Hillary's claim that raising the cap on social security taxes

[cali]

will hurt working people, is a right wing crock. Social Security taxes are capped on income over $97,000 dollars. Raising it would affect undr 5% of American workers. She's using blatant right wing talking points and the politics of fear by sending out a flier with false claims about this.

[dbackjon]

1. I have to agree with you on that

I consider myself upper middle class, and ALL of my earnings are taxed. Raising it 25-50% will help the solvency issue greatly.

[earthlover]

2. Earlier in a debate she said lifting the cap would hurt the "middle class"

Either she has a distorted view of just who is middle class or working people...or she is deliberately deceiving us. I honestly don't know, any more.

[terisan]

10. $97000 is middle class in our mega cities-NY, LA, San Francisco. His plan is a rip off of

wage earners to pay for tax cuts for weathy (paid for by raiding soc security trust fund).

Obama is trying to please his Wall Steet backers by letting them get away with theft and making wage earners pay for their thievery.

He is depending on his supporters ignorance to get away with his scam plan.

[cali]

13. what bullshit.

Yes, it's a middle class wage, but the median income in ALL those cities, is some $30,000 to $40,000 less than that.

As for your stupid claim that Obama is trying to please Wall Stree backers by letting them get away with theft, that's just basic slime of the lowest order and you provide nothing to back it up.

Ugh

[dionysus]

25. thank you! holy cow the crap in here today!!!

[Barack_America]

28. Hear hear! And I personally feel that if you make that much money and choose

to live on the coasts, well to be blunt, tough shit. You could take that income to the midwest and live like a king.

And FWIW, I'm currently living on the East Coast, making (combined) a wage that would leave us quite well off in my native Michigan. And here on the EC, we struggle a bit. But, that's a choice that we made, so tough shit to us too.

[earthlover]

17. If Hillary won't raise taxes for those making over $97,000 who will she raise taxes on?

I'm sorry but I don't think many people are going to buy that the top 2% or so are middle class. But the sad thing is...if we have to raise revenue....and we won't tax the richest....that leaves raising revenue on the backs of the rest of us. What a crock, Hillary!

[Captain Hilts]

21. The same folks Bill raised 'em on back in '94. nt

[rinsd]

24. Except she called repeatedly for the rollbacks of the Bush tax cuts.

In fact that is a key component to getting her programs financed.

Damn facts, getting in the way of your bullshit.

[annie1]

45. i hear the numbers 150/200/250 a lot.

[Captain Hilts]

22. Yes! He's got a good amount of Wall St. backing - which I don't object to - because of Cap Gains...

tax policies.

[Captain Hilts]

20. If you live on either coast, that's middle class. We need to eliminate FICA on first $20K earned. n

[Barack_America]

26. Should you expect to be a little financially strapped if you live on the coasts?

That's an honest question.

We've got some people who choose to live on the coasts (and I would that those earning $97,000 per year would fall into this category)

-and-

We've got some people who are stuck living on the coasts (i.e. are too impoverished to up and leave)

Should we give preference to those who choose to live on the coats even if it comes at the expense of those who are living there and just scraping by?

----------
As a disclaimer, I should point out that I do indeed live on the EC (where I go to school, hence the avatar) and that my neighborhood is an interesting mix of those who choose to live here and make good money and those who are just plain stuck living here. And by "interesting mix" I mean that I live at the border of gentrification.

I personally, would feel pretty sick if my more well to do neighbors (who do have rather high housing costs, by choice) benefitted from the tax law, possibly at the expense of my neighbors who are just struggling to get by. Particularly when my well-to-do neighbors do have the means to move elsewhere in this country where housing, etc. is more affordable.

[Captain Hilts]

30. Michigan? I actually do not agree with Clinton's take on this. But I don't agree about choice...

of job location based on income.

[Barack_America]

35. Oops..

Boy I screwed that up, eh?

I grew up in Michigan. Currently live on the EC, where I go to school. Combined we make a decent living, that would be a very decent living back in Michigan. But, my feelings about that have always been, "tough shit, I chose to live here".

[Captain Hilts]

36. Well, you DO choose where you go to school, but not where you live...

My graduate degree will be from U Toronto. I'm now living in Maryland because I had to be closer to my elderly parents. Many, MANY people are tied to areas because of elderly parents. I'm one of them.

[Barack_America]

40. Unfortunately, in my line of work they're one and the same.

I have to live where I go to school.

I'm speaking mostly about my well-off neighbors who are professionals. These jobs exist elsewhere in the country, but they chose to accept a position here, to be on the east coast, affiliated with an Ivy League, etc. Personally, I don't have a lot of pity for them, when I also live blocks from sheer poverty.

Go Leafs?

[rinsd]

3. She's wrong on this. Removing the cap is a good idea.

I think she modifies the cap but does not go as far as Edwards who does not go as far as Obama.

[demosincebirth]

7. I agree.

[LiberalFighter]

4. When and where did she make that statement?

[cali]

6. read about it here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4087766&mesg_id=4087766

[demosincebirth]

5. She is out of touch. ..that isn't the middle class I know.

[terisan]

8. Obama knows that social security is solvent and is using fear to let rich escape taxes.

Reagan and Bush used money from social security trust fund to pay for their tax cuts to wealthy; They don't want to pay back the money owed and are trying to get workers in high cost of living cities to pay.

$97000 is middle class in NY, LA, San Francisco and any city where housing costs and transportation costs and all other expenses are enormous.

Moreover his plan doesn't add up. These workers would get no corresponding benefits in higher retirement income.

Stealing from higher income workers to keep Wall Street billionaires from paying back their tax cuts is not progressive.
Obama gets big money from Goldman Sachs--I think they love his planned rip-off of wage earners.

[cali]

9. oh please

raising the SS tax cap is "stealing"? Dismissed.

[terisan]

11. Obama's scam plan. Why doesn't he call for wealthy to pay the money OWED to social security.

[terisan]

12. Incidentally you are revealing your ignorance of the Social Security Trust Fund (note the word Trust

[cali]

15. baloney

If you think your defense of keeping caps in place on only the first %97,000 dollars of income makes sense, that's just pathetic.

[terisan]

27. Do you want that on rye or whole wheat? Because you will soon be eating your words re Soc Security.

[slipslidingaway]

16. It's only TWO TRILLION, give or take a few billion. I agree with

Hillary on this issue, although she does speak of how Bill Clinton left a surplus with not mention of how much money was borrowed from the Trust Fund.

[EV_Ares]

14. U are correct, look who agrees with her on that:

Idea to Raise Social Security Wage Limit Criticized

GOP House Leaders Say President's Proposal Would Amount to a Tax Increase

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 18, 2005; Page A04

The House's top two Republicans swiftly rejected an idea floated by President Bush to raise the ceiling on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax, with Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay saying yesterday that they would consider that a tax increase.

Underscoring the fluidity of the debate over Bush's proposal for restructuring the 70-year-old retirement program, DeLay (Tex.) said Congress should look at a more flexible retirement age. But he flatly opposed subjecting more of the earnings of higher-income people to the Social Security tax.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33033-2005Feb17.html

[BootinUp]

18. The Democratic strategy

to hold off any Social Security reforms while we are running a large deficit is intended to prevent fear mongering and a certain demise to the program. Get the fiscal house in order first, then we can talk about SS.

[EV_Ares]

19. Actually, not a bad plan, makes sense if that is what they are intending to do, Thanks, eom.

[cascadiance]

23. They should simply get RID of the cap!

I've seen my salary "track" the cap over the years so that I always pay the same as Bill Gates and still more than those who make less than I. Living in California, I certainly am not living like a king and can't afford a house at the moment. If we got rid of it, then everyone would be paying a fair sum. It is a regressive tax, and that should be corrected.

[Heywood J]

49. Right on.

Get rid of the damn thing - everyone pays into it. Who wants to bet that would keep SS solvent well into this century?

But then politicians wouldn't be able to scream and moan about Social Security's failings in blatant attempts to use retirement money to soak up losses incurred by poor business decisions.

[jlake]

29. There needs to be a donut hole. Keep the cap and apply over 250K

[Captain Hilts]

31. Yes, that would work. nt

[jackson_dem]

43. That's Edwards proposal. Keep it at 97k but tax any income over 200k

[jlake]

46. Yes, Obama mentioned it as well. And I am sure Hillary would consider it.

Everyone needs to pay in their fair share, but it would pass the burden to the very wealthy rather than the upper middle class.

[earthlover]

48. Hillary opposes taking off the cap...it would tax the rich she calls middle class

[cascadiance]

52. Why a donut hole? Why should I just under $100k pay the same as those making up to $250k?

If you removed the cap, we probably could reduce the percentage people would pay in to the system and it would still say solvent.

[prole_for_peace]

32. at least the cap increased to $102,000 on 2008 wages

but it still is too low. when i mentioned eliminating the cap in an office conversation someone mentioned that if people pay in more they will get more back and it won't help in the long run. well cap social security benefits then. if a person made a high income when they were in the workforce then they should have something to fall back on besides ss benefits.

[killbotfactory]

33. If you can't live comfortably on over $100,000/year

You are doing something horribly wrong.

I don't care what city you live in, people are living in that same city on far, FAR less, and they have to pay social security tax on all their income. You get no sympathy from me.

[Captain Hilts]

37. My idea is people shouldn't pay SS on the first $20K of income. nt

[Thothmes]

39. What if

a persons income never reaches the $20k mark. If he does not pay into the system, he is inelegible for benefits when he hits retirement age.

[Auntie Bush]

34. Well, my som and daughter-in-law together earn that and believe

you me...they are still working people...hard working!

[karynnj]

47. payroll taxes are on each income - so they will be unaffected

unless one makes over $97,000.

[busymom]

38. I hate for this to be my first post....

I joined the night of the NH primaries and then bit my nails over the fact that I couldn't join in here and celebrate...but in the days that have followed I've been to afraid to post. I'm shocked at how democrats are really ripping other dems to shreds right here on public forums...to just feed the right wingers when the time comes.

But I digress.

My husband and I are in the category that Hillary Clinton addresses with social security cap and I'm in agreement with her. Why? We already pay so much in taxes on our income that it would make your head spin....to top it off, because we live in a blue state and have 5 children, we are subject to the alternative minimum tax. When you add up what we pay in taxes and to social security each year we are sitting at about 43% of our hard earned money that sails out the door. That's a lot of money. Think about what you earn...no matter how much or how little....43%...can you honestly say that you'd be ok with that?

The money that we pay into social security is also probably money that we'll never see.

Every year in the middle of the summer, we have the good fortune of not having to cough up money to the social security pot...and trust me...we pay and pay until that point. We use that money to put towards our huge, monstrous student loans and for our children.

Why are we attacking working americans with this whole social security cap thing anyway? Shouldn't we be focusing our efforts on companies like Halliburton with their offshore corporations that avoid paying US taxes? How about pointing the finger at businesses that avoid paying taxes any way that they can...or the very wealthy who can brag that they pay less in taxes than their secretaries because their earnings are in dividends, etc.

I hate to even start out my posting here like this....ummm...hi everyone...but I guess at some point I'll just have to jump right in.

Kris

[EV_Ares]

42. Hey there busymom, way to go to just jump in there. Its your opinion on

it and thanks for sharing it with others. Even though it may be different than others, its yours and your right to express it. Welcome.

[busymom]

44. Thanks

I've been enjoying reading all of the posts, but there is certainly a lot of heated debate.

[Heywood J]

50. "....43%...can you honestly say that you'd be ok with that?"

Yes - everyone in my immediate and extended family managed to live with about that out in taxes. But then again, I'm from Canada, where that's quite routine on income in the range of $70,000+. At least you get health care and social services for that money, down here you get a war.


Why are we attacking working americans with this whole social security cap thing anyway? Shouldn't we be focusing our efforts on companies like Halliburton with their offshore corporations that avoid paying US taxes? How about pointing the finger at businesses that avoid paying taxes any way that they can...or the very wealthy who can brag that they pay less in taxes than their secretaries because their earnings are in dividends, etc.

That should also be a priority. They aren't mutually exclusive.




Welcome to DU, by the way. Most of the shredding will subside in a month or two.

[juajen]

53. Welcome to DU! We hope you like us and stay.

Of course, if we don't like you, we hope you get tombstoned fast. LOL

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

41. No argument on that

[annie1]

51. But she's talking about families. and one earner making 97k...

with 2 children is middle class.