People who work for a living count on the fact that when they retire, they will have Social Security. They pay taxes to fund the Social Security fund, and they deserve what they have paid for to protect them from living in poverty after they stop working. But Trump is threatening to eliminate the tax we all pay into the Social Security fund.
Trump recently issued an executive order deferring the payroll tax, which would temporarily boost workers’ pay checks. For the balance of this year, workers would see a fatter pay check. But every cent is deferred, and workers would have to repay that amount before April 15, 2021, meaning smaller pay checks after the election.
Trump said that if re-elected, he would abolish the payroll tax. If he did, the Social Security program would be bankrupt by 2023. Does he know that the payroll tax funds Social Security? Maybe not. If that secure funding were eliminated, Social Security would be at the mercy of politicians every year.
Historian Robert explains the opposition to Social Security. He wrote the following for the AARP about Social Security:
More than 80 years after its birth in the depths of the Great Depression, Social Security is deeply woven into the nation’s fabric. But Americans were initially skeptical of a program that seemed contrary to their faith in rugged individualism. “It is difficult now to understand fully the doubts and confusions in which we were planning this great new enterprise,” FDR’s Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins wrote later.
In a conversation with Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone, Perkins, whom Roosevelt had tasked with designing what then seemed like a radical departure from traditional ideas about the role of government in American life, confided her uncertainty about how to make this work within constitutional bounds. Stone in reply whispered, “The taxing power of the federal government, my dear; the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need.”
In 1935, a time when British and German systems of support were easing the perils of old age, left and right in America saw reasons to contest Roosevelt’s reform. Liberals objected to withholding taxes from current wages to fund pension payments. Instead of expanding the economy through federal largess in a time of continuing depression, the plan reduced employees’ take-home pay by pouring millions of dollars into a fund that would not put money into circulation until workers retired. Moreover, it made no provisions for farm workers or domestics or workers in small businesses with fewer than 10 employees. And those who were already past age 65 were also left out of the mix.
Conservatives were even more vocal. Industry leaders objected to a major expansion of the federal government and forecast financial collapse and “the inevitable abandonment of private capitalism.” The head of General Motors predicted that it would destroy “initiative,” discourage “thrift” and stifle “individual responsibility.”
Republicans in the House foresaw the enslavement of workers: “The lash of the dictator will be felt,” one said. Another saw calamity ahead: “This bill opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants.”
Roosevelt understood the opposition to the program, especially the objections from both ends of the political spectrum over taxes. But he believed that they were essential to preserve whatever was put in place. “We put those payroll contributions there,” he said, “so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”
But “after all the howls and squawks,” Roosevelt pointed out, most Republicans, reluctant to oppose majority opinion, joined Democrats in both chambers in voting for the measure.
To the surprise of most outspoken critics, none of their worries materialized. When the law was signed by Roosevelt on Aug. 14, 1935, it joined his other social reforms, such as Federal Deposit Insurance to protect bank accounts, and reforms by subsequent presidents, such as Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 Medicare bill, to save older Americans from financial ruin. The law was not set in concrete but rather was an expandable program that, by the mid-1950s, covered almost all employees and the self-employed as well. Nor were these changes strictly owned by Democratic administrations. During Richard Nixon’s presidency, Social Security benefits increased by 50 percent.
By the 21st century, Social Security had become universally popular and helped foster the view in the U.S. that federal social welfare programs are not a threat to free enterprise but a means of preserving it in a more humane industrial system. Proposals to privatize the program have repeatedly fallen by the wayside and it seems clear that, whatever the deficiencies of the system, no politician — as FDR predicted — is in a position to take it away.
Robert Dallek is the author of books on John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and of an upcoming biography of Franklin Roosevelt.
Got that? FDR predicted that “no damn politician” could ever scrap Social Security because it was funded by a payroll tax. Everyone paid for it. No one would dare take it away.
But FDR never imagined a politician as craven as Trump, who would falsely claim that cutting the payroll tax would put money in the hands of working people (and defund Social Security).
A fatter pay check … by a mere $6 or $7 dollars. One beer, depending on what bar you patronize. Big Fng deal.
Two things: Mr Trump, re-elected or not, hasn’t the power to change the law and, SS is the greatest anti-poverty law ever written in this country. The main beneficiaries of SS has been and will continue to be … elderly white women. So, a vote against SS is a vote against OWLs … Old White Ladies.
The crucial issue is how to publicize and make known that Trump is threatening to eliminate the funding for Social Security. He said that if the-elected, he would eliminate the payroll tax, thinking that would win votes among working people. If he succeeded, the funding for SS would be a subject of political negotiation, not a rock solid guarantee.
The expectation that old white “ladies” can save the nation from Trump should be tempered with an understanding that they were socialized
in a patriarchal society. Adding to the argument, the percentage of OWLS who are conservatives in evangelical and Catholic churches would be helpful in assessing likelihood of GOP voting (regardless of candidate).
I spoke to one of the demographic group yesterday. She said, “We don’t know what we are getting with Joe Biden” – quite a reach for a defense.
Let’s follow Linda and define the entire electorate, including OWLs like me, by its lowest common denominator or, like the Republicans do with their idea of “welfare moms;” or white nationalists do with All Black People. Then we can remain thoughtless like “those people” are. CBK
I am the beneficiary of Social Security and Medicare. My father died in 1948. My mother received Social Security checks that allowed me to finish high school and in a home that I had grown up in.
OWL could refer to Older White-haired Women, regardless of skin color. But then again, some older women have dyed hair. If you are referring to the longevity of older white women relative to others, you have a point.
In any case, a vote against Social Security could happen simply because few people understand that is funded by “payroll taxes.” They do not see the connection between those payments and future benefits.
.
In addition, many people who work in the expanded gig economy and who live with uncertainty about their future might support the Trumpster’s “no more payroll tax” offer. For the self-employed, those taxes are about 15%.
Laura Yes, it’s basic to the neo-liberal Ayn Randian notion of self, as in selfish.
As with the ignorance you point to in your note, we are in a time where, for many, the watershed of centuries of democratic ideals has combined with a pervasive ignorance of where they came from, what it would be like to lose them, and how to keep them in place.
In brief, in public education, we need to focus on the “great experiment,” and what it will take to keep it in place so that, if we lose it, it won’t be because of an ignorant electorate. CBK
Pushing the age out to receive benefits guarantees loss of support for SS by young people. With an average age of death of 78 and a trend making it younger, the prospective financial benefit will decrease for those paying into it.
I wish I could think of a way to warn workers and retirees that Social Security is funded by payroll taxes.
The Funding-Advertising Fix: Find out what most of the target audience watches or listens to, and fund a professional and concerted effort to use advertising channels to educate them–REGULARLY and over the LONG-TERM.
Being “PUBLIC” has meant “NO NEED TO EDUCATE” for way too long. CBK
Yes 15% is the rate, but it’s less than it looks. First of all, gross income is reduced by all kinds of expenses that regular employees are not allowed to deduct. Then, Self-employment tax is calculated on 92% of your net income, and you deduct half of the result from your net income as a business expense.
Also – speaking as a longtime freelancer, & mom to two gig-workers: the payroll tax is not prominent in your mind the way FICA is for employees who see it come out of every paycheck. You only calculate it once a year, & at that point you’re focused on the big piece [the income taxes, & taking advantage of every potential expense erite-off].
We in our liberal educated bubble are fooling ourselves on this, I think. This is one of those finer points that gains zero public attention whether you focus on it or not. We take for granted folks get soc sec is an unmitigated success & of obvious value to the nation. All we have to do is educate the public on how it’s funded.
I grant you, at least half of retirees see it the same way, but even those folks aren’t well-attuned to the fact that payroll tax funds half of it. Plenty of them react negatively to any kind of tax, and are befuddled when a shout goes up that DJT is trying to take soc sec away.
Then there’s the other half who live on soc sec but love DJT regardless: for them, deferring payroll tax is a secret-sauce detail that must be great if DJT says so– equating that w/”taking our soc sec away” is just Dems trying to baffle them w/bulsht.
And that’s just retirees. Libertarianism has swallowed half+ the Rep party – gubmint bad, taxes bad, natl debt bad, ergo soc sec bad [fingers in ears & la-la-la re: reality]. Then as has been pointed out here, younger folks [incl progressives] are convinced soc sec will go broke before they’re old… My generation thought the same thing – the young are gullible to that kind of propaganda. It takes a while to recognize govt is “we” not “they.”
If Trump is re-elected, if Republicans control both houses of Congress, the Congress will grant his every wish, no matter how demented. He will be the Emperor.
It is certainly true that elderly white women are the primary beneficiaries from Social Security as were the early recipients.
The very first person to earn a monthly pension from Social Security was Ida May Fuller. She received her first check on January 31, 1940 and received monthly checks until she died, at age 100, in January of 1975. During the slightly less than three years that she worked under the system she paid in $24.75 and collected $22,888.92 (all nominal values)
Good for Ida May Fuller. Social Security protected her from living in abject poverty. Hurrah for the New Deal, FDR, and Social Security!
Ida May did benefit from the African American males who paid FICA taxes but never lived long enough to collect the benefits. I am sure that you agree that Social Security is part of the existential racism of our country.
No, I don’t agree that Social Security is racist. It was designed to protect the elderly from living out their lives in penury.
I also think you are vile and would be grateful if you never left trolling comments on my blog.
Dr. Ravitch,
An African American male born in 2015 can expect to live to age 72.2 and thus collect full Social Security benefits for a bit over 5 years. A white female born in 2015 can expect to live to age 81.3, and thus collect full Social Security benefits for a bit over 14 years. (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2017/015.pdf for life expectancy)
TE,
You are a very sick man. You should get help.
teachingeconomist So what? . . . to your note below:
“An African American male born in 2015 can expect to live to age 72.2 and thus collect full Social Security benefits for a bit over 5 years. A white female born in 2015 can expect to live to age 81.3, and thus collect full Social Security benefits for a bit over 14 years. (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2017/015.pdf for life expectancy)”
te
Social Security provides revenue for families when a wage earner who has paid into the system is killed- a couple of examples, when Root murdered 9 black people in the South Carolina church and when police act as judge and jury and shoot a black adult.
Catherine,
The point of my post is that the value of Social Security depends on the race of the recipient. I am surprised that this is controversial. Surely everyone here agrees that the value of the police and justice system in the United States depends on race.
You are ridiculous. Social Security is racist because white people live longer than Black people? Your goal is, like Trump’s and Charles Koch, to undermine Social Security.
Do you support reparations for descendants of slaves? That would iron out the disparity.
economist writes: “The point of my post is that the value of Social Security depends on the race of the recipient. I am surprised that this is controversial. Surely everyone here agrees that the value of the police and justice system in the United States depends on race.That’s what I thought you might think, but I don’t think what you think on this issue.”
I thought that might be what you think, . . . that’s why I asked . . . but I don’t think that way . . . so it would be good for you not to assume such agreement, at least on my part. CBK
Linda,
Indeed Social Security provides survivor benefits, but I think we can agree that this is not where most of the money goes. An African American male born in 1950 would not expect to collect ANY Social Security retirement benefits. African American women might have expected to collect 9 months of benefits.
Do you think that if the majority of Social Security benefits had gone to people of color the legislation would have passed?
Reparations to descendants of slaves would fix that problem. Do you support that?
Dr. Ravitch,
It seems to me that Social Security might be seen to practice disparate impact discrimination. This occurs when formally neutral rules have a disparate impact on a protected class, like African Americans. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact for more details.)
I do believe in repatriation. I make extensive use of podcasts in my teaching and I assign this one (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/reparations-part-1/) in one of my classes. You might be interested in listening to it.
I believe in reparations. Have to pay more attention to auto correct. I do hope you, and perhaps others, listen to the podcast.
It isn’t XLV’s plan, of course, he’s just a useful idiot puppet. It’s been the Ripofflichen’s plan in place since before Social Security it was born — and they’ll never give up, now matter what dissemblances spew from their forked tongues, no matter how long their putrid party exists. May it die before it kills us all.
Off-topic
The story about Stephen Hzu’s resignation this summer from his position as Michigan State University’s VP of research and graduate studies reflects a watershed moment (with hope).
True to Frederick Hess’ advice (“Don’t Surrender the Academy”, Philanthropy Roundtable), the administration of universities changed to reflect AEI’s goals.
The website, Fardels Bear provides greater insight into the Hsu controversy. The Fardels’ blogger’s statement conjures what we witness about education economists and tech tyrants. “Hsu shares a conceit all too common among physicists: that ‘It’s really high math ability that is useful for discovering things about the world- (it supplants) discovering truth or reasoning rigorously… (through) historical context, understanding social nuance or properly recounting the past for present day audiences.”
Further in the article, the blogger writes, Hsu and Unz (Unz is described as a Holocaust denier) ran to become part of Harvard’s Board of Overseers in 2016.
In the depths of the depression the unemployed blamed the Jews, the LGBs, the Gypsys, the fascists played upon the fears, Trump has a Cliff Notes version of Mein Kampf by his beside, or, listens to the podcast,
Peter Goodman-
The information at the Holocaust Encyclopedia, “The German Churches and the Nazi State”, is both enlightening and it makes today more alarming. In 1933, “The Party upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity.” The churches during the Nazi regime were largely silent about its abuses, recognizing that to oppose Hitler meant extinction. The 2020 GOP convention was heavy with religious emphasis. Conservative religious leaders aren’t neutral, they back Trump. Between 50 and 80% of their congregants are the GOP base.
Steve Bannon and Bill Barr have Mein Kampf by their bedsides.
Linda writes, drawing from “The information at the Holocaust Encyclopedia,” . . . “’The Party upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity.’ The churches during the Nazi regime were largely silent about its abuses, recognizing that to oppose Hitler meant extinction.”
First, we know from our historical viewpoint that “The Party” did not uphold the point of view of anything resembling Christianity.
And second, according to Linda’s note, the “largely silent” Church was, in fact, being threatened, bullied, and blackmailed by the Nazi regime who held their very existence in the balance. We also know that many many priests were murdered while trying to maintain that untenable balance, by both the Nazis and by the Russians in their own time of power.
Kudos to those priests; and my hope is that none of us here ever have to make such decisions and sacrifices in our own lives. CBK
Actually, they weren’t largely silent, there is a strong argument to be made that most were acquiescent with the most powerful being openly supportive and rabid opportunists. The leadership of the Catholic and many Protestant branches were in varying shades of encouraging of Nazi leadership, especially from 1933-39. They either looked the other way or effectively encouraged the prosecutions of “godless” communists and left-wing social democrats. The persecution of Jews, when discrimination was seen as an incentive to get them to emigrate, was deemed acceptable by key opinion leaders. As I have written on numerous occasions here, the attitude of Pastor Martin Niemöller from 1933, even up to his arrest in 1937, when he was 45 years old. The same is true of the Catholic Church leadership, which did not stray from Pius XII’s ambivalent–to be charitable–approach to the Third Reich.
There were notable exceptions, such as Bishops von Galen in Münster, Ehrenfried in Würzburg, and a few others whose opposition was more in sympathy with resistance activities, i.e., aiding some dissidents and persecuted Jews through an Underground Railroad-like network that was hounded by Gestapo agents (all of the religious figures who were caught up in the July 20, 1944 conspiracy to assassinate Hitler were of the far left of their faiths). But even von Galen’s first significant act of opposition was to the T4 program to eliminate persons with developmental disabilities, not for members of other religions who were persecuted, although he very much took up their causes shortly thereafter. In both the Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, the elimination of liberals like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to pick a prominent example, the torturing, silencing and killing of thousands of liberal pastors and priests was seen as a necessary purge to “cleanse” the religions of subversive elements. This attitude continues to thrive today, as we see in this nation. It is a bit interesting to see conservative evangelicals claim Bonhoeffer as one of their own. They are unaware of the irony that he embodied everything they hate about the liberal wings of their religions.
Thank you, GregB. CBK
Doggone WordPress. Here’s how I meant to write this sentence above:
As I have written on numerous occasions here, the attitude of Pastor Martin Niemöller from 1933, even up to his arrest in 1937, when he was 45 years old, was almost 180 degrees the opposite of how he is (mis)remembered today.
Greg-
Thanks for developing the part of the story about church leadership’s attacks on liberals.
In 2020, liberals in the church are losing to conservatives. The D.C. bishop who spoke out against the Trump photo op at the Knights of Columbus shrine hasn’t received official support. The St. Paul bishop who prohibited his priests from voting in this year’s Democratic primary may provide another example. He was advised by the Minnesota Catholic Conference that his action was legal. The conflict at Catholic universities over taking money from Charles Koch for social Darwinism, economic curriculum/ centers has largely been won by the conservatives. The liberals’ letter to Bishop Dolan that opposed his praise for Trump, was dismissed.
An applicable quote, “Republicans only take action when there’s a price to pay for inaction.”
Conservatives have won the propaganda war as reflected at this blog. The evidence- there is widespread support for the notion that women’s inequality has no link to conservative religion. The pro-birth cover for control of women flourishes as if legitimate.
Agree completely with your conclusion, Linda. Soundtrack for it: a song from a phenomenal album by The Gourds, a now defunct band from Austin, written and sung by Kev Russell, who now goes by Shinyribs, arguably my favorite American musician:
And one more that could easily be the theme song for this blog:
In case that one was too muddled:
There’s the blog living room of Diane. Then, wafting from Greg’s place, there’s the music that doesn’t hold back— accurate history and beautiful sounds steering us to a better place for all.
Social Security is an intergenerational program that not only benefits retirees but also the young, because it supplies survivors benefits and disability insurance. For decades there has been a coordinated propaganda effort to undermine and destroy SS. People are being told by the libertarian billionaires and their useful idiots that SS won’t be there for you when you retire, it’s a Ponzi Scheme, it’s a rip-off, blah, blah, de-blah. All lies, all garbage from the FDR haters and the reptiles who want to destroy SS. Too many young people are buying in to the propaganda and do think that SS won’t be there for them and that why should they pay for older people they don’t even know. SS is essential, crucial and important and it should be properly funded.
Joe Jersey Also for younger people, WITH Social Security and Medicare benefits, their own parents and older relatives are much less of a “burden” on THEM. We have enough family crises . . . at least we have a chance of avoiding THAT one.
I talked to a young man a couple of years ago who was dead set against the “social security giveaway.” It was quickly revealed in the conversation that he didn’t know that I had been paying into SS all of my working career. It was also revealed that he regularly listened to Rush Limbaugh and was merely repeating Limbaugh political vomit. CBK
To understand the libertarian, Koch-funded effort to undermine and destroy Social Security, read Nancy MacLean’s “Democracy in Chains.”
I live in an area where most of my neighbors want a “small government.” I believe that there are some services the government can provide better and more efficiently than the private sector. I am more interested in a government that works for the people, and not just the wealthy.
The attack on Social Security and Medicare is led by business types that want to financialize growing old in this country. It is another bait and switch attempt to privatize an essential public service. The elderly cannot compete fairly in a free market system. The main goal of Social Security and Medicare is to provide for vulnerable citizens, not make money for Wall St. If anything, I agree with Bernie. We should be strengthening, not abolishing these public services.
retired teacher Yes . . . Congresspeople are supposed to be, themselves, lobbyists for THE PEOPLE . . . a fact that, more often than not, seems to be left at the border when entering the District of Columbia. CBK
People tend to forget that Newt Gingrich shut down the government to eliminate S S and that even under George W we cannot afford it was proclaimed. A Trump supporter in our building said oh, they cannot take S S and medicare away from us, someone dependent on both. But in this day and age facts do not matter.
That people are so easily led into self destructive behaviors for me is so very reminiscent of Hitler’s Germany. Good, intelligent, college educated people being seduced by lies, partial truths mischacterized ad nauseum.
Gordon Wilder I think, partially at least, the source is the peaceful and orderly comforts that come with democratic living for several centuries now . . . baked-in so to speak; The People never really challenged existentially, and certainly not reflected on with anything resembling a genuine responsibility to its meaning; much less to the people who have actually died for it.
Underneath it all, I am convinced that the duplicity you speak of is grounded in a false ideology that (1) things won’t . . . cannot . . . change; and so (2) it doesn’t matter what they think or what they want. It’s all held together by the falsity that, in no case, will they lose what they already have, even in the face of hearing your news: Trump and the Republicans are trying to get rid of it. Naawwwww. . . .cannot be. CBK
It’s not the Idiot’s plan. Elimination of Social Security has been a core Republican tenet–where spoken or not–since it was enacted. Even Eisenhower was against it, but deferred to pragmatic politics to escape the label.
Everything Trump does for the working class is meant to do one thing: gain votes so he wins. That is why everything he does for the working class is short term, to last long enough to get him elected again.
What he has done for the wealthiest 1% is always longterm.
Thank you for reminding others of the importance of Social Security. And I would add the equally important Medicare program from the 1960s which has kept many elderly Americans from spending their golden years dependent on their children or sleeping in chicken coops. Nowadays those chicken coops happen to be crowded shelters.
Even at the age of 16 with my first job, I was happy to know I was helping older people like my grandparents and my parents live dignified lives. In this age of selfishness and greed, I hope people will come to their senses and finally figure out that we need each other if we are going to survive these turbulent times.
Some People have trouble grasping the concept of values extending beyond the length of their individual noses, for example, the social values of living in a society where other people are educated, healthy, informed, and generally speaking not dying in the streets beyond their own gated and walled stock(market)cades.