Edwards supporters, can anyone answer the question here...

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3557944


And more specifically in this reply within the thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3557944&mesg_id=3559467

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.

[1932]

1. It's not clear from those quotes that he's talking only about SS. Sounds like he's talking about all

taxes.

I assume he's talking about the Alternative Minimum Income Tax hit those couples are taking on top of SS.

What makes you think from the following quote that he's not talking about the entire federal income tax burden?

"...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..."

[slipslidingaway]

3. The videos are in both links that I posted above, he is speaking

of SS taxes. I even noted the time at which he speaks in the second video which was the debate from a few nights ago.

I do not know if he just is not aware of how the SS taxes are calculated (hard to believe) or if he thinks people do not know? Is he somehow planning on changing the cap from an individual cap to a combined cap?

All I know is that something is not right with the example he gave at the debate, I'm pretty sure the other video is from a few months ago because I've seen it before.

So, I do not know what to think???

[1932]

2. Hello?

[1932]

4. OK. I watched the videos and it's clear he's talking about the entire Fed tax burden.

[slipslidingaway]

How could you possibly come to that conclusion? In addition to

the first link having the video there is also a transcript and the question asked in the debate a few nights ago was clearly on SS taxes.

If you do not have an answer just say so instead of remaining in denial. Edwards mentions Social Security twice in this short paragraph and you answer after supposedly watching the video is that he is not talking about SS???


Transcript from the first video...

"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.

[1932]

12. In the first one he's clearly not talking about cumulative income. In the second one he's clearly

talking about the total federal tax burden.

In the first one, he's saying, for example, if one spouse makes 130k and the other makes 20k, he doesn't think they should be paying higher FICA.

I don't know where you get from either of those videos the idea that he thinks payroll tax levels are based on household income.

[slipslidingaway]

14. See my reply #13 n/t

[slipslidingaway]

7. How could you possibly come to that conclusion? In addition to

the first link having the video there is also a transcript and the question asked in the debate a few nights ago was clearly on SS taxes.

If you do not have an answer just say so instead of remaining in denial. Edwards mentions Social Security twice in this short paragraph and you answer after supposedly watching the video is that he is not talking about SS???


Transcript from the first video...

"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.

[Ninga]

5. What is up with this quesiton. Why don't you pick up the phone and call him and get

the question answered.

I thought several hours ago, you agreed he needed to answer the question.

[slipslidingaway]

8. Check the times on this post and your reply to me on the original

thread.

I have called his office in the past, they dance around the question (draft Iraq Oil Law) or give the wrong answer (Edwards voted against NAFTA) He was not even in the Senate at the time. Why bother?

[sandnsea]

6. I think he made a mistake

I've seen several people object to raising the FICA caps because of dual income couples. They get confused, forgetting that FICA is put on individual incomes, that's all. I think Edwards made the same mistake.

[slipslidingaway]

9. Presidential candidates making proposals to fix SS should not

be making the same mistakes as people posting on message boards IMO.

[sandnsea]

10. Considering the number of mistakes

you've made on the topic, I would guess you would have that point of view. The top 10% got the tax cuts and they're going to have to pay it back.

[slipslidingaway]

11. Post links to the mistakes instead of making a blanket accusation

You said that 97,000 was in the top 7%. It is not and I'm not running for President. When you cannot justify a statement made by a candidate it is easier to attack the person.

I still do not know what the hell Edwards was talking about, but I guess it sounds good to some.

[slipslidingaway]

13. Transcripts for both videos, Edwards was talking about SS taxes

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=slogin

Video 2 youtube link

http://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."