I'm starting to wonder why Democrats raise taxes

[Danny Bateman]

 

On a semi-related note... I didn't know until recently that social security is capped at $100k income. That is so incredibly stupid and if they'd remove the cap we wouldn't have a problem with social security.

Yep...always thought that was pretty stupid.

 

All these congressmen sitting around talking about how horrible it is that SS is going broke and it's so hard to fix it.......when they themselves aren't paying in as much (as a percentage) as the rest of us.

 

It truly is a perfect example of using an issue to garner votes but not interested in actually fixing it.

 

 

Bernie was absolutely going to raise the SS cap. Clinton would have had to as well to keep campaign promises since she was saying she wasn't going to raise the retirement age to draw from the fund. It's honestly the simplest way to keep the program solvent without compromising quality.

 

I feel like either of them would've gotten broad support from Democrats to raise the cap. Unfortunately, I doubt they could've gotten a single GOP vote because it would mean penalizing the rich.

[JJ Husker]

Hmmmm, I wonder why we have a constantly and rapidly increasing debt. Republicans cut taxes and all politicians (notably Democrats) spend more money than is available. Just doesn't make any sense.

 

Maybe a smart person could come up with 2 solutions.

[JJ Husker]

On a semi-related note... I didn't know until recently that social security is capped at $100k income. That is so incredibly stupid and if they'd remove the cap we wouldn't have a problem with social security.

Sure, just soak the people who can afford to pay more, right? How is it fair to further tax someone for a benefit they won't recoup and that will not pay them more than those under $100k?

 

Social Security was supposed to be for retirement income not just another means of transferring wealth. I pay in plenty, most of which I'll never see in return. Why should I pay even more to help keep a failed system solvent?

 

I'm 53 years old and have paid thousands upon thousands into SS. I would still opt out today and kiss all of it goodbye if they promised they'd never take another dime from me.

[Moiraine]

 

On a semi-related note... I didn't know until recently that social security is capped at $100k income. That is so incredibly stupid and if they'd remove the cap we wouldn't have a problem with social security.

Sure, just soak the people who can afford to pay more, right? How is it fair to further tax someone for a benefit they won't recoup and that will not pay them more than those under $100k?

 

Social Security was supposed to be for retirement income not just another means of transferring wealth. I pay in plenty, most of which I'll never see in return. Why should I pay even more to help keep a failed system solvent?

 

I'm 53 years old and have paid thousands upon thousands into SS. I would still opt out today and kiss all of it goodbye if they promised they'd never take another dime from me.

I'd like to ask this of all people who lean right, not just you and not just people who use the board.

 

Are we not better as a society when we look out for the poorest among us? I think things would be a lot worse for all of us if we didn't do that. Also, I don't have faith in enough people doing it of their own volition. I would gladly pay the full 6.2% when my salary goes over the max. There are a lot of things my taxes pay for that I don't benefit from but society as a whole benefits from, and I'm fine with paying. The more people we keep on their feet the better. I'm fine with having some people who worked all their lives earning some more back than they paid in, even if it means I have to pay extra. If I pay extra it's because I can afford to.

 

Anyhow, I know you aren't saying this right now, but there are many Republicans who support a flat tax. Why are those same people not calling for a flat pay into social security tax? A flat pay of social security tax would mean no cap on it.

 

Because right now:

 

If you make $200,000, you pay 3.66% of your income.

If you make $118,000 you pay 6.20% of your income.

 

I don't hear the flat tax people wanting that. Probably because it would raise taxes on the people who earn more money and not increase taxes on people who make less money. Funny how that works.

[zoogs]

^ Those aren't marginal rates?

[JJ Husker]

 

 

On a semi-related note... I didn't know until recently that social security is capped at $100k income. That is so incredibly stupid and if they'd remove the cap we wouldn't have a problem with social security.

Sure, just soak the people who can afford to pay more, right? How is it fair to further tax someone for a benefit they won't recoup and that will not pay them more than those under $100k?

Social Security was supposed to be for retirement income not just another means of transferring wealth. I pay in plenty, most of which I'll never see in return. Why should I pay even more to help keep a failed system solvent?

I'm 53 years old and have paid thousands upon thousands into SS. I would still opt out today and kiss all of it goodbye if they promised they'd never take another dime from me.

I'd like to ask this of all people who lean right, not just you and not just people who use the board.

Are we not better as a society when we look out for the poorest among us? I think things would be a lot worse for all of us if we didn't do that. Also, I don't have faith in enough people doing it of their own volition. I would gladly pay the full 6.2% when my salary goes over the max. There are a lot of things my taxes pay for that I don't benefit from but society as a whole benefits from, and I'm fine with paying.

Anyhow, I know you aren't saying this right now, but there are many Republicans who support a flat tax. Why are those same people not calling for a flat pay into social security tax? A flat pay of social security tax would mean no cap on it.

Because right now:

If you make $200,000, you pay 3.66% of your income.

If you make $118,000 you pay 6.20% of your income.

I don't hear the flat tax people wanting that. Probably because it would raise taxes on the people who earn more money and not increase taxes on people who make less money. Funny how that works.

I don't have any problem paying a reasonable amount to help the poorest and neediest. Problem is it doesn't seem like a reasonable amount. It seems like it gets sucked down an endless hole and doesn't do any good. I could give away every last cent I make and it wouldn't make the slightest dent in it. So, considering that, there should be a reasonable amount that can be earmarked from my income for this purpose. How much of my work and effort should I be happy to give up? Is 35% to 40% enough? That is about where it is with federal and state income tax and fica. You want more?

 

Also, there is a little problem with your numbers. I'm self employed so I also get the privilege of paying the employers matching share. So that basically doubles my SS contribution immediately. Mind you, this is for a program that is supposed to insure MY retirement income. They take multiple tens of thousands from me and trickle it back so slowly that I will never live long enough to get 30% of it back. Exactly how many people does this one person need to support? How many is fair? How much is enough?

 

And btw, not all of it stops at the cap. The Medicare portion continues. I'm really tired right now and can't recall what all the actual percentages are.

[Moiraine]

^ Those aren't marginal rates?

 

I don't know what you're asking or if you're replying to me but I just googled it before posting.

 

The cap is $118,000 and "You contribute 6.2 percent of your income. Workers pay 6.2 percent of their earnings into the Social Security system."

 

6.2% of 118,000 is 7,136

 

7,136/200,000 = 3.66%

 

Did I screw that up?

[Moiraine]

While we're talking about stupid things, the taxation of social security income is probably the dumbest tax there is.

[JJ Husker]

While we're talking about stupid things, the taxation of social security income is probably the dumbest tax there is.

We can agree on that. The song Tax Man by SRV comes to mind.

[JJ Husker]

Why aren't we questioning the efficiency of the system rather than simply saying more, more more?

 

If I had been in control of my social security money, there would be enough to provide a real retirement income for myself and probably 5 others. Why do we accept that it's okay for our government to turn that into a crappy pittance for about 4 people?

[zoogs]

 

^ Those aren't marginal rates?

 

I don't know what you're asking or if you're replying to me but I just googled it before posting.

 

The cap is $118,000 and "You contribute 6.2 percent of your income. Workers pay 6.2 percent of their earnings into the Social Security system."

 

6.2% of 118,000 is 7,136

 

7,136/200,000 = 3.66%

 

Did I screw that up?

 

Oh, yes, I see. At first glance it read like 6.2% of the first 118k, and 3.66% of any amount from 118k to 200k.

 

So the marginal social security tax rate above 118k is zero, is what you're saying. That's quite a good deal.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

^ Those aren't marginal rates?

I don't know what you're asking or if you're replying to me but I just googled it before posting.The cap is $118,000 and "You contribute 6.2 percent of your income. Workers pay 6.2 percent of their earnings into the Social Security system."6.2% of 118,000 is 7,1367,136/200,000 = 3.66%Did I screw that up?

Oh, yes, I see. At first glance it read like 6.2% of the first 118k, and 3.66% of any amount from 118k to 200k.So the marginal social security tax rate above 118k is zero, is what you're saying. That's quite a good deal.

What's a good deal? The fact that there is some income not subjected to full maximum taxation? Woohoo, great deal. I guess I should be happy they don't just take it all (as the song goes)

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

^ Those aren't marginal rates?

I don't know what you're asking or if you're replying to me but I just googled it before posting.The cap is $118,000 and "You contribute 6.2 percent of your income. Workers pay 6.2 percent of their earnings into the Social Security system."6.2% of 118,000 is 7,1367,136/200,000 = 3.66%Did I screw that up?

Oh, yes, I see. At first glance it read like 6.2% of the first 118k, and 3.66% of any amount from 118k to 200k.So the marginal social security tax rate above 118k is zero, is what you're saying. That's quite a good deal.

What's a good deal? The fact that there is some income not subjected to full maximum taxation? Woohoo, great deal. I guess I should be happy they don't just take it all (as the song goes)

I know I'm not gonna convince you of anything but... still replying.

 

Let's say hypothetically Bob makes $138,000 and Joe makes $20,000. Joe's paying in $1,200. Bob's paying $7,316.

 

Joe has $18,800 leftover. Bob has $130,684 leftover (yes, I know there are other taxes).

 

To Joe that $1,200 he just paid in might mean he can afford to go to the dentist or a doctor or keep his car on the road. To Bob it's not vital for survival. Bob can easily afford to pay another $1,200 and what Bob's losing isn't causing him to be one step away from disaster. This is kind of how I see it. If Joe should have to pay 6.2%, so should Bob. His $1,200 is a lot more vital for survival than Bob's $7,326 or even $8,526, and he's paying it.

 

Now there is an argument in there for earning that much money based on hard work and skills and all that. I can see that argument and agree with it to an extent. But if I see 2 people working 40 hours a week from age 22-70 or 18-70, I don't see one of them as being worth 7 times more than the other as a human being. That's why I'm okay with people who make more money paying more taxes. With SS the people earning more should at least pay the SAME proportion.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

 

^ Those aren't marginal rates?

I don't know what you're asking or if you're replying to me but I just googled it before posting.The cap is $118,000 and "You contribute 6.2 percent of your income. Workers pay 6.2 percent of their earnings into the Social Security system."6.2% of 118,000 is 7,1367,136/200,000 = 3.66%Did I screw that up?

Oh, yes, I see. At first glance it read like 6.2% of the first 118k, and 3.66% of any amount from 118k to 200k.So the marginal social security tax rate above 118k is zero, is what you're saying. That's quite a good deal.

What's a good deal? The fact that there is some income not subjected to full maximum taxation? Woohoo, great deal. I guess I should be happy they don't just take it all (as the song goes)

I know I'm not gonna convince you of anything but... still replying.

Let's say hypothetically Bob makes $138,000 and Joe makes $20,000. Joe's paying in $1,200. Bob's paying $7,316.

Joe has $18,800 leftover. Bob has $130,684 leftover (yes, I know there are other taxes).

To Joe that $1,200 he just paid in might mean he can afford to go to the dentist or a doctor or keep his car on the road. To Bob it's not vital for survival. Bob can easily afford to pay another $1,200 and what Bob's losing isn't causing him to be one step away from disaster. This is kind of how I see it. If Joe should have to pay 6.2%, so should Bob. His $1,200 is a lot more vital for survival than Bob's $7,326 or even $8,526, and he's paying it.

Now there is an argument in there for earning that much money based on hard work and skills and all that. I can see that argument and agree with it to an extent. But if I see 2 people working 40 hours a week from age 22-70 or 18-70, I don't see one of them as being worth 7 times more than the other as a human being. That's why I'm okay with people who make more money paying more taxes. With SS the people earning more should at least pay the SAME proportion.

I don't necessarily disagree with much of that. My point is, why are we focused on taking more dollars from Bob when the primary problem seems to be Sam (who is taking the money from both of them) who apparently is mismanaging the funds. And we can't ignore the other amounts also being taken and the proportional disparity. If it is fair to take the same proportion for social security, when that means taking more from Bob, then shouldn't the other taxes being taken also be in the same proportion? Joe is basically paying zero percent on his remaining $18,000 while Bob is paying 30some percent on his 130. It's fair one way but not the other? At what point do should we stop looking at the percentages and start considering how many total dollars are being taken from Bob and subsequently wasted by Sam?

 

BTW, I agree with you that both Bob and Joe are of equal value as human beings and both are deserving of receiving equal distributions from the program. What if there are enough Bobs but Sam screws it up? Is the solution always just to take more from Bob? What happens when there are more Joes than Bobs?

[Moiraine]

I'll reply to your post tomorrow.

 

One more thing to add and maybe we can find some common ground here.

 

If someone works 40 hours a week from age 18-70, do they deserve to have enough $ to pay for food and shelter and basic necessities until they die at the average life expectancy age of 79?

 

 

I know some people would say no but I think most would say yes.

 

The problem I have with people wanting to get rid of social security is they don't often mention what we would do for the people who are earning more back than they paid in (which helps them survive). One thing we could do that most on the right would fight against is raise minimum wages so that those people can save enough for their retirement.

 

Right now the living wage in Omaha is $9.80. If I'm calculating correctly, it's $9.19 if we get rid of social security. If we pretend living wage is the same for a 70-79 year old, a living wage that would pay through retirement age would be $10.78. But 70-80 year olds tend to need more $.

 

(This is a bit of a segue but it totally makes sense for Nebraskans to be conservative about minimum wage. Our minimum wage is very close to being at the living wage for an individual with no kids. The same can't be said for the coasts).