Why not fund Social Security by a Carbon Tax?

[denem]

I don't see anything inherently wonderful about payroll taxes. Ditch them.

[RC]

1. HELL NO!

Keep Social Security separate unto itself!

[denem]

7. There's nothing to stop retaining a separate fund,

just change the revenue source.

[avaistheone1]

2. Either raise the cap or elimate the cap altogether on Social Security

would solve the problem for the future. For the time being Social Security is solvent for the next twenty years.

[NightWatcher]

6. Raise the cap from 106,000 to 250,000 and it's fine

Get rid of the cap altogether and fund Medicare For All

[denem]

8. It's not fine, the wealthy don't make much of their income from a wage.

It's a Regressive Tax.

[demosincebirth]

20. Thats what I say, except remove the cap all together.

[sabrina 1]

3. Social Security it the most solvent program ever run

by the government. I hope you're not falling for the rightwing lies that there is anything wrong with the way it is set up and run. It has a surplus of over 2 trillion dollars, and without doing anything, that will double by 2023.

Leave SS alone. They are trying to steal more from the fund, and THAT is what needs to be stopped.

[deaniac21]

9. Educate yourself:

These balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)

[badtoworse]

11. +1

Everyone in the country should have a clear understanding of this

[sabrina 1]

25. You're not serious, are you?

This is a rightwing distortion of the facts about SS. Maybe you forgot the sarcasm tag?

[sabrina 1]

15. Stop with the nonsense. This argument has been debunked

over and over again. I am stunned to see it here on a democratic board.

The SS fund's treasury bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The U.S. Government has not and cannot default on those bonds.

The SS fund, China, and all the other creditors of the U.S. Government expect full payment on those bonds, and in fact have been receiving it. This year, eg, the interest on those bonds was paid as it will be in the future. To default on those bonds, means this government is finished.

Please do not bring these Heritage Foundation talking ponts to a democratic board. It is YOU who needs to educate yourself.

As for your scary 'taxes must be raised' statement, not a thing needs to be done to the SS fund, even basing the projections on the bad economic times we are in until 25 years from now. For the next 25 years all SS benefits can and will be paid in full.

Even after that, again DOING NOTHING, over 75% of benefits can be paid. The Congressional Budget office's numbers are actually even more optimistic about how far into the future we can without touching SS, and paying full benefits.

To put it simply, this Government has borrowed from the American people and they must pay it back, and will. Unless people like you fall for the lies that SS had or ever will have, anything to do with the deficit, or that the Government is not obligated to back up those treasury bonds, not only from SS, but China and the rest of its debtors.

Do you grasp that? We, the people, own that fund. We invested in U.S. Treasury Bonds, the most secure investment possible. So says the U.S. Government and still says so. The Government MUST honor those investments as promised.

So, your ridiculous argument that the U.S. government can default on its creditors, regardless of who they are, is simply idiotic.

Please go educate yourself, I don't have time to continue to destroy these rightwing arguments on a daily basis. We should not be seeing them here on this board.

[sabrina 1]

29. One more thing ~

The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.

What you meant to say was 'does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay ITS DEBTS.'

We, the people, are DEBTORS of the Government. They borrowed OUR money, just as they borrowed from China, and their promise to their debtors, was backed by U.S. Treasury Bonds. We are as entitled to a repayment of that debt as China is.

Is the Government calling its debt to China 'benefits'?

The Government is NOT paying benefits to SS recipients. Those recipients paid for that fund, NOT the Government and to say that the government is paying 'benefits' is a false statement.

SS benefits are NOT Government welfare. Please stop making that false claim.

The people pay FOR the benefits, and THEIR FUND, owned by them, pays the benefits from their own fund.

It is truly disturbing to see this being pushed by democrats. It definitely shows how important it is to start fighting now, to stop these distortions from being used to allow the Alan Simpsons of the world to fool people into believing these distortions.

[Hannah Bell]

31. the rich borrowed from the workers for 30 years, but when it's time to repay "the money

isn't available except in a bookkeeping sense?"

news for you, capitalism runs on bookkeeping. your savings don't exist except in a bookkeeping sense either.

your link isn't "education", it's apologetics for theft.

[denem]

10. I'm suggesting we invest in our grandchildren's future,

by changing the revenue streams that funds the present generation.

The planet wont fry before I die, Why the fuck should I care? Yes?

[sabrina 1]

16. I don't know what you are trying to say. Could you be more clear?

[PoliticAverse]

32. The "social security trust fund" was a scam...

created by Alan Greenspan and "The Greenspan Commission".

It enabled the Reagan administration to raise regressive taxes on low and middle income workers to fund their
massive spending programs.

The money collected and put into the trust fund has been spent.

Also people keep saying that the securities in the trust fund are the same bonds that china holds - they're not.
The securities in the trust fund are "special issue securities" which may only be held by the trust fund and not
sold to the general public: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/specialissues.html

The government doesn't have to 'default' on paying off the special-issues to not pay social security recipients what
they were promised, congress can simply reduce benefits that social security recipients get either directly or by
raising the retirement age (as happened after the Greenspan commission).

You can certainly argue that the government has a "moral obligation" to repay social security recipients the money it
collected in their name, but the money still must be replaced. Whether or not there was an actual 'trust fund' once
the government needs to put more money into social security it must do so by raising additional revenue.

This highlights the real "talking point" difference between republicans and democrats:
Republicans: Sorry, the money isn't there we have to cut social security benefits or raise the retirement age.
Democrats: The money isn't there but we have to repay the money borrowed by raising revenue by raising taxes.

[deaniac21]

33. You can't convince someone paddling their boat down the Nile.

[sabrina 1]

34. In 1983, there was a serious shortfall in the SS fund V what it had

pay out. SS taxes were raised, to cover the shortfall and to prepare for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.

This was more than accomplished, to the point that Rightwingers, although they still scream about the boomers' retirement, cannot make the claim that the boomer retirement will bankrupt SS.

The exact opposite is true. SS is solvent for nearly three quarters of a century, even with hard economic times, if absolutely nothing is done about it right now. Those are the facts.

SS does not rely on SS taxes alone. It has three separate sources of revenue, and even this year, with unemployment so high, it still had a surplus, because of its two other sources of income,

One of those sources is ~ interest on the bonds YOU seem to be saying are worthless. That interest has been paid in full ever single year and will be for the foreseeable future.

THERE IS NO CRISIS in SS. Your comment comes across as a conspiracy theory. What you are saying in effect is that for 30 years, BOTH PARTIES scammed the American people, right under the eyes of the country's top economists, by stealing revenue from their paychecks with no intention of keeping the promise to pay retirement benefits, as promised.

I don't care what Greenspan had in his sick, corrupt little brain. The facts are that the U.S. Government backs the treasury bonds issued to the SS fund and will HAVE to pay them out.

They DID borrow money from the fund, as Greenspan no doubt inteneded, but you are completely wrong to think that this money will not be paid back.

The only way that could happen would be if people adapted your attitude, that it would be only if the Government were 'kind', that we could expect them to repay the debt to SS.

This is utterly ridiculous and debunked by every, reputable economist in the country. And if this is going to be the atttitude of Democrats when this issue comes up, then there WILL BE A SCAM.

There is no scam. SS has paid out full benefits according to its agreement with the American people up to now and will do so far into the future, UNLESS we are sold out!

It is THE most fiscally sound program ever. Even in previous years, like this one, when its revenues from SS taxes were less than what it had to pay out, those shortfalls were covered by its other sources of revenues.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Treasury Bonds, special or otherwise, MUST be paid.

I sincerely hope this is not the attitude of Democrats and I hope they have the facts to counter the scare tactics of the rabid rightwingers and deficit hawks who from the start, have been enemies of this most successful program ever.

And NO, we do NOT have to raise the retirement age, or cut benefits. Providing jobs for Americans will raise revenues for the SS fund. That might have happened if the Bush Tax cuts had ended and Big Business was forced to create jobs in order to get tax benefits. But as we all know, that hasn't happened. Legalizing undocumented workers so that they can pay SS taxes is another way. They are here, they are working and they are not paying taxes. There are many ways to raise revenue for SS, IF anyone was interested in doing so. But that is not what this debate is about. The goal is to eventually privatize SS, but first to scare people into going

Your comment mirrors what I've seen from 'deficit hawks' and other rightwing anti-SS sources. Whether intentionally or unintentionally you appear to have absorbed the distortions about SS.

I can see that this is going to be a very hard fight when Democrats are willing to go along with these distortions.

Again, there is NO CRISIS in SS! None! And it should not even be a part of the debate about the deficit.

[PoliticAverse]

35. I encourage people to read what I wrote, what you wrote...

and do their own original research on the issue and decide for themselves what is true and what isn't.

[sabrina 1]

36. Fair enough! n/t

[sabrina 1]

37. Fair enough. That's what I did and found that all those

claims of SS 'not being there' when we are eligible for it, to be completely false. And that there is no crisis.

Anyone who says otherwise is lying, and we are going to hear plenty of lies over the next few months.

I hope Democrats are armed with facts and ready to fight. And that no Democrat will ever agree to either raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, and most importantly, allowing anyone to claim that SS had anything to do with the deficit. SS has nothing to do with the deficit. That should be shouted from the rooftops, and on bumper stickers everywhere.

Any 'democrat' who does not completely reject any of those suggestions, is not a Democrat. I guess we'll finally know for sure who is and who is not once this fight begins.

The New Deal is the cornerstone of the Democratic Party's platform, the program they can be most proud of. No real Democrat would allow the anti-New Deal crowd to get away with their long-held goal of getting their hands on those funds for the Stock Market.

[Motown_Johnny]

4. additional funding is needed, so payroll tax plus something else

I am a tariff guy


I want import taxes on the items that are destroying manufacturing in this country.

I would love to see money go into SS from taxes on imports.

[denem]

12. Isn't the easiest way to get a Big New Tax (Carbon) is scrap

a big old tax (Payroll).

That means the Carbon Tax will be huge and that's what it should be.

[badtoworse]

13. Benefits are tied to what you have paid into the system...

Your payments into the system are capped as are your benefits. This system has served the system well since its inception and should not be changed. I am strongly opposed to funding SS from other sources of revenue - it will change SS into a welfare program.

[denem]

14. You can tie benefits to the income record

without having to raise the revenue by payroll tax.

If you are looking for something intuitive to sell the idea, well those who have made the most are also likely to have left the biggest carbon footprint.

[badtoworse]

18. I'm not trying to sell the idea; I want to kill it.

Once you disconnect the payment of benefits from payroll deductions, you fundamentally change the nature of social security. Funding will become a political football and I don't want that.

[denem]

19. That "fundamental nature" is a hallucination.

There are three elements to social security:

1. A Tax
2. Paid into a separate fund
3. A benefit calculated on life time income.

There is no reason the Tax MUST be a payroll tax.

[badtoworse]

22. As a practical matter, you could fund SS with any kind of tax...

...but as a political matter, I would not be comfortable funding it any other way than it is now. We'll just have to disagree.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. which is why I suggest additional funding, not a change over

You can still tie payment of benefits to the payroll deductions.



Right now there is talk of cutting benefits because Social Security will run low on money 20 years from now. This is not tied to the amount that any individual has paid in.



What I am suggesting is simply having more revenue added to the system so that it does not run out of money and there is no need to cut benefits to make up for the lack of funds.

[RC]

28. Listen to this guy, he know what he is talking about..

[sabrina 1]

26. Thank you! n/t

[denem]

17. OK. The cost free carbon pollution now

will be born by future generations, either in environmental damage, or the exponential costs of reducing atmospheric carbon later.

It's a cost being passed down to the future. And there will be a reckoning.

Social security is the quintessential insurance of the present generation, it should be balanced by paying for the future.

[sabrina 1]

24. Ending the Bush tax cuts would have helped reduce the deficit, which

btw, has nothing to do with SS. The Bush Tax cuts cost this country two trillion dollars over the past ten years.

Raising the cap on what can be taxed for SS funing would solve the problem.

For now, SS funding is not a concern, no matter what Alan Simpson and his cabal of righting enemies of the New Deal have to say.

[Democrats_win]

5. Fine by me. Yet our current national philosophy would definitely not allow it.

The entire philosophy that Democrats and Republican elites believe in is that nothing is free. Of course the philosophy is flawed because no one is paying for anything! (See Bush Tax Cuts.) The point is, it would be very unnatural to take from the Carbon consumers and give to the cat food consumers (poor old people). You see, without these essential ideals, our entire system would collapse. I know it's hard to understand because it's all panglossian.

[dkofos]

21. It's not broke, don't try to fix it.

Carbon will run out eventually, what then?

[slackmaster]

27. The same reason we shouldn't fund it with tobacco taxes

Doing so would put the government in the position of having its interests served by encouraging something it should be discouraging.

[doc03]

30. A carbon tax is dead, why do you think the energy industry

invested so mush money supporting Republicans? Besides that the SS payroll tax should be left the way it is. The way it is now everyone sees money taken out of their checks to fund SS and they will expect to get SS. If you start funding it from some carbon tax or just out of the general fund people will not see they have a personal stake in SS and it will open the door open to eliminate it.

[TheKentuckian]

38. Never fund something you need with a revenue stream you want to be extinct

You also wouldn't want to divert the fruits of a carbon tax away from renewable energy investment, it is crucial to creating the escape velocity required to break away from carbon.