Why isn’t anyone saying that the “payroll tax” which would be reduced as an immediate stimulus to the economy by the proposed American Jobs Act is actually the Social Security tax, which pays for Social Security benefits? Decreasing those contributions means there is less money from which to pay benefits.
Whenever Congress threatens to lower Social Security payments for senior citizens, we are urged to call our congressmen and tell them to “leave Social Security alone.” For decades we have heard that the Social Security system is “going broke” and our benefits would have to be cut as a result.
The Social Security system, from its beginning, has been based on equal contributions by employers and employees, most recently at 6.2 percent of wages. Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that if contributions were less each month, the Social Security system would go bankrupt more quickly?
The "one-year adjustment” for employees' contributions to FICA since January 2011 reduced payroll deductions from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, and provisions in the Jobs Act would reduce them to 3.1 percent without indicating how long this reduction would last.
In addition, the Jobs Act proposes to "stimulate the economy" by reducing or eliminating the employers' 6.2 percent contribution for "small businesses that hire new workers and expand operations."
How can the public continue to receive Social Security benefits if contributions continue to decline at such a rapid rate?
Is it time to tell our congressmen to leave Social Security taxes alone?
Frances Lodge, Minot