Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasBushwhacker

(20,044 posts)
63. Yup. It's all about income inequality
Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:43 PM
Oct 2015

In the past, approximately 90% of all wages were subject to SS tax, and the fund was healthy in perpetuity. But now, with so much of the new income going to the top 1%, those extra wages, anything over $118K, are not subject to SS tax. Now the amount of all wages subject to income tax is only 85%.

Many just say raise the cap, but I like the idea of an untaxed window. They could gave a window of income not subject to SS tax of, for example, between $125K and $250K. Then someone who makes $500K (or $5 Million) would pay SS tax on the first $125K and on the income beyond $250K. That way the additional burden is more on the top 20% (especially the top 1%) and not so much on the upper middle class. The size of the window (smaller or bigger) could be adjusted as needed to keep SS solvent forever.

It takes about three years of fighting to even get on disability. And now B Calm Oct 2015 #1
And once you're approved , you have to wait 6 months for the first check! hedgehog Oct 2015 #3
Not For My Wife ProfessorGAC Oct 2015 #32
Your first payment is 6 months from the date TexasBushwhacker Oct 2015 #56
And you're more likely to 2naSalit Oct 2015 #18
Regardless Old Codger Oct 2015 #2
I work with plenty of older than 50, it may be a minimum wage job but we are working past 50 Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #6
Worst case scenario: 75-80% benefits paid davekriss Oct 2015 #20
Increasing the max cap is definitely a way to maintain. As I told a co-worker 40ish, who was Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #21
If some reforms is not put into SS the money will run out and there will not be any SS or SSDI, we Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #4
Yeah...SS has been 30 years from going bankrupt for about 70 years now. jeff47 Oct 2015 #7
Did you know reforms occurred in the 80's? Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #8
Yes. Did you know that after those reforms it was still going to be bankrupt 10 years from now? jeff47 Oct 2015 #10
I think the year is 2036 or 2037. Do you think people are living longer on average that the Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #12
Now it is 2036. After the Greenspan commission it was in the 2020s. jeff47 Oct 2015 #14
The last reform did not begin immediately, it was started on people who were born after 1938. Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #16
And the insolvency date accounted for that. jeff47 Oct 2015 #22
This isn't a conspiracy theory and it isn't an artificial crisis. It is like your checking account, Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #25
Why yes, I am a fucking idiot!! jeff47 Oct 2015 #31
Bye, I have a life to deal with. Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #64
Yes, I'm sure there's a 45 year old who is doing it wrong and needs to be informed. (nt) jeff47 Oct 2015 #70
No I don't think people are living longer. I believe the inclusion of infant mortality rates B Calm Oct 2015 #30
Do you know many people who are living past 65? I know lots of people who are still Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #34
Of course their statistics say that I'm wrong, because they are not B Calm Oct 2015 #38
One of the fastest growing population ages is over 65 but believe what you want. Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #39
Have you ever heard of the Baby Boomers? B Calm Oct 2015 #40
Quiet familiar with the Baby Boomers, I am a Baby Boomer. Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #41
Good then you do know why that age group is growing so fast. B Calm Oct 2015 #42
Give me a link to your claim. Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #44
There are claims for both sides. One side who preaches B Calm Oct 2015 #45
Let me help you. Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #48
Let me help you B Calm Oct 2015 #50
The life expectancy of poor white women has decreased by 5 years. nt DLevine Oct 2015 #47
is it over 65, things has changed on life expectancy since SS started. Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #49
But the life expectancy hasn't changed, only the infant mortality rate. B Calm Oct 2015 #57
Did you go to the link I sent you? Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #60
Did you see anything about infants here? That's what I been telling you, B Calm Oct 2015 #62
Did you see the part about the fastest growing age group? Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #65
And I explained that earlier too, BABY BOOMERS! B Calm Oct 2015 #67
Statistics do not concur with your opinion, I will stay with the statistics especially Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #68
Have a long, long life! B Calm Oct 2015 #69
So all the bypasses and stints Yupster Oct 2015 #75
You don't really have the facts about those reforms in line. The retirement age was raised for those Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #23
No, I have the facts correct about the after 1938, the full retirement age did rise from 65 to 67. Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #26
No, the full retirement age is still 66. jeff47 Oct 2015 #35
Let me inform you, I have migrated through this increase of age, I was born after 1938, my Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #36
You will inform me by agreeing with my correction of your erroneous statement. jeff47 Oct 2015 #37
No since i said the reform raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67, it is in increments, this Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #43
And it's currently at 66 years. You decided to "inform" me it was....currently at 66 years. jeff47 Oct 2015 #46
A flipper fibber, I dont need my post rewritten. Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #52
Then what were you attempting to inform me of? jeff47 Oct 2015 #54
Once more and I have other things to do. In the SS reform that in the 80's Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #61
Which is exactly what I said. We're in the 66 increment, as I said. jeff47 Oct 2015 #72
We could start with Congress replacing the money they stole from the SS Surplus liberal N proud Oct 2015 #27
I agree but it does not change the fact SS has been reformed to provide after 2012 and there will be Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #29
Only one reform is necessary HassleCat Oct 2015 #53
Removing the wage cap is the best way to begin addressing hedgehog Oct 2015 #79
(*cough*)bullshit(*cough*) Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #74
Who's advocating raising the retirement age? giftedgirl77 Oct 2015 #5
Here JackInGreen Oct 2015 #9
You mean the 3d paragraph where she explicitly states giftedgirl77 Oct 2015 #11
But she'd consider it JackInGreen Oct 2015 #13
As I've heard it stated, chillingly accurate Populist_Prole Oct 2015 #19
She explicitly states she has not seen a proposal she likes, but would consider it. (nt) jeff47 Oct 2015 #15
I worked for SS disability for 30 years. Already happening. hollowdweller Oct 2015 #17
I took care of my severely disabled daughter for 45 years jwirr Oct 2015 #33
Thank you. Delphinus Oct 2015 #51
Great post. Spot on. nt DLevine Oct 2015 #55
How many will drop dead before getting their first retirement check? hobbit709 Oct 2015 #24
Lift the C A P !!! Everyone says this for years! Even Bill Clinton when he ran! ViseGrip Oct 2015 #28
Since benefits are based on contributions... meaculpa2011 Oct 2015 #58
Yup. It's all about income inequality TexasBushwhacker Oct 2015 #63
Rather than lifting the income cap just raise the tax for everybody. hollowdweller Oct 2015 #66
It would bother me if they raised it on everyone TexasBushwhacker Oct 2015 #71
Full Retirement Age is an outdated concept Jimbo S Oct 2015 #59
I'm riding the bullet train to age 58. ladyVet Oct 2015 #73
Are you in a state without Medicaid expansion? And if you're a veteran, pnwmom Oct 2015 #78
We will probably see bipartisan changes like the 1983 legislation madville Oct 2015 #76
Exactly. They've never shown it will save money, anymore than raising the Medicare age pnwmom Oct 2015 #77
The past is prologue. PETRUS Oct 2015 #80
Wow! Great Googling! hedgehog Oct 2015 #81
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Raising the retirement ag...»Reply #63