No more Social Security payouts starting in 2023 under Trump's payroll tax elimination plan

[aociswundumho]

Trump has promised to permanently terminate the payroll tax if he gets re-elected. Which would also eliminate Social Security's ability to pay out benefits starting in 2023.

No, it wouldn't. Eliminating one extremely regressive tax does not mean Social Security payments would stop. Suggesting that would happen is ludicrous, but typical of the political left's intellectual dishonesty.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Moderate Right]

You have a short memory. The Dems passed large scale Medicare reforms a decade ago, saving the program nearly a trillion dollars since then (not to mention increasing its revenues as well). Running against those savings is what won the GOP its majority in 2010:

Ads Use Medicare Cuts as Rallying Point (2010)


Greedy Geezers?



The Dems saved the program. Looks like they'll have to do the same for Social Security, again, if Trump gets a chance to take his wrecking ball to it.

2010? Really? Since 2010 both programs have been on a course of running out of money. Why do Democrats want seniors to die penniless?

 

[Greenbeard]

2010? Really?

Really! Nearly a trillion saved, even as benefits were expanded. Resulting in very high Medicare beneficiary satisfaction today.

Opposed by the GOP, of course, so they could try and wring political advantage out of attacking the "cuts."

Now the GOP wants to defund Social Security. Par for the course.

 

[Moderate Right]

Really! Nearly a trillion saved, even as benefits were expanded. Resulting in very high Medicare beneficiary satisfaction today.

Opposed by the GOP, of course, so they could try and wring political advantage out of attacking the "cuts."

Now the GOP wants to defund Social Security. Par for the course.

Since 2010 both programs have been on a course of running out of money. Why do Democrats hate seniors so much?

 

[VySky]

There shouldn't be any need to "fund" social security. That money was supposed to be placed in a seperate fund that was only used to fund social security payments to those who paid into it. Why is that not the case?

It's been a slush fund for Congress over decades

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social Security's Chief Actuary confirms in a letter to members of Congress that if we permanently eliminate the payroll tax next year as Trump has proposed, the trust fund will go broke and no longer be able to pay benefits sometime in 2023.



That's some re-election platform!

You realize that the letter says that no one is proposing this idea. Here is another part of the letter :

When we in the Office of the Chief Actuary receive a request from one entity for an estimate regarding a proposal made by another entity, our policy is to ask the entity who made the proposal if they would like us to prepare an estimate for them directly. I am not aware that anyone has proposed the hypothetical legislation you describe. Therefore, I am answering your questions here based on the specifications you have provided.

So the Democrats have requested a scoring on a proposal that no one has made. Did they ask for the SSA to score Biden's proposal, which you actually have some insight. No. This is shameless political propaganda at its worst.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

In that very video, he said it would be paid for out of the General Fund. You'd think that Democrats would support this, since the payroll tax is highly regressive.

Odd that you would mention it : (mother jones)

Seriously, We Should Get Rid of the Social Security Payroll Tax – Mother Jones

SSA's scoring of Democratic proposals which use the general fund :

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/JLarson_20200715.pdf "All of these costs would be reimbursed from the General Fund of the Treasury on an annual basis. "

 

[calamity]

Social Security's Chief Actuary confirms in a letter to members of Congress that if we permanently eliminate the payroll tax next year as Trump has proposed, the trust fund will go broke and no longer be able to pay benefits sometime in 2023.



That's some re-election platform!

I suspect his ball washers will defend this.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I suspect his ball washers will defend this.

Yeah, the same ball washer that you claim is an expert.

When we in the Office of the Chief Actuary receive a request from one entity for an estimate regarding a proposal made by another entity, our policy is to ask the entity who made the proposal if they would like us to prepare an estimate for them directly. I am not aware that anyone has proposed the hypothetical legislation you describe. Therefore, I am answering your questions here based on the specifications you have provided.

half of your post he is an expert. The other half he is a ball washer.

 

[MaryP]

Trump has promised to permanently terminate the payroll tax if he gets re-elected. Which would also eliminate Social Security's ability to pay out benefits starting in 2023.



And given that the GOP's official platform is now to support whatever Trump wants, that means Social Security is in real trouble if he wins.

Yeah, but he was also going to roll out a big immigration plan that was going to make a lot of people very happy, and a beautiful health care plan, too. Both should have been here by now. Why does anyone take anything this guy says seriously anymore? Trump doesn't even try to be believable anymore. He's got a very frazzled army of staff behind him, doing the clean up while he merrily makes up his wildest "if I were king of the world" plans.

 

[Craig234]

This fits standard Republican shock doctrine practices.

Long-standing desire to reduce and kill Social Security, use the crisis of the virus to justify measure to cut its funding.

 

[Greenbeard]

You realize that the letter says that no one is proposing this idea.

They say nothing of the sort. They merely point out no one has introduced legislation yet. But Trump has indeed publicly said he intends to permanently eliminate the payroll tax next year if re-elected.

Since the GOP platform is now officially to support whatever Trump wants, legislation will undoubtedly be forthcoming if the GOP has any power next year. Hopefully they will not.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yeah, but he was also going to roll out a big immigration plan that was going to make a lot of people very happy, and a beautiful health care plan, too. Both should have been here by now. Why does anyone take anything this guy says seriously anymore? Trump doesn't even try to be believable anymore. He's got a very frazzled army of staff behind him, doing the clean up while he merrily makes up his wildest "if I were king of the world" plans.

His lies tend to be be about doing anything constructive (infrastructure, health care, immigration reform, etc.) Certainly he never has actual plans about anything that might help anyone.

But he tends to be telling the truth when he proposes to try and do destructive things (banning Muslims, undoing the protections of the ACA, terrorizing immigrants, etc.) There’s no obvious reason to lie about intending to defund Social Security in an election year.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Odd that you would mention it : (mother jones)

Seriously, We Should Get Rid of the Social Security Payroll Tax – Mother Jones

SSA's scoring of Democratic proposals which use the general fund :

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/JLarson_20200715.pdf "All of these costs would be reimbursed from the General Fund of the Treasury on an annual basis. "

So what are the lefties freaking out over? That Trump stole their idea?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

They say nothing of the sort. They merely point out no one has introduced legislation yet. But Trump has indeed publicly said he intends to permanently eliminate the payroll tax next year if re-elected.

Since the GOP platform is now officially to support whatever Trump wants, legislation will undoubtedly be forthcoming if the GOP has any power next year. Hopefully they will not.

First, let's quote the expert that you cited in the first place. ".I am not aware that anyone has proposed the hypothetical legislation you describe. " Actually, he does say that no one is proposing it. The "hypothetical legilation" comes from 4 Democratic members of Congress who took a single quote from Trump (ignoring all others) and built a proposal for the SSA to score.

The high-road for you is "I didn't read the document, and do not know what its contents mean". That is where you are.

 

[independentusa]

I do know that. Since the Democrats were in charge for the lion's share of that time, you should be asking them why they ****ed it up.

I did mention that both parties have borrowed the money, but I do not think one party or the other was more guilty. In the end, the government took the money WE put in to help defray the cost of the programs and now the GOP just wants to say, so what, it has been spent and we are not going to pay it back as well as stopping the taxes so we can close down the entire programs. Tough sh*t for all of those who depend on the programs.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I did mention that both parties have borrowed the money, but I do not think one party or the other was more guilty. In the end, the government took the money WE put in to help defray the cost of the programs and now the GOP just wants to say, so what, it has been spent and we are not going to pay it back as well as stopping the taxes so we can close down the entire programs. Tough sh*t for all of those who depend on the programs.

No one is saying that we aren't going to pay it back. The trustees' forecast does not allow for a penny of bad debt. The Trust Funds hold 2.9T. About 2.2T is interest and nearly 800B is general fund subsidies. This is revenue that the government put into Social Security. The math is simple. Every penny ever contributed to Social Security has been spent.... on retirees.