Thread: Do you think they wont send out social secrity checks next month?

I am just amazed how quickly people are so willingly embrace socialism as long as whatever benefit they are currently receiving won't be affected.

BTW there is no such thing as a "lock box'. That was one of Al Gore's fables. All monies collected by the federal government go into the general US Treasury & are dispursed to various agencies.

If the government does not adopt a budget guess what...Congress won't get paid either; neither will the President.

Both parties are to blame. The solution to this mess in Washington is to adopt a flat tax rate so everyone pays at the same rate. The problem with enacting this is it will do away with all deductions & we all know how special interest groups feel about those "perks" for lack of a better word. No deduction for mortgages or any kiddos...that will never happen & Washington will continue to spend money it doesn't have.

The President keeps the fear mongering going by claiming that what the GOP is proposing will cut Social Security & Medicare which is never going to happen. That would be political suicide & both parties know that. This is what happens when you elect a community organizer as President.

Originally Posted by SLance68

Ok SS is a TAX. If you think that the amount you have paid in is what actually pays your benefits you are very incorrect. You (an employee) pay 1/2 of the amount remitted for your hours/time worked. Your employer has to match those funds. This works great as long as people don't live past 62 and die before they can begin collecting SS. When it was enacted it was to SUPPLEMENT your income/savings not be your sole source of income for your retirement. The largest problem with SS is that everyone is living longer which means they are having to pay out more benefits than they have collected funding for from your employment. That is why living longer has put such a strain on the system there are not enough people working to pay into the system to keep it from going bankrupt.

The other problem is disability payments. Most people collecting disability have not paid in as long as someone who worked their entire life and retired at 65. They also give disability payments to people who have children born with disabilities and they also give disability to alcoholics (please don't even tell me we are not a Nanny state).

If anyone thinks that SS and disability are untouchable just look back at everyone's (not mine personally) favorite president - Reagan. He cut SS benefits to lots of people and yet he is considered by some to be a great president. So don't think it is political suicide to mess with SS/Disability/Medicare/Medicaid cause it isn't as proven by Reagan.

From what I can recall the SS fund was set up, yes to supplement, retirement. I do not believe when it was set up it included disability payments, medicare/medicaid, etc. Originally, it was set up as a fund but the since the politicians have inclded other things (such as mentioned above) to come out of that fund it has morphed and become less sustainable.

Although technically, you probably could call it a "tax", and yes I know employers are "taxed" equally as well as the employee has their SS deduction, I still see it as a "fund". To me "taxes" are for expendables (street lights, local government, police, fire, etc.).

It's a split hair observation.

Originally Posted by pepperpot

From what I can recall the SS fund was set up, yes to supplement, retirement. I do not believe when it was set up it included disability payments, medicare/medicaid, etc. Originally, it was set up as a fund but the since the politicians have inclded other things (such as mentioned above) to come out of that fund it has morphed and become less sustainable.

Although technically, you probably could call it a "tax", and yes I know employers are "taxed" equally as well as the employee has their SS deduction, I still see it as a "fund". To me "taxes" are for expendables (street lights, local government, police, fire, etc.).

It's a split hair observation.

Originally Posted by SLance68

First of all - Medicare is a separate program and it is taxed on your wages. It use to be just listed as FICA and included SS & Medicare but that was changed about 20 years ago. You can call it whatever you want it is still referred to by the IRS as a TAX and they should know what a tax is when they see one. And like your definition of a tax they are for expendables such as lights, police and fire department - except they go to people who are retired.

Yes, when it was set up....since then, they have changed it and dipped into it for a lot more things. It was started as a "fund", not a "tax" to the individual.

If SS was just an "expendable" why wouldn't it be a set amount? The SS amount the recipient receives is based on what "they" (including their employer) "put" into it.

Originally Posted by justme23

You guys are twisting what I said... I never said the poor should pay nothing... I said why shouldn't it be fairly based on your yearly income.

No one is "twisting" anything, you never said that the poor should pay nothing ... but that is how the tax code is set up. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

Wow... I guess I kinda thought that little debate was over a week ago.