Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Income over $100K: 1/16th of the Population
At the debate, Gibson is just determined that there are "a whole lot" of people making over $100K. The issue is whether income over $100K should be exempt from Social Security and Medicare taxes.
At http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/perinc/new01_001.htm, the Census Bureau reports on its 2006 survey findings on individual income.
The report shows 208.5 million people with income, of whom 12.4 million have income $100,000 or above. That's less than 6% of the total. It's the wealthiest 1/16th of the population.
The current deal is that money is taken out of everyone's paycheck up to the cut off. That means all of us take home a bit less, and the money's set aside to pay benefits to retirees and the disabled.
Except, once you individually earn more than $100,000 a year, the tax stops. You get a free ride on the rest on what you earn.
Obama's proposal is to cancel the free ride on pay over $100,000.
If Gibson can't see that those folks are privileged, does that maybe make him an elitist?
Comments (6)
Yeah well our economy is in the shitter right now so people making over 100,000 should take a little hit for the team or everyone is going to take a much bigger hit.
April 16, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Completely agreed!
April 16, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a little perspective, if you own your own home and make $50k or more a year you are one of the richest 1% of people in the world.
April 16, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a little perspective.
The tax is capped at $100k, but the benefit is capped as well. Meaning that someone who retires making that $100k and someone making $500k will receive the same benefits.
Someone making $50K will receive less.
So asking people over $100k to pay more, but not receive more is a bit unfair and overlooked so far.
April 16, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not overlooked, and perfectly fair.
Those who reap the greatest benefits in our society can reasonably be expected to put more into the pot for basic security for senior citizens.
This isn't even asking them to pay a higher rate on the extra income than the rest of us pay: it's just the same rate every one pays on their first $100,000, applied to the second $100,000 and beyond.
April 16, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the most irritating things about Barack Obama (whom I nonetheless strongly support for President) is that he has completely bought into the right-wing notion that there is a Social Security "crisis".
The SS Trust Funds - all those "worthless IOU's - are in the black for decades to come. The 1983 SS plan took the baby boomer retirement surge into account, and workers have been paying vastly more into the Funds (in payroll taxes) than has been paid out.
The nut of the so-called "crisis" is that all those monies have been borrowed to subsidize lower INCOME taxes (this practice was begun under Johnson, and has continued unabated ever since). The loans will be coming due soon, and nobody wants to pay them back.
I have to give Obama credit for at least pushing a less regressive way to dodge this bill than most of the other "crisis" people have put forward, but it's still high shuckery. His proposal represents a profound shift in the philosophical underpinning of SS - that it is insurance, not welfare.
It is bad policy, but unfortunately, it will be the easiest medicine to swallow in our political environment.
It's really a sham and a shame. I hope we can change his mind at policy-cutting time.
April 16, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment