A SS tax cap is only fair given the benefit cap.How about eliminating the Social Security tax cap while you're at it?
A SS tax cap is only fair given the benefit cap.How about eliminating the Social Security tax cap while you're at it?
A SS tax cap is only fair given the benefit cap.
So...retirement benefits increase in proportion to income (read: amount paid in) up to a cap, but amount paid in can be increased without bound? What's fair about that?I disagree. 10% for a person making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars is different than 10% for someone making 40 or 50,000 a year. I believe tax rates should be generally progressive.
So...retirement benefits increase in proportion to income (read: amount paid in) up to a cap, but amount paid in can be increased without bound? What's fair about that?
Then why does the benefit scale at all? If it's just to be sure you can support yourself, shouldn't it be A) a fixed payment, and B) means-tested? What you're proposing is perhaps the least fair of any possible alternative. Either make is a simple safety net, or let it be a (quasi-) retirement program.the idea of Social Security isn't to provide a fair return to all investors, it's to provide the elderly with a pension in their old age. That way if they run into financial trouble and had their savings wiped, or they couldn't/didn't save properly for retirement, they have a small amount of income to live off of. That's the whole idea of social security.
Social security, as its name implies, is a form of socialism. Taxing current workers and wealthier Americans to give money to the elderly/retired who cannot sustain themselves. The money you 'invest' into the system is not invested, but is immediately paid by the government to current retirees. There's no 'fund' that it's kept in until you retire.
The fact of the matter is, no taxation is inherently 'fair.' The rich will always end up having to pay more than the poorer, by design. Because they can.
It would not be a fair system to tax the rich man just as much as the poor man.
Then why does the benefit scale at all? If it's just to be sure you can support yourself, shouldn't it be A) a fixed payment, and B) means-tested? What you're proposing is perhaps the least fair of any possible alternative. Either make is a simple safety net, or let it be a (quasi-) retirement program.
And yes, a tax can be fair--a flat percentage is a reasonably fair way of doing things, though in this instance, the payout needs to be proportional as well.
Payroll taxes--like SS and Medicare--already do that. Income taxes include deductions for everybody.Means tested makes sense.
I don't agree with a flat tax. We don't want to tax the basic living income.
Dude, the Little Socialist is never going to listen to anything that you put forward so there's no point in even engaging himSo...retirement benefits increase in proportion to income (read: amount paid in) up to a cap, but amount paid in can be increased without bound? What's fair about that?
I made 5X what my ex wife made in her lifetime, and she gets the same benefit.So...retirement benefits increase in proportion to income (read: amount paid in) up to a cap, but amount paid in can be increased without bound? What's fair about that?
Enter your email address to join: