Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Bunning Amendment just failed

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-25-07 02:52 PM
Original message
The Bunning Amendment just failed
Edited on Thu Jan-25-07 02:53 PM by underpants
51 votes against -I didn't hear the pros count

The Bunning Amendment (Jim Bunning R-Ky.) has been put up many times and it always fails. It would have cut the tax on Soc.Sec. benefits and wages over $34,000 for single and $44,000 for couples FROM 85% back to the 50% it was before being raised in 1993. Soc.Sec. benefits were originally taxes in 1983 (Reagan signed it).

The Bunning Amendment would have "cost" $200 Billion in lost tax revenue.

http://www.cincypost.com/2005/03/25/edita032505.html

Until 1993, the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation was limited to 50 percent. That year Congress -- struggling to shore up the Medicare health care program for seniors -- raised the cap to 85 percent. That doesn't mean seniors pay an 85 percent tax rate on their benefits. It means that, at most, 85 percent of their Social Security benefits are subject to the income tax at whatever rate they pay on their other income.

The Bunning amendment would re-establish the cutoff at 50 percent for Social Security recipients with income of more than $34,000 or couples making more than $44,000.


IT was on C-Span2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-25-07 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. And I was afraid Paris Hilton was gonna lose her tax cut ...
there is a God!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-25-07 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Bad news for middle-class retirees. Good news for the wealthy. Their tax cuts are protected.
The middle class ispaying the taxes so the wealthy don't have to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-25-07 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. Isn't Social Security double-taxed?
Aren't taxes paid at the time payments are taken out of paychecks?

So why are they taxing it a second time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-25-07 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. This is why I won't do a Roth IRA
My Accountant was trying to sell me on a ROTH IRA because you pay the taxes now and don't pay later... I said, really? Wasn't that the concept of Social Security???

Nuff said!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-25-07 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. No, they are not.
SS and FICA are deducted independently from income taxes. with sufficient deductions, one may owe zero income taxes but the amount of "FICA" wages are still subject to "payroll" taxes.

Winger idiots somehow think the services of the government can be supplied magically, with no financial input at all. A pleasant but fatal illusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-25-07 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. Jim Bunning (R - Still Ambulatory)
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC