I was reading an informative series on Social Security until I hit the part about means testing and taxing income above $68,000. I could not believe what I was reading in the Motley Fool. Reading his article, I felt like I was sailing along a foolish stream, only to run aground on a huge pile of liberal redistribution of wealth trash. I don't know if Mr. Levit reads these messages, but I want him to know that there is another point of view on this, and it is certainly not a "no brainer" to take people's hard earned savings (which is what social security taxes are supposed to be)and tell them they have now worked too hard and been too successful to have them. As it is, the people making $68K are already doing a huge favor for the people at minimum wage. I have no problem with his proposals if we could opt out of the system. I would gladly opt out with a total loss even though I have paid in for 20 years. The fairest system would give back exactly what you put in, with a compounded interest at least equal to T-bill rates. With a system like that, there is more equity in exacting social security tax on a person's full income.I think if you polled the average "Joe Sixpack", and asked if it is fair to tax a person (and his employer) under the pretense of "social security" or "retirement benefits" at 12.4% of his full annual income, and then at the end, to take all of his money away by means testing, the vast majority would say it's not fair. My suspicion is that you would get more support for a higher income tax on the "rich" (just raise the 39.6% income tax to 52%, deny social security to the "rich" and be done with it). Why play games?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M