Is there a good reason to have a cap on earned income being taxed social security?

Question

I understand complaints of not receiving benefits, but look at what taxes are, a distribution of wealth. Should we allow the top 1% income earners to foot 37% of the tax bill, but own 39% of the countries wealth? Would applying a social security tax effectively solve countless budget problems, help the less fortunate, and cause a minimal impact to the rich? Before you answer think about ½ the country that does not make 56k a year and is susceptible to layoffs and job outsourcing, social security tax does not go to social security payments, a large portion of wealth is inherited, the good old buddies in the white house have given huge tax breaks to corporations and the rich and there is more and more evidence to suggest a class system is developing in the US. I am all for a capitalist economy, but there has to be some assistance to the less fortunate of the country.

I see your point, and I will admit that I am mixing facts a bit. However, there is likely a large overlap of people who are in the top income bracket and the top wealth bracket. I am not for socialist governments practiced in Europe, but I do not think we should give tax breaks to the rich. I believe the burden of paying higher taxes comes with making more money. I am insulted that Bush got on national TV and said he was giving a $300 tax refund to all Americans. The only reason he did that was so that he could lower the top income tax bracket by 4%, Also, my definition of helping the poor is not welfare checks and free rent, but it would include real social security payments, education assistance, public school funding and healthcare. If somebody is not willing to work or does not attempt to better themselves, they are getting exactly what they deserve. But what happens to blue collar workers, social workers, or teachers when they retire and can not count on social security?

I am just asking a question pal. Obviously not an important one seeing I only got 5 answers. I should have asked about Britney Spears new haircut or Anna Nichole Smith's kid if I wanted to get a a large range of feedback.

I think a misconception is that people who are not rich are lazy or do not work hard. The majority of Americans work hard, but do not have large incomes. Those people are vital to our society and economy. If a regressive tax approach gives those people tax breaks, relative to those with high incomes, I am OK with that. The theory of flat tax is nice, but I do not think you would ever be able to have the ideal rate that would provide the government with proper funding and not over burden the poor (even if government spending was prudently). I also disagree with eliminating tax breaks. Tax breaks are intended to promote certain things like investing in a house (which would reduce a person’s dependency on social security in the future), provide for you children or donate to charities, etc.... You could definitely argue that the government does not have the right to push those agendas or that they are not effective, but that is a different argument.

Back to the original question, since the government uses social security tax for other purposes, I do not feel the tax should not be capped. Thank you for commenting on this question.

Answer 1

Yes, so that people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Neal Boortz can keep more of their "HARD EARNED MONEY".

Answer 2

Yes. We limit benefits so we limit cost.

I am for ending social security.
------------------------------------
First you are mixing facts. You talk about the 1% that pays 37% of taxes from income and the 1% that owns 39% of wealth. Being the top 1% of income earners and the 1% richest are two different groups. So do you now want to have a Bolshevistic revolution and take from the Teddy Kennedy's and Al Gore's of the world? Maybe we should take most of Ophra's money.

The problem is I don't believe in distributing wealth. I believe in earning it. We have lots of countries that have tried wealth distribution (China, Russia, Cuba, etc...), you will notice most of them are running from it as fast as they can. The rest are living in poverty. Oh yeah that is our fault.

The argument always comes up that we are helping the poor. Look at the E.U. the countries that are most socialist (wealth distribution) have the highest unemployment. You think having a 15% unemployment helps the poor? Do you think telling someone they can't do it themselves, that someone smarter like you needs to give them money makes them better off.

How about we focus on a strong economy, good schools and let people lead their own lives. How about you worry about you?
--------------------------------
Glad to hear you don't want European socialism. I agree that the burden of paying more money in taxes comes with making more money. But a flat tax is my preference, not a regressive tax which we have today.

Example: If someone makes $30,000 a year and pay 10% in tax they pay $3,000. If I make $300,000 a year (10 times as much) I will pay 34% tax or $102,000 - 34 times as much tax! If I make 10 times as much money I should pay 10 times the tax.

I would like to see all tax breaks dropped. Why should a married couple, or someone with children pay less then me? If I want to live in an apartment, I don't get the tax break someone that is buying a house gets. Am I a less favored citizen? Everyone should pay a flat part of their income (something like 15%) and the government should not be allowed to spend more then was taxed the year before.

Most families do not stay as the richest in our nation - where are the Hunts, Morgans today? Most of the rich earn the money - think Bill Gates, Ophra Winfrey, & Steve Jobs.

The original question is why cap S.S? No matter how much money we send the government they will find a way to spend it. They spend almost 3 trillion dollars. Right now the federal government takes 1.5 trillion from the workers (yes some are paid huge sums) and gives it to other Americans. At some point enough is enough.

---------------------
Zandelia
Actually you pay $11,209.60 if your pay is $90,400. Your employer has to match your contribution and all employers that into account when figuring out what to pay you.

Answer 3

I think $5,604.80 is more than enough to pay into social security each year since none of us will probably ever see a dime of it.

You ask where i came up with that amount? Well, the maximum income per year that can be taxed for social security is $90,400.

Social security costs us 6.2% of our income. If you make $90,400 or more per year you will pay in $5,604.80 per year in social security tax.

Answer 4

Why not, if you die after your youngest turns 22 and leave no surviving spouse the gov't pockets all of the money you paid in

Answer 5

Yes.... benefits are limited so why should taxes be limited.

Answer 6

i am really not sure