Video: Obama says he’ll raise taxes on the rich to shore up Social Security
posted at 9:49 am on November 12, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
On Meet the Press Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged the obvious: As the Baby Boomers retire, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security is going to face shortfalls. That fact isn’t something that the left likes to acknowledge, mostly out of paranoia that conservatives harbor a secret desire to use the looming crisis to kill off Social Security altogether.
Obama’s solution isn’t to cut benefits on future retirees or partial privatization or raise the retirement age. The latter makes sense to me, because lifespans have increased since Social Security was created in 1935. But being a Democrat, he’d prefer to raise taxes. Because he has acknowledged a problem that the left doesn’t want to acknowledge, Obama won’t get lefty credit for wanting to raise taxes. He’ll just get ripped for noticing the problem.
Takeaway: Will Obama’s move on Social Security end his status as the great white hope?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Mondale wasn’t anywhere near him to tap him on the shoulder and tell him to say that
EricPWJohnson on November 12, 2007 at 10:00 AM
I don’t agree with his logic on how to solve it, but I have to give him credit: He acknowledged it exists. How to fix the issue can be debated, but the first step is the Left acknowledging it exists.
From HuffPo that Michelle linked to:
Keep clacking those red shoes, Dave Johnson. It only works in the movies, though. Maybe, while you’re at it, you can keep chanting, “There is no terror threat to the nation”, and it’ll go away.
amerpundit on November 12, 2007 at 10:02 AM
You just discovered the left’s solution to the Social Security mess. They see no need for a military and they want to move that money to Social Security.
William Amos on November 12, 2007 at 10:07 AM
translation: raise taxes on the Middle to upper Middle Class and Small Business, which typically votes Repub.
all tax loopholes for the real “Rich”, will remain in tact.
jp on November 12, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Great points, amerpundit. As for his logic — assuming that the AARP nitwits will throw a monkey wrench into any effort to privatize the retirement behemoth — I agree completely. Increase the amount of every income that is taxed at the current rate.
Hopefully, the blowback/flamewar that results from this proposal will inspire more people to actually acknowledge the problem and confront it.
I feel sick for my daughters in college, knowing that their incomes are going to be treated to a Sweden-like evisceration, and for nothing. It will not exist in 35 years when they go to cash out.
Jaibones on November 12, 2007 at 10:10 AM
the left and the Ron Paul right.
I’ve seen converted paultards recently tell me, that we’d be able to afford School vouchers, once we “fix our foreign policy”. they are buying hook line and sinker into the ‘blowback’ idiocy of paul.
jp on November 12, 2007 at 10:11 AM
OF course he will. All the dimocraps will. The only thing that I will enjoy about that is… Soros will have to pay more taxes.
Mazztek on November 12, 2007 at 10:12 AM
nah, he’ll just move more of his billions in Tax-Exempt Bonds.
jp on November 12, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Ridding our country of 20 million illegal immigrants might be another way to reduce the cost of Social Security down the road.
But that would mean Democrats would lose 20 million votes, so we can rule that out.
fogw on November 12, 2007 at 10:24 AM
DonutsTaxing the Rich, is there anythingtheyit can’t do.BohicaTwentyTwo on November 12, 2007 at 10:25 AM
It took him four minuets to basically say he would take from those according to their ability and give to those according to their need.
VolMagic on November 12, 2007 at 10:29 AM
I wish the left would at least start considering the Fair Tax. This would not be an issue if that were in place. As so many have already stated, S.S. is a ponzie scheme and there is no way out of it, if any reform of it is going to be thrown under a bus.
Vanquisher on November 12, 2007 at 10:31 AM
I love that he mentions helping senior citizens pay their property taxes. Obviously those are things that cannot be touched, so we just raise taxes on other people to help these people pay their taxes. Guess who wins out?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Right now, the gov’t stops deducting SS after around $85K. So, depending on your income, you may pay into SS for only part of the year.
If they (1) withheld all year and (2) raised the retirement age, wouldn’t that go a long way to keeping the system solvent?
(Yeah…I know #1 is just another way of raising the tax, but then again, so is #2 in a way.)
flipflop on November 12, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Actually, thanks EricPW - you reminded me of my favorite campaign slogan: “Barack Obama - The African-American Walter Mondale.” Yay!
fiatboomer on November 12, 2007 at 11:10 AM
How about… oh I dunno…
WE CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING!
Okay, now I feel better.
Just keep yacking Barry O. Just keep on yacking.
Mojave Mark on November 12, 2007 at 11:13 AM
All they have to do is retroactively index interest paid on SS surplus to stock market performance over the baby boom productive years and voila! problem solved past the year 2525.
boris on November 12, 2007 at 11:45 AM
And they can’t say that on Meet the Press?
right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Means testing wouldn’t hurt. Instead of raising taxes on anybody, just don’t pay SS to those who are so wealthy that it would just be a dab more icing on top of their existing icing.
profitsbeard on November 12, 2007 at 11:52 AM
I don’t understand the lefts logic on ss. Instead of taking off the cap, why not do it incrementally, like paying 1% over 97.5k without the employer having to match.
The government still gets more this way. I can’t believe removing the cap for all solves the problem.
swami on November 12, 2007 at 11:58 AM
I want to put my money that I paid into SS into my private account.
I don’t want these boobs managing my money.
You want to tax yourself, go ahead, just leave me out of it.
Kini on November 12, 2007 at 11:59 AM
The Dems pretend there isn’t a problem with Social Security because they believe that the nearly 2 Trillion that the federal government has
stolenborrowed from the trust fund will be replaced with a large donation from the Magical Money Fairy.And of course, because it won’t go insolvent until most of them are no longer in office so they’re content to let someone else deal with it so long as doing nothing doesn’t jeopardize their election chances.
If we were able to put 6.5% of our incomes from age 18-62 into even low-yield, secure investments, most of us would have no need for Social Security by the time we retired, because we’d be loaded by then.
Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Ugh. JUST MAKE SOCIAL SECURITY GO AWAY! It should be illegal. I can’t believe a massive number of people have not yet brought a class action lawsuit against the U.S. government for stealing 15% of their income over their entire working lives and then spending it on other programs, giving it to other people, etc. We younger workers will never see a dime of that back again! It’s our “Support-the-Baby-Boomers-or-Go-to-Jail” tax. I want to invest my own retirement money!!!!! Do you know how much farther along I’d be right now in my retirement investments if I could have been investing that 15% myself for the last 20 years?! I could even have been supporting my aging parents, Alzheimers and all, without the federal government’s help (which they’ve had to draw heavily upon), and STILL had more to invest in my own retirement than I do now. And my aging parents would be getting more per month from me than they are/were getting from the federal government for all their years of paying into the suckiest retirement system EVER. Aaaaargh!
Okay, need to calm down. Being robbed for decades by my own government upsets me. Anyway, on a different note, I think Fred’s move a few days ago of dragging Social Security elephant out from under the couch is why Obama decided to address it. Good for Fred.
aero on November 12, 2007 at 1:14 PM
It’s actually 15%. Remember that your employer contributes on your behalf as well, and that’s money they’d pay you in salary if the government weren’t demanding that they pay it in on your behalf before you ever see it. It’s still your money, or should be. If you’re self-employed, like me, you have to pay it all, and it SUCKS.
aero on November 12, 2007 at 1:16 PM
If the Americans want to live, they will have to say “No” to men who want to take even more from parents and the businesses by which they fund their households.
Kralizec on November 12, 2007 at 1:20 PM
True (actually I think it’s 13% IIRC), but baby steps- no Congress would approve of scrapping Social Security. The program has served it’s intended purpose of bribing voters with their own money very, very well. However, letting workers pay the half they directly pay into a private account is at least a little feasible politically.
Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 1:25 PM
That’s the thing. The average liberal voter really and truly thinks that getting out of Iraq and cutting military spending will make a difference in the budget–enough to “save” Social Security and Medicare–but it can’t. Not even if we took every penny of military spending and pumped it into entitlements. Military spending is discretionary, and a relatively tiny portion of the overall federal budget–like less than 10%, I’m thinking (does someone have the stats on that?). Social Security and Medicare are mandatory and growing exponentially, and they make up something like 60% of the budget already–all by themselves. Within a couple of decades, if nothing changes and retirement projections remain more or less correct, entitlements will constitute 100% of the federal budget. They will take up every cent of taxes we pay to keep paying the Boomers’ benefits. Every. Freaking. Cent. Of course, they’ll raise taxes before that happens. But I don’t wanna pay any more into this Ponzi scheme. I just don’t. This whole thing makes me so angry. It’s just such an injustice and really un-American when you think about it.
aero on November 12, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Okay, here’s the SS rates table from the SSA site:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
Somebody ’splain that to me, please, ’cause it looks an awful lot like the federal government is working really hard to punish the self-employed. What looks fair about that to you?! I pay 15.3% of my total income into other people’s retirement, I’ll never see any of it back, and I don’t have squat left over to invest for my own retirement. How can that be legal?!
aero on November 12, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Stop the music…
These morons spent FOUR YEARS, telling us, there was no problem with Social Security.
Now, they want to raise taxes to “shore it up” ???
Will these idiots ever get their story straight?
franksalterego on November 12, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Okay, I looked a little closer at the table I just linked, and traditionally employed people are paying 7.65%, and so are their employers (it says “Rates for employees and employers, each“). So that’s the same 15.3% I’m paying as a self-employed individual.
aero on November 12, 2007 at 1:37 PM
You won’t get any defense of Social Security from me; it’s “legal” thanks to liberal Supreme Court justices who’ve interpreted the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution to mean “whatever the federal government wants it to mean”.
Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 1:38 PM
I get it: Tax the rich into cutting back on their personal investments so they become poorer. Take the money you gleaned from the previously rich and toss it into the FDR Abyss (social security). You retroactively force these formerly wealthy people into taking social security benefits they would otherwise not need because they were wealthy and could afford to care for themselves after retirement.
It all makes sense to me: The Democrats want you to be poor and dependent in a socialist utopia where there are too many piglets and not enough teats on the sow.
Someone give me a hammer; my forehead needs pounding.
Black Adam on November 12, 2007 at 1:41 PM
And, by the way, I agree with you on this. Any step in the right direction would help.
I was so busy doing a Yosemite Sam in full-blown temper tantrum routine that I didn’t acknowledge your point. Sorry. ;-)
aero on November 12, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I’m trying to find some numbers that show how many people are collecting SS benefits who are not retired.
I think the problem is much worse because when welfare was “reformed” in the 1990s, a lot of those people just figured out a way to collect SSI instead.
People need to realize that you need to actually put money away somewhere. When the government keeps baling people out for making poor financial decisions the problem just gets worse.
Let them take $25 a week out the their scratch ticket money and save it. Maybe you don’t need a 46′ HDTV, if you have less than $100 in savings…
Didn’t anyone else read the story about the Grasshopper and the Ants?
reaganaut on November 12, 2007 at 1:54 PM
In Democratic patois “rich” means “middle class”.Therefore anyone smarter than Cynthia McKinney know who will get any future tax increase.
MaiDee on November 12, 2007 at 1:58 PM
I’ll never forget what Geraldine Ferraro said a few years ago in a television interview. The topic was private SS accounts. She said she’s all for people investing in the stock market for their own retirement. BUT, she said (and here’s the revealing part), “Let them use their own money to do that, not Social Security.” Let them use their own money, Geraldine? Last time I checked, Social Security is supposedly our own money–not the freaking government’s! Her comment just hit me in the gut and made me realize that libs really and truly don’t see our money as our money–they think it’s theirs. At the time, it was a revelation to me, and I was genuinely horrified. And, of course, the interviewer did not call her out on that (it was Chris Matthews, I think–he wouldn’t).
aero on November 12, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Fair Tax is bad, bad, bad, Vanquisher. I blog about it here and link to a WSJ editorial that breaks it down.
linlithgow on November 12, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Tax the rich. This means if you are not room temperature, you are well-to-do. Tax and spend RINOs and DEMOS. They will destroy this country.
saved on November 12, 2007 at 2:40 PM
EXACLTY!
TheSitRep on November 12, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Hey, this’ll be like the telephone tax of 1898 - 2006. there was a good “tax on the rich”. Because, as you know, from 1898 to 2006, only the rich own telephones.
Or the AMT, only for the super rich to ensure they pay taxes anyhow… which will never ever in any way possibly hit the middle class. Except it will this year. And they’d fix it, but that’d “lose” money. So they can’t justify not letting the AMT screw the middle class.
But this new tax is really truly honestly only ever going to hit “the rich”.
And I promise I won’t pull away the football this time Charlie Brown. Really I won’t.
gekkobear on November 12, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Class warfare is the foundation of Socialism. That’s why the Socialist, Left constantly cries out rich vs. poor, black vs. white, illegal vs. citizen and women vs. men.
The “rich” are the kulaks of today. And, the Socialists want to get rid of them.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 12, 2007 at 4:54 PM
All you have to do to fix SS is make it the retirement program of the government employees. Most government employees don’t pay into SS, they pay into their own government retirement plan. They don’t get SS payouts, but they do get more generous payments than they would if the same money had gone into SS. Not only that, exempting government employees from SS leaves fewer people to pay into SS as the percentage of workers in government jobs increases.
Snidely Whiplash on November 12, 2007 at 5:09 PM
How much higher should they raise the minimum age at which you can collect full Social Security benefits? I’m 48 and the last thing I got from SS said I can collect full benefits at age 67.
The payroll cap should be removed. It’s stupid to stop people from having to contribute when they make so much money. Those of us who make the cap don’t notice the two or three or four weeks when they don’t take SS out of our pay. We don’t live paycheck to paycheck.
Anyone who makes that kind of money who does live paycheck to paycheck is a moron and only has themselves to blame.
Jaynie59 on November 12, 2007 at 6:33 PM
I find myself agreeing with what Obama said–in a certain limited way. The Social Security tax is regressive and I don’t have a problem with how he wants to address it by removing the income cap on the tax. My issue with Social Security is not such small details. My issue is what should social security be. Sadly, many Americans need to be forced to save money for retirement, and I’m not opposed to some small amount of redistribution to the lower incomes for their retirement. However, the whole scheme of a social security plan should be to reinforce the value of capitalism and not socialism. Thus, we need to replace Social Security with mandatory investments in stock index funds. We need to make it obvious to even the poorest of the poor that they benefit from a working economy. If even the poor measure their wealth in terms of stocks and not government transfers, socialism will die. And a few transfer payment to achieve that is well worth it.
thuja on November 12, 2007 at 6:42 PM
You nailed that one VolMagic !
Come on B.O. at least Karl Marx said it succinctly.
Maxx on November 12, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Quote from MM linked article:
Dims are masters of contradiction. franksalterego points out Obama’s admission that SS is in trouble, which is why the Far Left nutroots are flaming him for blowing the lid off. Madam Mao wants to do onwe of two things: Sound centrist on the economy, then when in office, delare that growing the economy is impossible (due to Bush recession /sarc/) and that we must pass a huge tax increase. Or, have the bipartisam commission come up wiht a plan that would most certainly have a tax increase in it, then she can blame the commission for the increase. Side note: I thought the economy was the worst since Herbert Hoover, according to the Dims?!
geekrunner on November 13, 2007 at 8:02 AM
Hm, raising taxes on the “rich” to pay for a government program. What a novel and innovative approach. Why haven’t the Dems suggested something like this before? Oh wait, it’s the same solution they’ve hawked for the last fifty years. Hey geniuses, get a new plan already.
CP on November 13, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Obama wants to prop up a failed Marxist plan with more Marxism!
Gatordoug on November 13, 2007 at 7:42 PM