Saving Social Security – making the rich pay their share

There have been many proposed solutions to “saving” social security, particularly by those who probably don’t have to worry about having that check monthly, and those that think it is a hand out to the poor. The Social Security Administration states on our annual statement that: “Without changes, by 2037 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 76 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits” (http://www.ssa.gov/mystatement/currentstatement.pdf; emphasis mine). This means that without doing anything someone collecting benefits will get 76% of his or her benefit – without doing anything. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Republican counterpart John Boehner, both of which are so wealthy that Social Security will probably not be an issue for them have recently railed against the trust fund, but coming under criticism from their own constituencies. This is rather typical of those that are crying that Social Security will destroy the budget of the country and is another “tax”. Most recently Eugene Steuerle elucidated five “myths” about Social Security, some of which are more inserted into the public mind than others (August 27; in SFgate: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/27/EDSH1F21FI.DTL). Steuerle notes that Social Security is currently 20% of the Federal budget neglecting to state that it is funded by the participants. Steuerle also discusses the most popular current proposal to “save” social security by raising the retirement age from the current age of 66 to 70, or 75 or 80. Since actuarial data on age in the United States suggests that many people will live well beyond 70 this seems rational. As someone who is currently 61 and has worked since age 14, I’ll be “retiring” after 50 years of work; that’s one-half century. Steurle and others apparently think that the middle class and poor should work for at least 75 years. Leaving aside the physical and mental effects on an individual who works that long, and the real reason conservatives like that idea, getting cheap labor for longer, there is one method to “save” social security that no one will talk about, mainly because it will cause the rich to pay the same proportion of their salary as the rest of us – raising the minimum annual cap that contributions stop. This amount is currently $106, 800 according to the Social Security Administration (http://www.ssa.gov/mystatement/currentstatement.pdf). So, many salaried workers right here in the Bay Area pay a much smaller proportion of their salary to Social Security each year than those disdained middle class and poor who pay 6.2% of their salary all year. Some of my neighbors who work in Silicon Valley or many of my colleagues (mostly administrators) at UC, Berkeley, for example, make at least $213, 600.00 per year (double or more than the $106,800 cap). After July 1 of each year they and their employers get a 6.2% raise, every single year. If they make more than this, of course, they get that 6.2% raise earlier in the year. But, the rest of the population pays that 6.2% all year long; those of us who need to work until we’re 75 or 80 to provide for the common good. My good colleague, Robert Reich has mentioned this issue many times on his blog and in public: http://robertreich.org/post/1004761998/tax-jujitsu-why-democrats-should-propose-a-peoples. Kind of makes you wonder why this 2% of our population that are in this category are whining so bitterly about the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich expiring. So, why won’t raising the minimum $106,800.00 to say $250,000.00 (the 2% of us) ever be on the table? Because the employer (read corporations) also kick in 6.2% payroll “tax” up to $106,800.00 annually, and we all know who really controls Congress don’t we? Why can’t the wealthy pay their fair share instead of getting that 6.2% raise for some portion of each year? Answer that Hoyer and Boehner!