Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 0
I feel like I'm getting in on this discussion kind of late. Oh well...

First off, I want to disagree with Obama's statement "it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay Social Security tax 'on every dime they make," while millionaires and billionaires pay it only on 'a very small percentage of their income.'"

Under the current system benefits are proportional to wages up to a cap. In the same way, the withholding is proportional wages up to a cap. Therefore, the current system seems fair to me. Possibly the fairest of any government program I can think of.

What Obama proposes is to have the wealthy subsidize the social security system. This would redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Setting aside whether or not that's a good idea, in my perfect world, I only wish people would just call something what it is.

Having said that, I do actually think that having higher income earners pay more into the SS system without increasing benefits might be a good way to keep the system solvent. I mean, we all know that entitlements are going to need more funding and this 6.2% flat tax looks a lot better to me that a massive increase on taxes on investments.

Personally, the "donut hole" between $102k and $250k that Obama leaves me scratching my head. Does this make sense to anyone? It seems like a flat payroll tax would be "cleaner."

Print the post  


When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.