should the Social Security FICA tax be raised over 97k per year?

[LSK]

Poll question: should the Social Security FICA tax be raised over 97k per year?

Currently you do not pay FICA tax on any income over 97K. Obama and Edwards have proposed raising this cap. They have also floated the idea of a bubble where you dont pay FICA on income from roughly 100k to 175k or something similar.

[thunder rising]

1. It was already ruled a tax; hence, take all the ceilings off (I reach the limit)

This is one of those gifts from congress that was neither ask for nor needed.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Yes, the ceiling should be raised.

Yesterday.

[FogerRox]

3. I thought the cap was at 102k, it should be eliminated though

[ButterflyBlood]

4. Yes. More than raised, it should be eliminated. n/t

[HeraldSquare212]

5. Why not? Why should it be a regressive tax? I'll pay more, but I know I have less of a problem

doing so than others. We're a community, not a bunch of self-interested animals.

[DURHAM D]

6. Why don't you post a real question.

Should the SS tax be increased on earners over 102K even if their benefits (pay outs) do not increase in proportion (or in fact decrease)?

[Occam Bandage]

9. Yes. That's called "progressive taxation." If you disagree with the notion

that the wealthiest should be taxed more heavily--but that government benefits should be equal--then the Republican party will merrily accept you.

[LSK]

14. yes

Benefits payouts should be based on need or how much you were able to contribute in your lifetime?

Should Warren Buffett get 10 times the social security payouts that my former waitress single mom Grandmother gets? Who needs it more?

[DURHAM D]

19. "Benefits payouts should be based on need or how much...?"

That sentence is a contradiction. Did you mean to say "Benefits payouts should be based on need and not on how much you were able to contribute in your lifetime." ?

[LSK]

22. yes

meaning should benefits be based on

1. need

or

2. How much you paid into the system

[DURHAM D]

27. Well - currently it is neither. n/t

[UALRBSofL]

26. Durham That's my question

I have no problem with raising FICA as long as the benefits received are increased accordingly.

[DURHAM D]

29. The current system calculations already have

diminishing returns built in for earners as they climb up the scale. Kind of does turn out to be a poor savings system for the middle class.

[Beaver_Run]

7. I feel robbed

[Occam Bandage]

8. Yes, despite the idiot poster who called removing a regressive tax cap "rethug policy."

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

10. Eliminating the cap and means testing recipents will go along way

to helping keeping SS solvent..

[union_maid]

18. Means testing is a sure loser

SS has survived because everyone gets it. Everyone should get it and I think that it should go back to being non-taxable as well, but that's another issue. Once you have means testing two things happen. It becomes a welfare program and support for it is then limited to just the most liberal segments of society and that puts the whole thing in danger when conservatives are in the majority. Also, means testing is almost always behind the times in terms of the real cost of living and rarely takes geographical variables into consideration adequately. People who need it won't always get it. You pay into it, you get it, period. Everyone, including the obscenely wealthy. That's the only reason it still exists despite the occasional assaults on it.

[FogerRox]

36. If we do nothing to SS

Here's the kicker, right from the SS Trustees own charts..... while looking at the "Low cost" scenario, it shows
Social Security would still be solvent thru 2085, based on GDP growth of about 2.5%.

SS Trustees say SS is broke by 2041, Wrong, read why.

We have averaged growth of about 3.5% over 100 years.

SS report

[roamer65]

11. The cap should be taken off, but...

the first $20,000 of income should be completely tax free. No FICA, no federal income tax, no state tax...nothing on the first $20,000 of income.

[HeraldSquare212]

12. That's a great idea. nt

[papau]

15. BUT THEN IT IS NOT AN EARNED PENSION - you cam slant or bias the payout but its welfare if

anyone pays nothing for something -

and that is the GOP goal for SS - it is easy to cut welfare - but not easy to cut SS because it is earned

[Occam Bandage]

25. You're ass-backwards. SS is an entitlement, not an investment. If you believe it's an entitlement,

everyone gets the same amount, no matter what, simply by virtue of citizenship. If you believe it's an investment, then you can do all sorts of crazy shit, like privatizing it.

SS is an entitlement. It is not an investment.

[Mojambo]

17. That's a very sensible idea. n/t

[roamer65]

23. I will add one caveat...

elimination of the "baby subsidy". First $20G tax free, but after that you pay taxes with no exemptions or deductions. I would put the top tax rates at 50%.

[FogerRox]

35. top tax rates used to be 91%, 50% is still not progressive enough.

[papau]

13. yes if extra money used to reduce tax rate by 1.5% for employee - or if funds invested

in other than government bonds that are always used to finance tax cuts for the rich.

Otherwise it is an obvious no since projection #3 in the SS Trustee's report says no problem ever (or at least not over the 75 year projection)

[Lemonwurst]

16. This is a good idea, mathematically

But that awful (S)He Raised (or Wants To Raise) taxes meme offered up 24/7 by the MSM would doom it, like so many other reasonable solutions to our current economic woes.

The bubble method effectively isolates the burden of additional FICA taxes on the upper earners, for whom that incremental amount should not be a significant burden.

But remember... employers pay into FICA on behalf of employees, so the bubble idea would have to exclude their portion of the additional payments - or you can expect a huge backlash from business. And it gets even trickier when you consider that self-employed individuals pay the full FICA withholding themselves, up to the cap (it's been quite awhile for me, so please correct me if that's no longer true).

[FogerRox]

38. fuck business, "or you can expect a huge backlash from business"

I've seen their god damned backlash for the last 26 years, fuck them. Either you want a society with a middle class or you dont, I will not advocate for any half baked measure.

[NMMatt]

20. Better Idea

Why not simply not tax the first 20K or something like that, and eliminate the cap altogether. Perhaps have a sliding scale on the first 40K to prevent there being a big hit at 20K. That would be the real progressive solution.

In any case, the idea that 97K is middle class is rather misleading. In some places, 97K is middle to upper middle class. Where I live 97K puts you in the top 5%. I do think Obama has the right idea, at least it gets us going in the right direction.

[calteacherguy]

21. I believe yes. nt

[Yuugal]

24. Only 6 percent of Americans make more than 97K a year

Oh those poor 6 percenters, how will they survive? :puke:

They can pay on 100% of their wages like everyone else.

[Extend a Hand]

32. The very rich that don't have to work

and live off investments pay ZERO in fica and only 15% on capital gains.

[Extend a Hand]

28. There should not be a cap on FICA

AND capital gains should be taxed just like earned income not at a flat 15%.

[elifino]

30. Social Security History

Supreme Court Case: Flemming vs. Nestor

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

If I read this case correctly, we do not have a absolute right to SS.

elifino

[napi21]

31. Raising the cap has always been the solution to problems with SS,

and should be again. I don't think it's a good idea to eliminate it completely. To assess SS tax on the full salary of someone who makes $10 million is simply unreasonable taxation. A much better solution would be to increase the income tax rate on high income earners, and/or unearned income like dividends and capital gaines if your intent is to make the wealthy pay more.

I also disagree with eliminating the SS tax on the first $20,000. THAT is playing right into the Pub hands. They've been trying to paint SS as a welfare program for YEARS, and we've been able to fight that off because it's NOT. Everybody who retires and collects SS has paid into the system to do so. Again, if you want to help low income workers, eliminating income tax on anyone who earns less than $20,000 would be much more beneficial and easy to do via the tax table. Remember, we are talking about 7.65% of wages for SS.

[dcindian]

34. I agree with that

The employee part of the social security tax should be waived for those who are under the poverty level. Their benefits should remain the same according to their wages earned.

I agree you can't eliminate the cap also.

I think the cap should remain but only for employer part of the tax. The employee pays the tax on all wages.

The cap for the employer should be set at a level that encourages higher pay scales for middle class.

That way you cover all bases and perhaps have enough to pay for a single provider health care.

[FogerRox]

37. No cap for employer

Progressive taxation encourages higher pay scales for middle class. In fact progressive taxation does as much as The Black Plague killing off 1/2 the planet, creating a labor shortage to create the first middle class.

[slipslidingaway]

33. Not even sure why this is an issue now? n/t

[Johnny__Motown]

39. kick

[Jed Dilligan]

40. Yes, but it should come with increased SSI payments.