General Discussion

eridani

(51,907 posts)

29. You don't have to let the benefits rise correspondingly

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 04:40 PM

Oct 2012

They would still rise, but much more slowly. Eliminating the income tax exemption would be a disaster for the vast majority of retirees.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why doesn't anyone talk about raising the cap for social security? [View all] still_one Oct 2012 OP

Oh ...well that would be called "raising taxes". L0oniX Oct 2012 #1

"raising taxes" ...not for the 98% L0oniX Oct 2012 #58

And we can't raise revenue without letting "leeches" engage in blood letting as well.... tokenlib Oct 2012 #2

The big question that people often don't address on this subject is, Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #3

Great idea, but needs to be coupled with abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #7

Welfare has means testing, The GOP will jump on that big time. FogerRox Oct 2012 #17

i must have missed this quote. but it makes sense. Robeysays Oct 2012 #25

Yet SS is means tested, at least to some degree Major Nikon Oct 2012 #35

Major. Means testing does not exist in SS FogerRox Oct 2012 #52

I'm well aware of how the benefit is calculated Major Nikon Oct 2012 #59

AIME. Good. Lots of folks here are severely misinformed FogerRox Oct 2012 #61

I have no illusions that SS needs to be "fixed" Major Nikon Oct 2012 #62

Improving benefits should be more than possible. FogerRox Oct 2012 #64

social security *has* means testing already. SS is taxed at 85% for those with more than $32K HiPointDem Oct 2012 #39

You misunderstand the term. Taxing income is very different from means testing. Bluenorthwest Oct 2012 #77

no, you misunderstand. social security benefits didn't use to be taxed. that began under reagan HiPointDem Oct 2012 #79

AIME formula. The answer is yes. FogerRox Oct 2012 #8

No you do not. The two issues are counterproductive. jwirr Oct 2012 #22

The problem with breaking the link between contributions and benefits Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #23

Some may wish to punish the uber rich. FogerRox Oct 2012 #30

+1. so many people so eager to mess with SS, so few eager to mess with income taxes. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #40

The problem is that once you disconnect payments from benefits for the rich you open the possibility dkf Oct 2012 #36

nope. Robeysays Oct 2012 #24

Absolutely not eridani Oct 2012 #28

Yes, I think that would be necessary. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #65

By "anyone" I assume you mean Obama or Romney DURHAM D Oct 2012 #4

Yes, exactly. still_one Oct 2012 #54

Fix the economy and you fix Social Security. FogerRox Oct 2012 #5

+1. if those things don't get fixed you can kiss SS goodbye. also kiss your pensions and savings. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #41

Especially since . . . abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #6

In a worse case scenario- the ACA will make SS go broke about 7 months FogerRox Oct 2012 #16

TO paraphrase FDR FogerRox Oct 2012 #9

I would get rid of the cap completely etherealtruth Oct 2012 #10

Curious, for what purpose? FogerRox Oct 2012 #31

Then you need to raise payments to those who start paying more. Only fair. Logical Oct 2012 #11

the AIME formula figures benefits based on payments. FogerRox Oct 2012 #15

We cant talk about anything during "Election Season". nm rhett o rick Oct 2012 #12

Obama has said he favors this idea. Qutzupalotl Oct 2012 #13

President Obama addressed this at the AARP ProSense Oct 2012 #14

Because of the problems outlined in the comments. FogerRox Oct 2012 #18

I'd like to raise the cap so we can cut the %. truebluegreen Oct 2012 #19

Thats purpose of the Earned Income Tax Credit FogerRox Oct 2012 #67

I agree with almost everything you have said truebluegreen Oct 2012 #69

Well Biden did say it never happened. FogerRox Oct 2012 #70

Biden (love that man, always have) truebluegreen Oct 2012 #71

91% for 9 years ending in 1964. 70% did not start untill 1964. FogerRox Oct 2012 #72

I would assume that even if the law was signed in '63 truebluegreen Oct 2012 #73

Yes I know for sure. Thats why I said it. FogerRox Oct 2012 #74

thank you for the info. truebluegreen Oct 2012 #75

Because we want to keep focus on the Warren Buffet Rule? grantcart Oct 2012 #20

This is important. Fixing the economy won't necessarily be enough. Jim Lane Oct 2012 #21

You don't have to let the benefits rise correspondingly eridani Oct 2012 #29

Back that up, please do FogerRox Oct 2012 #32

The economy is important but it's not the only factor at work. Jim Lane Oct 2012 #34

we don't need to do a damn thing about social security today. not a damn thing. and if the HiPointDem Oct 2012 #43

CBO San Fran Fed are quite clear FogerRox Oct 2012 #50

a 25 year recession = worst economic depression since the BLack Plaugue FogerRox Oct 2012 #68

Here's a citation for you. bornskeptic Oct 2012 #44

Each year the Trustees release 4 scenarios, you have cited one. FogerRox Oct 2012 #47

try projecting 75 years to infinity if you want tricks. kind of how the post office prefunds their HiPointDem Oct 2012 #42

The job of an actuary is to provide a fiscallly conservative projection FogerRox Oct 2012 #48

The irony is PatSeg Oct 2012 #26

Sales taxes are heavily regressive.. Fumesucker Oct 2012 #37

True PatSeg Oct 2012 #56

Why hasn't either side talked any about the middle class tax increase coming on Jan 1. The doc03 Oct 2012 #27

Robert Reich: How to Fix Social Security Permanently Poiuyt Oct 2012 #33

Actually Bowles and Simpson recommended the exact same change os Reich: bornskeptic Oct 2012 #45

Thanks, that's a very informative source about the point I made concerning income inequality. Jim Lane Oct 2012 #46

It is sacred. Adjust the cap - its historically been at 90% FogerRox Oct 2012 #49

actually there is. it's what keeps ss from turning into something that can be categorized as HiPointDem Oct 2012 #51

Eliminating the cap would not turn SS into welfare. Jim Lane Oct 2012 #57

it would, actually, because the top 10-20% of wage earners would be paying for most of the program. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #63

Removing the income cap and placing a limit on benefits is means testing FogerRox Oct 2012 #66

they talk about it regularly here. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #38

I am talking about our illustrious politicians. Bernie Sanders is not included in that group still_one Oct 2012 #55

Because it would be fair. bamacrat Oct 2012 #53

"Anyone" does. elleng Oct 2012 #60

The same reason why they don't talk about raising the caps orpupilofnature57 Oct 2012 #76

Obama has, and occasionally still does. Bluenorthwest Oct 2012 #78