The following quote is pure bologna.
There are a reported 800 billionaires in the United States. That means each person has a net worth – all assets less liabilities – of over $1 billion, nothing to do with income and certainly not wages, many of whom have none. Wealth is not income.
The wealth that accrued since the 1980s has nothing to do with the payroll cap, it has to do with the stock and real estate markets and in some cases the creation of new companies and stock ownership in those organizations.
Lawson said when Social Security reforms were implemented in 1983, the projections were based on “pre-funding the baby boom – building up the trust fund that would actually draw down by the end of the need for baby boomers.”
“But it’s off by about 20-30 years, and the No. 1 driver is rising wealth and income inequality,” Lawson said.
“There’s no Social Security problem. There’s a billionaire problem.”— Alex Lawson, Social Security Works executive director
Americans pay Social Security taxes on up to $168,000 a year; anything earned above that amount is not subject to Social Security taxes, Lawson said.
“So much wealth since the ‘80s has accrued above the payroll cap,” Lawson explained. “The productivity gains have gone to the ultra-wealthy.”
Source: Fox29
Eliminate the taxable wage cap you say? Again, nothing related to billionaires. And eliminating the cap does not solve the Social Security solvency problem.
Eliminate the taxable wage cap and Social Security remains insolvent. The trust funds will run out in 2060 at which point all beneficiaries will face a sudden 12% benefit cut. 60% of 75-year shortfall closed (35% of shortfall closed in 75th year)
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Sorry, disagree. Folks who pay income taxes already fund the vast majority of the entitlements – whether we are talking about Social Security, Medicare Part A, Part B, Part D or Medicaid. That’s because a substantial portion of the cost is disproportionately allocated to those with higher incomes which are funded with general revenue (Medicare Part B, Part D, Medicaid and certain surcharges for Mediare Part A) and because Social Security benefits are highly progressive – significantly favoring lower income individuals.
Most of the tax the rich proposals are classist, “don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that guy behind the tree”. Or “the best tax is the one I owe and YOU pay”.
Same crap for Health Reform – we added tens of millions to Medicaid and nearly 20 million to taxpayer subsidized coverage through the public exchanges. They made it affordable … just not affordable for the majority of Americans who pay income taxes and get their coverage through their employer.
LikeLike
Apparently its not enough in any case.
LikeLike
Raising the cap does seem like a reasonable move that could be a part of broader funding improvements. However, I understand that doing so is not a complete Social Security funding solution nor does it target the super wealthy (if that is a goal).
LikeLike
Actually taking a class about the financial crisis of 2008 and the Dick Quinn material he sent today was alluded to–was not germane to the actual topic but someone raised it–waqs interested to read it this morning.
LikeLike
Very few things have any effect on the super wealthy.
LikeLike
But removing the cap will certainly help to protect the next generation. Until Congress can find the right fix. It’ll probably take those xtra 25-30 years…
LikeLike
It would, but no effect on the super wealthy.
LikeLike
I get that. I believe raising the cap on those at the popular $400k mark would help substantially. Raising the overall tax from todays level is probably the best answer for all. But that will be quite unpopular. But needs to be done. Maybe a compromise increase a littel on the below cap workers and a little more the above the cap. One problem is that we as Americans hate taxes (who doesn’t0 but we have to realize we have some of the lowest taxes in te developed countries around the world. We all want what we want, but no one wants to pay for it. I was in local politics for 15 years , back aways. Whenever we had a surplus the pundits would say we need to advertise we didnt raise taxes, we’ll be elected forever. Well I would always say, I felt we should raise taxes by at least a half penny. It didn’t mean much but it would avoid increase of 5 cents and above down the road. They always voted no. Sure enough there came a time, when $$$ were tight and the increase had to be 7cents. there was revolution…lol That and many other reasons it was time for me to go back to private life…..
LikeLike