Anyone want to help me refute my Bushbot coworker on Soc. Security?

[DustMolecule]

I left a copy of Molly Ivins column titled, "Touting Social Security Voodoo" in a visible place at work. I had highlighted a few sections that I felt were particularly relevant to understand.

When I arrived at work today I found hand written comments from the Bushbot at each of the highlighted sections. Frankly imo, the 4 comments are, in order,

1st one) just stupid
2nd one) irrelevant to the point Ms. Ivins is making
3rd one) stupid
4th one) I don't believe that it's a true statement (I don't know what the h*ll they're even referring to)

I guess I'd like a lil help from some of the more knowledgeable folks around here.

Here's Molly Ivins entire column at:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/21937/

Here's the paragraphs/sections (with the Bushbot responses in italics)

In another interesting development from President Bush's news conference, if you make more than $20,000 a year, you are wealthy. That's what the president said -- "wealthy."
This is the group that has the largest tax cut from Bush

-------

By the way, to the bird-brain on television who said it's only four percent of your Social Security and who wouldn't take some risks with a mere four percent? -- jeez. The four percent they are talking about is four percent of the 12 percent in total Social Security tax. Four is one-third of 12, and that comes to 33 percent. It's not that hard, honey.
Voluntary for the under 55, unavailable for over 55

-------

Look, Social Security has a long-term financing problem that is not particularly dire and in fact not nearly as troubling as the Medicare shortfall. The Social Security shortfall can be solved by any one of a number of combinations of benefit cuts and tax increases. One thing you could do is let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 10 years, as they were originally supposed to do, or you could take the cap off Social Security taxes, which is now set at $90,000. That means at present any income you make over $90 K is not subject to Social Security taxes, one of the most flatly regressive features in the tax code. Removing the cap would solve the projected Social Security deficit, despite right-wing claims to the contrary.
Tax cut did not affect SS only the General fund.

--------

$90 K is not subject to Social Security taxes,

Bushbot circled this and wrote $100,000 has a 10% excess tax that is already in place and has not been cut since Kennedy.

------------------------------------------

Bushbot also left a four-page screed (taken from SOMEWHERE) that quotes the Feb. 2005 SOTU speech and goes on to talk about how PSA's would offer younger workers the opportunity to build a "nest egg" .... through purchase of annuities (for one), which you could pass on to children and grandchildren! :eyes: :crazy:

Anyway, any help with providing a response/retort to this would be greatly appreciated.

TIA

DustMolecule

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Probably beyond help...but ask her where all that surplus SS tax

has gone (hint, general fund). I'm sure glad she thinks that $20K a year is the wealthy, since that's probably what top salaries will be in a few more years! The US does not have an excess tax on incomes over $100,000! We have 'income' brackets with various tax rates.

[DustMolecule]

2. Thank you for the response

These people are really *tiring* with their nonsense. I really don't know what they are POSSIBLY thinking of with that 'excess tax' in place since Kennedy though.

Another thing is that persons in the 33% and 35% tax brackets are surely going to have tax deductions that persons in the lower tax brackets won't.

I was thinking that these charts may be of value to my co-worker:

Federal TRIO Programs
2005 Annual Low Income Levels
(Effective February 2005 Until Further Notice)

Size of Family Unit
48 Contiguous States,
D.C., and Outlying Jurisdictions

1
$14,355

2
$19,245

3
$24,135

4
$29,025

5
$33,915

6
$38,805

7
$43,695

8
$48,585

The term "low-income individual" means an individual whose family's taxable income for the preceding year did not exceed 150 percent of the poverty level amount.

The figures shown under family income represent amounts equal to 150 percent of the family income levels established by the Census Bureau for determining poverty status. The poverty guidelines were published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 33, February 18, 2005, pp. 8373-8375.

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/incomelevels.html

---------

And this one:

Table of 2004 and 2005 federal income tax brackets

http://www.savings-bonds-alert.com/federal-income-tax-brackets.html#2004

----------

Again, thanks for the response. I will ask her your question too!