Wrong, Thom Hartmann, the Wealthy Are Not Exempt From Social Security Taxes

NewsBusters.org ^ | July 4, 2016 | Jack Coleman

[Kaslin]

Ever since its creation in 1935 by Franklin Roosevelt as the key achievement of his New Deal, liberals have staked a proprietary claim to Social Security, which is amusing given the left's innate aversion to property rights. And with that sense of entitlement to the quintessential federal entitlement program comes the default liberal tendency to dissemble.

A recent example comes by way of leading left-wing radio host Thom Hartmann on his program last week while reeling off the planks in the Democrat party platform.

In the process, Hartmann made a claim about Social Security that was misleading if not outright deceitful --

Support for public education -- I would have liked to have seen them say we no longer approve of charter schools, but, you know, you can't have everything. Abolish the death penalty -- this is a big deal. I'm not sure that the Democratic platform has ever called for that. Higher standards must be applied to future trade agreements. (chuckles). OK.

The platform committee unanimously agreed to an amendment proposed by Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to low-wage workers who don't have children and to workers age 21 and older. So in other words, our protections for poor people basically are expanding. Reform of Wall Street, calling for an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall and breaking up too-big-to-fail financial institutions. This was adopted unanimously by the committee.

They called for a surtax on multi-millionaires, people who have an income more than a million dollars a year. They called for expanding Social Security and lifting the cap on all income above $250,000 a year, so that the rich are paying into Social Security like the rest of us.

In fact, the opposite is true -- the wealthy pay more than anyone into Social Security, and again upon retirement when their Social Security payments are taxed while those who earned low wages aren't. Hartmann isn't just wrong -- he's running toward the wrong goal line wrong.

The cap cited by Hartmann refers to taxes all income up to $118,500, rising annually to keep up with inflation. (Although not this year). This means than an employee earning that amount pays $7,347 for his or her share of the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax, while that person's employer would pay the other 6.2 percent for a total of 12.4 percent. The employer covers this amount by reducing what he or she will pay in wages, effectively transferring the entire 12.4 percent obligation to employees. Income beyond $118,500 is not subject to Social Security taxes, though it most assuredly is still hit by state and federal income taxes.

A worker making half of $118,500 would pay, accordingly, half as much Social Security tax, about $3,673. The tax obligation continues to drop with lower income, to $1,836 on an income of just under $30,000.

In other words, affluent individuals in jobs that pay them $118,500 or more annually not only pay into Social Security, they pay more than everyone making less than them. Moreover, the self-employed are required to pay the entire 12.4 percent tax, regardless of whether they are below or above the cap.

The anticipated defense from Hartmann's apologists -- when he says the rich should pay into Social Security "like the rest of us," he means on their entire incomes. But doing so would fundamentally alter the character of Social Security from an earned pension program to another form of welfare.

If it strikes liberals as absurd that retired billionaires receive Social Security checks, it comes across as equally absurd to conservatives that billionaires pay into Social Security at all, considering that its ostensible purpose was to provide a financial safety net for seniors upon retirement. I'll stick my neck out and suggest that Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates don't need government help for that.

Curiously, this specific plank in the Democrat platform calls for raising the Social Security cap on all income above $250,000, but not what to do with income between the current cap and $250,000. This, you may recall, was a dispute between candidates Obama and Clinton in the 2008 campaign over a "donut hole" between the Social Security cap and income up to $250,000 that Obama did not want affected by payroll taxes.

Ever since Republicans wore down Bill Clinton's resistance to welfare reform in the 1990s, liberals have lusted for a return to welfare on demand. Raising the cap on Social Security, with the ultimate goal of eliminating it outright, would serve this purpose well. It would also function as an abject exercise in party building, since Democrats remain perennially dependent on the government dependency of others for their party to remain in power.

[Lurker]

Liberals are not capable of doing basic mathematics

L

[dp0622]

Maybe they can get real jobs and shut the #### up.

Maybe welfare should be Abolished.

Care of the disabled is not welfare.

My friend worked at a check cashing place a while back and said lines of able bodies black men as far as the eye could see where on line waiting for their cash.

And this was over 20 years ago!! I’m sure it hasn’t gotten better.

[EagleUSA]

Just more liberal lies and deceit. A bull crap excuse to increase taxation on the wealthy. EVERYONE pays into SS during their working years to the specified limits.

TAX, TAX, TAX. The socialists’ signature.

[Aliska]

Interest, dividends and capital gains are not subject to social security tax. Neither are certain forms of unearned income. Businesses, farmers, fisherman and others are supposed to pay self-employment SS taxes. All up to the limit, of course.

So, in a sense, many of the wealthy do not have to pay social security taxes. I don't know if all rental income is exempt or just certain forms of it.

[Taxman]

As we all know, implementing the FairTax would solve the Social Security and Medicare tax problem.

FRom Fairtax FAQ page @ http://fairtax.org/faq:

“How is the Social Security system affected?

“Like all federal spending programs, Social Security operates exactly as it does today, except that its funds come from a broad, progressive sales tax, rather than a narrow, regressive payroll tax. Employers continue to report wages for each employee, though, to the Social Security Administration for the determination of benefits. The transition to a reformed Social Security system is eased while ensuring there is sufficient funding to continue promised benefits.

“Meanwhile, Social Security/Medicare funds are no longer triple-taxed as under the current system: 1) when payroll taxes are initially withheld; 2) when those withheld payroll taxes are counted as part of the taxable base for income tax purposes; and 3) when the promised benefits are finally received.

“How does the FairTax affect Social Security reform?

“FairTax.org is a one-issue organization: Tax replacement. However, its proposal does benefit any Social Security reform proposal. The FairTax.org plan does not change Social Security benefits or the structure of the Social Security system. All it does is replace the current revenue source (narrow, regressive payroll taxes) with a new revenue source (broad, progressive sales taxes paid by all consumers).

“Additionally, research shows that consumption is a more stable revenue source than income. If Social Security is reformed or privatized in a way that reduces the government’s need for revenue, then the FairTax rate can be reduced. For example, if a mandatory private savings program is implemented where people must save ten percent of their income and Social Security benefits are curtailed, then the FairTax rate can be reduced just as payroll taxes would be reduced.”

[ozzymandus]

That guy’s photo reminded me of a phrase I hadn’t heard for a long time: “Pencil-Necked Geek”.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

It’s gotten a LOT better. Those men don’t have to suffer the embarrassment of standing in line any longer. Now they get their EBT cards filled automatically every “pay day” and they can spend their “wages” using a plastic card like the rest of us do. Now THAT’S progress.

[Taxman]

Ping to my post #6

[Darteaus94025]

Tax Lieberals. Put their money where their mouth is.

[dp0622]

That’s just great...

[freeandfreezing]

Except that social security and medicare taxes are only assessed on earned income, not capital gains, interests and dividends, or rents in some situations. Distributions from certain corporate structures are also not taxed.

So, theoretically at least, some very wealthy people pay no FICA or medicare taxes. Someone like John Kerry's wife, whose income comes from investments may not have paid much FICA or medicare taxes.

[SteveH]

it seems like thom hartmann forgot to take his ritalin when he wrote this article lol...

[BobL]

I like to tease liberals on other sites by telling them that I support removing the cap as I plan to retire soon (not true), and so all of them millennials will be paying more to support my luxurious retirement lifestyle.

Oh yea, I also thanked them for Obamacare, as it lets me retire early and pay a relatively small amount for my insurance (which I would otherwise been forced to pay through the teeth for, if even available - due to health reasons). I thanked them because the people their age don’t even need the insurance, but are now forced to not only buy it, but to overpay for it...with that overpayment going straight to my generation.

Many people here, me included at times, call the Millennials selfish and greedy, but this older type person thinks that they are the MOST GENEROUS generation this country has ever seen - and that’s because THEY’RE TOO STUPID to figure it out.

[Teacher317]

Doesn’t matter. To the Left, nothing is ever enough. They could (and did) tax higher income at 95% and they will still complain, until it all becomes like Venezuela today... and then they will complain some more... and always blame someone else or some other idea. THEIR ideas can never be to blame, of course.

[Principled]

Hullo Taxman!

Yeah the nrst would resolve it...and a lot of other problems would go,away too.

[Taxman]

Howdy, Principled.

Hope you and yours are healthy and doing well.

Can you hit a 2 iron, yet?

[Theodore R.]

For the lower class without extra income, it is untaxed. For the middle class, 85 percent, including the amount paid into Medicare, is taxed as ordinary income.

[Theodore R.]

I’ve heard many comment on the lack of ability and knowledge of the 20-year-olds; is this true?

[JennysCool]

His comment here amused me: So in other words, our protections for poor people basically are expanding.

Yes, Thom. After close to eight years of the Affirmative Action Amateur.