The Bunning Amendment just failed

51 votes against -I didn't hear the pros count

The Bunning Amendment (Jim Bunning R-Ky.) has been put up many times and it always fails. It would have cut the tax on Soc.Sec. benefits and wages over $34,000 for single and $44,000 for couples FROM 85% back to the 50% it was before being raised in 1993. Soc.Sec. benefits were originally taxes in 1983 (Reagan signed it).

The Bunning Amendment would have "cost" $200 Billion in lost tax revenue.

http://www.cincypost.com/2005/03/25/edita032505.html

Until 1993, the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation was limited to 50 percent. That year Congress -- struggling to shore up the Medicare health care program for seniors -- raised the cap to 85 percent. That doesn't mean seniors pay an 85 percent tax rate on their benefits. It means that, at most, 85 percent of their Social Security benefits are subject to the income tax at whatever rate they pay on their other income.

The Bunning amendment would re-establish the cutoff at 50 percent for Social Security recipients with income of more than $34,000 or couples making more than $44,000.


IT was on C-Span2

there is a God!

The middle class ispaying the taxes so the wealthy don't have to.

Aren't taxes paid at the time payments are taken out of paychecks?

So why are they taxing it a second time.

My Accountant was trying to sell me on a ROTH IRA because you pay the taxes now and don't pay later... I said, really? Wasn't that the concept of Social Security???

Nuff said!

SS and FICA are deducted independently from income taxes. with sufficient deductions, one may owe zero income taxes but the amount of "FICA" wages are still subject to "payroll" taxes.

Winger idiots somehow think the services of the government can be supplied magically, with no financial input at all. A pleasant but fatal illusion.

:eyes: