On Social Security...the point is not how many are at $97,000 and above now...

[SaveElmer]

The point is how many believe they will be at that level in a relatively short time. How many at say $70K and up are thinking it won't be all that long before they reach that level...

Lifting that cap not only would be unpopular among the $97K and up set, but among those who see themselves getting there in the not too distant future...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Yes. Many Americans have reasonable hopes of cracking 100K someday

Fewer and fewer expect to ever be RICH.


The politics of talking about the cap, absent a pressing crisis, are disastrous.

[SaveElmer]

4. Exactly right...

Would be political suicide to campaign on such a notion...

[SharonAnn]

11. The cap is raised with inflation.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. So? Why should there be any cap on paying into SS?

[On the Road]

5. Because There is a Cap on Taking Out of Social Security

There is supposed to be a rough equality between input and output, at least in how the rules are structured. Taxing people with $1M salaries requires either making Social Security into a less-popular entitlement program or in raising the max on Social Security checks, which is really not need at the upper end,

[sandnsea]

8. It's INSURANCE if you can't work

If you make $20,000 for 10 years, a million for 3 years, and then go bankrupt and end up disabled - you still have an income. If you die, your children have an income. It's NOT a retirement plan.

[asdjrocky]

3. Wonderful RW talking point.

I can see where you're coming from. Me? I'm a 42k working slob, just like most of us here. I'm hoping for someone that speaks for me.

Good luck to your candidate.

[vireo]

17. That's why "donut hole" solution is popular

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3724388&mesg_id=3726815

Or would Sen. Clinton also oppose raising taxes on those earning over $200,000?

[SaveElmer]

20. Precisely the reason why a 1983 type solution is essental..

If lifting the cap is part of the solution, it has to be agreed to by Republicans as well...

Otherwise Democrats are just falling on their own sword...


A position Obama agreed with 4 months ago

[sandnsea]

6. 2008, the cap will be $102,000

For fucks sake, that's the entire problem in this stupid-ass country.

Hey fuck-wits

YOU AREN'T GOING TO GET RICH.

Raising the cap isn't going to hurt ANYBODY.

Jeebuz.

[Demobrat]

7. What they should do is

exempt the first $25,000 in income for everybody and eliminate the cap.

[sandnsea]

9. Earned Income Credit

Is actually to help offset FICA taxes. Low income people already get some assistance, and there's nothing wrong with everybody putting some money into the system.

[elehhhhna]

10. now THAT's waaaaaaaaaay toooooo logical

great idea.

[lldu]

12. I wish there was no cap ....

and I do make around $97k. I think ALL earnings should have SSI taken out. Not stop at $97k, but take it out if ya earn $2 million, $2 billion, whatever.

lldu

[SaveElmer]

14. Do you think then those above 97K should have their SS payments increased as well...

This is the dilemma. Social Security is perceived in the electorate as a retirement/safety net program...not as welfare...

Removing the cap while not increasing payments is going to shift that perception to where people are going to think of it as just another welfare program...

In an ideal world, removing the cap probably is not a bad thing to do...

In the real world it is political suicide...believe me, Republicans are licking their chops on this one, waiting to see if the Democrats will actually campaign on what is a huge tax increase...

[lldu]

15. I do think there should be a cap on payouts....

but feel that anyone who pays in should get something when the time comes for them to earn it. This is an insurance policy, not the governments piggy bank. BUT, there should be a MAX amount that any one person can get (Yes, a CAP).

lldu

[SaveElmer]

18. Hence the problem...capping benefits but not contributions...

Turns it into a welfare program in the eyes of many...

[lldu]

19. Ah! I see your point. nt

[SaveElmer]

21. Not that it is a bad idea fiscally...

Which is why Hillary...and Obama a few months ago advocated a 1983 style solution. If lifting or raising the cap is a part of the solution, Republicans will have to agree to it...otherwise Democrats take a hit for no gain...

[sam sarrha]

23. so let the elderly poor starve so th people who got rich on their backs can get money they dont need

the tax cuts to the rich came out of the SS funds.. to people who literally payed no taxes to begin with.. maybe 12 to 17% if any

bill gates paid the same amount of taxes as someone making $80,000

Fascists believe the poverty they create to be a vice and the poor get what they deserve...

[SaveElmer]

24. What's the point of advocating a massive tax increase

If it will result in the election of a Republican...

ANY solution to the future of social security has to be bipartisan, otherwise it won't be a solution but a stick to get beat over the head with...

[sam sarrha]

26. why tell them we are rolling back th give aways to the rich, not a tax increase at all, you are only

talking about 4% anyway

[SaveElmer]

27. Tin ear...

It is a tax increase...whatever the mechanism...

[tech3149]

31. Wow! so many good points and so many bad. Where to start?

I remember back in the early 60's in grade school a presentation on SS and it's intents and benefits. Number one point of the presentation was that SS wasn't a retirement program, it was just a backstop in case you never got the chance to earn enough to save for your old age or got blindsided by some event that made it impossible to support yourself that the rest of the country would contribute their pittance to make sure you didn't die in the street. Morally, that jives with what I believe. I guess my level of empathy for my friends, neighbors, and fellow countrymen might be outside the norm, but to borrow the phrase from Michael Moore "Are we a we nation or a me nation?". For me, my greatest concern is that my 86 y/o parents don't have to put their lives at risk to take care of daily affairs. If I were 10, 20, or 30 years younger, I might have different concerns. If I had kids and a wife, they'd most definitely be my priority. I'm lucky, I'm unburdened by responsibilities (except for my parents) so I have the freedom to support what I believe in.

To get to the primary issue of taxation, consider the taxation rates and where the money goes. FICA contribution for a worker is 6.2% with a matching employer contribution. That's not too bad when compared to the income tax rate imposed on the rest of us. If you're lucky enough to live off the income from your investments you pay at a rate of about 15% (depending on the skills of your financial adviser). If you actually have to do something every day for your bread and circus, you'd have to to fight hard to beat 30%. The only problems with FICA is not keeping elected representatives from picking the pockets of a funded program and getting the message out there that a self funded program can never go broke unless you don't pay attention to the numbers.

[sam sarrha]

30. we could take all the poor old people and just put them on the ice like Eskimos do, oh i forgot no

more ice... well there are always ovens, the poor elderly were called worthless eaters by hitler.. god forbid we do something for the
common good.. why dont yall just join the ReThug party

the tax cuts to the Richest 4% was intended to destroy social security and all the middle class creating new deal programs.
it was a failed program perpetrated by lies and deception that resulted in states raising taxes all over the country.. in texas we got $150 of the tax cut and our property taxes nearly doubled.. and the city raised sales taxes,

so you cant repeal a deceptive and costly failed program to previously levels cause that is a tax increase.??

that logic is common to ReThug DOGMA, it smacks of typical Conservative rigid ind diminished mental capacities


http://librocrat.blogspot.com/2007/10/conservatives-and-liberals-have.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+Conservatives+brains+different&btnG=Search

[tech3149]

13. During the late 90's my combined houshold income was around $250K

I was in NJ at the time and I wouldn't have felt any pain if the cap had covered the whole $250K. It might have meant a little less frivolous spending, but it wouldn't have caused any sleepless nights.

[SaveElmer]

16. I suspect the enlightened views most here have on taxes in relation to services...

Is not widely shared among most of the electorate...unfortunately

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. But you would have been equally comfortable if the same amount was added to your

income tax instead of your SS tax. So your perceptions are not the problem.

To most people, though, it's politically different. They know their income tax goes to buy bombs and bridges and all sorts of things.

But their SS taxes ONLY go to retirees.

So the more SS is perceived as a welfare program, the more focused the political/popular opposition.

If my paychack had income tax with-holding, and then a separate with-holding just for bombs I would go nuts. I would be easy for people to focus opposition to the "bomb tax."

It's not about the net revenue, but about maintaining the popularity of the SS program against the people who want to rip off the money and stick it in the stock market.

[tech3149]

28. You might be right but the point is FICA is dedicated to a specific function

My income tax can be wasted on any number of meaningless, counterproductive things. Even if I never had the chance to benefit from SS, I still wouldn't mind contributing because I'd know that someone wouldn't have to worry where the next meal was coming from. Also SS doesn't only go to retirees, it's there for anyone who has had any chance of self-reliance kicked out from under them. One second of inattention on the highway could put you or me in the same position.

[NewHampster]

22. Nice thread

:kick:

[tech3149]

29. I agree, many good points being made and it's an important subject n/t