Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: AP Sources: House GOP bill renews jobless benefit

  1. #21
    Global Moderator
    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen

    Re: AP Sources: House GOP bill renews jobless benefit

    Even though it may result in a larger defacto tax increase, I'd much rather up the SS cap than raise the top brackets income tax rate. However, to go along with that, I'd want to see Social Security taxes go into a seperate fund that is not part of the general revenue stream. If the amount of SS tax doesn't cover the pay outs for this year, it can borrow from the general fund. However, the general fund can't borrow from the SS fund. If there's leftover money in the SS fund at the end of the year, it just should roll over into the next year.

    Without taking the increased money out of the hands of politicians so they can't just use it on other spending making it worthless to even call it a "SS tax", and without raising the level of benefits cutoff as well sa the tax, then I couldn't support a SS tax increase.

    Ultimately however I still feel that should be a short term help to keep it solvent whlie we begin a phased removal of it over the next 30 to 50 years
    Last edited by Zyphlin; 12-02-11 at 04:13 PM.
    "I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
    "A court took away a presidency"
    "...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
    It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.

  2. #22
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    10-14-16 @ 02:58 PM

    Re: AP Sources: House GOP bill renews jobless benefit

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    no, why? ss is already a regressive tax. in fact, we should just up the tax cutoff to 250k.
    Goto the SS website, they have an estimator on there. Once you put your target salary over the current cutoff, 106k, your benefit never goes up.

    Everytime you bump up the tax cutoff, they have to increase the max benefit. If they are going to reduce the contribution rate by 1/3, then they should reduce the benefit by 1/3 too.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts