Why is restoring the cut the payroll tax for social security benefits a tax increase if the money is eventually paid back to beneficiaries, and in many cases in amounts more than what is paid in.  I'm sure the argument is that you could make more money if it were invested differently.  The assumptions made about this and many other long term investments are really oppen for discussion.

I don't want to get snarky with anyone but for many, this is their retirement money and their only retirement money.  Until they means test people regarding paying people benefits, I'm in favor of as much money going into the trust fund for as long as possible, so that benefits can be paid for as long as possible.  Many people are unable to self fund their retirement and the alternatives are not pretty.

Comments

  1. I think the phrase "money is eventually paid back to beneficiaries" is not necessarily true. The trust fund is just credits issued when revenues exceed payments. The treasury must borrow funds to reclaim the credits. Beneficiaries are beginning to outnumber the ones paying in. Immigration and higher birth rates would help. Means testing indicates some payors will never benefit so that is a tax increase for them. For us, the government could just lower the benefit and presto no borrowing needed to reclaim credits. I taking my benefits now. The future for SS seems very shakey.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There may need to be adjustments to the program to make sure the intergenerational pass through will continue. My parents received much more in benefits or cash than they ever paid into the system. Whether that will continue is dicey, but I think continuing the 2% reduction of the payroll tax would have been unwise regardless of the immediate impact that it will have on workers paychecks. Medicare is a much larger problem and more difficult problem to solve.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Two Months and Eight Days

Internet Dust Ups

What Is Official These Days?