Change Social Security
How many individuals will make $137,700 in 2020? This is the maximum amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax for this year. This increase will impact about 12 percent of the 171 million workers who are covered under Social Security.
People who make over $137,700 are not subject to Social Security tax this year. Last year it was a $132,900.
The vast majority of working Americans, approximately 90%, will never know a year of life that they are not paying Social Security taxes. People who make more are spared paying the tax on income higher than the $137,700 cap. There is also a limit on how much they can collect in monthly Social Security benefits which changes a bit each year. This year the max is $3,011 each month if you wait until your full retirement age.
The prediction is that Social Security will be out of money in 2035. Some argue that this won’t happen. Some argue we need to increase the benefits age to 70 to secure continued funding. This simply means that millions of people who die young will never receive a cent of their Social Security benefits. There is also the argument that working people should start paying Social Security taxes on their benefits like health insurance and other fringe benefits. This would simply mean killing off what is left of the middle class and those barely making enough money now to survive.
It’s time for Congress and our President to raise the cap on income subject to Social Security tax. For the next five years it needs to be increased to a million a year. The argument against this is that those who pay more will have to be compensated more in their monthly earnings because they have paid so much more into the fund. Do people who collect a million dollars a year or even a half million need to receive Social security compensation? They do not. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and President Trump and a multitude of others do not need a Social Security pension.
The poor people of the country struggle as they look at their paychecks, decreased by tax dollars they need for the basic necessities of life. Congress doesn’t worry about the impact that taxing the poor and the middle class has. Why is Congress so worried about taxing someone who makes a million dollars a year or more?
Congress should also cut out having to pay tax on Social Security income received by people over 75. Give the elderly a break. This only amounts to less than 3% of Social Security receipts and elderly Americans could convert the small increase into groceries. If someone is paying social security tax on a million dollars a year, they are simply doing what 99% of all the other Americans are doing.
The boost in income to the Social Security fund would strengthen the program and save Americans down the road from financial cuts that will only spiral them further into economic woes.
Contact him at GMollette@aol.com. Learn more at www.glennmollette.com Like his facebook page at www.facebook.com/glennmollette
well first thing that is not true is social security will run out of money in 2035 now the trust fund is projected to run out of money but not SS but they will be cuts if NO action taken
if you people care anything about SS then this bill is a good start
https://larson.house.gov/social-security-2100
curious to see how many republicans would consider this bill
Odds of passage
The House version has attracted 209 cosponsors, all Democrats — the vast majority of the 235 House Democrats.
Previous House versions in July 2014, in March 2015, and in April 2017 attracted two, 105, and 174 cosponsors respectively — making this by far the most popular version yet. (Although it has yet to attract a single cosponsor across the aisle.)
It awaits a potential vote in either House Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, or Ways and Means Committee. All three prior versions failed to receive a floor vote, as the chamber was under Republican control.
The Senate version only has one Democratic cosponsor. It’s unclear why there’s such a discrepancy between the cosponsor numbers in the two chambers.
Even if it passes the Democratic-controlled House, odds of passage in the Republican-controlled Senate are low.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr860/summary
KAG, you just plagiarized every word you posted, not only is it unethical it’s against the law. The lazer should not allow it, and would not if it were someone else.
Charley you don’t even know what plagiarized is if you would of clicked on the link it would take you to the web page and the author
like I said try to keep up
Where were the quotation marks at the start and end, that attribute the context to the link KAG? You posted it as your own and added a link. It’s exactly what I said it was, plagiarized. I most certainly do know what plagiarism is, if you had an education you would too. (Third grade doesn’t count).
Charley it’s time to get some help
Our Charter
1. GovTrack.us’s mission is to help Americans participate in their government.
a. We make information about the United States Congress accessible, understandable,
and actionable for public use.
b. We do this by putting the information in context, tracking new developments on
issues our users care about, and helping our users take action to make a meaningful difference.
c. We actively seek out any information relevant to our mission and new ways to analyze and explain that information.
d. GovTrack.us and the information we publish will always be free to view, use, and share by anyone.
https://www.govtrack.us/about
again Charley try to keep up and get some help
KAG, you just proved beyond any shadow of doubt you have not one clue what plagiarism is, because you did it again to try to prove a point, when you don’t even know what the point is, why don’t you help yourself and enter adult literacy classes?
I am usually curious to read these articles. I feel like what the author is doing here is coming very close to a republican version of “let’s just tax the rich.” Forgive me if I’ve read this wrong as it is late.
From what I’ve been able to read, it seems that what the author is saying, is that raising the maximum chargeable annual salary, will add funds to social security. However, it also has been noted herein that those individuals probably don’t need, nor use social security. So what we’re saying here is that, we can tax more if their income than anyone else (because they make more money), and yet they actually will never see that investment return. Unless of course you count philanthropy as an investment return. This is in essence what Socialism is.
Government mandating everything. This includes telling people what they can charge, what they can earn, how much tax and when, whether you can drive cars with combustible engines, or fly in planes.
The same flaw can be found in liberals logic of taxing the wealthy. The people that are top earners, your millionaires and billionaires for instance, it is often described their businesses use tax loopholes to avoid tax and this is why those rich folk need more taxes. However, and as example, Amazon “doesn’t pay taxes”, but they do employ about 250,000 people in the USA. Who are being taxed on income, social security, everything they purchase. Further to provide those checks to that quarter million people, you guessed it, Amazon pays a payroll tax. I could list all day the taxes this company endures. So let tax Jeff Bezos more social security, that’s sure to make him want to stay in the USA. You know, in place of moving his extraordinarily taxes billions off shore where it can’t be taxed at all.
Mr G.W. the way I understand is you believe that social security should just run it’s course correct me if I am wrong
Dr. Franklin analyzed the views of both the conservative and liberal, and pointed out the flaws in each. He didn’t take sides…exactly, but stood by his thesis, in a very well written short essay on the subject of taxing Social Security, and the downfalls therein. He used the article presented as his reference. He used facts rather than opinion KAG.
well Mr Einstein(Charley) I was just asking his G.W. his opinion about SS that’s all
Thank you for the compliment KAG!
I’m not advocating we let it run out of money. I’m saying that taxing everyone into poverty is not going to fix poverty (debt).
There are many items which could address both social security, and pensions which both have financial issues in Kentucky. One item would be legalization of Marijuana. This alone is projected to raise over 800 million dollars in revenue for the state. This includes no extra taxes at all, people buy this because they want to, they aren’t forced to pay.
I might also add that perhaps of taxing more, we spend less on non essential items in the budget. Economics is very simple. When you have a certain amount of money, when it’s gone it’s gone. So take the total money going out, and eliminate things that aren’t necessary. Start with grant programs for counties and cities. If we don’t have money to pay people back what they’ve given, then we don’t have money to offer free things to others.
Simply put, stop wasting money that isn’t yours to waste, and the troubles will fix themselves. If a person finds themselves in debt, you start by paying what you need to pay to survive (Mortgage), and slowly work down the debt by elimination of non-essential items (Netflix) until you can once again afford the non-essential items without burdening others to provide your items for you.
I will agree with you on some of the spending problems both party’s
but the federal tax rates are smaller now than what they was in the 1950’s
but this is about social security the trust fund is estimated to run out in 2035
the payroll tax has not been raised since 1983 if you are in your 40′ or younger you better start writing your rep.
KAG,
I appreciate you thinking openly about the issue, but in fairness, you’re missing the main point. The issue with social security is simple. Baby boomers are living longer than their parents, and all retiring soon as well. This is where the figure comes from about 2034.
Social security is a net positive program meaning it takes in cash constantly including by taking that cash and investing at a governmental level which adds more money in interest. Thus, in reality the program can never be bankrupt. However, what they are saying is starting now (basically) the net outgoing is more than the program creates thus making it use cash reserves and those drying up by 2034.
The solution I’ve proposed herein is simple and multi-faceted. Step 1: Eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.
Step 2: increase revenue through legalization of such things as Marijuana, gambling, etc. these are relatively low risk and have huge profit margins.
Step 3: legislate new laws to ensure those who do not need social security, Like those making 1 million plus a year or having large cash savings (amounts could be debated they aren’t set in stone).
At the end of this, you’ll have lowered your debt, increased your money, slowed down the drain in social security and the increased revenue could be invested to add even more to the coffers. It isn’t rocket science. The issue is that it is just way easier for politicians to take the money from you and I and requires no brain power or thought process.
Dr. Franklin, that was actually the most ‘common sense’ answer I’ve ever heard. If people would apply “When you have a certain amount of money, when it’s gone it’s gone”. People in general, nor our State or Federal Government can comprehend such a simple answer. The Government, local, state or federal could use a dose of reality. However people living on $500 a week also should know they can’t buy a million dollar home. All governments in this nation could do much better if they opened their minds to the reality that the things not taxed (Yet) would bring in a massive amount of money, that the taxpayer wouldn’t be burdened with.
social security is not the reason for any of the debt and yes the trust fund will run out of money in 2035 which means there will be a cut in benefits and yes people are living longer and the baby boomers are retiring but that does nothing about fixing the problem that’s coming down the road
the payroll tax has not been increased since 1983 and all the corporations are going to turn more to robots which means fewer workers I believe the social security 2100 act is a great start to trying to fix the crisis that is coming down the road
if you legalize weed the lawmakers will just spend it on something else
or the other choice raise the retirement age or cut benefits
at a time when 58% of americans have less than $1000 in savings
Remember KAG said this “federal tax rates are smaller now than what they was in the 1950’s”. Now don’t ever say again “The Republicans don’t tax the rich” again KAG, it’s one way or another, it can’t be both KAG. And you plagiarized every thing you said again.
I don’t get this idea that the rich shouldn’t get SS (or a reduced pay back) to help pay for the poorer folks to keep SS solvent. I first want to say I am not rich by any means. If the rich are forced to pay into SS as we are then why shouldn’t they draw SS at 65 like everyone else. They are forced to pay in to the system. It’s their money and they should have a right to it. It shouldn’t be about if they need the money or not. If they want to donate it that should be their choice. Starting to sound like Democrats. Steal from one group to give to another and it’s all ok to do because we need it for us. Maybe if the corrupt politicians didn’t take excess money from SS years ago we wouldn’t be in this situation. Maybe if they did away with so much welfare and forced these lazy ass people to work, pay in to SS then maybe it would be funded a little longer. The “fix” to SS is not going to be painless or easy but taking from some and giving it to others just based on need is not the right thing to do. If you pay into the system its your money for you to do with no matter if your a millionaire or made 25k/or for your whole life.
Jeremy,
I appreciate you caring about the difficulties inside social security. Might I suggest that if you spent some time looking up social security you’d know that nobody took any money from social security. That’s a complete myth.
Over the last few decades social security has been budgeted differently, but it has never been taken from.
I understand the fairness aspect of your argument however. The issue is as I’ve described. The solution is also as I’ve described. It is not fair nor is is it easy, but those who need it less would feel
The impact less. But the solution is also multi-faceted. Not just one thing or another.
Dr. Franklin, with all respect, I must ask how does “budgeted differently” and taken away from differ? I don’t quite understand.
Charles,
What I mean by the budget is that since it’s inception it has been moved from a singular style budget to a unified budget. This means for lack of better and simpler terms, the money is in a different bank account. The stealing of money is a myth. They have taken money from social security, from the access funds and invested them. As of today that investment has returned about 1/3 extra profit and helped it last as long as it had. The deficiency has nothing to do with anyone robbing the pot, which is untrue.
It has everything to with more people, living longer, and retiring younger. That’s why the program is losing money.
so you are saying at the same rate of the payroll taxes there will be no cuts to benefits down the road
I stand adjusted Dr. Franklin, thank you. I just have a natural distrust for politicians. That’s 33.3% over the life of SS’s existence I presume? If so population has outpaced growth. Damn I wanted to blame it all on Obama! 🙂
I agree if you pay into the system you should be able to collect
and another thing that’s crazy the US government will tax your benefits at a time when the corporations are paying very little federal taxes crazy
it’s not been raised since 1983 if your provisional income is above $44,000 your SS benefits are taxed at 85% so your money will be taxed twice
Jeremy, that was one of the best statements I’ve seen on here. Social Security was started by Democrats, so it’s flawed from the get go. It has been robbed by to some degree by both parties, (Which Was Not Supposed to Happen). Obama robbed SS the most, but that’s neither here nor there. I, like you have worked all my life, and am sick of a system that caters to the ‘professional poor’, people who never had any intent to even try to succeed. SSI is a fine example of that. Working people need 40 working credits to draw Social Security on retirement or disability, it only takes a few years of work to earn the 40 credits, SSI doesn’t require that and is funded by the people who pay in. Some people do need this and I’m not against them at all, the ones who are just to lazy to work…that’s another story! How SS is calculated is another. I will use you and I only as an example. If I started working in the 60’s or early 70’s minimum wage was $1, 65 per hour (That’s what my first job paid). SS is calculated over your entire working life and averaged. Now let’s say you are young and your first job paid $7.25 per hour, your average will be higher than mine and you will get more at retirement. Now let’s pretend KAG worked for 5 years (I know that’s a stretch), and in that 5 years she made $12 per hour, she would draw a bigger check than either you or I, for working only 5 years! My beloved father who died in 2006, worked 60 years and got a SS check for $632 a month. Our hypothetical KAG would draw $1500+ a month! That’s wrong! But thieving politicians are truly the biggest problem. SS could and would be solvent without them and their thieving fingers in the pot. Sorry I’m so long winded. 🙂
Charley do you have any proof Obama robbed SS
SS is calculated by your best 35 years working so in laymen terms the more you make the more you get that’s fair
you would be surprised about how much I have made on the other hand put your money up or just shut up
they are corruption anytime there is money involved
SS is the best government program there has ever been it’s over 75 years and still in decent shape but it needs fixed and yes it’s a democrat law and so is medicare you did get one thing right that’s unusual
and one more thing if you draw SS for 20 years you will collect more than you ever payed in and don’t forget about your spouse who is also eligible benefits without paying anything
KAG, ONE TIME I will show you how to present your facts!
KAG, although part of what you said is true, it’s still an average of how much you made as indicated below.
“We base Social Security benefits on your lifetime earnings. We adjust or “index” your actual earnings to account for changes in average wages since the year the earnings were received. Then, Social Security calculates your average indexed monthly earnings during the 35 years in which you earned the most”.( https://www.ssa.gov › pubs).
Yes KAG I do have proof, but I cant reveal what I know in the interest of National Security. 🙂
Thanks, Charles, for the last comment. I laughed out loud!
The Social Security web site explains how they operate. But who wants to take the trouble to look things up.
There are thresholds that top some people out. The idea being that if Michael Bloomberg, who is worth any where from $33.3 billion to $54 billion, pays into the system but only to a certain amount or threshold. The theory being that the government doesn’t want to have to pay him a billion dollar benefit when he retires.
My gripe is that when I earned $20K a year, I paid taxes on that amount. When my salary increased to more than $20K, I paid taxes on that increased amount. Now that I am retired and drawing my Social Security benefits, I have to compute each year how much additional taxes that I owe on my Social Security “Income.” At the age of 70 1/2 (rules do change), the deferred IRA taxes have to be taxed. No problem with that. Fair. The unfairness comes in when half of my Social Security benefits are thrown into the calculation with the IRA to throw me into a higher income bracket.
Now isn’t that double taxation? Doesn’t that stink?
Social Security recipients are the only citizens who get whammed with that double taxation.
Just when my health issues are popping up, my property taxes are going up, and, but then, according to some politicians, I don’t pay Federal Income Taxes.
Come and walk in my size 8 1/2 EE shoes, Mister Politician.
you can blame that problem Ronald Reagan 1983 seen he was piling on the debt after his big tax cuts for the top same thing is going to happen again if Trump get’s 4 more years
well let’s just say if you earned $20,000 in 2019 and single
paid bi-weekly your federal tax every 2 weeks would be $30.11 for a total of $782.86 for the year
your state tax would be every 2 weeks would be $35.07 for a total of $911.82 for the year
now if you was married same income
your federal tax would be $0
your state tax would be $15.80 every 2 weeks or yearly $411