Liberal Forum

FJB » 17 Aug 2026, 10:46 am » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 10:46 am

sad democrats raided the SS fund to pay for their **** projects

Millionaires  only pay social security tax on 184,000. Lift the cap!!!!

jerrab » 17 Aug 2026, 11:02 am » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 11:02 am

Millionaires  only pay social security tax on 184,000. Lift the cap!!!!

I agree, there should be NO cap on the tax.

////Social Security is funded by payroll tax contributions by both workers and employers. Even if no legislative action is taken, these taxes will continue to fund the program. Though benefits may need to be reduced, Social Security would still exist////     lift the cap, so far repuplicans vote no. Their solution would be tom reduce benefits. Mid terms will be be a piece of cake for democrats
 

FJB » 17 Aug 2026, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 11:10 am

I agree, there should be NO cap on the tax.

Republicans refuse to even lift it
 
 

FJB » 17 Aug 2026, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 11:10 am

I agree, there should be NO cap on the tax.

//////most congressional Republicans reject Democratic amendments to lift the earnings cap, favoring alternative fiscal approaches. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].    -------///////    which are reducing benefits to 70%, increasing retirement age to 70.//// all of which will be a no go with voters.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/ ... -cbo-finds.     Raising the Retirement Age is a Benefit Cut, CBO FindsThe Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report showing that raising the Social Security retirement age to 69—as House Republicans have proposed—would slash benefits for hardworking retirees.  The report finds that Social Security benefits would be cut by an average of 13 percent if the Republicans’ plan were fully implemented.“Raising the retirement age is a benefit cut, as CBO has made crystal clear” said Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). “With Social Security facing a looming solvency problem, there are mathematically only two choices to address the shortfall: raise revenues or cut benefits.  The promise of Social Security is a promise we cannot break, and by making the wealthy pay their fair share, we can protect Social Security forever.  My Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act would unrig our tax code and shore up this bedrock of the American retirement system as far as the actuarial eye can see—all with zero cuts to benefits. But House Republicans would rather slash benefits than make their megadonors pay up, and for their part, Senate Republicans have put forward no concrete plans.” “Republicans who want to raise the retirement age for Social Security should look carefully at data like this before forcing older Americans to wait even longer for their earned benefits,” said Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR). “Raising the retirement age is a cruel idea that ought to be banished from public debate forever. The fact of the matter is Social Security can be saved for the next generation and beyond simply by asking wealthy Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, not depriving working Americans of their earned benefits.”According to CBO, anyone born after 1971 would see their benefits cut an average of 13 percent. Moreover, raising the retirement age would not change the year Social Security would go insolvent.The Social Security and Medicare actuaries found that Budget Chairman Whitehouse’s Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act would make the respective programs solvent in perpetuity by raising taxes on households making over $400,000.The current budget proposed by the Republican Study Committee, which represents 80 percent of House Republicans, calls for $1.5 trillion in cuts to Social Security benefits over the next 10 years.  It would reduce benefits for seniors and raise the retirement age to 69, which would especially hurt low-income retirees.

It sounds like a good idea until that high earner reaches retirement age.

If there were no taxable earnings cap, someone earning $500,000 a year for 35 years would receive an estimated $13,500 to $14,500 per month in Social Security benefits at full retirement age, scaling up to roughly $18,000 a month if they delayed claiming until age 70.

Fuelman » 17 Aug 2026, 12:20 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 12:20 pm

It sounds like a good idea until that high earner reaches retirement age.

If there were no taxable earnings cap, someone earning $500,000 a year for 35 years would receive an estimated $13,500 to $14,500 per month in Social Security benefits at full retirement age, scaling up to roughly $18,000 a month if they delayed claiming until age 70.

Most Americans pay the payroll tax -- currently 12.4%, split evenly between employee and employer -- on all of their income each year, but that's not true for the wealthy. The Social Security Administration only assesses this tax on the first $184,500 a person earns in 2026, so those who earn more than this aren't paying the tax on money over this limit. ////// in other words millionaires only pay social security tax on only 184,000. That Ieaves over $800,000 not taxed and that is just one person. 
 

jerrab » 17 Aug 2026, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 1:50 pm

Most Americans pay the payroll tax -- currently 12.4%, split evenly between employee and employer -- on all of their income each year, but that's not true for the wealthy. The Social Security Administration only assesses this tax on the first $184,500 a person earns in 2026, so those who earn more than this aren't paying the tax on money over this limit. ////// in other words millionaires only pay social security tax on only 184,000. That Ieaves over $800,000 not taxed and that is just one person.

I really don't have a problem with it,  just realize that eliminating the earnings cap also eliminates the maximum benefit amount.

Original Intent: Designed since 1937 as a contributory social insurance program rather than a general income tax, it explicitly limits both contributions and payouts.
 

Fuelman » 17 Aug 2026, 3:28 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 3:28 pm

I really don't have a problem with it,  just realize that eliminating the earnings cap also eliminates the maximum benefit amount.

Original Intent: Designed since 1937 as a contributory social insurance program rather than a general income tax, it explicitly limits both contributions and payouts.

The standard Social Security tax rate is 6.2% for employees and 6.2% for employers, resulting in a total contribution of 12.4% //////   my plan --drop the employer's share//// 4% after 184,000----250,000 /then 2%--251,000--300,000---and then 1% thru 301,000- 400,000
 

jerrab » 17 Aug 2026, 4:53 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 4:53 pm

The standard Social Security tax rate is 6.2% for employees and 6.2% for employers, resulting in a total contribution of 12.4% //////   my plan --drop the employer's share//// 4% after 184,000----250,000 /then 2%--251,000--300,000---and then 1% thru 301,000- 400,000

Maybe 1/2% 300,000 thru 1,000,000

jerrab » 17 Aug 2026, 4:53 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 4:53 pm

The standard Social Security tax rate is 6.2% for employees and 6.2% for employers, resulting in a total contribution of 12.4% //////   my plan --drop the employer's share//// 4% after 184,000----250,000 /then 2%--251,000--300,000---and then 1% thru 301,000- 400,000

Does that cover the deficit? Seems like a heavy lift for a rather small percentage of higher income households. 
4-5% of households break the $300k level. They didn't break the system.

My guess is it will be a combination of changes that not everyone is going to like.
 

Fuelman » 17 Aug 2026, 5:53 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 5:53 pm

Does that cover the deficit? Seems like a heavy lift for a rather small percentage of higher income households. 
4-5% of households break the $300k level. They didn't break the system.

My guess is it will be a combination of changes that not everyone is going to like.

250-184=66,000. 4%66,000 lets say 2500 more for a salary of 250,000. 

jerrab » 17 Aug 2026, 8:12 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 8:12 pm

250-184=66,000. 4%66,000 lets say 2500 more for a salary of 250,000.

Looks like a shortfall taxing even the money over $400k.

Taxing earnings above $400,000 for Social Security significantly reduces the program's long-term funding gap, but it does not completely save it on its own. Actuarial estimates show that applying the payroll tax to high earners eliminates roughly 60% of Social Security's 75-year shortfall, requiring additional adjustments to achieve full solvency.

How the Proposal Works
Current limit:
In 2026, the Social Security payroll tax cap stops at $184,500 of annual earnings.
The "donut hole" fix:
Proposals like the Social Security 2100 Act leave earnings between $184,500 and $400,000 untaxed, but reapply the 12.4% tax to all earnings above $400,000.
No extra benefits:
High earners who pay these extra taxes do not receive higher monthly retirement checks in return.
 

Fuelman » 17 Aug 2026, 9:43 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 9:43 pm

Looks like a shortfall taxing even the money over $400k.

Taxing earnings above $400,000 for Social Security significantly reduces the program's long-term funding gap, but it does not completely save it on its own. Actuarial estimates show that applying the payroll tax to high earners eliminates roughly 60% of Social Security's 75-year shortfall, requiring additional adjustments to achieve full solvency.

How the Proposal Works
Current limit:
In 2026, the Social Security payroll tax cap stops at $184,500 of annual earnings.
The "donut hole" fix:
Proposals like the Social Security 2100 Act leave earnings between $184,500 and $400,000 untaxed, but reapply the 12.4% tax to all earnings above $400,000.
No extra benefits:
High earners who pay these extra taxes do not receive higher monthly retirement checks in return.

The employers  may not want to, pay  the tax
 

jerrab » 17 Aug 2026, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 11:13 am

Republicans refuse to even lift it

I can't figure out why...

jerrab » 17 Aug 2026, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 11:13 am

Republicans refuse to even lift it

It's raised every year automatically.
 

Fuelman » 18 Aug 2026, 9:00 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 9:00 am

It's raised every year automatically.

Until it isn't

JohnnyYou » 18 Aug 2026, 9:22 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 9:22 am

Until it isn't

Fun Facts:

It never goes down, period!

It may stay the same if wages drop but is never adjusted downward.


 

Free Dumbo Speech.. Bring on the BBC Discovery.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... commission

ABC sues Trump’s media regulator over demand for TV license renewals