20Gauge
TB Fanatic
Where are those commercials where they push old people off the cliff. We needs those back!!
ECON I will disobey Trump's Payroll Tax EO to defund social security
- Thread starter Bicycle Junkie
- Start date
20Gauge
TB Fanatic
You just did southern!!!
For those who don't speak southern...... one person called the other an idiot....... lol...... I love southern.
20Gauge
TB Fanatic
That will only happen if the Dems win.
CaryC
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Hummmm don't they already do that? Like showing your gross income on your pay stub? Even with direct deposit we always got a stub.
Just saying.
Most employers will continue to withhold the money until a decision is made to either make people pay it back or forgive the debt. Large employers have already said this is what they will do.
As far as discontinuing it permanently that would in effect dissolve social security and no one wants that. It is suicide to even bring the suggestion up in the government.
If any of these EOs go to the Supreme Court, Trump would lose because he doesn't have the Constitutional power to do any of this. The thing that he has going in his favor is that it will take months to get to the Supreme Court, and the election would be over by then and he would have accomplished his goal of an end run around Congress to get money to the people. In the short term (up to election) he wins. Once it hits the Supreme Court it's a different story.
20Gauge
TB Fanatic
I disagree partially........
Unknown about the large employers. The wife works for one and we will know in the next two weeks on that one.
If it is discontinued permanently it will not discontinue SS. SS is paid for out of the general fund. The myth that politicians are promoting is that there is a "special tax" that funds it. Not true since 1969. Congress gave the additional income tax a special name so that people would accept higher tax rates. IE: call if a tax for SS and it goes into a fund and people will support it. Though this is not the case.
As far as EOs go. A year ago I would have agreed, but with the DACA thing, I am no longer so sure. Here is an unlawful law that the Supremes have allow to continue.
SmithJ
Veteran Member
I disagree. Most employers (ESPECIALLY larger employers) are going to follow whatever the Treasury department guidance is and what the forms say to do. Anything else opens them to liability issues that they will not want.
For instance, Treasury says don't withhold SS - Employer A decides they will withhold anyway just because whatever;
January 20, 2021 arrives and congress waives repayment of taxes not withheld. But no credit / mechanism for credit if taxes were withheld.
Employer A receives notice of Class Action Lawsuit demanding payment of lost benefit to their employees totaling $10,000,000.
Nah, most businesses won't take that chance. They will follow Treasury guidance, whatever that turns out to be.
Actually the Social Security Fund is a separate account. Funds collected are used to pay out benefits due. Excess money go into the general fund for which a government bond is issued to SSA. When not enough SS taxes come in to pay for benefits these bonds are used to make up the difference.
For the last 30 something years SS trust fund income has exceeded outgo.
This year or next that will change and difference will be made up with interest on government bonds owned by SS. Eventually this will disappear and the fund will no longer have any reserve to draw on. It is projected that this will happen by 2034. If no action is taken by the government it is estimated at that time that benefits will be reduced to around 76% of what people had been getting. That money would be coming from the current SS taxes and be paid immediately back out to beneficiaries.
Here's a graph.
Here is a more complete synopsis:
How Do the Trust Funds Work?
Social Security’s financial operations are handled through two federal trust funds — the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund and the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund. Although legally distinct, they are often referred to collectively as “the Social Security trust fund.” All of Social Security’s payroll taxes and other earmarked income are deposited in the trust funds, and all of Social Security’s benefits and administrative expenses are paid from the trust funds.
Social Security is largely a “pay as you go” program, meaning today’s benefits are funded primarily by the payroll taxes collected from today’s workers. For over three decades, however, Social Security collected more in payroll taxes and other income than it paid in benefits and other expenses, and the Treasury invested the surplus in interest-bearing Treasury securities, ultimately reaching a total of nearly $2.9 trillion in trust fund reserves. In 2021, Social Security will begin redeeming those reserves to help pay benefits. Payroll taxes from current workers will continue to pay for the bulk of benefits. The trust fund reserves will make up the difference between income and costs until the reserves are depleted. At that point, Social Security’s income will still be able to pay 79 percent of promised benefits — even in the unlikely event that policymakers fail to act.
What Is the Trust Funds’ Financial Status?
If Social Security’s trust funds run out of Treasury bonds to cash in, benefits would not stop — contrary to a common misunderstanding.
Social Security is adequately financed in the short term but faces a modest long-term financial shortfall amounting to about 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 75 years, the period that the program’s actuaries use in evaluating the program’s long-term finances. Following the bipartisan Social Security financing deal in 1983, Social Security has run a surplus every year, and will continue to do so until 2021.
Starting in 2021, Social Security’s total cost will exceed its total income. However, the trust funds’ reserves will supplement the program’s income — from payroll taxes, income taxes on benefits paid to higher-income beneficiaries, and interest earned on the trust funds’ bonds — to enable Social Security to keep paying full benefits until 2035.
If Social Security’s trust funds run out of Treasury bonds to cash in, benefits would not stop — contrary to a common misunderstanding. At that point, if nothing else is done, Social Security could still pay 79 percent of promised benefits using its annual tax income. Of course, paying less than full benefits is not an acceptable way to run this vital program, and Congress will need to act to strengthen its long-term finances.
Most analyses of Social Security focus on the combined OASI and DI trust funds, since both are integral parts of Social Security, but the two trust funds are, in fact, separate. The DI trust fund faces exhaustion in 2065, and the much larger OASI fund is projected to last until 2034.
Sorry to say, but I think any action will be termporarily held off by some liberal judge in the 9th until it reaches the SC which in all likelyhood will be after the election.
I could be wrong, but we will know in a month or so.
Please let us know if your next paycheck increases.
20Gauge
TB Fanatic
This is exactly what the politicians do to confuse and bring us into conflict. In 1969 they abolished the fund. For purposes of being able to fleece us more they have kept "books" showing how the fund is doing. This allows them to raise taxes as needed, add additional taxes and set the ground work to reduce benefits later on if needed.
Thus a few years ago, (when?) we got the medicare tax.
At some point we will get a tax increase and a benefit decrease.
Yet all the money goes into the big treasury bucket and comes out of that same bucket. Congress sets what can and will be paid each year. Though they have been pushing this off to the SS admin. Even the bit about having only xx of the budget being disposable income and the balance being fixed is a bit of misinformation. There are no fixed costs associated with the annual budget. Each year's is budget is determined by Congress.... though they do cheat on this also.
For purposes of ease, Congress allows the Executive branch to set the payouts for SS. etc under their guidence. This gives Congress cover when they do have to change things. The laws you cite are only cover and applicable as long as Congress allows them to do so. Tomorrow a bill can be passed that is signed by the President that allows for a 90% reduction in SS payouts. It would be legal. The same Congress has given the Executive branch the ability to raise Medicare charges to SS receipients to 100% and thus eliminating the benefit. They don't do to political reasons only.
Look at your benefits under SSA.gov it says benefits are not promised, but projected. This is their way of saying it can and will change at any point in time.
SmithJ
Veteran Member
Sorry to say, but I think any action will be termporarily held off by some liberal judge in the 9th until it reaches the SC which in all likelyhood will be after the election.
I could be wrong, but we will know in a month or so.
Please let us know if your next paycheck increases.
Realistically, you may be correct related to court action on the payroll tax portion - On the rest I personally believe that the point will be moot because Congress will come to an agreement in the next few weeks and supersede the EOs.
CaryC
Has No Life - Lives on TB
If not then, the election will play a big part.
intothatgoodnight
. . .
Partially correct - smart move, for the time being - however, I would simply set the correct amounts aside, in new, separate accounts, until clarity exists.
This issue is FAR from being "settled."
intothegoodnight
Last edited:
intothatgoodnight
. . .
intothatgoodnight
. . .
Disagree. Social Security and Medicare would NOT be dissolved by making this permanent. It would merely mean that those programs would be underfunded and leaning heavily towards insolvency.
Congress would HAVE to either touch the third rail and scale back SS and Medicare, OR, find the money necessary to replenish the quickly depleting SS/Medicare account balances by drawing from other non-essential programs/funding sources.
Sounds like a win-win move, to me.
Pundits would remind us that the Obama-era DACA EO **somehow** passed muster recently, where it was tested in the Supreme Court.
Team Trump noted this DACA case ruling, and applied that case "logic" to these latest Trump EOs - whether they could stand up, like DACA, to a full Supreme Court ruling remains to be seen - but a good tactical move by Team Trump, nonetheless.
More win-win.
intothegoodnight
I agree
Actually the Supreme court did say Obama's DACA was illegal, but instead of abruptly halting and deporting they invited the plaintiffs to resubmit with a workable plan.
Only until the election.
Social Security recipients are a unified voting block when it comes to their benefits, of 67 million people.
They will vote out of office or push for impeachment of any candidate for any office who threatens their gravy train.
For the last 30 years Social Security has operated at a profit. They collected more taxes than benefits paid out. Every day excess funds collected are invested in special government security bonds which are identical to Treasury Bonds with the exception that they cannot be traded on the open market and the interest and value are fixed until redeemed by the Trustees of the Fund.
If I recall correctly, right now there are over 2 trillion dollars in such bonds waiting to be redeemed when FICA taxes fall short of benefits being paid out.
Eliminate the SS trust fund and the government essentially steals 2 trillion dollars in owed debt and puts it in the general fund where it cancels out 2 trillion in US debt.
Yes, the social security US bonds are actual US debt.
Cancel debt such as bonds owned by China and you get war. Cancel debt owed to 67 million Americans and you get political bloodshed. The third rail analogy doesn't quite cover what would happen to the politicians that would do that. And they know it.
Sorry but your "win win" is more "feeelz good" instead factual
intothatgoodnight
. . .
We will have to agree, to disagree.
You failed to explain why forcing Congress to potentially scrounge SS and Medicaid funding shortfalls from other non-essential government pots of money/programs is not a useful tactic for Team Trump to employ.
Care to enlighten?
intothegoodnight
Lone_Hawk
Resident Spook
By the time the Government figures it out and my payroll provider figures it out, it will be December 2023.
20Gauge
TB Fanatic
So for all intents and purposes, it is legal as they did not stop the program.
cwr
Senior Member
Where my dh used to work many tried not to pay taxes. The IRS made a visit to the place of employment. They had a sit down with all that were involved. My dh was not involved. It was interesting to watch it unfold. Wish I could remember the outcome. It was years ago.
BUBBAHOTEPT
Veteran Member
Well, by next Summer we might be in the middle of a conflict of the Democratic Party War of Aggression..... Just Sayin..... 
people think there is a big social security piggy bank in Washington where their social security savings is kept.
there isn't.
defund is defined as withdraw funding from.
fund is a pool of money which is set aside for a specific purpose.
social security in a financial obligation established by law. the law is what establishes the funding.
it cannot be defunded.
A new law can be passed . . . and that would have to be signed by the president.
it does not simply become defunded because they run out of money like stubbing your toe on the curb
threatening your social security is a time tested Democrat campaign strategy.
there isn't.
defund is defined as withdraw funding from.
fund is a pool of money which is set aside for a specific purpose.
social security in a financial obligation established by law. the law is what establishes the funding.
it cannot be defunded.
A new law can be passed . . . and that would have to be signed by the president.
it does not simply become defunded because they run out of money like stubbing your toe on the curb
threatening your social security is a time tested Democrat campaign strategy.
Doomer Doug
TB Fanatic
Still more high quality fake news 
from cnn.
from cnn.
Mama Ten Bears
Veteran Member
Helpful thanks!
West
Senior
Fine with me.
At least untill I get at least what me and my employer(me again) have already paid into the corrupted thieving system.
The only fair way is to write checks to all who has paid into the system what they have paid. After that to bad to sad.
Shut the system down, and end all income taxes!
At least untill I get at least what me and my employer(me again) have already paid into the corrupted thieving system.
The only fair way is to write checks to all who has paid into the system what they have paid. After that to bad to sad.
Shut the system down, and end all income taxes!
I understand there is no pool of money-seems there might have once been but that long ago got Porked away.
Bridges to Nowhere kind of shit.
Defunding could also imply that, the Sources that Fund it-I.E., Payroll Taxes and such no longer exist so it has no money coming in.
I am not panicking or freaking out simply trying to get a bit more info on something that was brought to my attention-I only go on CNN's Yootube channel to give them 'Dislikes' and smack them around with Truth-usually everyone else is doing the same thing there too.
The only fair way is to write checks to all who has paid into the system what they have paid.
Fair? You think Uncle Scam will be FAIR? Oh, it would be nice to get back the years that I paid in before I signed on as a civil serpent at Ft. Rucker and ditched SS like a hot potato, but I expected that to be a writeoff then and still do.
Fair? You think Uncle Scam will be FAIR? Oh, it would be nice to get back the years that I paid in before I signed on as a civil serpent at Ft. Rucker and ditched SS like a hot potato, but I expected that to be a writeoff then and still do.
Let me tell you about bullshit.
THIS EXACT QUESTION was hyperventilated upon by another member not more than two weeks ago. AT LENGTH.
SEARCH is your friend. It works here. Try it.
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
Close, but not quite. Better (more precisely, less bad) would be to just shut the whole thing down completely right now. This would stop future damage the most thoroughly, and is what the Justice System does when private Ponzi schemes get uncovered.
Last edited:
Yeah. I've thought about that as well and do not think it would be a Bad thing in the long run, however, in my situation it would be a Death sentence. Not that That would be a bad thing but I'd still like to observe the crumble a bit longer tho I am getting bored. And it would make West happy and I like West.
West
Senior
See with that attitude, you would be okay.
I've often mused that there's way to many easier government and private sector jobs that disabled people could do that are currently filled by able bodied people.
If there was next to no mandated payroll liabilities and no income tax, jobs would be everywhere.
Would muse that you would do really good at a customer service representative or alike, where you can work from home off your custom employer provided PC. For more monies your getting now.