If Social Security pays for itself, why do right wingers want to cut it?

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by Brian Scates

Social security could be 100% solvent forever if the $106,000 cap was lifted. The current social security tax is 15.3%, but only on earnings up to $106,000 per year. After that, you don't pay any more social security tax.

The numbers:

A person who earns $25,000 a year pays $3,825 per year in social security tax.

A person who earns $50,000 a year pays $7,650 per year in social security tax.

A person who earns $106,000 a year pays $16,218.

A person who earns $1,000,000 a year pays $16,218.

A person who earns $5,000,000 a year pays $16,218.

Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Oprah pay no more than $16,218.

To fix social security, remove the $106,000 cap from the social security tax. This will perpetually fully fund social security. The republican plan calls for privatizing social security, as ending the $106,000 cap on social security tax would not only make sense, it would require the wealthy to pay their "fair share". This goes against the republican party philosophy of "tax cuts for the rich fixes everything".

It's worse than you think.

I think Warren Buffett takes a salary of $100K, which would make his SS tax $15,300, meaning he doesn't pay the max.

[Joke Insurance]

Originally Posted by DETROITFORD

this is nothing but a forced ponzi scheme that violates the 10th ammendment

Wait until you reach age 66. You'll be asking for Social Security like addict who needs his fix.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Savoir Faire

How can it be broke if it brings in more than it pays out???? Didn't you read the nice colorful big chart I laid out for you?

I'll explain it further, $865 - $701 = $164, see that's what people call a surplus

Please check current facts before posting.

Social Security will head into the red this year, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Thursday. (August 18, 2010
Social Security: More going out than coming in - Aug. 5, 2010

The program might have been in good shape if the dems had not changed the rules.

The money collected USED to be held exclusiveness for Social Security.

Then the dems decided to change things. Whatever the excess was after paying out to retirees is transferred into the general treasury.

IOU's in the form of special bonds have been issued to cover that excess that Congress used for general spending.

Now Social Security is NOT taking in enough to cover payments to the retirees so they have to cash in those bonds.

Where does the money come from to pay those bonds? From the general treasury of course.

Part of the $14 trillion deficit is the paying back what congress has taken.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Savoir Faire

What about the people who have been paying into Social Security for the past 25 years like me? If you cut it you screw over people like me. Corrupt politicians borrowed from SS to fund other projects and now you want to me my generation suffer, thanks, but no thanks.

The big misconception from the left is "What about the people who have been paying into Social Security for the past 25 years like me?"

Post ANY republican calling for "people like you" loosing any payment due you.

It doesn't exist.

Every plan to save SS has in it that current retirees WILL NOT LOOSE ANYTHING.

If you can find a plan that says different, please post it.