Low Support For U.S. Social Security Options (poll: TNS/ WP /AP)

[struggle4progress]

(Angus Reid Consultants - CPOD Global Scan) – American adults have different conclusions on some ideas that have been considered to guarantee the future solvency of their country’s Social Security system, according to a poll by TNS released by the Washington Post and ABC News. 56 per cent of respondents believe Social Security taxes should be collected on all the money a worker earns, rather than taxing only up to the first $90,000 U.S. of annual income. <snip>

I’m going to mention changes some leaders have proposed for Social Security. Please tell me if you support or oppose each one.

Support Oppose

Collecting Social Security taxes on all the money a worker earns, rather than taxing only up to the first $90,000 of annual income
56% 40%

Changing the way Social Security benefits are calculated so that benefits increase at a slower rate than they would under the current formula
37% 57%

Further reducing the benefits paid to people who retire early. For instance, people who retire at age 62 would get 63% of their full benefits, rather than the current 70%
36% 62%

Raising the retirement age to receive full Social Security benefits to 68, instead of the current 67
33% 66%

Increasing the Social Security tax rate
32% 64%

Reducing guaranteed benefits for future retirees
20% 75%

Source: TNS / Washington Post / ABC News
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,001 American adults, conducted from Mar. 10 to Mar. 13, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=6383

<edit: subject line>

[Goldeneye]

1. Looks like eliminating the $90,000 cap has a mandate.

[papau]

2. We seem to have educated the voter on this issue! Great! :-)

:-)

Of course that means Bush goes into sound bite mode and stops pushing the issue - most likely by having a crisis in Iraq.

[durablend]

8. "crisis in Iraq"

Or in Florida!

[despairing optimist]

3. Why, all those people have to be educated, that's all

Meanwhile, back in the West Wing, Karen Hughes is busily working at improving the image of the US as perceived by Muslims abroad and not doing much of any PR work on *'s Social Security "reform" plan.

I like that. Spend that political capital all the way.

[napi21]

4. I think it sould be a different version of raising the cap.

Although most wealthy people do not get the majority of their income from wages, I don't think it's right to apply SS taxes to ALL wages. I do however believe the cap should be raised from $90,000 to $125,000 or $140,000. Our gov't has raised this cap many times in the past, and although I havent' dont the calculation, I suspect even the highest wage earners would still recover their investment, even at the higher cap level.

Raising the age isn't applicable to everyone. A laborer probably wouldn't be able to work until 68, while a clerk or a te;emarketer could.

Changing the way SS benefits are calculated is wrong as well. All Fed workers receive a COLA (cost of living adjustment) each year. To penalize SS recipients is just wrong.
I suppose reducing benefits for those who retire early is somewhat acceptable. Most people who retire early aren't that dependant on SS anyway.

Increasing the tax rate is absolutely wrong. Most low income workers aalready pay more in SS than they pay in income taxes.

And reducing benefits for future retirees is not an equitable way to go either. That would destroy the system as a security blanket for the elderly.

[ohtransplant]

5. I like the idea of eliminating the cap

and lowering the SS tax rate for all - down to a level that will generate all the needed revenue without the cap while not arbitrarily accumulating huge SS "surpluses" for * to toy with.

This approach would also create an actual tax cut for low and middle income earners.

I'm sure not the first to think of this but it makes sense - which is exactly why * and his minions would never consider it.

[papau]

7. I agree :-)

:-)

[WatchWhatISay]

6. Why not eliminate any cap at all?

Virtually all income would be subject to this tax?

Why, I bet it would provide such an enormous increase in revenue that we could actually increase benefits for each retiree, or reduce the rate for everyone, or maybe both.

Sounds like a no lose proposition for the Democrats to me. Overall most people would actually get a tax cut.

[ohtransplant]

9. I love the idea

but greed gets in the way.

It's similar to private pension plans that grow faster than expected. Logic tells me that retirees would get bigger pensions, right? That seems pretty basic math to me - but noooooooo - the corporations are allowed to remove $$$ from the pension plans and/or lower their contributions to offset the increased earnings. Isn't that sweet.