Why in hell can't the so called bipartisan commission propose a lifting of the SS cap?

[rateyes]

All income over $95,000 is not subject to Social Security tax. Lift that cap, and Social Security is saved. No need for cuts.

Edited for dumbass mistake in the subject line...thanks fellow DUers.

[More_liberal_than_mo]

1. Actually it's now $106,800

but yes the wealthy stop paying early in the year while the rest of us get soaked.

[Kolesar]

2. can or can't ? eom

[boppers]

3. They proposed that.

They also proposed means testing.

Neither of those those two by themselves are enough to eliminate the deficit, or work down the debt.

[Dragonfli]

7. Probably because that fund is not part of the budget or the deficit.

Just sayin. You are right, neither proposal has anything to do with the deficit.
SS is running a surplus.

Did you think it was part of the budget? You have been lied to if you did.

[boppers]

11. SS obligations are over 2.3 trillion of the national debt, and counting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

The surplus was invested in treasury bills, turning a monetary surplus into part of national debt.

That long term debt has to be paid from the budget. <---Is this something you disagree with?

[Dragonfli]

15. We should start by stiffing China then if the full faith of the US is that meaningless.

We both know they are more than IOUs so stop pretending, If you borrow you must pay back what you owe, stealing money from the guys wallet to pay him back is not an option if our bonds are to mean anything at all, the truth is that any obligation of debt that is owed from the budget is owed from the tax cuts and wars that borrowed the money from SS and OTHER creditors. It is not the obligation of the Chinese or SS to pay the debt that is owed to them.

If I borrow 20 dollars out of my rent money for beer, I can not just tell the landlord I will pay him less when the first comes around.

To renege on any debt turns your credit to shit and anyone that says it is OK is plainly condoning theft.
Did the budget just steal the money or did it borrow it? Which is it?

You act as if it was the government borrowing from itself when in fact it was borrowing from the actual people (individuals) that placed there money there via FICA specifically to be payed to retires including each one of those individuals that payed it.

We that payed into FICA should not be stolen from any more than any other creditor should.
If the policy is to steal from creditors then do so to all creditors equally.

Theft is not an option, sorry, if it were, then our credit really would be shit.

[boppers]

31. "our credit really would be shit"

Yes, that's truly the heart of the question.

Hence, the commission, to see if we can somehow actually pay what's been promised.

[stevedeshazer]

4. I think you mean 'can't', my friend.

But that is an excellent question.

For those who don't know, Social Security taxes are only charged on the first $106,000 of income.

If millionaires paid their fair share, we'd have no problem.

[jberryhill]

5. Because - like all commission reports - it won't matter anyway

Why can they propose it?

Because it is a piece of paper, with words on it, that isn't going to do a damned thing to Medicare or Social Security.

But, good golly, let's pull our hair out for a couple of weeks.

[BeFree]

6. Look>>> over >>> there-->>>>>

They simply must do something to hide the real fact that there would be plenty of money for increasing benefits if they hadn't raided the reserves and spent all the reserve's money.

But now they either have to borrow more money or raise taxes. Or chop off Granny's SS bare bones benefits.

[Dragonfli]

18. For some reason the think it is A OK to turn a loan into a theft

In other words, even tho individuals put money in the fund for retirement (not tax cuts or wars), they borrowed the excess and just when we need it back they want to steal it outright by doing things like cut granny's SS bare bones benefits rather than to honor what was supposed to be just a loan.

It's fun to steal from old people, they don't fight very well and if they do - you just break their tiny little arms.
Do they have the balls to steal from China the same way?

[hughee99]

8. I thought the bipartisan commission was about the deficit and debt?

Social Security goes to the "social security trust fund" which is not part of the government budget. If you removed the cap completely and made the FICA rate 90% on all income, SS would have a ton of money, but the federal budget would still be F'd up.

[Dragonfli]

9. Finally someone who knows what all civic minded people should have learned by now

My God it's as if no one has any education at all on what the program actually is.

Thank you!!!

[boppers]

12. The trust fund invested in T-bills.

Thus, converting it into national debt.

[hughee99]

14. Not really, it's only converted into debt when the government spends

the money it gets for the T-Bills, above and beyond it's normal budget. If the budget is balanced, there's no deficit no matter how many T-Bills the government buys. If the government runs at a deficit, it doesn't matter how many T-Bills the SS trust fund buys.

Yes, SS owns a portion of the debt, but the government issues those T-Bills in either case whether they're bought by SS or some other entity.

[boppers]

19. No, it's required to be counted as debt when purchased. By law.

"The securities issued under this scheme constitute the assets of the Social Security Trust Fund. Because under current federal law these securities represent future obligations that must be repaid, the federal government includes these securities within the overall national debt."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

[Dragonfli]

23. under current federal law these securities represent future obligations that must be repaid

Not cut in order to avoid repaying them, do you get it now?

edited to add:
I honestly don't think you did it on purpose, but you entirely missed the point of the post you just responded to.
The debt only has to be repaid as needed, not all at once, that is what he is saying.

It was collected and put into T-bills for the future, they are by design meant to be redeemed as necessary, the entire reason there is so much of a surplus is because it was built up on purpose specifically to cover boomers, the FICA taxes were raised to address exactly that.

It needs a bit more to last more than 30 years (after that they say they still would have 70 percent of what is needed), no one I know denies that, but it is not part of the deficit that must be cut, it is part of the deficit only because the knuckleheads didn't just save the cash instead, they thought it was safe in T-bills and it is if they don't just steal it but rather pay it back as agreed. Making it part of deficit reduction is quite simply absurd as the fund is solvent and is functioning as intended.

I don't know the numbers but permanent solvency is as simple as raising the cap by X amount. At one time I knew the amount and it was not a dramatically large raise of the cap but rather a somewhat modest one.

[hughee99]

25. And this being the case, the MORE SS surplus you collect

the more T-bills are bought, and therefore, the larger future debt obligation (provided they issue more T-bills instead of issuing the same number and selling a greater percentage of them to SS). Yes, raising the FICA cap does good things for the SS trust fund, but not anything to reduce the deficit or debt.

[Dragonfli]

27. The real question is why are all the politicians and all the pundits

Pretending that no one knows this and why are they falsely calling Social Security part of the budget?
The only answer I can come up with is they want to keep the money (steal it) and claim it needed to be done to balance the budget that they are pretending it is part of.

Either that or they are severely mentally challenged or are unaware somehow that SS has nothing to do with the budget and is a seperate fund - that I find to be implausible.

Can anyone else come up with another explanation for this? Please?
I don't want it to be about them stealing our retirement fund, I sincerely am looking for another explanation for all this feigned ignorance.

No one, no one at all is pointing out that this has no place at all in a deficit reduction plan (not even Keith or Rachel).

[boppers]

29. Because interest on the debt is a large cost.

The more surplus we have in Social Security, and the more T-Bills sold, the greater the debt load, and the greater the long term interest that has to be paid on the debt.

[Dragonfli]

32. Is it the fault of the recipients of the fund? Taxes should be raised on those that raided it

Those that have gained from the looting, mostly those that received the tax cuts and war profits it was looted for, this plan gives them a tax break while expecting the victims to pay for being victimized. It seems you support robbing those that put the money in while rewarding those that stole it.

Give me the numbers on the interest, this is total bullshit and anyone who supports it should be ashamed of themselves.

It is not fair to steal what is owed from those that it is owed to. Find the number of the interest per year and I suggest raising the taxes on those wealthy that have benefited from the theft to cover the loss, that is what I would support.

What you support it would seem is stealing and I just am not into stealing from the regular earners just as they grow old and vulnerable while giving the thieves even more money to reward them for the crime.

A debt is still a debt and BY LAW it is required that it be paid back, not stolen as they and you propose while giving even more tax cuts to those that are largely the thieves.

I am really starting to see the light here and where you and the administration stand stand and it is rather disgusting.

Unless of course you don't know what you are talking about.

[boppers]

33. I support something... by pointing out facts?

Nice strawman. No, I don't support stealing, I support facts. Just because you don't like those facts doesn't mean that I support some sort of opinion you hold in your mind about those people who offer facts you don't like.

Here's a handy link to interest costs (and debt):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

In the same article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Interest_expense

454 billion dollars total in 2008, 212 billion was social security debt costs.

Have a chart!


A billion here, a billion there, and it starts to add up!

[Dragonfli]

34. The fund is still seperate and solvent for quite some time.

The debt owed must be paid by law, cutting SS in order to avoid paying what is owed is exactly as I described it, theft.

Rather than try to weasel out of paying what is owed, raise taxes on the corporations that pay 0 taxes and the wealthy that pay much less than at any time the country was doing well.

It is either pay back as agreed or it is theft, I don't care why they want to steal it, I would say stop listening to those that made the poor choices like borrowing from SS knowing interest was involved.

It is not the fault of the fund that it was borrowed from (the peoples property) or that debts incur interest.

Should we make cuts in what we owe China (70 cents on the dollar perhaps?) to avoid paying the interest? I don't think they will go for that and neither should any holder of T-bills regardless of the rational.

Yes it does add up, just like really large tax cuts for the richest and 0 tax being paid by many Corporations. Unfunded wars (they used to raise taxes to fund them when sanity ruled)
It also adds up when billionaire hedge fund guys pay only capital gains (a tax rate for them that is smaller than my rate was when I made 25 k.

It is still theft.

No matter how many words are used to justify it.
Raise money the way they did it when the country was strong, progressive taxation rather than resorting to stealing from granma's pension
There really is nothing else to say.

[boppers]

35. You might not have heard the worst of the deficit/debt commission.

One suggestion was to increase taxation.... on social security pension payments.

No, really.

All kinds of totally crazy shit made the draft.

[hughee99]

26. Dupe. n/t

[boppers]

30. I didn't miss that.

The trust fund increases the debt, and increased debt comes with increased deficit costs. Simple as that.

"it is part of the deficit only because the knuckleheads didn't just save the cash instead, they thought it was safe in T-bills"

Exactly. They took a program that was supposed to be outside of the budget.... and then put it back into the budget.

"Making it part of deficit reduction is quite simply absurd"

Well, there's a difference between ongoing deficit reduction, and overall debt reduction. The plan tries to address both. One of the proposals the commission came up with, to reduce debt, was allow bulk payouts earlier, in order to deplete the debt incurred the trust fund. Of course, this decreases the debt, but it could drastically increase deficits.

[Ilsa]

10. Eliminate the cap and reduce the percentage by several hundred basis points.

It would take care of any shortfall and the super- high earners wouldn't be able to shelter (much of) it.

[Yeahyeah]

13. The pimp always tells the ho what to do.

[dkofos]

16. To easy. Won't benefit the rich.

If they lift the cap, they could lower the rate for everyone.
But that would benefit the majority.
Can't have that!!

[sally cat]

17. Why is there a cap, and was it part of the original SS plan when created?

[laughingliberal]

20. It's part of the proposal. It's capped at $106,000. They propose raising it to around $150,000.

Regardless, their plan still stinks.

[Cleita]

21. They aren't bi-partisan to begin with.

They are part of the minority which is now ruling the majority. It's simple if you think about it.

[Nye Bevan]

22. Would you raise benefits for those paying SS taxes above the cap?

Right now someone earning $200K pays SS taxes only on $107K of income (the cap) but also only receives SS benefits based on $107K income when he retires. If you eliminated the cap would you also increase this persons retirement benefits to reflect his increased SS taxes?

[tech9413]

24. It's not a matter of can't, they don't want to

And as the following post states, the cap starts at about $106K. If you look at the presidential staff, his appointments, and those he chose to serve on the commission and who they chose for their staff. They only had one objective. That would be to eviscerate any program that served the less than wealthy and put the hurts on any average working person and even those that are well below the poverty line.

Sorry to have to say it, but some of the quotes I read from his books shows that Obama is a corporate friendly politician and his appointments proved that (can you say Geithner Summers,and a host of others. Of the 18 members of the commission, 14 have a record of supporting conservative/corporate friendly views. Only one is an economist. That leaves three that are either moderate or progressive.

Add to that, that a large percentage of the support staff is paid for by some affiliation supported by Pete Peterson, who has been after SS for decades and has spent billions to break it in any way possible.

It was a rigged game from the start, but we knew that even if we didn't know who was rigging the game.

Just ask yourself ("who profits?). We only have 536 elected representatives in national government but there are 40K+ lobbyist's influencing legislation. It should come as no surprise that at least 98% of those lobbyist represent some financial interest that does not benefit the majority of the population.

We don't have the money to fight them, but we do have the numbers to out-vote them if we are reasonably well informed.

Get your ass out there and and talk to people, let them know that the corporate media will only support what gets them the most money. Let them know the corporate media doesn't want to search for the truth, they just want to stir up a controversy that will bump the ratings. After all, they can't make money if they don't have enough eyeballs paying to spew what you have to say.


My advice to the neophyte (newbie) is don't believe anything you hear/see on corporate/for profit media. They just want to support a system that continues or expands their profits

Get out there and search for those independent/listener supported sources that might provide a view you don't get anywhere else.

We have options but they do not include feeding the status quo.

Obama as FDR told us we must force him to do the things we wanted gvt to do for us (we the poor 98% of the country).

So it's time for us to "man up" and push the national gvt to do what we want and need or crawl back home on your knees.

[mmonk]

28. They represent billionaires that don't want to pay the taxes.

If you think they are there for the good of the country, think again.

[Hannah Bell]

36. The cap is lifted almost every year. That's why you got the amount of the cap wrong.

It's supposed to be capped at 90% of total income so that the top earners don't wind up paying for 60-70% of Social Security while getting back a pittance, thereby turning it into a welfare program.

Removing the Bush income tax cuts on the top 2% pays off the Social Security Trust Fund in 10 years.

Capital borrowed the money, capital needs to pay it back. The super-rich don't typically get most of their income from wages, but from CAPITAL.

That's why they love it when people focus on lifting the cap on social security (they can shelter their income from those taxes).