More Social Security Tax May Add Billions

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON - Increasing Social Security (news - web sites) taxes for the wealthiest Americans could raise more than $100 billion a year — enough to shore up the retirement system's finances for 75 years, pay for President Bush (news - web sites)'s plan for private accounts, or part of each.

As it is, only the first $90,000 of a workers' wages are subject to the tax, but Bush says he's willing to consider changing that.

Raising taxes, even if on the rich, is a risky political proposition. Both Republicans and Democrats distanced themselves from the idea Thursday.

"I don't know too many Republicans who are interested in doing that," said Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa. "I personally see this as one of the least attractive options."

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said his party would be attacked for advocating tax increases if it embraced the idea. "We're not going to fall for that," he said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=693&e=4&u=/ap/20050218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/social_security_taxes

[Warren Stupidity]

1. People making 90K are not rich.

They are middle class. Raising the cap, which by the way is inflation adjusted in lock-step with the benefits cola, is bush rolling back his stupid-ass unsupportable tax cuts without having to pay the political cost of rolling back his stupid-ass unsupportable tax cuts AND doing so while leaving the truly wealth unscathed.

The cap-fix is regressive bullshit. The real fix is to crap the stupid-ass taxcuts from term one.

[Sub Atomic]

6. I respectfully disagree.

We're talking about social security here, not the nation's debt nor our deficit.

Raising the income cap on social security taxes will ensure the system will be solvent for years and years and years to come.

This is the only solution for this mess. And the politicians who won't do it for whatever reason, perhaps it's time for them to go.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. raise the cap

and they will roll the surpluss into the budget and use it to fund more wars and more tax give-aways to the truly wealthy, all susidized by east-coast/west-coast middle class working americans. Every last dime will get spent and then as the boomer retirement puts a crimp in their corruption party they will still reneg on their obligations.

No thanks. Roll back the tax cuts first. Use that revenue to reduce the annual deficit. Get the federal finances back to something reseembling the shape they were in when Clinton left office. In 2042 or 2055 or whatever, when the trust fund T-Bills run out, then raise the cap.

[EVDebs]

2. Looks like Bush's Private Accounts will have to go by the wayside

just as predicted for this 'dead horse'. Whip it good 'un, Bushy boy !

[bluedeminredstate]

3. What is so scary

about saying that those who make more should pay more? Politicians seem terrified of articulating this, yet I think most Americans would agree that it's the fairest way to tax people. Our tax system always was based on a PROGRSSIVE system, now the repugs have made the very idea some kind of commie, librul plot that really shows hatred for America.

That aside, why should the cut off income for SS be 90,000? I don't understand how the figure was arrived at, but it seems like it could be higher and still be "reasonable."

[koopie57]

9. I was thinking about this

and I agree the ones with more should pay more because they are making their money off of the lower income people ... No? Or doesn't that make sense? I don't know, just wondering.

[SoCalDem]

13. It was raised during Reagan's tenure as a way for the boomers

to PREPAY our own social security and to shore up the benefits for the "then retired" people.. So when people accuse the boomerts of being greedy, my blood boils.. We have been paying more than our predecessors for almost our entire working lives, and doing it during many recessions, "to-the-moon" rising medical insurance costs, and 15+% mortgage loans in the early 80's, just as we were starting out..

This kind of prepayment only works if the money is earmarked, and then NOT STOLEN for other purposes..

All that "extra money" that was withheld from us and our employers was basically just stolen..Only we know who stole it, and they even "promised to pay it back".. That's even worse..

[hadrons]

4. Reid saying the right thing ....

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said his party would be attacked for advocating tax increases if it embraced the idea. "We're not going to fall for that," he said.

I think the $90,000 ceiling should be raised, but let the Repukes do it

[William Bloode]

5. That was very smart.

And a nice harball tactic. The more i see of Mr. Reid here lately the more i like him.

[LiberallyInclined]

8. Since "private accounts" are intended mostly to help the market/brokers-

how about a 2-3% FICA-type tax on capital gains to help pay for it, transition-wise. the money collected would go into the SS fund, rather than the personal accounts.

[Festivito]

10. Tax workers more to pay tribute to the UBER-RICH by the billions.

< Sarcasm >
Sure, why should extremely wealthy people help pay for disabled persons. Instead let us increase the cost to those below the overly-rich, then pass the generated cash-flow to the overly-rich leaving the future secure for them and slightly more tenuous for us, the workers, the poor workers and the well-off workers.

Let us pay tribute to the ones who have not to work at all.
< / sarcasm >

[FreeStateDemocrat]

11. Eliminate the cap completely and cut the rate for everyone.

Tap into those multi-million dollar executive salaries and minimize the impact on people who make 90,000 or more and would "suffer." But that would help working class Americans so it will never happen.

[Mark E. Smith]

12. Republican Tax Politics Vs Democratic Tax Politics

Democrats have traditionally advocated enlightened govt services for the citizens of this blessed land, but have always somehow believed that people would recognize their responsibility to pay their part to support them.

Republicans, on the other hand, inform people that they have the right to continue receiving govt services, while at the same time implicitly intimating to certain segments of the citizenry that they are really kind of special and shouldn't have to pay for them. Which is, of course, very popular with some folks. getting somethng for nothing always being something people enjoy hearing.

Of course, the Republican scheme eventually leads to the massive borrowing we see both nationally and in such states as my California where the demagogic Steroid Arnie continually shoots his big mouth off about big govt while at the same time signing off on billions of dollars loans that keeps the gravy train on the tracks.