General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf we, as a country, decide to raise the cap on Social Security to ensure the efficacy of the...
program, then I would also like to see that high income wage earners not be taxed on more than half of their benefit.
It's just not fair to tax any income more than once.
You see your employers deduct the half that they kick in as a business expense and so that part of the contribution has not been taxed. Individual tax payers, up to a limit, are allowed to pay no tax on the Social Security. Once a senior citizen hits a certain level, then they have to pay tax on the half that was never taxed.
But after a certain level, they have to recognize that part as taxable income. At even higher amounts, those seniors who have a lot of other income, will have to start paying taxes on their contribution which was already taxed when they earned it while working.
I think that if this double taxation of that income was taken off the table, the people who are pushing for "revamping" Social Security would lose a really big reason for that change.
Look, if we are being fair about it, why should someone have to pay tax on income that was already taxed.
That's my thought for the day.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The maximum portion of the benefit that can be subject to taxation is 85%.
http://taxes.about.com/od/income/qt/Social_Security.htm
Warpy
(111,267 posts)That's really the problem here. That $25,000 might have been fairly generous 20+ years ago but it wasn't indexed to inflation and it's stingy now.
We need to get money into the hands of people who will spend it.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)It is not fair to tax anyone twice on the same income...
cbrer
(1,831 posts)If we did, this country wouldn't be in near the mess that it is now.
Making SSA a political hot potato is disingenuous bullshit.
It could be made a stand alone, well financed, interest bearing system with the stroke of a pen. But our "leaders" will never do it. Not as long as they keep feeding us FEAR
Cleita
(75,480 posts)taxation.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)so therefor, it has not been taxed.
The amount you and I pay has already been taxed as earnings since your contribution is taxed from the amount of your compensation.
Since the contributions are the same from each income source, the individual is already taxed on that money.
What I am saying is Social Security should NOT be taxed to any recipient for more than 50% of their benefit. As it stands now, high income level wage earners are taxed up to 85% of their on their compensation.
I had to pay $2000 in taxes last year for the previous year because of the SS rule that kicked me above a certain rate because I had a job. That was the same year GE paid nothing in taxes and it wiped out my savings because I lost my job just before April tax time. I've been scrapping bottom since then.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)talkingmime
(2,173 posts)talkingmime
(2,173 posts)Problem solved. Oh, wait. Republicans are involved. Never mind.