Obama: Tax Hike solution for Social Security

8 Replies

jonolan

November 11, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Duh! He’s a Democrat – tax and spend – and add a few new government jobs for his friends and relatives if possible. Nothing new about that.

Reply
Tim Leira

November 11, 2007 at 11:53 pm

Obama is a loser! However there are not many options available to fix the ss system. We must raise the income seal to $250,000 and then tax any income above that level at a lower rate, or we are going to have to reduce benefits. No one wants to talk about reducing benefits so it seems to me raise the income sealing. Why should the ultra rich not pay ss tax on higher income. Also the super rich do not need social security anyway. Why should they receive social security when the majority of there income is not taxed for social security!

Reply
Tim Leira

November 11, 2007 at 11:55 pm

Obama is a loser! However there are not many options available to fix the ss system. We must raise the income seal to $250,000 and then tax any income above that level at a lower rate, or we are going to have to reduce benefits. No one wants to talk about reducing benefits so it seems to me raise the income sealing. Why should the ultra rich not pay ss tax on higher income. Also the super rich do not need social security anyway. Why should they receive social security when the majority of there income is not taxed for social security!

Reply
Roy Price

November 12, 2007 at 12:48 am

The reason that Social Security faces a crisis is that it was years ago turned into a scheme whereby Congress could steal the millions in funds that were left over after paying for that year’s benefits. From the beginning, the program should have been handled as an investment program whereby the workers would benefit by the tremendous growth of their funds over many years. Or at least the surplus funds should have been invested for the future, and not in government scams. Giving the surplus to crooked congressmen in exchange for a small interest rate backed up only by a promissory note is not investing. Many people paid more in SS taxes than in income taxes for current needs, so many had trouble saving extra for retirement. At some point, taxing the “rich” more results in the “rich” cutting back on jobs their businesses provide.

Raising the cap on income to be taxed will only provide more funds for congressmen to steal, especially as long as there is a surplus each year. When the annual surpluses end soon, we’ll find that Social Security won’t have any of the surpluses of all these years to fall back on. Congress spent all that money, on useless programs that were bribes for people to vote for them. So to “repay” the surpluses that occurred, Congress will raise SS taxes, raise income taxes to supplement SS, cut benefits, raise the retirement age again, or a mixture of those. Union leaders who have stolen from pension funds have gone to prison. That’s where crooked congressmen should be

Reply
Roy Price

November 12, 2007 at 12:52 am

Excuse me, but the comment I just sent on Barack Obama’s Social Security idea was done from the Real Clear Politics web site, not Druge. It’s late for me. Sorry

Reply
F the Rich

November 20, 2007 at 8:57 pm

75% of Americans favor increasing the Social Security tax cap above the $90,000 limit. It’s a no-brainer. I think if income tax brackets were eliminated in favor of a flat rate tax, this would limit the effect on those earning over $90,000. Let’s face it, 80% of the country’s assets are in the hands of the top 10% richest Americans. That is the only answer that works. Middle class Americans (those making less than $90,000) are paying a much higher percentage of their income on all the combined taxes they pay (SS, local, state, federal, etc.) than those making over $90,000. If a Democratic candidate runs on solving the Social Security problem eliminating the cap, 75% will agree, including half of those who make over $90,000.

Reply
Darrell

February 16, 2008 at 8:24 pm

It has been interesting to read all the comments posted here. Let me ask you this, when has the government been the solution to any problem, when the government gets involved its going to cost you at least twicw of what it would if you were in control of your money currently there are two programs that assist you in building weath for retirement. A 401k that you have control over youcan put as much money into it as youcan afford. you can decide how much money you want to reire on. early in life when we are building a family our expenses are higher but when the children leave the nest there is more mey to set aside and you can play catch up. Basically it takes personal responsibilty to plan for you future and just wha it is that you want out of it. The other is Social Security, and that it just what it implies I give my money over to a governmenprogram and trust that they will be responsible with my money. It does not build interst it it not invest in the country other than to eturn a portion of that which put into it. Here is the kicker I work for 50 years and I die. My chilren never see a penny of all those thousands of dollars that ear after year I put int the program. But with my 401k that money is mine and at the end it was invest according to my wishes and my family can reap the benefits of my investing. perhaps they could buy a house which would allow them to have more diposable income. income thatwould be spent on the ecomony. The economy grows by what American are able to spend. disposale income. The more that the government takes from youmeans the less you have to grow an economy. And now if elected Obama want to take more of your money. And that is just for SS. what else will he find that the government needs o take even more of your money. Can you say recession, no deprwssion that is what we will have under an Clintn or Obama Preasidency. Are you insulated aginst a depression?

Reply
Grant

February 25, 2008 at 9:40 am

For those all in favor of lifting the cap (which I think is about $102k-ish for 2008, do the math and think for a second..

1) Thje payroll tax is a 12.4% surtax on all income up to the cap – the fact that your employer pays some directly to the govt instead of giving it to you first is just a veiled way to hide how much you actually pay to FICA.

2) With the Bush tax cuts expiring, and likely a Pres. Obama would allow them to expire, the upper income tax rates would return to the top 36% & 39.6% brackets. Eliminating the FICA cap would make the top marginal tax rate on payroll income then 48.4% and 52%. Add in state income taxes, such as the 5.3% in MA, and you are looking at marginal rates in the 50-60% range – confiscatory rates we haven’t seen since Kennedy cut them in the 60’s.

3) For Obama’s comment that only 5-6% make above $100k, many of those are in high cost of living states – NY, MA, CA. I know a police officer near NY who clears the limit, working a lot of overtime. He is by no means “rolling in dough” – kids, home, etc. To me, he is a father in a middle class family. Isn’t that who Obama is trying to reduce the burden on?

Reply