What to do about those FICA contributions, aka payroll taxes, now that the supercommittee has blown up? Last Christmas the Obama administration handed workers a special gift—a one-year holiday from paying their payroll taxes, which as most workers know fund their Social Security retirement benefits and disability and survivor’s benefits, should they need them later on. The year is up. Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Sunday with the Senate’s second-ranking members, Dick Durbin for the Democrats and Jon Kyl for the GOP, produced a huge news nugget for campaign reporters to contemplate.
The Republicans, represented by Kyl, seem to be saying that they want to keep Social Security strong, while the Dems, represented by Durbin, appear to advocate a policy that could end up jeopardizing the program. Kyl told Wallace:
The problem here is that the payroll tax doesn’t go into general revenue, it supports Social Security. And you can’t keep extending the payroll tax holiday and secure Social Security.
That’s what Social Security supporters argued last year when the Obama team proposed the holiday. Nancy Altman, co-director of the progressive group Strengthen Social Security, told NPR that the tax holiday “could eventually lead to the unraveling of Social Security. If Republicans make this permanent, it could spell real trouble for Social Security.” Even though last year’s deal required a transfer of general revenue funds to keep the Social Security trust funds whole, the danger, Altman and others noted, is that eventually Social Security will contribute to the deficit because the government will have to borrow to cover benefits. That will subject the system to the same fiscal pressures and politics as other federal programs vying for a piece of the budget. She also predicted it would be hard to get the payroll tax reinstated once it was gone. No politician would want to be seen “raising” taxes on workers, even if that meant assuring their benefits years later.
But now, according Fox News, it’s the Dems who want to keep the tax holiday. Said Durbin:
I can’t believe that at a time when working families in this country are struggling paycheck to paycheck, when we need them to have the resources to buy things in our economy, to create wealth and profitability and more jobs, that the Republican position is, they’ll raise the payroll tax on working families? I think that just defies logic.
Democrats wanting to imperil the solvency of Social Security? Republicans trying to protect it? What’s going on here? Was the Wallace interview signaling each party’s Social Security campaign strategy? The Dems are positioning themselves on the side of working men and women by relieving them of an extra tax burden. Republicans seem to be doing the same by finding a way to clobber the Dems for ultimately killing off Social Security as a social insurance program—a message that resonates with voters.
Wallace didn’t explore any of this in his in-the-weeds discussion of taxes, job creation, growth, and the “doc fix,” as if his viewers knew what that was. But then the campaign is just unfolding, and maybe he will go back to all this next time around. There’s a lot for journos to mine in the comments of Durbin and Kyl.
Click here for more from Trudy Lieberman on Social Security and entitlement reform.
If the payroll tax was extended to include upper wage earners, would that pay for the very small reduction in the tax for ordinary wage earners? I have wondered if there was a beneficial strategy behind the payroll tax holiday such as a bid to make the reduced rate permanent, which might make it more palatable for upper incomes to fully absorb the tax, which would be more equitable. I am of course going with the 'afraid, be very afraid' approach---the increased net was so small that it really didn't seem worth the jeopardy to the program. It would really be the most very cynical action on the part of government to sell the public on a cheap benefit (using happy talk like the word holiday) for the true purpose of gutting a socially useful program.
Is there merit to the argument that the rate we've been used to paying was actually too high in the first place---using Social Security to bankroll tax cuts for the wealthy? So could it be that the new rate is more reasonable? Is it possible the new rate was intended to create space for a future increase in the Medicare tax?
#1 Posted by MB, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 01:15 PM
This so-called "holiday" had me stunned when it was proposed, and now, with the Dems wanting to extend it, I'm even further stunned. This seems to be some backdoor route to killing the program, but for the life of me, I can't understand why the President and the Dems are apparently trying to do just that. While I don't make a whole lot of money, $1000 over the course of a year for a family of four really doesn't amount to very much money in the pocket - that is less than $20 a week. These days, $20 doesn't go very far, so why jeopardize what could be a solid program for all by not just continuing, but INCREASING the amount NOT going into Social Security? For the first time ever, I got incensed enough to write to the President to let him have a piece of my mind.
I keep saying RAISE THE CAP! RAISE THE CAP! That was the tie breaker for me in the 2008 Presidential election - because Obama said he supported that. Where is that support now?
#2 Posted by Melanie, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 04:55 PM
"The problem here is that the payroll tax doesn’t go into general revenue, it supports Social Security."
padikiller tolls the Reality Bell against this former Dem/now GOP stupidity: "Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in "special-issue" securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund."
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#
The "advocates of government-endorsed redistribution of wealth" (who can no longer be called "commies" under Pravda's.. er, I mean CJR's new comment censorship policy) want it both ways...
When it comes to PAYING for Social Security, then we're talking about "taxes" for a welfare program and the answer is the standard one.. Tax the "rich" more and give their money to the "poor".
However when it comes RECEIVING Social Security benefits, then we call it "insurance" and suddenly we're talking about the "premiums" paid.
If Social Security is welfare system, it is an unjust one, because most of the benefits are paid to elderly recipients who are, on average, millionaires (in terms of net worth).
If Social Security is an insurance program, it is an unjust one, because the people who pay the most in "premiums" (or "taxes", depending on your politics) receive the least benefits.
Either way, Social Security is a really screwed up system that is leading us quickly to financial doom.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 08:58 PM
[Either way, Social Security is a really screwed up system that is leading us quickly to financial doom.
#3 Posted by padikiller on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 08:58 PM].
Either way, 'padikiller' is a pathetic dope who does not apologize when he posts a libel on this site.
#4 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 09:12 PM
Apology to Clayton:
For the SECOND time...
I'm sorry that you got banned from the campus of the University of British Columbia. I'm sorry that Professor Wexler called you a weirdo. I'm sorry the director of campus security claims that there were 10 or 15 complaints about you over a five year period. I'm sorry that the bookstore manager claims that your behavior made her fear for the safety of her employees and that she claims that you engaged in a shouting match in her store.
http://e.szeto.angelfire.com/exile.pdf
What else do you expect me to apologize for?
If you've be called a "wonderful weirdo" by anyone else, or kicked out of any other colleges, or accused of harassing other people, just let me know and I'll be happy to apologize for these incidents, too.
And what "libel" are you talking about? You do realize that, by definition, the truth cannot be libel, don't you? Exactly what are claiming that I've written is libelous?
EDITORIAL NOTE: Add "pathetic dope" to the list of non-inflammatory acceptable labels here at CJR... (But don't say "commie" for Pete's sake!)
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 10:30 PM
You are mentally ill, 'padikiller.' You are also of limited intelligence:
Mike, The article that 'padikiller' is linking to is being privately hosted by Eric Szeto, who refuses to discuss it. As a student reporter at The Ubyssey at UBC, Eric failed to interview 'witnesses' (for example, he did not talk to any 'victim' of any shouting match, nor were any 'witnesses' to such a shouting match brought forward.) In fact, a very good friend of mine went into the bookstore and was informed that I had come into the store and 'assaulted' a staff member, all of these fabrications because I had been told by staff that management at the bookstore was wretched, and I had posted about it at The Ubyssey.
There is another story on Debbie Harvie in The Ubyssey this term that shreds her credibility for any thinking person. I will send it to you. I would like this libel against me, based on an absurdly botched student story, to be deleted from CJR. I would also like 'padikiller' to be banned from your site permanently.
Any complaints about me at UBC were purely based on talks that I had with people about unethical practices. For example, the former head of the English department, Herbert Rosengarten, habitually peddled his own markedly inferior books to first-year students. When I asked him about the conflict of interest, he was furious. Clayton.
#6 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 11:17 PM
'padikiller,' it is not my problem that you are a maniac. It is up to you to control yourself. I explained clearly that the private site you are linking to is wrong, but you ignored what I said.
You are offering an unqualified 'take' against me because of malice.
UBC has a very strong motivation to suppress criticism and buy media coverage and university ratings:
Copyright National Post Company Mar 29, 2008
Re: The Ugly Face Of Medicare, John Turley-Ewart, March 28.
[...] In the past week or two, I could relate to you stories similar to Jennie's, but with the diagnoses of misdiagnosed spine fractures, paralysis due to metastatic cancer to the spine that was undiagnosed for weeks and gradual paralysis due to spinal stenosis (an easily treatable degenerative condition). [...]
Dr. Marcel Dvorak, head, Division of Spine, Vancouver Coastal Health and University of British Columbia.
One reason UBC needs to crush information about its practices is criminal malpractice causing death.
#7 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 11:31 PM
[I'm sorry that Professor Wexler called you a weirdo.]
'padikiller,' you are not intelligent. Wexler has apologized to me again and again for the way he talks. He had no idea he was being interviewed for a story. He always calls people who do a lot of reading and who like to discuss literature or philosophy such terms.
You just have no idea of what you are talking about. You are an extremely limited and thoughtless person. I gave you a chance to avoid a formal complaint about you. You seem to have a violent wish to aggravate everything near you. I suggest that you get professional help.
You had a chance. You made the deliberate choice to commit a hate act.
#8 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 11:47 PM
[I'm sorry the director of campus security claims that there were 10 or 15 complaints about you over a five year period. I'm sorry that the bookstore manager claims that your behavior made her fear for the safety of her employees and that she claims that you engaged in a shouting match in her store.]
Hearsay is not evidence, especially when it is motivated by malice. There was no shouting match. That is your own crazy lie. This has been worked over in The Ubyssey. No witness or victim has ever come forward, even under an assumed name. Sound familiar?
Debbie Harvie does not respond to direct, public challenges to her integrity re the "shouting match" because she is lying. Period. Everyone at UBC who is not an idiot knows there was no shouting match. UBC employees openly discuss how it was a fabrication. Those who are not too intimidated by the frequently- discussed phenomenon of UBC bullying.
It is all a pile of crap sweet-smelling only to those who like to live in a dung hill.
#9 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 12:14 AM
[And what "libel" are you talking about? You do realize that, by definition, the truth cannot be libel, don't you? Exactly what are claiming that I've written is libelous?]
I have patiently explained to you that the trash in the private link is not the "truth."
It is just the witless scribbling of a confused child, who did not even have the sense to ask to speak with someone who had seen the "shouting match" unfold, or the sense to ask me about it, even though I went right into The Ubyssey office at the time and made myself fully available for interviews.
How do you think The Ubyssey got the story in the form that it did, Mr. Hiding-Behind-A-Mask? I went to the office myself to document the events. The same security guard playing the big shot in the picture appeared later in a Ubyssey photo because he falsely accused the photo editor of the paper of misbehavior, just as Debbie Harvie appeared this term in The Ubyssey fabricating a meeting with the AMS President.
Try to think, 'padikiller.' (I know it is impossible). Why would I have so documented these events if I had been guilty of shouting, assault, and all the lies in these perjured accounts?
You are angry because you are not intelligent. If you were not acting in such an irrational, hostile way, I would not say anything about it. I gave you a reasonable chance to cool down. You refused. You brought this on yourself.
#10 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 12:51 AM
You are stalking me on the Internet, so-called 'padikiller.' I order you to stop totally in trying to communicate with me in any way.
It is not by chance that you are making these references to '-killer.' And it is not by chance that 'padikiller' is not the only instance I have noted.
You are a disturbed person. Stop posting after me and making your bizarre comments. You have a sickness. You need to get professional help.
I have now made a formal, documented complaint to CJR about you. You are out of control. You need to be interviewed by the police to see who else you are abusing.
#11 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 02:49 AM
Lucky me, none of this is my problem.
Also, lucky me, we dealt with paidkiller's "old people are millionaires" arguements (and others) here so I don't have to repeat how 63.9% of the elderly rely on social security for 50% of their income-much of that income being sucked away by the drug costs of the most expensive inefficient healthcare system in the world.
And I don't want to hear about how "Social Security is a really screwed up system leading to financial doom" after Ben Bernanke blew 1.2 trillion in a day to the banks and lent them 7.8 trillion thus far to cover a system that has emptied pensions and 401 k's.
What needs to be done is campaign finance reform - otherwise politicians will campaign for their constituents and act for their contributors (the problem Melanie alluded to), bust up and regulate the banks - federally insured institutions cannot be allowed to take risky business, and then enact a real budget responsive to citizen needs(search:"The People's Budget" - not banker ones.
Social security is not the problem. People like Bernanke want to make it the problem because they claim "That's where the money is." He's lying of course because he knows it's in the banks, he put 7.8 trillion of it there himself.
What we need to do is tax the hell out of financial services, shrink it to something managable, and take our money back. Otherwise we will be dealing with a screwed up system which will lead us into financial doom, as they have a few times already.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 03:52 AM
Oh, and Clay? Familiarize yourself with the Streisand Effect and try to argue the issues, not the man. You're making it worse for yourself through your 4 reply reactions to his trolling.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 04:04 AM
Time to toll the Reality Bell again: "The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 46 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday.
While people typically accumulate assets as they age, this wealth gap is now more than double what it was in 2005 and nearly five times the 10-to-1 disparity a quarter-century ago, after adjusting for inflation."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/story/2011-11-06/wealth-gap-young-old/51098910/1
Since the vast majority of Social Security benefits are paid to retirees over 65, the simple, undeniable R E A L I T Y is that if Social Security is considered to be a welfare program, it is a patently unjust one.
How can any just welfare program collect taxes from people who are, on average, 46 times less wealthy than the recipients? Only in Lieberman La La Land can such a welfare system be considered to be a fair one.
On the other hand, if Social Security is judged to be an insurance program, it is also patently unjust because the people who pay the most in premiums receive the least amount in benefits (as a percentage of premiums paid). This is exactly opposite of the way insurance is supposed to work.
And, as I wrote, either way... Social Security is an insolvent boondoggle that is driving our country into bankruptcy.
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 06:58 AM
Clayton wrote: "You are stalking me on the Internet, so-called 'padikiller.'
padikiller responds:
Look Clayton:
I posted a comment about Social Security, to which you responded by calling me a "pathetic dope" who is "libeling" you.
Now who's "stalking" whom?
Anyone who Googles your name will see the article to which I linked.
Six posts and you can't point to a single thing I wrote that isn't true. I've never stated that the allegations that the UBC staff made against you are true. If you have a problem with the newspaper article, fine.. Take it up with the paper. Sue them. Sue the staff. Whatever.
But it isn't libel for anyone to link to a newspaper article (or to quote or summarize a newspaper article) here. That's what this site is all about.
I haven't lowered myself to your level of ad hominem, but the allegations made against you in the article are serious and pertinent and the people you interact with here should be aware of them.
Frankly Clayton, six blithering non-responsive posts of delusional invective and diversion don't serve to persuade anyone as to the inaccuracy of the article.
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 07:17 AM
Clayton wrote: "You are abusing your wife or children related to you. Or someone. That is certain."
padikiller responds: Well, if "racist pedophile" isn't "inflammatory" enough to invoke the ire of the CJR censors, I suppose this kind of stupid, baseless accusation will also pass muster.
Thank goodness the tender CJR readers are no longer "inflamed" by that most inflammatory of vulgarity.. "commie".
#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 07:30 AM
There is no UBC response to any of my comments because they are all true. UBC is buying rankings, as I have already posted here.
UBC is buying newspaper coverage, as anyone with a brain would be able to see.
UBC is criminally negligent in its practices in medicine, as has been well documented. The President of UBC is in my e-mail inbox refusing to comment on the Dvorak letter.
How can you comment if you are fully prepared to accept that you are criminally negligent?
You abused Trudy by trying to draw her into your libels. My reading is that she does not want any part of it.
You ignored every point I made because you are totally unethical. All you are trying to do is slime me.
Libeling people by calling them "commie" is just the level of your degraded rhetoric. You should be banned permanently from this site. You might note that you have just been called a "troll." Right here by an independent observer. Never has a more accurate word been written.
#17 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 12:25 PM
[I've never stated that the allegations that the UBC staff made against you are true. If you have a problem with the newspaper article, fine.. Take it up with the paper. Sue them. Sue the staff. [...]
I haven't lowered myself to your level of ad hominem, but the allegations made against you in the article are serious and pertinent and the people you interact with here should be aware of them.]
You are not making any sense. Since you are filled with malice, you cannot write coherently: "but the allegations made against you in the article are serious and pertinent...". You seem not to understand language. We do doctorates in English so that we will be able to avoid writing that we are not saying that charges are true, but that they are "serious and pertinent."
Nobody wants your advice. You have been rejected as a troll. Enjoy the status.
#18 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 12:51 PM
Hey, I'm just catching up with this dispute. Um, let's not accuse people of abusing their family members, OK? I'm deleting that part of Clayton's comment, and I'm closing comments on this piece. FYI, if you feel like a comment thread has gotten out of control, and you're wondering why nobody from CJR has weighed in or intervened, it's probably because we're working on other stuff and haven't noticed the thread yet. Feel free to contact me if you think I should know about something: jtp2117 at columbia dot edu.
#19 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 01:35 PM