Revenue Bill of 2005

[Gabu]

People pay the tax for Social Security purposes in the assumption that they'll be getting money back later.  This bill would essentially change that specialized tax into simply more taxes on what they earn by moving the Social Security money into other government functions (I assume that this is what would happen).  If we want to raise taxes on the weathier people in Atlasia, the least we could do is be upfront about our intentions instead of sort of getting it through the backdoor through this maneuver.

I could support this if it also said that those with incomes above $75,000 or a household income above $140,000 no longer pay into the Social Security fund and that those who already have paid into it can get back what they have paid, but not as it is right now - and that most likely would not have the effect of raising revenue, as I assume this bill is meant to do.

[Gabu]

Fleming v. Lucas

I don't know what this is a reference to, so I can't respond to it.

The money saved would not necessarily go to other government programs.  This money would probably go to help balance the budget (I may need to add that as a clause).

Either is the same deal, as my point is still the same; it's still essentially raising taxes on wealthier people by cheating them out of the money that they've been paying into Social Security for much of their life.  If a private company was running something along the lines of Social Security, and it suddenly decided that it was going to just take their clients' money and not give them anything in return because they needed to increase their earnings, can you imagine what the magnitude of public outrage would be?

[Gabu]

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

Wait, this statement makes no sense.  A recipient is one who receives something.  This is essentially saying that anyone who receives Social Security benefits shall optionally receive Social Security benefits... which they're already receiving.

[Gabu]

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

Wait, this statement makes no sense.  A recipient is one who receives something.  This is essentially saying that anyone who receives Social Security benefits shall optionally receive Social Security benefits... which they're already receiving.

How about "may have the option provided on every social security check of no longer receiving social security benefits".

Ah, okay, that makes more sense.

[Gabu]

Ok.  I'm fine with this.  I look forward to saving a very miniscue amount of money.

Yes, given that this bill, with the proposed amendment, is basically just asking people for donations to the government, I doubt it will exactly raise a lot of revenue... but that's better than what it initially did, at least.

[Gabu]

Aye.

[Gabu]

Could someone post the bill in its present form please?

Revenue Bill of 2005

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.

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

[Gabu]

The phrase "they shall no longer have to pay taxes" is ambiguous.  Shall they no longer pay income tax as well?

Good point.  Why didn't you say something before voting occurred (or did I miss it?)?

[Gabu]

Aye, I guess.

[Gabu]

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.  Therefore, I don't see how this bill will do anything other than allow people to effectively donate money to the government by refusing Social Security benefits upon retirement.

So, with that in mind...

Aye.

[Gabu]

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.

True, and come to think of it, you could have the scenario where, say, a person with a large income in the category of one receiving survivor benefits saves more money than they give up through stopping the receiving of Social Security benefits...

Hm, I'm not so sure anymore, even though this would likely be a very rare case.  I'll change my vote to abstain.