Reply #60: Nope, I wouldn't. [View All]

My post was about contributions in, not payments out. The cap on SS taxes is a shield for the rich and it always has been. The system was NEVER intended to pay out on a proportional basis because that would defeat its purpose: to ensure that the elderly would not have to live in poverty.

Because it is difficult for those earning $20,000 to put any of their income away in savings, they need more income replacement than those who make $100,000 a year, who do have discretionary income they can invest/save to supplement their SS. Thus, SS was always designed to give its biggest benefits (in relation to the amount paid in) to workers with lower incomes and smaller benefits (in relation to the amount paid in) to workers who had had higher incomes.

Now, however, the system is out of balance and the exemption on high incomes is not something we can afford anymore.

Furthermore, if you go back to my original post, you'll note that I accept the proposition (as do many Democrats) that taxes are NOT a "what's in it for me" proposition. Democrats don't generally see taxes as an investment and measure returns in comparison to what somebody else gets. If that were the case, we'd support things like school vouchers and cuts to Medicaid and welfare.

We pay taxes to ensure that we live in a just society. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "taxes, after all, are the dues that we pay for the privilege of membership in an organized society."

Why aren't we proud to contribute to our society?