Re: Eliminating the Cap on Social Security Taxes Would Solve the Problem

On Wed, 16 May 2007, El Castor wrote:

On Wed, 16 May 2007 13:58:02 -1000, "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Wed, 16 May 2007, El Castor wrote:

On 15 May 2007 22:54:27 -0700, mg <mgkelson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 14, 12:48 pm, El Castor <No_...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 13 May 2007 20:58:14 -0700, mg <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 13, 7:24 am, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007, mg wrote:

There's an excellent report on the various options (as of 2005) for
solving the future SS deficit at:
http://www.nasi.org/usr_doc/SS_Brief_18.pdf

For example, eliminating the cap but not compensating retirees for the
extra earnings would provide enough revenue to remedy 116 percent of
the financial shortfall for the next 75 years. (Page 3, Option #1)

On the other hand, eliminating the cap and compensating for the extra
earnings would remedy 93% of the problem. (Page 4, Option #2)

Here are some other options:

Bring newly hired state and local employees into the SS system:
Remedy: 10% (Page 5, Option #4)

Change the retirement age to 68, etc: Remedy: 28% (Page 5, Option #5)

Change the retirement age to 70, etc: Remedy: 36% (Page 6, Option #6)

Increase SS taxes from 6.2% to 7.2%: Remedy: 104% (Page 7, Option #13

Earmark "limited estate tax" for Social Security: Remedy: 27% (Page 8,
Option #15)

Eliminate the 2001 and 2003 Tax cuts for top 1% and apply to SS:
Remedy: 100% (Page 9, Option #16

Allow SS to phase in 40% investment in equities: Remedy: 35% to 48%
(Page 9, Options #17 & #18)

http://www.nasi.org/usr_doc/SS_Brief_18.pdf

I like option #16

Alvin, why are you interested in punishing a group when there are other
alternatives available that would do neither?

Are you THAT jealous?

I insist the rich pay their fair share in taxes, but they should NOT be
soaked simply because they're rich. Do you think fairness is only for
the middle and lower classes?

Whether one is arguing with his brother-in-law, or arguing on a floor
of congress, or posting to these newsgroups, the real issue is always
the same: Progressive taxation versus Regressive taxation or
Proportional taxation. If everyone would simply state which one they
prefer, the argument would be much simpler.

I, for example, favor Progressive taxation, where the wealthy pay at a
higher rate, and I can't imagine anything that could change my mind.
Others prefer Regressive taxation (or proportional), where the wealthy
pay at a lower rate or the same rate, and there's nothing that's
likely to change their mind.

Taxes on the top 1%, for instance, are undoubtedly Proportional or
Regressive. For, regular income, for example, a person earning $100
million pays at approximately the same rate as a couple making about
$300,000. In addition, they pay at a lower rate than a lot of upper-
middle income wage earners since they only pay 15% on dividends and
capital gains.

The top 1% of taxpayers pay 1/3rd of federal income taxes. The bottom
50% pay 4%. How would you adjust those percentages?

Jeff

As the Bible says, the poor will always be with us
and as my mother used to say, "You can't get blood
out of a turnip". The issue isn't how much taxes the
poor pay. Any politician smart enough to get elected
knows that if you try to squeeze the poor to hard,
you could wake up one morning with a revolution and
a new form of government.

The issue is who makes up the difference, the middle
class or the rich and the super rich, and right now
the upper-middle class, for instance, is paying
income taxes at almost the same rate as multi-
millionaires and almost double the rate of the idle
rich who only pay 15% on dividends and capital
gains.

Ultimately, these tax arguments always lead to the
same place, i.e., whether or not you believe in a
progressive tax system.

I do believe in a progressive tax system, however the
financial difficulties which face Social Security
have nothing to do with federal income taxes,
progressive or otherwise, and everything to do with
increases in longevity and decreases in the birth
rate.

But, I do note that some of the assumptions behind
the post to which I am replying (your post, MG), are
simply false, so let me try to help you understand
who pays our federal income taxes, and how much they
pay.

1. The top 1% of federal income tax payers pay 36.89%
of income taxes, at an average tax rate 23.49%

2. The top 5% of federal income tax payers pay 57.13%
of income taxes, at an average tax rate of 16.95%.

3. The top 25% of federal income tax payers pay
84.86% of income taxes, at an average tax rate of
15.53%.

4. The bottom 50% of federal income tax payers pay
3.3% of income taxes, at an average tax rate of
2.97%.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

So, please don't argue that we don't have a progressive income tax structure, but feel free to argue, if you wish, that it should be more progressive. At any rate, Social Security is not funded from federal income taxes.

Lastly, let me point out that the majority of economists would agree that we cannot tax ourselves to prosperity, nor can we solve the Social Security problem simply by raising taxes. France has the highest progressive tax rates of any large developed country -- much higher than the United States, and yet they face similar old age pension problems. Continued funding of Social Security at a high level can only be accomplished by a strong growing economy.

Jeff

Actually, these figures argue for a regressive rather than progessive tax structure.

Huh? No they don't. Goebbels could have taken lessons from you, Alvin.

No. You're misrepresenting the figures.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Who Owns Americas Wealth?
    ... The bottom 50%? ... They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down ... The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than ... Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the tax code knows that there ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Eliminating the Cap on Social Security Taxes Would Solve the Problem
    ... they pay at a lower rate than a lot of upper- ... The issue is who makes up the difference, the middle class or the rich and the super rich, and right now the upper-middle class, for instance, is paying income taxes at almost the same rate as multi- millionaires and almost double the rate of the idle rich who only pay 15% on dividends and capital gains. ... Ultimately, these tax arguments always lead to the same place, i.e., whether or not you believe in a progressive tax system. ... you quote about 25% of the tax revenue to be from the top 1% while the bottom 50% percent of the taxpayers pay about 3% of the revenue. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT-Equal Protection For All...
    ... income, they already pay a hefty tax so where is the equal ... Pay myself a set salary and that's what the ... What income group pays the most federal income taxes today? ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Eliminating the Cap on Social Security Taxes Would Solve the Problem
    ... extra earnings would provide enough revenue to remedy 116 percent ... they pay at a lower rate than a lot of upper- ... The top 1% of taxpayers pay 1/3rd of federal income taxes. ... these tax arguments always lead to the ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: anyone know any good truck driver newsgroups?
    ... Besides, if I did, like you, harden my heart to the world around me, those two would in fact soon pass away, and guess who'd have to heal my wife's grief, who'd have to pay for the burials and settle their outstanding bills. ... I worked in the field for many years; I have been CFO of a Texas corporation auto dealership; I operated my own bookkeeping and tax service for six years. ... As to the wife's substantial earnings: if you have used even a nickel of it for living expenses and/or investments, then this alone negates your entire argument; that anyone can become a millionaire in a few years on even a trucker's earnings. ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)