John Rother said AARP would be open to a moderate increase in the wage cap to bring it closer to historical levels. Today, about 87 percent of wages are subject to the payroll tax, compared to the 89 to 90 percent historical rate
Hey John, think you better rethink this a bit. It appears the base was $3,000 in 1951 and the average wage was $2,799. The base in 1998 was $68,400 and the average wage was $27,626. Some how looking strickly at the numbers the base has increased a bit faster than the average wage. Bring it closer to historical levels would meen reducing it to $29,609.
Please provide the data for your 89 90% historical rate.
Gerry Shea, please provide the data on how you come up with "eliminating the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax solely for employers and not changing the method of calculating benefits would reduce more than half of the shortfall".
If per John, who states 86% of all wages are already taxed at OASI rates, it would only increase revenues by 14.94%. Some how I think the interest or finance on a $10 Trillion unfunded liability at 7% is slightly more than 14.94% of $360 Billion or ~$54 billion. Could you also supply numbers instead of words. I think they would carry more weight. I think your are off by about 1,300% or more!!!
All seemed to agree acting sooner than later was better. I agree 100% with this. When you are a ship called the USS Social Security and the only think left above the water line are the stacks, acting quickly may save your future. However, there are many out there who appear to be captains. We all know what the captain is supposed to do right?
