Dem Party position on Tax changes and Social Security seem visible in

[ibid]

Senator Grassley's remarks - just read below and see if you agree!

:-)

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050504/NEWS09/505040319/1056&template=printart
Grassley talked to voters about modifying some of the ideas on the table, but opposes lifting the cap on payroll taxes entirely

Grassley: Social Security proposal needs tweaking

'Everything's on the table,' the senator says about possible changes to the program.

By THOMAS BEAUMONT
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

Manchester, Ia. - U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley said Tuesday that Iowans are no closer to embracing personal accounts as an option for Social Security than they were more than two months ago when President Bush began traveling the nation as the accounts' chief advocate.<snip>

Grassley said he was open to raising the income level subject to payroll taxes from $90,000 to $160,000, as has been proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican.

But he said in Elkader that removing the cap entirely would make the United States the highest-taxing nation in the world.

That, Grassley said, would "destroy our whole economy."

=========================================================
From the Wall Street Journal story on Social Security as quoted in ABCNote:

"Some Democratic aides on Capitol Hill said privately that the new details of the president's plan were pressing them to consider eventually putting forward their own fix . . . "

"Senate Republicans are considering seeking passage of a Social Security bill that abandons private accounts in favor of simply shoring up the program's long-term solvency through approaches such as the one Mr. Bush has embraced. If Mr. Thomas could push his own plan through the House, a conference committee from both chambers could fashion a compromise and dare reluctant moderates in both parties to defeat it on a final up-or-down vote."

DOES ANYONE HAVE A REASON WHY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY POSITION SHOULD NOT BE NO TAX INCREASE FOR THOSE UNDER $90,000 - AND FAIRNESS REQUIRES THAT SOCIAL SECURITY COVER ALL INCOME - SO TAX ALL INCOME AND INCREASE BENEFITS FOR ANY INCOME INCREASE, USING CURRENT FORMULA.

AND TO ANSWER SENATOR GRASSLEY, ALLOW A FIT TAX DEDUCTION FOR SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES PAID - BUT NO DEDUCTION ON THE ALT MIN TAX CALCULATION - BUT INCREASE THE ALT MIN STANDARD DEDUCTION.

[bunkerbuster1]

1. If I had a dime for every time a reThug cried wolf

about a tax hike "destroying the economy", I'd be looking at how raising the cap would affect my own finances.

And I'd probably not sweat it much, methinks.

[ibid]

2. very true - it only affects 6% of the population.

:-)