Revenue Bill of 2005

[Emsworth]

Revenue Bill of 2005

1. All recipients of Social Security benefits who have an individual reported income of above $75,000 or a household income of above $140,000 shall no longer receive social security benefits.

2. If at any point one of the above said recipient's income should suddenly drop below the above said income, they should immediately notify the Social Security Administration.  If the said person's income has actually dropped, then their social security benfits shall resume immediately.

3. Upon the signature of the President, this bill shall take immediate effect.

Sponsor: Sen. True Independent
Co-Sponsor: Sen. Colin Wixted

[Emsworth]

I would oppose the means-testing imposed by this bill. The people in question have paid into the Social Security System for much of their lives; now, we would suddenly deprive them of what is rightfully and justly theirs.

Thus, I am against this measure.

[Emsworth]

Does Sen. True Independent wish to propose the amendment?

[Emsworth]

Why can't it be optional for everyone, rather than people earning a certain amount of money?  I don't see why we should pick and choose like this.  If someone is making $54,000 annually, why are they forced to continue paying into the Social Security program, while someone making $56,000 is given the ability to opt out?  And if someone who was earning $54,000 but then receives a pay raise never wanted to pay Social Security in the first place, does he get his money back once he is able to opt out of the program due to his increased salary?

If I read the amendment correctly, the opting out is not of the whole program. Rather, only receiving payment is optional; paying the taxes is not. Basically, this is supposed to offer a way to people making more than $55,000 to refuse to get S.S. checks and thereby boost the exchequer.

[Emsworth]

Fine, here's the new amendment:

Clauses 1 and 2 are hereby changed to read:

1. All recipients of Social Security benefits shall optionally receive social security benefits.

2. If at any point a former recipient shall again like to receive social security benefits, they shall contact the Social Security Administration, at which point their benefits shall resume the next month.

The question is on the above amendment. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

[Emsworth]

Can I withdraw the amendment?  I'd rather have this one:

Clauses 1 and 2 are hereby changed to read:

1. All recipients of Social Security benefits shall optionally receive social security benefits.  If a person chooses to no longer receive social security benefits, they shall no longer have to pay taxes.

2. If at any point a former recipient shall again like to receive social security benefits, they shall contact the Social Security Administration, at which point their benefits shall resume the next month.

The amendment is withdrawn, then. I'll postpone a vote on this new amendment, as it hasn't been debated yet.

[Emsworth]

Can I withdraw the amendment?  I'd rather have this one:

Clauses 1 and 2 are hereby changed to read:

1. All recipients of Social Security benefits may have the option provided on every social security check of no longer receiving social security benefits.  If a person chooses to no longer receive social security benefits, they shall no longer have to pay taxes.

2. If at any point a former recipient shall again like to receive social security benefits, they shall contact the Social Security Administration, at which point their benefits shall resume the next month.

EDIT: Emsworth, I changed the language slightly, no substantial changes though.

The question is on the above amendment. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

[Emsworth]

With six Ayes, one No, and one abstention, the amendment is passed. 

[Emsworth]

Here's the amendment:

Section One is hereby changed to:

1. All recipients of Social Security benefits may have the option provided on every social security check of no longer receiving social security benefits.  If a person chooses to no longer receive social security benefits, they shall no longer have to pay social security taxes.

I'm really not sure if we need an amendment, or we could just change it.  The whole Senate knew what was meant, so couldn't the PPT or VP just change on their own?

If there is no objection, the technical amendment is adopted without a vote.

[Emsworth]

1. All recipients of Social Security benefits may have the option provided on every Social Security check of no longer receiving Social Security benefits.  If a person chooses to no longer receive Social Security benefits, he shall no longer have to pay Social Security taxes.

2. If at any point a former recipient shall again like to receive Social Security benefits, he shall contact the Social Security Administration, at which point his benefits shall resume the next month.

3. Upon the signature of the President, this bill shall take immediate effect.

The question is on final passage; all those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

[Emsworth]

With six Ayes, the bill has enough votes to pass; Senators have 24 hours to vote or change their votes.

[Emsworth]

There have voted:
Aye: 6
No: 2

The bill is passed and presented to the President for his signature.

[Emsworth]

I hereby veto this legislation.

Does Sen. True Independent wish that the Senate consider a veto override, or does he wish to withdraw the bill?

[Emsworth]

The question is on overriding the President's veto. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

[Emsworth]

I think it's becuase I mentioned I was surprised he didn't veto the Arts bill, so maybe he felt the need to veto someone.

I can assure the Senator that this is not the reason. I believe that the problem with this bill was that it might not actually raise revenue. It allows people to opt out of paying payroll taxes, and the lost tax revenue might outweigh any savings we make in terms of benefits.

[Emsworth]

After reviewing how Social Security works, I can't immediately see how anyone receiving Social Security benefits would be paying taxes, given that Social Security kicks in when a person retires.

That's not necessarily always the case; Social Security includes survivors' benefits. A surviving spouse or child could choose to stop receiving SS benefits, and not pay taxes at the same time. Furthermore, the bill appears to presume that people who receive SS benefits will be paying taxes.

[Emsworth]

With three noes and an abstention, there can be no two-thirds majority. Senators have 24 hours to vote or change their votes.

[Emsworth]

There have voted:
Aye: 5
No: 5 (including 1 abstention)

Therefore, the President's veto is hereby sustained.

I would like to note my extreme dismay that a tie vote emerges exactly at the moment when it is not necessary to break it.