Reply #5: Time to delurk.

[Bishop Rook]

Northern California is certainly not representative of the nation as a whole when it comes to housing prices. But even then...

The SS cap is on people making $97.5k individually. So even if the couple you mentioned were making $100k a year, they're probably still under the cap. If they were EACH making $100k a year--so they'd be making $200k a year together--then they'd both be over it. There are certainly some exceptions, but the overall statistical point stands: only 6% of the country makes over $97k a year. So if the cap were eliminated entirely, only the top 6% would be affected. That's pretty much by definition not the middle class--weren't we all objecting when the vast majority of Bush's tax cuts went to the top 5%?

Not to mention, even if somebody's making a bit over the cap... Let's say $120k instead of $97.5k... Their increased tax burden is only $1,520 per year if the cap is removed, or just over 1% of gross income. The amount of tax increase would be dependent upon how much above the cap they are. Somebody who is barely above the cap would have very little tax increase; Warren Buffet would have a few million a year increase. It could also be phased in over several years or even decades. The important part is that we do it sometime before the 2040s.

I never thought I'd see so many people on progressive websites defending an inherently regressive tax like we have with Social Security. I'm also interested to find out where to find the fire fighters and schoolteachers Senator Clinton said she represents who are making more than $97.5k a year. Average salary of a fire fighter in NYC is $41,607. For a teacher, it's $44,211. These people could double their salaries and still be under the cap.