Spent the past few days talking with friends (I, personally, am heading down to Florida to help in the effort), but one of the arguments I have had with one of my Repug friends has been the (suggestion) of the cap removal on income taxed on behalf of Social Security.
Again, I am not an expert on these matters, but again, we need a basic argument that says these statements are not true or are fabrications. I lay out the logic presented to me - and ask if you could explain how this is true or not true.
Everyone already knows that the Obama tax plan will lower taxes on behalf of all 95% of Americans who earn less than $250K and offers help for small businesses as well.
What has the Right in arms is the argument that Obama has suggested that he will remove the cap on Social Security - which could expose people to an additional 12% tax increase on incomes over $95K $102K.
See this post on About.com for the details:
http://seniorliving.about.com/...
From other comments below, the costs are:
- 6.2% from 0 to $102K if employed by a business (and the employer pays the rest)
- 0 from $102K to $250K and then
- 4% for income over $250K
(if you are self-employed, you pay the entire 12.4% youself).
The argument from the Repugs is that this removal of the cap would be considered a tax increase.
Specifically that people are going to see an increase in their costs because of the potential removal of the cap.
Obama's argument is that only 3-4% of the population are about the cap and they are the ones getting another tax break. But, doesn't this also hit the small businesses as well - specifically, that the business also pays a portion of the SS tax (or, if self-employed, you pay it all).
How do we argue this one against the people who are saying that Democrats are all about increasing your taxes?