Replies

But those who argue for increasing the cap under some concept of "fairness", that those who basically donate half of their Social Security payments to others should donate even more of their contributions to others, are basically arguing for a wealth transfer welfare system, not a government managed retirement annuity.

You should have read my last sentence. As it stands now, the rich have no incentive to eliminate social security. The rich do have a lot to say about legislation through political influence. They own the media. If the rich were made to pay the same draconian taxes as the middle-class, a lot more money would seek the back-pockets of politicians to eliminate Social security. For that reason, I see it morally fair to make the rich suffer along wit the middle-class.

"If the rich were made to pay the same draconian taxes as the middle-class, a lot more money would seek the back-pockets of politicians to eliminate Social security."

On the former (elimination of the cap), I think you will get your wish. On the latter (elimination of Social Security), I think you won't.

I admit the Social Security contribution cap puts a regressive factor into the overall federal tax rate. However, I would rather see an increase in the income tax above the cap limit to address the tax progressivity issue, as I think it would be more fair for Social Security, and I think it would be more a more legitimate way to fund the government (as opposed to politicians stealing the Social Security surplus).

Regardless, with earmarks and waste, the politicians have no moral ground to accuse us of not paying our fair share.

I'll make them a deal. An increase in taxes, in turn for term limits. One term for Senators, and two terms for Representatives.

"If the rich were made to pay the same draconian taxes as the middle-class"

What do you consider middle class? The top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of ALL income taxes. Much of the "middle class" is getting a free ride on the backs of half of the population.