Skip to main content

View Diary: Protecting Social Security: Let's Tell The Deficit Commission Not to Slash Entitlements (261 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What's the trust fund for, if we never permit it (7+ / 0-)

    to be paid down? If it's just imaginary, then all those FICA surpluses really were stolen by general revenues, and FICA is a regressive tax.

    It's only a fairness issue if you incorrectly imagine SS to be a government handout paid in taxes. It's not. It's a government-chartered wage insurance program paying benefits based on mandatory premiums. It's something very different from the rest of what government does. The cap is there, on both contributions and benefits, because the rich don't need the insurance beyond a point.

    The fact that income tax increases are a hard sell is not a justification to do things on SS's back. And no one would be fooled - increasing income taxes 12.4 points on gross incomes above  ~$300k would increase taxes on the same people by the same amount as lifting the cap with Obama's $250k donut hole. The people impacted would see the same increase either way.

    The Trust Fund exists for a purpose; to meet SS's obligations during the boomer years. We must permit it to fulfill that purpose, otherwise we've just robbed the poor to pay the rich. And the whole reason we're having this debate now is DC is looking for some group of creditors to blow off. If SS can be made to never draw down the trust fund - either by cutting benefits or by increasing FICA revenues well beyond its needs in perpetuity, then the trust fund has been effectively looted.

    The question of the other creditors to the treasury - foreign or otherwise - is not Social Security's problem. Nor is the overall issue of the deficit. That's general revenue's problems. And that needs general revenue solutions.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 03:35:58 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      denise b, VClib

      if current projections are correct, the trust fund is NOT going to cover SS's obligation for the boomers. I oppose cutting benefits or upping the retirement age but the revenue side arguments can be made for action either sooner or later. I tend to favor later as we actually see if the projections hold up.

      Just another socialist fuckstick homosinner!

      by Ian S on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 03:46:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It will mostly cover it, and that's the beauty of (4+ / 0-)

        it! Then we can have this discussion again in 2037, when it's appropriate. Over a lively game of shuffleboard.

        Meanwhile, let's get general revenues under control and bump the top marginal rate to 50%.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 04:20:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site