Advocacy

Restore 2% Social Security- Cut income tax 4%

 

“Now that we have two months to work things out let’s do the right thing. Restore the 2% tax money back into the Social Security Fund, set up the fund as a separate entity not to be mixed with the rest of the budget and make sensible changes to keep it sound.” said Dan Weber, AMAC’s president and founder.

He went on to say if the leaders from both political parties were serious about getting the economy going again they would replace the 2% ‘tax holiday’ on Social Security with a 4% across the board tax cut for all wage earners earning under $250,000 per year.

“It does not make sense to short Social Security at a time it is headed for insolvency; instead we should stimulate the economy by doubling the money in the hands of working Americans.” He said.

AMAC recently completed a poll that showed an astounding 95% of the respondents favored doing away with the tax holiday, clearly stating it was more important to keep Social Security in good financial condition than it was to give a small tax break.

Weber reminded his 250,000 member organization that there were several intelligent proposals to strengthen Social Security announced after the so called Super Committee issued its report, including one proposed by AMAC that featured a three year set back in the age requirement along with a new Social Security IRA.

The reasons that Social Security is in trouble is because people are living a lot longer than they used to and there are now only three workers paying for one person receiving benefits. In the past there was 16 workers paying in for each recipient. That is not the fault of Republicans or Democrats but what happens when demographics comes into play.

“There is no better time than during these marvelous holidays of Christmas and Hanukkah that we should be willing to replace anger with friendship and come together, if even for a few days to achieve meaningful results for our country.” Weber concluded.

Read more articles by Daniel C. Weber

Leave a Reply

65 Comments on "Restore 2% Social Security- Cut income tax 4%"

Notify of

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Frederick Rusian
4 years 1 month ago

Thank You, every commenter, for your involvement in this very important issue before us this election year of 2012 ! You are letting our elected officials aware of the voting decisions that need to take place in this needed turning point to ” Change Big Business As Usual In Washington”. May The Good Lord Bless Everyone With Longevity, Amen !

Fenia
4 years 5 months ago

they look all proud and happy right now but let’s see how proud and happy they look when they can’t provide a sacoil security card when they try to get unemployment (now in this harsh economy) or when they try to get retirement or disability when they’re older .SLAP!

Gaas
4 years 5 months ago

The Republicans are finally ntteigg the big government spending on immigration that they wanted from Bush. Bush was all about borrowing and spending BIG but, only if the money was leaving the US for Iraq or going to US war profiteers. That and the loosey goosey mortgage giveaways to the financial industry for he Bush program The Ownership Society

Luca
4 years 5 months ago

The Nazi’s were smarter on who they kept track of. I raclel them tattooing their numbers on their prisoners. We live in a society, it is called that because humans have to depend on each other to live. I would love to see these morons try to live alone away from society.Be warned without a license myself if they took that away I would try to drive. I am blind, and on medication, so yeah let me drive! LOL

Holly S
4 years 7 months ago
We need to face facts: Social Security is an actuarily unsustainable program that only lasted as long as it has because of the baby boomers born following WWII. These were the workers who filled the Social Security coffers with stacks of money that allowed congress to increase benefits over the years to well over and above amounts paid in by recipients. (Average senior citizen receives every penny they and their employer plus interest paid into the program within 5 to 6 years of retirement and yet they collect checks on average for 15-20 years and more seniors are living well into their 90s than ever before, collecting for 30+ years.). And government has availed themselves of the money, spending it on all sorts of projects. Nearly every president since the plan has begun has “borrowed” money from the program. Now that those baby boomers have begun to retire, expecting the… Read more »
Ronnie Tanner
4 years 7 months ago

I believe that unless we get rid of Speaker Boener we will never achieve our goals of cutting government spending
and less government. I am a Goldwater Republican who is very disappointed with where both parties are taking
the country. My wife and I have been very active in the local Republican orginazation and are very distressed
at what we see happening to our freedoms. I want someone who represents us to kick A and take names.if
things are not achieved. When I was in college people who represent us now in the Republican party would
have been called WINNIES.

Bill Thomas
4 years 7 months ago
I like lloyd’s comment ” SS is the cookie jar of Washington”. It is but one of many I’m afraid. Washington IS the problem but how do we change what seems so obvious? Most everyone can see the truth behind the politics but Washington, including the presidency, has become such a self sustaining entity that nothing short of the 2nd coming is going to have any measurable impact. A honest person with integrity and the welfare of their constituents at heart would be ineffective in Washington in fulfilling their duties. The so called politics often described as a career now vs public service requires a lot of deal making and compromising of ethics to adequately represent their states and districts. That’s the way it starts until new law makers are fully assimilated into government service. If we’re totally honest about “politics” the problem exists at most levels in state and… Read more »
Charles Orr
4 years 8 months ago

Our Social Security withholding does not go to the Social Security fund. Congress spends that money as if were in the General Fund. So increasing the tax 2% does nothing for Social Security solvency. The mantra for 2012: “It’s NOT more taxes, its LESS spending.”

Raymon Sprayberry
4 years 8 months ago
Social Security Should not be in the budget. The people that are drawing social security checks paid for that check when they were working. Roosevelt started stealing the money to balance the budget in 1929. and the government has not stopped putting the money from social security into the general fund and spending it on every thing but what it was collected to pay for. Most of the people that know the truth about social security must be dead now but I know what happened to the money.If you pay the I O U’S that the government owes the social security fund, There would be no reason to tax social security. IT IS OUR MONEY. THE GOVERNMENT TOOK OUR MONEY AND SPENT IT AND NOW THEY CAN NOT PAY IT BACK. THEY HAVE PUT PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR RUNNING SCHEMES LIKE THAT. I AM A MEMBER OF AMAC AND I… Read more »
Cathy
4 years 8 months ago
We are headed for an economic disaster in this country, and it may already be too late. Too many citizens feel that government should take care of them and continue to vote these people into office. The government has proven that it cannot run anything as all you have to do is look at their track record: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Post Office, and the railroads. They are all going bankrupt. People have been forced to pay into Social Security all their working lives unless they were government employees. Now they are being threatened that they may not get their full benefits or as Obama threatened when the debt ceiling was being debated. Interesting, that Obama threatened the seniors but no one else in this debacle. They are also giving benefits to the illegal immigrants as they are trying to buy votes with the Hispanics. Did you know that… Read more »
Rachel Verdon
4 years 8 months ago

There is something far more insidious going on here with MEDICARE ADVANTAGE; a merger between Big Government and Big Business. As the Public Option gains ground, MEDICARE ADVANTAGE is paving the way for a complete government nationalization of the health insurance industry.

We are witnessing the evolution of “The Third Way,” a semi-socialization of the private sector, virtually 1/6th the US economy. In the long run, are we safer with MEDIGAP as a supplement in the private sector than MEDICARE ADVANTAGE in the public sector? Or should we scrap Medicare altogether? At what point do we lose our individual sovereignty over our own body?

Rachel Verdon
4 years 8 months ago
Response to Richard Gill, You write: “The money taken from employees in the scam of ‘Social Security’ was STOLEN from them by our ‘public servants’ under the completely illegal system of ‘General Fund Accounting’… If all the monies collected had been invested…” Yes, if all the money collected had been invested in private personal accounts, we would all retire as multi-millionaires. As you pointed out, there is not a dime in the SS Trust Fund; SS is $100 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt of unfunded liabilities and Medicare is $600 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt of unfunded liabilities according to the lectures of Prof. John C. Goodman in “IMPRIMIS.” Have you investigated the SS plans operated by Chile and 30 other countries? What a success story, where the private retirement accounts reinvest money back into the private sector, creating a 10% economic growth rate. The South Americans have discovered capitalism while North… Read more »
Holly S
4 years 7 months ago
I’ve long wondered why we haven’t changed over to the privatized plans that Chile and other countries have been so successful with. But reality is that democrats do an excellent job of fear-mongering with senior citizens which scares the beejeevies out of republicans who fear their re-election chances if they touch Social Security or Medicare…the two Holy Grails of politics. It’s the best reason for instituting term limits because then re-election wouldnt have such a stronghold over the necessary changes this country needs to survive. To this point, we have run-up 60 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlement obligations and we cannot even attempt to pay this. Obama waves his hand and says tax increases on the top 2% will take care of everything but it doesn’t. Not even if the government took every single penny and asset of the top 2% would it pay for even a small amount of… Read more »
Peter Lanigan
4 years 8 months ago
It`s interesting to note that the promise of social security has evolved into being called an entitlement.While one could certainly have a reasonable expectation that the people supervising the program wouldn`t jeapordize it`s solvency to the citizens who have payed into it all their working lives.When politicians refer to old age insurance promise as an entitlement,they make it sound like the folks who have lived long enough to collect some of the funds that were taken from them all their working life are now a gift from the Gov`t that you are burdening them with and you think your entitled to receive.They should give serious consideration to looking at the entitlements such as the pensions and medical umbrellas they have conveniently squirrelled away for themselves.Years ago,this kind of irresponsible behavior by a person in office would have found them in stocks,in the public square,being tarred and feathered,shamed,and referred to as… Read more »
ChuckL
4 years 8 months ago
Sorry Dan, but you are wrong. Social Insecurity is a WELFARE program. It was passed under Franklin Delano Roosevelt in violation of the constitutional powers granted to the congress under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Social Security is supposed to be an Insurance program, a lifetime annuity. As originally proposed, it was, with the funding coming from a tax upon wages to buy the annuity. Then with the collaboration of the congress FDR changed the system and allowed the congress to try its hand at managing an insurance company. The congress has failed miserably. There is no reliable existing company that has without consideration of the consequences added additional products and payouts without also increasing the income. BUT, the congress did this to what was a solvent social welfare program designed to keep people off of the state welfare programs. As it is now implemented, Social Security is… Read more »
Rachel Verdon
4 years 8 months ago
ChuckL, You write regarding Social Security reform: “It can be saved, but NOT as it now exists. It must be privatized over approximately 20 years. To do this it must be means tested. It must give control of the investments to the person from whom the money is taken… Less than ½ of the current taxes collected would provide for an accumulation of well over ½ million dollars during the normal working life of an American worker. If this only earned 5%, that would equal an annual income of $25,000 without touching the principal.” If we common people can do the math on our own kitchen tables, surely our Congressmen can, too. Why are the Liberals deliberately sabotaging the American economy while we give Red China First Nation Trade Status and ship half our economic base overseas? Why are we using Nixon and Clinton’s Detente to display Communism as a… Read more »
Ed Watkins
4 years 8 months ago

One thing we should all get straight. The Social Security “contribution” is not a tax. Democrats have insisted for 75 years it is a “contribution” to an “insurance plan”. Now, for political purposes they call it a “tax” and AMAC and the GOP allow them to set the terms of the debate. Barack Obama can call himself a “tax cutter” and move Social Security closer to becoming a complete welfare plan fully controlled by the government. This so-called “tax cut” is a raid on the so-called “trust fund”. AMAC and the GOP should call Democrats on it. But, it seems, AMAC’s and the GOP’s thinking is not deep enough to distinguish the difference. Democrats win. Again.

Archie Wallace
4 years 8 months ago

SS was a ponzi scheme when it was set up. Even FDR used some of the funds in WW 2 to help pay for munitions but paid it back with war bond money. There were several other plans on the table that were more responsibly crafted but the current mess was adopted. The so-called “Fund” is paperwork shuffling and does not really exist, our money goes into the General fund and is paid out of the same. In the meantime politicians from both parties lie through their teeth saying “SS is safe, nothing is going to happen to it.” With the Fed trying to reduce the debt by increasing inflation and the idiots we’ve elected trying to bring us to the one world Government of the progressives, I think we need more tea partiers in D.C. at least they believe in OUR Constitution not the former Soviet unions.

J Jeffrey
4 years 8 months ago

I think the 2% reduction in what is taken for Social Security serves a two-fold political purpose. 1) The politictians look good because of the “minor” take home increase. 2) With less going into the pot for Social Security it will be in more trouble, causing them to “need” to reduce benefits paid out. What gets me is they have or want to give benefits to illegal aliens. Also they claim Social Security and Medicare are “entitlements”. If you are employed or self-employed you pay into both. I earned my meager Social Security benefits. I wish we got the same percentage of a raise that our self-serving polititians get.

Paul
4 years 8 months ago

I don’t look at Social Security as an entitlement. I am a senior citizen getting my Social Security monthly payments. I have put my hard earned money into it for over 40 years.And now when I am taking part of it out they are calling it an entitlement. Imagine if You put a certain amount of money in a bank and get an average 5% a year interest for 40 plus year. Then when you start taking it out, the bank would tell you it is an entitlement you can not take it out. Not only that but after you die the bank keeps the rest of your money.
It is a Ponzi scheme

David
4 years 8 months ago

Paul I happen to agree with you, I’ll be 65 Years old this year and my children have been after me to retire. I’ll keep on working till age 66. The answer is not raising the retirement age, look at the insurance industry and the money it would cost me to buy a policy at my age, Why. We need to remove the SSI trust fund out of the general fund. lock it down for the use that it was intended. Why haven’t the democrats or the republicans including Mr Newt done so a long time ago. They make millions, and don’t have to worry about retirement. look at Barney Frank need I say more. I wish their was Something I could do for all the young people coming up, including my Grandchildren. Thank you all for such fine letters and that you have a blessed 2012 Year.

Jerry
4 years 8 months ago

I understand the working people are getting the short end of things, and Government workers are getting the cream, Big business bail outs are cleaning up. What I don’t understand is why working people not welfare people keep voting all these fine gentlemen back in office.

pop
4 years 8 months ago

it was L.B.J who signed the bill to use ssi money for whatevet!

Marvin Wilson
4 years 8 months ago

I beg to differ on your comment of why social security is going broke because people are living longer. I believe the reason SS is going broke is that SS is paying out bennifits to too many people who have not paid into SS. Giving benifits to disabled people for disability because if self inflicted dissabilities such as drug or alchol abuse. Social Security should be only for those who paid into it. Government employees who do not pay into SS should not be allowed to set the rules of how SS funds are used. You never hear of the government sponcerd retirement plans being used to support other social woes, Why should SS Funds always be used.

wpDiscuz