I agree with Box on this one

Post #329,417 by jay 7/11/10 3:37:40 PM Reply	I agree with Box on this one If the government is taking it out of my paycheck legally, it doesn't much matter if they call it a fee, license, tax, charge, cost, bill, or mandatory donation. It's effect is the same as a tax, you might as well call it a tax. Jay
Post #329,418 by Another Scott 7/11/10 5:09:38 PM Reply	I've made the same argument. I agree. If it's money taken by the government, it's a tax. It doesn't matter to size of your paycheck, or your budget, whether the money is taken for SS or Medicare or the EPA. Someone here, I'm pretty sure it was Beep (but naturally I can't find it), made the argument that FICA was different when we were discussing the bogus story that "half of Americans don't pay tax" - e.g. http://www.washingto...010_04/023260.php FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #329,422 by beepster 7/11/10 6:10:13 PM Reply	It was me and I still don't consider it a tax. Its not supposed to be. Lately its being used as one...with the trust fund being raided to, among other things, make it look like the government was in surplus. I also agree with Box that it should not be capped. And its not a bogus story. Over 50% of the people do not pay income taxes. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #329,481 by andread 7/12/10 10:19:12 AM Reply	If mandatory, then it's a tax
Post #329,484 by beepster 7/12/10 11:43:51 AM Reply	Its all in the name and supposed use Federal Insurance Contribution Act. Its >supposed< to be a retirement fund. I agree, though, that at this point it may as well be a tax, as its proceeds are being stolen (oh, sorry, borrowed) by the government and used as general funds. The benefit of which is at least one President has been able to claim he took the government to surplus (nudge) I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #329,494 by Another Scott 7/12/10 12:53:15 PM Reply	s/at this point/since the Greenspan Commission in 1983/ HTH.
Post #329,496 by beepster 7/12/10 3:00:59 PM Reply	Hmm I see where they recommended that a payment be made from general funds to the SS trust fund...don't see where they recommended using the trust as first national bank. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #329,497 by Another Scott 7/12/10 3:50:44 PM Reply	Here ya go. http://www.snopes.co...urity/changes.asp The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the "general operating fund." However, whether the Social Security Trust Fund can truly be said to be "independent" is problematic. The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only "be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government," such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). The government "pays back" this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds, but critics of the program contend Social Security will eventually fall into deficit by 2018, and the Treasury won't have the necessary cash on hand to redeem the bonds and pay back the fund. [...] The excess was always intended to be transferred to the Treasury in exchange for bonds that would be redeemed later. How would it make sense for the money to sit in a vault? There's no "raiding of the trust funds" that went on after 1983 - it worked as it was designed. Now what that funding was used for is a different issue, of course... ;-) There's much more in the link. HTH. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!