I'm for Social Security reform (but different than what many pols want).

[mmonk]

Raise the taxable income amounts instead of taking away or decreasing benefits. This country has a meager at best safety net when compared to modern countries. I'm tired of the assault on it while the commonwealth's money has been turned into a depository for political cronies and the rich.

[MajorChode]

1. If you're going to make the case for raising taxable income amounts...

Why have a limit on them at all?

Those who are already at the max income limits receive far less benefit as a function of their contributions. So if you are going to make the case that the system should be paid for by those who are better off, why not go all the way with it and do away with them entirely?

[thunder rising]

3. I agree ... every dollar earned contributes.

[mmonk]

5. I think raising it to a sustainable amount would be humane.

I'm not necessariy looking for anything punitive in nature. Screwing with benefits as what were fixed incomes have declined with the economic mess seems like a bad solution for the vulnerable.

[MajorChode]

6. But you've already suggested that it be punitive

Now it's just a question for whom and how much.

[mmonk]

18. I don't see how it's punitive when the working poor have always

had to pay it.

[MajorChode]

19. Yes, and so do the middle classes

And those who pay the maximum will already never get back just what was contributed (let alone any interest).

So your argument against doing away with the cap is you don't want it to be "punitive" on the rich. So if that argument can be made (and I'm not saying it can), then your proposal already will be for those affected.

[mmonk]

21. My argument wasn't based on being punitive or being not punitive

on the rich. I was pushing for raising the cap to keep it solvent so there can be no more excuses from the politicians that the system will go bankrupt (even though if they had their priorities straight, the argument wouldn't be made to begin with since funding SS or not is a choice by the politicians and not determined by what they say determines it).

[MajorChode]

23. Then you're arguing for the wrong reasons

Hannah Bell is right on this one. SS has no solvency problems. It is impossible for SS to go "bankrupt" so anyone who makes that case is full of shit to begin with, and personally I refuse to make arguments with people on a false premise. Neither should you.

[Skink]

2. create a doughnut hole.

Between 100 and 250 thousand things remain exempt. After that the tax kicks back in.

[mmonk]

7. Interesting idea.

[Statistical]

8. Why?

I never understood that.

I am as capitalist as it gets. I see no reason NOT to substantially raise the limit across the board. Why make a loophole in the $100K-$250K range? How does that benefit anyone except those who luck out and happens to fall in the $100K-$250K range?

While we are at it we may need to look at raising the % witheld also, maybe by 1%.

Moving the cap from 100K to say 800K and raising the % from 6.2% to say 6.8% (a 0.6% increase) would go a long way to ensuring the solvency of Social Security.

[Skink]

13. I like doughnuts.

It would keep in line with Obamas, and Kerry's pledge for that matter, not to raise taxes on those earning 250,000 or less.

[mmonk]

22. Yep. He wouldn't be continuously beat up on the issue with such a donut

in place, yet help quell the solvency argument politicians use in order to try and transfer the money to the money changers in brokerage houses.

[TahitiNut]

4. It'd be far, far better to raise the payroll wages of the bottom 80%.

It is the FACT of the declining wages in the last 30 years of the bottom 80% of the working class that has led to the projections of shortfalls (NOT "bankruptcy") in OASDI thirty years from now. The xctuarial projections for Social Security merely portray part of the IMPACT of the war on the working class. It is THAT whihc must be addressed. Social Security solvency is but a single (major) side-effect of this class war.

[slipslidingaway]

9. kick your idea :) n/t

[CLANG]

10. Remove the cap and lower the percentage

[mikehiggins]

11. And why not roll back the tax on Soc Sec benefits, anyway?

Just asking ('cause I'm collecting Soc Sec right now ;^) )

[Selatius]

12. Remove the FICA cap entirely. Liquidity problem solved. nt

[Cleita]

26. Yeah, but then the uber riche would have to pay their fair percentage and we

can't upset them.

[Hannah Bell]

14. Since there's no problem, there's no need for your "fix".

Why the sudden rash of posters wanting to "fix" SS today?

Is it another sortie in the eternal battle to destroy it?

In which every "fix" just makes things less sustainable...

Such as Greenspan's "over tax them & put it into the general budget, then give the rich tax cuts" fix.

[slipslidingaway]

15. It is because of what Obama said today and I agree that SS

does not need to be fixed.

[Hannah Bell]

16. right, i forgot. this time the democrats will "fix" it.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Sigh :( n/t

[MajorChode]

20. You sure make some poor assumptions

You assume that everyone who proposes a change to SS thinks the program is going down the toilet.

Then out of the other side of your mouth, you propose your own changes.

So why don't you assume that about yourself also?

[Hannah Bell]

24. Which changes are those, cho-de?

[Cleita]

25. Social Security doesn't need reform. It needs hands off by the

thieves who want to meddle in its coffers. Yes, better benefits would be nice but don't tinker with what we have.