Your opinion of those making over $250,000 paying more on Social Security?

In my opinion, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, and the popularity of birth control and abortion has rendered it unlikely that there will be enough future generations of contributors to payout enough to handle the present and near term retirees.

So to compensate for this fault in this federally mandated Ponzi scheme, there is some need to derive money from nonsensical sources, such as people that make over $250K and are sensible enough to not depend on this Ponzi scheme anyway, so this is like a federally mandated charitable donation.

Anyway, I'm in my 40s, I'd like to consider Social Security a charitable donation altogether, as I'm not expecting the system to survive to where it pays me anything when I retire around 2032, and I think this is true whether or not we make richer people pay in disproportionately to their need.

The whole idea behind Social Security was that the benefits you get are determined by what you pay in. Making some people pay Social Security tax when they are ineligible to receive the corresponding benefits is unfair.

If you are going to tax some people then simply hand that money to other people it should be part of the federal budget that has to be voted on by Congress every year.

How much do you need. I am saying that you have to find money for social programs somewhere and the rich have in part played a role in the redistribution of the wealth by making a profit from everyone including the less fortunate. If you have that much you can afford to pay. What are you going to do tax the poor and homeless, that makes no sense. I think you should have pride in the ability to pay taxes because you have more.

Another thing to look at is that it is basically a one time hit if you do not like giving up money make less profit. Most people will think with reason and find a way to make a profit.

In my opinion, if you want to encourage a particular activity you subsidize it. If you want to discourage a particular activity you tax it. We are currently discussing putting more of a burden on the successful and less on the failures.

What effect do you suppose that will have? If you set the bar so that making 250k will raise your taxes disproportionately, will people strive to stay below that bar or rise above it? If you set the bar so that if one stays below a certain income level they will not have to pay taxes will they be eager to rise above it?

To me, what your have there is exactly 180 degrees out of phase. We should be encouraging success and discouraging setting for failure. People living their lives at or below the poverty line need to be prodded not praised. People striving for more and more success should be praised not punished.

No one objects for social safety nets. But we have a strong aversion to safety nets used as hammocks.

*

I think it's good especially in light of the current crisis that has devastated people's pension funds and what-not.. Social security is already a mess and this should help to alleviate problems for the elderly.

well since they already pay more because they make more - I think increasing that is just plain greed.