Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The ideologues at places like the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation ( both Republican think tanks)are providing the intellectual justification for destroying Social Security, but the real opposition to Social Security, though, is corporate America, as represented by groups like the Business Roundtable and the US Chamber of Commerce (it's corporate America that funds those foundations and their resident "scholars," after all). And the reason for this corporate opposition is that Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes paid by workers are both matched, dollar for dollar, by employers. If you pay 6.2% of your income in taxes to the Social Security Administration each year, so does your boss, and if the income cap is lifted for workers it will also be lifted for employers. That means a bigger tax bill for the company, and of course personally for the managers and board members.
So let's at least be honest in this coming battle over "saving" Social Security. It is nothing less than a war between bosses and workers."
Don't forget the Chamber of Commerce which spends more on Lobbying than all of Congress makes in Salary. They won't be happy with destroying Social Security and Medicare, they will also go after the minimum wage. In Republikaaner World you will work 60-80 hours a week for slave wages with no health care or retirement, when you die your employer will collect the insurance he took out on you.
The brilliance of these groups resides not in their wacky ideas, but in the way they have convinced so many who depend on these programs that they are bad for them. They wrap their ideas around the flag, freedom, and fear.
The savig sociaol secuirty really has nothing to do with corporations since its a paid for by wokrers truat. Same goes for medicare. I the end it will take cuts and higher taxes to save it long term. Corporation s will pay nothing since both are work contributions funded.But congress has known this for some years.Medicare funding has already been cut by this administration to fund part of its hel;thcare program. Soon they will start cutting advantage plans ;so I don't see this has anything to do with corporation at all.
While I certainly share the concerns about how Social Security discussions may evolve, and the potential erroneous assumptions involved in these discussions, I'd have to say that the source used for the OP posting is a joke.
The site has an agenda as strong, or stronger, than anything put out by CATO or Heritage. The lack of analysis associated with the article, and I've read some of Lindorff's stuff the past few years, shows that the concerns are nothing but his sounding alarms.
He basically just wants to have all income subject to FICA taxation, and everything else he writes about the subject is just his way of trying to get to that single specific objective.
If anyone is interested in reading his complete thoughts on the Social Security topic, here is his "source" article:
There's Nothing Wrong with Social Security that Taxing the Rich Fairly Wouldn't Fix
Don't forget the Chamber of Commerce which spends more on Lobbying than all of Congress makes in Salary. They won't be happy with destroying Social Security and Medicare, they will also go after the minimum wage. In Republikaaner World you will work 60-80 hours a week for slave wages with no health care or retirement, when you die your employer will collect the insurance he took out on you.
Lets all move to Cuba where everyone is equal----of course we will all be poor and miserable, but at least everyone is miserable!!
I'm glad you noted that the rich need to pony up their share.
I'm sure if you made over $106,800 in earned income per year, you would likely change your tune. Never mind that making $106,801 is not truly "wealthy".
How about this then...go ahead and remove the income cap on SS taxes, but also lift the annual income and contribution caps on Roth IRA's so people can put more money into a retirement plan where earnings are tax free?
You need to keep in mind that the most a person can contribute to a Roth IRA is $5k (or $6k if you are 50 or older) - which is not that much. But once you make a penny over $106k per year, the amount you are allowed to invest drops below that amount. And at around $120k (not sure of the exact number off of the top of my head) one can no longer contribute to a Roth at all.
So if someone makes over $106,800 per year, the amount they make over that is not taxed for SS, but they also face a limitation of what they can invest for their own retirement. So it does kind of balance itself out because that non-SS taxed money can be invested in other ways for retirement (but only in ways which include a tax on the earnings).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lets all move to Cuba where everyone is equal----of course we will all be poor and miserable, but at least everyone is miserable!!
