Home | About | Donate

To Fix System That Let Trump Stop Paying Social Security Taxes 40 Minutes Into 2016, Sanders Says 'Time to Scrap the Cap'


To Fix System That Let Trump Stop Paying Social Security Taxes 40 Minutes Into 2016, Sanders Says 'Time to Scrap the Cap'

Jake Johnson, staff writer

Using America's billionaire president as a perfect illustration of the "absurdity," deep inequity, and untapped potential of Social Security in its current state, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday presented a striking data point during a press conference unveiling the Social Security Expansion Act.

1 Like


When we speak of income, let’s be clear that ALL income is included, from whatever source, and not just from wage labor. As things stand, some income is “more equal than others,” such as capital gains, stock options and interest. This is regressive on its face and must end.



Currently, Social Security benefits (unlike Medicare) are linked to contributions. If the cap on contributions is eliminated, is the cap on benefits going to be eliminated as well?

1 Like


Few if any ever think of this inequity in the Social Security System in terms of a form of colonization. But stand back and consider the profile, the implementation, the sales pitch, the environment being discussed: economic - think ‘continent’ as parallel to invasion, dehumanization and stealing of a continent.

We really need to bust through the swamp mediated by words applied to babble. Keep in mind that the sheer number of words used to lay claim to such usurpation via legislation is a travesty in and of itself. Actually running close parallel with the debt - is that a coincidence?

Too many corporations are getting ‘socialism’ while whining about social equity that threatens what they illegitimately and unethically usurp. The well has been poisoned by the financial industry and they have NO INCENTIVE to be honest. That disease has become a plague threatening the entire planet.

To the above I would add that motivation for denial, for projecting of negation and benefiting from being heirs to generations of ‘carve outs’, the mentality does not bode well for coherent recognition of reality. Their threadbare fabric of argument must be challenged

1 Like


Wealthier people should pay graduated taxes period. That includes the Social Security tax. No exceptions.

If average U.S. taxpayers pay, say, 20% of their income, wealthy people should pay 70%. So, whatever you’re paying in Social Security tax off of your earnings, Donald Trump probably should be paying 2 1/2 times as much per incremental dollar earned.

Medicare Part B should cost the wealthy more out of their Social Security checks.

The Medicare Part B deductible should be several times higher for the wealthy than for the relatively poor.

For that matter, traffic fines should be higher unless a person can prove that their income has been low for the last three years. Judges should be empowered to enforce a roughly equivalent deterrence on the extremely poor and the extremely wealthy alike, so that the wealthy don’t speed any time they feel like it.



troll asks the proper question. and it’s a big deal.

if you leave a benefits cap on but raise the limit, a fundamental transformation in social security takes place–it goes from a defined benefit insurance program to a welfare program. That has not only legal ramifications, but it has huge ramifications for the propaganda possibilities for Mr Smith’s friends who want to get rid of it.

On the other hand, if you eliminate the benefits cap, a lot of people are going to be crying when they see old corporate managers running around with 5k a month social security checks in their dotage while grandma is still only able to afford roadkill intestine soup. That’s going to make a program that has probably kept more Americans alive than any other program become insanely unpopular.

This isn’t the slam dunk we think it is. There might be better ways to increase the floor payouts (and let face it, that’s what SS actually needs. Much bigger payouts and no more raiding) than to do this. And there are probably better ways to tax large incomes than using social security as the mechanism of confiscation.



You have asked this question multiple times and each time the answer is the same. There is no cap on benefits in the current law and there is no cap on benefits under Senator Sanders proposed bill and there is no cap on benefits under Representative Larson’s bill in the House .

There is a set formula applied to average income taxed by social security and when that average income goes up benefits go up. The marginal rate on benefits accrual at the high end is 15%
(you get 90% of average earnings up to $926/month then 32% of earnings from 926 up to $5,583, then 15% on anything over $5,583).

Every year the wage base goes up with inflation and every year the benefits paid go higher at the upper end. That is current law.

You can find the text of Senator Sanders proposal at https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/social-security-expansion-act-2019



"Scrap The Cap."

Time for the Rich to pay their fair share.






There should be no deductible for anyone.



Keep the cap at $321,900, but for those making more than $250,000/yr add a 5% surtax. That will raise a lot of money and make the Social Security tax progressive.

1 Like


I think you have disregarded the third possibility. With no cap, we can dynamically adjusted the taxes on everyone to assure that existing benefits are never at risk. Why have a fixed tax rate at all? All we really need is a system that always fully funds the benefit needs.

With no cap, 98% or so of all us would likely see a tax reduction. Or, we could all see a rise in benefits or both. But, you don’t need to keep the current benefits formula in place with no upper limit and create the problem you describe.

1 Like


Sanders Says ‘Time to Scrap the Cap’ — Jake Johnson, staff writer

And don’t forget that Korporations (even though in reality they are Konspiracies to Fleece the Masses) are now “people” – at least according to the SCOTUS – and should therefor be paying their FICA taxes just like the rest of us.  Since so many Korporations pay zero – or at least close to zero – in other taxes, their FICA taxes, if uncapped, would at least amount to a reasonable absolute minimum.  IMHO, these taxes should be set aside in a special fund used to pay Health and Retirement benefits to the laid-off employees any time a plant “retires” (i.e. is closed by a parent Korporation or Vulture Kapitalist.)

*   *   *   *   *

AMEN!!!  Among the most egregious of these are the major league basketball, baseball & football franchises, with their huge tax breaks and – worst of all – huge money-losing stadiums paid for by public tax monies.



i’m not sure you understand the principle difference here. I’m also not sure that repeating it in type will make that any easier.

a fixed payment system means that it’s standardized based solely on pay in and not need. Raising the tax cap but not raising corresponding payout rates takes it from being a program based on investment to one based on need, the very definition of a welfare program. It’s not a small difference. It’s pretty large.



There is no current cap on benefits and under both the House and Senate reform bill - that doesn’t change. Social Security benefits are paid out in a Progressive manner with the top marginal payout rate being only 15% compared to the 90% marginal payout rate for the lowest earners. I think it would be wise to lower the marginal rate for the type of very high incomes that will now be paying into the system - but there’s no need in my mind to bring it down to zero.



The situation is much worse now in terms of the inequality in retirement incomes.
A change in the marginal payout rates would be appropriate for the very high incomes that would come into play when you scrap the cap - but reducing the marginal payout rates down to zero would be a poor policy option.
At the 15% marginal payout rate we have now Social Security makes about a dollar for every 60 cents paid out - if they reduced the lowest marginal payout rate to 10% for incomes over $250,000 then there would be a dollar made for every 40 cents contributed and other parts of the benefit formula like the minimum and the cutoff for the 90% marginal payout rate could be correspondingly improved.



see my original post regarding what distinguishes a welfare program from an insurance one.



I can hear the argument when you have a tough person doing the changing. Rich guy says, you can’t do that. Change person says sit down you are out of order.
Well there’s the plan, where’s the person to shut these greedy m-f-ers down?

It happens every day all over the world. The flesh and blood person right next to you shuts you down.




1 Like


“If that is accurate, he stopped paying Social Security payroll tax 40 minutes into January 1st of that year.”

Actually he’s gonna be paying until April. The POTUS makes about 400k per year. Somebody educate Sen Sanders about the difference between payroll taxes and other income type of income taxes. Trump will pay exactly zero SS taxes on those $600 million.