Please, what is the argument AGAINST "raise the cap" on Social Security?

[CTyankee]

Watching Morning Joe earlier this week when Howard Dean was on trying to explain to Joe Scar how Social Security can not only survive, but also thrive, for many more years. By raising the cap on income subject to SS taxes. But he never got his argument out of the gate. Scar didn't even respond, just talked over him and sneered.

Is there a cogent, reasonable argument we shouldn't raise the cap? From what I hear, it could bring in a sh*tload of money into the program and be a lifesaver...

[Rex]

1. The govt has to stop borrowing out of SS like it was their emergency piggy bank.

How far will 2.8 trillion dollars push the life expectancy?

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. What would you invest SS surpluses in if not US debt? n/t

[el_bryanto]

4. Excellent question - I'm glad you asked. As president of the Giant Mattress company

I've been pushing for years that one of our 40 Square Mile Mattresses would a perfect place to put the Social Security Surplus. Granted, orders on our 40 Square Mile Mattresses haven't been as high as I would like, but I'm sure once the Government uses one of them to cover the Social Security Surplus, orders will take right off.

Also be sure to check out our sister company 40 Square Mile Box Springs Incorporated.

Bryant

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. I prefer the coffee can buried in the backyard approach.

Although I have yet to find a 1 million cubic foot can, not even at Costco.

[Rex]

7. True, we are guarantied THAT will never go away.

Maybe the yuan (I hear it is making a comeback) or the kids like bitcoin.

[Warpy]

8. How about lowering the rate? It was raised six times by Reagan

and then used by Congress to cover the disaster that his tax cuts for the richest caused.

Ronnyhood: robs the poor to fatten the rich. And the military.

[Bigmack]

12. Take it to the local casino...

... and bet the surplus on "red".

Or..

Invest it in a diversified portfolio on Wall Street.

Same thing, actually.

No.. wait... the casino is the better of the two.

[Nye Bevan]

13. In a lockbox, of course.

Actually, just imagine that when SS started it was required that the trust fund be invested literally in physical gold, which was required to be segregated and not touched for any other reason. I haven't run the numbers but I suspect that SS would be in absolutely wonderful shape today.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. If it's not accompanied by increases in benefits for high income earners

then the argument is that SS begins to be seen as a form of welfare because high income individuals are paying more without any added benefit.

But making Social Security indistinguishable from welfare (and thus as vulnerable) has been a goal of the right for a long time. They now call welfare "means-tested entitlement" which is actually a pretty high-octane oxymoron. If it is "anything-tested" isn't an entitlement.

I say raise the cap and raise benefits according to the SS progressive benefits formula.

[CTyankee]

5. Yes, I think that cost/benefit analysis has been done a while back and obviously there was the

conclusion that raising/getting rid of the cap was MORE beneficial than the payout on the other end. The point is to get it a universal benefit that people pay for during their working years and deserve to have later, when they are old and cannot work any more. The high income earner today could very well be down on their luck tomorrow and we never know what's around the corner. The point is that people have an income source to keep them afloat. It's humane and it carries an economic benefit: they can participate in our economy with their spending of the SS benefit. It is also important that all citizens feel that it is their mutual obligation and benefit, not just something that "they" get and "we" don't.

[Aerows]

10. A member of the House makes over $170,000 per year

raising the cap would cost each Congressional House member more than $6,000 in taxes for starters. You think they would vote for a pay cut?

[haele]

11. Problem with that argument is that SS is not just for the elderly.

It's also for dependent survivors and for the disabled. $117K a year is not really "that high a wage" in terms of retirement potential anymore.

That independent contractor or middle manger making up to $250K a year when s/he's around 50 - 55 will have a very rude awakening if there's a serious illness or long-term unemployement and all that savings/401K needs to be dipped into both to survive and pay off debts - including student loans or mortgages.

Doing the math, it doesn't take long to run through $500K or so in savings when you suddenly can't work and have to pay off that amount in medical, student loans, and keep a roof over your head.

Prime example: Paul Ryans father wasn't poor when he died at the age of 55 (when Ryan was 16) - he was an attorney, and his father (Paul's grandfather) was the head of Ryan Incorporated Central, a very successful business in the construction field and a US Attorney for the western district of Wisconson. But because the mother didn't work before the death and had to go back to college to be able to find gainful employment, the survivor's social security supplimenting his mother's salary kept them comfortable and helped put Ryan through college.

So being "well off" - with income twice or so above the current cap, and thinking you will never need social security doesn't mean squat if you're not already really, really close to retirement when something expensive happens to you. Lifting the cap to even $150K or $200K is a reasonable consideration, at the current costs of living.
The family of that 52 year old mid-level executive that has a stroke one morning may end up needing that social security, after all. Might take them two or three years to run through his insurance, savings and investments as they try and pay everything off, but they will still have problems when it comes to making the cost of living adjustments.

Haele

[Aerows]

9. Biggest argument?

Congressmen one and all make more than the cap and would pay a lot more in taxes. Asking them to take a pay cut is like asking the devil to go to church.

You can't get them to entertain it because it is in THEIR best interest not to entertain it. How many Joe Blows do you know that make over $120,000 a year? How many Congressmen make $173,000 a year and counting? All of them.