We must remove the cap on the SS Payroll tax. Only taxing people at $110,000 of income disproportionately affects lower wage earners while letting people who earn over that amount get away with paying what amounts to a smaller percentage over all. It will also help keep the program solvent for much longer than suggested in the article.

Julia makes a good point ; But i would add that the S.S. money has been "dipped into" since the 50's and now they talk like its the Govt. money to be delved out to the peasants at their bidding . I have been putting money into that account since 1963 and to hear the Govt. talk like its a handout . Is incredibly insulting.

Is it 2013 as in the headline or 2031 as in the body of the article?

The year in article was correct - 2031. It has been corrected, sorry for the error!

I think we should steal more and more and more money from the rich because there aren't enough of them to defend themselves. So I think anyone with the name Julia should pay higher taxes just because there aren't that may of them either. Why not? she can make a blanket statement that others can afford it. I am making a blank statement that all Julia's can afford more taxes here is my list of people for higher taxes: JULIA ROBERTS, actress
JULIA LOUIS-DREYFUS, actress JULIA STILES, actress, JULIA SWEENEY, SNL cast member,JULIA ALMEIDA, writer, JULIA ANN, actress, JULIA BARR, Actor, JULIA BECKETT, 2008 Olympic, JULIA BEERS, Scottish artist, JULIA BLECK, Olympian, JULIA CHANG BLOCH, Diplomat, JULIA CAMERON, artist, JULIA CARSON, Politician, JULIA CHEVANNE, Olympian, JULIA CLANCY-SMITH, writer, JULIA CLUKEY, Olympian , JULIA DE BURGOS, author, JULIA DE LA PENA DE BALLES, author, JULIA DEMATO, American Idol season 2 , JULIA DENTON, actress, JULIA DOLLISON, Jazz artist, JULIA DUFFY, Actor, JULIA ECKLAR, writer, JULIA FIELDS, writer, JULIA FRANCK, writer, JULIA GORDON, artist, JULIA HILL, 1983 Miss SOUTH CAROLINA
JULIA HOWE, Poet, JULIA JOHNSEN, author, JULIA KOUROTCHKINA, 1992 Miss Earth, JULIA KRISTEVA, writer, JULIA LATHROP, author, JúLIA LELLO, writer, JULIA LEVY, author, JULIA LOWELL, writer,JULIA MANCUSO, 2010 Winter Olympian
By the way James the Government didn't publish that article, some eggheads from the IVY League did. Now they can get another grant!

How droll, a troll.

How abouth the estate of Julia Childs. Probably the government didn't get enough of her $$. @prickels, get a sense of humor.

This issue is not a joking matter. It is government. It is politics. It is money. It's providing for the people who made this country what it is. Social Security is the most successful social program we have in preventing poverty. Many seniors and disabled wouldn't be able to live without this. Sorry to say, but the fact that we only pay taxes towards the program on $110,000 of our income is sad. These same people who only pay a very small fraction of their income on SS still get benefits from the system when they turn 65. There are no income qualifications. The only income qualification is in how much you make. It's based off of how much you made on average every month throughout your working life. The more you made, the more you get. That being said, why should people who get more in income pay a smaller percentage of their income towards something? Shouldn't all income be taxed at the same level?

Sure Julia, why don't we tax the 47% who aren't paying Federal Income Taxes. If all income should be taxed the same?? I've seen some of your previous posts, perhaps you should have taken some economics courses (not home economics). You do not make a straight line argument.

How about getting rid of the junkies that do not need it or deserve it?

I have no problem with the country helping when in need!!!! I have problems with a lot of people I know who get social security because they have drug problems, this is not a disability but a choice that is made! So the people who worked hard for this all their life loss the benefit, while the junkie who may have kept a job for a year or two get ssi because they are a junkie!!!! That's sad I disagree that they deserve this earned benefit!!!!

You would not believe how many junkies receive SSI benefits and still do drugs!!!!

Whatever the merits of the program, the bottom line is that the government has mismanaged it. This is the nature of anything driven by politics. Hard decisions will be put off, and when the day of reckoning comes, fingers will be pointed in all directions, but nobody will take the blame. So while the SSI program may have noble goals, it's a huge ponzi scheme, and somebody will be stuck holding the bag. Adding more money to the system (by raising taxes) will just give the politicians more leeway to mismanage it.

Sadly, the poor end up getting the worst of the fallout, because they have no other savings. So when the COLA for SSI comes out each year, and doesn't keep pace with inflation, understand what it happening. The SSI benefit is being inflated away to cover up the mismanagement, while the politicians pretend they are "defending our seniors". The middle class and wealthy will tap into their 401K's to cover the shortfall. The poor get the shaft - NOT from the rich, but from the government.

-Jim

Here's my point if you make over the $110,000 your payments from Social Security will never pay you a benefit above a certain amount so why pay more taxes? For whom are we paying? So if you are paying the extra all you are doing is propping up someones bad choices laziness or in rare cases misfortune. But, there is no distinguishing between one or the other so some deserve and some get screwed because government won't take the time to review the circumstances. So here it is the Obama plan for workers who: did the work, walked the walk, paid their dues and want to enjoy their success: Pay more now, pay more when you retire, pay more when you die so those you have supported for 50 years can live a lifestyle more commensurate with yours off of your own money. My response GTFO. Does no one see the flaw in that logic? So here is the position of the spend it all today fiscal liberals: More FICA, more withholding, more SSI, more County, more State and more local taxes to prop up "For who for what?" quoting the 1995 comments of the ex Eagles running back Ricky Watters. said.

I think I am like most Americans in this day and age, when I say that I do not expect social security when eligible. I will likely work until I die or forced to retire due to age.

The analysis is an old lie. People in general are not living longer. The wealthy, with their excellent health care, are living significantly longer. The middle class and low income are not living longer. You can't look at the average for all americans and apply it to this analysis. That's not reality. The funding problem with Social Security is minor.

The programs that are an issue are Medicare and Medicaide. The underlying problem is the out of control growth of the cost of health care over several decades. That was one of the issues that the Affordable Care Act was to address but Republicans successfully prevented any significant cost reduction measures. The solution is to address this underlying problem.

The proposed "solutions" are a complete joke. Cut my benefits to reduce the costs of the program? Idiotic! The underlying cost will continue to go up. Cut my benefits and I pay a larger and larger portion of the cost of health care. The government saves money by making me pay more? Huh? Who funds the government? Me! In the end, I save nothing. Whatever reduction I see in contributions are more than what I'll see in additional out of pocket health care costs. What would you say if your health insurance company said they have a great cost savings program for me. They'll cut my premiums by $1000 per year but my out of pocket expenses will go up by $1500! What a deal!

Julia, your argument would be fair and equitable except that you neglect one extremely important detail. Social security benefits are based on your income and the age you begin drawing benefits. Right now someone making $1 million per year pays the same taxes as the person making $110,000 per year. That seems crazy, unless you also realize that the $1 million earner will get the exact same benefits (assuming they retire at the same age). So what you are really saying is that the person earning $1 million should pay more in but get no additional benefit. Is that fair? Would it be fair for me to go steal some rich guy's car? Of course not, but isn't this the same thing?

Julia, Julia, Julia....I what countries do your socialist claptrap ideas work? Did they work in the Soviet Union, Cuba, China?

Additionally, you seemed a bit math-challenged. If every one deserves it, who pays? Printing money out of thin air only lasts so long. Their isn't enough money to go around for you video game playing, drug using malingerers.
Eventually the folks buying the debt that finances your lifestyle will figure out it's worthless. The standard of living in our country has been dropping for years. The only thing we produce are negative trade account balances and debt. We have become a nation of Julias'. Immature, brainwashed brats that whine about what they deserve. Impotent to do anything for themselves. Enfeebled to even think independently. Making all their decisions by pure emotion. Ignorant of history. Unable to contextualize current events. Pure intellectual laziness and lack of character.

Ask one of the former residents of the of the Soviet Bloc has nice their lives were? Ask the fellows who tried to cross the minefields to reach the Berlin Wall. Only to be mowed down by machine gun fire. Their bodies lay fallen on coiled razor wire. Ask them how life is in socialist state. Or the Cubans that risk a treacherous, 90 mile boat ride thru shark infested waters on rickety or makeshift boats. Ask them how life is in paradise?

The government has stolen our Social Security and Medicare premiums. If it were private insurance, the executives would have been charged with theft and thrown in jail.
The government regulates all commercial activity, yet they can not protect us against fraud or abuse. They could not prevent the; Savings and Loan Crisis, the Stock Market Bubble, the Real Estate Bubble, Bernie Madoff, the perennial Medicare fraud, etc.
Face it Julia, you are either ignorant, been brainwashed, or are being disingenuous.Ask one of the former residents of the of the Soviet Bloc has nice their lives were? Ask the fellows who tried to cross the minefields to reach the Berlin Wall. Only to be mowed down by machine gun fire. Their bodies lay fallen on coiled razor wire. Ask them how life is in socialist state. Or the Cubans that risk a treacherous, 90 mile boat ride thru shark infested waters on rickety or makeshift boats. Ask them how life is in paradise?

The government has stolen our Social Security and Medicare premiums. If it were private insurance, the executives would have been charged with theft and thrown in jail.
The government regulates all commercial activity, yet they can not protect us against fraud or abuse. They could not prevent the; Savings and Loan Crisis, the Stock Market Bubble, the Real Estate Bubble, Bernie Madoff, the perennial Medicare fraud, etc.
Face it Julia, you are either ignorant, been brainwashed, or are being disingenuous.

The demographers who authored the study have four suggestions (quote):

1. One option is to continue raising the retirement age, perhaps to as high as 69 or 70. While the full retirement age is gradually increasing to 67 (for people born in 1960 or later) from 65, this increase is not enough to counterbalance the gains in longevity.

2. A second option is to increase payroll taxes, for example by taxing wages over $113,700, the current earnings limit.

3. A third is to limit the annual cost-of-living adjustments, possibly by changing how those adjustments are calculated.

4. A fourth is to reduce benefits — for example, by lowering the initial benefits for workers whose lifetime wages are above the national average (currently $43,000 a year). Other choices, in numerous combinations, are possible, too.

The entire article, for anyone who cares to actually read it, can be found here : http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/social-security-its-worse-than-you-think.html?_r=0

Some of the above comments serve to illustrate in no uncertain terms the mess our future generations are sure to be left with. It does not take but one ounce of common sense to realize our country is broke. The past one hundred years of welfare-warfare government, and the sense of entitlement that flawed system promotes, are clearly illustrated above. Statements like "everyone deserves it" or "nobody should be denied anything due to lack of payment" are the antithesis of The American thought process. They show us how much work is ahead to undo the horrible excess of our centrally planned system.
The thought that playing around with the details of the tax code or penalizing further the productive members of our society is to buy into the lies spoon fed to us by "our leaders". Only a return to the basic tenants of our Constitution, that is to restrain the power of government, can we find a way out. Nothing short of a total rethink of the role of government can possibly succeed. Years will pass before common sense once again exists in our political action. The young will take up the charge and lead us out of this horrible democracy. They know the promises made by government are lies. They know the system they pay into will never deliver. They know the fault lies with the sleeping previous generations, who have slowly but surely allowed our decent into the madness we now inhabit. Once again, the youth will be our only hope, prepare them well.