|
Post by tdrivertom on Feb 3, 2012 12:34:07 GMT -5
I do not see the problem of social security being addressed anywhere in the 99% D list of grievances. This could perhaps be added under the grievance of a "Fair Tax Code."
It's my understanding that the current income ceiling for paying into social security is something like $106,800. Once a person exceeds this limit of income, he/she no longer has to pay social security tax. This needs to changed. Every person should pay social security tax on every dollar they earn. There should be no ceiling. This would be a relatively easy fix to assure that social security remains solvent.
|
|
|
Post by leewendte on Feb 3, 2012 17:16:01 GMT -5
With you on that point especially having a personal interest in that monthly check.
|
|
|
Post by christophercarney on Feb 4, 2012 23:30:31 GMT -5
tdrivertom brings up a good point, and is something that probably should be addressed eventually by the delegates.
It is true, only the first $106,800 (or something very close to that) of a person's annual income is taxed for social security. This is wrong and is immoral. Does anyone really have a clue how many billions of dollars could be put into the social security trust fund that isn't, particularly by those who can most afford to pay it?
This definitely fits into the "Fair Tax Code" grievance, as far as the list of 20 grievances are concerned.
And I really don't understand leewendte's last comment. Perhaps you can expound upon that just a little?
|
|
|
Post by amadeus on Feb 5, 2012 9:06:43 GMT -5
Leewendte's last comment makes no progress to the original question, so I'm assuming it to be an effort to put down tdrivertom for his income level. Not a very educated attempt, or mature attempt, but youth is often wasted on the young.
As for the social security level, I don't think that the maximum level should be changed. I think the minimum level should be changed. If you're not earning two times the poverty level, you shouldn't be required to pay into the account. Uncle Sam would do it for you in its benefits package. The same "safety net" that Mitt Rommel, errrr . . . . Romney says that doesn't need to be fixed, the same package that feeds 45 million American people on a monthly basis, is how we pay for it.
The second thing that needs to be fixed is Congressional ability to use Social Security funds. As long as Congress can spend that money as part of their budget, it is in danger. The original SS plan did not allow that at all. In the sixties, after Kennedy was assassinated the law was changed without much fanfare, in order to prop up Congressional spending. It was a loan, of sorts, that never got repaid by the people that borrowed it. Now the babyboomers are retiring, and the loan still has not been repaid. The Congressional answer is to throw the system away, and make everyone pay into a private fund that some federally contracted "managers" can draw a profit from, right off the top. Just as crooked, and just as irresponsible.
|
|
|
Post by The 99 Declaration on Feb 5, 2012 10:21:29 GMT -5
amadeus, please be careful with the personal attacks, no matter the sarcasm. thanks.
|
|
|
Post by tdrivertom on Feb 5, 2012 10:48:15 GMT -5
WHOA! Slow down everyone!
I was not insulted by leewendte's comment. Unless I totally misunderstood it, I thought he was saying he was "with me" concerning the need to include social security in the discussion because he himself was getting social securitiy.
|
|
|
Post by amadeus on Feb 5, 2012 10:57:21 GMT -5
Point taken. I stand corrected, and apologize for my shortsightedness.
|
|
|
Post by peedropaula on Feb 5, 2012 12:05:28 GMT -5
The income cap on Social Security must be raised. There is no cap on the Medicare contribution and there's no reason SS shouldn't be applied to all earnings.
|
|
|
Post by christophercarney on Feb 5, 2012 15:30:28 GMT -5
Wow, sarcasm is very hard to read here.
I still agree with tdrivertom and peedropaula. Not taxing up to someone's full income for social security is immoral, unfair, and financially short-sighted. I do agree that people under a certain income should not be taxed, but why anyone would suggest leaving the top income earners out of the equation is beyond me.
I do have to agree though with amadeus' second paragraph. If we hadn't allowed (or more aptly let Congress allow) the funds to be raided for other kinds of spending, and the funds replaced with IOU's, the system wouldn't need such an overhaul as it's going to need fairly soon.
There needs to be some level of honesty, accountability, and plain old common sense that is severely lacking in Washington.
|
|
|
Post by kforthun on Feb 7, 2012 23:55:23 GMT -5
Take the cap off, yes I second and less tax for poor folks, yes I second! Put it in the tax code section brilliant, yes I second haha. Cool we are cookin!
|
|
|
Post by leewendte on Feb 8, 2012 17:28:25 GMT -5
yes I am a boomer and I appreciate the sarcasm as it makes me aware that a person should put more thought into a comment before releasing a reply.
|
|
|
Post by amadeus on Feb 8, 2012 19:01:59 GMT -5
From one boomer to another, you have my heartfelt apologies. I'm also a recipient of the monthly "golden handcuffs" due to a heart problem, and I really made an honest mistake in deciphering what I read. It won't happen again . . .
|
|
|
Post by robdinsmore on Feb 9, 2012 14:18:01 GMT -5
I do not see the problem of social security being addressed anywhere in the 99% D list of grievances. This could perhaps be added under the grievance of a "Fair Tax Code." It's my understanding that the current income ceiling for paying into social security is something like $106,800. Once a person exceeds this limit of income, he/she no longer has to pay social security tax. This needs to changed. Every person should pay social security tax on every dollar they earn. There should be no ceiling. This would be a relatively easy fix to assure that social security remains solvent. I disagree with this to some extent. Yes payroll taxes are problematic, but SS is not a tax, it's a forced investment that pays you back when you retire. One problem with payroll 'taxes' is that both the employee and employer pay the same amount. So the employer has to pay 7.2% on wages up to 106.8k and 0% after. Just do the math for a second and you see how much more it costs for a big corporation to pay 1M in extra salary to workers earning <~100k as compared to giving the same raises to executives who make well over 200k. Do you give 10,000 employees and extra $100 this year for 1.07 M or do you give 100 top earners an extra 10k at a cost of 1.00M? Clearly this plays some role in income inequality. So how do you address this? Should employers be forced to pay this flat tax on all wages all the way up to the CEO? And what about stock grants/options? Would these be considered for payroll taxes? On the employee side I don't think people earning over 106 should necessarily have to pay more for SS. SS gets paid back to them proportionally, but for people earning say 150k they may prefer to put that extra 3k into their 401k. (too many k's). Medicare is a different matter, as the more you make the more you's be willing to pay. 150k /yr is not a whole lot of money for people living in NYC or the Bay Area. When you live in an expensive area you make less overall even if you earn a higher wage in that area so it's a bit crappy to target people that are marginally well off for any increase in taxes unless you make taxes account for geographical variance in cost of living. Instead you can add a progressive payroll surtax on higher earners above some pay level to help pay for medicare and to help SS. There is a healthcare bill that proposes a single payer system all done through payroll taxes that also calls for such a tax. I have not seen the details so I don't know how it works. I emailed a congressman in MI who is pushing for this bill but he did not reply to me (yet)? It is not clear whether this is just on employee or also on employers.
|
|
|
Post by christophercarney on Feb 10, 2012 15:50:53 GMT -5
So help me out here. Maybe I am misunderstanding something.
If an employee pays 7.2% on all wages up to $106,800 today, and the employer pays the same amount, doesn't this favor the large corporation giving raises to those already making more than this income, thus promoting income inequality since it will ultimately pay out less in taxes?
If that's true, then it seems to be that removing the income limit for social security taxes would promote income equality, because then the corporation would have equal incentive to hire workers no matter where they fall in income level.
Am I thinking about this wrong?
|
|
|
Post by tdrivertom on Feb 10, 2012 19:06:37 GMT -5
NO. You're not thinking about this wrong, christophercarney! I think robdinsmore failed to take what you pointed out into consideration.
|
|