"Lifting the cap on SS payments is one of the measures... that's being discussed" --Rep. Clyburn

[TheWraith]

"Lifting the cap on Social Security payments is one of the measures to strengthen Social Security that's being discussed and is popular with the Dem caucus. It's not fair for someone making $106k to pay Social Security on 100% of their income and somebody making $212k only paying Social Security on half their income." --Rep James Clyburn (D-SC) on Hardball.

[pnwmom]

1. Bravo. n/t

[Richardo]

2. That's the ticket.

Hope it flies.

[TheWraith]

7. My guess is that we get the cap taken off in exchange for making the payroll tax holiday permanent

And possibly shifting to a chained CPI. The chained CPI is fairly harmless, and they payroll tax cut is actually a positive: it makes the FICA taxation more progressive in nature, and less burdensome to those making less money.

Of course, I'm just speculating.

[FreakinDJ]

50. Tax Holiday is a proven "Job Killer"

I would be surprised anyone would even suggest making it permanent - even the GOP

They do want another Tax Holiday to allow the $2 Trillion being held off shore (tax deferred) to enter the US and be distributed amongst share holders and to shore up Corporate coffers.

I do however could see Obama proposing allowing a Tax Holiday prior to eliminating the Off Shore Tax Deferment/Tax Exemption as he proposed in 2009

[TheWraith]

60. What does offshore cash have to do with PAYROLL taxes? nt

[Lugnut]

3. Now we're talking.

There should be no cap at all.

[damntexdem]

4. Right on!

But it should still have NOTHING to do with talks on deficit reduction.

[jberryhill]

5. This would be awesome /nt

[whathehell]

6. YAY!....That's an acceptable change!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestateguy]

9. I have long favored this

nt

[librechik]

10. Dem caucus is not in the talks

and the guys who are are not sensible and straightforward

[wryter2000]

11. K&R

That's a solution I can support.

[valerief]

12. Woo hoo! If only those Republican graverobbers would get high and vote in favor of this. nt

[supraTruth]

44. President needs to tell boehner&cantor that CONgressional pay will be cut 1st if DEADline is missed!

Then we will see some serious negotiations from THEM.

[valerief]

45. Can the prez cut Congressional and staffer pay and benes? nt

[supraTruth]

49. If we begin to run out of $ thanks to THEIR FAILURES, why not?

[valerief]

53. I thought Congress controlled the purse strings. nt

[supraTruth]

58. Not when we run out of $; then it becomes the job of the Treas.Sec. to choose WHICH bills to pay or

NOT.

[valerief]

59. Oh, yeah. Well, first thing he should do is cancel all congressional health insurance. nt

[theaocp]

13. Pessimism alert! Pessimism alert!

It won't happen, though it should. Republicans won't stand for it. Sorry.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Solution to what?

The whole point of SS reform/tweaks is to set up the conditions where rich taxpayers will never have to repay the money they've borrowed from the SSTF.

SS is not in crisis.

[TheWraith]

16. Care to elaborate on that statement?

"The whole point of SS reform/tweaks is to set up the conditions where rich taxpayers will never have to repay the money they've borrowed from the SSTF."

Who do you imagine has been borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund?

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Surplus SS tax has been used to finance tax cuts for the rich and wars for their businesses.

If you raise SS taxes and cut benefits, those rich taxpayers will never have to repay the loan. Social Security has become a profit center for the government and the rich people for whom it works.

[TheWraith]

21. That's not how the Social Security Trust Fund works.

It's not a part of general revenue.

[slipslidingaway]

28. It is a loan to the general budget ...

that is why there is debate over whether or not there really is 2.6 Trillion in the Trust Fund.

Bush says they are just pieces of paper, do we honor our debts to other nations before we honor our debt to citizens?

[TheWraith]

31. That's not quite right. The Trust Fund contains treasury bonds.

In other words, the Trust Fund invests in US federal debt... but that's not the same thing as a loan, and those bonds will eventually be sold or redeemed.

[slipslidingaway]

37. Never said the Trust Fund did not contain Treasury bonds, that is what the TF holds...

as collateral for the money loaned to the general budget.

I've not heard Obama speak of the 2.6 Trillion dollars owed to the TF, could be wrong, so maybe you can provide a link. The only person speaking of this is not even a Dem.

The general budget is in trouble, not SS, so why make this a SS problem?

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. Here.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2011/II_A_highlights.html

At the end of 2010, about 54 million people were receiving benefits: 37 million retired workers and dependents of retired workers, 6 million survivors of deceased workers, and 10 million disabled workers and dependents of disabled workers. During the year, an estimated 157 million people had earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes. Total expenditures in 2010 were $713 billion. Total income was $781 billion ($664 billion in non-interest income and $117 billion in interest earnings), and assets held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities grew to $2.6 trillion.

In 2010, workers loaned the government about $70 billion dollars which was excess to the needs of current retirees. The government spent it on tax cuts and wars. The total the government now owes workers is $2.6 trillion.

If the government intends to use repayment of that $2.6 trillion to support retirees, then there's a remote possibility that the trust fund might be drawn down to zero, 25 years from now. If that happens, retirees will only get 77% of what they would otherwise be entitled.

If they don't intend to use that $2.6 trillion to suppport retirees, then SS taxes should not be raised period. In fact, in that case, they are already $70 billion too high.

[slipslidingaway]

57. Agree, why let them steal more money for tax cuts and wars. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. Surplus SS taxes are loaned to the government. With me so far?

The debt to workers grows each year. At this time, the federal government owes the SS system $2.5 trillion. The plan all along was that retirees would eventually begin withdrawing more than workers are putting in. When that happens, the bank not only stops lending, but the borrower (rich taxpayers) must begin paying off that debt.

Unfortunately, the government (i.e. the rich) is also in the position of setting the rules by which the SS system will pay beneficiaries. If they raise SS taxes and lower benefits, they can set the system up in such a way that workers not only never get the benefit of the surplus taxes we've been paying all along, but actually continue to act as a bank, subsidizing low taxes for the rich.

If government has no intention of honoring the debt to workers - the surplus we've set aside to care for our needs - then SS taxes should absolutely NOT be more than are required to support retirees and the disabled *this year*.

Workers are the bank which our government intends to never repay.

[WCGreen]

15. I would like that if....

The recipients who receive social security, regardless of the income level, recognize no more than half of their benefit come tax time...

I think one of the basic tenants of our tax system is that no income should be taxed twice. Since the employer share of the tax is not taxed, it is a deductible expense so that part of the contribution has not been taxed, only the part of the benefit that stems from employer contributions should be taxed.

It's fair, it's equatable and would make the system more likely to survive if one part of the population is not bound by another set of regulations.

I am for a progressive tax structure, but I draw the line at having any income, regardless who is the recipient, being taxed twice.

Taxed at a higher rate, for sure, taxed twice, no way.

[eridani]

17. Good. Now why isn't Obama saying that publicly? n/t

[TheWraith]

22. He has been. Repeatedly. But DUers don't like to listen to that part. nt

[eridani]

26. Let's have a url dated 2011, please. What he said in 2008 about anything--

--seema to frequently be inoperative.

[TheWraith]

30. This was LITERALLY the first result in Google.

"Obama backs lifting income cap for Social Security"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/usa-obama-socialsecurity-idUSN19806820110419

[eridani]

32. A direct quote from the article

After hesitating to take hard positions in recent months, Obama last week laid out a strategy to cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years, drawing a stark, ideological contrast with a plan pitched by Republican U.S. Representative Paul Ryan.

Obama's blueprint, though, did not back boosting the Social Security income cap, but recommended bipartisan talks to address the program's long-term challenges.

Why in GODDAM FUCKING HELL not?!?!?!

[TheWraith]

35. So you're going to cite an obscure policy paper rather than what came out of his own mouth? nt

[eridani]

38. The "obscure policy paper" is the basis for current negotiations.

What came out of his mouth was not in conjunction with talking about those negotiations.

[TheWraith]

40. Justify your spin however you like. Fact is, Obama supports uncapping FICA.

Always has.

[eridani]

42. So why isn't he using his bully pulpit to motivate the public to call congress--

--and demand raising the cap?

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. They're too busy parroting "Another pretty speech"

like good little howler monkeys...

:rofl:

[Logical]

18. Then the need to increase payouts to the people also. They are paying more in. n-t

[TheWraith]

24. No, most people wouldn't be.

In any event, the idea is to make the change to accommodate a larger number of retirees.

[slipslidingaway]

27. And what of the maximum benefit?

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html

"Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program limits the amount of earnings subject to taxation for a given year. The same annual limit also applies when those earnings are used in a benefit computation..."

[TheWraith]

29. I'm not sure what you're asking. nt

[slipslidingaway]

36. There is a correlation between what is paid in and what is paid out...

some believe that if you mess with one side of the equation it will be seen as a welfare program.

The income for very wealthy does not even come from income that is subject to payroll taxes.

And why is this even part of the debt ceiling talks and why did Obama not include raising the debt ceiling when he extended the Bush tax cuts?

[TheWraith]

41. Some correlation, but it's not tied to it. Social Security is not a pension program.

It's structured on the same lines as pension programs, but the idea is not "pay in, pay out," but rather "minimum standard income."

[slipslidingaway]

56. From the SS link I posted to you before ...

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html

"Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program limits the amount of earnings subject to taxation for a given year. The same annual limit also applies when those earnings are used in a benefit computation. This limit generally increases with increases in the national average wage index. We call this annual limit the contribution and benefit base, or taxable maximum..."

[Hangingon]

20. Unlimited caps have many of the problems associated with

keeping millionaires/billionaires off ssn. It moves SSN towards welfare and away from an entitlement.

[TheWraith]

25. Could you elaborate, there?

"keeping millionaires/billionaires off ssn. It moves SSN towards welfare and away from an entitlement."

That statement doesn't seem to compute.

[BlueCheese]

33. I think what he or she means is that...

... right now what you get out of SS correlates with what you put in. The income cap is "fair" in that while someone making $110,000 (or whatever the cap is) and someone making $1 million pay the same payroll tax, they also receive the same benefits, all things being equal.

If now the person making $1 million pays ten times as much but still receives the same benefits as before, then there might be a perception that SS is no longer a social insurance program, but rather a wealth transfer program. Since those tend to be unpopular, it might cut into one of the main reasons that SS is so popular.

I think that's the argument. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is an argument I've heard.

[TheWraith]

39. Problem is, Social Security is not a pension system.

The basic purpose is not to get out what you put in. It's not a savings account, it's a safety net. The purpose is to guarantee a minimum standard of living for retirees. An uncapped system is not responsible for paying out as much as you paid in, any more than the current capped system is.

[slipslidingaway]

23. A few years ago the Dems said SS was Not a problem ...

what changed.

:shrug:

[supraTruth]

43. Only good news I have heard yet from these negotiations; & President needs to tell boehner&cantor:

1st spending cuts to be made if the August DEADline is passed will be to the CONgressmen who caused it; .

Hit them in the pocketbook! GAME OVER!

MONEY is the only thing these CONS understand.

[Cleita]

47. Or someone who earns that $106,000 the first day

of January each year, like many billionaires and CEOs do.

[supraTruth]

48. Does ANY1 have the ear of MSNBC? Tell them to tell Pres. to tell boehner&cantor that CONgressional

pay will be 1st cut.

GAME OVER!

[blue neen]

52. K&R

:dem:

[slipslidingaway]

54. Why are the Dems allowing this to be discussed as part of the debt ceiling negotiations ...

and why didn't the Dems push for raising the debt ceiling when they extended the Bush tax cuts.

[BumRushDaShow]

55. K&R

:kick: