$13.00

[TexasBushwhacker]

11. I'll be getting a whopping $21 more

The thing that's so offensive to me is that I haven't heard a peep from either side about raising or eliminating the income cap for what is taxed for Social Security. It used to be that 90% of all wages were SS taxed and everything was groovy, but the growing income disparity has hit Social Security hard. Since a disproportionate of income is going to the top 2% of earners, only 83% of wages are being taxed. There are 3 possible fixes.

One is to raise the cap from the current $113K (for 2013) to about $185K. For someone who $185K, that's an extra $4500 in tax - not exactly catastrophic. However, just raising the cap doesn't address the fact that most of the people who have done better in the last few decades are those in the top 2%, while everyone elses wages have been stagnant or slipping backwards.

The second possibility is to eliminate the cap and tax all wages. That's what we do with Medicare.

The third scenario is a compromise. Establish an untaxed "window" of income from $113K to $250K. Every year the lower limit is raised until the window is closed and all income is subject to Social Security tax.

Obviously doing any of these is better than doing nothing and the decision about benefit levels would have to be made as well. But to have benefit cuts on the table without discussing any increase in revenue makes no sense. Why is it so hard for us to say Social Security is an insurance program paid for by workers that pays benefits to senior citizens, the disabled, widows and their children? Like all insurance, an individual may or may not receive as much benefits (money) as they contributed. Do we gripe if we never get a benefit from our auto insurance? No, because it means we haven't had a wreck or gotten our car stolen. The only way you "win" with life insurance is to die early.

The fact that Social Security would pay benefits to your survivors is something that has money value. The fact that you could get benefits if you became disabled has money value. The fact that you will receive monthly benefits from retirement age until you die has money value. I guess the way you "win" (get a lot more than you put in) with Social Security is to be a widow with a bunch of kids, but do you really WANT to be a widow with a bunch of kids? Or are you a Social Security "winner" if your like my cousin's daughter that has cerebral palsy and is quadriplegic. She'll never be able to work. She'll only get benefits. Anyone want to trade places with her, or with my cousin & her husband who will have to care for her as long as they are physically able? Yeah, they're Social Security "winners". There is no guarantee that you will get what you put into Social Security and we should quit thinking that is part of the contract. It is an insurance program to keep our elderly, disabled, widows and their children from living in poverty. It's one of the costs of living in a civilized society. If you feel like you're getting a raw deal, move to some 3rd world hell hole where orphans beg on the streets.