Edwards on Social Security...does he plan to change the way

[slipslidingaway]

SS taxes are calculated for married couples or does he not understand how the SS system currently works???

SS taxes are paid on an individual's salary up to a certain cap which is curently around $97000. But in this Q&A session, which I believe is a few months old, he talks of couples that earn more than the cap having a portion of the income exempt? Is he going to change this or does he not know that the $97,000 cap is based on an individual's income???

http://www.secureourfuture.org/election08edwards.php

"...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..."


And last night he made a similar comment in the debate, he starts talking about SS at 4:45 and then at 6:10 he speaks of creating a protective zone and again mentions couples making over the $97,000???

NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE SEPT 26, 2007 part 11
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GhgUdVqchOs


Edwards also he says he does not understand why someone making 50 million a year pays SS taxes on the first 97,000 and not on the rest and someone who makes 85,000 pays SS taxes on their entire income.

Does he really not inderstand why this was implemented or does this idea just play well to the public?

[DURHAM D]

1. He may not realize that not all mothers stay at home.

Last night I think he said he wanted a doughnut hole between $97,000 and $200,000. And than at $200,000 they have to start paying in again.

I would guess that at some point above $200,000 a lot of people are receiving 1099 income anyway - thus not subject to SS and Medicare anyway.

[slipslidingaway]

2. In both instances he spoke of the combined income of couples

exceeding 97,000 and not wanting them to be taxed, a doughnut hole, a protective zone etc.

But the 97,000 cap is on an indivdual's income and not the combined income of which he speaks. Either he is leaving something out, like changing the rules to combined income, or he just is not aware of how the system currently works? Or it just sounds good to people who are not aware as well???

I do not know how much income above 200,000 would be suject to SS and Medicare taxes, it would be a good question though.

[DURHAM D]

3. I don't see any way couple's income can be linked

together on this issue. I think he just doesn't understand it.

When do you suppose was the last time he got a W-2? Perhaps when he worked at the mill in high school.

[slipslidingaway]

4. And that's the scary part, either he does not understand it or thinks

people do not understand, not sure which is worse. :(

[DURHAM D]

5. I think he doesn't understand.

Why would he? He doesn't get a W-2. If he has employees I am sure he doesn't do the payroll. Otherwise, he would not be making this basic mistake.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Didn't he get a W-2 from Fortress for that $500,000 he earned from them? n/t

[slipslidingaway]

8. Not sure how that compensation was structured, I do know they

went public shortly after he left.

[JDPriestly]

13. He probably got a 1099

[slipslidingaway]

7. That first video was a few months ago and still nobody has

corrected him? And how can a presidential candidate speak of his plan to reform a system when he's got the facts wrong. He just makes too many mistakes for me and this is just another example...thanks.

[Ninga]

16. 97 is 97 period. If a person makes between 97 and 200, it will still be 97, if

a person makes 200, then it will be the entire term of the entire salary.

[slipslidingaway]

19. 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.


http://www.secureourfuture.org/election08edwards.php

"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 last night he made a similar comment in the debate, he starts talking about SS at 4:45 and then at 6:10 he speaks of creating a protective zone and again mentions couples making over the $97,000???

NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE SEPT 26, 2007 part 11
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GhgUdVqchOs


"...I would create a protective zone between $97000 up to around $200,000 because there are a lot of fire fighter couples, for example, that make a 100000 or 115000 a year, we don't want to raise taxes on them..."

[WCGreen]

9. There are a shit load of people with salaries beyond the

Edwards Donut Hole...

2.5 million tax returns in 2004 had salaries and wages over 200k...

And it amounted to 793 Billion and about 18% of the total wages and slararies reported to the IRS for 2004...

[slipslidingaway]

10. Thanks for that info, do you think they'll say yes to paying SS

taxes on that income? I would bet no.

[WCGreen]

11. I am working on some figures for an Op-Ed piece and

I think if you cut the contribution rate to 5%, in order to help the working poor and the people who hire them, then they would be hard pressed to oppose it...

You also have to address how the benifit is taxed...

Since the employers kicks in a tax deducatable, to him, matching contibution to the system, half of what is receive in benfit should not be taxed... Regardless of income level...

[slipslidingaway]

12. Thanks for the reply, I'll read the last two paragraphs again

tomorrow and maybe it will sink in :think:

Wish they would also look at some other areas to cut...military?

[jmp]

15. If you want to help out the working poor ...

Why not just exempt the first X amount of wages from being taxed?

[JDPriestly]

14. He wants to give a break to middle class taxpayers.

Everyone needs to contribute so it is fair to charge everyone the same SS taxes up to a certain level. Then he wants to give relief to people who earn above that amount but not $200,000. I think his plan may be to give a break to certain taxpayers. Some of these taxpayers may be subject to AMT, but not all of them are.

[Ninga]

17. AMT is going away.

[slipslidingaway]

18. Edwards speaks of the combined income and not the individual

income. So my question was does he not know how the system currently works as it is based on individual income? How can you offer a plan to modify the system if you are not aware of the current system? You could have a couple each earning $60,000 a year, their combined income is over the current cap of $97,000 and these are the people he cites in his examples. But the way the system works is based on individual salaries, not combined salaries. Do you understand the examples and the inconsistency of what he is saying? Each person has to meet their own cap, not as a couple. I do not know what he is saying

:shrug:

[Ninga]

20. Yes, he did say combined. I hope someone get to question him about that.

However, I get the gist of what his goal is, and I am thinking that he does not want to penalize the 100 to 200 bracket, but he is at least being creative and putting some thought into the problem.

[slipslidingaway]

21. Appreciate the fact that you understand my question and I wish

someone would question him on this issue. I see where he is intending to go on this issue, but without clarification we do not know what he'll do when he realizes the mistake, because now he is speaking about another band of people!

Also if those couples that he mentioned do not know how the system works they could be misled into believing they'll have some sort of tax break, when in fact they will not. He said the same thing a few months ago and no questions or corrections :(

Thanks for the reply.

[JDPriestly]

23. People in that tax category pay a higher percentage of

their money on taxes. That is why he is giving them a break on the SS tax.

[slipslidingaway]

24. See my reply here, his idea does NOTHING for the couple

he used as an example in the debate on 9/26 who have relatively equal salaries. Some Edwards supporters do not realize or will not accept that fact :(

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3559583&mesg_id=3562428

[JDPriestly]

22. I think he knows that it is based on individual income.

He is trying to give a break to people who pay a high rate of taxes on their income apart from social security. His idea is quite good.