He Center for American Progress has a
Social Security taxes.
Now, an increasing share of total earnings have escaped taxation by Social Security, since 1983. It’s by far progressives’ favorite solution to the Social Security funding problem and, for quite a few of them, their only solution. The limitiscurrently why must you stop paying into the SS pool? Seriously. If everyone paid on every dime they make the rate would’ve been miniscule! That said, the cap is antiquated and no longer serves any purpose. Besides, so it is the lamest list of reasons why we shouldn’t raise the cap I have ever seen. Anyway, if you make 118K you are contributing dollar for dollar.
The principal reason that the wage base cap shouldn’t be increased is that Social Security is supposed to be an earned benefit retirement system in which any contributor is supposed to receive a benefit that has an actuarial value equal to or greater than the value of the regressive taxes contributed.
To put it another way. You see, instead, today only lifetime low wage workers can expect to get a fair retirement benefit in exchange for their lifelong regressive payroll tax contributions. Social Security is in trouble through no fault of workers who pay a portion of their wages in the expectation of receiving a fair retirement benefit in return.
The plan to increase taxes on wage earners alone to save Social Security is unfair to the middle class and destructive of the possibility of class mobility. Why must workers alone bear the burden of the failure of Social Security through increases in regressive or flat taxes on wages alone? Eventually, the reason is the principle behind why Social Security was funded with a regressive tax on wages alone and not with a progressive general tax. Just think for a moment. The idea was that every worker should pay a fair contribution for a fair benefit in return. Make sure you drop a few comments about it. Social Security will have been funded with progressive general taxes, So in case FDR had wanted a wealth transfer or welfare system. No, the reason isn’t tradition.
It might be funded with progressive general taxes and not with increased taxation on wages alone, Therefore if you seek for to transform Social Security into a welfare system.
Raising, or even eliminating the cap on SS taxes would certainly keep SS solvent for a lot more years. If you have a flat tire, doesn’t adding some air allow you to drive further, it’s a partial fix.
That being said, there’s a valid argument that by doing things to begin to fix SS will just enable this awful New Deal program to continue. It’s the law of the fittest, the smartest and in addition the most corrupt! Violence, and disease, except we are not savage animals and in this society we do not accept that a few may exploit the labors of others and let the rest drown in poverty. Like almost any American will have the opportunity to become really because Donald Trump, americans need to accept the swim or sink philosophy of life let freedom reign, really rich. Certainly, not everyone can survive. Usually, we need reform to address the crises of the modern day, not scrap everything and let it be a free for all. Hey, what’s America without corruption? Besides, we’d fall in virtually any ranking category of all nations. Although, some must die early.
SS is a tax and everyone ought to pay it on all income.
Thus it would not be running out of money and benefits should not need to be reduced, So in case SS fund had not been continually used for other purposes there will be a lot of money in the fund. Social Security to begin. Will delaying benefits by two years to anyone under 50, together with removing the cap, adequately shore up the trust fund, am I correct?
It’s about the math. Lowering marginal rates but expanding the base will result in more total tax being paid, in my view. For instance, they’d get more revenue ultimately, I believe, So in case we raised the threshold or eliminated it but lowered the overall rate. Actually, they going to be meanstested, And, we actually need to get real -S and Medicare are ‘quasiwelfare’ programs. Did you hear of something like this before? As a couple of folks have pointed out, medicare/Medicaid HAS to be included in the discussion as fixing SS doesn’t might be messy.
As a moderate conservative I am not afraid to call out this author for lacking the honesty to equate taxing those annually below the cap on ALL of their income VS those earning more than the cap. Frankly I’m good with one universal flat rate everyone pays. Eventually, bS! Fair is fair and we who benefit from our nations opportunity shouldn’t fear paying into the social fabric that enables us to earn as much as we can! We have to recognize that a compromise of lowering should make a difference over time, with divisions in the country. Notice that it’s about more than ideology, it’s about seeking honorable compromise so our nation might be a better place for future generations.
Weak argument by a Republican. Raising the payroll tax cap will generate a lot more revenue and deficit reduction for Uncle Sam without trimming benefits for millions of seniors. Certainly, like paying off the deficit, the argument is to benefit the rich Number If you increase taxes on the wealthy it will make that tax revenue unavailable for other things. As a result, the idea largely fixes Social Security by making sure that nearly any thing else gets more broken.
Social Security is expected to run out of money somewhere around 2035 or so, at which time it should only be able to pay out 75percentage of promised benefits. If anybody out there believes that anyone can tell the electorate they’re planning to do that and politically be able to actually do so, I have a bridge to sell you, perhaps in a perfect world, we could cut benefits 25percentage and that would solve everything. Lots of us are aware that there is a serious political issue as it’s the one government benefit that we all get. Because one method isn’t sufficient to solve everything means it’s off the table entirely? Either it needs more revenue or benefits have to be cut. That raising the payroll cap will not solve all our problems is irrelevant. What, this is the case right?
Which ignores the fact that Medicare will go belly up the decade before that and its revenue source is also mostly identical payroll tax. The age at which one can draw benefits will rise, the formula setting the COLA may be lowered, means testing will cut benefits for those less dependent upon it, the cap will go up a bit, and the rate paid into it will probably do so as well. Given that percentage, how we could increase revenue sufficiently without tanking the economy seems problematic. The probability is that the long period of time solution is planning to have to involve changes across the full gamut of possibilities.
Why don’t we stop with silly articles really like this one and start looking at approaches that should actually address the real problem in a politically realistic fashion with as little economic dislocation as possible, right?
Why don’t we stop with silly articles like that one and start looking at approaches that would actually address the poser in a politically realistic fashion with as little economic dislocation as possible, this is the case right?
It is really quite simple actually, despite all the specious argumentation. Why should the average middle class worker have to pay the SS tax on 100 of their income but wealthy millionaires pay a tiny percentage, am I correct? It is neither equitable, nor beneficial to the program itself and leads to a growing wealth gap, that is harmful to the nation.
Everybody must have to pay the tax against 100percentage of their income or the program gonna be replaced with a better ‘opt in’ system.
Keeping the status quo on the Social Security cap as well as maintaining ZIRP are two fiscal policies clearly designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, a thoroughly unAmerican modus operandi and one that will surely not end well.
You are basing your judgment on the payroll tax rate structure, and ignoring the benefits formula. What you call a dollar of tax on preparing to tell me who is winning? Usually, statistically they are paying more tax than anyone. Notice that the high income worker does not get back the entire dollar. Make sure you leave a comment about it. That is like making a judgment on a baseball game with half a score. There is no guarantee that anybody will get a dollar back, either being that the system will go bankrupt or being that you might be dead before 65, or for some other reason.
Your baseball metaphor is pure inanity, in the first place.
Now -in essence -you seem to have so that’s not a game -we are talking about people’s livelihood and their freedom.
We can both agree that SS is a junkbond return type but you are clearly blind to the inequity of the SS cap and that it’s tantamount to a reward or exemption for being wealthy. It is involuntary and therefore it acts and behaves like a tax but worse being that you can’t itemize against it. Saying I know it’s a benefit is really semantics.
Why must the average middle class worker have to pay the SS tax on 100percentage of their income but wealthy millionaires pay a tiny percentage?
Because that is the income the benefits are computed on.
Actually the wealthy’s benefits are a fraction of their total income also. Right, leftists, is that the case?