Skip to main content

View Diary: Senate Democrats ready to push Social Security expansion (110 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The income cap is supposed to be @ 90% (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bufffan20, tardis10, mcstowy

    Historically speaking, going back 30 yrs.

    Of course some real serious job creation just about fixes SS by itself, raising the SS income cap to 90% finishes the job, making SS good thru 2090.

    I would just as soon add a minimum of 6 brackets to income taxes, all at the top. Cap gains has to be addressed too. I would really like to leave SS as wage based insurance.

    And yes the 1986 tax reform act killed domestic investment, the result is todays economy is not our grandparents economy.

    .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 10:13:19 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's a key difference between us. I believe (0+ / 0-)

      SS as wage-based insurance might have been true in the long-ago and far-away, but not so much now.  More to the point, it's not working very well right now.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 10:34:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The only thing broken with SS is the economy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jbsoul

        20 million jobs at 36k each adds 89.2 billion in FICA per year. About .6% of GDP, According to the CBO thats about all we need to do. Raising the income cap (.2% of GDP) and real job creation guarantees SS will be good thru 2090.

        .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 10:42:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why not expand... (0+ / 0-)

        ...welfare instead of making Social Security a welfare program?

        A low wage earner already gets more return for every dollar they put into Social Security than a high wage earner.

        Many people support Social Security (although, some would not as much if they realized how skewed the "return on investment" is towards those who contribute the least) who don't show the same support for welfare programs.

        It's potentially politically destabilizing for Social Security to decouple contributions and benefits yet more than they already are.

        •  I'd like to see a better return for "high wage" (0+ / 0-)

          earners, given that "high wage" in this case is still pretty firmly middle class, especially in costly areas like New York and San Francisco.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 11:43:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Worse than 401ks for working folks? (0+ / 0-)
        •  Depends on the 401K. I know some people who (0+ / 0-)

          did reasonably well -- certainly better than SS -- even after the stock market bath.

          Probably not true for low-income workers, but SS pays them something like 90% of their base wage.  As the base wage goes higher, the payout goes down until it reaches 15 cents on the dollar.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Wed Jun 11, 2014 at 04:03:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site