Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why wouldn't they tap social security? It's their money they are getting back, and yes there is a sliding rate in that the higher the rate of income the less credit one receives toward benefit payouts on a per dollar basis, works with brackets like a progressive income tax in reverse. There's also a total income formula for income tax on benefits that specifies that up to 85% of social security benefits can be subject to taxation.
Social security will be withheld from an employee's wages at the rate of 4.2% (down from 6.2%) up to the social security wage limit of $110,100.
Publication 505 (2013), Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax
A person making $250k a year only pays into SS up to $110,100. The point of the OP is why the cap?
I also think it's ridiculous that SS and unemployment benefits can be taxed.
The practical point of the cap at this point revolves around the fact that given longer life expectancy people are pulling more out of social security than they put in, if you uncap contributions then what you end up with is people in the higher income brackets pulling proportionally MORE out than they put in because benefit payouts are calculated based on the amount paid in. Raising the cap doesn't make the system any more "fair" (it doesn't change the amount middle/lower class pay in) all it does is increase the income stream that the government can "borrow" from to fund current operations AND reduces the amount of capital available for investment in the private sector, not to mention increases the costs on the back end for social security.Why wouldn't they tap social security? It's their money they are getting back, and yes there is a sliding rate in that the higher the rate of income the less credit one receives toward benefit payouts on a per dollar basis, works with brackets like a progressive income tax in reverse. There's also a total income formula for income tax on benefits that specifies that up to 85% of social security benefits can be subject to taxation.
Social security will be withheld from an employee's wages at the rate of 4.2% (down from 6.2%) up to the social security wage limit of $110,100.
Publication 505 (2013), Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax
A person making $250k a year only pays into SS up to $110,100. The point of the OP is why the cap?
Me too, the whole program is a horrendously bad deal for most people, especially those that plan & save for their own retirements.I also think it's ridiculous that SS and unemployment benefits can be taxed.
How would taxing the amount of payroll taxes when you earned it be even remotely workable? income tax on money you never received? Not to mention the fact that participation in the program is INVOLUNTARY and the justification for that is federal taxing authority. Yes the amount of taxable benefits are based on total income but this it's ridiculous since it's like an annuity withholding a portion of the payouts when you come to collect on your policy.Why wouldn't they tap social security? It's their money they are getting back, and yes there is a sliding rate in that the higher the rate of income the less credit one receives toward benefit payouts on a per dollar basis, works with brackets like a progressive income tax in reverse. There's also a total income formula for income tax on benefits that specifies that up to 85% of social security benefits can be subject to taxation.
Social security will be withheld from an employee's wages at the rate of 4.2% (down from 6.2%) up to the social security wage limit of $110,100.
Publication 505 (2013), Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax
A person making $250k a year only pays into SS up to $110,100. The point of the OP is why the cap?
I also think it's ridiculous that SS and unemployment benefits can be taxed.
the amount withheld from your paychecks for SS is not taxed when you earn it. SS benefits are taxed only if your income is above a specified amount.
as to unemployment, you would pay taxes if you were working for the money, why not when it is being given to you?
Then how will we pay for the wars?Welfare for the wealthy has to end.
Lowering taxes for the rich and raising them on the middle class is what the Republicans are all about.
Since the rich like to crow about how they pay all the taxes, we should cut the middle class taxes to match their rhetoric.
Absolutely. Flat tax it is. Now NO ONE pays more than anyone else. See how simple that was.
How would taxing the amount of payroll taxes when you earned it be even remotely workable? income tax on money you never received? Not to mention the fact that participation in the program is INVOLUNTARY and the justification for that is federal taxing authority. Yes the amount of taxable benefits are based on total income but this it's ridiculous since it's like an annuity withholding a portion of the payouts when you come to collect on your policy.Social security will be withheld from an employee's wages at the rate of 4.2% (down from 6.2%) up to the social security wage limit of $110,100.
Publication 505 (2013), Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax
A person making $250k a year only pays into SS up to $110,100. The point of the OP is why the cap?
I also think it's ridiculous that SS and unemployment benefits can be taxed.
the amount withheld from your paychecks for SS is not taxed when you earn it. SS benefits are taxed only if your income is above a specified amount.
as to unemployment, you would pay taxes if you were working for the money, why not when it is being given to you?
Not so fast quick draw, your employer pays federal unemployment taxes (state unemployment taxes) on your behalf (6.0% of taxable wages on employees that meet specified criteria + variable state taxes), which means less salary that they can pay YOU. What they are essentially paying for on your behalf is unemployment benefit insurance so in the event you become unemployed your benefits are paid out of the insurance fund (around 50% by the feds and the rest made up by the state).
So when you think about it this way .... if you went out and bought and insurance policy from a private insurer, you paid the premiums and got into a situation where you wanted to collect on the policy would the private insurance company have a right to claim part of the payouts to you? That's what taxing UE benefits is essentially doing......
So you're advocating the government just STEAL the excess from those above a certain income level?The practical point of the cap at this point revolves around the fact that given longer life expectancy people are pulling more out of social security than they put in, if you uncap contributions then what you end up with is people in the higher income brackets pulling proportionally MORE out than they put in because benefit payouts are calculated based on the amount paid in. Raising the cap doesn't make the system any more "fair" (it doesn't change the amount middle/lower class pay in) all it does is increase the income stream that the government can "borrow" from to fund current operations AND reduces the amount of capital available for investment in the private sector, not to mention increases the costs on the back end for social security.Social security will be withheld from an employee's wages at the rate of 4.2% (down from 6.2%) up to the social security wage limit of $110,100.
Publication 505 (2013), Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax
A person making $250k a year only pays into SS up to $110,100. The point of the OP is why the cap?
Me too, the whole program is a horrendously bad deal for most people, especially those that plan & save for their own retirements.I also think it's ridiculous that SS and unemployment benefits can be taxed.
the maximum SS benefit payment should remain limited,
Except for the fact it's NOT a tax and never was sold as a tax, what sort of tax works where the government gets to hang on to your money for X period of time based on the promise that at a specified point in the future you'll receive X benefits based on the amount you paid in? Just because it's an horrendously inefficient annuity lets not transform it into essentially another federal income tax because of the poor design of the program and all the egregious manipulation that has been done to it since it's inception. If we're going to do that then what's required is an honest debate about whether drastic reforms or abolition is in order.there is no logic behind raising it just because everyone is taxed on all income. Face reality, its a tax not a savings plan.
So you're advocating the government just STEAL the excess from those above a certain income level?The practical point of the cap at this point revolves around the fact that given longer life expectancy people are pulling more out of social security than they put in, if you uncap contributions then what you end up with is people in the higher income brackets pulling proportionally MORE out than they put in because benefit payouts are calculated based on the amount paid in. Raising the cap doesn't make the system any more "fair" (it doesn't change the amount middle/lower class pay in) all it does is increase the income stream that the government can "borrow" from to fund current operations AND reduces the amount of capital available for investment in the private sector, not to mention increases the costs on the back end for social security.
Me too, the whole program is a horrendously bad deal for most people, especially those that plan & save for their own retirements.
the maximum SS benefit payment should remain limited,
Except for the fact it's NOT a tax and never was sold as a tax, what sort of tax works where the government gets to hang on to your money for X period of time based on the promise that at a specified point in the future you'll receive X benefits based on the amount you paid in? Just because it's an horrendously inefficient annuity lets not transform it into essentially another federal income tax because of the poor design of the program and all the egregious manipulation that has been done to it since it's inception. If we're going to do that then what's required is an honest debate about whether drastic reforms or abolition is in order.there is no logic behind raising it just because everyone is taxed on all income. Face reality, its a tax not a savings plan.
How would taxing the amount of payroll taxes when you earned it be even remotely workable? income tax on money you never received? Not to mention the fact that participation in the program is INVOLUNTARY and the justification for that is federal taxing authority. Yes the amount of taxable benefits are based on total income but this it's ridiculous since it's like an annuity withholding a portion of the payouts when you come to collect on your policy.the amount withheld from your paychecks for SS is not taxed when you earn it. SS benefits are taxed only if your income is above a specified amount.
as to unemployment, you would pay taxes if you were working for the money, why not when it is being given to you?
Not so fast quick draw, your employer pays federal unemployment taxes (state unemployment taxes) on your behalf (6.0% of taxable wages on employees that meet specified criteria + variable state taxes), which means less salary that they can pay YOU. What they are essentially paying for on your behalf is unemployment benefit insurance so in the event you become unemployed your benefits are paid out of the insurance fund (around 50% by the feds and the rest made up by the state).
So when you think about it this way .... if you went out and bought and insurance policy from a private insurer, you paid the premiums and got into a situation where you wanted to collect on the policy would the private insurance company have a right to claim part of the payouts to you? That's what taxing UE benefits is essentially doing......
Don't worry. They are not paying for it. The cost is passed on to consumers.
How would taxing the amount of payroll taxes when you earned it be even remotely workable? income tax on money you never received? Not to mention the fact that participation in the program is INVOLUNTARY and the justification for that is federal taxing authority. Yes the amount of taxable benefits are based on total income but this it's ridiculous since it's like an annuity withholding a portion of the payouts when you come to collect on your policy.
Not so fast quick draw, your employer pays federal unemployment taxes (state unemployment taxes) on your behalf (6.0% of taxable wages on employees that meet specified criteria + variable state taxes), which means less salary that they can pay YOU. What they are essentially paying for on your behalf is unemployment benefit insurance so in the event you become unemployed your benefits are paid out of the insurance fund (around 50% by the feds and the rest made up by the state).
So when you think about it this way .... if you went out and bought and insurance policy from a private insurer, you paid the premiums and got into a situation where you wanted to collect on the policy would the private insurance company have a right to claim part of the payouts to you? That's what taxing UE benefits is essentially doing......
Don't worry. They are not paying for it. The cost is passed on to consumers.
No the cost is passed on first to employees (lower wages), the end costs of labor are ALWAYS ultimately passed onto consumers but your employer would much rather pay YOU that money than give it government since you're the one that's actually a productive asset.
All these people working for employers they obviously have absolutely no trust for, I guess they're either fools, self-destructive or some combination of the two, huh?Don't worry. They are not paying for it. The cost is passed on to consumers.
No the cost is passed on first to employees (lower wages), the end costs of labor are ALWAYS ultimately passed onto consumers but your employer would much rather pay YOU that money than give it government since you're the one that's actually a productive asset.
No, the employer would rather keep it.
You apparently have no idea why the decline in real wages and the increase in wealth disparity has been taking place and are instead relying on the Pavlovian "correlation equals causation + partisan propaganda" truth avoidance reflex so popular among economic illiterates.Proof is the drop in wages since Reaganomics.
So you're advocating the government just STEAL the excess from those above a certain income level?The practical point of the cap at this point revolves around the fact that given longer life expectancy people are pulling more out of social security than they put in, if you uncap contributions then what you end up with is people in the higher income brackets pulling proportionally MORE out than they put in because benefit payouts are calculated based on the amount paid in. Raising the cap doesn't make the system any more "fair" (it doesn't change the amount middle/lower class pay in) all it does is increase the income stream that the government can "borrow" from to fund current operations AND reduces the amount of capital available for investment in the private sector, not to mention increases the costs on the back end for social security.
Me too, the whole program is a horrendously bad deal for most people, especially those that plan & save for their own retirements.
the maximum SS benefit payment should remain limited,
Except for the fact it's NOT a tax and never was sold as a tax, what sort of tax works where the government gets to hang on to your money for X period of time based on the promise that at a specified point in the future you'll receive X benefits based on the amount you paid in? Just because it's an horrendously inefficient annuity lets not transform it into essentially another federal income tax because of the poor design of the program and all the egregious manipulation that has been done to it since it's inception. If we're going to do that then what's required is an honest debate about whether drastic reforms or abolition is in order.there is no logic behind raising it just because everyone is taxed on all income. Face reality, its a tax not a savings plan.
LBJ didn't merge SS with the general fund in the way you're trying to imply he did, it was just a book keeping change (unified budget) that took place in 1968 (effective 1969) and only effected how transactions to the SSA fund were reported not what trust fund operations were legal, the federal government has had the authority to borrow from the SSA trust fund to cover operating expenses since day 1.So you're advocating the government just STEAL the excess from those above a certain income level?the maximum SS benefit payment should remain limited,
Except for the fact it's NOT a tax and never was sold as a tax, what sort of tax works where the government gets to hang on to your money for X period of time based on the promise that at a specified point in the future you'll receive X benefits based on the amount you paid in? Just because it's an horrendously inefficient annuity lets not transform it into essentially another federal income tax because of the poor design of the program and all the egregious manipulation that has been done to it since it's inception. If we're going to do that then what's required is an honest debate about whether drastic reforms or abolition is in order.there is no logic behind raising it just because everyone is taxed on all income. Face reality, its a tax not a savings plan.
the sad fact is that SS is no longer a personal retirement saving plan. That ended when LBJ merged the SS account with the general fund.
Again, how does it become a TAX if the government is obligated based on current law to pay it back at some point in the future? It's a tax in name only (constitutionality justification), it's an annuity (or pension fund if you prefer) by operation. The government cannot legally takes funds from the social security trust fund without replacing them with debt instruments (which take the form of non-negotiable bonds), this is completely outside the definition of a "tax". It would be like labeling contributions to your employer pension plan a "tax".Today SS is a tax by which those working provide a retirement income for those who are retired. As a tax, it should be collected on all income and the govt retirement payments to retirees should be limited to the amount that can be paid from taxes collected.
I don't like what it has become, but it is what it is, and we need to deal with that reality.
LBJ didn't merge SS with the general fund in the way you're trying to imply he did, it was just a book keeping change (unified budget) that took place in 1968 (effective 1969) and only effected how transactions to the SSA fund were reported not what trust fund operations were legal, the federal government has had the authority to borrow from the SSA trust fund to cover operating expenses since day 1.So you're advocating the government just STEAL the excess from those above a certain income level?
Except for the fact it's NOT a tax and never was sold as a tax, what sort of tax works where the government gets to hang on to your money for X period of time based on the promise that at a specified point in the future you'll receive X benefits based on the amount you paid in? Just because it's an horrendously inefficient annuity lets not transform it into essentially another federal income tax because of the poor design of the program and all the egregious manipulation that has been done to it since it's inception. If we're going to do that then what's required is an honest debate about whether drastic reforms or abolition is in order.
the sad fact is that SS is no longer a personal retirement saving plan. That ended when LBJ merged the SS account with the general fund.
Maybe this will help clarify what actually took place under LBJ --> Social Security History (see Question #1).
Again, how does it become a TAX if the government is obligated based on current law to pay it back at some point in the future? It's a tax in name only (constitutionality justification), it's an annuity (or pension fund if you prefer) by operation. The government cannot legally takes funds from the social security trust fund without replacing them with debt instruments (which take the form of non-negotiable bonds), this is completely outside the definition of a "tax". It would be like labeling contributions to your employer pension plan a "tax".Today SS is a tax by which those working provide a retirement income for those who are retired. As a tax, it should be collected on all income and the govt retirement payments to retirees should be limited to the amount that can be paid from taxes collected.
I don't like what it has become, but it is what it is, and we need to deal with that reality.
That doesn't make it a tax, that makes it a very poorly designed annuity or as government likes to call such things a social insurance program (if it were a private insurer it would have gone BUST a long time ago).LBJ didn't merge SS with the general fund in the way you're trying to imply he did, it was just a book keeping change (unified budget) that took place in 1968 (effective 1969) and only effected how transactions to the SSA fund were reported not what trust fund operations were legal, the federal government has had the authority to borrow from the SSA trust fund to cover operating expenses since day 1.the sad fact is that SS is no longer a personal retirement saving plan. That ended when LBJ merged the SS account with the general fund.
Maybe this will help clarify what actually took place under LBJ --> Social Security History (see Question #1).
Again, how does it become a TAX if the government is obligated based on current law to pay it back at some point in the future? It's a tax in name only (constitutionality justification), it's an annuity (or pension fund if you prefer) by operation. The government cannot legally takes funds from the social security trust fund without replacing them with debt instruments (which take the form of non-negotiable bonds), this is completely outside the definition of a "tax". It would be like labeling contributions to your employer pension plan a "tax".Today SS is a tax by which those working provide a retirement income for those who are retired. As a tax, it should be collected on all income and the govt retirement payments to retirees should be limited to the amount that can be paid from taxes collected.
I don't like what it has become, but it is what it is, and we need to deal with that reality.
its a tax because payouts exceed collections. SS is operating in the red and only increased taxing or reduced payouts will bring it back into balance.
Different proposition entirely (it does have Ponzi like aspects to it in it's current operation) however turning it into institutionalized theft from people above a certain income level isn't going to fix this in fact it just makes it worse.Can you say PONSI SCHEME ?
That doesn't make it a tax, that makes it a very poorly designed annuity or as government likes to call such things a social insurance program (if it were a private insurer it would have gone BUST a long time ago).LBJ didn't merge SS with the general fund in the way you're trying to imply he did, it was just a book keeping change (unified budget) that took place in 1968 (effective 1969) and only effected how transactions to the SSA fund were reported not what trust fund operations were legal, the federal government has had the authority to borrow from the SSA trust fund to cover operating expenses since day 1.
Maybe this will help clarify what actually took place under LBJ --> Social Security History (see Question #1).
Again, how does it become a TAX if the government is obligated based on current law to pay it back at some point in the future? It's a tax in name only (constitutionality justification), it's an annuity (or pension fund if you prefer) by operation. The government cannot legally takes funds from the social security trust fund without replacing them with debt instruments (which take the form of non-negotiable bonds), this is completely outside the definition of a "tax". It would be like labeling contributions to your employer pension plan a "tax".
its a tax because payouts exceed collections. SS is operating in the red and only increased taxing or reduced payouts will bring it back into balance.
Different proposition entirely (it does have Ponzi like aspects to it in it's current operation) however turning it into institutionalized theft from people above a certain income level isn't going to fix this in fact it just makes it worse.Can you say PONSI SCHEME ?
That doesn't make it a tax, that makes it a very poorly designed annuity or as government likes to call such things a social insurance program (if it were a private insurer it would have gone BUST a long time ago).its a tax because payouts exceed collections. SS is operating in the red and only increased taxing or reduced payouts will bring it back into balance.
Different proposition entirely (it does have Ponzi like aspects to it in it's current operation) however turning it into institutionalized theft from people above a certain income level isn't going to fix this in fact it just makes it worse.Can you say PONSI SCHEME ?
I believe that SS taxes should be collected on all income. You don't. I guess we will just have to disagree on that.
I will not engage in meaningless back and forth arguments.
All these people working for employers they obviously have absolutely no trust for, I guess they're either fools, self-destructive or some combination of the two, huh?No the cost is passed on first to employees (lower wages), the end costs of labor are ALWAYS ultimately passed onto consumers but your employer would much rather pay YOU that money than give it government since you're the one that's actually a productive asset.
No, the employer would rather keep it.
You apparently have no idea why the decline in real wages and the increase in wealth disparity has been taking place and are instead relying on the Pavlovian "correlation equals causation + partisan propaganda" truth avoidance reflex so popular among economic illiterates.Proof is the drop in wages since Reaganomics.
Not your fault though, you respond as you have been trained to respond.
Why wouldn't they tap social security? It's their money they are getting back, and yes there is a sliding rate in that the higher the rate of income the less credit one receives toward benefit payouts on a per dollar basis, works with brackets like a progressive income tax in reverse. There's also a total income formula for income tax on benefits that specifies that up to 85% of social security benefits can be subject to taxation.
Social security will be withheld from an employee's wages at the rate of 4.2% (down from 6.2%) up to the social security wage limit of $110,100.
Publication 505 (2013), Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax
A person making $250k a year only pays into SS up to $110,100. The point of the OP is why the cap?
I also think it's ridiculous that SS and unemployment benefits can be taxed.
the amount withheld from your paychecks for SS is not taxed when you earn it. SS benefits are taxed only if your income is above a specified amount.
as to unemployment, you would pay taxes if you were working for the money, why not when it is being given to you?
Then how will we pay for the wars?Since the rich like to crow about how they pay all the taxes, we should cut the middle class taxes to match their rhetoric.
Absolutely. Flat tax it is. Now NO ONE pays more than anyone else. See how simple that was.
Never mind, I know. Borrow more money from China.
