opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Linda Chavez
Linda Chavez
12 Feb 2016
Calling Out Trump

For months, responsible Republicans have been pussyfooting around Donald Trump. No one has been willing to … Read More.

5 Feb 2016
Doing the Honorable Thing in New Hampshire

New Hampshire may well be the end of the campaign trail for more GOP hopefuls, as Iowa was for Rand Paul, … Read More.

29 Jan 2016
President or Divider in Chief?

I'm trying to wrap my mind around what it will mean if Donald Trump wins the Iowa caucuses in a few days and … Read More.

Raiding Social Security


Extending the payroll tax cut — as the GOP leadership has now agreed with Democrats to do — may be good politics, but it is lousy policy.

For the average household with earnings of $49,445 a year (about the median), keeping individual payroll taxes at 4.2 percent as opposed to 6.2 percent will mean about a thousand dollars more in their wallets this year. And generally speaking, letting people keep more of their own money to spend and invest as they choose is a good thing, both for individuals and the economy as a whole.

But there is a difference when it comes to payroll taxes, whose specific purpose is to fund Social Security. Many people mistakenly believe that the payroll taxes they pay when they're working actually provide the funds for their own future Social Security benefits. But that is not the case.

Payroll taxes of currently employed workers end up paying for the benefits of current Social Security recipients, with any excess retained by the Social Security Trust Fund. But because, on average, Social Security recipients receive more in benefits over their lifetimes than they and their employers contributed in taxes during their working years, the system functions only because there are enough current workers making additional payments into the fund. This is why some people describe Social Security as a giant pyramid scheme.

There are only four ways to keep the system solvent: Hope there are always more people paying into the system than drawing from it; increase taxes; raise the retirement age; or lower benefits for some, if not all, recipients.

For much of the history of the Social Security Administration, the first option took care of the problem. There were always more people paying in at the bottom of the pyramid than were drawing out at the top. But that's changing, with the huge cohort of Baby Boomers now drawing or about to draw benefits and with people living longer than they used to.

When the first monthly Social Security checks started being distributed in 1940, there were 9 million Americans over the age of 65.

Today there are more than 41 million. What's more, in 1940, the average lifespan for a man who reached 65 was an additional 12.7 years. Today, the average 65-year-old man will live an additional 15.3 years and the average 65-year-old woman will live almost 20 more years, which is why benefits almost always exceed contributions.

Congress has slowly raised the payroll tax over the years to help make up for the shortfall. Unlike federal income taxes, which almost half of Americans don't pay at all, all workers must pay payroll taxes. Congress has increased payroll taxes in two ways over the years: by increasing the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax rate and by raising the cap on income subject to the tax. Currently, the first $110,100 of income is subject to FICA taxes, an amount that has been raised several times as the need arose to insure the system's solvency.

If the administration and Congress continue to play politics with Social Security — as they are surely doing now by extending the temporary payroll tax cut — the system will eventually implode. It's understandable that Republicans don't want to be accused of giving all working Americans a 2 percent tax hike in an election year, but keeping payroll taxes low in order to avoid making other changes to the Social Security system is certainly not going to solve the problem. It will make things worse.

Unfortunately, politicians know that real solutions will entail difficult decisions: Raise the retirement age once again. Increase the FICA tax rate or raise the cap on how much income is subject to the tax. Or reduce benefits. It's pretty simple, but painful, especially for politicians addicted to handing out goodies without figuring out a real way to pay for them.

Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



2 Comments | Post Comment
I see the problem with social security being that it doesn't just pay retirement benefits, it also pays disability benefits. It seems the smarter route would be to take funding for disability out of the SS net and find a different way to fund disability. Those on disability have longterm or short term mental/ physical disorders that impede their ability to work and therefore disability should be funded through payments taken from the healthcare or other insurance premiums we all pay. What about reducing all the money we spend coddling criminals in prison and start spending more money on funding disability benefits. Instead of slapping drunk drivers on the wrist, make them pay into the disability fund the rest of their working life. I digress. I know if there was an easy answer, someone would have found it. I would like to share what I did find: Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman, says that Social Security redistributes wealth from the poor to the wealthy. Hmmmh. Workers must pay 12.4 percent, including a 6.2 percent employer contribution, on their wages below the Social Security Wage Base ($110,100 in 2012), but no tax on income in excess of this amount. Therefore, high earners pay a lower percentage of their total income because of the income caps. Furthermore, wealthier individuals generally have higher life expectancies and may expect to receive larger benefits for a longer period than poorer taxpayers. A single person who dies before age 62, who is more likely to be poor, receives no retirement benefits despite his years of paying Social Security tax. On the other hand, an individual who lives to age 100, who is more likely to be wealthy, is guaranteed payments that are more than he paid in. No easy answers, but again the poor and middle class get the shaft.
Comment: #1
Posted by: demecra zydeem
Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:18 AM
This is a can the politicians keep kicking down the road. We can either (painfully) deal with this now or kick the can to our children. To those without kids, the choice is clear, but I want Americans in future generations to be prosperous too, so I vote for the pain now. It seems that everyone can agree that there is no easy solution to this problem, but ingoring it is not the answer.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:13 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Linda Chavez
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 14 Feb 2016
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 14 Feb 2016
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 13 Feb 2016

8 Jun 2007 Good News on Stem Cells

25 Jun 2010 McChrystal No Loss for Conservatives

25 Mar 2011 Hispanic Boom