Why would Republicans want to make cuts in Social Security?

We need to get the money from where the money went - to the rich. Not only should we let the top tax rate expired, going from 35% to 39 1/2% as it was under Clinton, but we must raise the top rate even higher to get the money that Bush gave away to the rich for the last 8 years. I believe the top tax rate was 70% when Reagan became president. The rich usually don't work for wages and don't pay into SS. They receive interest, captial gains and dividends. Under Clinton, dividends and gains were tax as ordinary income, the 39 1/2% rate. Bush lower cap gains and dividends to 15% tax rate. From 39 1/2% to 15% for dividends is a hugh tax break to the rich, who don't even pay into SS.

Again, let's get the money from where the money went.

If you disagree, why?

Update:

* Divine - jeez, you are so naive. The richest 2% in this country have never worked a day in their lives. Most of them inherit wealth, or they sit on their asses and make money by exploiting the workforce due to capitalism.

25 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    When FDR first proposed SS the Republicans were totally outraged. They fought against all the New Deal programs, and SS was the biggest and longest-lasting. They promised that as soon as they got back into power they would abolish SS (just as they are now promising to reverse Obama's health care reforms).

    But by the time we got the next Republican president (Eisenhower) Republicans were used to SS and didn't try to reverse it. Republicans were very moderate through the 1950s through 1970s.

    But when Reagan was elected, the party became taken over by 'program conservatives' who believed in reversing the New Deal. Reagan and both Bushes tried everything they could think of to reverse the New Deal. SS was 'off the table' because it was such a popular program, but just under the surface Republicans were trying to destroy it. There's a theory that Reagan and the Bushes spent such big deficits to build a 'debt bomb' so the next president, whoever he was, would have to do away with social programs, 'entitlement programs' like SS.

    GW Bush came to office with his highest priority being to privatize SS. At first he only wanted to privatize 1/6 of it, but even that was so unpopular (with BOTH parties!) that it went nowhere.

    You're right, the rich don't pay into SS. Above a certain level you don't pay FICA taxes. Reagan raised FICA taxes to 'save' SS, but he also promised to put the money into a special fund only for SS, and he didn't do that. The result was that even though he gave 'tax cuts across the board', working peoples taxes went up. Only people above about $250k got real tax cuts, and the more you made above that, the bigger tax cut you got. Most working people today pay more in FICA than in fed. income tax.

    The way to save SS is to raise the limit. I think it's currently around $100,000. But corporate CEOs today make salaries in the 9 figures. Why shouldn't they pay the same taxes as everyone else?

  • Danny
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    "Why would Republicans want to make cuts in Social Security?"

    Maybe they want to make cuts, because the way things stand now, Social Security will be bankrupt. That is a fact.

    "We need to get the money from where the money went - to the rich. Not only should we let the top tax rate expired, going from 35% to 39 1/2% as it was under Clinton, but we must raise the top rate even higher to get the money that Bush gave away to the rich for the last 8 years. I believe the top tax rate was 70% when Reagan became president. The rich usually don't work for wages and don't pay into SS. They receive interest, captial gains and dividends. Under Clinton, dividends and gains were tax as ordinary income, the 39 1/2% rate. Bush lower cap gains and dividends to 15% tax rate. From 39 1/2% to 15% for dividends is a hugh tax break to the rich, who don't even pay into SS.

    Again, let's get the money from where the money went."

    And what exactly do you suggest we do when the rich pack up their money and leave the country because of the ungodly high tax rate placed upon them??? Hmmmmm. Have you thought about that one?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I agree we should get the money from where it went but your looking at the wrong group. Your Social Security Taxes went in to the general budget and was spent by Congress so we need to have the government pay back the SSA which was supposed to hold that tax in trust by the Federal Reserve. Source : American Government 101.

    Name the group that has benefited more from Government hand outs: the rich or poor, it is the poor who sit at home eating BonBons getting fat and breeding like it is no tomorrow that eat up the budget.

    Understand SS was a safety net not a lifestyle save now buy gold. the collapse is coming

    Source(s): Bear
  • 1 decade ago

    I highly doubt the Republicans want to cut Social Security...but *I* do. I would stop the program from paying *anyone* who does not have *legitimate* physical or mental reasons preventing them from holding a job. Also, I would stop any/all payments to people who are still working *and* I would do away with any retirement age--you may work as long as you want to because the Government can't tell you that you *must* retire.

    Social Security is going to be completely broke before anyone knows it. Rather than letting it go broke, the Government *will* raise payroll taxes to keep funding it. If Congress had not been raiding Social Security to fund all their pet projects over the last few decades then it wouldn't be in the pathetic shape it is in today.

    I would rather opt out, keeping the deductions from being taken out of my check and let me fund my own retirement. *That* is freedom.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    "We need to get the money from where the money went - to the rich"

    This is a false premise and results in everything else you stated being completely false. A house can not stand on a bad foundation, the same applies to your assertions.

    The promise of SS was that you would get back what you pay in. That is not happening, only 1/4 of payments is covered by the SS "trust fund", the other 3/4 is covered by the tax payers (you and me). This is theft, pure and simple. The politicians lied to us. Systems like SS are a literal Ponzi scheme and can not take in enough money to meet the outlays. Instead of admitting this failure, they steal money from the general fund to cover the shortfalls. For outlays to match income, SS benefits need to be cut by 3/4.

    All that said, it needs to be eliminated not fixed. It is immoral, unconstitutional, and inhumane to force people to participate in a Ponzi scheme at gun point. If you want to voluntarily join one, that's cool I won't stop you. But nobody has the right or authority to put a gun in my face and force me to participate, that is a gross violation of my basic human rights. SS has good intentions, but it's methods are evil, it must be ended.

  • Daniel
    Lv 4
    5 years ago

    They support the changes to Medicare through the Ryan Plan, why not attack the base further with cuts to SS. They'll pay for it with a loss in votes in 2012. But they will make sure the rich continue to get those tax cuts won't they?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The rich don't work for wages? You're an idiot. Where does their wealth come from?

    The rich don't pay into SS because they don't get any of it. See, SS is supposed to be a trust for poor and middle class at retirement. But, I don't want SS. I want out. I don't want to recieve from it, ever, and I don't want to pay into it anymore. It's a broken system and I'm not going to see anything I pay into it because government uses it as a piggy bank for whatever they can't afford.

    Edit: Just saying rich don't work doesn't make it true.

  • 1 decade ago

    Where is these Cuts you claim Republicans wish to make?

    Just to enlighten you the Republicans wish not to cut SS but to improve it.

    -55+ no changes

    -under 55 would be given the chance to have their SS put into individual accounts controlled by the individual person. Just like the Government Employee's TSP program you would have the option of investing in the S&P500 or in Government Bonds and be able to invest in percentages and move things to safer choices as you age or go for it in the S&P500.

    What scares the Liberals is that they would not have the Social Security slush fund to raid every year - problem is the good times are over and SS is going to start collecting all the IOUs as it pays more then it takes in.

    Source(s): Go Texans ((-:])
  • 1 decade ago

    Some (please note I say some, not all) Republicans are opposed to the very notion of social security. I think it has its problems (like not promoting savings) but to completely gut it as some would like to is silly. It has been a very successful program as far as lifting older people out of poverty goes.

    It's going to take bankruptcy for this country to realize that the the rich need to pay more. Not on their straight up earned incomes, but on capital gains and the like. The other option is severe budget cuts, I don't see that happening. High levels of government spending as a concept is terrible for many people but when you cut whatever specific program it is they benefit from, they freak out.

  • because its a Ponzi Scheme, and its about to come crashing down. When SS was enacted, the average life expectancy was 56, now its 76. Do the math.

    Regardless, I'd rather keep that money and be responsible for my own family, as well as my own nest egg when I get old.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.