State Journal-Register: Shimkus: Tax cap on Social Security might rise

http://www.sj-r.com/Sections/News/Stories/48701.asp

"U.S. Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, said Wednesday he is willing to break a no-tax-hike pledge to allow for raising or eliminating the cap that limits how much higher-paid workers contribute to the Social Security system.

As of 2005, the first $90,000 of an employee's pay is subject to the Social Security tax of 6.2 percent. The ceiling went up from $87,900 in 2004.

President Bush has proposed allowing workers to divert some of their Social Security payments into personal investment accounts. Critics say the diversion would leave a financial hole in the Social Security system, which pays benefits to retirees using the contributions from workers.

"If you're looking at transition costs, you have to find a way to raise revenue," Shimkus told The State Journal-Register in a visit to Springfield. "So I would not be averse to looking at raising that ($90,000) limit or just eliminating the ceiling all together."

Did I just read this right: "just eliminating the ceiling all together" is this really the Shimkus I've grown to despise? I'm just stunned....

:-)

I have no idea why he would say something like that. He could face some serious trouble for that comment. Then again his district gave him 70% of the vote.

but y'all are on the wrong side of this issue. it's making me crazy. eliminating the cap is the first step down that proverbial road to hell that is paved with good intentions. it is a BIG, BIG mistake.

Why is that? If eveyrone has to pay into Social Security, that's a good thing I thought? :shrug:

but the thing is that the purpose of the cap is to keep rich people from buying into a discount insurance program. yes, they have to buy in (if they get wages) but they can only buy the same basic plan as everyone else. make sense?
people get back according to what they pay in. everyone seems to think that it is ok to make wealthier people pay more and get less. it's just the rich, after all. right? the thing is that as soon as you start making those kind of adjustments, like means testing, the fix du jour the last time there was a "crisis", you change the nature of the program. you make it just another welfare program.
my family depended on ss payments for most of my childhood. we were poor. in those days, that was shameful. maybe it isn't so much today, but many people still have pride, and do not want a handout. my mother would have been mortified to take any kind of welfare.
but ss is not a handout. it is an annuity, paid for by people's own earnings. THAT is why it is the third rail. not because old folks are feisty, because they worked for it, paid for it, and they know god and gd well that they own it.
besides, it ain't broke. why let these maniacs "fix" it?