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

[True Democrat]

I'm just wondering, could the GM give us an estimate on how much this would save the government each year?

[Sam Spade]

I'm just wondering, could the GM give us an estimate on how much this would save the government each year?

Ack.  I'll have to do some research to look that up for you, TD.

[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.

[Siege40]

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.

I agree. It's entirely unfair, while I can see the purpose of the bill, I don't know how overall helpful it would be to the system. Besides, if you made $75000 your last working year, even though you made less than that, doesn't that mean you don't get any social security? If this bill is to continue perhaps a timeframe should be included in this year, i.e. 75000+ over 5 years.

Siege

[True Democrat]

I would like to hear viewpoints of other Senators on this bill.

[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.

[Bono]

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.

Fleming v. Lucas

[True Democrat]

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.

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).  Now, I realize that this kind of makes it so wealthy people are ripped off, but we need to solve the budget deficit, and quite frankly, people this wealthy do not need social security.  This is no different than a progressive income tax, as wealthy certainly do not get back as much as they put into that.  Also, for raising the retirement age or decreasing benefits, one could make the same argument that it would rip off people.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This money would probably go to help balance the budget (I may need to add that as a clause

I'm sorry? Could you repeat that? You expect people to pay into a system that is supposed to provide them with a source of income in old age... and instead of getting that, the money that they have contributed goes to filling a hole in government spending?

[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?

[Ebowed]

I will vote against this bill because it treats those who have already been investing in the program unfairly.

[Bono]

Fleming v. Lucas

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

It was a supreme court case that tuled that your payroll taxes didn't give you any right to recieve benefits.

[Colin]

I would like to withdraw my co-sponsorship of this bill. Seeing the arguments put forward by the other Senators I feel that I can no longer support this bill.

[True Democrat]

I just want to make sure that every Senator who opposes this also opposes a progressive income tax.  This is essntially the same thing (only a much, much smaller level).  With the graduated income tax, do you really think that wealthy people, who pay a lot more than poorer people, get back what they pay in programs.  No way.  Poor people receive a lot more out of the government than wealthy people in terms of programs, while putting in less.  The concept of this bill is not different.

Also, would Senators approve of this if I changed it to this (this is not an amendment, just putting an idea out there):

1. All recipients of Social Security benefits who have an individual reported income of above $55,000 or a household income of above $100,000 shall optionally 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.

[Defarge]

Define "optionally."  People will have to file with the federal government for their social security checks?

The premise of social security, as stated, is you pay your money into the system and then you get it back when you retire.  This is not a progressive issue, but one of fairness.  People have paid into the system their entire lives, and deserve to get back what they put in.  Sweeping reforms that would repeal taxes on social security for people making such and such an amount of money who have a certain age I could understand.  But arbitrarily saying "up, you don't get your money back" is simply unacceptable.

[Emsworth]

Does Sen. True Independent wish to propose the amendment?

[True Democrat]

Does Sen. True Independent wish to propose the amendment?

Yes, as I see it is the only way for the bill to even have a chance of passing.  Just use the exact language I used before.  Only Clause 1 is changed.

[Ebowed]

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?

[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.

[True Democrat]

I would be OK for receiving social security being optional for everyone.

[Ebowed]

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.

Which would also be ridiculous; Social Security isn't exactly the most necessary thing the government could be providing, so if someone doesn't want the service, they shouldn't have to pay taxes for it.  There is still the problem of the man making $54,000 not being able to opt out of receiving payments while the man making $56,000 can.

[True Democrat]

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.

[Q]

Why would anyone pay an optional tax (which is what paying in but not receiving benefits would amount to)?

[True Democrat]

Why would anyone pay an optional tax (which is what paying in but not receiving benefits would amount to)?

I don't know.  A few George Soros type people may want to return it.