Market Currents
Social Security is beginning to pay out more than it takes in, but Robert Reich says there's an...
-
Thursday, February 17, 2011, 10:25 AM ETSocial Security is beginning to pay out more than it takes in, but Robert Reich says there's an easy fix: Raise the ceiling on earnings that apply to the payroll tax. There’s no reason even to consider reducing Social Security benefits or raising the age of eligibility.
Other date
Latest Articles
This news story has 31 comments:
These phonies always pick on SS because its such an easy target.
Let me opt out its money money.
Why not to a structured opt out based on age group. The gov. should come up with some proposed plans that will keep SS solvent for those who have paid into it for decades. Then, do a statistically accurate survey to see people feel about the various plans. The most attractive and solvent plan should be used.
For example, I would surely opt out of any future potential SS benefits by reducing my contribution by about 65%. The 35% I would still pay would help keep it solvent and would be a "contribution to society" in a sense. I don't know how many others would have the same feelings about it, but most people in their 20's like myself are probably not relying on any SS benefits in the future anyhow.
My thinking is those that decide to opt-out will still contribute a percentage towards future retirees who do not opt-out, but also understanding those that opt-out will not receive any benefits. Anyone under the age of say 18 will no longer have the option to receive social security, but still may need to contribute a small percentage for those future retirees. Over time it would gradually phase out to no cash inflows or outflows.
Of course, figuring out the math on how that would work is quite the challenge, and sticking to it over the decades would be even harder.
No my friend the democratic house run by Tip Oneil raised SS taxes as a demand of giving Reagon the other tax reductions they passed.
Remember, all tax bills originate in the house and the Dems controlled the house.
Isn't bipartisenship great?.
Here is the crux of it:
"Remember, the Social Security payroll tax applies only to earnings up to a certain ceiling. (That ceiling is now $106,800.) The ceiling rises every year according to a formula roughly matching inflation.
Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security... Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.
It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent."
Well, at some point, the economy tanks or there is an uprising.
Do we tinker with the system to alleviate the wealth gap?
Then we could add on state and local taxes and maybe, Mikey, you'd enjoy paying 120% of all your earnings in taxes. Oh, nothing left to live on? Too bad, go on welfare.
Your point is a good one but if the Pols had us pay on all income, do you really think they'd reduce the rate? You can bet they wouldn't.
Another problem with SS is that most think it is all about retirement money. It is not. There is a huge death and disability portion to SS that was added after the initional law was enacted.
"intelligent, practical, and honest men and women."
Solutions will be implemented by congress and the president and I have never before seen any politician referred to by the above quote.
Therefore, I don't hold out as much hope as you do. I hope your are right and I'm wrong but I won't bet on it.
Between you and me, I'm not betting on it either.