Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentGovernment · 1 decade ago

Did you know this about Social Security?

We've been told that Social Security is in dire trouble and will run out of money in the not-too-distant future. We've been told that the only way to fix this is privatization. But here's a different way: There's an income limitation on the deduction of Social Security taxes from wages. This year, I believe it's approximately $100,000. That means that after a person has earned that much, any further income is not taxed for Social Security. If the income limitation was raised to, say, $200,000, without raising the percentage deducted (which is 6.2%), still much more money could be collected and put into the system and would help defray the so-called crisis in Social Security. It seems like a reasonable way to do it to me. So, why shouldn't we?


Cite your source please about the income cap being tied to benefits. How exactly is that done?

12 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes the problem is easily fixed by raising the caps....

    The president stopped hocking his SS plan because the more people looked at his proposals the more they realized it was ridiculus....

    Republicans told FDR that SS would be gone in 7 years....

    Republican have always said this even Bush along long time ago while running for congess made claims like it would run out in the 80's

    Not only that but when the president was hocking his propasal for privatization he was soo full of it.

    Meaning he used scary numbers for justifiying SS privatizaiton........

    BUT at the same time used happy cheerful numbers to push for more tax cuts and claims the of cutting the deficity....

    what a joke.

    Good call on SS........

  • 1 decade ago

    I think Social Security's a great idea, but like any other good intentions, it's now serving as a paving-stone on the road to hell.

    America's awash in red ink. SOMEthing has to be done to choke back on government spending, and if that means limiting social security eligibility, raising the age, etc., well it's your relatives(and maybe YOU in the future) that are going to have to deal with lower payments from SSI, but that's better than nothing at all...

    I think that since there's already a social security program, that refining it and financing it better(AND keeping greedy politicians away from it), is a great idea. If you raise the deduction on social security, you're helping secure that person's financial future as well as those already depending on social security. But, the Big Answer is getting people financially independent. How many people have a savings account that's really worth a damn?

    Out of 300 million people, who's got money saved? Answer: not nearly enough. So, what that means is when you've run out of jobs, no one will hire you anymore, about age 55-60, you're looking at the abyss of poverty in your old age if you don't have anything saved. Nobody wants to think about the elderly, they have needs too, and there should be a tight lock on who can and cannot get any benefits from social security.

    Anytime you have a government entitlement program, invariably you get this little(or big) group of people that would VERY much like to 'ride the program'. And, we've got a LOT of people alREADY riding some kind of government program, and not even lifting a finger to get 'benefits'. At some point, the camel's gonna stagger one more time, and fall over dead. Then, nobody gets anything. So, if you're under 60 and getting a free check of some kind, and you're mentally and physically able to perform work, get OFF your ***, and get a JOB, and start a savings. That should be the 'national message' out there.

  • 1 decade ago

    As of March 8th, 2005, the income limitation was only $90,000. And thanks for the question; I'd never even realized that there WAS an income limitation.

    Why shouldn't we? Better question: Why won't they?

    With the Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, there's no way they'll even consider raising the income limitation.

    They'd much rather raise the retirement age. And guess what segment of society NOT raising the income limitation but raising the retirement age favors? Hint: not the poor or middle class.

  • 1 decade ago

    I agree, and also the Federal Government has continually taken money from the Social Security account over the years. If the government paid back that money with interest, Social Security would be just peachy keen fine.

    You see it is basically the same thing as stealing from a pension fund. Try doing that outside the government and you get arrested and tossed away for twenty-five years. The government gets away with it because it can. Who is responsible? Every democrat and republican who ever was President or served in Congress since Nixon. Crisis my butt! If they had left it alone, investing it, we'd be dandy. But hey, check it out for yourself:

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    while there is an income limitation, there is also a benefits limit tied to this. If we double the income limit subject to tax from $100,000 to $2000,000, should we also double the maximum benefit? Otherwise, we are simply taxing those making between $100k and $200k and giving them no benefit. Of course, if we double the maximim benfit, the extra income and expense to SS will cancel out, have we accomplished anything?

  • MK6
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    You can tweak it here and there, but when SS was started, there were 7 workers for every 1 retired. In the not-too-distant future, that ratio will 3-1, -with alot more money to pay out, like medical stuff.

    It's the Titanic going down, - and you're trying to re-arrange the chairs!!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Anytime the government needs money it takes it out of social security. For food stamps, for welfare and for the war.It never pays back anything.They even get money from it to line there pockets with it.

  • dudash
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    the first 3 digits of your SSN ought to tournament the first 3 numbers of the zip code the position you purchased your SSN. the subsequent 2 are numbers given out in blocks. when I labored as a bouncer we had a chart of even as the 4th and fifth numbers were given out to apply for pretend identity checking (in case you SSN changed into utilized in 1945 and also you declare to be 21 there's a issue). If it changed into in protecting with race this does not have labored. The very last 4 digits are merely that 4 digits given out so as. My sister, brothers and that i have consecutive numbers as my dad and mom were given our SSNs together. in case you want extra data my fifth digit is even(i'm white) and my spouse's is fantastic(she is chinese).

  • 1 decade ago

    I agree with you. I don't think there should be a limit at all. All income should be subject to the SS tax.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    call your senators and congressman,,,,, privatization will only work for the rich who don't need Social Security anyway,,,, Democrats will have to save Social Security

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.