Hacker News Reader

Comment by kimmeld | Hacker News Reader

Social Security was founded in 1935, so before boomers ever were born, although it had a different feel from today's program. Social Security is funded (you actually pay taxes for it), but the rest of the government borrows from it quite recklessly which is why republicans want you to believe it's not funded. With simply upping the ceiling on the amount taxed into it we can easily fund it for the foreseeable future. Now of course the right wants you to think otherwise so they can kill the program for future generations but that's just not backed up by facts.

View on HN

Upping the contribution limit without upping the benefit would just be a hidden tax on the upper middle class, but not the rich, who do not work for salary. If you want to tax the rich, you need to raise the upper tax rates.

You need to implement social security taxes on investment income, not raising the SS taxable cap on wages, to accomplish this. It makes sense to not overly tax burden wage income (productive effort) while taxing investment income (rent seeking) at a higher rate, no?

I'd just go with adding all income (investment or otherwise) into a total pool and then tax that with a single set of rules instead of this stupidly complex tax system.

It's exactly the opposite of hidden. It literally shows up as a separate item on your taxes. However, I don't think most people actually realize that it's a regressive tax that goes away when you make more money. Though society is at a place where a lot of people don't care if elderly people starve and freeze to death just as long as the upper class get slightly lower tax burdens.

It's disingenuous to say that the government borrows from SS. The SSA needs a savings account for its money and the Treasury offers that, though T-Bonds.

It's two sides of the same coin with totally different implications. It's, "I bought a CD." vs. "The bank keeps borrowing from me."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com