Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike"(same rate-just no wage cap)

[papau]

The Edwards wage cap idea is to exempt income above the current wage cap to about $200,000, and then start again to impose the payroll tax of 12.4% (half employee and half employer)on income above $200,000. Clinton has said no to any benefit cuts including retirement wage increases - but has not suggested an adjustment or removal in the wage cap, or indeed any revenue increasers, saying a balanced budget is all that is needed (actuarially speaking I think she is more likely correct than not - but I'd like to remove the cap anyway and offset the revenue increase by a revenue decrease obtained by dropping the tax from 12.4% to 10.4%.)

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3638710&page=1

Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike
Democratic Presidential Candidate Suggests Taxing Those Who Make More Than $97,000 Per Year

By TEDDY DAVIS Sept. 22, 2007 —

<snip>"If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,000," Obama wrote this week in an Iowa newspaper, "we could eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."

Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday's Quad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would be paid by employees and half would be paid by employers.<snip>

Eliminating the Social Security tax cap without changing the benefit formula could undermine support for the program among the roughly five percent of Americans who earn more than $97,000 per year.

"It would be a radical change in how the program has been designed," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a non-partisan group that advocates a balanced budget. "It would end the contributory idea of Social Security, where you get back something for what you put in."<snip>

===============================================================================================
THE ABOVE STATEMENTS BY BIXBY OF THE CONCORD COALITION ARE WRONG - AS IS THE ABCNEWS STATEMENT THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A BENEFIT FORMULA CHANGE. WITH NO WAGE CAP THE CURRENT BENEFIT FORMULA WILL APPLY THE 15% RATE - THE CURRENT FINAL RATE USED FOR DETERMINING THE BENEFIT AWARDED FOR INCOME FROM $4100 PER MONTH TO THE CURRENT WAGE CAP - TO THE INCOME FROM $4100 PER MONTH TO THE TOTAL ACTUALLY REPORTED AS WAGES - IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE SOCIAL SECURITY PIA AND CORRESPONDING MAXIMUM FAMILY BENEFIT.

AND THE GOP'S CLUB FOR GROWTH ALSO LIES WHEN IT SAYS THAT THE RICH GETTING ONLY A SMALL INCREASE IN BENEFIT - THE 15% FACTOR ON INCOME ABOVE THE CURRENT WAGE CAP - MEANS PER CLUB FOR GROWTH SPOKESPERSON NACHAMA SOLOVEICHIK (WHY NOT A GROVER NORQUIST QUOTE - WHO KNOWS?) THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS THUS TURNED INTO A WELFARE PROGRAM.

ANY PROGRESSIVE FEATURE IN ANY PROGRAM MEANS IT IS WELFARE TO THESE PEOPLE.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Might Be A Nice Start

How about raising the tax on unearned income (called "capital gains" these days) so that it's the same as taxes on the workin' stiff? The Predator Class only pays taxes of 17% or so, because all of their income is "capital gains". Workin' folks pay tax at twice that rate, on average. That is fucked beyond words.

Let's go back to the days when Eisenhower was president, and both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans - and they maintained a 91% top tax bracket.

[papau]

2. tax earnings on capital at the same rate as wage income - and see through all "trusts" so

assets and income can't be hidden - and the increase in the amount of tax paid by the top 5% would a multiple of what is now collected - I'd estimate based on my few decades dealing with the very rich that their tax bill would be at a minimum 5 times what they pay today - meaning we would not have to tax anyone other than the top 5%.