Social Security and Medicare deductions are not changing from the Trump tax cut

[depotoo]

The difference being? Those iou’s aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. And under which administration was that ok’d?

...but what about the Children and the elderly?!

They’re all going to die because of Trump!

Trump is Hitler!

It is interesting to see the dysfunction of our political debates. Both sides are pure ideology, without any interest in fact. As much as the critics of tax reform complained about the impact on Social Security, none of them raised the actual real issue. If you reduce middle class taxes, you will reduce the revenue that is collected for both Social Security and Medicare from the taxation of benefits. While that may be fair depending upon your ideology, it is going to mean that Social Security will hit insolvency sooner and with greater force.

Now that is an AMAZING statement. Are you actually trying to convince anyone on here that these programs are funded by the amount of income tax paid on the benefits-)

If that is the case; praytell, then why do they take huge chunks of money DIRECTLY out of our paychecks pointed at these programs for direct funding by the populace?

Show us.........use any link you like............that the TAXES paid from the income that these benefits generate, are put right back into the program.

In fact, show is the direct deductions we pay are put in a lock box for future use, and NOT into the general fund.

Please, help educate us-)

They are not put into the general fund as revenue. The general fund BORROWS from the trust funds in the form of treasury securities, must pay interest on them, and owe the principal they borrowed to the trust funds.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

In fact, show is the direct deductions we pay are put in a lock box for future use, and NOT into the general fund.

Please, help educate us-)

You seem like someone interested in details. This piece looks at the actual cashflows of the program. Here is the sad fact. Every penny of excess contribution ever borrowed has been spent on one program : Social Security. This piece walks you through the details of that statement. We want to believe in the theft because it is much more palatable than the option that the promises of politicians we elected over decades were over-promises. We were suckers.

The Myth of the Missing Social Security Trust Fund : FedSmith.com

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

...but what about the Children and the elderly?!

They’re all going to die because of Trump!

Trump is Hitler!

It is interesting to see the dysfunction of our political debates. Both sides are pure ideology, without any interest in fact. As much as the critics of tax reform complained about the impact on Social Security, none of them raised the actual real issue. If you reduce middle class taxes, you will reduce the revenue that is collected for both Social Security and Medicare from the taxation of benefits. While that may be fair depending upon your ideology, it is going to mean that Social Security will hit insolvency sooner and with greater force.

Now that is an AMAZING statement. Are you actually trying to convince anyone on here that these programs are funded by the amount of income tax paid on the benefits-)

If that is the case; praytell, then why do they take huge chunks of money DIRECTLY out of our paychecks pointed at these programs for direct funding by the populace?

Show us.........use any link you like............that the TAXES paid from the income that these benefits generate, are put right back into the program.

In fact, show is the direct deductions we pay are put in a lock box for future use, and NOT into the general fund.

Please, help educate us-)

They are not put into the general fund as revenue. The general fund BORROWS from the trust funds in the form of treasury securities, must pay interest on them, and owe the principal they borrowed to the trust funds.

Elaborate on what "They" means. Social Security hasn't generated enough revenue to cover its bills since 2010. That means that there isn't anything to "put" anywhere.

 

[AntonToo]

Really you don't understand the OP? Well let me help you guys out. This is a typical response from Democratic leadership about the GOP tax bill:
Larry Summers said the Senate tax bill will kill 10,000 people each year. The truth is worse.

Yes, because they will not have insurance they otherwise would have, due to ACA mandate scrap.

Nothing to do with OP.

 

[depotoo]

You want to scare people, rather than deal with the fact the budget deficit has to be reduced by less spending by our government, period. In other words reduce the governmental budget that has been out of hand for decades now.

And you also fail to mention that revenue will be increased by tax cuts. More money in the economy via spending increases revenue.

...but what about the Children and the elderly?!

They’re all going to die because of Trump!

Trump is Hitler!

It is interesting to see the dysfunction of our political debates. Both sides are pure ideology, without any interest in fact. As much as the critics of tax reform complained about the impact on Social Security, none of them raised the actual real issue. If you reduce middle class taxes, you will reduce the revenue that is collected for both Social Security and Medicare from the taxation of benefits. While that may be fair depending upon your ideology, it is going to mean that Social Security will hit insolvency sooner and with greater force.

Now that is an AMAZING statement. Are you actually trying to convince anyone on here that these programs are funded by the amount of income tax paid on the benefits-)

If that is the case; praytell, then why do they take huge chunks of money DIRECTLY out of our paychecks pointed at these programs for direct funding by the populace?

Show us.........use any link you like............that the TAXES paid from the income that these benefits generate, are put right back into the program.

In fact, show is the direct deductions we pay are put in a lock box for future use, and NOT into the general fund.

Please, help educate us-)

Most people do not realize that the taxation of benefits (a) is recycled specifically to Social Security and Medicare (b) targets the middle class. I assume that you know these things particularly if you pay the taxes.

I can cut and paste or you are free to look-up the details in articles I have published.

The taxation of revenue is a small amount now, but it is projected to grow rapidly. It is a vital channel of revenue for Social Security because it is free cash. The money you are talking about is kick-the-can revenue because every dollar in creates a promise of more than a dollar out in the form of future benefits.

The tax cuts ignore this impact on Social Security’s finances

If that is the case; praytell, then why do they take huge chunks of money DIRECTLY out of our paychecks pointed at these programs for direct funding by the populace?

Show us.........use any link you like............that the TAXES paid from the income that these benefits generate, are put right back into the program.

In fact, show is the direct deductions we pay are put in a lock box for future use, and NOT into the general fund.

Please, help educate us-)

That piece has some analysis on top of the numbers. Do you want links directly to the Trustees Report.

See "Taxation of benefits"

B. TRUST FUND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS IN 2016

In fact, show is the direct deductions we pay are put in a lock box for future use, and NOT into the general fund.

Please, help educate us-)

That report shows you that we contributed $836.2 billion and expensed $922.3. That means that the program spent more than it collected. There is nothing to put a "lock box" and hasn't been for 7 years.

 

[initforme]

Trump promised many times that social security Medicare and Medicaid will never be touched during his presidency. He cannot go back on this and he would lose the election big time id he even thought of it. Rightfully so.

 

[Preacher]

Really you don't understand the OP? Well let me help you guys out. This is a typical response from Democratic leadership about the GOP tax bill:
Larry Summers said the Senate tax bill will kill 10,000 people each year. The truth is worse.

I think the number will be higher. It's what happens when millions lost healthcare.

And never mentioned is the FACT that 87% of lost manufacturing jobs were automated and we have a record 6 million jobs unfilled because people don't have the skills. With the GOP gutting education, the ONLY way those jobs will be filled is with educated immigrants.

Survey: GOP business executives want immigrant workers, not voters

Republicans just too stupid for words. They have no idea the damage their leadership is creating.

LMAO GOP gutting education. You mean the GOP education secretary pushing for ALL children to be able to attend charter schools via school choice? Democrats don't want that because that includes INNER CITY children who if educated enough realize the democrats USE THEM as a voting bloc and then dismiss them until the next election. Democrats HATE educated people its why they go after braindead liberals and people they can control via social benefits...

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Semantics, but I suppose you are technically correct. Point is though, the money is not there, it is gone.

But that still does not address the other point which is---------->taxes on income paid from these programs, have no fiscal tie to funding the programs themselves, meaning his point is ludicrous. The only funding mechanism counted is-----------> what they deduct, or we pay directly to fund the program.

I thought that you said post any link, and I pointed you to the Trustees Report for the Social Security Trust Funds. Are you calling the Trustees 'ludicrous'?

 

[imawhosure]

In fact, show is the direct deductions we pay are put in a lock box for future use, and NOT into the general fund.

Please, help educate us-)

You seem like someone interested in details. This piece looks at the actual cashflows of the program. Here is the sad fact. Every penny of excess contribution ever borrowed has been spent on one program : Social Security. This piece walks you through the details of that statement. We want to believe in the theft because it is much more palatable than the option that the promises of politicians we elected over decades were over-promises. We were suckers.

The Myth of the Missing Social Security Trust Fund : FedSmith.com

Well then, when you put it that way, I sort of agree with you.

On the other hand, since I already knew that S.S. and Medicare were in the red, then politically, they either need to change the rate of the funding mechanism, or cut spending elsewhere and transfer it to the program.

You seem highly intelligent, so I assume we both know these programs were going to run into trouble in their current form, years, and years ago; in fact, America was warned of this exact thing. As usual, Washington kicked the can down the road, and here we are.

Tax rates over all, is not the way to address the issue though, unless of course we want to rid ourselves of those pesky deductions built in to fund them, and add the tax burden directly into the general.

That does not seem exactly fair!

Why?

Because then people of low income would not contribute much of anything towards their own benefits that they received at a later date. We already have programs like that, they are called welfare!

If they want to increase the funding, then ok, change the taxes paid directly from our pockets, and then EVERYONE is affected, then let the conversation begin nationally, on how to balance the inputs, and the outputs. In this manner, ALL are affected, and not just some. I am sure, this will increase participation in the national debate.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

In fact, show is the direct deductions we pay are put in a lock box for future use, and NOT into the general fund.

Please, help educate us-)

You seem like someone interested in details. This piece looks at the actual cashflows of the program. Here is the sad fact. Every penny of excess contribution ever borrowed has been spent on one program : Social Security. This piece walks you through the details of that statement. We want to believe in the theft because it is much more palatable than the option that the promises of politicians we elected over decades were over-promises. We were suckers.

The Myth of the Missing Social Security Trust Fund : FedSmith.com

Well then, when you put it that way, I sort of agree with you.

On the other hand, since I already knew that S.S. and Medicare were in the red, then politically, they either need to change the rate of the funding mechanism, or cut spending elsewhere and transfer it to the program.

You seem highly intelligent, so I assume we both know these programs were going to run into trouble in their current form, years, and years ago; in fact, America was warned of this exact thing. As usual, Washington kicked the can down the road, and here we are.

Tax rates over all, is not the way to address the issue though, unless of course we want to rid ourselves of those pesky deductions built in to fund them, and add the tax burden directly into the general.

That does not seem exactly fair!

Why?

Because then people of low income would not contribute much of anything towards their own benefits that they received at a later date. We already have programs like that, they are called welfare!

If they want to increase the funding, then ok, change the taxes paid directly from our pockets, and then EVERYONE is affected, then let the conversation begin nationally, on how to balance the inputs, and the outputs. In this manner, ALL are affected, and not just some. I am sure, this will increase participation in the national debate.

This may be a duplicate post. You are asking a lot of good questions. I appreciate your kind words. The fact is that I am not educated. I have researched the program for 5 years, and simply read the Trustees Report as part of it. I find that I am wrong on a regular basis, and these exchanges help me target language that people more broadly understand.

Cutting elsewhere and transferring to Social Security creates massive problems for the program.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

If they want to increase the funding, then ok, change the taxes paid directly from our pockets, and then EVERYONE is affected, then let the conversation begin nationally, on how to balance the inputs, and the outputs. In this manner, ALL are affected, and not just some. I am sure, this will increase participation in the national debate.

This is an excellent observation, one that scares the daylights out of me. Today the discussion is largely diffused over a wide range of hyperbolic cliches, ones that we really haven't thought through. Your comment suggests a national discussion that will break through a lot of foundations that we hold for the program, like LBJ stole the money. When you have an audience of voters pushed off the sidelines into facts as you are suggesting, the outcome is unpredictable. That discussion is coming.

 

[imawhosure]

If they want to increase the funding, then ok, change the taxes paid directly from our pockets, and then EVERYONE is affected, then let the conversation begin nationally, on how to balance the inputs, and the outputs. In this manner, ALL are affected, and not just some. I am sure, this will increase participation in the national debate.

This is an excellent observation, one that scares the daylights out of me. Today the discussion is largely diffused over a wide range of hyperbolic cliches, ones that we really haven't thought through. Your comment suggests a national discussion that will break through a lot of foundations that we hold for the program, like LBJ stole the money. When you have an audience of voters pushed off the sidelines into facts as you are suggesting, the outcome is unpredictable. That discussion is coming.

FACTS are the breastmilk of solution. I still contend that our government has duped us by hiding as much as possible, of how funding happens for anything they do not want us to know about.

Partisanship has no bearings on facts, only the solutions.

At least, if we all found out we needed to absolutely inject 2 trillion into something within 10 years, we could begin a discussion on how to do it. You may not like my solutions, nor me yours, but to fix something, we at least would "make it happen!"

This partisan wrangling on what we actually need is ridiculous! We need that number, then let us start finding the money to fund it!


Either that, or change the damn program, recalculate, and come up with a solid, new number.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

If they want to increase the funding, then ok, change the taxes paid directly from our pockets, and then EVERYONE is affected, then let the conversation begin nationally, on how to balance the inputs, and the outputs. In this manner, ALL are affected, and not just some. I am sure, this will increase participation in the national debate.

This is an excellent observation, one that scares the daylights out of me. Today the discussion is largely diffused over a wide range of hyperbolic cliches, ones that we really haven't thought through. Your comment suggests a national discussion that will break through a lot of foundations that we hold for the program, like LBJ stole the money. When you have an audience of voters pushed off the sidelines into facts as you are suggesting, the outcome is unpredictable. That discussion is coming.

FACTS are the breastmilk of solution. I still contend that our government has duped us by hiding as much as possible, of how funding happens for anything they do not want us to know about.

Partisanship has no bearings on facts, only the solutions.

At least, if we all found out we needed to absolutely inject 2 trillion into something within 10 years, we could begin a discussion on how to do it. You may not like my solutions, nor me yours, but to fix something, we at least would "make it happen!"

This partisan wrangling on what we actually need is ridiculous! We need that number, then let us start finding the money to fund it!


Either that, or change the damn program, recalculate, and come up with a solid, new number.

You have reached nirvana. The only place where I disagree is partisanship has significant influence on "facts", because the media is not doing its job. Today the subject is largely mired in polarized standstill because we can't agree upon the facts. One side says that Social Security drives the deficit. The other claims it can't. Facts today are determined by the amount of repetition a sound-byte gets. I started Fix Social Security Now (since folded) which was dedicated to pushing the discussion of Social Security into the public eye on honest terms. It is largely a failure because of the ability of partisanship to create facts of convenience.

We need to ask what is the program supposed to do? Frankly I do not see the point in making SS a welfare program. We have dozens of those, and do not need more. Frankly, do not see making the program a system of personal accounts. We have dozens of those which are already tax incentivized. Until we have a discussion of what the program is suppose to do, you can't have a figure that it will take to get us there.

 

[imawhosure]

If they want to increase the funding, then ok, change the taxes paid directly from our pockets, and then EVERYONE is affected, then let the conversation begin nationally, on how to balance the inputs, and the outputs. In this manner, ALL are affected, and not just some. I am sure, this will increase participation in the national debate.

This is an excellent observation, one that scares the daylights out of me. Today the discussion is largely diffused over a wide range of hyperbolic cliches, ones that we really haven't thought through. Your comment suggests a national discussion that will break through a lot of foundations that we hold for the program, like LBJ stole the money. When you have an audience of voters pushed off the sidelines into facts as you are suggesting, the outcome is unpredictable. That discussion is coming.

FACTS are the breastmilk of solution. I still contend that our government has duped us by hiding as much as possible, of how funding happens for anything they do not want us to know about.

Partisanship has no bearings on facts, only the solutions.

At least, if we all found out we needed to absolutely inject 2 trillion into something within 10 years, we could begin a discussion on how to do it. You may not like my solutions, nor me yours, but to fix something, we at least would "make it happen!"

This partisan wrangling on what we actually need is ridiculous! We need that number, then let us start finding the money to fund it!


Either that, or change the damn program, recalculate, and come up with a solid, new number.

You have reached nirvana. The only place where I disagree is partisanship has significant influence on "facts", because the media is not doing its job. Today the subject is largely mired in polarized standstill because we can't agree upon the facts. One side says that Social Security drives the deficit. The other claims it can't. Facts today are determined by the amount of repetition a sound-byte gets. I started Fix Social Security Now (since folded) which was dedicated to pushing the discussion of Social Security into the public eye on honest terms. It is largely a failure because of the ability of partisanship to create facts of convenience.

We need to ask what is the program supposed to do? Frankly I do not see the point in making SS a welfare program. We have dozens of those, and do not need more. Frankly, do not see making the program a system of personal accounts. We have dozens of those which are already tax incentivized. Until we have a discussion of what the program is suppose to do, you can't have a figure that it will take to get us there.

Well, I disagree with you on part of the 2nd sentence, but that is about all I disagree with.

Facts are facts, especially numbers. Problem people like you and I have is..........that instead of them giving us a total, honest picture, both sides cherry pick tidbits to fit their narrative. And what do people then do? They go to the site that fits their political beliefs, then tout it as pure gold. Why don't they just go to the actuary's, and get the REAL projections, with all the pertinent information? (in all fairness to others, I didn't either, and shame on me)

I am a conservative, but not a stupid one! (although, many on the left would claim that if you are conservative, you have to be stupid by definition, lol) When I see a Republican touting a graph, or projections on anything or any topic that I am relatively sure is false, I just do not post. Figure if they want to use propaganda and cherry picked information to make a point, it is their credibility, not mine.

But then, when a Leftist posts the same thing, I of course do my utmost to disprove their false narrative, lol.

Cherry picking goes on from both sides, as we both know.

Real quick, gotta tell ya------------> about a week ago a thread was started on tax cuts by someone who at this time, I can't remember the moniker. Anyway, someone posted a chart that was 100% opposite of everything I knew through research was true in the thread. It was 100% legitimate, it really was, and so I studied it, studied, and studied it more. It took me almost 2hrs to figure out how in the hell they had drawn that conclusion, and the whole time it was right at the top of the chart, lol. Tunnel vision I guess, by me!

So anyhow, with your posts, I learned something new today. Don't care if you lean left or right, more interested in facts. Carry on, and thanks again!