NASCAR's John King meets CNN's John King

soundoff (One Response)

1. Belliben
   

   Right, Andy. You paid 7.5% up to $102,000 last year. Anything you make beyond $102,000 has no Social Security tax taken out. If it takes you 9 mnoths to get to $102,000, then I am assuming that you're annual salary is about $135,000. That means that your effective Social Security tax rate on your entire income is only 5.7%. Meanwhile, someone like me who only had about $2,000 taken out of my check over the course of the year still pays the full 7.5%. As one's income goes up, the effective tax rate goes down. That is the definition of a regressive tax. I have an aunt, for instance, who made approximately $700,000 last year as a doctor. Her effective Social Security tax rate is 1.1% because she still only paid $7650. In order for Social Security to work, it needs to be adequately funded. When people who make over a million a year are getting taxed at less than 1% while people who are making 1/10 of that are getting taxed at 7.5%, it's no wonder why the system is broken. I'm not talking about using a progressive tax rate on Social Security. However, we should at LEAST have a flat tax in place. And let's get rid of this misconception about how we all have our own separate accounts and that we get back what we pay in. If I have an account somewhere with money in it, I want to have control over that money. If I have no control over the money, then the money isn't mine. It's really that simple. Plus, the group that probably most deserves economic help in the form of welfare is the elderly who can't work anymore. I tire of hearing how the elderly can't afford their prescriptions and can't afford to eat right because they don't have enough money coming in. There is a simple solution to be implemented. The problem is, the upper class has us all so brainwashed about how Social Security is a good thing that we will never see this solution implemented.

   March 23, 2012 at 9:27 pm |