ABC: Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike

[Colobo]

"If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,000," Obama wrote this week in an Iowa newspaper, "we could eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."


Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday's Quad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would be paid by employees and half would be paid by employers.


Obama is floating the idea of a tax hike on the rich as a way of assuring lower- and middle-income voters that he sees an option for ensuring Social Security's solvency that would not burden them. Obama has been indirectly criticized by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for suggesting on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that a higher retirement age should be "on the table."


By suggesting the elimination of the Social Security tax cap, Obama has distinguished himself as the presidential candidate most willing to touch the "third rail" of American politics. No other major candidate has come close to offering a specific idea with the potential of generating as much revenue.

[silverweb]

1. Perfectly reasonable.

And it's about time!

:thumbsup:

[Morereason]

115. higher retirement age should be "on the table"??????? WTF?

That is just code for let more people die before they get to retire. It is already high enough for the younger generations.

[hedgehog]

2. Gobama ! He must be brilliant, I've been saying the same thing for years! ny

[Warpy]

3. Until he gets those overpayments out of Congress's greedy paws

He's out of his fucking mind. We can't afford another damned backdoor tax increase on the poorest just to cover the tax cuts to the rich.

[Colobo]

4. $97,000 are the poorest?

[Warpy]

14. They're not even middle class any more

especially if they're in cities and have a couple of kids. There is no way they can afford to pay a mortgage, educate the kids, and save for retirement, and that's what middle class is all about.

[spooky3]

20. where median houses are tiny but still cost $500K and up, $97K income

means a lot less than the comfortable lifestyle that it could buy in towns or cities where the median is a bigger house for 1/4 of that cost.

I think Congress is going to have to deal with a lot of the policies that treat the cost of living as if it were the same everywhere--Social Security, income taxes, etc. Salaries in most high cost areas are nowhere close to being adjusted for the COL.

[sandnsea]

21. They're the top 10%

Are you out of your fucking mind??? POOR????????

[spooky3]

73. I think she said they aren't always middle class. 97K is not top 10%

in many cities. It is BELOW the MEDIAN in Fairfax Co, VA, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfax_County,_Virginia

It won't qualify you to get even a nice 2 bedroom condo (with a conventional mortgage), let alone a single family home with a nice yard, in a reasonable area near DC, Boston, New York, San Francisco, San Diego, LA, etc. It's a very comfortable salary in many other parts of the country. If you haven't lived in a high cost city, you don't know what it is like.

[kdmorris]

9. I think it should have happened long ago

Why the hell do people making $25,000 have to pay Social Security on 100% of their income, while people making over $100,000 only pay it on some portion of their income. They higher the income, the less of a percent they pay Social Security on. For example, someone making $400,000 pays Social Security tax on only a little less than 25% of their income. How is that close to fair?

[midlife_mo_Jo]

11. Social security was supposed to be seen as a savings program for retirement

even though it is a tax. if everyone thought of it as savings for retirement, the program had a better chance of being accepted. If people are taxed on their entire income regardless of how much they will receive, then it becomes more of a welfare program.

[Ethelk2044]

12. if they are paying into the system it can hardly be considered welfare

They are putting money into the system

[Warpy]

15. No, it was supposed to be pay as you go insurance for poor workers

to make sure their inadequate pensions had enough assistance to keep them out of poverty. It was also a women's program, since too many of those pensions died with the husband and left a widow destitute.

It was never supposed to be overpaid or paid in advance. It was an insurance premium, to be paid yearly like any other and insuring that no worker would be left destitute at the end of his or her usefulness.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

17. True, but ask a lot of not very sophisticated older Americans

and they believed that Social Security was their "savings account."

[Warpy]

85. I am not responsible for the ignorance out there

However, to see the same ignorance extended to members of Congress is appalling.

[sandnsea]

23. It's for ALL workers

90% of the country will never make more than the current $90,000 a year.

[sandnsea]

22. It is income insurance

Old age, disability, death. It is not a savings program, never has been. Letting Republicans convince you it is is how you're going to end up losing it.

[spooky3]

18. because the payments OUT to retirees are limited in the same ways

even if you made several hundred thousand $$$ a year when working, you're only going to get about $20K per year in Social Security retirement payments.

[WCGreen]

36. Not true....

I have several clients who are drawing over 25k right now from SS....

[spooky3]

71. Let's not quibble over 20K (an estimate) vs. 25K. My point is still correct.

That point is that high contributors do not get back a high proportion of their current salary when they retire. They get a much lower proportion than do low income earners, because that is the way the program is designed.

Please note that my prior post said "about" 20K.

[Tellurian]

5. Ah, he learned that watching the AARP debate..

That was Biden's notation... Too bad it was such a turn off for him to attend a forum concerning an important segment of the voting population. At least he watches tv between video games.

[Ethelk2044]

7. No it is common sense. The debate has nothing to do with it.

[Inuca]

16. What a ridiculous and absurd comment n/t

[Tellurian]

33. Prove it!

[calteacherguy]

99. You are a very immature person. As a Clinton supporter, you embarass me. nt

[2rth2pwr]

6. There is a cap on income above $97,000

so that Social Security wont be perceived as a welfare program.

[Ethelk2044]

8. can not be preceived as welfare when you pay into the system.

[2rth2pwr]

13. I agree

but when it is taxed based on your income and your benefits aren't paid out based on what you contribute it's easy to label it.

[shimmergal]

101. They're not anyway,

i. e. "your benefits aren't paid out based on what you contribute" as long as there's that feature that can based them on a spouse's earnings, OR on your own.

[sandnsea]

24. They can go broke too

Just about anybody can end up needing disability or old age benefits. If you manage to make more than the $97,000, you should pay more. It reminds you that you're not invincible.

[2rth2pwr]

25. "It reminds you that you're not invincible."

Think that one will help persuade people?

[sandnsea]

28. If it doesn't, who cares

The 90% of this country, and 99% of the world, has got to stop handing our power over to the rich.

[2rth2pwr]

109. That 90% of the country aspires to make more money

and many of them don't think that making more money makes them bad people. The screw them attitude is counter productive.

[Bitwit1234]

10. Sounds good to me AND I think taking social security funds

for other programs is wrong. And reagan the saint of the republicans was the first to "steal" social security" money to balance his budget.

[aquart]

19. "Hike," my ass.

The only ones paying that are the ones who will never feel it.

[BeyondGeography]

26. Wrong; it's an extra $700 a month in your pocket once you pass the cap

A lot of people feel the difference, and most of them aren't rich either.

[sandnsea]

27. No, "a lot" of people don't

Because less than 10% of households ever get past the cap. It's probably less for individual earners. If you're there, you're in the top 10%, maybe 5%, of US income earners which makes you among the top 1% richest people in the world.

[BeyondGeography]

29. A lot of Democrats in metro areas make $97K a year

places where $97K doesn't mean shit, especially if they're the main bread-winner. Forget the income brackets; when you break it out geographically, they're are a lot of so-called "rich" people who are anything but.

Eliminating the cap is a tax hike that many people would feel. The point stands.

[sandnsea]

32. No They Don't

It's a national figure. Only 7% of the country made more than $100,000 in 2006. You can pretend they all live in the city you do if you want to, but common sense tells you that isn't so. If you think it's tough living on $100,000 a year, imagine how the other 90% of your city is feeling - or the 70% who live on less than $50,000 a year. Yes, they live in cities too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

[BeyondGeography]

34. You're venting about people who make a decent income

rather than discussing the issue at hand.

Is Obama, in lifting the cap on income, actually talking about a tax increase that people will notice?

Answer: yes.

[sandnsea]

37. So you support Bush's tax cuts?

These are the same people who benefited from those and the same people who will notice when the tax cuts expire. Every single solitary Democrat running, and that I personally know, supports that.

[BeyondGeography]

40. In dollar terms, Bush's tax cuts mostly benefit people who make a lot more than $97K/year

and many of our candidates have talked about limiting the rescinding of those cuts to people who make $200K/year for the very reason that you refuse to acknowledge: a $97K per year income gets you a middle class lifestyle and nothing more in most metro areas.

[sandnsea]

43. Just like health care tax credits

benefit the upper income folks. Maybe you ought to be supporting Hillary, she likes to pretend the wealthy are the middle class too.

Obama is here for the rest of us.

The top quintile received a benefit of 4.1 percent of income, compared to 0.3 percent for the bottom quintile.

http://tpcprod.urban.org/publications/urlprint.cfm?ID=411378

The problem is the people in the upper 10% don't even realize there are so few of them. They keep thinking they're one good investmen away from being really wealthy, so they never stand with the median incomes for single payer, free education for all, or any of the other 'socialist' plans that they think threatens their income. If they'd realize they're closer to the bottom than the 1% top, maybe they'd start advocating these things that will really reduce taxes and improve lives for the true majority.

Until then, I'll keep reminding you that you're incredibly well off by US standards and friggin filthy rich by global standards.

[BeyondGeography]

47. Let's review how this unproductive little chat started

a poster above said those making $97K/year wouldn't even notice it if the cap was lifted. I disagreed, and you have yet to refute me, because you are in fact unable to.

The End

[sandnsea]

48. If it were $1.00 someone would notice

I've proven beyond any doubt that someone making $97,000 a year benefited from the Bush tax cuts, which was a massive gift from my FICA payments, and that Obama is going right back to those people to get it back.

Good. You did fine for the last 6 years. You should have saved and invested from having the extra money my FICA surplus gave you. Now you can suffer income stagnation like the rest of us have.

Let me rephrase.

If $97,000 isn't rich, then there is no rich. It's all a bill of goods. We're all struggling, so why don't we work together to ease the struggle for everybody. Create the national social, family, education, health, networks.

[BeyondGeography]

50. Making it personal...what's wrong with you?

You have no idea who I am or what my circumstances are. I'm not opposed to doing away with the cap, but it needs to be done intelligently. If we took your simple-minded approach (fuck 'em, they're all rich), we'd be making a mistake. A graduated SS tax that asked for a lot more from those who can truly afford it (i.e. HHI of $200K and above, with the top 1% taking the brunt of it) would be much more fair than slapping an additional $700 per month tax on someone making $100K/yr.

[sandnsea]

52. you can't graduate it

It's insurance. You can never turn SS into a means tested program, that's the day you lose it altogether.

Let me add the rephrasing from the edit in the other post.

If $97,000 isn't rich, then there is no rich. It's all a bill of goods. We're all struggling, so why don't we work together to ease the struggle for everybody. Create the national social, family, education, health, networks.

My experience is that hardly anybody realizes how few people are actually financially comfortable, let alone well off or rich.

[BeyondGeography]

57. There's still a lot you can do

You could exempt the first $20,000 or so in income, raise the 6.2% flat rate and apply it to all income above $20K. This would bring more money into the system and cut the middle class a break (including people making 97K/yr...heh) and extract more from those who can best afford it.

[sandnsea]

61. That's a very good idea

John Kerry proposed that as an alternative to the tax rebate, iirc.

But if you truly aren't making $97,000 yourself, you really have to understand how few ever actually get there. It's how they control us, they hold that little diamond carot out there, and make you afraid you'll lose it if you ever support socializing anything. We live our lives in agony when we could have freedom from worry, which would actually make us more likely to apply our skills and get that carot anyway.

[Indenturedebtor]

113. Ok how's this..

People who make 100k a year won't notice a 12% hike on their social security taxes NEARLY as much as the average american will notice not having social security.

I'm currently climbing the ladder... and I do so with the support of those who are under me. Without their labor I would not be able to make as much as I do (which is only barely enough to get a small part of the dream). They work 40-60 hours a week, they deserve a retirement more than I deserve another 700 dollars to play with. Can't hack the tax, buy one less toy or less expensive clothes so that others can simply buy clothes.

I have friends who live in boston and SF on less than 40k a year. They're doing just fine. Their stuff just doesn't look so new and shiny.

[slipslidingaway]

66. Not true!!! I hope you are supporting Kucinich because he is the

only candidate supporting not for profit health care and the only candidate trying to establish relationships with other countries in the ME instead of parroting the Bush speak on Iran.

We need the insurance profits and we need to stop spending money to feed the MIC, others can talk about the poor, but unless they have a plan to reduce these expenses there will be more broken campaign promises in the future.

Our nation has maxed out on it's credit cards and we are going to be beholding to other countries. We need to make allies and deals for resources and invest in technology so that we are more independent.

[sandnsea]

70. And why aren't the rest

Because the 'middle class', who are actually upper income, don't want to give up the highest quality health care on the planet, that's why. They burden you with the guilt that they're paying your way, when they pay less on their dividends than we pay on our working income.

They took the budget surplus, that came from FICA, and now you want to feel sorry for them because someone is going to make them pay it back.

WE, the 80%, need to take our country back and the first step is realizing that the middle income boat we're all in is way further down the river than anybody wants us to figure out.

[slipslidingaway]

76. So are you supporting Kucinich? People who earn over that

cap and do not want to see the government get away with robbery are not your enemy! After the exchanges we've had and you telling me that I've sucked everything out of this country maybe I should join the other party. Again this is the division that the politicians want, we should not let them.

[sandnsea]

78. So you don't want a tax increase?

Is that your problem?

[slipslidingaway]

81. I would trade off a tax increase for not for profit HC for all. Are

you backing Kucinich for not for profit HC and reducing the money we pay to the MIC?

[sandnsea]

82. That wasn't the question

This is about social security solvency. Will you give back what you got with the Bush tax cuts or not.

I'm supporting anything that will pass and provide relief directly to working people.

[slipslidingaway]

87. You keep on avoiding my question, are you backing a candidate

that will do the most for the working class people? You are looking at a segment of people to return most of the tax cuts, I am pretty sure that the majority of the money went to people much higher up on the income scale. And SS money went to fund this war and the companies that profited from it.

Last time, this issue is being used to drive a wedge between people who have common goals, while the very rich and companies laugh all the way to the bank. And our elected officials pull the same trick on the next generation. I am not your enemy.

[sandnsea]

89. I answered the question

I support whatever health care will pass and provide assistance directly to working people.

THIS thread is about social security and whether you will give back your tax cut to make social security solvent. If you don't, working people will to make up the difference through extended retirement age, long term cuts, and eventually it will be sold out to privatization as they continue to convince young people that the top 5% are actually the poor.

[slipslidingaway]

90. Your posts are becoming nonsensical and not worth my time.

I'll post the info on the tax cut distribution at the bottom of the thread and you can look at it or keep battling an enemy that does not exist.

[sandnsea]

91. So you won't accept a personal tax increase

That much is clear.

[slipslidingaway]

93. My reply...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3541289&mesg_id=3541933

You can see by the tables in the first link the difference in tax cuts between people earning $36000-59000 and those earning $97000-205000 is roughly $400. per year. Many of the candidates are proposing that the SS shortfall should ONLY come from people who make just over $97000. That may sound fair to some people. For the $4000. they received over a ten year period in tax cuts the increased SS taxes will most likely add up to quite a bit more, while the very rich who received most of the money remain untouched.

Remind me who these candidates are working for again?


No sandsea my family has not sucked everything out of this country, but you can believe that if you like or can look at the facts and take your anger someplace else.


sandnsea (1000+ posts) Sun Sep-23-07 01:55 AM

"I worry about the bottom 80% You go ahead and worry about the top 20%, who have sucked everything out of this country for the last 30 years, if you want to."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[midlife_mo_Jo]

41. There shouldn't have been a tax cut!

However, if you want to start treating households with incomes of - say - $90,000 as rich, the democratic party is going to make a lot of enemies. People making $90,000 a year didn't inherit their wealth, they are simplel people who made good choices or lucky choices (oftentimes) in choosing a career that pays well and hasn't been outsourced yet. A cop married to a teacher - both with a few years experience - can easily make that kind of money. Tell THEM they're rich and need to fork over more general taxes and FICA, tell them that they are members of the privileged classes, blah, blah, blah, and they're going to look at you like you're crazy. A postal worker married to a teacher can easily make that kind of money. Fortunate enough to have two paying jobs? Yes. They are very fortunate. It could all disappear with a pink slip. Privileged? Not really. These people aren't the enemy, but everytime we treat them as if they are, we create two more Republicans.

Quite honestly, I was a democrat growing up in south Louisiana. I voted for Reagan after having voted for Jimmy Carter. Yes, I wanted lower taxes. I was the first generation in my family to go to college, and I thought that meant having a better life without being taxed with NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT. We were paying higher taxes then, and what the hell did we get in return? Not much. I lived in Europe for a while. I saw what they got for their tax money. And I saw what we got. I'd just as soon pay as little as possible, thank you very much. Our programs to reduce poverty are a joke. Our elderly live in squalor. Do I believe the democrats would have done a much better job if I had only voted for them? I would hope so, but I'm so disillusioned, I think probably not.

The elite run this country, the federal reserve runs this country, the corporatists run this country, and I don't think there's enough honest democrats to give a damn. Somebody give me some proof that the democrats are going to use our tax dollars more wisely. Ok, if they stop the war, that will be a big plus in our favor.

[sandnsea]

45. Until they join the 90%

and demand better services for their tax dollars, they're going to continue to be pissed about their taxes.

There are far fewer people making than kind of income than you think there are. 7% make more than $100,000 - SEVEN percent. I'm willing to risk shaking them up by telling them some economic realities for the other 90% of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

[midlife_mo_Jo]

49. I think I indicated that

most of these people are one pink slip away from disaster. However, here's some other statistics,

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html

I don't know anything about this website, but I'll assume it's "close" to the truth.

The medium income for a married-couple family is $69,716. Yes, that sounds like a lot, but when you consider how many dual income families are out there, it seems very reasonable. That's A LOT of voters. A lot of Republicans. We have to persuade them that they aren't going to be taxed out their butts with nothing to show for it. I think most people would give up a lot if they could be guaranteed stable healthcare, for starters. I think most people do want to help the poor, but what do we have to show for it? We need programs that work, and work efficiently - programs that don't line the pockets of a lot of bureaucrats.
I think most people do want more equity, but people who have "just made it," are scared to have it taken away through high taxation. We need REAL leaders who can show us a better way. REAL LEADERS. Who will that be?

[sandnsea]

53. Those folks aren't in question at all

They don't make $97,000 a piece so they don't belong in the conversation.

Seven Percent of individual workers earn more than $100,000 and they are the only ones who would experience a FICA tax increase. If they are a pink slip away from disaster, then they haven't saved or invested very well. They are the only ones who have a prayer in hell of ever becoming wealthy.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

56. Yeah, but people around here act like household incomes

of $97,000 are rich, when they aren't. Those are mostly salaried professionals who after years of being in their profession are making that kind of money. They didn't start by making that much money, and they'll be lucky to hang onto it when their jobs are outsourced. :(

Are they extremely fortunate? Yes. Rich? No. In a lot of areas, they're just upper middle class.

[sandnsea]

62. They can invest and become rich

Without the kind of sacrifice the other 80-90% of the country has to make.

And people who are in the top 1% of world income earners - really are more than just fortunate.

[slipslidingaway]

60. What footnote number is that? This is footnote #5...

"In the year 2005, there were approximately 113,146,000 households in the United States. 19.01% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000,<5>"

and

"Households in the top quintile, 77% of which had two income earners, had incomes exceeding $91,705. Households in the mid quintile, with a mean of one income earner per household had incomes between $36,000 and 57,657.<9>"

[sandnsea]

63. FICA applies to individuals

not households.

But I'm not going to worry about the top quintile of US households either. You're sure welcome to advocate for them and their tax cuts all you want.

[slipslidingaway]

69. Again you play right into their hands...have fun n/t

[WCGreen]

51. And it also depends heavily on the cost of living where these

"Rich" people earning 90k live...

[sandnsea]

54. And how much their haircuts are

I know. They would look like bag ladies without $200 hair styles. I've heard.

The top 7% of earners are doing just fine, no matter where they live.

[WCGreen]

55. That is just not true...

and you should know that...

97k in NYC is like 47k in Cleveland...

Just because someone who earns a good living doesn't mean they are frivilous with their money...

[sandnsea]

58. They're all poor than

There are around 150 million workers. 7% is 10 million. Are all of the country's $100,000+ earners living broke, in NYC and San Francisco?

People who earn that kind of money live in expensive areas because they can afford it. The areas aren't expensive - and then the rich people show up. The rich people push the cost of living up because they have more money to spend. It's not the other way around. If they couldn't afford it, they'd move.

[WCGreen]

65. The cost of living in NYC is over three times what it is in

say Topeka...

you can't seriously make a blanket statement like that...

[sandnsea]

67. $97,000 - $150,000 - $200,000

It never fails. Doesn't matter what the income amount is, any time a tax increase is mentioned, we're all admonished about the struggling 'middle class' who make more than 93% of the country. They have a party. I am not going to waste my time worrying about them.

[spooky3]

75. The most expensive cites are the bluest. People are there because

that's where their jobs are. Most of us aren't independently wealthy and don't have the luxury of deciding we'll move wherever we want.

Democrats will not do themselves any favors by alienating people who are middle class in these cities even though where you live the salary might provide a lot of luxuries.

[sandnsea]

77. and don't earn $97,000 a year either n/t

[WCGreen]

94. There is no reason to raise the FICA tax higher since they

don't get the benifit..

If you want to raise income tax, I'm all behind that or raise the capital gains tax or re-instate the estate tax...

It's just plain ridiculous to raise the FICA tax and to put a huge burden on small businesses...

[sandnsea]

97. I'm sure that will need to be done too

That's just the kind of mess we're in. And don't pretend businesses that are doing so well that they can pay $97,000 salaries can't afford increased FICA on a handful of employees. There aren't that many people who make this kind of income.

[WCGreen]

103. Why are you so intent on raising the FICA contribution...

Is it because Obama is for it...

There are so many other ways to raise taxes and not fuck any more with social security...

I gave three viable and workable alternatives and yet you always fall back on a plan test ballooned by Obama...

You can't have a rational debate about taxes if your main point in the argument is that if Obama says so it must be right...

That is all...

[sandnsea]

104. This isn't a new idea

I know you know that. We're going to have to end the Bush tax cuts just to get a handle on the deficit and maybe pass some kind of health care. That doesn't put the money back in social security. Since the budget surplus was FICA money, then I say go get it back from the people who Bush gave it to. I'll be damned if I'm going to have paid for my own retirement just to have some stupid-ass Republicans tell me oops, sorry, gave it away; suffer some more.

[WCGreen]

105. That's why we raise the other taxes to get the money to pay back

SS....

[sandnsea]

106. If there's enough there

I just don't think there's going to be.

[shimmergal]

102. On your cop married to a teacher

example--it'd be very rare for them to go over the 97,000. The FICA tax is levied on _individual_ earnings, not joint. So both the cop and the teacher would EACH have to earn more than 97,ooo for this effect to kick in.

May happen down the road with rising inflation--not likely very many places yet.

[WCGreen]

107. Both are probably covered by public employee pensions and

are thus not subject to FICA...

[slipslidingaway]

42. Thank you, many people do not understand that they have been

robbed and are willing to let the government to it again.

[sandnsea]

46. Yes we have been robbed

They took my FICA money and gave it to the wealthiest, so good for Obama for going straight to the source to get it back.

[slipslidingaway]

59. Well they took our money as well and now Obama wants to

take a little more when costs are increasing at a rapid rate as we prepare for retirement, pay tuition and help other family members. The tax cuts were part of it and so was this war and hardly any candidates are speaking of reducing military spending or trying to stop the next war. They will take from the people until the people call them on it. It is convenient for THEM that they will try and divide young and old and those whose income is 'marginally' different, we should not let them.

And where are all the statements from our candidates who were in Congress as they were looting the SS Trust Fund and approving funds to continue this aggressive war. Hillary still says there was a surplus when Bill left office, yet fails to mention there was only a surplus because roughly 700 Billion had been taken from SS Funds. Edwards, Biden, Dodd what were they saying???

2 to 3 trillion from working families, we should tell them that they need to find another source.

[sandnsea]

64. I worry about the bottom 80%

You go ahead and worry about the top 20%, who have sucked everything out of this country for the last 30 years, if you want to.

[slipslidingaway]

68. Well who do you think I am worrying about by pressing for

not for profit health care and against preemptive wars. Again this is exactly the division the politicians want and you are playing right into their hands and willing to let them rob the next generation by not calling them on it.

[sandnsea]

72. We have to get the money back

If we don't take it from the ones who took it from us, we'll have to pay it ourselves.

They are not going to cut the military budget, so you can stop dreaming about that right now.

[slipslidingaway]

79. And that is exactly what they want you to think, we cannot cut

the military budget, we cannot have not for profit etc. Back someone who says they will strive to implement those things instead of a candidate who gives excuses and compromises with their opening bid.

[illinoisprogressive]

30. This is what we sorely need. Ideas. new ideas. trying something new.

[pansypoo53219]

31. what i been saying for years

and probably can lower it for the lower earners. or completely if it's all in the system.

[davidwparker]

35. Sounds good. Glad to be the 5th recommendation to this thread. The

gov't has been raiding social security to pay for tax cuts to the wealthiest 2%. Now, take it back by soaking them -- all of them -- on amounts past the social security cap.

[slipslidingaway]

38. Bad idea! The same people who saw their SS taxes double

during the 80's and 90's and who now make over the cap are being asked to pay again.

We already did this 20 years ago! The government has borrowed 2 Trillion dollars from the SS Trust Fund and from the estimates I've read the trust fund will have collected almost 3 Trillion dollars in excess before it needs to draw on that money, in about ten years.

Three Trillion dollars from working families while they fund preemptive wars, build robot armies etc. and are unwilling to advocate for a not for profit health care system for all.

They should not be asking many of the same people to pay twice. The only reason there will a problem in 10 years is because the general budget borrowed from the SS trust fund.

They will try and drive a wedge between grown children, raising payroll taxes on all, and their parents. We should not let them!


Trust Fund Data
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html


This is a 2 Trillion dollar issue that all the candidates should have to explain. We better start making friends and not enemies so we can use our taxes for people instead of bombs.

[lostnotforgotten]

39. Better Idea - Eliminate Payroll Tax - Replace With Gas Tax

eom

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jillan]

74. I am scratching my head here - I just watched the AARP debate 2 days ago

and Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards and Richardson all said the same thing.

Sorry Obama -

[maximusveritas]

80. Not sure what debate you watched, but Clinton specifically said "No" to this idea

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/21/post_88.html
I know Biden and Dodd have voiced support for it. Edwards supports something similar, but he would only tax those above $200,000. None of them, including Obama, have set their policy in stone yet, so I suppose you could say they all have basically the same position. But Clinton has definitely set herself apart on this (and not in a good way).

[slipslidingaway]

84. Thanks for the article, but all the candidates are still looking to

the people who did not benefit the most from the tax cuts and many companies profited from this war. Are they getting a tax increase? Hillary sounds clueless, or thinks the people are, and I'm glad to read that Biden called her on it.

[jillan]

88. oops -

Guess I'm not up to date on Hillary.

[sandnsea]

86. Tell ABC

They wrote the article.

[calteacherguy]

83. Excellent Idea. K&R. nt

[slipslidingaway]

92. Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt

to the Very Rich

see link for tables
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

"By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers...

As a result, freezing the Bush tax cuts at their 2002 levels would have little or no effect on 99 percent of the taxpayers, whose tax cuts are already mostly or completely “frozen.” Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented."


Bush Tax Cut Delivers the Most to the Top of the Income Spectrum,
No Matter How It's Measured

http://www.cbpp.org/2-7-01inclvlshort.htm


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study."


The New Round of Bush Tax Cuts--Inequitable, Ineffective and Costly
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/1250/1/159/


Direct link
Effects of the 2001-Enacted Bush Tax Cuts in 2010
(Annual effects in 2010 at 2010 income levels)

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwb0602c2.pdf

You can see by the tables in the first link the difference in tax cuts between people earning $36000-59000 and those earning $97000-205000 is roughly $400. per year. Many of the candidates are proposing that the SS shortfall should ONLY come from people who make just over $97000. That may sound fair to some people. For the $4000. they received over a ten year period in tax cuts the increased SS taxes will most likely add up to quite a bit more, while the very rich who received most of the money remain untouched.

Remind me who these candidates are working for again?


No sandsea my family has not sucked everything out of this country, but you can believe that if you like or can look at the facts and take your anger someplace else.


sandnsea (1000+ posts) Sun Sep-23-07 01:55 AM

"I worry about the bottom 80% You go ahead and worry about the top 20%, who have sucked everything out of this country for the last 30 years, if you want to."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3541289&mesg_id=3541706

[sandnsea]

96. talk about denial

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005.

That is an increase of more than 2 percentage points over the previous year and up from roughly 33 percent in the late 1970s. The peak for this group was 49.3 percent in 1928.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

There was more than one tax cut. The top 20% received 75% of the tax benefit.

http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-07tax.htm

Sorry. It's time to pay the piper. I have a right to be angry at a government that took the workers' money and gave it to the rich. Most rich people have said it was a stupid idea too. Sorry you disagree, but you're not going to make me feel guilty for fighting for economic justice.

[slipslidingaway]

118. Will reply later...

just posting the links for now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html

http://ataxingmatter.blogs.com/tax/2007/03/the_bush_tax_cu.html

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/127/3

[slipslidingaway]

119. The tax cuts should have never been passed so please do not

put words in my mouth, I'm all for paying my fair share. In case you have not been paying attention the idea to increase the cap to 120 or 130K has been floated for a few years. From my very first post on this thread I said that many of the same people who saw their SS taxes raised in the 80's will now see them raised again.

As for feeling guilty that is something only you can do, instead of looking to the segment of people who finally made it over the current 97,000 cap to account for some of the 2 trillion dollars, why not look to the top 5% or 15% for economic justice. Not once in your posts here did I read anything that specially mentioned the very rich who received the bulk of the money in tax cuts. I'd love to hear a proposal from one our our candidates that actually targets the group of people who benefited the most from the Bush tax cuts, but I doubt that will happen. It appears that most want to pull the next higher income level down and leave the very wealthy alone, IMO it is not a good stategy for the Dems to take.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

[Kazak]

95. Not the biggest Obama supporter ever, but...

I strongly support him on this particular issue.

[Capn Sunshine]

98. WTF kind of "Tax Hike" is this?

classic MSM disinformation. Makes it sound like the middle class is getting their FICA raised.

[2rth2pwr]

110. WTF? It's not a "Tax Hike" ? nt

[JCMach1]

100. Notice the ABC spin in the headline... for the vast majority of people

this wouldn't be a tax hike...

[avrdream]

108. Personally, I have always thought SS taxing should go all the way to the top.

And I'm a fairly high income earner.

That's my sense of fairness coming out.

I dislike the idea of a higher retirement age, though. When I have worked my ass off for 66 years (current cut-off), I damn well better be able to retire in comfort.

[eridani]

111. Jim McDermott (D-WA7) has been saying the same thing for years

It's a great idea, and I applaud Obama for backing it.

[BulletproofLandshark]

112. Good

I'm no economics major, but it seems like eliminating the cap would keep SS solvent forever. And I think it would be great if it was there for me at retirement (I'm only 31 now). If there's a trillion dollars for a quagmire halfway around the world, there ought to be money for SS.

[Indenturedebtor]

114. Yeah no kidding

Having reached the bottom of the post and having thought about it- anyone who is in the top %50 of earners effectively needs 50 people working at a lower pay grade in order to make their relative salary possible.

Money represents labor right? If that bottom 50% went away you would be in the bottom %1 and thus your money would have that much power to purchase other peoples' time.

Whatever you make you owe the people who make less but still work as hard as their abilities allow. You owe them healthcare, housing, food, and retirement for their efforts. Without them you wouldn't be able to do your job, and you wouldn't have a job. All of us depend on their working hours to produce what we buy, sell, analyze, sue over, fix, refurbish, leverage, etc. Again, they deserve the necessities more than anyone deserves a shiny new widget, or a shinier widget.

To believe otherwise, for whatever "reason" is simply potpouri sprinkled on crap.

[earth mom]

116. Didn't Obama get the memo? Hillary wants to PRIVATIZE Social Security-just like her buddy *.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x309468

P.S. Hillary: SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT BROKEN! BUT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SURE IS! :grr:

[w4rma]

117. Awesome. (nt)