Dem Senator Introduces Bill To Lift Social Security’s Tax Cap, Extend Its Solvency For Decades

[UnrepentantLiberal]

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:58 PM - Edit history (1)

(This has probably been posted but I'm posting it anyway.)



By Jeff Spross
Think Progress
Nov 16, 2012

Social Security, the government entitlement that provides support to seniors in retirement, the disabled, and other Americans, has long been in the cross-hairs of budget reformers. The program’s trust fund currently won’t be spent out until 2033, and after that it would still pay 75 percent of scheduled benefits.

Most of the proposed solutions to the shortfall involve cutting back benefits and raising the minimum retirement age. Both are deeply problematic; at its current level of benefits Social Security kept over 20 million people out of poverty in 2011, many Americans in demanding manual labor jobs already take early retirement and thus reduced benefits as it is, and lower-income Americans have not particularly benefited from the average rise in lifespans .

This week,however, Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) put forward a reform package that goes in the opposite direction, while still financially securing the program’s trust fund for roughly the next seven decades. The Washington Post’s Dylan Matthews laid out the details:

The Begich bill would lift the current payroll tax cap, which exempts wages in excess of a certain amount ($110,100 this year) from the tax. In turn, it would give high earners, who would pay more, additional benefits upon retirement, just as benefits increase as wages do for workers below the cap. […]

It also increases benefits across-the-board. While Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin adopt a stingier “chained CPI” measure for inflation, Begich adopts “CPI-E,” or a measure that specifically captures inflation in goods that seniors buy.

Due to deteriorated health and other considerations, goods seniors buy tend to be more expensive than those younger people purchase. Begich’s CPI-E change would mean, effectively, a 4.5 percent benefit increase for the program’s beneficiaries, including not just seniors but their designated survivors and disabled Americans as well.

More: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/16/1208701/democratic-senator-introduces-bill-to-lift-social-securitys-tax-cap-extend-its-solvency-for-decades/

Edit: Contact Information for Mark Begich:

Senator Mark Begich

111 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

phone. (202) 224 - 3004

fax. (202) 224 - 2354

Toll-free line: (877) 501 - 6275

Hours: M-F 9:00am - 7:00pm

Senate page: http://begich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/home

Email: http://begich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/emailsenator

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. K&R

And,
Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) for President - 2016!

[antigop]

2. K & r

[pintobean]

3. You're on the Greatest page

[UnrepentantLiberal]

9. Cool.

That hasn't happened in awhile.

[Faryn Balyncd]

4. Leadership.

[HopeHoops]

5. K&R - the cap IS the problem. I pay the full rate on all of OUR income.

What the hell is the point of capping it? Everybody should pay the same rate - period.

[Freddie]

16. ^This^

I'm a payroll administrator. I really don't care what people earn, it's part of the job. But when the already highly paid get even bigger checks mid-year thanks to the cap, it's steam-coming-out-of-ears time. If I pay the FICA tax on every penny I earn, so should my boss. Period.

[HopeHoops]

24. Bingo. We get fucked and they get a free ride. That's the way it is.

On Edit: Oh, and if you're self employed you get DOUBLY fucked!

[indypaul]

58. No you don't

Generally you reduce your gross income 50% of the self-employment tax
which reduces your taxable income and puts you on equal footing with
payroll employees.

[HopeHoops]

66. No. You pay the full 15.whatever % and get a DEDUCTION of 1/2 of the SE side.

You still pay it, just at a slightly lower rate. It should be even across the board - no ceiling.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

91. You're a smart dude.

Too bad you're a pervert misogynist.

[noamnety]

108. You are hardly the most "pro-woman" guy here.

You are one of the most dismissive guys here when women are telling you that your posts are offensive and are being perceived as hate speech.

If you want people to view you as pro-woman, act the part. Listen to women, and take their concerns seriously.

[Ken Burch]

123. Agreed...if you want to be seen as pro-woman, don't be a p___yt____dc__tt__ter.

and you can quote me on that.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

110. I couldn't agree more.

Every woman I know and love cusses like a sailor.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

74. "if you're self employed you ..." True, if you don't know how to rent property from yourself or a

related party, if you don't know how to ..."

Start with the definition of "net earnings from self-employment."

"26 U.S.C. 1402(a)
"The term “net earnings from self-employment” means the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by such individual, less the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are attributable to such trade or business, plus his distributive share (whether or not distributed) of income or loss described in section 702 (a)(8) from any trade or business carried on by a partnership of which he is a member; except that in computing such gross income and deductions and such distributive share of partnership ordinary income or loss—
(1) there shall be excluded rentals from real estate and from personal property leased with the real estate (including such rentals paid in crop shares, and including payments under section 1233(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3833 (2)) to individuals receiving benefits under section 202 or 223 of the Social Security Act) together with the deductions attributable thereto, unless such rentals are received in the course of a trade or business as a real estate dealer; except that the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any income derived by the owner or tenant of land if
...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1402

[HopeHoops]

76. Fuck. I've never made enough in self employment to worry about that.

I just file a Schedule C, Schedule SE, and write in the deduction on the 1040.

[Jimbo S]

30. Disagree

The point of capping taxable income is because the benefits are capped.

[HopeHoops]

36. That makes no sense. If you exceed the cap you don't even need the benefits.

Drop the cap and make the benefits in line with what's paid in. Yeah, that's a lot. But most people don't take out of the system what they put in. It will keep it solvent indefinitely. Sure, pay the rich the same output that the rest of us get as long as they contribute at the same rate. We're actually FUNDING the rich as the system is now. That's fucked up.

[MessiahRp]

78. With that thought process, they better hope they never fall from the $100k threshold of income then.

Because believe it or not, income amounts are not static. You could be a millionaire today and with a few bad investments or major downturn in economy you're just Joe Schmo. And frankly if you had paid in more you'd be looking at a better retirement once that time comes around. This whole argument reminds me greatly of this:

[mopinko]

80. you may or may not need the money when you are retired.

DH brings home a good paycheck, but it's still just a paycheck. we hit the cap, but we will need the earnings. maybe the koch brothers wont need it.
if you want to bring in a lot of money, start applying it to dividends and capital gains. that is who gets away with robbery.
you want most of the 1% on your side on this issue. telling them they will be paying more for their capped benefit insurance than you are, and you have made an enemy of the plan where there was someone who had buy in and fairness.

[HopeHoops]

83. Sorry, I'm not in that league. But if I was, I'd pay it. It just makes sense.

[mopinko]

127. hey, it's a great investment.

happy to be in it. but if i was paying twice what you are, but still getting the same max, i would probably not be real happy. and i honestly am someone who has no problem paying taxes.
don't make it a welfare program. fair is everybody that pays the same get the same. raise the cap all you want, but it is the death of this program, and people's pride and ownership in it if some people pay more for the same benefit. when that happens, it goes on the scrap heap of history.

[magical thyme]

45. I never even knew about the cap...until my income exceeded it

back in the 90s. And suddenly 2/3s of the way through the year my take home pay jumped. I was totally like

It made no sense to me. After years of dues-paying in my career, I now made more than enough in income. I never had a problem paying taxes because I always understood I was benefiting as a *result* of our society, not in spite of it.

I would rather have not had a cap back then, and have SS for sure in my near future. My career crashed post-911 and pushing 50, nobody was hiring me. I was forced by unemployment to burn through the majority of my savings and I'm lucky to make $20K now. The thought of them pushing retirement even further off, and cutting my little piece of it is infuriating.

[Overseas]

75. We will provide higher benefit levels for higher amounts paid in, as we should. SS Insurance.

You get back in accordance with what you paid in.

[xtraxritical]

86. That's not progressive taxation at all.

[Overseas]

103. It is Insurance. As it is now, if you earn more you pay more and you get more-- up to 100K.

If we lift the cap, we keep the same concept-- pay more in = get more out.

[Vincardog]

107. No if the rich want more out let them raise the return for everyone. It is community

[FogerRox]

124. Benefits are computed from the AIME formula

Benefits are not actually capped, but sine come is capped, it in effect limits the max benefit.

[Selatius]

137. The cap was installed to prevent the spectacle of Social Security cutting huge checks to the rich.

Franklin Roosevelt's goal with the cap being in place was to prevent the program from provoking the ire of the working class that the program was aimed at helping.

If there were no caps, then when the rich retired, they'd be getting monthly checks that would be absolutely huge compared to the working class stiffs that paid in all their lives. In fact, they'd be far bigger than was absolutely necessary for any one human to survive on a monthly basis.

Also, cutting such huge checks would be sort of moving away from the goal of insuring against the ravages of old age and sickness. It doesn't take $50,000 checks to put a roof over your head and food on the table in retirement on a month to month basis. Thus, the cap was born.

[geckosfeet]

6. I am sorry, but the cap should be reivised and adjusted as needed on a yearly basis.

Doing this once every two or three generations is insanely irresponsible and neglectful. How can any government that claims to represent the best interests of it's citizens ignore this linchpin of civilization.

[kag]

13. You might be right, but this is a good start.

This would absolutely affect my family's income (we would pay more in payroll taxes), and I'm all for it. This is the most fair adjustment to SS, and beats the hell out of raising the retirement age or decreasing benefits.

[LiberalFighter]

49. Actually, the cap is revised annually if the formula calls for it.

2012 -- $110,100
2011 -- $106,800
2010 -- $106,800
2009 -- $106,800
2008 -- $102,000
2007 -- $ 97,500

If there isn't a removal of the cap at the least there should be an additional tax on those with income above the cap. Maybe an additional 1% on both sides. The reason imo there should be an additional tax is those in the higher income brackets are more likely to live longer due to jobs that are not as physical and they have and utilize better health programs that increases their living.

I've advocated eliminating the cap for over 25 years. And still support it. One of the issues that have to be considered is that SSI is based on earnings with it also being capped at the capped tax level. With the cap eliminated that would also mean a high income person would have higher Social Security benefits.

[geckosfeet]

60. Interesting. I meant of course, adjusted in a way that is meaningful towards assuring solvency and

enabling a flourishing and vibrant SSI system. My guess is that schedule/formula you posted is barely enough for life support.

On edit: yes - eliminating the cap altogether would be ideal. But just raising it $100k would probably help a lot. It is always good to have some slack in the system so that you can trim the sails (raise the cap substantially) when needed. Without doing any analytical math my first swipe would be to propose raising the cap $50k per year for the next 20 years.

[LiberalFighter]

85. I do think there needs to be a graduated decrease in benefits

that is based on whether their income is over $250k (a suggestion) in a white collar type job not requiring much physical labor. Maybe tie in their pension, ira, 401k, etc as another calculation that they receive for retirement. But would need to make sure there isn't any shenanigans in their income.

The ideas need to put on the table to explore. I'm not sure they've gone much beyond just raising or eliminating the cap.

[geckosfeet]

87. Well, we as a society are really big on needs based assistance. If you have an income

over $250k as a retiree, you do not need any social security income.

[LiberalFighter]

112. Yes, if the receive $250k annually during retirement.

Need to make sure people like Romney aren't able to exploit loopholes that would avoid it being id as income.

[OnlinePoker]

135. No decrease in benefits

As soon as you eliminate benefits on anyone paying in, you are turning it into exactly what the Republicans call it, a welfare program. If you raise the cap, but don't raise the benefits you have the same result.

[mopinko]

128. the cap is adjusted every year.

at the same rate as the cola.

[geckosfeet]

129. The current rates of adjustment are not adequate to provide for a vigorous system.

[onethatcares]

7. Load up his answering machine with

attaboys.

Ya gotta tell em when they do good too.

[CrispyQ]

23. +1! -nt

on edit: I'm writing to my two weak dem senators, as well, & telling them I expect them to support this.

[AzDar]

8. K & R

[shenmue]

10. Yay Senator!

Woohoo!

[SoapBox]

11. Cool!

[joanbarnes]

12. Great proposals. Where is the 'lamestream' media on this?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

17. Operation Mockingbird

They say, however, that it has been discontinued.

[Telly Savalas]

122. If the majority of the Democratic Senate caucus were pushing for this

the media would cover it.

But so long as it's just one guy, it's not going anywhere so it's not news.

So kudos to Sen. Begich for putting this out there, and shame on any Democratic Senators that fail to back him.

[Faryn Balyncd]

14. He is properly addressing the fraudulent rigging of CPI calculations (chained CPI being the most...

....recent and egregious example of this.)


Go get 'em, Senator.

[drm604]

15. This is such a commonsense thing.

This should have been done long ago, and probably would have been if not for Republican obstructionists.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. Yep, it must be all the Repubs' fault. I know that this is true because there are those who have

been telling this to us for years.

[drm604]

68. If it makes you feel good to put words in my mouth, then have at it,

but I did not say that it was all the Republicans' fault. Why you feel the need to respond with a strawman attack I don't know.

The Republican Party is by far the biggest part of the problem.

Certainly you can find some Democrats who are part of the problem and then proceed to try to make both sides equivalent, but it's a dishonest argument and I don't understand why anyone on here would try to make it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

70. Did I say that you, with your speculation, said that it was "all" the Republicans' fault?

Show me where I said that it was you that said it was all the Republicans' fault.

My words speak for themselves. In fact, I said that "there are those who have who have been telling this to us for years."

What part of "there are those" that you don't understand?

What part of "telling this to us" that you don't understand?

Or is your problem based upon an absence of "there are those" who have been "telling this to us" for years? Perhaps you've never heard the it's-all-the-Republicans'-fault mantra before?

Putting words in your mouth? Somebody may have. But it hasn't been me.

[pangaia]

101. Yes you DID say that..

right in your first sentence. ". Yep, it must be all the Repubs' fault...."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

102. Obviously, (1) that was sarcasm, and (2) the phrase was not included within quotation marks or

otherwise attributed to you.

If you have not be exposed to sarcasm before, understand this. Sarcasm often involves exaggerated statements, which originate with the person using the sarcasm, as a way to deal with one or more persons who don't otherwise "get it" and pretend to be spokesmen for the group.

Please re-read the portion that you are quoting, or any other portion that will help you. Anyone can see that no quotation marks were used by me nor was there any other indication made that the portion that you are now quoting was attributable to you. An exaggeration was used because, in my opinion, you just don't seem to get it. What I see is someone parroting a line that a particular action "probably would have been" taken "if not for Republican obstructionists."

It is quite a stretch for you to say that someone was putting words in your mouth.

[pangaia]

106. Actually, I got your post and drm's post mixed up.

So my apologies. But, no reason for you to be so insulting. Are you like that with everyone you meet?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

111. Now I understand. I, too, confused the posts and thought that your post was drm's post to me.

Am I like that with everyone? No. When I perceive (or misperceive) that someone is being aggressive, I tend to respond.

Peace.

[pangaia]

119. I'm a scorpio so..

The scorpion is the only animal that can sting itself to death. Which I have done toooo many times...

For what it's worth I didn't mean to sound aggressive, even if I did mix up the posts. Apologies if I did sound that way...

As the younger ones say.
peace out..
:&gt

[julian09]

20. They have been talking about this for years

about time someone is trying to make it a reality and takes sos off the table so we can work on the real problems of the deficit.

[rhett o rick]

21. Common sense has no place in politics.

if needed:

[Please proceed]

18. Don't Republicans usually love a flat tax?

[mecherosegarden]

22. K&R N/T

[grahamhgreen]

25. Will this bill help us gain House seats in 2014?

I think so.

As the R's try to block it, it will cost them votes.

[vaberella]

39. I agree. That's if we talk about it and push it. If no one talks about it, it's dead in the water.

And so are important seat pick ups in 2014.

[grahamhgreen]

77. Every action the Dems take should be predicated with this question, IMHO.

[dreamnightwind]

99. Yes, but

the question they're more likely to be asking is "how will this change impact my/our ability to raise campaign funds from the 1%". If we can keep winning election despite being outspent by the 1%, that might change, but the wy things are right now, money still calls the shots.

[Wounded Bear]

26. Imagine that, a progressive solution to a problem...

Who'da thunk?

[UCmeNdc]

27. K&R Wow! These Democratic politicians are on a hot streak!

Looks like they are not playing around!

[leveymg]

28. Why is this obvious first solution deemed so damned radical by the Inside the Beltway types?

Why do the moneyed interests have such a lock on basic social and tax policy, and what can we do to let them know they are no longer welcome at the Head of America's Table?

[Joe Bacon]

40. Because they are a bunch of spoiled rich whores

The Beltway Gasbags have NO clue about what's going on outside their little bubble. And they all get paid hefty bribes, er, salaries by their billionaire owners. They are the PRESSTITUTE version of the Kardashians!

Ask yourself when was the last time Cokie Roberts ran out of money to buy some food for her family? When was the last time George Will was delinquent on his natural gas bill? Ask Little Luke Russert when was the last time he had to buy clothes at a Goodwill? Ask Bob Woodward when was the last time he had to go for several months before seeing a dentist?

All of these whores live in their little Laissez Fairyland dream world.

It's time for the rest of us to pull out the needles and burst that bubble.

[radical noodle]

29. The sticking point

I've been saying this same thing for years, but there will be holy hell raised by businesses who must match the contribution that the employee has taken out of his check. The good news might be that it could be incentive for businesses to pay those high income earners a lower, more reasonable salary.

[Freddie]

33. Or keep a cap on employers but not employees.

[LiberalFighter]

52. If the cap is eliminated on employees it should also apply to employers.

The other poster has it right that the employer would then pay a more reasonable wage.

I think my proposal might be better that I have already suggested here with an additional item.

Increase the SS tax by .5 to 1 percent on both sides on the higher income earners. Don't necessarily need to eliminate the cap. The negative to eliminating the cap is that the benefits will increase for higher income earners. That might still pose a solvency problem with the Trust Fund.

On the other hand, an increase for those with higher incomes would be justified potentially because they would tend to live longer due to less physical jobs and better health benefits that increase their life more than the general population.

[Freddie]

31. Most people don't even know about the FICA cap

And they're not happy about it when they find out. Even if they find out in a "good" way.
I'm a payroll administrator and I've gotten calls from people who have never gone over the cap before--"why is my check bigger?" After I explain about the cap, a frequent response is "that's not fair!" My response: yup.
Since most people don't go near the cap they have no idea that the already privileged get another privilege.

[Nye Bevan]

88. Do you explain to them that their Social Security benefit is also capped,

commensurate with the cap on their contributions?

[FogerRox]

120. Of course its fair, They get the Earned income tax cedit? RIght?

The EITC was meant to address the regressivity of FICA.

[Bluenorthwest]

143. People who are earning above the SS cap do NOT get EITC, that seems obvious.

I was I think 24 when I first earned over the cap and I was furious to find such a cap existed, to give me a break I did not need while limiting contributions to the fund we all need.

[Change has come]

32. Contact Information

Senator Mark Begich

111 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

phone. (202) 224 - 3004

fax. (202) 224 - 2354

Toll-free line: (877) 501 - 6275

Hours: M-F 9:00am - 7:00pm

http://begich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/home

[Joe Bacon]

34. Mark has our back, Show him we got his back!

We know that Mark is the #1 target of the Koch Brothers. Send him some $$$ and tell the Kochs to drop dead!

http://www.begich.com

[UnrepentantLiberal]

42. Here is his contact page:

http://begich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/emailsenator

[freshwest]

121. Thanks for link. Another one resisting the plutocrats.

[customerserviceguy]

35. Since the maximum benefit

is tied to the cap, are we ready for some asshat CEO who drove a bailed out bank into the ground, but still got millions of dollars to do it on TV, waiving around his hundred thousand dollar a month Social Security check?

Think about it, surely there will be some period of time when those who have made fabulous salaries will have to work before the "new" maximum kicks in, and they will be able to get incredibly large Social Security checks for decades, having really only paid a few thousand dollars a year for the vast majority of their careers. They'll be laughing at all of us, every time they see that monthly deposit on their bank statements.

Here's a better idea: Yes, adjust the cap upwards, but after an initial boost, tie future wage caps to the inflation rate, just like tax brackets, personal exemptions and standard deduction amounts are. BUT--no limit whatsoever on the EMPLOYER's share of FICA. That means the employee doesn't get a radically jacked up maximum benefit, and the idiot bank that thinks some one-percenter is worth ten million dollars a year can pony up the taxes associated with that salary, just as if they had hired a few hundred people instead at a living wage.

[kentuck]

37. And then they borrow the money in the SS fund to pay for wars and taxcuts...

for the wealthy. It's time for some change.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

71. Yep, Reagan was a seven-dimensional chess player.

[WillyT]

41. K & R !!!

[CBHagman]

43. This is what we need to be discussing.

The media and the right wing have so skewed things via expressions such as entitlement reform that we need to move things back to reality. Ezra Klein touched on this in his column of the other day, and it's a relief to hear Begich is actually taking action.

[Uncle Joe]

44. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, UnrepentantLiberal.

[rocktivity]

46. CUE THE VONAGE THEME!

And by the way, wouldn't removing the cap result in EVERYONE paying a LOWER rate?


rocktivity

[edhopper]

47. This can't work

it will solve the problem without making the little people suffer.

[libdem4life]

48. Standing Ovation !!!! Next, the Pentagon Offense Budget...tool it back to a Defense Budget.

[cyclezealot]

50. Write or call your congress member.

I have been . Begich's plan is exactly what we need. Obama asked us to make him do it. So do it.

[Historic NY]

51. WTH took so long....

simple bill w/o all the gobbly gook to fix problem we all know is fixable.

[whathehell]

53. Yay!...Just emailed him a big "Thanks" n/t

[kentuck]

54. And another facet of this argument...

We cannot overlook the fact that low wages have had an impact on the amount of FICA taxes collected by Social Security. If wages had only kept up with productivity, Medicare and Social Security would both be much healthier today. Is that not true?

[TexasBushwhacker]

157. Absolutely true, and it would be better to raise the minimum wage

and lower EITC, because wage earners would be paying FICA on their increased wages and that would increase their SS benefit when they retire. If the minimum wage had the buying power it had in 1968, it would be $10.50 - 45% higher than what it is now.

[Still Sensible]

55. What would be the effect if the cap was simply

doubled, with the treatment of funds under the cap adjusted accordingly?

[kentuck]

56. That makes a ton of sense.

If we are planning on giving a tax break to everyone under $250K per year, why should they not pay full FICA taxes on their $250K when we have to pay full taxes on $106K ?? That sounds totally unfair not to tax them the same as the rest of us??

[FogerRox]

118. Since 1983 the cap has been adjusted to keep it at the 90%til.

But those adjustments havent been done every year. SO today the cap is at 84%.

90% is about `186k. If we adjusted the cap back to 90%, SS would see more revenue, but much of it would go to benefits. But it is a net plus for the trust fund.

Beyond that there is nothing wrong with SS that a good economy wont fix. In fact of the 4 scenarios the Trustees issue the low cost scenario says SS is goods thru 2090. BAsed on only 2.8% GDP grow.

[HiPointDem]

57. it's already solvent for decades.

[limpyhobbler]

115. +1.

I want to hear more about this Begich proposal before jumping on board with this.

[Romulox]

152. 100% Pay-As-You-Go. nt

[sellitman]

59. We should sell this as a "Flat Tax for SS.

Don't the knuckle draggers love flat taxes?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

72. x2

[annabanana]

93. ooo . .good framing

nice

[kenny blankenship]

61. That's a DEMOCRAT.

I donated to this guy in 2008, and so far I was kinda lukewarm about him. At least he wasn't a Stevens or Murkowski. Jeff Merkley, who I also donated to, however, has made me proud from Day One. But today Begich shoots and scores big with this move - a broad stroke effort towards economic and social justice and sound government policy. A DEMOCRATIC approach, for once, in a sea of Repuke-lite Heritage Foundation "reforms", and Conservadem treachery. Maybe the President could take a note here and perhaps repent of his Reaganism? Haha I'm just kidding. Obama has shown what he's truly about.

Mark Begich is to be rewarded.

How many Senate Democrats will join him, I wonder?

[freshwest]

69. Both of my senators have signed on already. But then, they're Democrats.

[NYtoBush-Drop Dead]

62. This really makes TOO much sense!

And Also, why could you not raise the retirement age to 70 years of age if you were born after Sept 11, 2001? Or better yet, the date we invaded Iraq. If you were born the day after we invaded IRaq... March something 2003... You don;t retire until 70. That would also make it abundantly clear that the reason the bank was broken was The Repug ill-gotten wars...

[penndragon69]

63. Remove or reduce the cap.

Then, start reducing payouts for the people making 1 Million or more a year
in retirement. They are already rich and DON'T need SSI.

Limit payout to the wealthy to the limits of the old $110,000.00 top slot.

Does John McCain really need and extra 6 grand a month to blow at the craps table
in vegas? Or do the elderly women who cleaned the millionaires mansions for 40
years and only get $200 bucks a month deserve a raise?

[Travis_0004]

79. I'm going to disagree with you

Social security is considered to be a benefit, not welfare. I don't care if John McCain is getting 6 grand a month, and I don't care what he spends it on. He paid into the system, so he deserves any payments he gets.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

81. True.

As long as everyone else's situation improves what does McCain receiving benefits harm?

[cstanleytech]

100. And I would agree with you except the wealthy are failing the nation already at

being job creators with lower taxes so imo the cap should be removed, atleast then they would be contributing something to the country and its a tax they would have a harder time dodging if done right.

[FogerRox]

125. Then we lose the reason the EITC was passed in the early 70's

Earned Income tax Credit


And if the cap is removed, we create a 12-15k monthly benefit check. And if we cap benefits, thats a means test, and then we Administratively, welfare, and the GOP will love that.

[cstanleytech]

133. Well they could just cap the monthly check to based on income and yes

it makes the program look more like welfare but so what? Big business and the wealthy are already screwing over the ability for more and more people to actually save up for a decent retirement so I say make them pay for it in other ways because imo there is just no reason why someone who is retired should have to die because they cannot afford to have heat or food or basic shelter.

[FogerRox]

117. +100 If we take nothing from capital then we owe nothing to capital

to paraphrase FDR.

Administratively making SS welfare wouild be a major step towards the end of SS, many people dont understand what a means test would do to SS.

[FogerRox]

116. Applying a means test to SS makes it a welfare program

Since 1983 the SS income cap has been set at 90%, since the cap has not been consistently adjusted each year the cap is now at 84%.

90% tile is 186k.

Adjust the cap back to 90% over3-5 years, under the AMIE formula, benefits would go up.

[Romulox]

153. 100% of Social Security is paid by current workers. There are no "savings accounts" to draw from.

In addition, it is an INSURANCE program that makes payouts without any sense of limit based on individual contributions. Finally, many persons who never contributed anything to SS benefit from its INSURANCE--e.g. the SSI program.

Therefore, this "welfare!" argument makes little sense.

[FogerRox]

156. From a legal or adminstrative standpoint you would be wrong.

http://www.actuary.org/pdf/socialsecurity/means_0104.pdf

[Romulox]

158. Nonsense. Social Security is *100% Pay-As-You-Go*. Your document doesn't dispute that

because it's a basic fact.

[Bluenorthwest]

145. Your numbers are way, way off. No one paying into the system for 40 years gets

only $200 a month. Also no one gets 6,000. Last year the average benefit was$1,180.80 per month.
The maximum possible benefit for a worker retiring at age 66 in 2011 is $2,366. But to get this amount, the worker would need to earn the maximum taxable amount, currently $106,800, each year after age 21. 44 years of constant earnings at or above the max contribution.....

[Blue_In_AK]

64. Not quite enough for me to forgive you, Mark,

for your shilling for continuing oil company subsidies, but it's a start. Good that you occasionally remember that you're a democrat and not Lisa Murkowski's mini-me.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

89. I hear ya.

But at least he's done something that a Democrat should do. I feel like liberals are fighting over table scraps.

[TeamPooka]

65. k+r!

[AndyTiedye]

67. Kickety

:kick:

[xxqqqzme]

73. Think it was first posted

about a week ago - that's when I put it on my facebook page. I couldn't find, then, if he had any co-sponsors. Guess I need to look into that again.

[Panasonic]

82. If the Thugs filibuster them - make sure Reid orders the Republicans back on the floor and

filibuster in public, in front of CSPAN.

Let the ordinary people KNOW who their real enemies are.

[annabanana]

94. This all depends on "DAY 1". . . . n/t

[BlueStreak]

84. The Obama negotiating position is complete crap

Obama has intentionally limited his discussion to the top marginal tax rate. Obama is a very smart man and knows perfectly well that the top marginal tax rate is utterly inconsequential because the top 0.1% pay virtually no tax at that rate. And Boehner knows it too. They are both just doing a little kabuki dance to entertain us. They are both insulting our intelligence and they both plan to sell us out.

Notice that Obama has never, ever made any definitive statement about the two main items in the Bush tax package that DO affect the 0.1%. They are, specifically:

- Reduction of cap gains rate from 20% to 15%

- Reduction of tax on dividends from the earned income rate to 15%

Those are the two items that directly affect the 0.1% and you just watch. Obama is planning to deal them away and then pound his chest about raising the top marginal rate. And Boehner will scream bloody murder publicly, but behind closed doors it will be rounds of the finest Champagne for one and all.

And none of this addresses the biggest tax evasion items:

- loopholes like carried interest that allow the rich to launder their income at 15% or completely avoid taxes; and

- all the tricks they can do with shell corporations and offshore accounts to hide income altogether from taxation. It is estimated that the wealthy have hidden $31 trillion offshore with these maneuvers -- that's twice the annual GDP of our entire country.

NOT ONE BIT OF THAT will be addressing in the deal that Obama strikes with Boehner. At some point, we have to give up on the idea that Obama is just a bad negotiator. At some point, we have to accept the fact that he is selling us out on purpose.

I realize this sounds harsh, and I will be the first to accept the ridicule and scorn of others here if I am wrong. I will be man enough to admit it. But we have seen this movie before. I don't think I will be proven wrong.

That is my long-winded way of saying Begich's bill is exactly what we should be talking about. It is clear that we cannot end up with a complete elimination of the cap because that would amount to something like a true tax of about 10% on the wealthy -- far bigger than anything else that has been discussed. But Sen. Begich is absolutely right. We won the damned election. That is where discussions should begin. Hell yes.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

139. Or you can just call it cynical manipulation and leave it at that.

Most people don't pay attention, and, many that do, on this website, just don't want to know. They want a God that pleases them and don't much care about the details.

Is the guy who introduced this bill our savior? No. Let's hear more about the details.

[blkmusclmachine]

90. Why, how VERY un-bipartisan of that Senator.

Obama's gonna have to have a talk with him, STAT.

Changes his mind in 3 - 2 - 1 ...

[sheshe2]

92. K&R

[Iwillnevergiveup]

95. HOW EXCELLENT!

Now THERE'S a solution....thank you, Senator Begich!

K&R

[NorthCarolina]

96. I have serious reservations that the GOP or Conserva-Dems would support this

But I am glad it was submitted just the same. It is the common sense approach, but may be too bitter a pill to swallow for those in Congress that believe Social Security is a give-away to the lazy....and there seems to be plenty of those.

[Blue_In_AK]

114. Mark IS a conservadem

so it may work out.

[East Coast Pirate]

97. Politics over We The People

We've lost control of the system.

[NashvilleLefty]

98. If idiots can start a petition to the WH to secede,

can we not start a petition to support this Legislation?

I'll leave it to others better suited to word it, but I will definitely sign it!

[AlphaCentauri]

105. At least there is a proposal to fix this problem

very glad even if it is not a total solution

[Maineman]

113. I have contacted my (Maine) senators, not that it will do any good. Regardless of their so-called

independent reputation, they mostly just do what KKK McConnell tell them to do. But there may be hope for the new guy, Angus King.

[limpyhobbler]

126. Should wait to hear more about this CPI-E before jumping on board with this?

Let's let more variety of people we trust analyze the long term effects of this new CPI before we just jump on board.

I'm giving it a week at least.

[tavalon]

130. Fuck yeah, Kick and rec

[blackspade]

131. excellent solution.

one that should have been implemented years ago.

[rks306]

132. Really!

You mean their is actually a way to fix SS without raising the age or some other cut to benefits.

[Kaleva]

134. Rec'd. This is what I just sent to Senator's Levin & Stabenow

"Dear Senator Levin,

I respectfully ask that your seriously consider co-sponsoring & supporting Sen. Mark Begich's bill, entitled the "Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act" that will, in part, remove the current payroll tax cap. Those who can least afford it have 100% of their yearly wages taxed and I think it fair if this was applied to the wealthiest.

Thank you."

Marked it on my calender to call both of their offices Monday asking them to support the bill.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

138. Well done.

Thank you.

[Kaleva]

150. Called my Senators this morning and even called my Repub Congressman

I just got voice mail with the Senators but left a message asking them to support the bill. As for my rep, I talked to a guy named Justin and asked him to ask the Congressman to look over the bill and seriously consider introducing similiar legislation in the House. I had also emailed his office and this is what I wrote:

"Dear Congressman Benishek,

Recently Sen. Mark Begich has announced that he will propose a new bill, titled the "Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act" in the Senate. I respectfully ask that you seriously consider introducing the exact same bill in the House of Representatives or co-sponsor such a bill another member of the House may have introduced. I believe such legislation would greatly improve the solvency of Social Security for a long time to come. It is my guess that there is only a very small percentage of residents who would be affected by the removal of the cap and even of those, many probably don't earn more then the current cap and thus wouldn't pay much more in tax. I also think though that there are many residents of Upper Michigan whose sole income is SS and SSDI and they would greatly be helped by an increase in monthly benefits as the bill proposes.

I thank you for your time.

xxx xxxxx"

[UnrepentantLiberal]

151. Excellent.

I need to do the same with my congressmen. This will be coming to a head soon.

[Kaleva]

154. I also called Senator Mark Begich's D.C. office...

to thank him for proposing the legislation, to let know I contacted my own Senators about it, and the lady I talked to said their office has received a very high volume of calls supporting it.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

155. That's great.

We can make a difference.

[BlueStreak]

142. +1

We have to move the dialog.

By now it is obvious the Republicans haven't moved one inch. It is if there wasn't any election at all.

I am coming to the conclusion that it will be much better for America to simply let all these things expire Jan 1 -- then come back and offer a TEMPORARY 2-year cut in rates for incomes under $250,000 coupled with the extension in the debt ceiling and move on from there. Middle class tax rates need to go up too. We are spending 24% of GDP and taxing an historically (hysterically) low 16% of GDP. We cannot close that gap entirely with growth or by "soaking the rich) unless we go after all their favorite tax shelters. So it is probably wise policy to go back to the Clinton rates across the board, but keep the m.c. cuts in place temporarily for 2 more years as a stimulant to the economy.

There is no "cliff", just some decisions that have to be made.

[eridani]

136. Yes, it has been posted already. However--

--you can post it every single day until the end of the year as far as I'm concerned.

[99th_Monkey]

140. That's about the nearest thing to a Silver Bullet as there is

Absolutely the single most simple straightforward and fair
way to "fix" Social Security.

[GTurck]

141. I have a quibble...

with the term entitlement. While its true definition is getting something on has a claim on for the last few years it has been debased to mean getting something for nothing. Since language is a carrier of thoughts already understood I don't think we should use "entitlement" when referring to the insurance programs paid for in taxes in a life-time of work. It just continues the thought of unearned government largesse.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

147. I agree.

I'd like to see it go. (Along with Obamacare.)

[ProSense]

144. Yes it was posted before, but

more exposure is a good thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021834952

[UnrepentantLiberal]

146. That's what I thought.

Even if it had been posted once, some people might not have seen it. I hadn't. It's easy to miss threads in DU GD.

[Jasana]

148. This is a great idea!

When I was young and stupid, I always used to complain about how much was taken out of my paycheck for SSI. Thankfully, I grew up fast and began to think of it as an "earned benefit." It was a government pension plan. Cool, I can use it to along with my 401k... For years things went on this way and I didn't complain.

Little did I know I would get very sick. That 401k? I had to draw all the money out (ouch, those taxes hurt!) to pay doctor's bills. My other stocks were sold off and my emergency fund was bled dry as I waited two years for my social security disability case to be decided.

But it was decided on my first try with no lawyers and I can not tell you what a relief it was to know that someone had my back. I had MS and it wasn't going to get better but being eligible for SSDI automatically made me eligible for Medicare so I had healthcare. (I had gone almost a year without it when my COBRA eligibility ran down.)

It ain't great all the way down here with no way to climb back up but somebody caught me when I fell real hard and it wasn't no damned corporation. It was government... and ultimately the taxpayers who cared enough to participate in this little bit of socialism with me. If any of you fall as hard as I did, I want this net be here for you in the future.

[Jasana]

149. Oh by the way K&R n/t