Will cuts to payroll tax later be used as evidence Social Security benefits need to be cut?

[yurbud]

Poll question: Will cuts to payroll tax later be used as evidence Social Security benefits need to be cut?

In principle, I'm not opposed to the payroll tax holiday for employees and businesses, but since Wall Street has such a hard on for ending Social Security and getting their hands on that trust fund, it seems more likely that cutting the payroll tax will more likely be used as an excuse to cut benefits rather than the rate being restored or changes made to strengthen it like lifting the cap as Bernie Sanders proposed.

I wonder what other people think though.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Of course this is the precursor to bad things in store for SS.

Just the other day I was talking to a young person & told him that 2 years ago, I would have told him he was completely wrong in his belief that SS wouldn't be there for him, but I could no longer offer that assurance.

[JoePhilly]

3. Same thing was being said in the 80s and 90s.

[ibegurpard]

11. you got it

[indepat]

2. The answer is just as obvious as "does the sun rise in the east?"

:patriot:

[FrenchieCat]

4. No, it would not.......

First, the payroll tax holiday allows general funds to replace any money not being paid into social security. Over the short run, since it provides needed funds to workers, it is worth it considering the state of our economy.

Now, if this were to become a permanent tax holiday, then yes, it could hurt....but it isn't anything that lifting the current cap wouldn't solve. Lifting the cap is something that could be passed IF we work TOGETHER to take back the house and solidify our senate majorities and re-elect this President.

Now if we DON'T WORK TOGETHER, then it doesn't matter what is done now, because the Republicans will surely cut benefits to social security, no matter what is being suggested or not via this payroll tax holiday.

In addition the payroll tax for business is limited.

The payroll tax holiday for employers would be limited to the first 5 million dollars in payroll.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/09/08/economists-react-gauging-impact-of-obama-jobs-proposal/

I am self employed, and do accounting for small businesses. There is one in particular which employs about 100 employees, most who are students at a nearby college.

So this employer would save $42,000+ for the year with the Payroll tax cut proposed. that is an employer that would hire additional employees, and meeting payroll is their biggest burden. Why would it be bad for them to receive an incentive to hire? They are not a large corporation...they are three people that started a catering company.

I have another business that I do accounting for, and currently, they have an offer and compromise sitting to be processed with the IRS, because they got behind on the payroll taxes. If they aren't able to negotiate something reasonable for them to pay, they will have to shut their doors. They employ about 40 employees. Those employees would become unemployed.

of course, anything can be used as evidence of anything these days, so your question isn't really asking anything of substance.......
Just a way to discourage folks from supporting this jobs bill...which again, the Republicans say, thank you.

[Hoyt]

6. Good points. Payroll tax "holiday" could be precursor to raising cap.

[demwing]

12. Right, because "anything can be used as evidence of anything these days"

As FrenchieCat so aptly stated

[JoePhilly]

10. +1

[Autumn]

5. What I do know is that for years I have heard

the republicans say that SS is underfunded. Now our politicians have raided that fund to pay for their pet projects, and you know damn good and well it's not going to be paid back. Now employees and employers are getting a payroll tax holidays or what ever they are called. Seems that means less money is going in to the SS fund which under funds it more.

Now you can call me fucking crazy but this whole thing seems like a republicans wet dream. They can point to the fact that it's under funded and fucking give our money to Wall Street, with a little help from their friends, the ones who are on "our" side.

[quaker bill]

7. The rate increase did nothing

to stop the right from clamoring for benefit cuts, the rate reduction will do nothing to stop them either. It is just what they do.

In a good economy, you cut taxes and benefits, in a bad economy, cutting taxes and benefits are the solution, if it is raining, cut taxes, if it is sunny, cut benefits, if it is snowing, cut regulations, taxes, and benefits, if it is windy, reduce bureaucracy, heartbreak of psoriasis? cut taxes, constipation? reduce benefits...

[bornskeptic]

8. What kind of spineless liberal bases policy on fear of Republican talking points?

Thr Republicans will always have talking points, but nobody except the greedy rich and their Teabagger dupes will care if part of Social Security funding comes from general revenue, like in "Socialist European countries". Food Stamps, SSI, WIC, Medicaid, 75% of Medicare Part B, and over half of Medicare Part D are financed from general revenues. Of course subsidies for Oil Companies and corporate farms and funding for military bases in coubtries that have been our allies for 65 years are as well. Any politician who tried to argue that a fraction of Social Security funding coming from the general fund was a reason to cut benefits would be laughed into oblivion.

[Telly Savalas]

9. No matter what policies are adopted now

there will be some jackass in five years that will use it as evidence that a bad idea needs to be implemented.

If we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan fully, won't that provide evidence that we have the resources available to put boots on the ground in Libya and Pakistan?