Skip to main content

View Diary: Either Leave Social Insurance Alone Or Pay Us Back Our $ 1 Trillion. (184 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Another interesting chart is (6+ / 0-)

    is the one that shows where the government gets it's money from (total receipts from all income). For 2010 the distribution was:

    42% - from Income Tax
    40% - from Payroll Tax
    9% - from Corporate Income Tax
    3% - from Excise Tax (primarily gas, alcohol and tobacco)
    6% - from All Others Taxes

    Notice that payroll tax receipts are ALMOST EQUAL to Income tax.  Who pays most of the payroll tax?   Since there is no payroll tax on income above $106K nor on passive income like stocks, capital gains, rental income etc. the rich pay very little compared to the middle-class.

    The right-wingers always try to make a big deal about the top earners paying like 90% of the Income tax.  Where are their statistics on who pays most Payroll tax?  Add those 2 statistics together.  After all, it all goes into the same federal pot-of-money.

    •  That's contrary to everything progressives (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cameoanne, VClib

      say about Social Security, of course.

      After all, it all goes into the same federal pot-of-money.

      The entire basis for the progressive point that "Social Security is not insolvent and doesn't need fixing" is based on the notion that it does NOT "all go into the same federal pot of money -- that there's a separate Social Security "trust fund" made up of Social Security taxes that is completely solvent.  

      You can't have it both ways.  Either Social Security is a separate system that is not supposed to support the operation of the federal government, or it is because it "all goes into the same pot."  

      •  Progressives had nothing to do with (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Anna M, demnomore

        spending SS receipts on wars. But the reality now is with an alleged shortfall, its SS we have to cut out and not wars or taxcuts for the rich.

        Also if the GOP is all about ending SS, then they have to come up with an alternate source of funding from 42% of total fed receipts. We don't hear the classist pigs suggesting ending SS taxes, only cutting benefits. How disingenuous.

        -7.5 -7.28, Democratic Socialism...It's not just for Europeans.

        by Blueslide on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 09:25:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You have to remember (3+ / 0-)

        that payroll taxes don't go directly into general revenue, because they're not revenue. They're first used to pay for current SS benefits, with the surplus (if any) invested in special t-bills, which the government THEN uses to pay for its expenses. But it's not revenue, it's debt, which has to be paid back. Repubs are simply trying to effectively convert debt into revenue by cutting back benefits.

        I simply don't understand why there's even the pretense of a "serious" debate on all this. It's blindingly obvious what's going on here--theft by lawful means--and anyone claiming otherwise is either a liar or ignorant.

        "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

        by kovie on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 09:45:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bingo. It is only when the conservative try to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kovie, Eric Nelson

          muddle this up by saying that SocSec and Medicare are causing the debt and the rich are already paying all the taxes, that the counter-arguments have to be made.

          FDR fought hard and won to not call or treat SocSec contributions as 'taxes'.

          We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

          by Into The Woods on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 10:42:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  SS is "causing" the debt on the debt side (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Into The Woods

            Not the spending side. I realize that it takes an above room temperature IQ to wrap one's head around such a complex concept, but it's the truth.

            I could probably spent hours trying to explain this to a teabagger, but I doubt it would sink in.  They'd just mumble something about Barney Frank, FDR, Jewish bankers and socialism. Some people you just have to give up on and move past.

            "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

            by kovie on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 11:15:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If General Fund Had Not Borrowed $2.3 From the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kovie

              Trust Funds, they would have had to borrow it from the Chinese or Japanese or Saudi Arabia or whomever was willing to lend us the money at the time.

              And if anyone hears any Republicans proposing to ask them to collect less or start collecting later on that debt, you just let me know.

              One of the reasons we had to put Freddie and Fannie in conservertorship (ie re-nationalize them) is because a few years back China was becomming disgruntled with the interest rates it was getting ont he normal Govt loans it was making to the US, so instead they were given "agency debt".  

              Guess what "agencies" they purchased "securities" from?

              Fannie and Freddie.  (There may be others, but that's what we've heard about so far.)

              Asking China to take a haircut was not really in the cards.

              The only alternatives for gettig more money are more taxes (no new taxes) and debt (no new debt) so they borrowed from the Trust Funds and are required to pay it back with interest.  

              So yes, it is a debt to ourselves.  That does not make it less important; it makes it more important.

              That does not make it less enforceable; it makes it more enforceable.  

              We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

              by Into The Woods on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 11:41:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It also makes it easy to spin (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Into The Woods

                "The money's been spent" (but you still owe it back to SS).

                "It's just a worthless IOU" (no, but you still owe it back to SS).

                "It's contributing to the deficit" (not really, but you still owe it back to SS).

                "We all have to sacrifice" (what do you mean "we", rich man?).

                "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

                by kovie on Sun Apr 17, 2011 at 12:23:42 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And that is the real point of this tale. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kovie

                  In this particular case, it is 'they' who should be asked to bear the largest burden, not only because they are able, but because one of the reasons we got here was because they pushed so hard to avoid their share of the burden for so long and shifted it down onto the less fortunate.

                  We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

                  by Into The Woods on Sun Apr 17, 2011 at 12:29:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  It shouldn't go into the same revenue pot (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Into The Woods, Eric Nelson

        but we know the politicians count it as revenue that they can spend.  Even Clinton's "surplus" was really a Social Security Fund surplus.  The SS surplus has been used to pay for the wars and tax cuts.   Now that the Boomers are retiring the govenment will have to start paying back those IOUs.  Instead of SS helping with funding the government, It will now begin taking money out - which is why they don't want to pay it back.

        If they don't pay it back it means middle-class taxpayers have been in-effect paying MUCH HIGHER taxes for the past 30 years.  

      •  Exactly - You can't have it both ways (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Into The Woods

        it's a repug argument that it all goes into the same pot, when it was expressly crafted so that WOULD NOT HAPPEN.

        This is just Accounting smoke and mirrors, directed at people who don't understand government accounting, or any accounting, for that matter - and I'm not an accountant...

        See my comment upthread

        Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

        by blindcynic on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 06:16:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And Fed Taxes are only about 1/2 of all govt (0+ / 0-)

      State and local make up the rest, are increasing as a percentage and are consistently regressive, even in some of the most "progressive" states.

      We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

      by Into The Woods on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 10:39:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (160)
  • Community (76)
  • Elections (45)
  • Environment (44)
  • Bernie Sanders (43)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Spam (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Culture (35)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Media (32)
  • Labor (28)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Congress (26)
  • Education (25)
  • Law (25)
  • Science (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site