Cut in Social Security tax

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Sep 26, 2007
37,246
10,484
1,340
Bridge, USS Enterprise
Social Security is funded by a 6.2 percent payroll tax on the first $106,800 earned by a worker. The tax is matched by employers. The package negotiated by Obama would reduce the tax paid by workers to 4.2 percent for 2011
Payroll tax cut worries Social Security advocates - Yahoo! News

Questions for liberals and/or supporters of The Obama:

-Do you believe that this 2% increase in take home pay will have a measureable, positive effect on the economy?

-Do you believe that this 2% increase in take-home pay is, in real terms, a significant benefit to whom it applies?

Please be sure to explain your responses.
 
Last edited:
Social Security is funded by a 6.2 percent payroll tax on the first $106,800 earned by a worker. The tax is matched by employers. The package negotiated by Obama would reduce the tax paid by workers to 4.2 percent for 2011
Payroll tax cut worries Social Security advocates - Yahoo! News

Questions for liberals and/or supporters of The Obama:

-Do you believe that this 2% increase in take home pay will have a measureable, positive effect on the economy?

-Do you believe that this 2% increase in take-home pay is, in real terms, a significant benefor to the people that it applies to?

Please be sure to explain your responses.

Lower costs and added benefits. Whats the down side? Our government isnt going to pay the bills anyway. Untill we get to the train wreck, we cant fix it.
 
-Do you believe that this 2% increase in take home pay will have a measureable, positive effect on the economy? No. 2% of $46,326.00 is only 925.00....spread out over 52 weeks, that is an additional $17.78 a week. How exactly is that going to help the economy, again? Sorta like Bush's "free" $500.00 stimulus checks DIDN'T help the economy.


-Do you believe that this 2% increase in take-home pay is, in real terms, a significant benefor to the people that it applies to? No. It's a feel good measure. Period.
 
I would think the deficits would worry them more.

But then most of them will be dead long before it needs to be repaid.
 
Social security advocates
As a rule, those who advicate SocSec generally don't worry about such things.
But, you have a fair point - reducing SocSec revenue by 16% when it is already just barely afloat will only cause problems.

But that's a seperate issue - I'm interested in the rationale behind the cut, especialy in terms of economic effect and benefit to those to receive it.

I, for one, am invesing MY 2% in this:

Springfield Armory
 
Well, older people who get SoSec will be dead before this thing collapses. So they just wanna get paid.

Question is this, really:

Which helps the economy more: $$ in gov'ts hands, or money in private hands?
 
We should adopt the Chilean model and be done with it.
 
It is mostly feel good.
It might force the govt to pay back some of the 2 trillion plus they owe the SS system.

Raising the SS withholding above the levels required to maintain current SS payments would only give the govt more surplus to spend and owe.
 
Well, older people who get SoSec will be dead before this thing collapses. So they just wanna get paid.

Question is this, really:

Which helps the economy more: $$ in gov'ts hands, or money in private hands?

It depends on how the money is used.
 
Social Security is funded by a 6.2 percent payroll tax on the first $106,800 earned by a worker. The tax is matched by employers. The package negotiated by Obama would reduce the tax paid by workers to 4.2 percent for 2011
Payroll tax cut worries Social Security advocates - Yahoo! News

Questions for liberals and/or supporters of The Obama:

-Do you believe that this 2% increase in take home pay will have a measureable, positive effect on the economy?

-Do you believe that this 2% increase in take-home pay is, in real terms, a significant benefit to whom it applies?

Please be sure to explain your responses.

It is one of the best taxes to cut because it lowers the cost of hiring. The lower the cost to hire employees, the more business will hire.

However, it cannot be permanent because it would impair social security.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top