E.g., for example ABC's
Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike -
'08 Democrat Suggests Taxing Those Who Make More Than $97,000 Per Year, by Teddy Davis, Sept. 22, 2007
"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is considering a major tax hike on the rich to shore up the nation's Social Security system.
"If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,000," Obama wrote this week in an Iowa newspaper, "we could eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."
Once we get by the frightening 'tax hike' deceptive title mislead, the article is pretty informative.
"Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday's Quad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would be paid by employees and half would be paid by employers.The [most] powerful five percent of the population, to be sure. Article author Davis quotes from the far right:
Obama's idea, however, also carries considerable political risk.
Eliminating the Social Security tax cap without changing the benefit formula could undermine support for the program among the roughly five percent of Americans who earn more than $97,000 per year."
"It would be a radical change in how the program has been designed," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a non-partisan group that advocates a balanced budget. "It would end the contributory idea of Social Security, where you get back something for what you put in."
But our big brother ABC quotes fallacious material and a lie as opinion, for Social Security is a really bit of socialism that corrects the dog-eat-dog nature of capitalism in that it assures all qualified contributors some retirement income - once the basic requirement of certain modest tax-contribution has been made during a minimum of at least 40 year-quarters, which could be met in a straight mere ten full years. Until last year that minimum year-quarter qualifying income amount was less than $1000. Inventors, musicians, artists, writers, etc, who don't hit it big with financial success can qualify with the Social Security tax paid on a total lifetime income of something less than $40.000.
So, some who paid-in modestly, and lived long enough, would draw from the Social Security fund kept solvent by those that paid in a lot. But remember, many will have died early after retirement, and many will have passed away before reaching retirement age, never drawing a nickel from the fund they paid into over a life-time. It was never meant to be 'ya get back what ya put in.' per se.
To his credit, Teddy Davis, partially makes up for incredulously quoting a lie as opinion, by ending his article with a most helpful quote:
"Middle class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income [than wealthier Americans] -- that was Warren Buffet's position," said Clinton at a June 29 PBS debate, "When you cut off the contribution at $90,000, $95,000, that's a lot of money between $95,000 and the $46 million that Warren Buffet made last year. And he's honest enough to say, 'Look, tax me because I'm a patriotic American and I want to make sure our country stays strong and is fair.'" [Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures]
America's greatest billionaires, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, know that their incredible wealth is only possible within America's healthy infrastructure. They know that the Social Security System is a type of enforced social accountability for one's nation and neighbors. They don't begrudge their Social Security tax contribution and would gladly have the Social Security tax cap on their income above $97,500 removed.
Corporate media refuses to discuss this. Instead, they spread misrepresentations and lies about the supposed bankruptcy of Social Security and ignore the fact that the system is basically healthy and will be for decades to come.
Real Conservatives would not want to weaken Social Security, and move back toward the days of every man and woman for him or herself! Though the entertainment/advertising media may elevate self-indulgent behavior, it is, after all, dedicated labor in organized cooperation that has built this, and every other, nation.
President Bush proposed that individual citizens be encouraged to risk a portion of what would have been their own payroll Social Security tax. This individual's portion would be withdrawn from the nations' fund set up to protect all citizens, thus weakening the institution of Social Security, and requiring rewriting the Social Security law.
Years ago a US Representative from Florida broke ranks with the Democratic leadership plan of waiting for Bush's privatization plan to fail before introducing a Democratic adjustment bill, and proposed the same as Rep. Doyle of Ohio had proposed earlier, namely, that no change in the cost-of-living formula would be required if the wealthiest wage earners had to pay Social Security taxes on more of their earnings.
Corporate controlled Congress and media did not feature his proposal. Yours truly heard a CNN announcer falsely describe the Florida Representative's proposed legislation falsely as "A NEW TAX OF 3 AND 1/2% ON INCOME OVER 90%. But raising the cap which is as adjustable a feature as any other in the Social Security legislation that sets contribution percentages and age qualifications as well.
The above intentional misnaming and twisting the meaning of words is merely another example of how insidiously, but simply, commercial media can go about reflecting the collusion between party leaderships following the corporate conglomerate wishes of our not-so-red-blooded-community-values-upholding powerful elite?
America's dedicated musicians, actors, inventors, artists, scientists, and even non-professionals should continue to deserve some of the freedoms granted to capital and corporations. Social Security can make a citizen feel more confident in taking innovative chances knowing that a lack of success, misfortune or personal denouement will be cushioned in old age by a life-sustainable pension. Our public forced saving program, which we know as the Social Security System, is an entirely responsible and humane law.
The Social Security System has been a major democratic success for our nation, which, for all its rich natural resources and history of personal opportunity, has a growing portion of its citizenry struggling on the edge of poverty while a class of super wealthy--favored by legislation they themselves are able to promote--grows in undemocratic disproportion,
In the present 'I, Me, Mine' philosophy of the deceptively misnamed 'conservatives', who really are NOT about 'conserving' but on the contrary, are for dismantling and selling off our heritage of public enterprise and putting public institutions on the chopping block for privatization, a responsible community of human beings is something too liberal.
With the present largely media manufactured artificial controversy over 'reforming' our Social Security System, the world's great superpower is made to look immoral, pretending not to have the resources to assure the dignity of its elderly, though so many other far less wealthy nations are able to do so without much fanfare.
Just as conglomerate owned media blacks out from public knowledge the universal health insurance offered in all the other industrialized nations, so also are the retirement plans in Europe, Canada and Japan never a news item worthy of discussion and comparison.
There is a corporate media campaign of obfuscation to avoid the simple adjustment (not 'solution', as there is no basic problem to 'solve'), which was suggested by Democrats already years ago, namely, simply adjusting the cap upwards for the wealthy who have no problem to pay more and pay similar to what the lower earning great majority pay.
With this unfair privilege of the rich being excused from paying contributions on all personal income over the $97,500 cap, a CEO paying himself $4,000,000 is exempted from paying Social Security tax on $3,100,00. Yet he is able to draw such a great remuneration because he lives within this country and makes use of its infrastructure.
Amazingly The Social Security 'problem' being manufactured is yet another scam to syphon off more wealth surreptitiously from the commonweal and up into the ever growing disparate bank accounts of those who have control over our corporate system as was done in the Bush tax cuts and present desperately needed investment (read speculation) bank bailout welfare for the rich.
Democrats and even Republicans who are real democrats with a small 'd', realize that there is no problem, just an unwillingness to be fair and democratic. A compassionate and honest person does not begrudge paying in more than he will receive, and everyone knows we need a healthy public for economic freedom in creating businesses that are efficient.
Why should the wealthy who benefit most from our system deserve special treatment?
Originally, early in the race, candidate Barack Obama talked of only raising the cap. Now with Warren Buffett's backing and encouragement he has dared to say a possible solution would be to eliminate the cap.
Now that the majority world population is aghast at the ongoing unethical and dangerous speculative banking crimes inherent in the boss nations of global capitalization, we in America might use this crisis as an opportunity to institute that injection of social legislation that was deemed necessary after the 1929 crash.
Let's talk it up as much as possible! Start by talking down that ploy of there being a problem with the Social Security System. The real problem is that too many of the rich don't want to pay their share for the benefit of all and the nation.
