GRAPHIC: How could we possibly fix any Social Security shortfall?

[yurbud]

[against all enemies]

1. The Bush Plan, make those earning < 90K pay more.

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. Tax the working poor.

Taxes are only for the little people, ya know? :eyes:

[EVDebs]

3. Agreed. Even Republican Sen Lindsey Graham is saying $120K

is where the cap should be raised to. No hay problema ! Where is the crisis ? Bush just doesn't want to pay for anything...But we will with inflation or direct taxes.

There's no such thing as a free lunch President Bush.

[Tab]

4. That's very true

I can tell you that if you make more than the limit, once you've received that much for the year, it's no longer deducted from your paycheck.

So, if I made, say, $240,000 a year (that's $20,000 a month), my checks for Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr, and part of may all include a hefty Soc. Sec. deducation.

Checks written for the rest of the year have no such deduction, and as such, are noticeably fatter.

I know this has come up in the past as an obvious solution. Supposedly there is some philosophical reason relating to the inception of social security as regards taxing ALL money, regardless. It may be related to the fact that you are taxed in proportion to what you earn over a lifetime, and paid back accordingly. Someone who makes at the donation limit consistently their whole life will get larger SS checks than someone making minimum wage.

I think the "philosophical problem" is if that you get people donating, say, taxes on a full million of income, they'd be expecting to get that back upon retirement. That obviously won't solve the problem, so what you're stuck with is rejiggering the payout system such that you allow higher-income people to be taxed, but understanding they'll never see that money again in their lifetime.

This basically would require a rewrite of the social security system as to funding and philosophy.

That's not to say it may not be the way to go, but for now, it's probably not doable. Moving the way you advocate gets away from the "get back what you put in" concept, which, although not perfect, has at least the veneer of capitalism to it. The other way (everyone donates, but not each get equal amounts) is a much more socialized, if not communistic, approach, and is likely to get under heavy criticism, as I believe has happened every other time this comes up.

Not that I disagree that it's the way to go, just that it's not quite as simple an argument to make as one might think.

[yurbud]

5. If we ran it all the way up the income scale, it could be a lower %

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

6. wow...this makes it so much easier and logical

to get the point across...why not have a system that EVERYONE PAYS INTO...and make sure it isnt just the poor?

this is a great graphic

[Acryliccalico]

7. We need to post

the pie that shows what % of the population earns, so we can compare them. Then we can see who is paying what.

[Junkdrawer]

8. They did just the opposite...

They used the SS surpluses to justify the huge 10 Trillion dollar tax-cuts-for-the-rich, now they're using the projected deficits to justify the cuts.

[Junkdrawer]

9. Dupe