Sure, so long as qualifying private retirement accounts aren't taxed under the same dispersement parameters. Let's not incentivise reliance on government programs while decintivizing individual personal responsibility.
I'm pretty sure every worker is forced into the government program. Unlike students who elect to take debt. But... relativism fallacy.
If you are filing married, you already don't pay taxes on benefits up to $32,000. This is about 40% of all SS recipients. $32,000-$44,000, you pay takes on 50%. Above $44,000, you pay taxes on 85%. That means no taxes on SS benefits will affect mainly the ones with the highest benefits, i.e. the ones who don't rely on SS for a large majority of their income anyway. I'd say, why fix something that isn'y broken?
Doing what we are doing now is unaffordable. Transition anyone that is in it currently to a hybrid system If they are currently drawing they draw until their death. If they have already started paying then all future payments will go into a savings retirement account and they will be able to draw proportional amounts If they have not yet started paying then they go to the new savings retirement account only The new retirement account could take the place of IRA’s, tax it on draw
Because it sounds great to people that have no comprehension on policy and are swayed by tweets and bumper sticker slogans
Fix Social security? Start with removing the taxable wage cap for social security. Tax every payroll dollar.
OK.. OK.. get it .. more tax cut for poor RED state resident, while we in Blue state pay more. Not a problem, after all 72% US GDP comes from blue district.
My state has an additional homestead exemption once you hit 65 and have lived in the home for I think 10 years and then your tax is frozen at that AMOUNT not rate but the amount never increases as long as you live in the home. That's fair enough we seniors shouldn't be total freeloaders.
And of course increase the benefit commensurably, I mean only fair the more you pay in the more you your benefit since it IS a retirement system.
Sure! Course, social security sucks as a retirement investment but fair is fair. Removing the cap would extend the solvency of social security a long ways. As I recall, to the end of the century.
we pay lot more to keep the lights on in state like AL. but that is ok, as i have said , we keep the lights on in RED state because they are fellow American. i only hoped they are grateful but it seems like they are ****ing ungrateful ******!
Wouldn't make a dent. Most of the persons whom you to rape get their income from capgains revenue not wages and you raise their benefit commensurately and you wipe out any gains.
@Endeavor @Bluesguy I can see you are confused. The FICA tax at issue is a specific payroll tax both employers and employees pay. The tax revenue from FICA is earmarked and can only be used to pay social security benefits. FICA has nothing to do with capital gains. Or keeping the lights on. FICA is only about social security.
The tax is 7.65% (1.35% is for medicare) and your employer matches that. FICA caps at (I think) $200K but there isn't a cap for medicare.
I think it's a good idea. Not just because of increased benefits for retirees but also because a major benefit of making SS earnings non-taxable is that Seniors won't have the additional load of more complicated tax filings. Anything that reduces tax filing complexity is a good thing in my book.