hey Jackie... about SS

Workers and their employers currently pay 6.2 percent of earnings up to $106,800 into the Social Security system, or a maximum of $6,622 each per year. Self-employed workers are required to pay 12.4 percent of pay up to the same cap. If the contribution rate were increased by 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent of earnings, Social Security’s projected deficit would be eliminated. Using this fix, a worker making $43,451 in 2010 would face a tax increase of $478 a year, or $9.19 a week, and the employer would face an identical increase.


eliminate the entire SS deficit for $9 a week.

thought you would like to see that.

Workers and their employers currently pay 6.2 percent of earnings up to $106,800 into the Social Security system, or a maximum of $6,622 each per year. Self-employed workers are required to pay 12.4 percent of pay up to the same cap. If the contribution rate were increased by 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent of earnings, Social Security’s projected deficit would be eliminated. Using this fix, a worker making $43,451 in 2010 would face a tax increase of $478 a year, or $9.19 a week, and the employer would face an identical increase.


eliminate the entire SS deficit for $9 a week.

thought you would like to see that. Originally Posted by CJ7

Wow..

Thanks for posting this.

My question is why is everyone so against this?

I am not against a contribution rate increase..

My question is why is everyone so against this? Originally Posted by Jackie S

Probably because Grover Glenn Norquist would shit his pants and try and get any GOP who supported it defeated.

He is the tail wagging the GOP as of now, Grover Glenn Norquist. He represents big business interests. So my guess is they will not support it.

I still think my idea of simply removing the cap and making ALL income subject to SS withholding, would do wonders. Yes, I would contribute over twice what I do now. But just think how much CEO's, Pro Atletes, and Major Entertainment People would pay into the system.

My question is why is everyone so against this? Originally Posted by Jackie S

mainly because when the words tax increase marry together the general public and some, if not most lawmakers, pass out or die from a stroke. Not to mention its one of the primary objectives to take off the books by (all) republicans.

It is, has been, and will continue to be political, simple fixes, notwithsatnding.

an amazing thing isnt it?n

I still think my idea of simply removing the cap and making ALL income subject to SS withholding, would do wonders. Yes, I would contribute over twice what I do now. But just think how much Koby Bryant would pay into the system. Originally Posted by Jackie S

LOL...you sure have a way with words!

Workers pay into the Social Security system on earnings up to $106,800 in 2010. About 83 percent of worker earnings were subject to Social Security payroll taxes in 2008. If all earned income above $106,800 annually were subject to Social Security contributions but did not count toward benefits, Social Security’s projected deficit would be completely eliminated. If the higher income counted toward Social Security benefits, about 95 percent of the shortfall would be absolved.

Better yet, get rid of the limit cap and have it apply to all income earned.... My SS limitis reached usually after 4 or 5 months.... Assume the rules that apply are based upon some outdated formula that is indexed to a 1960s rate....do the same thing for the AMT

The only flaw in the projection is the assumption congress would not spend it before it is actually repaid to SS and paid out to the benificiaries. Since we all know congress will, by that time, the rate or cap would have to be raised again to meet the new projection. The problem is not the rate of SS, but the rate at which congress spends from the general fund exceeds it's ability to repay the treasuries (with interest) that SS bought. We would be much better off if SS simply held the funds in an non-interest bearing account (fund) away from the hands of congress. Good luck on getting the Dems or Repubs tearing up their checkbook though.

If there is no cap on the contribution; then there should be no limit on the benefits the wealthiest are paid; otherwise this is just more wealth redistribution crap from the left.

How about a system like Galveston, Texas public employees have?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us...pagewanted=all

Whirlaway, even though I am pretty darne conservative when it comes to money, this is one area where I think we need to think about how we are going to care for the ever increasing aging population.

I would go for a nominol increase in payments to those that pay in substantialy more through the working years, but the main thing is to kep the system solvent.

Of course, there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment saying that Social Security would be ONLY for Social Security. That is the ONLY way the money grubbing polititians would be kept from using it as a mass panderring tool and vote buying fund.

Fat Chance.

I still think my idea of simply removing the cap and making ALL income subject to SS withholding, would do wonders. Yes, I would contribute over twice what I do now. But just think how much CEO's, Pro Atletes, and Major Entertainment People would pay into the system. Originally Posted by Jackie S

SS on all income

So you make 10M during 20 years @ 12.4%
That's a total of $24,800,000 in total premium over 20 years.
Then when you are 65 years old, you take out the maximum let's say $20.000 per year during 20 years before you die.
That's a total of $400,000 you get back of the $24.8 Million you paid in.

Of course the deficit is gone but who wants to pay that premium?
(It is just a premium for a retirement INSURANCE)

What grade did you get for Math in school? Or maybe you didn't get math at all? Hmmm TX, low education level ..... YES THAT MAKES SENSE !!!!!!!!

Until congress manages to control spending no amount of tax increases will solve the problem.