During the hearing, Murray pressed on tax fairness between the ultra-high-net-worth and other class sizes, claiming that if wealthier Americans paid their "fair share" of Social Security taxes, the program's insolvency could diminish.
"If you make around $160,000 a year—you are paying the same amount into Social Security each year as a billionaire, Murray added. "Someone can make over 12 thousand times your salary—and yet their Social Security tax rate is a fraction of a fraction of what your rate is … It should be totally uncontroversial to suggest that we find ways to increase Social Security's revenue in order to extend its solvency, and to make the system a little more fair."
401k Specialist
Yes, and their benefits, if any, are still based on the taxable wage base. Fact is most of the super rich don't have earned income and thus are not eligible for Social Security benefits. Their income is virtually all associated with the stock market, investments and interest and dividends.
Arguments such as the one above are just red herring political pandering. Making Social Security fully sustainable is and always has been easy while staying within the current design of the program.
Congress has not done its job in keeping the program solvent and some Members now seek to divert the blame by claiming the wealthy don't pay their fair share. That is nonsense.
Let's preserve Social Security as designed, a social insurance program funded by the people benefiting and proportionally to their income and the benefits delivered.
Yes, find ways to increase SS revenue. That's what Congress should been gradually doing every year for the last twenty years.
No comments:
Post a Comment