Comments on: The Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax is Going Up Again!

By: danni

danni — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:08:44 +0000

I am always amazed at the whines of the haves who it seems likely would be happy to end things like Social Security which make life tolerable for millions of elderly people who worked their entire lives. Differences in educations, abilities, opportunities have allowed some to earn more than others but that does not prove, by any means, that those who have earned more have worked harder. There should be a minimum basic existence that every American who worked should be able to maintain and those who have been fortunate enough to enjoy better should not begrudge those with less that basic dignity.
When I read of the complaints about taxation I think back to my parents’ generation who paid far higher tax rates because their nation required it and I don’t recall their whining nearly so much as today’s spoiled boomers. We pay less tax right now than we have in fifty years yet I still read the posts of the whiners who pretend they are overtaxes. Move to Somalia, then you will pay no tax.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:30:26 +0000

What do you mean priviledged? People subject to the maximum social security tax are not priviledged, especially those that are small business owners, they work very hard 6 days and sometimes 7 days a week.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:19:58 +0000

Karen M, are you serious? You obviously are greatly mislead in so many ways. Your ideas of entitlement are groundbreaking in the field of ignorance. There is little doubt as to where you personally fall in the whole economic scheme of things.

By: JR

JR — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:15:45 +0000

There are two major reasons for the cap. One is that those who contribute the most are not entitled to it being returned, and this point has been talked to death above. The second issue is one McCain spoke of, but not very well. The employer loses a lot of money if the cap is reversed. Say the employer themself makes a salary of 120K, and they have an employer who make 110K. With the cap, the employer save half the social security tax (employer contribution) on the 3200 paid on behalf of the employee, and all the social security tax on the 13200 for their own salary (employer plus personal contribution). The raising of the cap alone makes it very expensive for the employer to keep high price talent, and a removal of the cap could be devastating if you are paying your top talent significantly more.

I would suspect that those that object are those making less than the capped amount right now, and wondering why those people complain when they make so much more. In truth, most of those who complain would probably like to one day make that much. If an employer gains no financial incentive to increase wages (say a tax break on each employee over 107K) the number of jobs at or above this rate would go down.

By: Ed at AAFR

Ed at AAFR — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 03:22:37 +0000

Karen M, I couldn’t disagree more strongly with you.

Social Security (unlike welfare) is not “insurance against poverty.” It is a mandatory, government administered pension system. By contributing to it, you earn a pension further down the road.

Someone who has worked for General Motors for 25 years and then wins the lottery doesn’t lose his right to the pension he has rightfully earned just because he genuinely or purportedly doesn’t “need” it any more.

Social Security is no different. It was set up so that everybody who earns wages would have a pension. To try to repurpose it into a welfare system, and by so doing swindle some of its participants out of their pensions, would be a horrific crime against working Americans.

If anyone seriously attempts this, we at AAFR will do everything in our power to alert the electorate to what is going on, and to mobilize them against it.

By: Karen M

Karen M — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:13:15 +0000

What an odd conversation. Social Security is social insurance that provides protection against socially recognized conditions such as poverty, disability, underemployment, etc. So if it didn’t “redistribute downward” then wouldn’t the purpose be defeated?? The wealthy SHOULDN’T be recouping as much as they’re paying in…the whole POINT is that they shouldn’t need social security at all.

By: Andy J

Andy J — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:26:45 +0000

Thank you Stacey, I agree…

By: Stacey

Stacey — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:45:23 +0000

@ Poor Boomer. Another point I’d like to make in this (perceived?) rich vs poor class warfare: after a certain income level one is unable to benefit from many tax giveaways: child tax credit, the ability to deduct ALL itemized deductions, in some cases the loss of the personal exemption, the ability to take a deduction for college tuition (which was reinstated in the bailout bill), the imposition of AMT, the loss of being the recipient of “tax stimulus checks”, the inability to contribute to an IRA, etc. I’m sure there are more examples I’m missing. So my point is the “rich” are already getting it socked to them. If the social security cap is removed it will just be one more thing we have to take in the ….

I prefer to distribute wealth to the needy by supporting my church and other worthwhile charities and helping family members on a one-to-one basis. I don’t WANT the government to decide where our earned money gets redistributed. This country has to look deep within…start recognizing people have to take some personal responsibility for their actions/inactions: (not furthering their vocational training/obtaining a college education, having children they can’t properly raise/afford, generally living beyond one’s means, etc.) and stop relying on the taxpayers to foot the bill.

By: Todd

Todd — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:59:57 +0000

To poorboomer:

Actually, Social Security is doing the exact opposite, the wealth is redistributed downward.

From an article by Scott Burns on Social Security benefits dated Jan 16, 2008:

“When you study Social Security further you will learn that your benefits are not in direct proportion to your income. Instead, you are credited at three different rates. For 2008, for instance, workers are credited with 90 percent of earnings up to average monthly indexed earnings of $711. Earnings over $711 a month but less than $4,288 a month are credited at 32 percent. Earnings over $4,288 a month are credited at 15 percent. In effect, this works like a steep, hidden income tax, because income over $51,456 a year receives only one-sixth the future benefits as income under $8,400 a year.”

By: Stacey

Stacey — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 04:19:14 +0000

Because I’m tired of being taxed to death b/c of other people’s poor choices. That’s why!