Skip to main content

View Diary: Social Security: whose piggy bank is it? (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Tax policy looks at the combo of taxes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    simple serf, VClib

    If the ceiling for Social Security were raised to $500,000 the income tax schedules would need to be adjusted downwards from the current ceiling to the new ceiling to avoid excessive tax rates.  Without this, the marginal tax rates for those with earned income from self employment of $400 to $500,000 range in a state with a 10% tax rate would become approx 64% and reduce their after tax marginal income by 25%.

    Few Americans would consider that level of taxation as equitable.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 02:47:16 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You're kidding, right? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      simple serf, BrianParker14

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 03:00:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, Do the calculations. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        simple serf, VClib, Bruce Webb

        39.6% Federa Income tax
        16.2% Social Security and Medicare (not Fed Income tax deductible)
        10% State income tax (Approx 50% deductible due to phase out for deductions.

        Net marginal tax rate is 63.8%, person keeps 36.2% of what they make.  The current situation is a marginal tax rate of 51.4% with the person keeping 48.6%.

        Going from keeping 48.6% to only 36.2% is a reduction in after tax marginal income of 25.5%.

        In your vision of "Fair" is a person keeping only 36.2% at the margin Fair?

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 03:16:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think you get it. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          simple serf, BrianParker14, mkor7, ozsea1

          "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

          by elwior on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 03:24:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  nextstep - elwior would be happy if the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster, simple serf

          marginal rate on high income earners was 95% and would think that was fair.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:49:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Some just don't get it. (10+ / 0-)

            According to the capitalist bible, Forbes:

            "By sitting on their growing investments, the richest five Americans made almost $7 billion each in one year. That's $3,500,000.00 per hour."

            That's more in one hour than most two income households will earn in eighty hours of work, working every week for forty years.  

            And they use some of that stolen productivity to tell us we've got to take even less...

            From Paul

            "According to a review of tax documents from 2007 through 2011, Peterson has personally contributed at least $458 million to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to cast Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and government spending as in a state of crisis, in desperate need of dramatic cuts."
            That's "at least".  And that doesn't include the Koch's, de Vos', Waltons, Simmons and the other sociopaths.

            Some just don't get it.

            Mostly we hear distortions and misleading statements causing us to argue among ourselves and not understand what the truly wealthy are doing to us.

            95% tax would only leave them w/one hundred seventy five thousand dollars an hour.  How would they live?  The average worker (not household) earns twenty-six thousand dollars a year. So, the wealthy make in one second what an average worker makes in seven years. In ONE SECOND.  We wouldn't want to hurt those job creators.

            "If you want to make G-D smile, tell him your plans." Vin Scully

            by BrianParker14 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 07:36:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The marginal rate was close to that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tom Anderson

            in the Eisenhower years. The economy did quite well during that period. As you know.

            Furthermore, there's a fundamental difference between marginal rates (potential) and effective rates (realworld).

            The effective rates are usually lower, esp for those taxpayers who rely more on investment or other forms of passive income, which are not subject to SS tax.

            Again, as you and nextstep both know.

            The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

            by ozsea1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:11:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Please see my comment above reference the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      simple serf, NoMoreLies

      "tax overhaul" that is being negotiated, as we speak.

      The Simpson-Bowles proposal, The Moment Of Truth, recommends slashing the top marginal rates for the wealthy and corporations.  

      So it appears that this will hardly be an issue in the near future [if their proposal serves as a framework for the so-called Grand Bargain.]

      See the link above.


      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible." --Frank L. Gaines

      "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

      by musiccitymollie on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 10:33:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site