Why is there an income cap of $90,000 on social security taxes?

stray cat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-13-05 04:40 PM
Original message

Why is there an income cap of $90,000 on social security taxes?

Edited on Thu Jan-13-05 05:38 PM by dmordue

I know it lets large political donors off the hook and is regressive taxation. However, what was the original "so called rationale"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

aden_nak

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-13-05 04:41 PM
Response to Original message

1. Because rich people write the tax laws.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BlueEyedSon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-13-05 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. DING DING DING!! We have a winner!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

no name no slogan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-13-05 04:44 PM
Response to Original message

3. Rich people don't rely on SS as much as poor people

Therefore, in the reasoning of the rich, they should not have to pay as much into it.

SS retirement benefits often account for >50% of retirement income for 'poor' people, while it is often <10% for 'rich' people.

It doesn't make sense to me either, but that is one of the chief arguments for regressive taxation: "The rich don't use as many social services, so why should they have to pay for them."

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

papau

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-13-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. But the defense force costs to defend assets is not allocated to rich

I sure as heck do not have much to defend. Also the Company trucks that tear up the roads make road maintenance a more rich than poor problem. Indeed most of what government does - from corporate welfare via contracts to businesses, to "social service", is used more by the rich.

So why do I have to pay for them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

txaslftist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-13-05 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. Because you don't write the laws.

You just pay the taxes. Shut up and get back to work.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LuLu550

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-13-05 04:50 PM
Response to Original message

4. the reason I heard was to assure the rich

they would get back at least as much as they would put into the system, in theory. If we want Social Security solvency in two seconds flat for the next 50 years, they should raise the cap to $150,000 over the next two-three years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

indepat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-13-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. SS is three-tiered and those in the third tier are already screwed: a 4th

tier subject all income to SS payroll taxes would probably not screw the most affluent any worse that those in the third tier are already getting screwed should a fourth tier making all income subject to SS taxes be added. When the Repukes do that, that will be the day you know the Repukes are for some semblance of a fair, rather than a highly regressive, tax system. Don't hold you breath.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

stevedeshazer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-13-05 05:09 PM
Response to Original message

8. ssshhhh!!!

They're WATCHING. :scared:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

txaslftist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-13-05 05:09 PM
Response to Original message

9. Same reason you don't pay SS on investment income...

'cause you're Rich.

RICH RICH RICH!!!

HAHAHAHAHA!!

THIS IS AMERICA AND YOU'RE RICH, YOU'RE A WINNER!

LOSERS PAY TAXES, NOT WINNERS!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

denverbill

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-13-05 05:19 PM
Response to Original message

10. Why the rich should be happy to pay SS on all their income.

Here's why the rich should be HAPPY to pay SS taxes on all their income.

Every Man a King:

Huey Long was Governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932 and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1930. A nominal Democrat, Huey Long was a radical populist. He wanted the government to confiscate the wealth of the nation's rich and privileged. He called his program Share Our Wealth. It called upon the federal government to guarantee every family in the nation an annual income of $5,000, so they could have the necessities of life, including a home, a job, a radio and an automobile. He also proposed limiting private fortunes to $50 million, legacies to $5 million, and annual incomes to $1 million. Everyone over age 60 would receive an old-age pension. His slogan was "Every Man A King."

The Share Our Wealth program immediately became a movement. Clubs were formed in every state in the nation. By 1935 the movement claimed 27,000 local clubs with 7.7 million members.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Probably the reason it's called 'Social Security' is that it helped stem the tide of more radical socialist and communist leanings.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 02:18 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.