Sounds good, certainly appealing to the masses and it gets even with the wealthy. However, it doesn’t fix Social Security and is unfair to the upper middle class and doesn’t touch “the rich.” The real rich are not on the payroll.
According to the Social Security Administration, to be in the top 1% based on income, you must earn at least $350,000 in 2022. That’s nothing to sneeze at and is about four and a half times median household income, but it is not what is conjured in our minds as wealthy, especially considering where in the country such salaries are paid.
So, is it fair that 1% of earners carry the burden of retirement income for the 99%? Not in my world.
It is pure bologna!
Even if the salary cap were eliminated Social Security remains insolvent. The trust funds will run out in 2056 at which point all beneficiaries will face a sudden 11% benefit cut.
Reich is right about one thing, we should not be talking about cutting Social Security. It is not necessary, not at all.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Give me some tax exemptions–I don’t deal with BS unless you produce the bull.
LikeLike
When you’re right, you’re right. Unlike Richard, I think inequality itself is intrinsically a (serious) problem, but Social Security is not the way to solve it.Also, a later retirement age is not the way.
LikeLike
Let’s face it. The appeal to the Democratic Biden Administration has been partially the mantra of redistribution of the wealth “from the rich to the poor”. In reality, the very rich are shielded with the Congressional mandated tax exemptions that are mined by the savvy tax lawyers the rich can afford. Which leaves the tax burden for redistribution on the middle class that don’t have the tax exemptions reserved for the entitled rich. Am I wrong on this perspective or not?
LikeLike
100% Correct!
LikeLike
Reich is just another far left winger who never met a tax he didn’t like.
LikeLike