General Discussion

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)

45. because of the way income is structured. you've heard the stories about how the rich pay

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:24 PM

Dec 2012

most of the income taxes?

remove the cap on wage income subject to ss taxes & the same thing happens: the richest wage earners will pay the majority of SS taxes.

say there's one guy who makes 2 million in salary & 99 guys who average $50K.

The 99 guys combined make $4.95 million; the 1 guy alone makes 2 million.

That one guy will pay 30% of all social security taxes if rates are uncapped.

but he'll get about 1% of the benefits.

why would he want to pay? he doesn't need social security, and it's taking over 6% of his income for one program that he doesn't need. meanwhile, he's funding 17% of benefits for everyone else.

the strength of social security has historically been its universality; everyone paid in; benefits were roughly comparable to what you paid in (you got a little more on the low end, a little less on the high end). This is what made a majority support the program.

If the cap is removed, SS will be demagogued as 'welfare' & that traditional universal support will fracture. Even some of those people making $50K will cease to support the program because it's perceived as 'welfare'.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Social Security Trust Fund has not been 'looted'. [View all] HiPointDem Dec 2012 OP

Not until Turbineguy Dec 2012 #1

exactly, which is why forbes is going around telling you the looting has already taken place. it HiPointDem Dec 2012 #2

Exactly! It hasn't been "looted" YET. But it WILL be if we allow there dingleberries to continue TrollBuster9090 Dec 2012 #23

"This is the idea we have to prevent from taking root." = yes. i've already seen these ideas being HiPointDem Dec 2012 #25

They' ve put in the hands of Wall St. and the Banksters. Exactly. nt DCKit Dec 2012 #53

And Forbes said today on CSPAN they MUST QUIT operating this way! Won't work no more... SugarShack Dec 2012 #3

oh, is that what he said? my OP is confirmed, then. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #6

Absolutely correct...They WANT to make permanent the subsidizing of income taxes with payroll... Faryn Balyncd Dec 2012 #4

K&R. Well said. Overseas Dec 2012 #5

Best summary yet. Spread this far and wide people. n/t pa28 Dec 2012 #7

It always surprises me that even democrats still buy this old lie. sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #8

yes, funny how so many democrats buy it. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #9

China and the other creditors customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #11

Hi customerserviceguy sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #13

Hello, sabrina! customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #22

your hero al, he of the 'lockbox,' was there for the 1983 vote which raised SS taxes significantly HiPointDem Dec 2012 #26

Well, he's not my hero customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #31

"can only be sustained by ever-growing generations..."? bhikkhu Dec 2012 #33

Wherever did you come up with that productivity figure? customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #83

Ok, here's 1947-2010 bhikkhu Dec 2012 #88

And if as much of our economy were in manufacturing as it was in 1950 customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #92

Manufacturing continues to be one of our very strong points bhikkhu Dec 2012 #98

of course i know birthrates dropped after the 60s, but it's irrelevant, and here's why: HiPointDem Dec 2012 #37

And where have those supposed productivity gains been going? customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #84

it's not a pyramid scheme either. you are trying to claim that the 'fraud' lies with the structure HiPointDem Dec 2012 #89

You still haven't answered my question customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #91

They're going to capital, as opposed to labor. Your solution is no solution, for the same HiPointDem Dec 2012 #105

My solution is solid reform customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #109

Would Al Gore's vote against the measure have made any difference? JDPriestly Dec 2012 #54

no, because most dems already voted for it. but about 20% of house dems & 30% of senate HiPointDem Dec 2012 #63

Bills pass or fail based on the number of "yea" votes. Abstentions have the effect of "nay" votes. JDPriestly Dec 2012 #64

We can change course. A lot of them are still around and they need to get out sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #51

Two problems with that customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #85

Those "pieces of paper" sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #75

So, can I put you down as being in favor customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #86

You can see me sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #97

There is no serious disagreement on this issue among progressives. ronnie624 Dec 2012 #76

Why was the trust fund issued non-negotiable securities customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #10

SS is not crumbling, far from it. It is the Fed Govt that crumbled, that spent sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #14

Yes, we've had this discussion before customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #19

We don't need to do anything. allrevvedup Dec 2012 #71

I agree that we won't customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #90

Oh please. allrevvedup Dec 2012 #103

um, because there's no need or intention of trading them? HiPointDem Dec 2012 #17

There are a hierarchy of securities customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #21

funny that they've always paid them back then & continue to pay them back on a regular basis HiPointDem Dec 2012 #28

Yes, and the refinance boom kept going and going, too customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #32

the mortgage bubble was fraud. it has nothing to do with social security. the demographics HiPointDem Dec 2012 #40

All bubbles are caused by greed customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #93

did the refinance boom keep going for 70 years, btw? HiPointDem Dec 2012 #61

No, but the housing bubble did customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #94

You seem not to understand what a bubble is. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #106

To me, a bubble is any increase customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #108

there is no your definition & my definition. there's *the* definition. buying houses to house the HiPointDem Jan 2013 #111

Ah, so you think my definition of the baby boom generation customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #112

inflation-adjusted housing prices were basically flat 50's-90's, and basically flat from the turn of HiPointDem Jan 2013 #113

Your phrase "inflation-adjusted housing prices" is the weak link here customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #114

prove it HiPointDem Jan 2013 #115

Thanks for the good discussion. Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2012 #59

you're welcome. who's winning? HiPointDem Dec 2012 #60

Not sure, but some customer service guy in Bangalore allrevvedup Dec 2012 #70

I'm in New York customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #95

So what does any bank have? Gold? Silver? allrevvedup Dec 2012 #102

True enough customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #110

But income isn't rising, There's the rub. nt Flatulo Dec 2012 #67

yes. that's the real problem. but i'd add that the ptb only want the solution that involves HiPointDem Dec 2012 #78

Thanks for taking so much time to post all this great info. I'm on SSDI now due Flatulo Dec 2012 #82

Thanks for thanking me. Please talk to your friends and family about these issues. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #107

Not all of us have falling incomes. CEO pay has risen dramatically. suffragette Dec 2012 #87

The Constitution requires our government to pay back debt. JDPriestly Dec 2012 #55

It should go into the SS Fund, draw interest & be left the hell alone!! shintao Dec 2012 #12

Bookkeeping 101. The balance sheet shows a positive balance of $2.7 trillion in the SS column. rhett o rick Dec 2012 #15

If they think it's been "looted", who did it? tonybgood Dec 2012 #16

yeah, people like forbes never tell you who 'looted' it. just that some nefarious but unnamed HiPointDem Dec 2012 #18

Yes, that's exactly why Grandpa Simpson gets so testy at the 2:20 minute mark of this video... TrollBuster9090 Dec 2012 #20

Why the hell should the money we borrowed from regular bond holders be taken more seriously than the abelenkpe Dec 2012 #24

We know, of course, what THEY think the answer to that question is. TrollBuster9090 Dec 2012 #27

I personally think that some of the people behind the 1983 Social security amendments, allan HiPointDem Dec 2012 #29

Yep, it's in the same vein as the Norquist style "Starve the beast" ideas for destroying government. TrollBuster9090 Dec 2012 #50

+1 HiPointDem Dec 2012 #62

The original assertion by steve forbes? Gee, THAT guy doesn't have an agenda or anything... calimary Dec 2012 #30

Pay it back with what? This Govt is broke broke broke. dkf Dec 2012 #34

Pay it back by confiscating the wealth of the 400 richest...... socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #38

leave it to you. how are we paying for war on 5 continents, then, green stamps? is congress HiPointDem Dec 2012 #42

Wow are you not aware have reached our debt limit again? dkf Dec 2012 #47

i presume we'll be cutting off the military contractors & bringing the troops home any day, then. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #57

Our government is broke - really? TheProgressive Dec 2012 #43

Sorry to disagree but WE ARE NOT BROKE!!! tonybgood Dec 2012 #72

Eliminate the caps. Conium Dec 2012 #35

"become"? it's always been regressive in one aspect and progressive in another. eliminating the HiPointDem Dec 2012 #41

How is 'removing the cap=turning it into welfare'? TheProgressive Dec 2012 #44

because of the way income is structured. you've heard the stories about how the rich pay HiPointDem Dec 2012 #45

The Republican talking point that the rich pay most of the taxes... TheProgressive Dec 2012 #48

that's the way income is structured. and that's why the original SS legislation made the pay-in HiPointDem Dec 2012 #58

The cap has been raised before newfie11 Dec 2012 #66

The cap is raised nearly every year. The poster wasn't talking about raising the cap, but HiPointDem Dec 2012 #77

They can do what they want to do if the people's biggest response is plethoro Dec 2012 #36

+1 HiPointDem Dec 2012 #46

That's it in a nutshell Trailrider1951 Dec 2012 #39

Precisely. But I still say that when Bush gave his super-tax-cuts to the super-rich and waged JDPriestly Dec 2012 #49

i agree that the SS surplus helped make those cuts politically viable. & yeah, i agree that's why HiPointDem Dec 2012 #56

Meh lrellok Dec 2012 #52

yes. too bad so many people believe it's real. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #65

The claim about the looting of Social Security Trust fund is an excuse to justify privatizing Social Gothmog Dec 2012 #68

A lot of people bought into that lie. ProSense Dec 2012 #69

No, it's not that "Rich people and corporations don't want to repay it." JayhawkSD Dec 2012 #73

And the Truth Shall Set You Free Left Turn Only Dec 2012 #74

yet klyon Dec 2012 #79

According to.... murphyj87 Dec 2012 #80

...not quite. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #81

Who do you believe? murphyj87 Dec 2012 #100

I believe the link I posted on the funding of OAS, which was not wikipedia. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #101

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, proletariat motherfuckers... MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #96

Interesting use of the word "loot" Oilwellian Dec 2012 #99

Big K&R. I wish I could commit this entire thread to memory. Great points made in support of the OP. Dark n Stormy Knight Dec 2012 #104