O.K....ALL your Social Security Questions Answered.

[MattTheSkywalker]

Geoboy...

Harry C. Kiely, a United Methodist clergy, is a retiree who has a vested interest in the continued health of Social Security.

Thanks for the unbiased source.

But it gets better...a United Methodist clergy comes out and says

If a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes accepted wisdom.

Which is ironic, because that is how all church people have a job.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

The one thing that no one discusses on eitehr side of the aisle is that the overwhelming majority of younger workers do not want to participate. The solution that would work best is the dissolution of the program.

SS was created during the great depression. The depression is long since over. SS was unconstituional as anything, you should read the hoops Justice Cardozo jumped through to get SS in.

All of that notwithstanding, SS is just plain redistribution of wealth, no different than robbery, except no one is prosecuted. Legalized theft.

 

[mrplunkey]

All of that notwithstanding, SS is just plain redistribution of wealth, no different than robbery, except no one is prosecuted. Legalized theft.

Completely and totally agree. I would respect it more if they just said "hey, this is another way for us to take from you and give to someone else". It's funny how corporations are "evil" and the wealthy are "evil" -- but they are the ones getting stolen from.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Completely and totally agree. I would respect it more if they just said "hey, this is another way for us to take from you and give to someone else". It's funny how corporations are "evil" and the wealthy are "evil" -- but they are the ones getting stolen from.

Anyone who seeks power needs an enemy.

You can always galvanize the masses by pointing to the castle on the hill and saying "He's not paying his fair share".

 

[bluepeter]

Do you guys not have a cap on SS contribution?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Do you guys not have a cap on SS contribution?

Yeah, this year the cap is 12% of the first $90,000 in income.

So if you make $90K or $90M, you pay the same in SS.

But less than 10% of the population is affected by the cap.

 

[mrplunkey]

Do you guys not have a cap on SS contribution?

Some of this is a cut an paste btw...

The cap level is currently set at $87,900, and it automatically rises with inflation each year. Because of the cap, the maximum Social Security payroll tax is about $10,900 per year. (Note: An additional payroll tax of 2.9 percent is collected on all wages for Medicare.)

Effects of Eliminating the Payroll Tax Cap . A new Social Security Administration report estimates the effect of removing the payroll tax cap. It assumes wages subject to the tax will decline as many workers shift their incomes from covered wages to income sources not covered by the tax like stock options or other benefits.

They could raise (or even eliminate) the cap to "get back at the wealthy" but there is a little problem there -- those people would just defer income other ways. The irony is, if they tried to tax those people more, they'd probably setup new shelters and defer *below* the current cap now, resulting in less revenue after lifting the cap than before.

Also, high-income earners already have punative caps on their SS payouts. Why would you cap their payout and not cap their pay-in?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Also, high-income earners already have punative caps on their SS payouts. Why would you cap their payout and not cap their pay-in?

Bingo!

 

[bluepeter]

Some of this is a cut an paste btw...

The cap level is currently set at $87,900, and it automatically rises with inflation each year. Because of the cap, the maximum Social Security payroll tax is about $10,900 per year. (Note: An additional payroll tax of 2.9 percent is collected on all wages for Medicare.)

Effects of Eliminating the Payroll Tax Cap . A new Social Security Administration report estimates the effect of removing the payroll tax cap. It assumes wages subject to the tax will decline as many workers shift their incomes from covered wages to income sources not covered by the tax like stock options or other benefits.

They could raise (or even eliminate) the cap to "get back at the wealthy" but there is a little problem there -- those people would just defer income other ways. The irony is, if they tried to tax those people more, they'd probably setup new shelters and defer *below* the current cap now, resulting in less revenue after lifting the cap than before.

Also, high-income earners already have punative caps on their SS payouts. Why would you cap their payout and not cap their pay-in?

I agree with both you and Matt, I'd like to see the dissolution of such programs. They served a purpose that is long gone IMO. As for the cap, if I was in favour of the system, I would say that everyone should pay in the same percentage of their income and the same on the payout end.