The 100% solution to insure Social Security solvency for all time

[Walt Starr]

Remove the $83,500 cap on paying Social Security taxes and FORCE the wealthy to pick up THEIR FAIR SHARE!!!!!

Do that, and there will NEVER be a problem with Social Security solvency.

[cthrumatrix]

1. of course this is a solution... the chimp is protecting his base

[Griffy]

91. Worse.. they want to ABOLISH SS.. along with..

EPA, HUD, IRS and others... learn about 1 major asepct underlying whats going on today. Help put some things in perspective for me.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/audio-video.htm

[ewagner]

2. Yes!!!!

This has been and will be the answer....THE SIMPLE ANSWER to long-term Social Security solvency.

We can't be afraid to say it.........

[Walt Starr]

4. Bush's answer is a BROKER Security Plan!

Reverse Robinhodowinks!

Steal from the poor to pay the rich!

[cthrumatrix]

7. info... brokers will not see a penny.... it's all govt invested

maybe fund companies might...but not a "broker"...it's not invested as that "level"

[Walt Starr]

12. When I use the term "broker" in my frame

it really refers to the Brokerage Houses that realize all the profits.

"E.F Hutton" would be suck a "broker".

The frame plays to the middle class because most people in the middle to upper middle class get the spam (email, snail mail, fax, and phone) from "brokers" out to sell crappy stock at premium prices.

[kentuck]

13. It's government revenues???

meant to replace the revenues that were taken away by the huge taxcut to the most wealthy?

[Karmadillo]

3. Shouldn't the Democrats be hammering this again and again?

Sounds reasonable, preserves Social Security, and the majority of Dems aren't making $83,500 a year and wouldn't mind paying more in taxes even if they were if it was earmarked for this particular program.

[killbotfactory]

5. That's the redistribution of wealth! COMMUNISTISM!

It's only fair when the poor are taxed to give money to the rich, silly!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. simply rollback bush* tax cuts by $3 billion out of the $11B given top 1%

and SS will be fixed for next 2 centuries

put that $3 billion a year into SS and lock the fucker up!

[Warpy]

8. That's a start

Removing that laughably low cap is essential. The rich have benefited from having 40% of our FICA premium stolen for over 20 years. It's time for them to start paying it back.

Second, raise the minimum wage. Put more money into our hands, raise our contributions. Simple.

Third, prevent Congress from robbing any of these premiums to hide the disaster that their tax cuts to themselves and their contributors have caused to the finances of this country. Let people know what giving the rich and the corporate a free ride actually costs.

Then listen to them scream.

I'm sick of the 30 years of class warfare that has devastated the working class in this country. It's time for payback.

[gratuitous]

9. Or . . .

Make congressional pensions come out of the same pool as social security. If it's good enough for the hoi polloi, isn't it good enough for our elected servants?

[dweller]

10. let the wealthy pay more income tax

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p09s01-coop.htm


let the wealthy pay in increased income tax...as was the deal in 1983 ...

dp

[Old and In the Way]

11. What about the investment angle of Social Security buying T-Bills?

What's the financial impact of reallocating our money from that to private markets? I have to believe there's a real downside to not investing in America's future.

[YNGW]

14. Well..........Sorta

As the current system is set up, the less you earn the more benefits you receive proportionally. For instance, if you report $8000 annual income and pay your 15.3% ($1224), you would receive $400/mo or $4800 per year, a 4:1 ratio. However, if you report $80,000 annual income and pay your 15.3% ($12,240), you would receive $2100/mo or $25,200 per year, a 2:1 ratio. Not as good.

My guess is if the ceiling is completely removed, you'll find the wealthy will seek out tax shelters in which to place money so as to avoid paying into a system which offers increasing diminishing returns.

[LiberalFighter]

80. Social Security is only on wages earned not from

Nonwork sources of income, such as:

* inheritance payments,
* pensions,
* income from investments,
* IRA distributions,
* interest, or
* other sources;

[kentuck]

15. That is one solution.

But would that take care of the "crisis" in revenues, in regards to the dangerously large deficits? If not, I would add that perhaps 30% of the taxcut be repealed, also. That would guarantee deficit reduction and a better economy and would guarantee SS until the next century. But the only reason they would oppose that is that would rather die than admit they were wrong with the huge taxcuts. But they know that the growth is not going to be sufficient to grow us out of this present "crisis"...and it is a "crisis". But it's not a Social Security crisis.

[truthseeker1]

16. Wait, are you saying people who make $83,500 or more don't pay FICA?

Surely that can't be. Or is it once a person has paid in $83,500, they don't have to pay any more in? What is the cap, please expand. Thanks.

[Walt Starr]

17. Nobody pays FICA on any income earned above $83,500

If I make $83,500/year, I pay FICA on 100% of that.

If Joe Bushbase makes $1,583,500/year, Joe Bushbase pays FICA only on $83,500 of his income. The other $1,500,000 is FICA tax free.

[truthseeker1]

37. Holy frijoles batman!

I never knew that! Yes, by all means, remove or raise that cap!! That is unbelievable.

I've got another question - do rich investors (who don't work/get a paycheck) receive SS when they retire? (I'm guessing the answer is no, but then again, after what I just learned, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a yes!) If they don't pay in, why should they get anything back?

[OneTwentyoNine]

99. Don't feel bad,I'd bet 80% of the US doesn't know that fun fact...

Hell,it was only about 10-12 years ago the cutoff was clear down at about $$20-25,000. What a fucking JOKE,working class paid on every DIME they made and guys like Pillboy pay in for a week or two.

[truthseeker1]

139. I just sent this factoid out to my email group of activist friends

and have asked them if they know about it.

[qwghlmian]

18. If you remove the income cap on FICA taxes,

you have to remove the cap on benefits received as well. Then it would not be a fix, more would be coming in and more would be going out. Do you really want SS to be paying out $50,000 or $100,000 monthly payments to former high earners?

[Walt Starr]

19. That's the beauty, you DO NOT have to remove the cap on benefits received

:evilgrin:

Basically, this takes back the money Bush gave his rich friends in the tax break.

[qwghlmian]

21. So - you will make the rich pay

$100,000-$1,000,000/year in return for the max $50K/year benefit when they retire. How exactly do you want to frame it in order to make it look less like a highway robbery?

[Walt Starr]

22. The Reichwingers will howl "That's Class Warfare!"

We return fire with, "the rich declared war on the middle class two decades ago, the middle class is just now fighting back."

The Reichwingers scream, "That's redistribution of wealth."

We fire back with, "The Republicans have been redistributing w3ealth from the middle class to the rich for deacdes, we're just distributing the wealth BACK to the middle class where it belongs!"


And there is no cap of $1,000,000. There is no cap. FICA becomes a flat tax. You pay an equal percentage of your income just like Joe Barcalounger. Everybody is treated equally on the tax side.

[qwghlmian]

26. "Everybody is treated equally on the tax side" -

but "not everybody is treated equally on the benefit side". Apparently equality is only on the "take" side, but not on the "give" side. Good luck trying to explain how this is "fair" to the public.

[Walt Starr]

27. Nope, you keep the tiered benefit plan

The extra money above the $83,500 cap is what gets used to cover those who are on SS disability and could not pay into the system for a liefetime.

[ldf]

46. noblesse oblige

: the obligation of honorable, generous, and responsible behavior associated with high rank or birth

can you imagine a class of wealthy that have a concern for those less fortunate? that is so UNamerican.

write it into law, with no loopholes, that you only get it if you need it, and if you don't need it, it is available to those who do.

after all, it DOES take a village....



}(

[Walt Starr]

48. Yep, TOTAL income PRE-DEDUCTIONS

That's how you and I pay our FICA. I don't get to deduct my mortgage interest before paying FICA. I don't get to itemize before paying FICA.

Same holds true for the wealthy. NO LOOPHOLES.

Anybody who has ever paid the Self-employment tax knows exactly what I'm talking about.

[loudsue]

65. qwghlmian.....once again, reminding us of conservative talking points.

You're correct, of course, qwghlmian....the "public" I assume you're speaking of is the highest income public, and no, they wouldn't want to have their income taxed like the rest of us. But they could still receive a portion of social security benefits, just like everybody else.

As a middle-income earner, I will receive a lower PERCENTAGE of what I paid into Soc.Sec. than someone making $10,000 or $15,000 per year. But, that's how it is! I don't complain! It's the way the GENERAL welfare of ALL of the people of this country has to be maintained!

It's only the greedy rich that complain about it: it's the old "I've got mine so fuck you" syndrome. THAT is not humane, nor appropriate....and it certainly isn't in the best interests of my country or the world.

In general, the people who earn the lower wages, almost always have jobs that are more physically taxing....wearing out the body, and incurring more of a sacrifice than jobs as the income moves up the scale. But for the people doing those jobs, our entire quality of life in this country would be less. There comes a time when the scales of justice need to balance, and retirement should be that time. Social security is ALL some of those hardest working people will have in their later years, because the jobs they've worked at didn't allow them a "saving" wage. A half-decent Social Security pension is a small bone to be tossing to those who have borne the burden of some of the heaviest lifting.

:kick::kick::kick:

[qwghlmian]

70. According to your logic, then

it is unfair that some people get $1,000/month on Social Security and some get $4,000. After all, "everybody deserves a half-decent Social Security pension". So let's make it $2,000/month for everybody. Why the stratification?

As long as we're at it, everybody deserves a half-decent salary as well. It is not fair that some people make $20,000/year and some make $200,000/year. Let's make it so everyone makes $40,000/year. That's the ticket.

And no, the "public" I am speaking of is the whole public. People instinctively know that when you make some people pay vastly more into Social Security, but they would not get more back, that's unfair. That's basic logic, and you cannot hide it with "framing". As someone else put it on this thread, that is not the "American way".

[loudsue]

76. You're talking black & white about a complex issue.

It's not a matter of making everything "the same".... it's about making sure that there are NONE in our country who are destitute... it's about taking care that ALL of our fellow countrymen are able to sustain their lives in a financial system that has grown into a monster runaway train.

It's about admitting, VERY REALISTICALLY, that there are those in EVERY society who are stronger, and those who are weaker. And CIVILIZED human beings make sure that "the least of these" aren't trampled underfoot of everyone else on the way to the bank.

The lowest paid earners in our country CAN'T AFFORD the groceries that come easier to the those higher up on the food chain. Groceries are BASIC. Housing is BASIC. Medical care is BASIC. And it requires a certain amount of money just to take care of BASICS.

Social security is often the ONLY money that some of the lowest paid workers will have when they retire. That check has to buy them THE BASICS to keep them alive.

I can't believe that anyone even has to EXPLAIN this to all you greed-mongers!! Are you so totally out of touch with humanity that you just don't care??

You said:
"And no, the "public" I am speaking of is the whole public. People instinctively know that when you make some people pay vastly more into Social Security, but they would not get more back, that's unfair. That's basic logic, and you cannot hide it with "framing". As someone else put it on this thread, that is not the "American way"."

The "American Way"???? You're waving that flag as if everyone who supports this meme buys into American Way = Greed. I don't believe that is the AMERICAN way. I do believe that is the REPUBLICAN way. And it's killing citizens of this country, every bit as much as the terrorists the republicans are so afraid of! It's killing MY FELLOW CITIZENS with hunger, disease, lack of medical care, etc.

The problem is, there are people in this country like you who DO believe these atrocities are the "American Way". That's why we're all so divided. Some of us care about OURSELVES, and some of us care about ALL OF US AS A WHOLE COUNTRY.

:kick::kick::kick:

[qwghlmian]

88. You would think that

those of us who are selfless as you are and caring as you are would volunteer to pay more into the system in order for the system to care for the underprivileged, wouldn't you?

Such an experiment was conducted already. In Massachusetts, in 2003, citizens could volunteer to pay extra state income tax. Not much - about half a percent. The response was (as far as I remember) that 140 out of 400,000 taxpayers took advantage of this opportunity to help their fellow man through extra taxation - and that is in the citadel of liberalism, one of the bluest states.

"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree" (Russel Long, Democratic Senator from Louisiana).

[Nederland]

132. You are right

But I don't expect many on this forum to agree with you...

[Nederland]

133. And they will fire back

Just exactly what government program are you referring to when you claim that the rich have been taking money from the middle class for decades?

[rman]

60. How to frame: point out that the rich still have much more

than any "worker" would have - after taxes that is.

If the amount payed into SS is any significant amount, then those people are rich enough so that they could live their final days in luxury even without SS - though i'd say they'd still be elligable to their share of SS.

[qwghlmian]

61. See post #52. n/t

[loudsue]

67. See post #65. n/t

:kick:

[LiberalFighter]

85. And how will they suffer?

Do you think that Social Security is all that they will be living on?

[YNGW]

25. Because, they'll find a way to opt out.

Look at my post #14.

If you go to a machine and put in $1 and get $4 back, and I put $1 in the same machine and only get $2, why should I continue to play that same machine? I'll go find another machine that'll pay me $4 for every $1, too. There's always a way to beat the system.

Something needs to be done that's fair all the way around, because these incremental fixes every 10 years or so will eventually cease to exist. I'll be interested to see what happens, but an increase in the ceiling will always be followed by an increase in the benefits, that's only fair. It's a matter of when do those who are paying in find that the return on investment is no longer reasonable to their overall financial situation.

[Walt Starr]

42. That was Bush's argument aboput taxes on teh welathiest 1%

:eyes:

[LiberalFighter]

83. That is right... Social Security was not intended as a retirement plan

It was essentially a social insurance program "safety net". It was not intended as a retirement plan.

Anyone that has a good retirement program would not rely solely on Social Security. They would have Social Security, their company pension, and an individual retirement plan such as a 401k.
Which is exactly what the federal employees have that the dipshit was talking about. dipshit was fooling people into believing that federal employees' Thrift Plan was something that the rest of the employees don't have. A LIE!!!!

The way it is going now the best most people would have is Social Security and an IRA or 401k.

A write-up on GovExec.com provides a perfect analogy when they question what such a move would do to federal employees' retirement packages:

In FERS, the TSP is one leg. Social Security and the Basic Benefit Plan - which provides a defined benefit based on an employee's pay level and length of service - are the other two. Replacing Social Security-defined benefits with an investment program would give federal employees two-legged stools. (Americans who don't have pensions would be left with only one leg on their stool of retirement savings - individual investment accounts.)

Talking about the Thrift Savings Plan as a model for Social Security is also a bit confusing, since the TSP was itself modeled on the private sector's 401(k) plans. "It underplays the fact that many Americans already have access to a Thrift Savings Plan-like system. That's the 401(k)," said Dan Adcock, legislative director at the National Association of Retired Federal Employees.



Social Security benefits -- guaranteed minimum amount

Pension -- If you have defined benefits it would be guaranteed minimum amount

IRA or 401k -- It depends on how much you contribute AND AND AND AND how the well the stock market performs.

[kentuck]

20. Why? It is treated just like any other tax ...

it's in the old "general revenue" pot. Do you also support a "flat tax"? After all, why should someone making 30,000 per year pay a higher percentage than a millionaire? It's a tax.

[qwghlmian]

24. then why play coy - just add 12.4% across the board

to all levels of income tax and eliminate FICA, and make the government pay SSI out of general revenues. There is this pretense with Social Security that the more you pay, the more you get. You want to eliminate this pretense - fine, but you are undermining the popular perception of its "fairness". To follow your logic - why is it fair that some people get $1,000/month Social Security payments when they retire and some get $4,000? Let's make it $2,000 all around.

[Walt Starr]

28. Nope, keep the tiered benefit plan

with the absloute cap remaining at current levels.

The extra on teh income above $83,500 covers those who are on SS disability and never paid into the system for a lifetime.

[qwghlmian]

29. As I said, good luck trying to

pretend that this is "fair" when explaining it to the public.

"No matter how much you pay in after a certain point, whether it is $11,000 a year or $10,000,000 a year, you will get exactly the same benefit when you retire. That's fair!".


And you didn't answer the question. Please explain why it is "fair" that under the present system some people get $1,000/month Social Security payments when they retire and some get $4,000?

[Walt Starr]

30. It's absolutely fair

The frames are all in our favor and the rich are a minor portion of the electorate.

This affects people's pocketbooks and this plan affects teh pocketbooks of the fewest people. All the masses will understand is it saves Social Security, keeps it solvent forever, and doesn't cost them a penny.

It's all about the frame, and the Republicans cannot put lipstick on their broker security scam fast enough.

[qwghlmian]

33. I see, so let me understand this correctly -

your opinion is that it is ok to steal from the rich, because there aren't that many of them. That's the "frame". It's the "fuck the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway" kinda thing. Got it.

Question: why do you want to go through the rigamarole of the tax anyway. Why not just confiscate the money? Or would that be too hard to "frame"?

[Walt Starr]

35. You've fgot it wrong, it's not stealing from the rich

It's the Rich paying their fair share.

It;s all in the frame.

[qwghlmian]

36. I was brought up in this old-fashioned way -

my parents taught me that stealing is stealing, no matter what you call it. Or, in your terms, no matter how you "frame it".

[Walt Starr]

38. It's not stealing

You're playing a reichwinger in this. You are using THEIR frames. Just like the Reichwingnuts say it's stealing to take tax dollars from them to pay for a raod they may or may not use!

Our frames are that we are RETURNING THE MONEY THE RICH STOLE FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS!

[qwghlmian]

40. Call it what you will....

you still did not answer the question.

Why do you think it is fair that some people when they retire get $1,000/month payments from Social Security and some get $4,000/month?

[Walt Starr]

41. That appears to be what you're doing

As to your question, the amounts are placed on those contributions applied up to the cap. Above the cap, the contributions cover those who cannot contribute.

[qwghlmian]

43. See my edit of the post that you replied to. n/t

[Walt Starr]

47. See my edited post that you replied to n/t

[qwghlmian]

49. That's not an answer - that is an explanation of

the method.

Once again, the question: why is it fair that some people get $1,000/month out of the Social Security and some get $4,000/month. Wouldn't it be more fair if everyone got the same amount?

[Walt Starr]

51. Just because you didn't like the answer doesn't mean it wasn't an answer.

I described WHY it is fair WITH the cap on the tax removed.

Just because you didn't like the answer doesn't mean it wasn't an answer.

[qwghlmian]

52. Ok, if you insist on evading, let me ask you this then -

Three situations:

1. One person gets $1,000/month Social Security, the other gets $4,000/month.

2. One person gets $3,000/month Social Security, the other gets $6,000/month.

3. One person gets $6,000/month Social Security, the other gets $12,000/month.

Please explain why 1 is fair, but 2 and 3 are unfair. And don't tell me "because there is a cap". That's a "because I say so" argument.

[Walt Starr]

53. Because there is a cap on the total amount any recipient recieves

I don't give a god damn if you don't like it, that is why.

In fact, if your after retirement income exceeds $100,000/year, benefits should begin decreasing at the same rate they increase based upon contribution!

[qwghlmian]

55. I see, it's a "because I say so" kinda

argument. Good luck using it to convince people.

[Walt Starr]

57. Noi, it's because benefits are capped

Duh.

[librechik]

56. also, raise the damn minimum wage!

this will increase FICA revenue to cover most of the shortfall.

[LiberalFighter]

86. Then maybe you should have your parents return their benefits

since they are probably stealing

[Blue Wally]

44. Which senator said.....?

"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that other fellow behind the tree"

[qwghlmian]

50. Sen. Russel Long, D-La n/t

[YNGW]

32. That's exactly right.

It won't work. The people making that kind of money will find a way to claim less income as to not have to pay the tax, whether it be cheating or otherwise hiding it, they'll find a way.

Besides, who here believes Congress is going to pass a law saying you pay a tax on all your income but even if you pay more in your amount of benefits will never get better? Nope, that's not the American way. In fact, I'm not sure what way that is, but it's definitely not the American way.

[Walt Starr]

39. Oh really, that was Bush's tax cut argument from the campaign

:eyes:

[YNGW]

64. I don't give a shit.

It's true. They'll find a way to avoid paying it. And Congress isn't going to raise the ceiling without also raising benefits. It's not the American way to pay more for no extra benefit. It's the truth and one can either face up to it now or later, makes no difference to me.

[Walt Starr]

66. You've never paid Self Employment taxes, have you?

You get NO deductions on the Self Employment tax.

None.
Nada.
Not a cent.

You are capped on the Self Employment Tax. That's because the Self Employment tax is FICA and Medicare taxes including the employer's matching contribution.

There is no way to hide from this tax. The wealthy don't give a shit because of the existing cap. With no cap, there is no place to run and no place to hide. They HAVE TO PAY IT!

[YNGW]

69. I own and operate my own business.

Regardless of how much I make a year, my wife and I claim the least amount of income we can while still maintaining the maximum amount of SS benefits. This year, it's $8K (times 15.3% = $1224) which buys me $400/mo in SS or $4800 a year, a 4:1 ratio. The rest of the money I claim as Sub S dividends which is money I don't pay SS taxes on.

I didn't invent the system, I just use it to my advantage like everyone else.

And I guarantee you, if I wanted to hide money and not report income, it would be very easy to do. Very, very easy.

You're living in a dream world. Congress will never pass what you stated, ever.

[qwghlmian]

72. You cannot pay yourself too low a salary, or the

IRS will go after you. The regulations, AFAIR, say you have to pay yourself a "reasonable" salary, based on the industry you're in.

Another minus to this is that the SEP you can put away is max 25% of the salary, so if you make it low, you cannot put much into SEP.

But going back to the subject at hand, the response to you from Starr or others would be that they would pass laws that would make FICA payable from the whole income, not just from salary. And your response would be that this would cause people to hide income. And they would say we would prosecute people for that. And I would then point to Sweden and show how many of the richest people moved out of the country because of the taxes. etc. etc.

[YNGW]

79. True

There's a balance in making sure that you report enough to keep people from looking under the hood. On the other hand, it's a real issue, because I guarantee you most people are like me. Why should I put money into a system with diminishing returns? That goes against every financial model known to man.

>And they would say we would prosecute people for that.

And I would also add that you've got to catch them first, which is an extremely difficult task even with someone who doesn't know all the tricks, much less those who do. And I would venture that since most business owners are bright enough to run their own business, they also know how to make thing work to their advantage. The Sweden example is excellent.

[loudsue]

71. YNGW...it is the "way" of civilized societies. The new "American way"

meme that the republicans and the Ayn Rand fans have poisoned humanity with don't give a shit about suffering, poverty, or any other part of their "fellow man". It's all about greed, ME-ME-ME, and more greed with the republicans.

There is a certain amount that is REQUIRED for a person to survive. Those making over $83,500 have AMPLE opportunities in their life times to save money to help pad their accounts. Those making minimum wage and just above that have NO WAY to pad their accounts.

And the jobs the low wage earners do need to be done for the benefit of all of us. The argument that "everyone can better themselves" is bullshit. Some people are just not BRIGHT enough, and others don't have enough hours in the day (kids, homemaking chores) to break from low paying jobs....they have all the responsibility they can handle just getting to the job and home to the domestic chores.

There is some totally unrealistic philosophy that appeals to the survival-of-the-fittest crowd that says everything you make was made solely by YOU, with no lucky breaks or benefits from others in any way. It's never that simple, and it's short-sighted.

Americans either care about the survival and subsistence of ALL of our people, or we don't. I for one, do. And I'm willing to pay into a system of taxation that insures that ALL OF THE AMERICANS WHO ARE MY COUNTRYMEN, MY BROTHERS & SISTERS, get the benefits of a successful country. It's not just about me-me-me-me. It's about ALL of us, together.

That's what makes societies CIVILIZED.

:kick::kick::kick:

[YNGW]

77. I agree on some points.

It's definitely not to the advantage of the wealthy to see a large middle class disappear into the dust-bin of history, or for the poor to go in want, and so I expect the economy will be formed to make sure a large middle class remains intact. There's a middle-ground where people need to help all of society and a place where we're being unfair to those who happen to make a lot of money. This whole country was built on the premise of freedom, and that includes the freedom to pursue wealth if one desires. I don't believe "The argument that "everyone can better themselves" is bullshit." I have no reason to believe that. Just from years of personal observation I've decided that, for the most part, if someone is determined to do something they really want to do, they'll find a way. But back on track, it's got to be fair. Making people pay more and not receiving any more benefit isn't fair. It's not the American way. It's like going to the grocery story and being charged for food based upon your income. Milk is $3 a gallon. It's not $1 for me and $5 for you.

This whole subject is moot because we all know Congress isn't going to eliminate the ceiling, and if the ceiling is raised they're also going to raise benefits.

[dave29]

23. I heard about this lockbox idea once

but everyone laughed

[Blue Wally]

45. We wouldn't need a lockbox

if our Democratic congressmen hadn't decided to pull Social Security into the general budget to mask the deficit some time ago. Social Security should have its own budget and Medicare should have its own budget. Maybe defense should have its own budget.

[Roland99]

31. And rollback that tax cut for Bush's campaign donors.

[Riding this Donkey]

34. He is a complete Sham

Bush is pushing for private accounts so the corporations do not have to pay in the 6%. It is another tax break for the rich corporations.

Please do not forget this!!!!!!!!!

We're all going to hell in a handbasket!

[LiberalFighter]

95. I would agree with that...

look at how many companies provide pensions... fewer and fewer

They expect employees to save on their own. How is that possible when they are paid the lowest wages they can get away with?

If a company has a 401k the employees can put money into it without paying taxes. Taxes are paid when they start receiving when they retire.

If a company doesn't have a 401k program then the employees can only put it into an IRA which is money that is after they pay all taxes. Which means less money they can put in.

[goodhue]

54. Indeed, it is a simple fix.

Raising the cap to $150,000 should suffice, although no cap at all works for me.

[Walt Starr]

58. No cap at all on the tax

but with a cap on the beneift, and a rollback on the benefit for those whose income exceed a certain amount would insure solvency in perpetuity.

[THUNDER HANDS]

63. that's an idea that's almost too smart to work

Its so simple...soo....right.

Its obvious that some people will find it unfair. These are probably the same people who won't drive a mile over 55 on the highway, pay their income taxes in January and brush each tooth for 30 seconds before going to bed.

[jswordy]

59. I HAVE A BETTER IDEA!!!

How about we remove TWO-THIRDS of the tax money going into Social Security and divert it to private accounts? THAT'LL FIX IT!

No...wait...THAT'S BUSH'S PLAN!


HEHEHEHEHEH!

[SammyWinstonJack]

62. Tax the rich?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Never gonna happen! Taxes are only for the little people, ya know? Notice how bush** squeezed himself into that magic number requirement for full SS benefits? Like the greedy POS is gonna need it! :grr:

[lancdem]

68. Yep

My dad's been saying this for years. The way it is now, payroll taxes punish low and middle-income people because of that cap.

[loudsue]

73. Walt Starr....I TOTALLY AGREE with you

It's time to lift that cap, and let the system be securely funded for generations to come.

It's one helluva lot more fair than anything the republicans have proposed, and one helluva lot cheaper to implement. It's an idea whose time is PAST due.

:kick::kick::kick:

[RB TexLa]

74. Government takeovers

If you remove the cap, then you will have to remove the cap on benefits. We have to remember that SS is not a full retirement plan. It is a government safety net.

We need to be throwing Bush's campaign rhetoric from 2000 in his face "I trust the people not the government." Calling an account paid into the government and invested by the government on your behalf a "personal account" is ridiculous. Not to mention fees based on a contract negotiated with the government instead of in the free market.

We have personal retirement accounts, they are called IRA's and 401Ks. The government gives us tax incentives to invest in such. We should be pressing to open these up more as an alternative to this government takeover of retirement investing.

Also, is Bush expecting us to believe that "baby boomers" are going into perpetual retirement and will have to pay them benefits till the end of time? If they start collecting benefits at 65 won't most all of them be gone in say 30 to 35 years? (no disrespect to them) The system operated with a surplus for years, wouldn't it make sense that there are going to be cycles that it operates at a deficit? But that prevents them from using the numbers in the surplus to offset the debt.

Offsetting the debt! I don't know if anyone else noticed but Cheney has already started the next "crisis." He has mentioned a coming "crisis" in the nation's pensions a few times that I have heard. The government insures private pensions, the last one started about 20 or so years ago but there is a lot of money in them and since the government insures it they have to be looking at a way for the government to take them over as well. This "crisis" will be coming soon. Anything to try to cover up debt from this administration's fiscal irresponsibility.

[nancyharris]

75. All of this talk of raising the cap is ridiculous

There is not a single Democratic leader that has proposed raising the cap - Not even Dennis Kucinich

"Dennis will resist all efforts to privatize Social Security, and he is against diverting payroll tax dollars into individual accounts, against raising the retirement age, against raising the cap on taxable wages, against means-testing for benefits, and against efforts to "modernize" the SSI program. "

http://www.lcao.org/elect04/issues/incsec.html

Raising the cap is not only unfair to taxpayers it is also unfair to employers and the self-employed who are reqired to match the funds.

Democrats will not win back the house or senate by proposing to raise the cap.

[hfojvt]

81. no more ridiculous than Dennis' idea

"raise the interest rates earned by the trust fund?" And that money magically comes from where? The tooth faerie or the Easter Bunny?
How is it unfair for a person who makes $200,000 a year to pay the same 12.4% in FICA on the 2nd $100,000 as he/she does on the 1st? Why is that a loser politically, when over 80% of the population makes less than $85,000 a year? Show me a realistic alternative that does not whack people at the bottom.

[nancyharris]

87. Because

<"How is it unfair for a person who makes $200,000 a year to pay the same 12.4% in FICA on the 2nd $100,000 as he/she does on the 1st?">

Because the amount of benefits are capped. - Federal INSURANCE Corporation of America.

If you think you can convince Democratic representatives that it is a good idea to raise FICA taxes on wage earners, businesses and the self-employed - knock yourself out - good luck!

BTW - Raising the interest rates earned by the trust funds forces the government to pay off the bonds quicker so as not to incur the higher interest rate for a longer time. The money will come from taxes - But then again, that's where the money will come from anyway. The quicker the bonds are paid, the sooner future generations will not be saddled with paying back the money borrowed by earlier generations.

[hfojvt]

124. well, I once applied for this investment job

and I took this test and was denied the job because the test showed that I "do not believe in insurance".
If it really is insurance against poverty in old age, then people who are otherwise not poor should not be able to collect - means-test the benefits.
Calling $100,000+ earners "wage earners, businesses and the self employed" is very disingenuous. A tax on the rich is explicitly not a tax on "wage earners", it is a tax on rich wage earners.
Obviously, raising interest rates does not "force" anything, it only encourages. Anyway we are apparently in agreement that taxes will need to be raised, the question is "whose taxes"?

[flaminbats]

104. Democrats will win Congress because Bush kissed the third rail of politics

angry voters throwout incumbents, not the underdogs.

[LiberalFighter]

78. I've been saying that for almost 30 years now

There is a Cap on Social Security taxes but not for the Medicare tax.

2003 Cap $87,000
2004 Cap $87,900
2005 Cap $90,000


Here is a question that may not have been asked...

Are Social Security taxes taken out of wages earned in another country by US citizens?

[goodhue]

84. Social Security and Medicare Taxes for Americans Abroad . . .

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ch02.html#d0e1798

Social Security and Medicare Taxes

Social security and Medicare taxes may apply to wages paid to an employee regardless of where the services are performed.

General Information

In general, U.S. social security and Medicare taxes do not apply to wages for services you perform as an employee outside of the United States unless one of the following exceptions applies.

1. You perform the services on or in connection with an American vessel or aircraft (defined later) and either:

a. You entered into your employment contract within the United States, or

b. The vessel or aircraft touches at a U.S. port while you are employed on it.

2. You are working in one of the countries with which the United States has entered into a binational social security agreement (discussed later).

3. You are working for an American employer (defined later).

4. You are working for a foreign affiliate (defined later) of an American employer under a voluntary agreement entered into between the American employer and the U.S. Treasury Department.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ch02.html#d0e1798

[Red State Blues]

106. Thank God!

Only 78 posts to find someone who actually has a clue as to what they're talking about, with correct numbers.

Seeing how little people know about this is very disheartening.

[dolstein]

82. Walt -- There's obviously something you don't understand about SS

The reason why there's a cap on the income that's subject to the social security payroll tax is because there's a cap on how much you can receive in social security benefits. Not only is there a cap, but the benefits themselves, when paid to wealthy individuals, are subject to income tax.

There's already a considerable amount of income redistribution going on. Lower income workers get more out of social security that they put in. The higher up the income scale you go, the less likely this is to be the case. If you think the wealthy are making a killing on social security, you're sadly mistaken.

There's another problem with your idea. Because the social security payroll tax applies only to wages, the super-rich, whose income comes overwhelmingly from capital gains, aren't going to be affected at all. And you can pretty much guarantee that wealthy people who earn substantial wages will find a creative way to convert that income into capital gains.

If progressivity is your concern, than you ought to support scrapping the payroll tax entirely, and funding social security out of income taxes, perhaps in tandem with estate taxes.

[Walt Starr]

89. The wealthy ARE making a killing on Social Security

because it is not their concern. The amount they pay vs. their total income is a pittance.

[dolstein]

92. Define wealthy --- be specific

I earn more than the income cap. Do you consider ME wealthy?

My annual salary is $200,000. Once the federal government, the New York state government and New York city government have taken their share, I get to keep about half of that. Yep, fifty cents out of every dollar I earn goes to federal income taxes, state income taxes, city income taxes, federal payroll taxes, and state and local sales taxes. After that, I have the luxury of paying the highest rent in the country, which eats up another third of what's left. That leaves me with a disposable income of around $65,000, about a third of which goes to pay down my debt.

Personally, I breathe a sigh of relief every time I hit the social security income cap. Believe me, six percent of your income is NOT a pittance when you only get to keep about half to begin with.

While I'm perfectly willing to pay my fair share of taxes, the truth is that I pay a much larger share of my income in taxes than people like Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, each of whom earn in a year many times more than what I can expect to earn in a lifetime. And your proposal would only make the situation worse. The wages that are paid to these people -- to the extent they earn ANY wages -- are trivial in comparison to the amount they make in capital gains. And capital gains income isn't subject to the payroll tax. So please explain why I should have to see my tax bill go up another $6500 when these guys probably won't have to fork over another dime?

[bread_and_roses]

100. I believe that is in the top 5% of income

which would be "wealthy" by most people's standards. According to the Tax Policy Center, the PAYROLL tax for top 5% amounts to 4.1% of income (2000 figures). For earners in the 1st quintile, the payroll tax amounts to 6.7% of their income - a signifigantly greater bite. Earners in the 4th quintile pay 9.8% of income in payroll taxes. The mean income for that fourth quintile is just a few dollars short of $69,000 in 2003...prob a few dollars higher now.

Since SS is a payroll tax, I thought it interesting to look at the relative tax burden in that category.

Last year the Revenue Forum compiled figures on the relative tax burden for New Yorkers at different income levels. Although Federal Income Tax was low for the lowest wage earners, the combined Fed, State,Sales, Fees, Payroll tax meant that the total tax bite was around 12% for the poorest NYers; 6% for the wealthies. I don't have those figures handy, so I may be a point or so off...but the difference was dramatic.

I am not an economist, so if I am misinterpreting the figures I'll be happy to be corrected.

[dolstein]

112. I don't see how that 6% figure can be accurate

Even if you assume the ultra wealthy pay zero payroll taxes and that all of their income consists of capital gains, that income is still taxed as a rate substantially higher than 6%.

Again, I must point out that removing the income cap for social security taxes will not affect people at the highest end of the income scale, because the social security tax is imposed on wage income, not capital gains. So people like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg get off scott free, while people like me, who already pay a higher share of their income in taxes than the gazillionaires do, end up getting shafted. Frankly, I don't even want to think about raising the income cap on payroll taxes until we've reinstated the estate tax and have eliminated the capital gains differential. Then perhaps we can talk.

[bread_and_roses]

116. Absolutely agree on estate tax and capital gains

and I can understand your ire as an individual as well as a citizen cognizant of what that inequity is costing society in terms of ability to pay for our common needs.

As for the Revenue Forum figures, I'll try to find the chart they put out last year...not sure I still have it, since it was part of our NYS budget fight last year. As I said, I was quoting from memory and the 6% figure may have been for the wealthiest 1%...and yes, between them and you is an exponential difference in terms of tax burden as well as income.

However, the point I was making was that even under the current system, the "tax burden" of payroll taxes is greater for those at the lower end of the income scale than for someone in the top 5% when looked at as % of income. And more onerous yet on the 3rd and 4th quintile.

[kath]

118. Your MARGINAL tax rate may be 50%, but I find it hard to believe that

"fifty cents out of *every* dollar I earn" (emphasis mine)goes to taxes.


I very much agree with you that capital gains should be taxed at a MUCH higher rate.

[qwghlmian]

120. Between federal income taxes, FICA and medicare,

various sales taxes, city and county taxes, telecommunications taxes, and real estate taxes, I am paying probably somewhere between 50 and 60 cents on every dollar I earn in taxes. Income tax is not the only tax, you know.

[WI_DEM]

90. what was the reason they imposed this cap anyway?

[dolstein]

93. To keep if from being a welfare program

With the cap, it's an insurance program. Without the cap, it's pure income redistribution.

[Ivote]

94. Food For Thought

I posted this about SS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3052364

[mtnester]

96. Well, another good idea would be...

STOP TAKING MONEY OUT OF IT TO FUND PORK, or anything for that matter. That INCLUDES Dems...stop stealing from it, it is NOT a damn slush fund.

Geesh how simple would it be to pass a law and require that it remain untouched, and that the back funds STOLEN from it be returned?

Fer gawds sake, think about it!

[Cloister]

122. What would you do?

What would you have them do with the excess contributions? Put them in a vault? Let them sit around gathering dust? If you don't want it invested in the markets (stock and bond), about the only option left is Treasuries - but apparently you consider that to be "stealing".

[mtnester]

125. So, just because it is sitting there

It is OK to take and not return? That is still "stealing", if you will. I saw money sitting idle on my Dad's kitchen table last week. Would taking it have been "borrowing" to you?

And for what is is worth, sitting there idle is better than being bust, broke or gone. And I am not talking about anything other than TAKING the money out by the Senate, House, WHOMEVER for funding research on the miracle of talking frogs in a pit in Nowheresville, and not replacing/returning/restocking those funds back where they came from.

Next.

[qwghlmian]

126. Please explain how exactly you

propose keeping a couple of trillion dollars "idle".

[mtnester]

127. I don't CARE how or where it sits...as long as it does not DISAPPEAR

presto chango, Congress has a cash flow problem? Not to worry...we can take it from Social Security funds. Do they have to pay it back? So far...no.

Imagine if it was simply not allowable to take any money from the Social Security fund for any reason other than to pay out SS retirement. Imagine if the gazillion dollars taken out for bullshit like dancing pigs research in BFE, Ohio was put BACK in the fund?

Look, I cannot, by law, take money from the tax levy that is for a specific purpose to supplement the GENERAL fund, and I don't think you should be allowed to do the same with SS funds.

[qwghlmian]

130. You just don't understand how this works -

The money that comes into the Social Security is not in paper currency. You cannot just put it in a safe and leave it there. It has to be invested somewhere, in some instrument. Which one do you propose?

The only place that can absorb that much investment "safely" is US Treasury bonds. What that means is that the money is loaned to US government, to do with what it wishes, and in return you get an IOU. That means that the government spends that money, and owes it to the Social Security fund - that is, to itself. That money does not exist, except as an obligation on the US government.

What people seem to not understand is that past a certain amount, money is not "money" anymore. It becomes an abstraction. It doesn't really exist, except as obligations and promises and trust. You cannot put it in a "lockbox". To give an example that is not government related - Bill Gates does not really have $300B. Yes, if you multiply the share price of Microsoft by the number of shares he holds, you may get something close to that sum, but he doesn't really have that money. If he ever tried to realize it, the resulting drop in MS share price would drive the whole to a miniscule portion of what the "worth" of it is today. But let's say he sells MS and gets $300B in the deal - that is not cash, it will just be stock of another company or set of companies. And even if he somehow managed to get it in cash, what would he do with it? Convert it into other shares - that's just creating another abstraction. Pay down US government debt - that's reducing another abstraction. There is nothing real, or physical, there, it is all "ideas" that exist by common agreement, and are only as good as that agreement, or its underlying principles.

Same thing with the Social Security "trust fund". It is an abstraction that tenuously clings to the willingness of the US government to fund it, and is only as good as that willingness. It just does not (and cannot) exist "by itself" or "sit idle".

[mtnester]

131. I understand the concept of too much money is not paper

money and where it has to go very well thank you. But it does not shuffle there on its own, and it is not untraceable. If I take, or it is done automatically, $1.00 from the SS appropriation account, and send it to the Treasury Monster Money appropriation account, there has to be an incoming to SS transaction, an outgoing transaction/transfer from SS to Monster Money and an incoming transaction/record of transfer in to Monster Money.

All I am suggesting is that there should be an accountability requirement to track what dumps to the Monster Money Account from SS, and what that amount is; what portion of that amount in the monster money account that is tracked in FROM SS has been used for other purposes; pay it back, and freeze any other electronic $$ transactions into the monster money account from SS as to be exclusive to going BACK into the SS account and not used for other purposes. Or simply create different accounting practices to handle it, or a specialized Treasury account (which I am AMAZED is not already in place).

Working for the government, you just cannot dump shit around like that, even in its most automated form. There is some bureaucracy of paperwork, resolutions, procedures, etc. that are required and mandated by state and federal accounting laws that make it impossible to not know whose "money", whatever form it takes, is whose. If not, preparing a budget would be next to impossible....

At the very least the electronic transfers, and/or payables/receivables transactions are certainly available to track. And maybe using the words "accounts" is too simplistic...everything ooming in to anywhere has a code to what it is.

[qwghlmian]

134. Of course that is already done -

that is, the government has an exact running figure somewhere of how much it owes the Social Security "trust fund". I don't see how recording the exact amount helps anything. That money has still been spent already, and is an obligation that the government owes to itself. Just recording the "loan" that the government took from Social Security (created by SS fund buying Treasury bonds) does not magically cure the problem. The funds still are not there. And SS solvency still depends on the government willing to honor its own loans to itself - which basically means pay for it outright with whatever current revenues it has.

[mtnester]

135. All those posts to getting back to if you TAKE it from SS

for something else,you should give it back, or maybe not take it at all? I was simply looking for the most simple way to extreme long-term solvency in my original post, rather than coming up with a snipe hunt boondoggle like our pResident has.

:)

[qwghlmian]

136. mtnetster - yes, we come back to

exactly how do you propose to "not take it at all". You have 200-300B on your hands annually. SS surplus. What do you do with it.

[mtnester]

137. Hold it, however, until you need it

because at some point it will be needed. I have a balance in my checkbook, that is not really money until I spend it, that I am doing nothing with right at the moment. And I may never need the particular amount I have right now to EVER do anything else except sit there and look at me. However, if my household income lowers, I may need to use it at some point in the future, at such a time that there are not the same amount of workers contributing to the amount of money I am writing checks for.

Handy thought.

[qwghlmian]

138. There is this general misunderstanding here -

when you have money sitting in your checking account, it is not "idle". In fact, you loaned this money out to the bank, and the bank is using it for its own purposes, in any way it sees fit. When you need it, you take it from the bank, and it "repays" you the loan. But if the bank decides that it can't or won't repay that loan, you're out of luck (well, not really, because there is FDIC insurance of checking accounts, but it is only up to $100,000. In the SS surpluses we're talking hundreds of billions annually).

There is no such thing as idle money. It just does not exist. Even if you stuff a $20 in a mattress, it is still not "idle". It is just a piece of paper that the government promises you will be honored when you want to use it, so it is only as good as that government promise. So - let's go back to the question. You have $200B in annual SS surplus. What do you do with it?

[peterh]

140. Alright….lets cut to the chase….

Bottom line is that the government spent the surplus and put a little IOU in its place. One could argue that the trust fund be kept in safe instruments and allowed to grow per the original intent or maybe allow the general fund to borrow on the interest to help out on emergency spending, but the wholesale looting of the fund was or should be a crime….still, the question should be whether the Treasury be required to honor the IOU (which I think I saw someplace at in excess of a trillion) or should it be allowed to default on it and instead, borrow a couple of trillion to privatize?

I may be trying to simplify this too much, but I think that’s it in a nutshell….

[qwghlmian]

141. You're missing the point really -

I don't understand why it is so hard. For sums such as "in excess of a trillion" there is no such thing as "safe instruments". At that level, money is not money anymore. It is an abstraction. It is a set of numbers that mean nothing without the goodwill of whoever you loaned it to.

You know that saying "If I owe the bank $1,000, and I can't repay, it is my problem. If I owe the bank $10,000,000 and I can't repay, it is the bank's problem"? Multiply that $10M by a couple of hundred thousand and you can see how much bigger the "bank's problem" (or in this case Social Security problem, since it is the "bank" in this case) is.

It is not a question of "defaulting". You can't default on a loan you made to yourself. It is the question of willingness to sustain Social Security out of current general revenues at some point, instead of out of FICA. If there is such a willingness, no matter the cost, then there is no problem. If there isn't, there is a problem. Can't really put it any clearer than that.

[peterh]

142. Come again??

No safe instruments for a trillion??? Not that they exist, but conceivably, you could have a trillion one dollar t-bills drawing interest and they are as safe individually as they are safe collectively, but that’s getting away from the crux of the argument….which is the IOU…

While one can take the view that you can’t default on a loan to yourself, it’s still a default….it just lacks any penalty in a monetary sense, but potentially, it can carry a huge penalty in a political sense….If framed correctly, the idea of repaying the IOU, avoiding default and avoiding “change” (change always raises the fear factor), the twit’s privatizing scheme would be DOA….

[qwghlmian]

143. You can frame it however you like -

but the reality stays the same. The money is spent and the government has to pay for social security out of general revenues+FICA. As long as FICA runs surplusses, it's fine. As soon as FICA runs at a deficit, the payments for Social Security will come out of general revenues, aka "taxes". The higher the deficit, the more taxes will be diverted to pay for Social Security. You can call it "trust fund" with IOUs from the government, or whatever you want, but that is what it means.

[mtnester]

144. Put it under the mattress

for -insert the idion of your choice here- a rainy day.

[qwghlmian]

145. How exactly do you put

a couple of trillion dollars (or 200 billion annually if you like) under the mattress - that is the question.

[peterh]

123. Ya know, I’ve seen very little said about this….

But, you’re right on…..The Treasury has a rather huge IOU sitting in the Trust Fund for SS…if the Treasury were to honor that IOU, say before 2042, the problem is solved. But I get the feeling that politicians from both sides of the fence would like to see that IOU disappear and the best way for it to go away is to have SS go away…

Anyway you look at it, the Treasury is going to have to borrow mucho bucks, either to pay back the IOU or for the gradual elimination of SS…..sooooo….I think the crux of the matter is….. who benefits if they borrow for the IOU and who benefits if they borrow for elimination?

I would love to see that question framed in a real debate….

[JD Lau]

97. Even just increasing the cap to $100, 000 would probably...

actually just about do it(save the system). But your suggestion, of course, would DEFINITELY do it!

[Red State Blues]

108. It will be there in three years!

Of course that won't save it! I've been wondering for over 30 years how the biggest theft in the history of mankind could be carried out in plain sight in broad daylight, after seeing this thread (and a few others) I now know why.

Please don't take it personally, your post is FAR from the most idiotic on this thread, it's just at the point where I started screaming.

[Sen. Brown]

98. Doesn't make any sense

The wealthy are less likely to need Social Security because they are well, wealthy. Why should they pay into a system that they cant even take out?

[StephanieMarie]

101. Another 100% solution would be to raise the minimum wage

to $7.50 an hour and then index it from there on. Problem solved. No worries.

[Sen. Brown]

102. only $7:50?

why not raise it to $15? Then everyone would be happy!...well those that have jobs.

[WetBarNone]

103. I agree.

The 83.5k cap is dumb. With just all the Gates, Heinz, Murdocks, Kennedys, Cheneys etc paying all the way up their scales it just might do it.

[Sen. Brown]

105. gates?

why would bill gates need social security?

[Red State Blues]

107. It's symbolic.

Of course he doesn't need it.

[dolstein]

113. Newflash: the social security tax isn't imposed on capital gains

It's imposed on wages. People like Bill Gates, Teresa Heinz, Rupert Murdock, etc. get most of their income in the form of capital gains. And if you start raising the income caps, they'll simply convert even more of their income into capital gains. So they aren't going to be affect. People like me -- professionals who earn a respectable salary but don't have any equity compensation (e.g., stock options) -- are the ones who end up getting screwed. Frankly, I'm tired of paying a larger share of my income in taxes than Warren Buffet. What you propose will only make matters worse.

[mopinko]

117. do these people think that a flat tax is fair, do you think?

do they think that someone whose income is swallowed up by medical expenses, and a large family should pay the same as a single person with no such deductible expenses, because they make the same amount of money?
the hostility around here sometimes to anyone who is not dirt poor is kinda disgusting. way to grow the party.
but really, it is just the lack of understanding. it is insurance. x dollars in entitles you to y dollars in benefits. fair. simple and fair. i can hear the howls if they took the cap off, and bill gates retired with $10,000/mo.

[qwghlmian]

121. If they took off the cap, Bill Gates would most

probably be getting around $50,000/month from Social Security after his 65th birthday.

[bush_is_wacko]

109. Yep THAT'S THE SOLUTION. "But why should we have to pay for all those

lazy poor people who can't be bothered to work for a living so that they too can NOT have to pay into Social Security?" EVERY American should pay in to Social Security! I am so sick of hearing it is failing when the REASON it is failing MANY years from now is that our greediest fellow citizens don't pay in to it!

The loopholes and exceptions for the wealthy in this country are ludicrous!

[Finding Rawls]

110. Talkingpointsmemo.com

Josh Marshall has pretty much dedicated himself to the SS fight. He's got a wealth of information on the situation and updates constantly.

[mopinko]

111. at least a few of you get it.

but it sure has been disappointing to me how few people here at du, and on the left in general, really get the difference between ss and welfare.

taking the cap off fica, but keeping the cap on benefits, or means testing, would do as much to destroy social security as anything that the shrub could come up with.

there is NO problem with solvency. it ain't broke, don't fix it. refrain from totally fucking up the economy, and a slightly above bare minimum economic growth and there is NO SHORTFALL AT ALL!!! raising the minimum wage to something resembling a living wage, and grannie would probably be getting a raise. it is really disturbing to see people sure that there is a problem, and willing to just rob people to fix the imaginary problem.

fica is not a tax. it is insurance. i am all for progressive tax structure. but it is not a tax. you want to soak the "rich", make them pay their fair share of the income tax. make the corporations pay their fair share. if you think that people making $150,000 a year in WAGES are some kind of juicy target, you are nuts. we are raising a family of 4 kids on that, and we are comfortable. but we are sure in no position to just hand over 6.5% of our income and get NOTHING in return. seriously, i have no problem paying taxes, i have no problem donating to charity. but just to be ripped off? you are all cracked.

there is no way you can sell this to anyone who understands the program, why it has worked so well, and what it needs to be in the future. it is the third rail not because old people are greedy and protect it. it is the third rail because they understand it, and thankfully a few in washington do as well. understanding is sorely lacking here, tho.

[dolstein]

114. THANK YOU!!!!!

It's amazing that so many DU'ers don't even realize that the social security tax is imposed on WAGES, not on income generally. Lifting the income tax isn't going to soak people like Bill Gates, who probably gets a nominal wage and instead receives the bulk of his income in the form of capital gains. It'll soak people like you and me. Between federal, state and local income taxes, payroll taxes, and sales taxes, I'll be lucky to keep fifty cents out of every dollar I earn. If there's someone out there who pays a larger share of their income in taxes than I do, I'd sure as hell love to meet them. It drives me crazy that Congress eliminates the estate tax (yeah, like I'll ever have an estate) and cuts taxes on capital gains, but does nothing about the AMT, which added over $3000 to my tax bill this year.

[David Zephyr]

115. I Agree, Walt. But Sadly, The Super Rich Will Just Quit Taking Paychecks

and take income by other means: capital gains, rents and royalties, etc. which require no social security contributions whatsoever.

The code is rigged against the working man and woman who also has to have "witholding" taxes out of every paycheck while the super rich pay once a year or at most once a quarter.

It's just the way it is. The working class foots the bill for the super rich, who ironically are the ones who whine the most about paying taxes.

[Robert Oak]

119. gee wiz

What's scary is I never heard that answer...

and it's so obvious...especially since the "tax cuts" have given
even more money to the super rich.

Perfect.

I am especially frightened because we're now entering the generation
which was denied pensions, all 401k at best, wiped out by the dot con
debackle...

and now a slash in social security for all...

This is bad...

as in dog food bad...as in not even being able to afford dog food bad.

[cyberpj]

128. It's not even as solvent as we think it is NOW..... see this thread -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1566269

[txaslftist]

129. I prefer the "Logan's Run" solution...

remember?