How can we strengthen Social Security?

This was the topic with the teenagers on the way to school this morning and I'd like to pick it back up tomorrow morning (the older teens and I have 15 minutes to discuss/debate current events on the way to school each day).

Thanks!

It is not an investment program - it is a social safety net. You don't necessarily get back what you put in. End of story.

That would mean applying some rigorous means-testing. I.e., if you are a union member with a pension that provides more than social security, then you don't get any social security.

That would piss a lot of middle-class people off, who had been counting on Social Security The Investment to supplement their income post-retirement.

Due to the increased solvency from extending the SS tax to all income levels theres no reason to slash benefits, no matter the retirement income of the recipient.

and apply it to all income and income levels.

Those two modest steps will fix social security for all time.

It's a Ponzi scheme... ain't no strengthening that house of cards.

If you want to kick the can down the road to postpone Judgement Day on it, then there's always raising the retirement age... say, a retirement age of 80 might do it. Might even be stable long term if you managed to index the retirement age to minimize the percentage of the population getting SS payouts.

It was used as a substitute for taxing the wealthy.

works.

thanks for repeating the right-wing propaganda.

Ponzi schemes work by paying back the initial investors with proceeds from later investors; eventually the scheme falls apart when the pool of investors fails to grow at the rate necessary to continue to pay off the old ones.

Now how is this different from how SS works?

meme.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7727161#7729912

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7595187&mesg_id=7610860

says something you don't agree with, you start with your "right wing meme" crap. Stop it!

Expect me also to note that they're lies.

for people who know deep inside that their argument is just plain wrong. Since they can't confront the facts, they seek to distract with name-calling. Comes right out of the handbook for dishonest argumentation under the heading "ad hominem".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and they're the arguments created by right wing think tanks.

a classic right-wing meme. A textbook definition of a right-wing meme, if you will. :shrug:

viable or it is not. Nothing right or left about the answer to that.

social security is clearly *not* a ponzi scheme, & anyone who knows the definition of ponzi scheme knows it's not.

In both posts you rest your case on SS being backed by production, vs. a Ponzi not being so backed.

But you offer nothing to shore up that assertion, and as it is critical to your argument there, I believe it is incumbent upon you to produce some evidence to back it up.

I wholly dispute that SS is backed up by anything but the power of the government to tax, which is not production at all (and in fact is detrimental to production).

The essential features of the Ponzi and SS are identical - early participants do well, everyone else gets to eat dog food when the whole thing blows up.

And make no mistake - SS is blowing up, in real time. As you well know, all the money taken in has been spent, replaced by government IOUs. Would you take such a benevolent approach to a corporation whose pension fund was stuffed with corporate IOUs? Of course not, you'd condemn it for the farce and the sham it was.

Now we have the boomer bubble, plus plummeting tax revenue, in the midst of a global depression; for decades we have known, from analysis after analysis, warning after warning, that the day would come where major changes were necessary in SS to keep the program from being completely insolvent. And in the context of all this you proclaim SS to be economically sound?

I don't suppose you're familiar with the phrase "unsustainable borrowing"? SS is going to wash out just like the finance bubble - everyone denying there is a problem until it goes nuclear, and then all of a sudden it will be a major emergency that no one could foresee.

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/05/09/robots-help-spur-us-manufacturing

You really want to defend the proposition that the US produces nothing?


Since SS started paying out in 1937, more than 70 years ago, if it were a ponzi scheme it would be the longest-running one in the world.

Contrary to your assertion, current retirees get MORE, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than early retirees did.

Contrary to your post, the only "borrowing" going on is the borrowing initiated by Ronald Reagan's 1983 "reform" -- justified by the same phoney memes you're spreading now. The borrowing of over $1 trillion dollars from US workers overcharged on SS -- to fund tax cuts for the rich.

You're spreading right-wing memes, why are you at DU?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

For example, you don't know that SS is not "cash flow negative" (that's another meme spread by the right, who deliberately ignore interest payments into the SS trust fund.

For example, you don't know that SS HAS BEEN "cash flow negative" in the past.

For example, you don't know that in 1983 Congress hiked SS taxes above the old pay-go financing in order to create a HUGE SURPLUS IN THE TRUST FUND.

The justification was supposedly: when it came time for the boomers to retire, that Trust could be drawn down, i.e. GO "CASH FLOW NEGATIVE".

For example, you don't know that the "borrowed money" was "borrowed" BY CAPITALISTS FROM THE OVERPAYMENTS WORKERS MADE, & its the capitalists who created the very memes you're spreading so as not to have to PAY BACK WHAT THEY BORROWED, such as your "just IOUs" meme.

Here's George Bush running for Congress in 1978:

Stumping at the Midland Texas Country Club, George W. Bush said: "(Social Security) will be bust in 10 years unless there are some changes...The ideal solution would be…(for people) to invest the money the way they feel."(8)

The right-wing drumbeat continues every year:

Here's Bush in 2005:

"Now, let me tell you something about the Social Security system. It's not a trust. A lot of people think, well, we're collecting your money and we're holding it for you, and then when you retire, we're going to give it back to you. That's not the way it works. We're collecting your money, and if we've got money left over - in other words, if the – if there's more money than the benefits promised to be paid in our hands, we're spending it and leaving behind an IOU. That's how it works. It's called a pay-as-you-go system. You pay, we go ahead and spend it. (Laughter.)" (2)

Isn't he cute? Here he is again, same year:

"We take your payroll taxes, we pay out the benefits to current retirees, and with the money left over, we pay...for other programs. And there's nothing left but file cabinets with IOUs. And that's how it works." (3)

Let's not ignore his second-in-command. Here's Cheney on the mission:

"Now, about 1.7 trillion of that is in the so-called Trust Fund: that is, money - that's money that's been collected that's not there as cash at this point."(4)



GOOD COMPANY IF YOU LIKE RIGHT-WING ECONOMIC POLICIES. WHICH YOU APPARENTLY DO.

On edit: I see you are from Virginia & your business is "economics". Which convinces me you do.

I have helpfully numbered my arguments below. Please specify what exactly you disagree with.

1. Over the life of the Social Security program, more has been paid in than paid out. This we can call the surplus. (agree/disagree)

2. This surplus was spent, not saved by the US government. (agree/disagree)

3. The record of these takings is in the form of special Treasury bonds, the collateral left in exchange for the money taken from the surplus. (agree/disagree)

4. A Treasury bond is a debt owed by the US government. (agree/disagree)

5. Somewhere, somehow, the money has to get to the bank to cover the checks SS pays out. (agree/disagree)

6. If the program itself is running negative (and it is - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?hp or is this some right wing conspiracy?) then the government itself has to bring in that money from somewhere else. (agree/disagree)

7. The government itself is already running a big deficit. (agree/disagree)

8. In order to get the money to pay out for SS, the government needs to borrow the difference between the income and expenditures, or to raise new taxes to cover the difference. (agree/disagree)

9. Therefore there is no substantial difference between what actually happens and direct borrowing by the Treasury. (agree/disagree)

1. The SS TF is not running negative; it continues to grow: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3104

"Why, then, do some commentators say the surplus has vanished? Because they employ a narrow measure — comparing annual Social Security expenditures with annual Social Security revenues, excluding the interest payments the Social Security trust funds earn. That measure omits an important component of the trust funds’ income."



2. Even if it were "running negative," that is precisely what was designed to happen when, in 1983, Congress passed Greenspan & Reagan's SS "reform" by an overwhelming majority of both Democrats & Republicans. The rationale then was to build up a surplus in the Trust Fund which would be spent down when the boomers retired. Some of those who signed of on this "reform" are the same people now claiming it "bankrupted" social security.


3. Excess collections from workers over the last 27 years *were* spent, i.e. borrowed into the General Fund, as they always have been, in accordance with the original SS legislation. Greenspan, Reagan, & the Congress were completely cognizant that this was the expected, normal way of handling any excess SS collections. Some of them are now talking out the other side of their mouths.



4. Over the same time frame, income taxes were reduced, & most of the cuts went to the top 5% of the income distribution. Bush's tax cuts alone gave about $1 trillion dollars to the top 5%, & over half of that went to the top 1%.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf

That's a little under half of the entire debt in the SS Trust Fund, making it quite clear that the Reagan-Greenspan "reform" transferred income from labor to capital, as those at the top of the income distribution make most of their money from capital (e.g. capital gains, profit) NOT WAGES.

Not to mention the massive profits this class made on the money they "borrowed" from the working class -- while working class wages stagnated & workers paid 6.2%/12.4% of their income into SS -- about 2/4 points of which went, not to fund retired workers, but to CAPITAL.



5. The top 1% receives over 21% of total US income, most of it from capital. The bottom 80% receive less than 40%. The top 1% holds over 60% of all financial securities, including government bonds; the top 10% holds about 99%.

i.e. It's from this economic class that the government borrows funds, & it's to this class that most of the interest payments on the national debt go.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html



6. The class & persons which pushed the Reagan "reforms," signed off on them & benefited mightily from them is now the class proposing not to pay back the money they borrowed, which is, as you say "a legitimate debt" of the US government.

Instead, they propose to rob the working class once more in the form of higher SS payments, reduced benefits, & longer working lives (at lower wages, incidentally).



7. Your 7 points, which are correct so far as they go, conveniently omit the capital-backed bait & switch, & is used to call for the capital-backed remedy of soaking workers -- i.e. your post serves the interests of capital.



8. Finally, your seven points in no way support the contention that SS = a ponzi scheme.

#1 - "excluding the interest payments the Social Security trust funds earn. That measure omits an important component of the trust funds’ income."

This is an accounting sleight-of-hand that has zero impact on the financial position of the government. One part of the government promising payments to another part of the government... eventually real money has to come from somewhere to pay for what was promised. Which brings us back to where do we get our money? Most of it these days is borrowed. What happens to this situation on the next interest rate spike? Even 6% T-bill rates ends this game for good.

By the way, I should point out that these interest payments are less than what the fund should be getting on the open market. We are getting a deliberately low rate of interest, so that politicians can spend the difference.

#2 - no objection

#3 - If the funds were spent that undermines the entire purpose of saving for retirement. Let's be clear - nothing was saved for the retirement of the baby boomers. They expected that someone else would fix the problem down the line, before it blew up; that hasn't happened. Now throw in the cratering tax receipts, both FICA and general, thanks to 20% unemployment and a 14% reduction in private sector GDP, and what hopes does this program have of survival?

#4 - No objection to the assertion, but the conclusion is flawed. Tax cuts came out of the general budget, NOT the SS budget.

#5 - Emphatic agreement

#6 - Factually false. The class of people that took the money is the political class. Both parties participated fully in looting the nation's retirement fund.

#7 - I have no idea what you're talking about on this. I am following the money. The money went from the SS reserve into the general fund and was spent. That very same money was promised to retirees. One cannot spend the same dollar twice; so where's the money coming from?

#8 - Look up the definition of a Ponzi scheme. SS is functionally operating the exact same way. Those who got in early got paid, those who came later are ending up with worthless IOUs signed by a party which does not have the money to make them whole.

"eventually real money has to come from somewhere to pay for what was promised. Which brings us back to where do we get our money?"

From taxing the people who "borrowed" it, i.e. the top 1-5% + wall street, who have done remarkably well for the last 30 years by grinding the workers, & continue to do well even during the deepest recession of the last 30 years.



"If the funds were spent that undermines the entire purpose of saving for retirement."

The money in your savings account is "spent" too -- loaned out by the bank. All you have is the promise they'll pay it back with interest. If they choose to default, you're SOL.

Let's be clear: you're suggesting the government has no obligation to repay the money it cynically took from the working class for 30 years, & in doing so, you're serving as a footsoldier for the very folks who stole it.

The top tiers are awash with money; the Bush tax cuts netted them trillions. That's where you get the money.



"Tax cuts came out of the general budget, NOT the SS budget."

Let me make it clearer: over a trillion went into the general fund from social security & was handed out to the rich as tax cuts.



"The class of people that took the money is the political class."

LOL. They work for (& are funded by) the capitalist class, & enact the policy prescriptions of their owners. Both "parties".



"SS is functionally operating the exact same way. Those who got in early got paid, those who came later are ending up with worthless IOUs signed by a party which does not have the money to make them whole."

Last time I checked, Social Security was still paying checks. It will continue to do so unless your friends succeed in their plan to transfer that income stream to themselves by grinding the workers further.

There is *no* crisis in social security funding. The *only* thing throwing SS into "crisis" is the deliberate attack on it by capital.

since the us has only about 5% of the world's population but produces about 20% of its manufactured goods (by dollar value).

They actually weaken your case/arguments.

I pay my 7.16% (or whatever it is) on EVERYTHING I earn - the wealthy pay that only on what they earn up to (what is it?) $120,000. So if Joe 6-magnum makes a million dollars he pays NO FICA on 880,000 of it. Why doesn't he pay his 7.16% on everything HE brings in?

Remove the cap, and the problem is solved.

CAPITAL, not from wages.

e.g. Bill Gates doesn't collect a salary now, but I guarantee you, he's still bringing in millions every year.

None of it subject to Social Security taxes.

You are buying into the bait & switch the super-rich have been running on you since 1983. This new "reform" = Phase II.

(not wages, income) would do.

ALL income should be subject to FICA, with no cap. If that were done, the actual FICA rate could easily be LOWERED and the difference then be applied to putting Medicare on solid footing.

I am NOT advocating raising the FICA rate - which is what was done in '83 - OR raising the age of retirement - also done in 83 - as you seem to think I'm suggesting. No way. I know a regressive tax when I see it.

And better yet, tax it all progressively. :D

ZERO missed payments in 75 years. If you really think you need more money, LOWER the retirement age, and make the hyper-rich pay on their entire incomes.

Yeesh. Wrong web site, hon.

Reject the idea that what someone pays IN should be close to what they receive OUT. The purpose of Social Security is to secure the elderly, disabled, and widowed from the dangers of a retirement without support. The wealthy benefit from this immensely, because it keeps society stable and property crime down. Let's just admit that the wealthy SHOULD be paying into Social Security at a rate much higher than they'll ever get back, and that this is a good and fair thing for society, then eliminate the FICA tax cap and FINALLY completely ensure that our elderly, sick, disabled, and vulnerable citizens are always cared for.

Like I said--NOBODY benefits more from a stable, non-starving, non-homeless society than the people who have the wealth. If not for programs like Social Security, the poor would be robbing the properties and stores of the rich and rioting in the streets. If we don't stop pretending that the best way to administer Social Security is to make sure that pay-ins are relatively proportional to pay-outs, then the program is never going to do what it was truly MEANT to do. It will never be enough to secure a stable, safe future for our most vulnerable citizens.

The Repubs would go nuts!

To most average people, it never occurs to them that the wealthy benefit FAR more from a stable, secure society than the middle and lower classes do. The wealthy have much more to lose, after all. Since the rich benefit more, why shouldn't they PAY more? The Republicans have been trying to erase that particular line of reasoning from the public debate for decades, and their efforts are working, because there really aren't that many middle and lower class people who realize that. It's time to bring that argument back to the forefront of the debate where it belongs. It'll wreck 80+ years of conservative political maneuvering, and it'll help us make the case for increased public services and public goods.

Don't realize this was always supposed to be supplemental income. Originally to widowed wives who outlive their husbands.

ROOSEVELT'S SOCIAL SECURITY WAS NEVER DESIGNED "ONLY FOR WIDOWS & ORPHANS". It was in fact BROADENED TO INCLUDE WIDOWS & ORPHANS.

SOCIAL SECURITY WAS DESIGNED AS OLD-AGE INSURANCE FOR WORKERS, & TO BE UNIVERSAL.

August 14, 1935

The Social Security Act (H.R. 7260, Public Law No. 271, 74th Congress) became law with the President's signature at approximately 3:30 p.m. on a Wednesday.

January 1, 1937

Workers began to acquire credits toward old-age insurance benefits. Employers and employees became subject to a tax of one percent of wages on up to $3,000 a year. Lump-sum payments were first made payable to eligible workers, their survivors or their estates. The Federal unemployment tax payable by employers of 8 or more was increased to two percent of payroll.

August 10, 1939

The President signed the Social Security Amendments of 1939. The program was broadened to include dependents and survivors' benefits. Payment of monthly benefits was advanced to 1940.

January 1, 1940

Monthly benefits first became payable under old-age and survivor's insurance to aged retired workers and their dependents and to survivors of deceased insured workers. The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund was established as a separate account in the United States Treasury to hold the amounts accumulated under the old-age and survivors insurance program. Basic provisions for hearing and review instituted by the Social Security Board under authority to establish procedures, hold hearings, and take testimony in relation to determination of rights to old-age and survivors insurance benefits (Office of Appeals Council).

January 31, 1940

Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated January 31, was for $22.54.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1940.html


CONGRATULATIONS, YOU REPEATED A BIG FAT LIE IN SERVICE OF THE RIGHT-WING SPIN MACHINE.

Second, restore it to what it was supposed to be, a pay as you go insurance program.

Third, raise and lower the cap as needed to fund it fully.

Those three changes will make it solvent permanently.

As for Medicare, we need to start expanding it downward, with younger workers who are still employed paying a sliding scale based on income. That will give uninsurable people over 45 hope for insurance while making them more attractive to employers, who now often start to shed them when they turn 50 because they drive insurance premiums up. Retirees would still pay the flat fee as they do now, only it would kick in when they retired and started drawing their Social Security benefits, not be rigidly tied to 65 whether they need it or not.

Expanding the Medicare pool to younger, healthier adults while bringing in their increased premium payments will shore it up considerably. Eventually, it should be Medicare for all, with private insurance providing the Medigap policies they do well instead of the comprehensive insurance they do so poorly.

Medicare Part D should be abandoned, replaced by a plan that requires drug companies to do competitive bidding for a place in the formulary and which caps the prices they can charge while a drug is on patent.

This is how to fix the system. It will work.

That's probably why Congress isn't considering it.

A previous poster called it a Ponzi scheme and that's probably accurate, but it's a social necessity. In this case the younger generation takes care of the older generation with the knowledge that someday they will be the ones taken care of by another younger generation. Social Security was created because so many of the elderly lived in poverty. Anyone who wants to go back to watching grandma starve to death is mean, selfish and cruel.

collects money from citizens & doesn't spend it, but instead puts it in a "lockbox", where, precisely, does the money go?

does it literally sit in a box, i.e. is taken out of circulation until needed later?

is it "invested," i.e. put into financial markets to make profit (or not)?

is it put into a savings account in a private bank at interest?

tell me about this mysterious "lock box", please.

in the fund that would have sustained Social Security via investment income for far, far into the future. Then, not content to leave a successful plan in place as is, the government decided to invest social security funds in "government bonds." Suddenly, the cash available to pay out to retirees was replaced by I.O.U.s. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know how good those are at this point. Where does the physical money go? It's hard to even understand the question. The same place any other bank account goes. "Lock box" only means thieving politicians must keep their mitts off the loot.

above what's needed to fund current retirees have always been held in trust, i.e. borrowed into general revenues in exchange for US securities.

"via investment" - you don't mean to suggest you think SS should run up 2 trillion in savings & put it into the stock market or something, do you? or maybe take a flyer in the real estate market?


SS has always worked the same. The only major difference was the reagan-era reform that ran up the trust fund into the trillions of dollars, about 6 years worth of payments, v. the one year required in the original legislation.


The reagan "reform" was a scam to start with. There is absolutely *no* justification for collecting extra money to be "banked" with the government to pay for social security 30 years in the future.

not now, not in 1983, not ever.

& now the banksters are proposing you give them even MORE to steal, which is what the "raise the cap!" chorus is about.


SS was designed to be pay-go; current collections pay for current retirees. period. no banking function except a one-year cushion. successful, fiscally sound design.

oldest, most sound social security system in the world.

given the influx of retirees from the baby boom years.

They bolster the Social Security coffers but never collect any of it.


:sarcasm:

These continuing occupations cost us $200,000 a minute.

What a joke. Gates has a responsibility to not only those who work for him (who make him rich), but he also has a responsibility to their families and their parents too. Gates should be taxed at the same rate with NO CAPS on the tax. If he makes 10 billion a year he should pay SS tax on every dime of it. It's about time the rich should be forced to contribute to society. There are exceptions, but most extremely wealthy people live off of the backs of the poor and the dwindling middle class. Their wealth would be meaningless if not for people doting on them at every turn, producing luxurious products and even the food they need to survive. It sickens me to think that a migrant farm worker making a handful of dollars a day does more in his 12 hour workday than most rich people produce in a lifetime.

The right wing likes to look at the rich as 'gods' who provide jobs. They say we would all starve without the benevolence of the rich throwing token amounts of money to us. But each of those rich people could not have become wealthy on their own. But they think they alone were responsible for their riches. But every dime they own was made off of the backs of hard working poor and middle class people. Without people who actually work for a living the rich would be as useless and a bucket full of feces.

into a welfare program.

Hint: People like Bill Gates get most of their income from capital gains & other CAPITAL, not from WAGES.

CAPITAL income isn't assessed Social Security taxes. Social Security is financed by WORKERS.

You want capitalists to pay more taxes? Raise their INCOME TAXES.

It goes without saying that income (particularly capital income) taxes should be raised for the rich.

But why oppose (if I understand your position correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong) removing a cap on SS tax?

The SS tax is extremely regressive. It's not even a flat tax (while in all fairness, from the positions of social and economic justice, it should be a progressive tax - but we're not anywhere near that, clearly).

You seem to be in favor of progressive taxation in general (again, correct me if I'm wrong), so why do you oppose making that particular tax (the SS tax) LESS regressive?

What is your objection to taxing the ENTIRE income (including capital income) at a flat rate and applying that to Social Security? (Progressive rate would be better of course, but even a flat rate would be a HUGE improvement from the status quo.)

Again, why oppose removing the cap and making the SS tax less regressive?

And as a side question and out of curiosity, how does removing the SS tax cap "turn Social Security into a welfare program" (not as if there is anything wrong with social welfare programs)?

I remain completely puzzled by your apparent opposition to removing caps on SS tax.


It goes without saying that income (particularly capital income) taxes should be raised for the rich.

But why oppose (if I understand your position correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong) removing a cap on SS tax?

The SS tax is extremely regressive. It's not even a flat tax (while in all fairness, from the positions of social and economic justice, it should be a progressive tax - but we're not anywhere near that, clearly).

You seem to be in favor of progressive taxation in general (again, correct me if I'm wrong), so why do you oppose making that particular tax (the SS tax) LESS regressive?

What is your objection to taxing the ENTIRE income (including capital income) at a flat rate and applying that to Social Security? (Progressive rate would be better of course, but even a flat rate would be a HUGE improvement from the status quo.)

Again, why oppose removing the cap and making the SS tax less regressive?

Those at the bottom of the income distribution receive more back (assuming they make it to 65) in proportion to their pay-in, & those at the top get less. This design is what made Social Security the most popular government program in history & the longest-lived old-age insurance in history -- indeed, the longest-lived government "retirement" program in any country's history, paying uninterrupted benefits for 70 years & still going.

This design is fiscally sound & just as importantly, *politically* sound. The fact that everyone who receives benefits has paid into the system in rough proportion to their benefits insulates the program from attacks from the right ("i'm paying for those freeloaders") -- the kind of attacks which made it easy to cut welfare & make it easy to cut any welfare-structured program.

Which attack, I assure you, will come if the cap is lifted. You can count on it. Upper-bracket wage earners (not the super-rich, but the top 10-15% of wage earners) already pay higher combined income + SS taxes than any other group, including the super-rich. You're proposing to hit them with another 6.2% increase on the residual of their income that wasn't previously taxed, & you're forgetting that they already pay SS taxes up to $106.8K, which already makes them the segment of the population which pays the most into the SS system.

I've done the calculations, & not only would this raise their total % tax rate further above the top 1% of all filers, it would also upset the structure of SS pay-in such that this group would be paying about 40-50% of total SS collections while getting only a fraction of that back in benefits.

That gives the right a tool to take down SS, the same one they use with income tax, but even more salient, because SS taxes are used for only one thing: "You're paying for the retirement of all those freeloaders! Why should you work so hard & pay so much so that they can slack off all their lives then retire & eat bon-bons!"

Your analysis also rests on the assumption that SS is in trouble financially. IT IS NOT, despite the 30-year-long drumbeat that claims otherwise.

Your prescription -- lifting the cap -- also allows the sector of the population who's been robbing you for 30 years to continue their theft indefinitely while sweating the populace, without ever having their own capital-based taxes hit at all. You say, well, raise taxes on capital TOO -- but the point of raising taxes on SS is to avoid taxing capital, & if people buy into lifting the cap on SS, the hit on capital WILL NOT FOLLOW.

I'm bookmarking this post since I'm not able to address your points right now.

At least, now I (am starting to) understand why you oppose (lifting/)eliminating the cap.

anyone pay any attention to the rest of your post?

The rich have had it too easy for too long. It's time they started contributing to society, rather than just being human sponges soaking up every dollar they can find or steal. I don't care if they won't get back everything they put in, but all the people who made them rich would be able to keep getting social security. Without people making money then the rich wouldn't find a way to extract it out of their pockets. The money ends up back in their pockets anyway, so why not remove social security tax limits?

for it to be stolen.

:shrug:

financed by INCOME TAX.

Social Security taxes are financed by WORKERS. Capitalists, who get most of their income from CAPITAL (capital gains, profits, & similar sources) mostly don't pay into the Social Security system.

They'll also be very happy for WORKERS to pay more, so they can create an even bigger pool in the Trust Fund; that way THEIR taxes can be reduced even further.

You like the Social Security scam that's allowed CAPITAL to borrow over $1 trillion from workers in lower income taxes?

Then just keep on recommending the prescriptions you do.

And they can contribute more than they do now. You can also make any capitol gains taxes partially fund Social Security if they are able to avoid it currently. Hell... we could put part of those pennies-per-trade fees/taxes on stocks trades they're considering toward Social Security solvency!

BTW - When somebody answers your initial question in good faith, it's kind of a drag to have one's response stomped on. Just sayin...

2010 FICA Tax and Social Security Limits

* FICA Tax Rate = 7.65%
* Social Security Limit = $106,800 (no change)
* Maximum Social Security Contribution = $6,621.60

2009 FICA Tax and Social Security Limits

* FICA Tax Rate = 7.65%
* Social Security Limit = $106,800
* Maximum Social Security Contribution = $6,621.60

2008 FICA Tax and Social Security Limits

* FICA Tax Rate = 7.65%
* Social Security Limit = $102,000
* Maximum Social Security Contribution = $6,324.00

2007 FICA Tax and Social Security Limits

* FICA Tax Rate = 7.65%
* Social Security Limit = $97,500
* Maximum Social Security Contribution = $6,045.00

2006 FICA Tax and Social Security Limits

* FICA Tax Rate = 7.65%
* Social Security Earnings Limit = $94,200
* Maximum Social Security Contribution = $5,840.40

2005 FICA Tax and Social Security Limits

* FICA Tax Rate = 7.65%
* Social Security Earnings Limit = $90,000
* Maximum Social Security Contribution = $5,580.00

Link: http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Tax-Shelter/FICA-Tax/

:shrug:

regularly for that reason (as you yourself document).


If I want capitalists to pay more taxes I WILL RAISE THEIR INCOME TAXES.


I'm sorry if you consider good-faith democratic debate to be "stomping on your post". Are you suggesting I shouldn't challenge pernicious ideas so as to avoid giving offense to someone? I have not attacked you, but the ideas you're spreading, which are a product of 30+ years of right-wing propaganda.

Because we know the people who build that junk are paying into our Social Security system. Oh, wait a minute. That ain't true. They are paying into their own countries retirement system. Not ours.

Don

Then Soylent Green.

Seems we're inching closer and closer...

FICA is only based on wage income, which is not the same thing as "income taxes" which are based on all income. Furthermore, there is no association between FICA and SS benefits and payment of FICA doesn't guarantee anyone anything. As such the government can aquire revenue to fund SS benefits anyway it likes, which sure as hell could include a progressive tax scheme rather than one that is crushingly regressive as you seem to prefer unless it has to do with cig taxes.

second shift must have come on.

And you actually have the nerve to accuse anyone else of posting nonsense.

At least you provide comic relief, Hanna. Don't ever stop being you.

Cheers!

That means jobs that pay well enough so families don't have to seek government assistance to survive. The more a family makes, the more taxes they pay, and thus, the more FICA taxes will be collected.

The unemployment/underemployment/underpaid employment is the root cause of the Social Security problem.

SO THEY CAN PAY BACK THE MONEY THEY STOLE.

Move the cap from 12.4% to 13.2%, raise the cap to 95% of wages, add new taxes on the top 5% of wage earners who don't pay SS taxes on anything above 102k.

Most illegals pay into the system, but few ever end up collecting it. In general most move back to Mexico and live on all the money they've sent home to their families. They never get around to collecting the funds they paid into the system. It's like free money for Uncle Sam.

Step #2 If money is borrowed from the fund then it must be paid back rather than pretending there is a funding problem.

Step #3 If necessary remove the cap and apply the tax to all forms of income.

Step #4 Shitcan with extreme prejudice any pols that make a peep about cutting benefits.

overnight, and endorse whatever staggers out the door in the morning.