and in the debate on 9/26 he gave an example of a fire fighter couple, relatively equal salaries, having a combined income over 100,000+. He then spoke of not just raising the cap from the current 97,000, because he did not want to hurt the couple in his example, and instead creating a protective zone between 97K to maybe 200K.
His proposal does NOTHING to help the couple he cited as the SS taxes are paid on an individual salary and not on combined salary.
This is what I said in the original post...
But he speaks of the combined income of couples and not individuals and creating this protective zone for them? If you use the example he gave in the debate the other night of fire fighter couples with a combined income of 100K to 115K, their incomes are going to be 'relatively' equal and they both have a long way to go before reaching their own cap of 97,000. He makes it sound as if he is helping them when in actuality his protective zone will not affect them at all!
It would help couples where the salaries of the couple vary greatly, but not in the example he gave at the debate.Video 1 link, with transcript...http://www.secureourfuture.org/election08edwards.php"The New Hampshire Project: Do you have any thoughts on moving the cap on Social Security which would prevent it from having to be privatized?
Edwards: She's saying do I have any thoughts on removing the cap on payroll taxes. I don't know if all of you know this, but basically there is an income cap. And above that cap, $96,000-97,000, if you earn many millions of dollars a year, then above that income cap you don't pay Social Security tax. So what she is asking is if you lift the cap you generate more revenue and help secure Social Security.
I haven't proposed it but I think it makes a lot of sense. The question I have is whether you should just lift the cap or whether you should create some bubble above the cap. For example, for the first $97,000 you are already paying taxes, and then above that to the first $150,000 or $170,000 you don't pay taxes, and then anything above that you do. That's the question I have. Because there are a lot of people earning $100,000-$150,000 where both couples work and send their kids to college and so forth, and they still have trouble paying their bills. We don't want to make taxes higher on them if we can help it. But the people who are earning millions of dollars a year, they ought to be paying payroll taxes.
So the bottom line for me is: I think yes, doing something about the cap makes a great deal of sense. The only question I have is whether we should it is lifted entirely, which may be the thing to do, or if we should make some bubble above the present existing cap and then lift it above that line."
Video 2 transcript...http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/us/politics/26DEBATE-TRANSCRIPT.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=sloginVideo 2 youtube linkhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=GhgUdVqchOs"MR. RUSSERT: And we're back at Dartmouth College talking to the Democrats. I want to talk about Social Security and Medicare...
...Right now, you pay tax for Social Security on your first $97,500 worth of income. Why not tax the entire income of every American? And if you do that, you'll guarantee the solvency of Social Security farther than your eye can see...
MR. EDWARDS:....The honest truth is there are hard choices to be made here. The choice I would make as president of the United States is on the very issue that you've asked about, which is the cap, and I have to say, I have some difference with my friend, Chris Dodd, who I agree with a lot. But I don't understand why somebody who makes $50 million a year pays Social Security tax on the first $97,000, and somebody -- and not all the rest, while somebody who makes $85,000 a year pays Social Security tax on every dime of their income.
SENATOR DODD: Well, John --
MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry, Chris. Let me just finish. I'll let you respond, but I want to say one last thing about this.
I do have some difference with some of our colleagues who I've heard talk about this. I think we have to be very careful to protect the middle class, so, specifically -- if I can be very specific -- what I would do as president is I would create a protective zone between 97,000 (dollars) up to around 200,000 (dollars) because there are a lot of firefighter couples, for example, that make $100(,000), $115,000 a year. We don't want to raise taxes on them. But I do believe that people who make $50 (million), $75 (million), $100 million a year ought to be paying Social Security taxes on that income." 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore