Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)

18. That is of course going to happen

Reply to dkf (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 10:11 AM

Dec 2011

The structure of the program is such that payouts are higher for those who paid more in, up to a certain ceiling. That ceiling could easily raise, it automatically does already, with COLA. If the cap was raised or eliminated, raising the monthly benefits would be a matter of simply doing so, the amounts are not set dollar amounts now, and they are already not the same for all beneficiaries, so the principles of the program are : pay more in, get larger benefit. There is no reason to think that principle would change at all. That is how it is, how it always was.
To alter that principle would require changing the law in Congress. To raise the dollar amount of benefits does not. It is really quite simple.
Also, unless your income is at least 6 figs yearly, none of this alters your own pay in or payout at all.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

24 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Serious question: Doesn't Dem support of the payroll tax cut undermine the case for lifting the cap? [View all] stockholmer Dec 2011 OP

Social Security loses no money due to this. MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #1

No. In a sense that is kind of what it is doing. lumberjack_jeff Dec 2011 #2

The whole budget talk is just RW BS to try to cut social programs. They have NO serious discussion Vincardog Dec 2011 #3

No, I'd say exactly the opposite frazzled Dec 2011 #4

Exactly. Those who already looked askance at coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #5

I don't think so to the first, possibly to the second wryter2000 Dec 2011 #6

No, we favor progressive tax policies and they favor regressive tax policies Motown_Johnny Dec 2011 #7

Is SS supposed to be a progressive program? dkf Dec 2011 #12

progressive TAX policies Motown_Johnny Dec 2011 #13

Are you kidding me? SS is the most regressive tax policy we have. dkf Dec 2011 #14

which is why the cap should be lifted Motown_Johnny Dec 2011 #15

Then you either payout more or it loses it's "retirement program" dkf Dec 2011 #16

It is already the case that those who pay more in get larger payouts Bluenorthwest Dec 2011 #17

Redistribution? Seriously? Motown_Johnny Dec 2011 #20

A n important question: kentuck Dec 2011 #8

IMO, the self-funding mechanism is fiscally unimportant but politically important Jim Lane Dec 2011 #10

Which is why raising the cap should mean raising the benefits if you want to keep it consistent. dkf Dec 2011 #11

That is of course going to happen Bluenorthwest Dec 2011 #18

You are correct. And this is precisely why Republicans want to decimate the program. CTyankee Dec 2011 #22

Look at it another way karynnj Dec 2011 #23

I have to agree with Bachman on this Skink Dec 2011 #9

No it does not. I'm not that crazy for the payroll tax cut, but it does not mess with Bluenorthwest Dec 2011 #19

It already was defined as a tax increase by the Republicans - because it is karynnj Dec 2011 #21

I think what Obama is trying to do requires a complete new mindset NNN0LHI Dec 2011 #24