<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">Yeah, but if he retired today at 66, he'd only get $2366/month, the same as someone making the max SSN tax ($106,000 yr). One of the principles behind SS is that the benefits have some relation to the amount paid in over a lifetime; the cap on benefits is related to the to the cap on taxes. Even strong supporters of SS recognize that if SS becomes a pure welfare program, its days are numbered. SS benefits are mildly progressive, low income folks get a bigger return than those at the upper end. Disability and death benefits are highly progressive As the Congressional Budget Office points out:<br><br>The benefits paid to retired workers, which account<br>for about three-quarters of total benefits, are also<br>progressive, but less progressive than Social Security<br>benefits overall. The
Social Security benefit formula is<br>designed to provide beneficiaries who had lower lifetime<br>earnings with monthly benefits that are higher, as<br>a percentage of their lifetime average earnings, than<br>those received by higher-earning beneficiaries. That<br>progressivity in the benefit formula is only partly offset<br>by the fact that higher-earning individuals tend to live<br>longer and thus collect benefits longer.<br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7705/12-15-Progressivity-SS.pdf">http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7705/12-15-Progressivity-SS.pdf</a></span><br><br>On the other hand, the idea that's been floated to deny SS benefits to the "rich" wouldn't affect the trust fund much, since they're so few of the truley rich. In order to balance the trust fund after 2037, you'd have to deny or severely reduce benefits to those who averaged more than $66,000/yr.<br><div> </div>Ron Force<br>Moscow Idaho
USA<div><br></div><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Chuck Kovis <ckovis@turbonet.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Fri, January 28, 2011 7:36:01 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> [Vision2020] Wanna know why social security is hurting?<br></font><br>
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span><a target="_blank" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704268104576108390332589096.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704268104576108390332589096.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop</a></span></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">This guy made $5,000,000,000.00 last year and pays
$6,520.00 in social security taxes. As a percent of his income it is
.000001304 %. An overpaid teacher making $35,000.00 per year pays
6.2% of his/her income in social security tax or about $2,170.00. Oops, I
forgot, shouldn't point this out. He deserves to keep his hard earned
money cause he's a "risk-taker" and that's what makes this country great.
And, in case anyone is wondering, (Gary) I think this bastard should be taxed
like hell. Chuck Kovis</font></div></div></div>
</div><br>
</body></html>