Robert F. Martina: Repeal onerous taxes on Social Security benefits
Comments
- FILED UNDER
- Opinions
- Guest Columnist
Social Security benefits have been cut as much as 30 percent already!
In 1993, Democrats passed a string of tax increases to balance the budget. This reduced interest rates and the economy took off, balancing the budget with higher revenue from increased taxes coupled with higher revenue.
Among these was a tax on 85 percent of Social Security benefits and taxes on the top 2 percent. As a responsible citizen, I could understand this and took my medicine. We all had to pitch in to balance the budget, which was at record deficit levels courtesy of the voodoo economics Reagan administration, which cut taxes even after its budget director told them he made a mistake in his calculations and significant deficits would occur. (By the way, he — Richard Stockman — recently was against the extensions of the George W. Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent.)
In 2001, with a Clinton budget surplus, Bush and the Republican Congress cut taxes for the top 2 percent but "forgot" about senior citizens receiving benefits. He and the Republican Congress did it again in 2003, against his Treasury secretary's advice warning him it would result in huge deficits. Obviously, Bush was taking care of his rich contributors; yes, elections do have consequences.
Which group should have gotten the tax cuts first, the top 2 percent or all senior citizens receiving Social Security? I say it should have been all senior citizens, which would have included those in the top 2 percent who would be receiving a tax cut of as much as about $8,000 a year (more if a married couple with both receiving) but nowhere near what they got with the other so-called top 2 percent tax cuts for the rich. This would have spread the money to a much wider base and done a lot more for the country's economy.
These taxes on Social Security on the other 98 percent can range from 0 to about $6,500, depending on other income, pensions, etc.
Before any more cuts to Social Security are even considered, either the taxes on Social Security should be rescinded or the tax cuts on the top 2 percent should be allowed to expire, leveling the field. (They already have theirs and have had the benefit of these cuts for eight to 10 years.)
Social Security benefits have been cut as much as 30 percent already!
In 1993, Democrats passed a string of tax increases to balance the budget. This reduced interest rates and the economy took off, balancing the budget with higher revenue from increased taxes coupled with higher revenue.
Among these was a tax on 85 percent of Social Security benefits and taxes on the top 2 percent. As a responsible citizen, I could understand this and took my medicine. We all had to pitch in to balance the budget, which was at record deficit levels courtesy of the voodoo economics Reagan administration, which cut taxes even after its budget director told them he made a mistake in his calculations and significant deficits would occur. (By the way, he — Richard Stockman — recently was against the extensions of the George W. Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent.)
In 2001, with a Clinton budget surplus, Bush and the Republican Congress cut taxes for the top 2 percent but "forgot" about senior citizens receiving benefits. He and the Republican Congress did it again in 2003, against his Treasury secretary's advice warning him it would result in huge deficits. Obviously, Bush was taking care of his rich contributors; yes, elections do have consequences.
Which group should have gotten the tax cuts first, the top 2 percent or all senior citizens receiving Social Security? I say it should have been all senior citizens, which would have included those in the top 2 percent who would be receiving a tax cut of as much as about $8,000 a year (more if a married couple with both receiving) but nowhere near what they got with the other so-called top 2 percent tax cuts for the rich. This would have spread the money to a much wider base and done a lot more for the country's economy.
These taxes on Social Security on the other 98 percent can range from 0 to about $6,500, depending on other income, pensions, etc.
Before any more cuts to Social Security are even considered, either the taxes on Social Security should be rescinded or the tax cuts on the top 2 percent should be allowed to expire, leveling the field. (They already have theirs and have had the benefit of these cuts for eight to 10 years.)
No comments:
Post a Comment