On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:28:58 -0800, Mason C wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:12:05 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwlr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>But, none of your argument sup****ts the suspension of FICA as a means of
>>stimulating the economy, and it does not change my argument that FICA
>>taxes are a direct benefit to those that pay them -- assuming Social
>>Security lasts long enough for people to collect after paying in for a
>>lifetime in the work force.
>>
> What connection is there between the FICA tax and the payment of Social
> Security?
>
> They are completely independent of one another.
>
> Note that the SS payments exceed the FICA tax collected. How is that
> possible? Simple. There is no connection between them.
>
> (Well, ok, there is a political-psychological connection.)
>
> Before you try to discuss this, take a little time to read Mark Adkin's
> explanation of trust funds.
>
> "How Government Trust Funds Really Work"
>
> http://frontal-lobe.info/adkins.html
>
> Mark wrote that essay several years ago. I thought I had called
> attention to it earlier here but may have misfired the post.
>
"When a federal trust fund is credited with more income than outgo (as is
the case with Social Security), the trust fund "balance" increases."
That quote is from your link above. It says that FICA tax proceeds
exceed the current payouts to SS recipients. And that _is_ the case.
Nonetheless FICA tax proceeds are used to pay current recipients and
there is a SMALL amount added to the SS trust fund each month. There is
a connection but there does not need to be a connection.
More im****tantly FICA taxes are __**NOT**__ a direct benefit to those
that pay them.
|
