It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: Value Added Tax To Pay For Social Security?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:06 PM
Scoffing at the idea of raising the payroll tax above the current $90,000 dollar level, Representative, and chair of the House tax-writing committee, Bill Thomas said that another ways should be considered to make up the Social Security shortfall. Among those suggested was the imposition of a value added tax across the board, or basing benefits on race, previous job and the like.
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House tax-writing committee said Sunday that President Bush's drive to overhaul Social Security should lead to consideration of a value added tax or other ways to fund the entitlement program.

Congress also should consider basing benefits on such factors as race, sex and the job a retiree once held, said Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif.

"The way we fund the Social Security system, I think, needs to be examined. What we fund it for, chronic or long-term care, has not been addressed, and that's one of seniors' major needs," he told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Thomas dismissed the idea of raising the limit on payroll tax deductions from the current $90,000, which would make wealthier people pay more into the system. "Why even bother looking at the payroll tax? That was a solution in the 1940s and the 1950s," he said, when the rate was 2 percent of income.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

While the value added tax may have some merit, I am always skeptical about new tax structure. The income tax system is such a chaotic mess I'm skeptical that our Government can pull it off. However, Canada does have the system and it works quite well. However, what to stop them from raising it over and over to fund pet projects and the like?

[edit on 1/24/05 by FredT]

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:13 PM
I'll play the ignorant one today...
I thought the money they took out of my check was for SS, and that it would be returned to me someday.
I receive (as everyone does) a total SS benefits summary once in awhile...
it shows how much i have paid in, and how much benefit i will be able to collect based upon the present earning situation... I think it even broke it down to what my benefit was if i retired at 55,60,65 ect...

So what is the problem... if the money isn't there... then where did it go?
I thought it was just like a savings account... with interest.

I guess what i am trying to say, is that everything i read on this in the past ten years, has said about how the Social security is going to be in trouble... MY COMMENT IS: only if the government didn't do what it was trusted to do... preserve the money i gave them...

are people living SO MUCH LONGER than the government had estimated? I would think the government would err to the side of safety in this regard, so that they could keep the leftovers after someone dies.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by LazarusTheLong]

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:01 PM

However, what to stop them from raising it over and over to fund pet projects and the like?

They'll have to keep raising it just to fund social security like they do in Canada and Europe...

More taxes won't help anyone.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:10 PM
how exactly will they base benefits upon one's race, sex, and previous employment?
what guidelines are they going to use or how would they create such guidelines?
and won't this cause some sort of uproar with the ACLU?

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:29 PM

and won't this cause some sort of uproar with the ACLU?

Has anything that helps out minorities ever caused an uproar with the ACLU? They've been big protecters of things like Affirmative Action since the beginning.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:46 PM
They just need to do away with income tax and go to a federal sales tax. That should generate enogh money to cover the shortfalls of social secutity as well as do away with the confusions of the tax code. It is also fair. The rich have bigger toys, so they pay more. Across the board I think it is a fairer system. Please disagree with me and tell me if I'm wrong. I've not really looked at the ramifications of going to this type of system.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:50 PM

Originally posted by MattyG555
how exactly will they base benefits upon one's race, sex, and previous employment?

My guess mind you is that the more "disadvantaged" you are the more you get. Im not agreeing mind you, but thats what they are looking at. God help us if we get a bunch of bleeding hearts. Sorry you worked hard and saved instead of flitting away your money. You get ntohing, and have a nice day

new topics

top topics


log in