush wanted to divert payroll taxes into private accounts in his failed attempt.

Thu May 31, 2012, 04:57 AM

May 2012

He wanted to divert half the payroll tax payments going to Social Security into private accounts, immediately. This would've made Social Security dip into the 2.5 trillion trust fund, immediately, making the surplus disappear about 20 years sooner than forecast. Then, with half the payments going into private accounts and no surplus left, benefits would have to be gutted.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

152 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bernie Sanders Has An Amazingly Simple Idea To Fix Social Security For The Next 75 Years [View all] Playinghardball May 2012 OP

IIRK, Obama made the same proposal during the 2008 campaign. hedgehog May 2012 #1

There was also Obama's campaign pledge about taxes... TheWraith May 2012 #14

And, of course, he also pledged to end taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #46

BLOCKED BY CONS & U BLAME him? supraTruth May 2012 #96

Right. It's all the fault of the obstructionist Republicans. AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #97

Of course their power is increased Jakes Progress May 2012 #120

but who gave the blue dog Dems their power? Who let Lieberman remain on committees after he robinlynne May 2012 #131

People who think a D means something anymore. Jakes Progress May 2012 #150

Are you saying that the Repubs have NOT been abusing the filibuster?. . . n/t annabanana May 2012 #129

Do you believe that the Republicans prevented Reid from calling for cloture votes? AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #132

If they have to pay in more, do you have to pay out more to them when they retire? n/t hughee99 May 2012 #2

Folks who pay in the maximum amount receive the maximum benefit gratuitous May 2012 #8

So I guess what I'm wondering, is does the "maximum benefit" increase hughee99 May 2012 #45

There's be no advantage in that. Thus pointless unless the intent is to turn SS into welfare & HiPointDem May 2012 #48

Do you think that if you tell them SS is going to take more money hughee99 May 2012 #66

I think it's a nice wedge issue for the free marketeers, and I think the majority of those who would HiPointDem May 2012 #67

A detail to be worked out, I suppose gratuitous May 2012 #64

Upper income workers already pay for the largest share of the program. HiPointDem May 2012 #65

An elderly friend of mine called his SS..."Greens Fees" SoCalDem May 2012 #134

Yes, however... Major Nikon May 2012 #10

And they might live to be 109 and beat the system...or you could die one month after you start... rfranklin May 2012 #13

No. Keep the scale the same as it is today. JDPriestly May 2012 #22

And one other fact to consdier - which sector of the population truedelphi May 2012 #30

Which sector is more likely to live to the age of 67? Those that return to Mexico, go to AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #50

Yes. Lower-income people get proportionally more if they live to collect, but they're more likely HiPointDem May 2012 #52

yes, however only 10 cents on the dollar. So it works out in the end. Sirveri May 2012 #82

It would take five minutes if the Congress had any spine. Scuba May 2012 #3

And if you delete the cap altogether rocktivity May 2012 #4

Yep. supraTruth May 2012 #72

social security doesn't need that much fixing, berrnie. why do you want to give more money HiPointDem May 2012 #5

Alongwitht he fix, insert a provision making the use of the money raised solely for SS. rustydog May 2012 #9

My thoughts exactly Dokkie May 2012 #11

No. For crying out loud, do we have to go over this again? TheWraith May 2012 #15

wrong how? Dokkie May 2012 #19

The Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for it. JDPriestly May 2012 #23

Wow are you wrong. jeff47 May 2012 #25

The idea that the money has been spent is not a RW idea. truedelphi May 2012 #31

So the money in your bank account is gone then? jeff47 May 2012 #34

People are speculating. We simply don't know. truedelphi May 2012 #137

Yes, we do know. jeff47 May 2012 #138

Wait a minute. Before I go on with this "debate" truedelphi May 2012 #139

So either you've decided to change your story, or you're not very good at making a point. jeff47 May 2012 #141

You are intent on deliberately misportraying what I am saying. truedelphi Jun 2012 #151

I agree. I must have expressed myself very badly. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #152

The SS trust fund is in government bonds. zeemike May 2012 #49

the problem isn't the government "spending" it -- the problem is collecting so much money over HiPointDem May 2012 #16

Much money? Dokkie May 2012 #20

*facepalm* jeff47 May 2012 #24

gee, thanks for the history & finance lesson. not. The way you pay for it is with the increased HiPointDem May 2012 #32

Once again, you are completely wrong. jeff47 May 2012 #40

Bullshit. BY 1965 ratio of workers to beneficiaries was already 4 to 1. HiPointDem May 2012 #42

So you agree with me then? jeff47 May 2012 #136

I disagree that the problem is the number of workers per retiree. That's a red herring. HiPointDem May 2012 #144

Math. You do not understand it. (nt) jeff47 May 2012 #18

what Math? Dokkie May 2012 #21

This part jeff47 May 2012 #26

Since you seem to be very Dokkie May 2012 #44

The General Fund is running massive deficits, but the SS Trust Fund is a separate fund. Selatius May 2012 #99

There's multiple options jeff47 May 2012 #135

Love the Bernie. Mercy, I wish we had a few hundred of his clones serving. MerryBlooms May 2012 #6

Oh, they've got a ready-made answer to that one--it makes the program WELFARE if the rich have to Romulox May 2012 #7

"the rich" don't pay for social security. workers pay for it. HiPointDem May 2012 #17

The graphic in the OP refers to "billionaires". That's "rich" by anyone's standards. Romulox May 2012 #27

SS taxes aren't paid on income from capital. Most (all) billionaires get theirs from capital income, HiPointDem May 2012 #35

I understand that. This thread is about removing the cap SS withholding on incomes in excess of Romulox May 2012 #51

So why are you talking about billionaires, and the op talking about "the 1%, as if those are the HiPointDem May 2012 #55

The word "billionaire" was BERNIE SANDER's. Will you PLEASE read the OP before attempting Romulox May 2012 #58

Bernie knows better, which makes me wonder about his motivations as well. All these "solutions" HiPointDem May 2012 #62

Post removed Post removed May 2012 #85

Most workers aren't in the top 5% which this proposal would fix. joshcryer May 2012 #71

For the person who speaks of the "5%", in 2009 the 5% started at $154K, the 10% at $112K. HiPointDem May 2012 #76

So wait, you respond to yourself, to a post I made? joshcryer May 2012 #147

Of course, it would be welfare if some of the funds were used to finance the bail-outs for the AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #54

as they were the last time around. HiPointDem May 2012 #57

Betcha Alan didn't come up with that idea..... MindMover May 2012 #12

I thought Social Security taxes were paid as a % of income progress2k12nbynd May 2012 #28

110K is the cap. harun May 2012 #33

No SS taxes are paid on *any* income from *capital*, under or over the cap. Millionaires & HiPointDem May 2012 #37

So what? That's a lousy argument against lifting the cap. nt Romulox May 2012 #56

It's a good argument against the pretense being made in this thread that raising the cap would hit HiPointDem May 2012 #59

Good luck trying to teach people there is a difference between taxing wealth harun May 2012 #77

capital income is income, not wealth. HiPointDem May 2012 #78

Didn't say it wasn't. harun May 2012 #79

not sure what your point is, then. HiPointDem May 2012 #81

That it won't fix the entire problem in one fell swoop is ALSO a lousy argument... nt Romulox May 2012 #89

who said anything about "not fixing the entire problem in one fell swoop"? i deny that there is HiPointDem May 2012 #92

SS taxes are NOT paid as a % of income. They are paid as a % of net earnings, up to a cap. AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #60

The "business" % of SS is considered part of employee compensation. It can be deducted from HiPointDem May 2012 #63

This is just common sense and should be done. WI_DEM May 2012 #29

Sorry, it makes too much sense. penndragon69 May 2012 #36

Not necessarily Dokkie May 2012 #41

The 1% will love it, because it increases taxes on workers, creating another surplus which can HiPointDem May 2012 #38

LOL. I *knew* it. You are against lifting the cap, and are using all sorts of obfuscatory tactics Romulox May 2012 #53

The cap is lifted every year. This proposal isn't about lifting the cap, it's about putting more HiPointDem May 2012 #61

Bernie Sanders mentioned "billionaires". Your continuing misdirections are failing to sway anyone... Romulox May 2012 #90

and you repeated it. name-calling doesn't help your misdirection. HiPointDem May 2012 #91

You can't unilaterally change the Original Topic by shear power of ridiculousness, though. nt Romulox May 2012 #124

The cap isn't lifted. It only adjusts for inflation and not one point higher than that. Selatius May 2012 #100

It's supposed to be set to cover 90% of total wages. In that sense, it justadjusts for inflation. HiPointDem May 2012 #103

True, SS was a pay-as-you-go system prior to Reagan, but if the goal ... Selatius May 2012 #106

The purpose of the trust fund, as originally stated, was to build up a surplus for the "special HiPointDem May 2012 #107

Bush wanted to divert payroll taxes into private accounts in his failed attempt. Selatius May 2012 #108

Now please explain how having a lot of t-bills in the TF will prevent future presidents from HiPointDem May 2012 #109

But it defeats the Greenspan Commission goal of having a temporary surplus. Selatius May 2012 #112

The greenspan commission no longer exists. It came into existence circa 1982 in order to HiPointDem May 2012 #116

At this point, I honestly think we're talking past each other. Selatius May 2012 #118

You want workers to continue being taxed more than the cost of providing social security, in HiPointDem May 2012 #119

Well, when you put it that way, I have no objection to going back to pay-as-you-go. Selatius May 2012 #121

OK, i see why we're talking past each other. No, by law when surplus SS taxes are collected, HiPointDem May 2012 #122

I've been arguing finance with someone who uses "borrow" and "lent" interchangeably??? Romulox May 2012 #127

yes, you linguistic prodigy, you. HiPointDem May 2012 #140

It's not that "borrowed" isn't a word--it's that it's not a synonym for "lent". Romulox May 2012 #143

the phrase googled was "borrowed into." You're the semantic whiz, I'm sure you'll figure out HiPointDem May 2012 #145

It's idiomatic English, at best. Cringeworthy, at worst. nt Romulox May 2012 #146

The fact that you're not familiar with it doesn't make it idiomatic. HiPointDem May 2012 #149

She doesn't WANT the cap lifted. She is very "concerned" for workers making more than $110,000. nt Romulox May 2012 #125

Yep. Defending the top 5%. Really the top 1.5%. It's crazy, to be sure. joshcryer May 2012 #69

"Big tent". Romulox May 2012 #126

K&R. n/t DLevine May 2012 #39

Silly man. The path to insolvency is PRECISELY the agenda. closeupready May 2012 #43

Bernie has a lot of good ideas - TBF May 2012 #47

We don't need to raise the cap on SS taxes. obxhead May 2012 #68

someone making $3 billion isn't getting it from wage income. ergo, they don't pay SS taxes on it. HiPointDem May 2012 #70

True, but a chunk of it is likely in the form of a salary. Selatius May 2012 #101

Show me anyone who gets $20 million in salary. If you look into those big numbers publicized in HiPointDem May 2012 #102

Not necessarily true. Selatius May 2012 #105

OK, let's say blankfein is the exception that proves the rule, since i'm too lazy to research the HiPointDem May 2012 #110

As far as the reasons for Blankfein taking the cash bonus, that's speculative and beyond the scope. Selatius May 2012 #113

of course it's speculation, i said as much. thanks for the one example. but you didn't answer HiPointDem May 2012 #114

That's still speculative. Selatius May 2012 #115

i think we all know that people in blankfein's position prepare their taxes with the goal of paying HiPointDem May 2012 #117

Yet another LOUSY *excuse* not to apply the same SS withholding on *all wages*. Romulox May 2012 #128

Let the media & politicians know that WE know. supraTruth May 2012 #73

what do we know? HiPointDem May 2012 #74

WE KNOW: supraTruth May 2012 #95

Here's a proposal that the 1 pct REALLY won't like. roamer65 May 2012 #75

It would be a far better fix than relying on the stock market. WHEN CRABS ROAR May 2012 #80

I'm cool with that abelenkpe May 2012 #83

Will never pass WinniSkipper May 2012 #84

The real question is would this actually work? nt cstanleytech May 2012 #86

Raising the tax cap without raising the benefits cap would be the quickest way to end SS Nye Bevan May 2012 #87

Bernie means nothing without a party. He just another decision challenged CK_John May 2012 #88

K&R....sounds like a plan to me, thanks Bernie....n/t unkachuck May 2012 #93

DUH! i have been saying this for years. I ALSO BLAME THIS ON GREENSPAN. pansypoo53219 May 2012 #94

This idea has been around for a long time. progressoid May 2012 #98

Why not increase Social Security taxes by increasing the cap? Ronald Reagan did that (and more). AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #104

Remove the cap and lower the percentage krispos42 May 2012 #111

The wealthy elites The Wizard May 2012 #123

Why is not anyone looking at getting our Living-Wage-Jobs back into this country? RC May 2012 #130

Why? Because they are now working on another wage-lowering, anti-union, "free trade" agreement. AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #133

Why aren't you publicizing that, then, instead of drumming up support for more taxation on labor HiPointDem May 2012 #142

kicking this baby..... a kennedy May 2012 #148