3 ms·

Fair enough; perhaps we should make the system a bit more progressive. Perhaps if FICA weren't capped at ~$100K, we could reduce Sally's share of the burden?

by kgrin 16y ago

Fair enough; perhaps we should make the system a bit more progressive. Perhaps if FICA weren't capped at ~$100K, we could reduce Sally's share of the burden? Or if we eliminated any number of corporate-tax loopholes, or agribusiness subsidies, or defense spending, we could reduce personal income tax rates?

anamax 16y ago
> Perhaps if FICA weren't capped at ~$100K, we could reduce Sally's share of the burden? Are you planning to uncap benefits? If you do, Ross Perot gets $400k/year. If you don't, rich people start caring about SS. Those are the reasons why Social Security advocates used to like the cap. Were they wrong? FWIW, SS payouts are very progressive. Folks on the low end get a reasonable return on their contributions. Folks near/at the cap get a crappy deal. The rich ones don't care because of the cap.
- Retric 16y ago
  It's not a binary choice, you can have uncapped benefits hand Bill G 5 million a year, and give them exactly as crappy a ROI as I get. Edit: This would also really help out aging athletes / rock stars / actors who make a lot of money when they are young and then run out.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > It's not a binary choice, you can have uncapped benefits hand Bill G 5 million a year, and give them exactly as crappy a ROI as I get. Crappy payout was assumed in the "Ross Perot gets $400k/year". It has two huge political problems - folks will scream about large payouts to rich folk and rich folk will fight the crappy ROI.