From the Associated Press:
Most U.S. adults are opposed to proposals that would cut into Medicare or Social Security benefits, and a majority support raising taxes on the nation’s highest earners to keep Medicare running as is.
The new findings, revealed in a March poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, come as both safety net programs are poised to run out of enough cash to pay out full benefits within the next decade.
Few Americans would be OK with some ways politicians have suggested to shore up the programs: 79% say they oppose reducing the size of Social Security benefits and 67% are against raising monthly premiums for Medicare. ...
Instead, a majority — 58% — support the idea of increasing taxes on households making over $400,000 yearly to pay for Medicare, a plan proposed by President Joe Biden last month. ...
Three-quarters of Americans say they oppose raising the eligibility age for Social Security benefits from 67 to 70, and 7 in 10 oppose raising the eligibility age for Medicare benefits from 65 to 67. ...
While most support increasing taxes on households earning more than $400,000 a year to pay for Medicare, the poll shows a political divide on doing so: 75% of Democrats support the tax but Republicans are closely divided, with 42% in favor, 37% opposed and 20% supporting neither. ...
So why do Republicans in Congress keep talking about raising full retirement age and keep refusing to consider any changes to FICA? That's what their big money donors want; their rank and file members not so much.
7 comments:
Do the 42% opposed to raising taxes on the mega-wealthy really believe they’re just around the corner from being wildly rich, or are they just wildly stupid? I’m genuinely curious.
So most don't want the retirement age or Medicare age increased or their benefits cut but want someone else to pay? Not a surprise.
Raise the SSA tax rate 1% for everyone.
The rate is 7.65% now but in 1937 was just 1%.
The rich wouldn't even feel the recommended increase in taxes but it would greatly affect those in middle and lower socio-economic deciles to increase the age of benefits.
Taxes on the "rich" sometimes make their way to the not so rich. SSA benefits were taxable originally for those somewhat well off but now many more are subject to the taxes. Same thing goes for IRMAA. Taxes that will affect the rich sound good if that's all they ever were but years down the road a much larger percentage of people will find that they are subject to these "rich" taxes.
I earn enough to get a "holiday" from the tax for three or four checks a year. I'd hate to lose the break but I'd hate waiting to 70 to get full benefits or drawing only 78% check far worse.
There is no rule that says it HAS to be funded via payroll tax, that's just tradition. We could fund it with capital gains tax, import duties, national park admission fees, an excise on securities transactions or any other fee or tax Congress can impose.
I don’t think you understand the situation. This is about extending a tax already levied on the non-rich to the rich.
There is NO income cap on the piddly Medicare tax and no ones whines about that. Eventually they have to increase taxes or cut benefits. The boomers are burning thru the surplus the greatest generation left. With abortions we lost 40 million people so that has caused a shortdfall in FICA payors.
Post a Comment