CE Week #11: “Obama supports higher tax ceiling for Social Security”
Darlene Superville
Associated Press
November 12, 2007
WASHINGTON – Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits.
Obama and other Democratic presidential candidates previously have signaled support for this idea.
But during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Obama said subjecting more of a person’s income to the payroll tax is the option he would push for if elected president.
He objected to benefit cuts or a higher retirement age.
“I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected,” the Illinois senator said.
Currently, only the first $97,500 of a person’s annual income is taxed. The amount is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year.
Obama’s proposal could include a gap or “doughnut hole” to shield middle-income earners from paying more in taxes, he said.
Obama has tried to draw contrasts between himself and front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton on Social Security, saying on the stump and in TV ads that she has dodged tough questions about its finances.
He said some tough decisions will be in order because Social Security is the most important social program in the country.
Clinton has said growing the economy will pump more money into Social Security’s coffers. She also has said she would create a bipartisan commission to recommend solutions.
Speaking on Sunday in Iowa, Clinton said she would move more carefully than her rivals on dealing with the looming shortfalls rather than raising the income cap.
“I know it may sound good at first blush,” said Clinton. “If you look at all the complexities of this, I think it’s much smarter to say: Look, we’re going to deal with the challenges by fiscal responsibility and we’re going to use a bipartisan commission. And we’re not going to do it by further burdening middle-class families.”
Social Security is projected to start spending more than it collects beginning in 2017, with its trust fund depleted in 2041.
Obama also invoked his friend, billionaire Warren Buffett, who Obama said has expressed concern that he pays less in Social Security taxes than anyone else in his office.
“And he has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they’ve got the coverage that they need,” Obama said.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/11/12/ce-week-11-obama-supports-higher-tax-ceiling-for-social-security/trackback/
I think what Obama plans to do with increasing the amount of income the can be taxed is a good idea. Also giving a little tax break to middle-income families. That seems like a good idea. But I am wondering why we can’t tax from $30,000 to $225,00 with another tax break for middle-income families? If we were to this we would relieve some of the taxes put on low-income families, and tax some more on higher income families. If we were to use this set-up I am wondering why would be bad about it? Or even if we were able to tax all the way up to 250,000 and give tax break to low-income and middle-income families. I do think we need to raise the level of income we can tax on. Why do we stop a little over 100,000, this makes no sense to me. If you make a ton of money you don’t get taxed. I feel you should get taxed more because you can afford it more than other people. One other thing I am wonder in why we don’t automatically give low-income families a break too. Unless I am missing something? Basically I think it would be much easier if we just taxed everyone.
Whoa! I applaud Barack Obama for taking a definite stance on Social Security. In the article, he quoted for saying, “… some tough decisions will be in order because Social Security is the most important social program in the country.” It’s true. This is a sensitive subject. It’s nice to see a presidential candidate not be shy about issues even though that is a risky thing to do. However, I do believe his position on this matter has merit. Obama has said, “I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they’ve got the coverage that they need.” Obama is being totally unselfish here and that is a good thing. Grant it, the guy, I’m sure, has millions to spare so for him, it would have much of an impact on his income. But there are others out there in his position or on the same financial level that he is, that could be taxed a little more to benefit the elderly. Now I will admit that I do not have the best understanding of Social Security and its effects, but if we can elect a president that does, we are taking a step in a good direction with a guy who is not afraid.
Well, I am not much of a Clinton fan, and this is no exception. I really have no faith in her words as she says she is looking out for the middle class. She hasn’t held and defended this position throughout her campaign because she has been “riding the fence”. I think if she could make a decision of something and do things to support them, then she’d be a little more creditable.
I think Obama has a good plan going. I have to completely agree with Nick above me. Taxing the poor class hardly seems productive and by increasing the amount we tax up to, I think we’ll be taking more from the pockets of the rich. After all, they can give a little more, right?! If we are really looking to find money for the elderly who are struggling, then we can’t look for the poor who have little money or the middle class who can’t manage to give anymore.
And furthermore, it’s pretty frustrating to know that Social Security is going to run out before I get any. I know that sounds completely selfish (and that’s probably how the majority of Americans work), but I feel like I started working at the age of 15 and since have had money taken out of each paycheck for SS. It seems unjust for me to start working at such a young age and to never receive any when some people will be able to cash in on it and they haven’t put in the years or started to work as early as I have.
Hmmm. I little frustrating.
Wow, it seems that Obama has all the right answers in this scenario. I like his idea for Social Security if I understand it correctly. I think it would be better if we did tax the rich more, and keep the lower income families paying what they are already paying. That seems like a pretty good idea to me. I somehow in my head disagree with Clinton in this scenario because she pretty much says that this will end up being a bad plan in the long run, but how will it be a bad plan, the rich are most likely going to stay rich so let them pay that little bit of extra money, which amounts to nothing in their minds, for the sake of letting other people have money when they are old. If Social Security starts collecting more than it makes by 2017, that will just put our country into more debt that it already is in. Right now Social Security is set to be depleted by 2041, I will only be 51, I still wouldn’t be able to draw money out, but that’s not a problem because there won’t be any more money in their, but if we follow Obama’s plan maybe their will be that little bit of extra money in their that I might be able to retrieve in the future.
Social security seems to be touchy issue: politicians don’t want to polarize the older voters, but at the same time acknowledy that changes need to be made. I like Hillary’s idea to approach social security working as a bipartisan team, this could produce a solution that is both effective and a solution that has the potential to get passed through Congress easier than a strictly Democratic or Republican preposal. I also like Obama’s approach to protect the middle class when heavy tax time rolls around. I am a firm believer that if I don’t have money, but Donald Trump does, take HIS money not mine. If I ever win the lottery, I will might feel differently, but until then-go Robin Hood, and tax the rich! Anyways, I am curious to see how each candidate handles social security, since older voters are the most fervert voters.
Reply to Jordon:
I totally agree that the social security system is a bit frustrating. Which is exactly why, although I agree with Obama’s strategy, I think more derastic measure will eventually need to be taken. The system needs work, serious work. I wouldn’t completely disregard Clinton either, of she’s riding the fence, she’s a politician. If Edwards or Romney had a prominent lead, they would probably do the same thing. I think she has a good idea to take a bipartisan approach to dealing with social security (that’s the only way it would get through Congress). However, I agree with you that Obama has the right idea relieving the middle class of some of the tax burden and placing it on the upper class, but I think eventually (by eventually I mean sooner than later), the hold system will need examined and redone.
Well I think Meagan brings up a few good points. I’m sure that if Romney or Edwards were really being supported by as many people as Hilary or Rudy are they would be a little bit more of fence straddlers than they are now, but the fact that they aren’t is really the reason I like Edwards a lot more than Hilary and Obama. I actually like Obama’s plan for the Social Security tax to the rich. Even though someday, I hope to be very wealthy, I don’t really see that I would have a problem giving a certain percent of my wealth back to the country that allowed me to become rich in the first place. I’m not really sure if I believe that the system will have to be redone if we can make it though this phase, because the main problem right now is just the baby boomers are the ones looking for retirement right now and therefore, a lot more social security is needed. As for what Jordan said, I’m pretty sure that social security is never going to “run out” unless we get rid of the system of having the current workers pay for the retired recipients. Even if at one point, like now, we ran out, as soon as the baby boomers all died, the system would most likely right itself as long as we don’t destroy it.