Clinton "But there are more progressive ways of doing it"

[WyLoochka]

"than, you know, lifting the cap" on Social Security income.

Really, Hillary. Name one "more progressive way." Why wasn't she asked to name one? She flings this horseshit around - there are "ways" and isn't even asked to say what those "ways" are.

Hey Hillary, raising the income cap is the ONLY progressive way of ensuring the existence of Social Security. It is THE fix - period.

Any other solution - raising the FICA taxes on everyone, raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, shifting the risk back to individuals the way it was before Social Security was created by "privatizing" - are all REGRESSIVE.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Who cares? The "debate" was a hit-job on Democrats - only Clinton supporters liked it....

... I'm not gonna criticize either of their answers or stumbles, since the whole display was a hit-job.

[rateyes]

2. I had the same question. I would have loved anybody to have asked

"what are they?"

[sudopod]

36. Apparently it involves assembling a blue-ribbon panel

which proceeds to pull the money from their butts.

[pdxmom]

3. She never said what those ways were. All she did was reference

a conservative's "commission" to study the situation. I don't call that solution progressive at all. It was a horrible answer, IMO.

[Rosemary2205]

4. Hillary's plan details

It may be there, but I did not see a plan specifially regarding Social security but I found quite a lot about private retirement savings plans

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3632

[redqueen]

40. "private retirement savings plans"

Encouraging!
:sarcasm:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Obama points out that it would be a tax on only 6% of taxpayers.

Hillary wants to protect the 6% making over $97K (it is actually $102K now because it is tied to inflation).

Uncap FICA.
Double the CGT.

Social security is saved and there is money left over for a targeted middle class tax cut that would in turn fire the flagging economy.

[WyLoochka]

8. She also flat out lied

When she said:

"I'm certainly against one of Senator Obama's ideas, which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, because that would impose additional taxes on people who are educators here in the Philadelphia area, or in the suburbs, police officers, firefighters and the like."

Educators, police officers and firefighters make more than $97K? You are so out of touch, Hillary.

From salary.com:

"The median expected salary for a typical Fire Fighter in the United States is $39,165

The median expected salary for a typical Police Patrol Officer in the United States is $48,254.

The median expected salary for a typical Teacher Elementary School in the United States is $48,788.

The median expected salary for a typical Teacher High School in the United States is $50,872"

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl_newsearch.asp

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. And Obama called her on her bullshit.

Hillary folks...she's lying to you. She's for the wealthy and against the 94% of Americans who make less than $100K.

Wake up!

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. I personally know firefighters

Who make well into six figures.

But that's not a reason to oppose lifting the cap. The better reason is the effect on the public perception of Social Security. It's successful because people don't see it as welfare.

[milkyway]

6. Thanks for pointing this out. I just went to Clinton's web site to find what other progressive ways

she has of doing it, but I couldn't make it past the four CONTRIBUTE buttons on the front page.

As I mentioned in another thread, I happen to be one of those who's above the cutoff, so it's nice when late in the year there's some extra money in my paycheck because the FICA tax is no longer deducted. But it almost feels like a gift that I shouldn't be getting. I would have no problem at all with raising the cutoff, or even getting rid of it, if that was what was needed to properly fund Social Security. To instead cut benefits for all or raise the retirement age for all is insane and immoral.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Raising the retirement age is a bad idea.

The life expectancy of African american men is less than the current retirement age.

Raising the retirement age simply takes the earnings of those who statistically die young to give to those who live longer.

[DefenseLawyer]

7. I believe the Rapture will solve any issue with social security

Just one of many progressive ways Hillary has to fix social security without cutting benefits or raising revenue.

[progdog]

10. .

:rofl:

[PA Democrat]

20. "No Fundy Left Behind" will cure the ills of the Social Security system.

[DefenseLawyer]

21. The Rapture will get us out of Iraq too

Stop worrying!

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Eliminating the cap turns Social Security into welfare.

Some argue that the thing that makes Social Security popular is the idea that it's insurance - you pay premiums and you get the benefits if you need them.

If the increased revenue is used to prevent depletion of the system trust fund, then those who make more than $300,000 in salary won't get any greater benefit than those who make $100,000. The $300,000 person pays $30,000 so that someone else can get benefits.

Whether or not income transfer is wrong or not, it carries significant risk for public perception of the program.

The bigger problem is making sure that the federal government honors its debt to those who have been paying into the trust fund. The $300,000 income earner must pay for his part of this debt.

[Armstead]

15. The only way that public perception would take hold is if....

...the Republicans successfully try to sell it that way.

Why is Hillary doing the work of the Republicans by echoing that?

Social Security is a hybrid.

I really don't think that the majority of people would find it abhorrent if those making a hell of a lot more income than average are required to pay a very little bit more to save the system.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. It's not a hybrid at all. It is straight up insurance.

We deflected the most recent assault on SS because it's a popular program. Remember "ending welfare-as-we-know-it"? This lesson alone should make us hesitant to turn SS into it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. Let's just tax those making under a $100K at 100% and those

making over $100K an ever diminishing rate. Fair? :thumbsdown:

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Do you want to discuss this or simply snark?

Your other posts in this thread suggested the former. Perhaps I was mistaken.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. By all means, let's discuss it.

The FICA tax is a regressive tax unfairly burdening those who make under $102K.

Lifting the cap completely would virtually make SS solvent.

People earning less than $102K pay an additional 15.3% in taxes(7.650% in deductions and 7.650% in employer match, i.e., their wages are less the 7.650% that their employer matches).

People earning more than $102K pay 0% FICA after that amount, i.e, if they make $204K they pay 3.825% in FICA deductions and a wage reduction of only 3.825%. If they make $1.02M they pay 1.53% in FICA deductions and a 1.53% reduction in wages per their employer match. If one "earns" a billion dollars a year the tax is 0.00153%/0.00153%.

Your turn.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. Everything you say is accurate. However, benefits are given only to those who pay premiums (taxes).

Within the group of people who receive benefits, the benefits are strongly progressive.

• Medicaid: pays the same benefit to every participant. The retired CEO of Ford and the elderly widow who waited tables when she was 20 are both eligible for the same medical care.
  
• SSI/SSDI: Those disabled during their careers or children with disabilities are eligible for benefits regardless of the earnings of the participant.
  
• OASDI: The person in the lowest quintile of earnings gets on average 3 times what they paid in. The person in the highest quintile gets back half.
  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7705/12-15-Progressivity-SS.pdf

This is as it should be. The problem is that if the cap is lifted, there's no connection whatsoever between the premiums (taxes) paid by the high earner and the benefit (s)he gets. This is welfare.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with welfare, but it is abundantly clear that the general public does.

FICA taxes are supposed to be insurance premiums. The excess premiums we are paying right now are intended to ensure long term solvency - a preferable solution to expecting our kids to bear larger premiums to pay for our benefits. They are not supposed to be "taxes" in the sense that they are expended on the nebulous needs of society - they are to be paid out in benefits to the participants as their need arises.

An investor does not participate in the system, so (s)he doesn't pay premiums, nor get benefits. Someone making $300,000/year only participates to the same extent that someone making $105,000 does. The cap isn't arbitrary - it's the level above which a person is ineligible to participate in the system.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

35. The crux of your misunderstanding...

The problem is that if the cap is lifted, there's no connection whatsoever between the premiums (taxes) paid by the high earner and the benefit (s)he gets. This is welfare.

No, this is citizenship.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________


LEGEND

PINK Unsupported Assertion
BLUE Investor Class
YELLOW Ooga Booga
GREEN Cheapeskate
RED Elitist
ORANGE Payoff

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. Ask anyone. Anyone.

"What is Social Security?"

If they have any clue at all, they'll say something like; "it's a program that you pay into while you work so that you will have some income when you retire".

I doubt you'll find anyone who would say "It's a free lunch where rich people and my kids pay to support me in my old age".

It's not me who lacks understanding, and FWIW, I'm in about the 30th income percentile.

[Armstead]

13. Didn't you listen. Forming a comission is more progressive.....(Sarcasm)

[tokenlib]

16. So the only safe people are "current recipients"...

Like I said on another post--Hillary is sharpening the knife to stab baby boomers in the back by slashing their benefits. All of us within 20 years of retirement who will truly need our social security benefits had better wake up.

Obama has the best idea--raise the cap and take Social Security off the table as an issue.

Listening to Hillary on S.S.--all I have to do is insert the word "corporate" to Randi Rhodes' accurate description of her.

[sandnsea]

29. I am so glad somebody else heard that

I swear why can't people hear what she is saying. Drives me batty. I posted about that and her "massive retaliation" and protectorate of the ME comments last night - horrifying stuff to any Democrat. Why are people not understanding this??

[tokenlib]

33. The quote has been used by republicans to hide their intent on S.S. n/t

[Justitia]

23. She's full of shit - as per usual. -eom

[sandnsea]

24. She said she was going to cut future benefits

She said she wasn't going to cut CURRENT BENEFITS, which means she's perfectly willing to cut future benefits. She has also said she would consider raising the retirement age. All to keep the top 10% from a tax increase??? I don't understand why she is protecting the top 10% of wage earners.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. The growth in benefits should be constrained.

Social security benefits are tied to inflation measures which are not very applicable to the lives of retirees. What do retirees care that the price of fuel goes up? - they're not commuting. What does it matter that the price of day care/tvs/tools/cars/diapers?

Given the spectrum of choices
a) turn Social Security into welfare,
b) raise taxes on future workers (whose incomes will not rise)
c) raise the retirement age
d) constrain future benefits growth

I pick D - and I'm pushing 50.

Don't overreact to the problem. Worst case scenario, in 30 years, Social Security can pay out 78% of what they predict the benefits will be - which is still a lot more than what they are currently paying.

[sandnsea]

27. Social Security hasn't kept up with inflation

because they've been screwing with the numbers. It was posted here a couple of days ago. Most seniors can't manage on the current benefits. If they cut them by 25%, well seniors will be eating cat food again. The price of gas absolutely matters to seniors. It affects the price of food and everything else seniors have to buy, and whether they can visit their grandchildren or anybody else they might want to see. Do you have any seniors that you give a shit about? I can't understand how you can be so out of touch with the lives of regular people.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Seniors are the only demographic whose incomes have risen.

There are a lot of "regular people" who are paying into the system, too. Do you have any working people that you give a shit about?

There is a good argument to be made that it is inequitable that social security benefits should rise faster than the incomes of the taxpayers who finance it.

Since 1983, I've been paying extra to the system so that it'd be solvent when I retire without unreasonably burdening the next generation. In many respects, it's been a huge success; the trust fund is now $2.2t dollars. The logic still holds true, I don't want my kids to have to pay more to finance social security benefits which have been arbitrarily inflated faster than their salaries. They'll have a hard enough time redeeming the bonds in which the trust fund was invested as it is.

[sandnsea]

34. Working people's FICA won't go up

In fact, with Obama, he is planning a credit to offset FICA for all workers, not just those with kids.

And I do not know where you got the idea social security was increasing faster than wages. The average benefit in 1953 was $1362. That would equate to around $11,000 today. Guess what today's average benefit is, around $1000 a month or $12,000 annual. Nearly the same. The average wage was $3139, guess what the average wage today is over $35,000, much higher than the $25,000 if wages had risen at the rate of inflation.

So you've paid more into the system than these previous generations, that money was loaned to the government, Bush gave it away to the wealthy in tax cuts - and you want to make the people who paid that money suffer??

Hillary is not your friend.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. I didn't realize this.

So, the Obama plan pays taxpayers social security premiums via an income tax credit?

I guess he is giving away ponies.

[Yossariant]

28. Balls.

The general fund owes Social Security in excess of $2 TRILLION dollars which was "borrowed" by Bush to fund his tax cuts for the rich.

Remember Al Gore's lock box? Well, he didn't become President.

Buy a clue.

Barack's (and Reagan's) plan to increase the revenues for Social Security is a scam.

[redqueen]

41. WTF? "Barack's (and Reagan's)"?

What does that mean?

Didn't Reagan IMPOSE the fucking cap to begin with? :shrug:

[redqueen]

44. Hello?

You wanna answer my question please?

Thanks.

[Orangepeel]

31. I think they should lift the cap and institute a floor

FICA tax starts with the first dollar earned, doesn't it? That's regressive, too.

[ShortnFiery]

32. Progressive = Pro-Corporate DLC Policies for the upper 1%. eom

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Hillary + Progressive = Oxymoron

[JoFerret]

38. Picking on Hillary's grasp of social and economic policy

is foolish.
She has an excellent grasp on this stuff. She also believes in universal health coverage. (Just wish she had adopted DK's position but her's is better than Obamas.)

[Vinca]

43. Hillary wouldn't know what progressive is if it hit her in the face.

Since she doesn't want to give us a hint about her social security plan, one can assume it's something the Republicans would buy into. Like privatization.