Resolved: The first $2000 of Social Security tax should be eliminated.
Someone earning $20,000 per year pays about $1500 in payroll taxes, and another $1500 is paid by his employer. (If the person is self-employed he pays the entire $3000.) If I am elected this total tax bill will be reduced by $2000. (Whether the savings come from employee or employer portions can be ignored for now; it is a detail of secondary importance.)
My proposal will have several advantages:
[ul]
[li] It will represent, in effect, a $1 per hour wage hike for everyone. A wage hike that will not be paid by the employer; instead it will encourage hiring.[/li][li] It’s a step in the direction of Basic Income, an idea which is gathering support. Yes, it’s targeted at workers specifically rather than everyone; but workers have costs that the unemployed do not have: commuting costs, childcare, etc. It is a step toward Basic Income that incentivizes work rather than sloth.[/li][li] It is extremely simple. Some steps toward income equality require new bureaucracies, fraud preventions, etc. My idea will require only a trivial change to payroll software, and perhaps a new line on Form 1040.[/li][li] The programs funded by payroll taxes, in particular Social Security, would function exactly as before. Individuals would be credited with the (up to) $2000 not paid. The shortfall in the SocSec Trust Fund would be made up from other government revenue (see below).[/li][/ul]
This idea is so simple, so useful, and so correct that I’m astounded only I am proposing it. (I guess other politicians cannot take time away from their busy schedule of deciding whether our AR-15s need 15-bullet magazines, or if 14 bullets are enough.)
The lost funding will have to come form somewhere, right? Yes.
Unlike most of the people who call themselves Fiscal Conservatives™, I am actually a fiscal conservative. When all my programs {A,B,C,…} are passed, the fiscal effect ΔA + ΔB + ΔC + ΔD + … will NOT increase the deficit. Just the opposite, in fact; I want ΔA + ΔB + ΔC + ΔD < 0 to reduce the deficit and reverse the huge debt accumulation due to the corrupt policies of the so-called “Fiscal Conservatives™.”
For example, one might imagine two expensive programs (A,B) and two tax hikes (C,D), which would balance out: ΔA + ΔB + ΔC + ΔD = 0. However, experience has shown that simpler arithmetic is needed (ΔA + ΔB = 0), to conform with a sophomoric understanding of “revenue neutrality.” Thus, I mention a large carbon tax, perhaps in a ballpark to work out to $1 per gallon of gasoline. This should be at least enough to match the SocSec shortfall. But please start a new thread to debate carbon tax; this is an independent matter mentioned here only to expunge whingeings about “revenue neutrality.”
Would a carbon tax eat up the $2000 SocSec savings of workers with very long commutes, very inefficient vehicles, or with high home-heating needs? Sure! But that’s the very purpose of a carbon tax: to create a strong disincentive against the behaviors that threaten to ruin our habitat, to account for the otherwise-unafforded destruction of our commons.
So. Who will join me in a call to eliminate the first $2000 of SocSec tax? This is a good simple idea, which should gain traction. Let’s not let the Rs jump on the idea while the Ds are preoccupied with irrelevant trivia.
(A zombie thread was recently revived, stimulating this OP.)
I am saddened when I witness this level of thinking. I am as cynical as most, but I try to spend my cynicism wisely, not on preposterous gibberish.
Yes. Note that Buffet’s paying at a lower rate than his secretary doesn’t have anything to do with his massive unrealized gains. He pays a lower rate than his secretary on his salary and realized gains. Right-wingers like to shriek and whine and pretend disbelief when presented with this uncomfortable fact, but it is simple truth. The $2000 rebate I propose will help address this iniquity.