Skip to main content

View Diary: Poll: Public rejects Obama budget (237 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's not entirely correct. Back in the 80s (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vigilant meerkat

    when Reagan was President and Greenspan was his financial genius and the go-to guy of every President afterwards until lately. They anticipated the SS would need more funding for when we baby boomers retired and raised the rate we paid into the fund by a few percentage points.
    We have been paying that rate ever since, therefore funding our own retirement. As far as I know that "extra" tax was never reversed or reduced so although originally the fund had the present workers funding their parents: with their parents having funded their own parents. We baby boomers have been funding our parents and our own.
    That means we have put in over 30 years of our wages extra to fund our own Social Security.

    No one ever mentions this point, but anyone who has been paying the extra fee remembers how it came about.

    If that extra rate was just temporary and if it was discontinued at some point, I would be delighted for someone to research it and correct me, because right now this entire proposal just makes me want to scream.

    •  temporary rates never seem to work that way unless (0+ / 0-)

      they are tax reductions.

      As a fellow boomer, I also have been paying that enhanced rate for a long time.  I'll admit that it rankles me to see that big Trust Fund sitting there, and people wanting to cut into payouts.

      I understand that it can increase deficit pressure.  Congress will have to figure that out, but that is literally a debt that the country owes to us, not an entitlement we are asking to receive.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 03:40:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site