Raising the Social Security cap

[Aerows]

Why are we letting people that make at minimum $175,000 a year dictate that only the money made at $113,000 a year be contributed to Social Security?

I'm looking at you, Congress, and it isn't just Republicans. It's Democrats too that refuse to raise the cap. Sorry if it will impact you personally, but isn't it time for you to feel the same pain that American families and seniors feel when you scream austerity at the top of your damn lungs?

[Aerows]

1. I'm rather surprised no one has commented

As good Democrats, are we never supposed to criticize Democrats, along with Republicans that allow a talking point to go unchecked?

"Social Security will go bankrupt." Raise the cap so that all of our Representatives and Senators are paying more, since they get paid more. Raise the cap so that lobbyists have some skin in the game. Oh wait, they all have skin in the game, to keep it at a $113,000 cap.

Those that push for austerity are the very ones making the laws that cheat the public out of Social Security, by not paying their fair share.

[Scuba]

39. Apply the tax to capital gains too.

[Aerows]

42. Amen, Scuba

That is a wrong that needs to be made right, as well!

[Enthusiast]

2. I'm with you on this, Aerows.

We know Republican won't do the right thing. But we expect Democrats to get with the program.

[Aerows]

5. Indeed.

They get elected to put the will of the people above themselves, they need to VOTE and LEGISLATE like it.

[magical thyme]

3. yup. It's past time to scrap the cap.

It's an issue that we need to keep front and center. We have a couple good senators out there that are pushing for it. They need to know we are behind them.

[Aerows]

4. Exactly.

This needs to be pushed to the forefront if we have ALEC and associates pushing for more austerity. Our Democratic Congress people need to be better than this.

[DURHAM D]

6. My problem with SS is that

spouses or ex-spouses who have never worked outside the home thus never contributed a dime to the fund receive a SS check for exactly half the amount as the working spouse at retirement. iows - single income couples become double income couples.

As member of the LGBT community this really chaps my a**.

[Aerows]

7. As a member of the LGBT community

it doesn't chap my ass, because sooner or later, we WILL have marriage equality in this country. We might have to drag everyone kicking and screaming into the 21st century, but it WILL happen.

I refuse to let setting one wrong right overwhelm to the need to set another wrong right, too.

[DURHAM D]

8. I assume you are aware that if the cap is raised the

maximum payout will need to be raised as well. SS is already regressive on the front end and progressive on the back end.

[Aerows]

9. Oh good grief

Feel free to hit me with "it's anti-gay" next. Oh wait, you did.

[DURHAM D]

12. Let me explain it like this.

My ex is recently deceased. We were together for a long time and I was basically the trailing spouse. iows - I always worked but moves and changes were largely because of her high-powered career. I am not complaining, it was a great life. Naturally her SS check was for the maximum amount - a little more than $2500. My SS check based on my earnings is not nearly that much but too bad I guess.

My cousin died last year. He was married three times and each time for just over 10 years. Each of those former spouses are drawing $2500 a month based on his salary. One contributor to SS and three full beneficiaries. Same for Medicare - all three ex wives qualified for Medicare because of his single contribution.

The point is that there is a whole lot wrong with the SS structure that needs to be addressed and to focus on just the cap ignores the ridiculous 20th century hetero non-working spouse setup.

The funds are draining out for reasons no one seems to acknowledge.

[Aerows]

14. Every time I hear "The funds are draining out"

especially for "reasons no one seems to acknowledge", I realize it is because those that make over $113,000/year aren't paying their fair share.

That's why you have a complaint, not because the money is running out, it is because the money isn't going in at a proportionate rate.

If we all pay in, we all should pay in a proportionate rate. Don't cry because you make too much and have to pay more, celebrate that you make more than most.

It's that simple.

[DURHAM D]

17. Good grief...

I have made no argument against those making more than $113K a year paying in more. I was just trying to flesh out the issues for you. Obviously you can't/don't get it.

Done

[Aerows]

19. Perhaps I need to have it fleshed out a little better

I didn't get your argument.

[TBF]

28. You are 100% correct -

not only should we raise that cap but same sex spouses should get the same benefits any other spouses get. It's ridiculous that we are still fighting these battles.

We know where the funds went - tax breaks for the wealthy and several wars. Congress may not acknowledge that, republicans may not acknowledge that, many dems may not even acknowledge that, but you bet I will.

We need SS and there are definitely a few things with it that need to be updated/fixed.

[Aerows]

29. Exactly

Can't add more to that statement!

[NorthCarolina]

35. How common is your cousins situation though?

Is it rare, or common? If it is a rare situation, which I suspect it is, I think it is likely outweighed by those that die early, and therefore not a major drain. It might piss you off that your cousins situation seems unfair, but that doesn't mean we should start hacking away at the program. Once you begin making changes to the programs, it will become much easier for our elected officials to mess with it again, and again, and again. How many of them have the best interests of Social Security or Medicare at heart? Raise the cap and be done with it.

[FogerRox]

47. The only thing really wrong with SS is the economy.

20 million people losing full time job for the last 5 years puts a 90 billion dollar reduction in annual FICA payments into effect.

[eridani]

15. The maximum payout doesn't have to be raised by a whole lot n/t

[hfojvt]

43. it does

unless the formula for calculating benefits is changed.

[eridani]

46. That is exactly what I was proposing

There are three tiers now with different slopes, benefitting lower income people the most. Scrapping the cap would mean adding another tier with a very slowly increasing slope.

[loudsue]

30. That can be changed as well. There needs to be a more equitable cost and distribution all the way

around.

[Aerows]

38. Precisely, loudsue

it needs to be spread around, and the top isn't paying.

[procon]

18. That makes me sad

Before Social Security became law, what you're suggesting was indeed the way of life in this country.

We turned a blind eye to the impoverished women and widows who were reduced to begging on the street when their husbands died and left them destitute. In the thousands, they died alone of disease, starvation, malnutrition and exposure on the grandest avenues of our major cities and the mean streets of American's picturesque towns.

We are not Somalia, and we cannot return the 'halcyon' days of yore, or survive in the grim utopia of an Ayn Rand sci-fi novel. That we maintain a certain minimal standard at all, merely allows us all to maintain the threadbare fiction that we are still The Great Society.

It is not enough, and, yes, it may rub you the wrong way, but the time may come when you and yours will perhaps benefit from the largess of your fellow citizens; and I will not begrudge you that subsistence either.

[Aerows]

20. God Forbid

that widows, the elderly and children actually benefit from taxing the wealthy. All of them should just die of hunger, disease and destitution so that a millionaire doesn't pay taxes and can afford another handbag/sports car/slum lord apartment complex.

It's not like people worked all of their lives and paid into Social Security, they are useless in their old age, and Wall Street needs to manage their money, since Wall Street and privatization has such a great track record of managing anything they get their paws on.

[cascadiance]

10. And for the righties that argue that the wealthy don't get as much back in this "investment plan"...

... point out to them that it is NOT an investment like a 401k, and we're not supposed to get back what we put in to it. It's to provide insurance to ensure that all Americans don't have to be in poverty as they get in to retirement years.

It is also there for those who's parents die young, or for those who become disabled during their working years and are unable to work for a living. A THIRD of the payouts of SS are for these benefits. Ask the right wingers who defend the cap WHY those making the cap or under should pay FAR MORE of their earnings percentage wise to pay out these benefits which arguably the wealthy has as much responsibility and MORE for than we do to take care of in today's society in providing a safety net. Why should they pay next to nothing of their salary for these payments and we all pay around 2% of our income for this!

[TBF]

11. Very good argument -

beyond that I'd also add that it's kind of like public schools. You are paying for the privilege to live in a civilized society where we try to lift all the boats so to speak.

[Aerows]

27. Great point!

You are exactly right!

[sulphurdunn]

13. Since more than a third

of the national income goes to 1% of the people, maybe someone should explore at least having FICA taxes decline inversely on all income above a much higher cap than now exists.

[Aerows]

16. I'm fine with it just being raised

The folks that make 200,000/year finally contribute their fair share. The folks making 1,000,000/year pay their fair share. You don't get to yell at seniors that get Social Security to make ends meet and call them freeloaders when you pay less into the system as a percentage than 70% of the employed people in the United States.

[silvershadow]

21. I can see no reason not to. They need to raise it significantly, to 500k or $1m. (or to infinity)nt

[Aerows]

24. Agreed

They would be affected, though, and I can't imagine that an argument over something that affects their take home pay but would benefit their pet issue (funding social security) will play well in the press.

That is why this needs to be brought up in Congress, and we can see who is on the side of the people, and who is on the side of themselves.

[silvershadow]

25. They would really get their shorts in a twist at my other idea, then...

since corporations are "people", why shouldn't they contribute 6% of their profits to SS, instead of just 6% of their payroll? Workers have to contribute 6% of their earnings...

[Aerows]

26. Amen

I don't know why this hasn't been brought up, either.

[hfojvt]

45. too many of their campaign donors would be affected too

it's not them as much as it is their donor base. People making more than $113,000 can simply afford to make far more campaign donations than people who make less than that.

[Vincardog]

34. They need to apply it to capital gains too. Fuck Mittens and his whole 'entitled' elite class

[silvershadow]

36. Yep. It's time to get our house in order. They need to punish them for off-shoring, too. nt

[Aerows]

37. And we all know the worst punishment

"tyranny" is them actually having to pay proper taxes.

[silvershadow]

40. Frankly, I'm really not sure any of their offshoring is legal. They just get caught and change

the language for public consumption to normalize their behavior. I'm pretty darn sure there is plenty of $ behind hidden, without even raising taxes a cent. It' just a matter of collecting it. And, of course, prosecutions. (And then, I woke up.)

[KamaAina]

22. It wouldn't even affect the 1% that much

they already take most of their income as capital gains, not wages (*cough*Rmoney*cough*) so they can dodge income tax as well as FICA.

[Aerows]

23. Congress (that makes up a huge chunk of the 1%)

are the problem, and they will be affected by it. Democrats should be forceful about bringing this up, let the Republican crybabies wail, and let the chips fall where they may.

With the wailing and gnashing of the teeth over Social Security, you would think this would be a no-brainer.

[etherealtruth]

31. Scrap the cap or raise it to at least 250,000

[Aerows]

33. I say scrap it

but at least 250,000 is a good place to start.

[bvar22]

32. Somebody should Run for President on Raising-the-Cap!

Oh wait.
Somebody already did.

[AzDar]

41. K & R

[Coyotl]

44. Rhetorical question, right?

Surely, you must know the answer!

[woo me with science]

48. kick