« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Republicans must end Orwellian FICA tax blindness

By: Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary)  |  August 20th, 2011 at 10:12 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Debt ceiling battle exposes the lie of those that claim most low income Americans don’t pay federal income taxes

File under the category that a rose by any other name smells as sweet

Outside Martha’s Vineyard, Americans are suffering the natural result of super-majority Democratic Party economic policies. Natural Law and history compel the expectation of one party Republican rule in Washington after next year’s elections, but only GOP super-majorities would have the power to repeal ObamaCare and other anti-job creation policies passed the first two years of President Barack Obama’s Administration.

One way to ensure that conservatives will not maximize their opportunity to duplicate the historic 2010 Republican landslide is to antagonize lower income workers generally favorable to the Democrats by continuing to insult their intelligence by insisting that they “don’t pay any federal income taxes.”

Paul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity et al need to cease and desist from their semantic game, especially after the debt ceiling battle exposed the Social Security Trust Fund as a fiction and before the expected debate on tax reform begins as a means to avoid the sequestration of national defense when the Super-Committee is inevitably deadlocked on Thanksgiving Day.

Yes, presidents and congresses since the 1980s have incrementally exempted more and more income from federal income taxes. But the federal government taxes every dollar earned by low income workers under the “FICA”, i.e. Social Security rubric (as well as Medicare) and commingles those dollars with the “Federal Income Tax” dollars and other government receipts (and borrowed funds) to pay for all domestic and defense spending as well as Social Security payments.

There simply is no difference between the two and it is long past time for Republicans to quit talking out of both sides of their mouth on the issue.

Money taken out of one’s paycheck by Washington is no less taken out by differences in labeling. Those that continue to do so insult the working poor and qualify as Gore Lock Box Know Nothings.

Yes, those low income workers that receive Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC) in excess of FICA taxes would accurately be characterized as paying no federal income tax, but that population is many times smaller than low income workers that are net federal income tax payers, whatever the nomenclature.

Surviving Post-Martha’s Vineyard America through the end of the Age of Obama

Despite the Vacationer-in-Chief’s promise to wield a job-creating shovel after the Dog Days of August, we understand the very long odds of the enactment of policies conducive to economic recovery so long as The One Who Puts the National Interest First deems those advancing such policies as traitors.

However, the deep and widespread suffering of millions of Americans and the defense sequestration train wreck scheduled for November make it imperative that Republicans try to reach a compromise with ObamaPatriot.

The Super Committee formed pursuant to the Debt Ceiling deal will almost surely deadlock, thus ensuring draconian cuts to national defense, unless real tax reform favored by the GOP can satisfy Democrats need for a class warfare talking point. Should we embark upon that course, I hope that Republicans will recognize the regressive FICA tax as the federal income tax that it is.

Real tax reform that would increase revenues would entail the lowering of income, corporate and capital gains tax rates in exchange for the elimination of tax subsidies. We would hope that deductions for mortgage interest, medical costs and charity remain intact.

The Republican Party has long been the party of the working man, if that mantra is defined as advancing policies that actually increase the number of people with jobs allowed to keep more of the fruits of their labor. It is high time that they tout this fact and adopt the rhetoric that can combat the class warfare of the Democrats, rather than running campaigns as if they were applying for jobs as CPAs.

It is not the politics of envy for the GOP to point out that our policies help lower income Americans, as well as all the rest. It will be much easier to do so if we stop repeating the fiction that federal FICA income taxes are not federal income taxes.

Mike DeVine

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.


 

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

    I am on your side on this one. The hyperbole by the right about over 50% of Americans don’t pay taxes is just as awful as the hyperbole of the left that the rich are not paying enough taxes. The truth in both cases has to do with a much smaller number of Americans using tax credits and tax deductions and tax loop holes. I am not like Grover Norquist and demanding that any tax reform must be revenue neutral. I am also not like the far left who think that raising taxes fixes everything. Anything they do will only bump taxes up to a little over 18% GDP. The spending must be cut to about 18% GDP, and a lot more is required on the spending than is required on taxing side of the ledger.

    I am retired and don’t pay FICA. I pay about 2 grand to the IRS a year for my retirement pension, and I have no credits or deductions to take advantage of.

  • GregInFla

    You would then have to identify the employer’s side as a tax on business, and include it in the federal corporate income tax rates (or double the amount said to be paid by the employee). The money being paid out for SS has special characteristics, detailed by Rush when the default was being discussed. From what I remember, the admin of SocSec has the right to redeem the Fed promissary notes at any time to make payments to Soc Sec recepients. And they cannot be turned down.

    I disagree with your calling these taxes on income, in that FICA was sold as a retirement plan, not a tax, to the American people. The people who pay in are the only ones who get, and are owed, benefits. Medicare may not be that way, but SS is.

    And except to the SCOTUS, the USGovt has never admitted that FICA is a tax.

    And if you say that illegal aliens pay FICA taxes, then they are admitting to identity theft, by contributing money using a false SSN.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    And, technically, the constitutionality of Social Security is based on Congress’s power to tax, but I don’t think the semantics are more powerful than the reality that both income-based FICA “contributions” and federal income taxes are deducted from the paychecks of lower income workers and used to fund all current government operations.

    And unless the GOP is advocating taxing income of lower income workers that is not now taxed, I don’t see what economic and especially what possible political purpose is served by discussing same out of context, because the main context that matters to taxpayers and potential GOP voters is what they have left from their paychecks to buy necessities, and not what may or not be remaining in the Ponzi scheme down the road and what those dollars redeemed by the Fed will be worth.

    But you make good points as usual brother.

  • GregInFla

    SS Disability and SSI can be paid without having to wait. So you are getting the equivalence of an insurance policy. And you are promised something in return. So I still cannot agree with you (yes, this is rare) that FICA/Medicare the same as income taxes. With income taxes, the only thing you get back is the chance on an IRS audit. And that’s no reward.

  • Kyle-MI

    Just because they have lied to the American people since it was established does not change that fact. Of course it was sold as anything but a tax. They would have never gotten it through if they admitted the truth. They were compelled to tell the truth to SCOTUS, because if they did not, there would have been huge legal ramifications as well as fiscal ramifications. The lie has been helped by voters who have bought it hook, line, and sinker. Too bad that this has huge political and fiscal ramifications. All of this, however, does not change the fact that FICA is a tax.

  • Flagstaff

    of the reason tax policy is so hard to grapple with.

    Before the income tax was created, most federal taxes came from tariffs and excise taxes. At the time, “progressives” argued tariffs were regressive, because everybody, even the poor, bought the goods whose prices had been driven up by those taxes, and an income tax “on the rich” was seen as an improvement.

    When the income tax was instituted in 1917, the tax rates were 1%, which started at the equivalent of over $100,000 annual income today, and 7%, which was paid only by the Bill Gateses and Warren Buffets of the day, the Rockefellers, the Mellons, and the Carnegies. About 2% of the population paid income taxes. I don’t know what happened on the tariff front.

    That situation changed for WWI, and collections went back down after the war, but it had been demonstrated that the income tax could bring in tremendous revenues, far greater than the excise taxes and tariffs it was created to replace.

    Now, I’ll accept your description of SocSec taxes–they’re just a different form of income tax, as in “a tax based on income.”

    When SocSec was created in the thirties, it was of course a very low rate, and not many people were expected to collect on it–given that the retirement age was set above the then current age of mortality. It has always been a flat tax, AFAIK, and therefore has always been “fair” in that respect. Also, benefits are tied by a formula to how much the retiree has paid in, so in that respect SocSec itself is similar to an annuity.

    A side issue, but an important one, is the fact that the same income is taxed for both the income tax and SocSec. For lower-income earners, that doesn’t matter as much, because they are paying very little or no income tax. The effect, as you point out, is that they are paying a 6.2% tax that is based on their income, and there are no exemptions or deductions from that income base, and so are their employers. So we can certainly say they are paying into the tax system, even if it isn’t technically into the INCOME tax system.

    For higher earners, the tax is an additional 6.2% tax on their VERY FIRST dollar earned, up to the SocSec limit of $106,800, and twice that if they are self-employed. That’s $6,621 or $13,242, depending. That’s PER PERSON, so a couple is paying twice that amount if they each earn $106,800. You don’t have to know more than that to see that folks earning $213,600 are paying an additional $13,242 (at least) above their income tax payment. You don’t have to go much higher to get into the “Obama millionaire” category, to which he wants to add a surcharge or an even higher rate.

    Don’t forget that once you start receiving benefits during retirement, up to 85% of your benefits are taxed AGAIN, depending on your level of income each year, even if the rest of the income is NOT “earned” income. In effect, high earners find the same dollar, earned years before, has been taxed three times, once for SocSec and also as income, and now a third time as a taxable SocSec “benefit.” Low earners, not so much.

    All of this leads me to conclude that if the taxpayer gets no benefits from the system during retirement, it has been simply a high, regressive tax on EVERYBODY who was paid a taxable income, foisted upon the public as a “retirement security” plan. If he DOES receive benefits, then it really hasn’t been an income tax, just an extra tax to pay for those benefits. The fact that it isn’t enough right now to actually pay for them is irrelevant. It’s true that low earners DO pay taxes, but it’s also true that they pay far less than high earners, even including SocSec.

    And please explain the Obama “payroll tax moratorium” the Won keeps talking about. How much is/was it? Will it eventually reduce benefits for those whose FICA taxes were reduced because of it? If that’s good, doesn’t it mean we should gradually do more of that, and simply phase SocSec taxes and future benefits out altogether?

    So, OK, let’s change the rhetoric, but it’s difficult to change it accurately and simply. It just isn’t a simple issue we are trying to talk about; right now, it’s covered by “we are talking about INCOME taxes, not FICA taxes that everybody pays.” I don’t really see the problem with that, but let’s add, “FICA taxes are high, but they still don’t generate enough to pay for the benefits that are expected to accrue from them. That’s why the SocSec entitlement system needs to be reformed, so it can once again pay for itself.”

    In fact, FICA taxes are NOT income taxes even though they are based on income, and calling them “income taxes” doesn’t make it so. That isn’t a “semantic game,” it is a real-life fact. To even equate them is misleading, nearly a semantic game in itself.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    the federal government that go to pay current bills of the fed government. And so when pols say that 50% of lower income voters “pay no federal income taxes” it is simply no correct to say that if the meanings of words are still operative in America. It is a simplistic soundbite that intentional obscures the fact of the deductions and serves no political purpose for the GOP and does alienate lower income workers. One can combat the Left’s call for more taxes on the rich with a complete argument against same rather than resort to soundbites that obscure the facts. Yes, all that pay FICA gets one some benefits of some sort (but of course Soc Sec is dependent on a viable overall budget and debt and a Dollar that has real value) but that doesn’t change the fact that FICA is a federal income tax. It simply is. It is a different KIND of federal income tax, but it is a federal income tax.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    when you say:

    “All of this leads me to conclude that if the taxpayer gets no benefits from the system during retirement, it has been simply a high, regressive tax on EVERYBODY who was paid a taxable income, foisted upon the public as a ?retirement security? plan. If he DOES receive benefits, then it really hasn?t been an income tax, just an extra tax to pay for those benefits. The fact that it isn?t enough right now to actually pay for them is irrelevant. It?s true that low earners DO pay taxes, but it?s also true that they pay far less than high earners, even including SocSec.”

    You get to the heart of my point. The other heart of my point is that for the GOP to use the simplistic language does alienate and insult the low income voters who don’t claim EITC and whose EITC deductions don’t exhaust all of their Federal income taxes incl FICA, which is well over half of all lower income workers.

    When Republicans use the word “no” as in paying ZERO income taxes they are simply lying to people that SEE the tax deducted from their paychecks and these are people whose incomes are so low that they do suffer an actual loss of necessities due to the deduction of the money.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    It is the Repubs that attempts to obscure the similarities in the two federal income taxes. My point is to be more accurate.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    nt

  • carolina

    I think you make an important point Mike.
    Now, how do we get this nuance from this page and up into the GOP ‘talking points’?

  • bogornes

    Actually, I don’t think it helps us to dwell too much on the complexities and nuances of taxes. Messaging matters, and the battle lines have been drawn with certain language and perceptions. A change in focus would damage some of those perceptions. and the other side (which continues to slant the argument) would gain an upper hand. I also would prefer to look at the entirety of our tax code, which might lead ta a more honest debate, but it’s a two-way street.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    debate. It is dishonest to tell low income taxpayers that do pay FICA over and above EITC that they pay “no” federal income taxes that goes to pay current bills. And guess what, “regular” fed income taxes are also put in the same kitty that pays non-soc sec bills. Yes, all who earn income also get vested Soc Sec rights (what they are worth, no one can say) . So it looks like a duck by a different name.

    Yes, there is a battle line over the leftist desire to raise taxes on the rich and minimize the ongoing confiscation. But if the GOP also has a battle line that wants to raise taxes on lower income workers, which could be the only reason for maintaining the lie line that “50% of Americans pay no federal income tax” then I see a way forward for Obama to actually win as we commit suicide by alienating so many voters.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    National Review, The Weekly Standard would also be acceptable!

  • GregInFla

    such as capital gains. Is this true to the best of your knowledge? The scare is that the profit on your home sale will get FICA/Medicare applied.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that thing repealed. I’ll check on that question and thx for the heads up…more later

  • YnotNOW

    If FICA is just Federal Income Tax by anothe name, then a Social Security Paycheck after you retire is just welfare by another name. After all, it is a check from the Federal Government (paid for by “income tax receipts” no less), that you get for not working.

    There is a reason that they are different names – they are supposed to be treated differently.
    The fact that they bear some resemblance does not mean they are alike.

    But I do agree that we have to approach this subject sensitively, because of the ease of demogogery on the subject (throwing Grandma off the cliff and all)

    Note: I agree that the “Trust Fund”, since it is just IOU’s from the General Fund, is a myth: http://www.redstate.com/ynotnow/2011/04/04/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/

  • Flagstaff

    FICA is a tax that is based on earned income, but it isn’t part of the income tax system. I appreciate your sensitivity to the feelings of those who pay FICA but not income tax, but how is it insensitive to to say that about 50% of us don’t pay income tax? It’s a fact, not an opinion, and it isn’t word games.

    Everybody knows that income tax and FICA are different taxes, and only the weasel-worders in the Democrat camp try to conflate facts about income tax collections with facts about collections of other taxes.

    It’s also very hard to be honest while claiming that FICA taxes are too high. As I noted, they are not high enough to cover the benefits they are supposed to be reserved for.

    Although I wrote, “Now, I?ll accept your description of SocSec taxes?they?re just a different form of income tax, as in ?a tax based on income,?” and I meant what I said, I may not have been precise enough in saying what I meant. Let’s modify that to, “Now, for the purposes of discussion I?ll accept… ?a tax based on income,? but it’s a special kind of income tax that is intended to be used for a specific purpose–paying out Social Security benefits.” That’s why the accounting device of the lock box was implemented–to keep track of it.

    The fact that the money is loaned to the general fund as it comes in is a bit of a red herring–something HAS to be done with it. Of course, with the economy as it is today, ALL the FICA taxes are now being paid out as benefits IMMEDIATELY. So in that respect, FICA taxes represent the highest aspirations of the Obama administration–immediate wealth transfer from the employed to the retired.

    **”It is the Repubs that attempts to obscure the similarities in the two federal income taxes.”**

    There are only two similarities. (1) Both taxes are based in some way on some (different) kinds of income. (2) Both taxes take money from citizens that is later spent by the government.

    And, I’m all for kinder, gentler rhetoric.

  • Flagstaff

    ALL FICA taxes are now spent immediately on Social Security benefits (years earlier than predicted just 5 years ago, thanks to Obama’s recession). A perfect example of the redistribution of wealth.

  • Flagstaff

    home sale “profits” will be taxed at over 3%. That is correct.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    ‘staff, FICA deductions are made based on income, hence
    they are part of the “income tax system”, but of course this is yet another semantic device that, even if accepted remains a non sequitur as relates to my point, ie whether over half of all taxpayers pay no federal income tax based on the reality of what is deducted from their paychecks. Clearly, based upon the three links in my column, when even those earning less than $10K are paying a net 5% of their income on average when one accounts for FICA, FIT and EITC deductions, less than 20% pay zero such net in taxes.

    Flag’, my column seeks to get beyond semantics into what matters to voters and what is the truth. Money is fungible and the Soc Sec Fund contains IOUs. All federal revenues go into the same pot to pay all expenditures. I won’t be drawn into semantics over the “income tax system”.

    If you have links that show that even after EITC, over half of all taxpayers pay zero when one counts FICA and the FIT, then post it. My links indicate such a finding is impossible.

    But my column explains that I am discounting all of the semantics that some conservatives? insist upon so they can spew the claim that over half of all taxpayers pay nothing.

    Why do so many insist upon this misleading talking point?

    We have shown that it is not necessary to make the point that the rich do in fact pay an overwhelming majority of taxes and to fight against that. Neither fact is dependent upon the other. The facts are the facts.

    Is it because some conservatives want some sort of moral cudgel to use against Dems? Is it not just as satisfying to go with the actual facts and the puny % the poor do pay?

    Do conservatives want to RAISE taxes on the working poor? And if we want to do away with the EITC, then why not say so but wouldn’t one also need to advocate the end of all welfare to those that earn zero?

    Finally, it seems to me that many conservatives may not understand how hard it is to make a living on minimum wage and on low income wages generally.

    But does it hurt the argument against Democrats to simply point out the facts of how little they pay in taxes rather than insist upon claiming half pay zero.

    Look at the chart below for the average income % deducted and then consider what is left for these power income folks to live on…if you can call it living and maybe then the federal gobbldygook semantics won’t seem as precious.

    Because like in Orwell’s 1984 government categories bear no resemblance to the truth.

    And I thought conservatives were about exposing government lies?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1000456_payroll_income.pdf

  • GregInFla

    for most. But since you can defer your profits by buying another home, I wonder how they’d tax it now.

  • lastgopinillinois

    this monster (SS & Medicare) FICA
    The goal IMO should be ultimately to phase out these programs in a new law enacted by Republicans in congress called THE FREE ENTERPRISE RETIREMENT & HEALTH ACT.
    FICA would remain for workers who have already been paying in, but they would now be able to OPT OUT of the system (and not be able to opt back in). Benefits will be prorated based upon past income.
    People entering the workforce for the first time will NOT be eligible to join the program and will NOT have FICA deductions.

    Use ending the FICA as a selling point to gain support for the bill from the general public. There are a lot of people out there who dont want to contribute to SS and Medicare from the get-go. Seniors wouldnt be affected. The only people who would be opposed to it are lifetime welfare squatters.

  • Flagstaff

    They tax stuff that is almost impossible to keep track of, and it is up to you to prove you did the right thing.

  • acat

    The cop says 70. You leave and head on down the road. Being a law-abiding type, you’re keeping it at 68.

    You pass no speed limit signs.

    Another cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket for doing 20 over the limit.

    You ask about what the first cop said and are told “Yeah, we get it wrong about half the time, and it’s still your fault.”

    Would we accept this kind of failure ratio from law enforcement?

    Why do we accept it from the IRS?

    Simplify. Streamline. Call “fees” and FICA and SS *and FUTA and SUTA* what they are. Taxes.

    (cat favors eliminating the requirement that the employer pay half of SS and FICA/FUTA – everyone gets a raise equal to the amount the employer no longer sends in, but will owe more on their 1040s…)

    Mew

  • Flagstaff

    There are a couple of points. (I’ll leave off all the scare quotes–you can imagine them if necessary, and I’m going to drop the words receipts and rates unless absolutely necessary to make my meaning clear. I’m also going to write only about SocSec retirement benefits, not the other stuff.)

    First, semantics deals with the meaning of words. Without meaning, we can’t have understanding. Without understanding, we can’t come to agreement. Words must mean what they mean, not what we want them to mean, and I don’t say that disparagingly. It’s the complaint we have with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of certain laws–sometimes they choose to create a new definition for a word, a definition that wasn’t there when the word was written. A semantic difference is not an unimportant one.

    So to claim that FICA is part of income taxes is both semantically and definitionally wrong. Furthermore, it is conceptually and practically wrong. It is a separate tax, levied in addition to the income tax. Although at one time FICA receipts were transferred to the general fund and commingled with income tax receipts, that is no longer true, even if it were relevant. Today, all FICA receipts are immediately transferred back out to SocSec recipients in the form of benefits. FICA taxes don’t pay for the same things income taxes pay for, and they never have. They aren’t the same things. In fact, they don’t add to the assets of the feds at all, they add to its liabilities. The payment of that tax creates future obligations.

    Second, if they were the same thing, it would work both ways. I’m retired and usually have no earned income. I pay income tax on my pension and on what I withdraw from my IRA, and on 85% of my SocSec benefits (sort of a triple taxation, but I won’t quibble). However, I get absolutely NO SocSec credit with the income tax I pay. Because of that, the amount of my benefit check hasn’t changed since I received the first one. See where I’m going? I get government services in exchange for my income tax payments. You do too, but you also get an unenforceable commitment from the government to pay you future SocSec benefits in exchange for your FICA payment. One might claim that today those FICA tax payments are being made under false pretenses.

    Finally, why do folks make the distinction? Not just because it’s a real distinction, but also to point out that there is a huge constituency who have no stake in how, why, where, or how much government money is spent. It makes no difference to them (they think) and they usually don’t care how much income tax must be levied on anybody else to support that spending. I’m not saying anybody wants to raise taxes on the working poor, but think about it. The working poor have to pay for everything else they receive except government benefits, so maybe they should pay a little bit of income tax. If they recognized the damage foolish spending does to them as well as everybody else, perhaps they might be less inclined to support it. (Macro-economically speaking, that could be a gad idea today.)

    I’m inclined to drop the public tax debate anyway. If you look at the big picture, we really can’t tax our way out of the hole everybody started and that Obama has brought in a steam shovel to really enlarge. Spending cuts are the answer to that question, but then the question becomes, “cut where?” and in a bad economy it’s a very tough question.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    from air traffic controllers?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    insult low income workers over nomenclature.

  • Flagstaff

    I don’t know why I was so obtuse, but I finally understood (I think) what you were getting at, and I even went a bit farther myself, even though I stand by what I wrote before.

    Since the whole SocSec System was created the way it was in order to get around the fact that it would have been ruled unconstitutional if the taxes and benefits had been legally and logically connected, it is possible to say that the tax assessments of FICA are indeed income taxes. Even more so, the fact that FICA tax receipts are immediately paid out for anything at all, even paying SocSec benefits, makes them no different from the taxes collected by the IRS.

    Ergo, I no longer take exception to your claims. We should talk about Income Taxes and SocSec Taxes as one–FICA is a subset of income tax receipts.

    The Trust Fund was created a couple of decades ago to calm the fears of older Americans that their SocSec benefits were being misspent. If the Trust Fund money were invested in something other than government bonds, it might have worked. It isn’t invested, so in that respect they are just income tax receipts and I’ve come to agree with you.

    I guess some of us think about this stuff way too much, for too long. But that’s the way the light can dawn. Now, I hope to soon become one of those who pay no Federal income or sales taxes.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    really make my day would be to beat Arkansas! We dream…

  • Flagstaff

    You can watch. ESPN in about an hour or so.