Senators Bernie Moreno and Elizabeth Warren have penned an op ed in the New York Times recommending that the wage cap on the FICA tax that feeds into the Social Security trust funds be removed. This would prevent the trust funds from running out of money for many years into the future.
It’s no surprise that Senator Warren would express this opinion. What’s remarkable is that Senator Moreno would feel the same. He’s a Republican from Ohio. I wouldn’t say the dam is breaking but there’s a tiny crack in it.
The Washington Post has already run an editorial about the Moreno-Warren op ed. They’re aghast. It’s what I would expect from a newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos, one of the wealthiest people on Earth.
11 comments:
They should also devise a way to tax the obscene wealth of the Jeff Bezos types who avoid paying taxes by receiving most of their compensation in the form of investments and capital gains.
Or they could do like they have done numerous times and raise the tax on all wage earners. It started at 1 percent but there were 16 workers for every recipient. Now that the ratio is closer to 2 to 1 is a time to raise it 1 percent.
SSA is a program for workers not a welfare program that the rich subsidize.
Agreed we don’t want to make this a welfare program.
You don’t need to raise the percentage. But just eliminating the cap, like with Medicare taxes, wage earners then pay the same percentage on ALL their wages. This additional amount will not break the economy or the high earning individual, but will fund SSA benefits for years.
Wait a minute. How would closing the loophole that allows the ultra-rich to evade taxes make this a welfare state? Do you hear yourself? The word brainwashed comes to mind.
It’s not a welfare program if everyone pays the same percentage.
And receives the same percentage. High earners get a far lower ROI
The wealthy fund their own retirement programs by buying, for example, government bonds - that help keep the overspending behemoth afloat, investing in companies that, you know, provide goods, services and JOBS. They get back tuppance for what they do contribute to SSA. The poor get back more than their
"fair share" of SSA retirement monies; the rich get back less than their fair share. The system is designed in this progressive fashion. Nevertheless, there is always room for more resentment that turns into class warfare.
Lol. Brainwashed indeed😂
Oh, I get it. Welfare for corporations and the ultra-rich is good, but asking the ultra-rich to pay a little more of the money they cannot even spend themselves so that poor people don’t have to suffer quite so much is bad. Just like I remember learning in Sunday school.
“Bootstraps, and f**k you I got mine!”
-Jesus Christ (apparently)
Eliminating the cap while maintaining the cap on benefits under the existing formula would help but not permanently solve the funding of Social Security for 75 years. But it would substantially push back the 2033 or 2034 "deadline" which really isn't a deadline at all since even if the Trust Fund was empty, nothing would prevent General Revenues to be used to stop any actual cuts in benefits.
There are full proposals, Larson's Bill is just one, that would eliminate any projected shortfall. And other plans, even those to increase the full retirement age, perhaps by one month per year for the next 36 years, could address part of the issue. Along with a change in the benefit formula by increasing the first bend point of the PIA formula or even adding a higher bend point with a lower rate than the current 15% of AIME to 5% could mean no real sacrifice for our wealthiest beneficiaries.
There are solutions. They are not unknown. They just all take a little honesty and good will but that is in very short supply these days.
Post a Comment