Sen Linsey Graham (R SC) proposes $200,000 wage cap on Soc Security

[papau]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7061858

<snip>Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, has floated a proposal to raise the income level subject to Social Security tax from $87,900 now to as much as $200,000. The proposal would generate $1 trillion over 10 years mostly by raising taxes on the rich.<snip>

Sometimes I begin to doubt my theory that almost all GOP are 100% evil -

and then I hear Bush shoot down the Senator Graham idea within 24 hours of it hitting the media -

and then I am again certain that the Bush GOP really are evil and want to do the Brit's Thatcher 80's FAILED "soc sec" experiment, and the Argentine failed "soc sec" experiment - only this time they want to harm even more folks - harming the non-rich in a larger nation must be part of GOP family values - and now they are going for the "record" so to speak.

[neverforget]

1. Bush wants to kill Social Security, not save it. As a matter of fact,

he wants to kill all social programs.

[Guns Aximbo]

18. stock market

the market will do well for a year or so then will tank miserably leaving all that money in social security which has been moved the the brokerage houses to the... Chinese

[gjb]

25. You are 100% correct. Bush wants hand the SS fund to Wall St brokers

[unlawflcombatnt]

30. Social Security and the Stock Market

You're so right. Bush's privatization plan is nothing more than taxpayer-funded corporate welfare. Middle and low income taxes will be forced to subsidize Wall Street. We already have taxpayer programs that do that. They're called 401Ks and IRAs.

[newyawker99]

55. Hi unlawflcombatnt!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Eric J in MN]

2. If we did that, the Social Security surplus would probably last

more than 40 years.

A social security defict 40 years from now isn't a crisis, anyway, but Lindsey Graham's propsoal would solve even that problem.

[WildClarySage]

3. Lindsay Graham also proposed

banning gays and unmarried pregnant (fornicatin') women from teaching. He also supports a national sales tax to replace income tax. He's as horrible as they come. Just because republican says he supports something which agrees superficially with a liberal position doesn't mean he's the answer to our prayers for common ground.

[JI7]

5. you might be thinking of Jim DeMint

who won election to Senate in south carolina this year.

lindsey graham himself is gay and while he can't be open about it since it will hurt his political career i did hear he opposes a federal constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.

[WildClarySage]

6. damn, yeah, you're right.

I don't live in SC anymore, and my mom's reports make me glad of that. But sorry for the mixup.

[ShaneGR]

21. That was DeMint....

Though I disagree with the other poster's assertion that Graham is gay. Very doubtful. Some of his mannerisms may raise suspicions but there has never been an ounce of proof to say otherwise.

[faithfulcitizen]

38. r u sure? I didn't know he was gay...nt

[Mike L]

44. I'm pretty sure he's gay. He's still in the closet, but

if you put the pieces together........

[blondeatlast]

10. I see it was cleared up. Thanks. nt

[WyLoochka]

17. Well, if he's for raising

the income cap on FICA taxes - that's a big move in the right direction on soc sec - OUR direction! And soc sec is the subject of the post.

Personally, I see no justifiable reason there should be any cap on income, that is subject to FICA. Having a sound social security system benefits everyone, including the very wealthy, in a myriad of ways.

Removing the income cap is essentially one of the two necessary tweaks to the program that Democrats need to insist upon in order to secure it's future.

The other is: KEEP YOUR GRUBBY GREEDY HANDS OFF OF THE FUNDS BEING PAID IN NOW! AND NO - these funds cannot be accounted for as "general revenue" to be raided for this that and the other whim of a delusional, warmongering, wealthy worshiping, dip shit president and his party of corrupt, extremely ideological sycophants.

Just because we have long regarded Social Security as "pay as you go" - the workers of the present support the payees of the present does not mean we should continue to look at it that way.

The one thing I wish Clinton had locked in, by way of getting legislation passed, was exactly what he was doing - allow the FICA taxes, being collected in the present, to build surpluses while also applying some to paying down the national debt over time. Following that course was very pragmatic and future conscious. Had we stuck to it - we would have been in a far better position to handle the commitments to the still huge "boomer generation."

We lost that opportunity when some Dems turned their backs on us and signed onto the Bush* tax cuts in '01. Those tax cuts were deliberately designed to bankrupt Social Security, among other odious goals, and the Dems who voted for them knew it then.

[Mike L]

43. I live in SC and Graham is not that bad (for a repuke).

You were thinking about the new SC Senator, Jim DeMint.

Graham also does not support Bush's medical malpractice or tort deform.

Graham was more of a Democrat than Bill Clinton on trade agreements, having consistantly opposed unfair free trade agreements.

[ally_sc]

53. hmmm...the devil you say.

I personally do not care for Lindsay Graham, or DeMint...I have lived here all my life...We will miss Fritz he did a lot for SC...eventhough some of the crap he said on 60 min was whacked about the majority of the repub's being white and the majority of the dem's being black...

[Nite Owl]

4. If it were even higher than that

why couldn't the rate then be lowered. That would be a tax cut for the middle class and would soften the blow on those over the present cap, it would be more a transition for them. The middle class needs the tax cut.

[WildClarySage]

7. Because, silly,

that would mean that the wealthy would shoulder more of the tax burden.

And we can't have that...

[Nite Owl]

9. If the dems would frame it

like that they would be seen as the party of the people and it would be very obvious who is for them and agin them. We know it won't pass but the dems have to learn how to fight an issue. It's all about the marketing.

[sheilajane]

8. 10 myths of Social Security from the Century Foundation

This is one of the best articles I have read on Social Security.My Rep.Mark Green says, he will not raise taxes to save S.S. This says there is no way to save it unless you raise taxes! The fight will be who will pay more!!!! S.S. is good for 40 years and this is not a crisis. Even then it will be 75% funded. Social Security is one of the best run programs the government has,it cost little to admin. and is a guaranteed income with cost of living etc, it goes on! Read it!

[blondeatlast]

11. Link? Thanks, and welcome to DU!

Here's a link to the Century Foundation:

http://www.tcf.org/

Again, welcome--it's an easy mistake that I've made dozens of times.

:toast:

[Guaranteed]

12. Wow, that's a RAISE.

When I saw the heading, I thought it was going to be a cut.

Hey, Lindsey, I'm with ya!

[sheilajane]

13. the link!

I don't know how to do that!!!! Go to google and put in Century Foundation on Social Security. Articles will come up and scroll down a bit,and you will see 10 myths. Maybe someone will link it now.

[blondeatlast]

20. Just copy from your address bar. For instance, the link below is this thre

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=1426239&mesg_id=1426324

[RafterMan]

14. Good call by him.

Throw in means testing and we're getting somewhere.

[kodi]

15. that is the GOP chip, what are they going to demand in exchange?

do not be fooled, this is just the opening move in the game for who gets to use the SS Trust Fund.

salivate at the chance for putting a hurt on the pockets of folks making 88K to 200K will have its downside, and in dealing with the GOP i am prone to wait for the other shoe to drop before i pick up the one they just dropped.

imagine the folowing some time this next summer:

george bush at the signing of the SS recovery act of 2005..."it was a tough negotiation, and compromises had to be made to allow for the historical achievement of privatization of SS accounts, and we had to raise the ceiling om paycheck deductions to $200K to get the entire bill passed."

suckers, the bushewviks have played us for 4 years and to think these guys are not 10 moves ahead on this one is insane.

[papau]

31. You are ahead of the curve - and correct - "Temp wage base increase to

fund transition costs only" is the latest version of the idea....

I should have known better!

:toast:

:-)

[Strelnikov_]

16. Why Fix Something That Isn't Broken

Seems like it is just a backdoor way to increase the general tax revenue .

By saying it is for the SS trust fund, they can avoid calling it a tax increase.

They need to concentrate on those making over $200,000.

[MrUnderhill]

19. I honestly think the solution here is "everybody loses...a little"

Raise the income cap 25-30% (and raise their future benefits cap by about half of that).

Raise the tax by 2% (half employee/half employer)

Raise the retirement age gradually by another couple years and index it to future life expectancy improvements (if people start living five years longer... it isn't unreasonable to ask them to retire two years later). Indexing it will take the political pain out of future increases since it happens automatically.

Allow younger works to invest 3% (remember this is after a 2% increase overall) in exchange for cutting their future retirement benefits by more than the 1/5 their pulling out of their contributions. Save money on administrative costs by fitting most of them in to existing 401(k) plans and tightening the withdrawal rules on those plans (at least on the SS funds) and tightening investment option restrictions (these dollars can't go in to company stock, etc). We can even incent businesses to make additional matching contributions on these dollars which will not only improve the perceived return, but effectively transfer some general funds in to SS.

[demosincebirth]

22. One idea should be, that wealthy reitirees should not be

able to collect SS.

[cattleman22]

57. You favor a means testing?

What kind of means testing do you prefer?
1) total yearly income?
2) Total net worth?
3) Total lifetime earnings and income?


I personally favor means testing based on option 3.

[EQPlayer]

23. Lindsey Graham

I live in Georgia (save me please), and I have to admit that Lindsey Graham has grudgingly earned my respect by NOT always toeing the party line and being a Shrub rubber stamp. I don't remember exactly what he did with regard to the national guardsmen serving in Iraq, but I seem to remember him calling Bush out on their benefits or something like that. He seems to be an independent thinker who is willing to call a spade a spade. Personally, I have more respect for someone who is true to his principles (even if I don't agree with them) then someone who will change his mind to reflect popular opinion. * does it all the time (although the MSM never call him on it), and Kerry was guilty of it as well. This doesn't mean I'm a big fan of Lindsey Graham, but I do have a certain respect for him that I will never have for one of my Senators, Saxby "how high should I jump, *" Chambliss. Book is still out on our new Senator, Isakson, but at one time he was a moderate, so let's see what he does when he doesn't have to bow down to his East Cobb bible-thumping constituency and has a chance to move to the middle.

First post btw! :)

[liberalpragmatist]

32. welcome!

:hi:

[flpoljunkie]

24. Raise the ceiling to save Social Security, NOT to destroy it!

An incredible insult to our intelligence. We pay for destroying Social Security's guarantee; I don't think so! Repeal Bush's tax cuts for those making over $200,000 and there won't be any shortfall for a very long time. A little bit of tinkering will do the job--like repealing the entire repeal of the estate tax--keep it at $3.5 million exempt from estate tax.

Am glad to see that the AARP will fight Bush's ridiculous privatization plan--after rolling over for his Medicare Rx plan.

[shuffnew]

34. Why not just remove the "caps" completely and never have a problem? eom

[flpoljunkie]

39. Too politically difficult to do so, altho no ceiling on Medicare taxes.

No one has suggested this--probably for this reason.

[PurityOfEssence]

26. They want to kill social security in order to put more fear back into life

Much of their evil-doings are just petty revenge, but much also has real reasoning behind it. The Plutocrat wants to keep everybody in peril and fear, thus they can drive wages down and ensure that workers won't disrupt anything or keep them from their unchecked hunger for ridiculous amounts of money.

This is much of why employers are charged with the healthcare of their employees: to make their workers terrified to ever leave. Of course, the new meanness of the Republican Party doesn't even want to oblige employers with that; it wants to put it all on the workers.

It's important to greedheads to have everyone scared to death about his/her future and fully aware that he/she must scrabble selfishly for money with every fiber of their being during every waking hour. The idea that there's EVER going to be a safety net for the workers disgusts these people, even though they take many different forms of governmental assistance themselves. Free marketeers hate the very concept of organized labor and disavow the reality that its simply another expression of the cause and effect in the marketplace.

They want to kill it, and they'll stop at nothing to do so. The interesting thing is who'll be the frontman for the new feudalism...

[EVDebs]

27. It's not Soc Sec that's broken, its MEDICARE/MEDICAID !

Republicans want to gut all entitlement programs that benefit PEOPLE and claim to want to 'starve the beast' -- meaning Big Government. This is laughable since the Military Industrial Complex is what they want to feed ! Read between the lines of this article

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/07/BUG0V9N54U1.DTL

""Medicare faces cost crisis
Multitrillion-dollar deficits loom over federal programs""
Tom Abate, SF Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, November 7, 2004

While policy-makers debate President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, a bigger and more pressing problem is looming -- the mind-numbing future costs of Medicare and Medicaid.

Medicare is the federal program that covers hospitalization, doctor's care and, soon, prescription drugs for 41 million seniors and disabled people.

Medicaid is the joint state-federal program that provides health care to 51 million people. About three-quarters of the beneficiaries are the uninsured poor, mainly women and children. But 70 percent of Medicaid outlays are spent on the remaining beneficiaries -- the disabled and seniors, especially those in nursing homes.

In 2003, Medicare and Medicaid outlays accounted for 3.9 percent of the gross domestic product, the nation's total output of goods and services, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

But health care costs have been rising far faster in recent years than the general inflation rate. Coupling that with the surge of retiring Baby Boomers, the budget office projects spending for these two programs could grow to as much as 21.3 percent of gross domestic product by 2050.

To put that in perspective, budget office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin says the entire federal budget today is 20 percent of the GDP. If the office's projections are correct, Medicare and Medicaid are on a trajectory to either crowd out other programs or boost federal outlays as a share of the economy.

"We have to decide how much we're going to spend, and on what,'' Holtz- Eakin said.

There is considerable debate about how much trouble Social Security is in and whether it requires the fix Bush has proposed. But there is little doubt about the difficulties in store because of the future costs of Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, the secretaries of the Treasury, Labor and Health and Human Services departments said just that in a March report, "The Status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs."

"Medicare's financial difficulties come sooner -- and are much more severe -- than those confronting Social Security,'' the report said. So why does Social Security rather than Medicare top the president's agenda?

"Because Social Security is the easier of the two problems to solve,'' said Texas A&M economist Thomas Saving, who signed the report as a public member of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund, the board that oversees the financial health of the two programs.

Saving said elected officials of both major parties have been unwilling to face the future costs of federal health care programs...."

The article goes on like this but you get my drift: The neocons are out to first destroy SS, then onward to destroy healthcare as we know it !

[shraby]

28. Along with the Enron debacle

the stock market tanked and a lot of retirees and about to be retirees lost their retirement money necessitating a return to the work force.
Aren't any lessons EVER learned?

[unlawflcombatnt]

29. $200,000 cap shot down

The mention of a $200,000 cap got my hopes up a little. Though it was certainly hard to believe. Then I read the rest of your post. Bush shot the idea down. Now that is EASY to believe. I was starting to think that, on rare occasions, a Republican comes up with a good idea. Then you burst my bubble. And I returned to the real world.

[EVDebs]

33. "How Social Security Taxes Subsidize the Rich" in PerfectlyLegal

Fellow chumps

I read chapter 8 of David Cay Johnston's book "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit The Super Rich -- And Cheat Everybody Else". The title of that chapter is 'How Social Security Taxes Subsidize the Rich'.

Some interesting quotes from the chapter:

"...three out of four households now pay more in Social Security taxes than in income taxes."

"...The government takes 6.2 cents out of each dollar of salary, but only up to a ceiling of $87,000 in 2003. People whose salary is higher than this get a tax break on every additional dollar they earn. For chief executives the Social Security tax is often a tiny fraction of 1 percent of their total compensation."

"Social Security also represents a double tax. The Social Security tax applies to wages that have already been subject to the personal income tax. If double taxation is fundumentally unfair, a stronger case can be made for the unfairness of Social Security as a double tax than for a tax on dividends."

In the coming years we will learn, along with the Bush administration, that not only wars must be paid for but also the other necessities of government...Reagan learned this after his tax cuts only he called the resulting tax increases 'revenue enhancements'. We will also have this lesson to learn.

Please get ahold of this fine book by David Cay Johnston !

[cyn2]

35. Lindsey Graham

I believe he really supported the troops when the Abu Grib horrors emerged, and he was willing to search higher up in the line of command. He got my respect then.

200,000 cap is a great idea. So simple, yet so elegant. I hope if B* doesn't like it that some smart Dem. will take it up!

[SoCalDem]

37. I would go as high as 500K..

"Starter" homes are going for at least that much in some parts of the US.
It only works, though if the "extra" money taken in is NOT SPENT as fast as it's collected..

THAT'S what happend to the EXTRA that we Boomers were forced to start paying when St. Ronnie of Reagan was ruling the land..

He raised them so that we Boomers would be "pre-paying" our own SS, in addition to beefing up the system for our grandparents and parents..

We have been taken to the cleaners...again !!!

[flpoljunkie]

41. Absolutely! There is no lockbox; excess FICA contributions are put into

general revenue and spent; all we get is a lousy IOU with a promise to pay in the future with what--other general revenue monies?

This is also done with Medicare--which is in much worse shape than Social Security-and yet Congress passes a Medicare prescription drug bill that is an egregious $135+ billion giveway to the pharmaceutical companies--with a provision in the bill that Medicare CANNOT negotiate lower prices or buy in bulk. We cannot import enough drugs from Canada for our needs; we need bulk buying like is done by the VA.

We are forever being taken for a ride by the Republicans' and their special interests group--crony capitalism at its worst!

[flpoljunkie]

40. But only to save SS, not to destroy it through privatization!

[Mike L]

45. He was also willing to tell the truth about the extent of the Abu Ghraib

atrocities. He was the ONLY member of Congress who publicly stated that the second set of photos and videos (that weren't made public) contained scenes of murder and rape.

[johnnyrocket]

36. Bush proposed borrowing 1 trillion to make up the SS

difference. That's right, 7 trillion in debt ( and exploding ), 600 billion annual deficit and growing...BUSH PROPOSES *MORE* BORROWING OF 1 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!!!

Outrageous recklessness, Bush doesn't want to kill all social programs, he wants to take down America, destroy it financially, politically, militarily, until there's nothing left. Wanton destructive administration...probably because they know something we don't, maybe the Armageddon?

[yellowcanine]

42. Good idea except that there is no reason there should be a cap at all.

[Mike L]

47. The politicians would just steal the extra money to use for something else

[Mike L]

46. If the politicians had not stolen money from the SS Trust fund,

there would be no problem.

[Redleg]

48. Raising the cap is a good idea.

Of course SS is not really broken but a few tweaks such as Graham suggested should shore it up.

[robbedvoter]

49. SS didn't need saving - but this stunt revealed W's true intentions anyway

[DoveTurnedHawk]

50. We Need to Raise Taxes on Wealth, Not Work

This would penalize people who work for a living, including middle-class folks in urban areas like NY, CA, SF, etc. Meanwhile, rich people who live off of interest and dividends get away scot free.

I would raise the overall tax levels on all people with income over a certain amount, as well reestablish or increase taxes on dividends, interest, inheritance, etc. Additional payroll taxes are not necessary or desirable, IMO.

DTH

[Mike L]

51. We need to raise the top tax rate back to 39.6%.

I'd also love to see a special tax on all the idiots who supported the Iraq War. They wanted it, they should pay for it. Levy an IW tax on all the registered Repugs and that would be close enough.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

52. LOL

I totally agree on the top tax rate. Iraq War would be a neat tax, too, but I'm afraid it might fall afoul of certain equal protection clauses in our Constitution. ;-)

DTH

[A Simple Game]

54. We could have a check box on the tax forms.

Check here for 10, 50, 100 dollars for special funding of the Iraq war. Lets see who puts there money where their mouth is.

[CheshireCat]

56. Graham has surprised me more than once.

But most of his views are extremely right wing.

Rumors are that Grahman is gay. Sometimes I think he's a political opportunist who would leave the Republican party if he thought he could do so and WIN.

[Mike L]

58. So, we have it. He's a culturally conservative, economically leftist,

honest, closet gay man masquerading as a Repug.

Hey, that's as good as we can hope for in SC.

Another tidbit-- Graham was a trial lawyer before he ran for political office. He won a few medical malpractice cases.