Obama and the Dems need to vow NOT to raise Social Security retirement age and NOT to cut benefits

[brentspeak]

Steny Hoyer's GOP-like insinuations that the retirement age will be raised, as well as benefits cut, needs to be nipped in the bud and stuffed right now. The line in the sand needs to be drawn.

Among other things, the message about the Democrats possibly assisting the GOP on this matter needs to be distributed as widely as possible to the Democratic rank-and-file. The Democrats want votes? They're going to find a lot fewer of them for decades if this crap plan of the corporate Dems goes through.

[Hawkowl]

1. Raise the cap

I have repeatedly heard the President say that social security could be fixed by merely raising the cap, or removing the cap.

This needs to be THE POSITION. Cutting benefits or raising the retirement age so that more people will be DEAD and unable to collect is political suicide. Combine this with progressives being "retarded", unions being put in their place over Blanche Lincoln, the bumbling ineptitude towards GLBT issues, and you can call the alienation of the base complete.

[Lost4words]

3. Owls always see through the mist, +1

:toast:

[Nite Owl]

8. What people want

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/29/deficits-social-security-and-the-american-public-13505/

Finally, abundant evidence from surveys over the years by Bloomberg, NASI, the present authors, Pew, Quinnipiace, and CBS/NYT have all found that majorities of Americans favor raising or eliminating the payroll tax “cap” on high incomes. Most recently, Bloomberg found 78% of Americans saying that removing the cap entirely should be “considered.” Last summer, NASI found that fully 83% of Americans supported “lift” the cap “so that workers earning more than would pay Social Security tax on their entire salary just like everyone else.” This one policy change, by itself, would erase most of the projected future deficit in the Social Security trust fund.

[Igel]

14. But the deficit in the SS trust fund is not the elephant in the room.

It's the general fund deficits that will be the elephant in the room as all the SS trust fund securities are converted and sold as general US securities.

Total taxes paid at a given income level have remained fairly flat over the last 60 years--regardless of what the nominal rate is (just citing the official income tax rates shows a stunning lack of appreciation for reality). If you increase the rate, you increase the motivation for tax shelters or deferring income or other "tricks" to reduce the actual tax liability owed; if you decrease the rate, earners are less motivated to engage in this kind of planning. (Yes, reality tends to undercut a lot of firmly held opinions about people over time in various income brackets.) Note that it takes a couple of years to adjust and implement their revised strategies after a tax law change, so a change in the law can provide a temporary bump or a dip in overall tax revenues.

Now, if you increase the payroll tax, a tax that can't easily be mitigated, it's a reasonable prediction that it'll drive down federal income tax revenues. Since Very Soon Now the SS shortfall will be made up with general fund revenue, the two pools of money are nearly completely equivalent in all regards except how they're labelled.

[Lost4words]

2. I dont think the dems have the moxie to do that!

everything is see says wimpy wimpy wimpy

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. I predict this vow can be added to the woodpile of other promises

public option
DADT
Guantanamo
renditions
etc

[golfguru]

5. Everything needs to be and will be on the table

1. Raise cap, so all level of wages are taxed
2. Increase retirement age
3. Cut benefits for immigrants who have never contributed or contributed less than 10 years.

Any one will not be sufficient to make social security last for all.

[brentspeak]

7. Bull. Lifting the cap alone solves the problem all by itself

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20050217/

Removing the Social Security earnings cap virtually eliminates funding gap

Removing the Social Security earnings cap virtually eliminates funding gap
Using relatively pessimistic assumptions about future growth in productivity and immigration, the Social Security Administration (SSA) actuaries estimate that Social Security trust fund revenues will fall somewhat short of covering scheduled benefits over the next 75 years. Until recently, President Bush had signaled opposition to any revenue increase to close that shortfall. On February 16, however, President Bush indicated his willingness to consider raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax. SSA actuarial estimates show that eliminating the cap would virtually eliminate the projected 75-year funding shortfall.

This shortfall is less severe than is often presented by proponents of Social Security privatization. SSA's projections show that a 1.9 percentage-point increase in the existing payroll tax dedicated to Social Security would close the projected funding gap over a 75-year period. Using slightly less pessimistic economic assumptions about the next 75 years, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the gap could be closed over the next 75 years with just a 1.0 percentage-point increase.

Currently, all earnings up to $90,000 are taxed at 12.4% to fund Social Security. Each dollar earned over and above this cap is completely exempt from Social Security taxes.

This cap affects benefits as well: calculation of Social Security benefits are based on a formula that does not take earnings over the cap into account. Since higher income during one's working life translates into higher Social Security benefits, removing the cap on the benefit side would increase Social Security payments to high-wage earners.

[Nite Owl]

9. What if they raised the cap

to include everyone and then lowered the percentage for those under a certain amount, let's say 50k, then it would be a middle class tax CUT. That would help things, people who need the extra few bucks in the pay checks would get a break, the upper income earners would hardly notice as a percentage of their income is still very low.

[brentspeak]

10. That's a good idea

And it would be a politically smart thing for the Democrats to tout. Unfortunately, the current Democratic leadership doesn't seem intelligent enough to want to do it.

[Hansel]

13. If they eliminated the cap they could lower the rate for everyone.

Business and every person making under $106,000 a year would get a tax decrease. Only individuals making over that amount would pay more or start paying the same percentage as everyone else rather. That is exactly how they should do it.

[golfguru]

11. The commission appointed by president has better data

and I will believe their findings more than some obscure link
presented here. No offense to you, since I respect your opinion
but the presidential commission will have far more resources and
data to come up with a solution.

[ellenfl]

12. except it seems to be stacked with people who want to

kill social security and medicare, oddly. raising the age limit is punishment for the poor and pensionless. they're the people who will have to work until they are 70, not the wealthy. the good news for the repubs? . . . the poor will probably die before they reach 70 because they do not have the same level of health care or, in some cases, the physicality to endure the jobs they hold.

on another note, i was not aware that originally the age limit was set with the expectation that few would live to that age. it truly is an insurance policy . . . betting against our ability to redeem our lifelong premiums. at least this insurance company could not reject us.

ellen fl

[eridani]

15. They have a bunch of useless rich parasites who want to kill off retirees

If you can't find work in your 50s and 60s due to age discrimintion, what's plan B? Soylent Green?

[golfguru]

17. No one said it would be easy

if it was, it would have been done already.

It is far more important that social security & medicare survive
than go bankrupt. Belt tightening may be the ONLY solution left.

[eridani]

19. "Belt-tightening" = killing off lower income people between the ages of 60 and 70

How about killing off some of our bloated military instead?

[golfguru]

23. I have zero problem with killing off any amount of military n/t

[curlyred]

30. riiiight

The republicans would rather rob it than fix it.

[glitch]

18. Is there any government authority you are willing to make the effort to question? nt

[golfguru]

24. A bureaucrat yes, appointed commission with various backgrounds NO!

[joe black]

21. April fools?

No really. It's not rocket science, raise taxes on the filthy rich and fica for everyone you know, the assholes who sit around the pool collecting dividend check.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. I'd be inclined to agree with you IF...

the commission weren't already stacked with Republicans and their allies in the DLC, and if ANYONE had mentioned looking at the question of cutting the war budget to shore up Social Security.

[joe black]

29. Republican

[OHdem10]

6. How can they do this when the main Democrat representing the

Democratic Party was on MTP spewing Republican Talking
Points better than the GOP, themselves.

Harold Ford--we have got to cut entitlements and cut taxes.

At least Rachel tried to push back. She was there to report
on Afghanistan and did just great.

[uponit7771]

25. Ford is not a "main" democrat of anything IIRC, he get slapped in the mouth by Maddow cause he's

...full of crap

[LWolf]

16. k&r

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MichiganVote]

22. God just don't tax the poor rich people and the corporations who don't do shit.

[Umbral]

27. Well sure, but only if they want better than a snowballs chance in hell of re-election. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. How will it look when they break that vow?

It is probably better not to promise something that you have no intention of delivering.