site taxes and SocSec cap

John K. Taber jktaber at onramp.net
Sun Aug 23 15:28:22 PDT 1998


james withrow wrote: [snip]
> I don't think most working people realize there is a cap on social
> security and if they did realize, they'd be pissed about it. Make the
> Republicans tell us why there should be any cap at all. Put them on the
> defensive. If they say there's a problem with Social Security's revenue
> stream, make them explain why the cap isn't the fairest first fix. I
> bet if we did that, the Republicans would decide there isn't any problem
> after all.

My understanding is that one of Ball's proposals is to raise the cap so that the amount of wages covered again approaches 90%, which is what it used to be.

I don't know what the left supports, but raising the cap is a live proposal.

The Libertarian riposte is "Ponzi scheme". That is, the system will bring in high income earners, then have to pay them social security some day in the future. If the "return" from benefits to the high earners is negative when they retire, they won't see any advantage for themselves and can be expected to politically oppose Social Security. If their benefits represent a positive return, then the Libertarians say that even more workers must be brought into the system at a future date. And on and on, until we run out of new workers.

That's why (I imagine) Ball's proposed raise in cap is calculated.


> And if there's no problem, why not cut other working
> people's taxes by making the tax at least flat?
> James in Philly

Umm, which tax are we talking about? I thought we were talking about FICA.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list