Reply #2

In the discussion thread: The Savings to Social Security from Means Testing = Higher Costs [View all]

Response to dawg (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:38 PM

HiPointDem (16,940 posts)

2. I agree. Disturbing to see so many democrats here at DU pushing it.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

67 replies	Author	Time	Post
The Savings to Social Security from Means Testing = Higher Costs [View all]	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	OP
Means-testing is just a cynical ploy to undermine political support for the program ...	dawg	Nov 2012	#1
I agree. Disturbing to see so many democrats here at DU pushing it.	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#2
Maybe too many Democrats and	RC	Nov 2012	#4
So if I'm sitting on a multi-million dollar investment portfolio	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#12
only wage income gives you social security eligibility, not capital income. so your	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#19
Not correct...	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#31
Only wage income is subject to SS tax. If donald trump pays himself a wage, it's	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#39
We might be talking about two different things.	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#57
only if trump has himself as employee of that llc and is paying social security tax	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#59
LLC's are typically treated as sole proprietors (Schedule C)	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#60
because it's a universal system, and as such, was not designed only to keep	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#62
From FDR's signing statement...	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#63
It clearly was set up to provide payments to all persons who paid in, because that	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#64
HiPoint is talking about FICA	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#40
Yes.	StatGirl	Nov 2012	#30
I look at it a different way...	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#33
If you purchase retirement insurance, when you retire you get a benefit payment	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#42
It's not insurance against retirement, it's insurance against been POOR in retirement...	Jeff In Milwaukee	Nov 2012	#56
Yes. Very disturbing.	David Zephyr	Nov 2012	#50
FDR would go ballistic over this.	David Zephyr	Nov 2012	#49
I disagree. I'm taking the fact that people are seriously suggesting means-testing...	JVS	Nov 2012	#61
Frankly,	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#3
the corporate contribution is figured as part of total employee compensation &	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#5
A short term fix at best....	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#7
of course i do. but it has little to do with social security per se.	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#8
It has everything to do with social security....	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#13
i agree that the problem is wages. i disagree that social security avoidance is the primary	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#14
Never said it was primary....just one more excuse	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#18
it's an insignificant distraction	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#20
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion....	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#27
raising the cap to its original/traditional 90% is fine by me.	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#35
90% was not the original cap, btw.	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#37
actually, it was.	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#38
Except it didnt	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#47
Who pays 15.3%, there are deductions for that silly, get with the program	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#48
I think Forbes is behind the times on this.	Live and Learn	Nov 2012	#10
Of course they do....	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#24
Why not remove the cap from the employer's side of FICA?	customerserviceguy	Nov 2012	#55
If a corporation can't afford its employees	Live and Learn	Nov 2012	#6
They can afford it, that is not the issue.	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#9
Corporations do so at their own risk.	Live and Learn	Nov 2012	#11
They've been doing it for years....	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#17
That is my point. He didn't really choose to become an independent contractor	Live and Learn	Nov 2012	#22
For whom he votes is not the discussion....	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#25
all those things you mention are tax deductions to employers.	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#16
I'm not sure screwing up your business is really worth a tax deduction.	Live and Learn	Nov 2012	#23
With all those wonderful	Sekhmets Daughter	Nov 2012	#26
Yep.	David Zephyr	Nov 2012	#52
You hit the nail on the head	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#43
DURec	leftstreet	Nov 2012	#15
Means testing will only make those of means complain that they aren't	Cleita	Nov 2012	#21
What is notable is the constant need to refute	woo me with science	Nov 2012	#28
Fix the economy, create jobs. Fixes SS.	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#44
I've been saying this for years	Hamlette	Nov 2012	#29
to believe SS will go broke in 2037 you have to believe	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#46
Your figure is old news	customerserviceguy	Nov 2012	#54
That is one of 4 scenarios the Trustees publish each year	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#65
Which makes my point	customerserviceguy	Nov 2012	#67
eliminate the top limit to fica tax.	pansypoo53219	Nov 2012	#32
Adjust back to 90%, no reason to eliminate the income CAP	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#45
There you go using math and reason again! nt	SunSeeker	Nov 2012	#34
Means Testing is to SS what Tort Reform is to Health Care costs.	eyewall	Nov 2012	#36
+1. (though it offers a solution to something for corporations)	HiPointDem	Nov 2012	#41
Excellent fact filled article, with top flight citations	FogerRox	Nov 2012	#51
You're right in that means testing is expensive	customerserviceguy	Nov 2012	#53
Those above a certain income will just get taxed on it	mainer	Nov 2012	#58
means testing is a BAD idea:	amborin	Nov 2012	#66

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.