BelichickFan

The way SS is structured, the more you put in the more you get out. But with Obama wanting to tax income over $250K for SS with no added benefit, it is no longer "social security" it is a tax plain and simple. It's adding 12.4% to the tax rate for income over $250K.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080728/D926O27G0.html

I know Lindsay is a Republican, blah, blah, blah, but this is no longer social security as we know it, it is simply an additional, large, tax on the wealthy.

"Given the dearth of details about Obama's plans, some Republicans have criticized it, using assumptions that Democrats reject. Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President Bush, argues that high earners would pay the full 12.4 percent tax rate on income above $250,000 while receiving no added benefits.

"A high-income entrepreneur would see his or her federal marginal tax rate rise to 53 percent from 37.7 percent," Lindsey wrote in a June 20 Wall Street Journal op-ed column."

PatriotsReign

I think we'd be better off putting a limit on those who are eligible to collect SS instead. People who make over $250K annually might be a little low for the ceiling. It might be better if we excluse those who have over a certain amount upon retirement from receiving benefits. Let's just use $1.5 million as an example. I think that would free up enough to keep the system going.

Patters

We don't know the details of Obama's plan, but clearly it sounds like there will be a tax hike on people earning over $250k.

The options with Social Security are cutting the benefits, raising the retirement age, or raising Social Security taxes. Increasing taxes on the wealthy is the most viable solution in that it hurts the fewest people.

The primary argument against giving SS only to people who need it is that it would turn it into a welfare program, not an insurance program. As far as making some people pay more for it than others, well the Republicans are not against that. For instance, their flat tax would have someone who earns $1,000,000/year pay 10x as much for the same government services as someone who earns $100,000/year.

BelichickFan

I just want people to admit that raising SS tax by 12.4% on money over $250K is identical to raising the Income Tax by that amount - other than where it's intended to be spent I guess. When you see those charts of tax increases from Obama it doesn't include this because they're just Income Tax. When combining his Income Tax and this SS tax he is proposing a MASSIVE tax increase on those making over $250K. A lot of people will like that. Fine. But call it for what it is.

PATSNUTme

SS started falling apart when it was expanded to include SSI. Much of the SSI money goes to drug addicts and alcoholics to buy more drugs and booze.

I don't hear anyone saying we should cut that out. Get SS back to being a retirement benefit for htose who have worked and paid into the system and their survivors. If we funded SSI separately the pressure on the politicians would be emense to drop those programs that never should have been added in the first place.

BelichickFan

I don't get the survivors part either. That can be taken care of through private life insurance.

Patters

Social Security taxes in fact are called taxes, so raising Social Security rates is a tax hike. If Obama gets elected and we have a Democratic Congress it's more than likely that the wealthy will pay more in taxes.

BelichickFan

Yes, I know, but by hiding them as "Social Security" they're off the books as an Income Tax increase.

The comparison you linked to :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060900950.html

shows someone making $600K "even" with Obama's plan. This article doesn't say what taxes this encompases but as this person would pay an additional $43K to social security (12.4% of the $250K-$600K money), I would bet that comparison is just income tax so Obama's tax increase is out of sight, out of mind in this comparison.

PATSNUTme

That's true, but I'd rather see the money that the worker put into the system go to his family rather than feeding a drug habit. He did (involuntarily) put the money into the system and his hiers should get it back, if this was a retirement system as it was set up to be.