Do you support raising the income cap on Social Security

[ProSense]

[The Magistrate]

1. Yes, Ma'am, Certainly

And with no increase in benefits above the capped amount. The point of the exercise is to increase the solvency of the system and to address in some small proportion inequalities of pay over a working life.

[ProSense]

4. Some good charts

source

[FreakinDJ]

2. Of course it is the only FAIR solution

[PBS Poll-435]

3. Not exactly. I prefer the Al Franken "doughnut hole" solution

Keep the cap indexed to a certain limit, and then anything above 250K or whatever is where FICA resumes.

[ProSense]

5. "then anything above 250K or whatever is where FICA resumes."

That's a yes.

[cascadiance]

14. A better, more fairer, and even simpler solution would be to remove the cap AND...

lower the flat tax rate so that those making $250k would pay the same effective tax rate (raw amount of money) levied on their complete salary that they would pay on their first $106-7k that they are getting taxed now. That way...

1) Obama continues his commitment to not raising taxes on those making under $250k.
2) Those under $250k would actually get a tax CUT, so that they would have more spending money.
3) By eliminating the cap, you'd still likely have the fund fully funded to not worry about it running out of money.
4) You keep it simple and not have to worry about moving a "donut hole" with inflation each year or set of years.
5) A "donut hole" is in fact unfair to those making just around the lower cap who pay the same amount of money that those making $250k do. That's not really fair either. Avoid the donut hole please! It was an earlier but not as adequate "solution" to prevent Obama from having to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k. I think the removing the cap altogether and lowering the tax rate works better.
6) By removing the cap, you also help ensure that those making less than $106k aren't unfairly targeted in layoffs, which allows companies to get a bigger chunk of tax liabilities removed than if they were flat taxed and everyone had liablities equivalent to what their salary was. That might serve as a disincentive for corporations to spend too much money on execs salary, if they have to budget both paying and matching higher payroll tax amounts for them.

[PBS Poll-435]

17. My only resistance to removing the cap entirely is the the benefits are not linear to contribution.

nt

[Armstead]

18. It is progressive in the sense that it makes up for the regressive nature of the taxes

The SS tax hits people harder on the lower income scale. Someone making $30' 000 is hit harder by the amount taken out than someone making $500 K or above.

So, while the benefits may not be linear to contribution in mathematical terms, a raising of the cap is ultimately offset by the discrepancy of effects of the tax in earlier life.

[golfguru]

6. Positively yes....no cap needed on all earned income.

[WatchWhatISay]

11. Should also be levied against investment income

Why should the single mother who stands on her feet all day be taxed on every dollar she earns, but not the wealthy whose income comes from investments?

[golfguru]

13. Because the investment capital was already taxed

and the investment interest/dividend income is taxed with income tax.
Social security is for people who work, as a vehicle for retirement income
and disability insurance.

If they imposed a social security tax on investment income, the capital will
flee to other countries, since none of them have any such tax. Even if a small
portion of capital left our country, it would affect creation of new jobs since
all such activities require capital.

[ProSense]

19. Why is it that

"If they imposed a social security tax on investment income, the capital will
flee to other countries, since none of them have any such tax. Even if a small
portion of capital left our country, it would affect creation of new jobs since
all such activities require capital."

...every time the issue of taxing the rich is raised, the first excuse is that they'll take there money elsewhere? Outsourcing is blamed on too high taxes, etc.?


Krugman: Our Low, Low Taxes

I thought it might be useful to have a cleaner comparison of the major advanced countries. So here are taxes by all levels of government as a % of GDP, removing the clutter by only looking at the G7, and using data from 2007 so that things aren’t confused by the effects of the Great Recession:



<...>

[golfguru]

21. We have too many tax loop holes

Actually our corporate tax RATES are at the highest end compared to all
industrialized countries. I have posted many times here how that hurts our
economy. Since all corporations are owned by individuals at the end of food
chain, we should tax the individuals making the most money higher, and lower
taxes for corporations. That will make our corporations more competitive with
foreign corporations and create more jobs here.

When corporations are taxed, all the small fry working there and the small fry
stock holders are penalized. Instead we should increase tax rates on personal
income so that the richer will pay their fair share.

Instead of income tax, corporations should be taxed on gross sales. If that was
done GE would not escape with ZERO tax last fiscal year.

[ProSense]

22. Yet

with all the loopholes, they're still complaining and threatening.

[golfguru]

23. The problem is loopholes are selective

Whoever has the best lobbyists gets the breaks. When will we get smart
and eliminate all corporate tax loopholes, enact a flat rate based on
gross sales and no deductions. That will result in efficient corporations
growing and expanding (which means more employees) and weed out the inept
ones. That is because if you can't make a profit, you won't be able to pay
tax on gross sales and then be forced to sell to a smarter management group.

[ProSense]

24. Maybe, but

that isn't the case when it comes to wealthy individuals, who are also complaining and threatening.

[golfguru]

27. wealthy individuals

screw them, they are a very small small minority.
If one is earning a million, 40% rate is not excessive,
especially due to the situation we are in with humongous budget deficits.

[Sherman A1]

7. Yes,

My position is simply one of fairness, I think every dollar earned should be subject to helping to pay for the system.

[Laf.La.Dem.]

8. Almost voted NO!!

So my name would stand out:evilgrin:

[Skink]

9. We pay so little into it we should also raise the percentage.

[Curmudgeoness]

12. We pay so little? Really? I think that over 7% of every dollar

we earn is not a little amount (this includes SS and Medicare deductions). Every dollar, every year, all our working lives. And this is just what is taken from our checks for SS and Medicare, it does not include income taxes.

Don't get me wrong, I do not begrudge that 7%+ taken, although I certainly will if they decide to renege on the promise of what I am paying for. But I think that this is not such a small amount.

[WatchWhatISay]

10. There should be no cap at all

An infinite level of income should be taxed at least at some percent.

If all income were taxed, everyone could be taxed at a lower rate.

[Permanut]

15. Also voting for no cap at all...

Excellent post, excellent ideas in this thread!

[Dkc05]

16. Leave it alone

Eom

[polichick]

20. Why?

[blueclown]

25. I'm hungry for some pizza.

[eridani]

26. Absolutely. Don't you wish Obama did?

He said so in 2008, but refused to mention it in his recent speech. why?

[johnaries]

28. He still does, and he's said so. Google is your friend. nt

[eridani]

30. I copied his entire letter that whitehouse.gov sends to anyone who writes him on the issue

Care to point out where it says anything about raising the cap? I've copied the text verbatim.

"he has called on Congress to work on a bipartisan basis to preserve Social Security as a reliable source of income for American seniors" = I intend to demand that Repukes use lube when fucking over retirees

"He believes that no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced and he will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations." = I'm leaving people already over 65 alone, but I will compromise with the Repukes to fuck over those under 55 by settling on cuts that are midway between zero and Repuke "slashing"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/seniors-and-social-security

Seniors & Social Security

"To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market."

-President Barack Obama in the State of the Union Address, January 25, 2011

Progress

Many seniors are struggling in the face of the economic downturn, having seen their savings fall, and we acted quickly to help provide relief. The Recovery Act provided a one-time payment of $250 to retirees, other Social Security beneficiaries, disabled veterans, and SSI recipients. Fifty-six million retirees and other individuals received this one-time payment, totaling $14 billion. In light of continued economic hardship for too many seniors, the President has called for Congress to enact another $250 Economic Recovery Payment to our seniors this year, as well as to veterans and people with disabilities.

Guiding Principles
Protecting & Strengthening Social Security

President Obama believes that all seniors should be able to retire with dignity, not just a privileged few. And, he believes that all Americans deserve to know that, if they become disabled or if they lose the breadwinner in the family, Social Security will be there to protect them. Today, nearly 54 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, including 38 million retirees and their family members, 10 million Americans with disabilities and their dependents, and 6 million survivors of deceased workers.

For many of these Americans, Social Security is a key source of income. In fact, for more than half of Social Security recipients aged 65 or over, the program provides over 50 percent of their family income and, because of its lifetime income protection and survivors benefits, Social Security is particularly important for elderly women. . Moreover, the program is not just for seniors. Because of features like survivors benefits, Social Security is one of the largest antipoverty programs for children, and disability benefits also help younger workers and their families and are particularly important to minority communities.

The President is committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security—and securing the basic compact that hard work should be rewarded with dignity at retirement or in case of disability or early death. That’s why he has called on Congress to work on a bipartisan basis to preserve Social Security as a reliable source of income for American seniors and as a program that provides robust benefits to survivors and workers who develop disabilities. He believes that no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced and he will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations. The President also stands firmly opposed to privatization and rejects the notion that the future of hard-working Americans should be left to the fluctuations of financial markets.

Strengthening Retirement

In addition to protecting and strengthening Social Security, President Obama will make it easier for Americans to save on their own for retirement and prepare for unforeseen expenses. Currently over 75 million working Americans—about half the workforce—lack access to retirement plans through their employers. The President’s budget lays the foundation for all Americans to participate in retirement accounts at work, proposing simple rules and automatic enrollment—that will automatically enroll workers in IRAs who, until now, haven’t had a workplace retirement plan, while allowing them to opt out if they wish.

This should dramatically increase savings participation rates. In 401(k) plans, automatic enrollment has tended to increase participation rates to more than nine out of ten eligible employees. In contrast, for workers who lack access to a retirement plan at their workplace, the current IRA participation rate tends to be less than one out of ten.

[ruggerson]

29. Sure. As long as the income paid out goes up commensurately

n/t

[eridani]

31. It won't. Too bad. However we should really be fighting the notion that the more affluent

--should get nothing at all. That amounts to illegally braking a contract.

[ruggerson]

33. agreed. Social Security is a contract.

The income tax should be made more progressive and the high income earners should pay their fair share.

But SS should not be used as a way to force families making, let's say 120K a year to pay even more into a system that will not return their income proportionately at retirement. The fact is that 100k for a family of four, with one wage earner, is middle class in a number of communities around the country.

[Logical]

32. Only if those people get more pay when they retire! n-t

[Avant Guardian]

34. Really all they have to do is raise it occasionally to account for inflation

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. No, and here's why.

The trust fund has $2.3 trillion in it. Any honest appraisal of the health of that trust fund indicates that the fund won't be depleted for 25 years if ever.

"Reform" is all about making that trust fund continue to grow so that the general fund will never have to repay it. They want it as a perpetual line of credit. That line of credit is about one quarter of our national debt. So long as the trust fund grows, so does the debt. That debt is used as a chronic excuse to cut social programs.

Better to raise income taxes on the rich by that amount. Add 15% onto every tax bracket above $105,000. Debt drops and the revenue to redeem the SS bonds is created. The promise to workers is also upheld; I paid extra SS tax so that I wouldn't be a burden on my kids. The only thing that those excess taxes could be invested in were federal bonds. That always meant that government would need to redeem that debt at some point.

The government should run on taxes, not debt.