The RICH are costing Social Security $150 Billion a year.

The Above title is from a MOTLEY FOOL article currently appearing on MSN main page.Today all income below $132,900 is taxed at 12.4% by Social Security if you are self employed,if you work for someone they pay 6.2% of your income and you pay 6.2% again for a total of 12.4%.
90% of our working population earn below the cutoff of $132,900 leaving the top 10% of income earners to escape paying Social Security on every dollar above this amount.In 1984 the total amount of earnings which avoided S.S. deductions amounted to $300 Billion dollars,today in 2019 the amount of income avoiding S.S.deductions is $1.2 TRILLION.Were S.S.deductions to be taken out of all income, Social Security would generate another $150 Billion in income each year.It is time for the nations wealthiest to begin paying their fair share and paying on every dollar earned as the 90% below the cutoff always have.

 

Actually the rich aren't costing anyone anything the law as written is. And given that most of the income of the really rich is mostly in capital gains, and stock options neither of which is affected by SS, 150 billion is a gross overstatement.

 

Deleted

 

Your argument would be with the Motley Fool and I'm relatively certain they checked ther math and income sources before penning their article.

 

The benefits the wealthy get out of social security relative to what they put in will be far less if we remove the cap. For example, if I earn $10,000,000 per year, under your system I will get taxed at $620,000 per year to get $10,000 per year in benefits when I retire. Social security is set up so that the benefits are relative to the amount you paid into the system with a max of $132,000 of income where the tax and the benefits go flat after that. That technically is fair since what you get is relative to what you put in, except for the poor who get more than they put in. Overall, the wealthy do pay a higher percent in taxes than everyone else and pay the majority of all income taxes, so its difficult to claim they aren't paying their fair share.

I don't think in terms of what tax rate is fair, but what tax rate produces the best results for the working class. I support removing the income cap on the wealthy, not because it is fair, but because it will benefits workers who retire, and the wealthy will easily be able to afford it.

 

You used imaginary numbers to find an imaginary conclusion. Other than that, sort of imaginary.

 

You do realize SS is capped in its payout do you not? You would have a point if the payout was porputional to the amount paid in. You also failed to mention there in no cap on Medicare tax.

 

It PENALIZES those who earn below the cutoff!!Everyone should pay on their full pay.The maximm one can receive each month in 2019 is $2861 which amounts to a maximum annual payment of $34,332.

 

Seldom will you locate a Democrat that has actually been a student of the wealthy. They believe what their party leaders tell them to believe. Ergo claims X billion dollars is not fair.

 

Your EXACTLY RIGHT the law must be changed, but getting the millionaires and billionaires in our government to do that is going to be a tall task.BUT it needs to be done.The law as written discriminates against the 90% of American workers.

 

Suppose we treated chickens as you want humans treated. So we forced 10 chickens to bear the eggs for 10,000 chickens. Is that fair?

 

When you go to work, is it fair to force you to do the work for 10 lazy men?

 

Democrats treat the rich the way some treat their pet goats. As long as they do all the lifting, then you believe they have fair treatment.

 

This is one of the factors which has served to further enrich the ultra wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class.

 

I don't believe in fairness. I believe in prosperity. A more accurate analogy is that if these 10 chickens laid several hundred eggs while the rest only laid less than 5, and these 10 chickens had seen their egg laying increase by 300% since 1980 while the eggs for the other 10,000 has been stagnant with only minor growth. This happens because the amount of eggs the 10,000 chickens lay is mostly decided by the egg wages by the 10 chickens at the top. These 10 chickens also have a lot more disposable eggs they can use for investing to capture even more eggs. They can also get a cut of the egg companies while the other 10,000 live on slow-growing egg wages. These egg companies prioritize chicken shareholders who tend to be these 10 chickens rather than their worker chickens wages. And even when chicken unemployment is at record lows and the egg economy is booming especially for the 10 chickens who are getting most of the growth, eggs increases have only now reached 3.2%, 1% above inflation, when they used to quickly hit 4% in past growth periods. Also the big Trump chicken gave the chicken businesses a big tax cuts but only 8% of these tax cuts went to the 10,000 chickens wages who actually work and produce for the chicken companies, and 56% go to the rich chicken shareholders. Lets not forget that those 10 chickens are hiking up healthcare, student debt costs and housing costs for the 10,000 worker chickens at far higher than they are raising their wages at, which makes it even harder for their worker chickens to invest or save.

 

The billionaires are saying go ahead and tax us — they all say they would likely not even notice. It’s the millionaires that are not wealthy enough to not have to cut some area of their extravagant life are the ones that are in an uproar. A millionaire to a billionaire is like a homeless person is to most of us — they don’t even operate on the same realm.

 

Nope. The law as you wish to have it changed would in fact change very little beyond making it very difficult for small business to hire and retain top talent.

 

Let me try and figure out your math, because it doesn't make a lot of sense.

So somebody that makes 100k is taxed at 12.4%. That' 12,400 dollars.
The bit about being employed is irrelevant. It's just that your employer pays half. Still, if your employer didn't pay half, then you could demand that money be put in your salary, so it's the same thing.

So we have12.4k dollars being paid by 10% of the population.

1984 Dude, that's like 35 years ago. I'll ignore that as irrelevant.

In 2019 (okay, we're back in the real world) we have people avoiding S.S. deductions is 1.2 trillion.

Wut does this have to do with anything? Dude, you've got to tie this garbage together a bit better, or it comes across like a mishmash of nonsense! Anyway, nonsense so I'm going to ignore this deductions stuff.

Social security generates 150 billion in income each year. Well, okay. Nice to know, I guess....

So from this piss poor attempt at throwing numbers around, and all we really have on the table of reality is that 10% of people pay 12.4k (ish) a year. From this, you conclude that it's time for the nation's wealthiest to begin paying their fair share?

Dude, you need to go back to logic class and figure out basic premises and conclusions because what you just typed is garbage.

 

It's a poorly researched write up designed to invoke class envy in people who are lightly educated when it comes to math.

 

So cap it at 300,000.

 

And it worked very well.

 

While the numbers are true, social security is providing for YOUR OWN retirement. High earners pay more than double what the average person does.
That money is not paying for others, it is not a welfare program.

In addition, if you are drawing social security but also earning income after retirement age as most high-earners are, you are still paying in- and there is a point where you start getting charged income tax on your social security as well. . I've had a couple years where better than normal income created a situation where my social security net actually was a wash, meaning between what I paid in as the usual rate (12.4%) but on more income, plus the income tax on social security I received wiped out the benefits all together. Literally a break-even deal- and I'm 77. People like me are paying a disproportionate tax compared to the benefits received. That's not ripping anyone else off..... it's getting ripped off yourself.

Most things can be construed in a way where a writer can make some kind of story out of them that will push ratings. All you have to do is tell half the story and keep the lighting at the right angle so the rest won't be visible to the reader.

One other thing. You assume that your employer pays half your total SS deposits..... Only true on paper; it is a sales pitch. The fact is that the employer would not be paying that part to the government if you were not employed there, so it is a cost directly related to your presence; money your employment must generate as income for the company so that they can afford to pay it. The government tells you someone else is paying for you, because the public loves to think it's true- It's relabeled to say it comes from the company to make you feel good. IF the employer side of SS funding was no longer required to be sent to the government, they could give you a 6.2% raise without losing a dime, right now. YOU are paying the entire 12.4%, regardless of being employed or self employed.

 

If conservatives have their way, there will be no such thing as Social Security. It would be eliminated entirely. Along with Medicare and Medicaid.

 

If you paid into SS for ten years (40 quarters) or more you get money out according to how much you put in, not according to your need. That's the law.

IF you didn't work a job or jobs for 40 quarters and did not pay in for 40 quarters you are SOL, and that's fair.

They need to get rid of Supplemental Social Security, where people have not paid in but somehow unjustifiably get money out, and get back to the original law.

Nature works on the principle of no washy (work), no ticky (money).

 

One of the things about SS that the Complex goes to great lengths to hide is that the program is -extremely- progressive. Very easy to qualify for basic benefits without doing much work at all. And the difference between someone earning $55,000 and paying in on that, and someone paying at the cap is gigantic in terms of TVM. SS is currently an extremely bad, inequitable deal for anyone earning over 100k, and a great deal for those earning 50-75k. Uncapping it would compound that injustice.

Uncapping SS is just another of many examples of rotten gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex thievery from the people who are ALREADY paying between 30-50% of their working lives to government at all levels.

Disgusting and immoral... so no surprise Democrats constantly bring this up, and as an out-of-context lie of omission to boot.