Con-a-Senior Week
The euphuism "con" has long thought to be derived from confidence as in confidence game. I pose that this may not be true. I submit that the "con" comes from the word "congress" There can be ample support for this from a litany of legislation which they have passed. The tax code is a perfect example. In the 1993 tax law - thank you President Clinton- the phase-outs, floors, ceilings etc attached to various deductions and credits resulted in deceitfully limiting these to anyone who had a job , especially if a man and wife were working.
One of the classics is social security. Until 1983 social security was exempt from being taxed as income. At this time the law changed to tax up to 50% for incomes exceeding a certain amount. In 1993 up to 85% could be taxable based on another incremental rate. These amounts were not indexed for inflation.
There is a payroll tax on your income to fund social security. In figuring taxable income this is not deductible, thus you are paying a tax on a tax. I know of no other place in the tax law where a double taxation is involved. Then when you receive the social benefits, which in essence have already been taxed twice, you are taxed again. If you choose to continue working you pay into the fund with more taxes and help pay your benefits received, and of course, are again taxed on that tax. Also, remember, that with the floors not being indexed to inflation that every year that the CPI rises (which is every year) your tax increases.
At the present workers are paying more into the system than what is being paid out. The so called "lock box" surplus is raided by the dear Congress to build a library in West Virginia or refurbish an obsolete train station in Texas.
Then at election time these same members of Congress go home and tell the seniors how they are fighting to protect social security and make their senior constituents more secure. Give me a break. The truth would be "old geezer, send me back to the "hill" so I can screw you again." The least they could do would be to vote for a "Con-a-senior Week". At least it would be on the record and on the calendar.
One of the classics is social security. Until 1983 social security was exempt from being taxed as income. At this time the law changed to tax up to 50% for incomes exceeding a certain amount. In 1993 up to 85% could be taxable based on another incremental rate. These amounts were not indexed for inflation.
There is a payroll tax on your income to fund social security. In figuring taxable income this is not deductible, thus you are paying a tax on a tax. I know of no other place in the tax law where a double taxation is involved. Then when you receive the social benefits, which in essence have already been taxed twice, you are taxed again. If you choose to continue working you pay into the fund with more taxes and help pay your benefits received, and of course, are again taxed on that tax. Also, remember, that with the floors not being indexed to inflation that every year that the CPI rises (which is every year) your tax increases.
At the present workers are paying more into the system than what is being paid out. The so called "lock box" surplus is raided by the dear Congress to build a library in West Virginia or refurbish an obsolete train station in Texas.
Then at election time these same members of Congress go home and tell the seniors how they are fighting to protect social security and make their senior constituents more secure. Give me a break. The truth would be "old geezer, send me back to the "hill" so I can screw you again." The least they could do would be to vote for a "Con-a-senior Week". At least it would be on the record and on the calendar.
posted by Oldhugh | 2:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home