Reply #8: it sure looks like a tax [View All]

[sweetheart]

Frankly, on my paychecks, i've always seen this as a "tax" as it was
money the government was taking away, just like federal, state and
other tax.

I'm not talking about changing the "payout" side of social security.
Clearly, it is just that the public provide for its own.

The question is, why achieve this with a regressive payroll tax?
As richer people (and white folks) tend to live longer, the poor are
taxed and the rich get the benefits over the long haul. Not only
that, but with the FICA ceiling, the poor pay the bulk of the tax
that is pooled in the end of things.

So if we're pooling tax revenue for a social program, then what is
the difference with simply calling teh whole lot an expense to the
federal budget, and not get so hung up on the revenue mechanism?

One one hand, DU is patently against a consumption tax because it is
regressive, whilst supporting a payroll tax that is totally regressive, punishing the poor who will not live long enough to
collect, the folks who's only source of income is always taxed.
Rich folks get dividends interest and other revenue that is not
covered by this tax, so they are able to circumvent it, and if
their income is above the ceiling, there as well.

Why can't we be for social fairness, making sure that all people have
healthcare and social security, like military security? I don't
see any military-security payroll tax, where the country is protected
by charging the poor... no it seems that where collective security
is critical, republicans don't mind pooling and chipping in, just
where they consider it unimportant, they dump it on the paycheques
of those of lesser means.

I don't agree with privatization, and am not suggesting that in the
least, nor do i agree with scrapping social security benefits. Rather i see increasing them for those who are impoverished under
the current system as the brookings article of post 5 mentions.

But why link it to a regressive tax?