Remember if they hadn’t understated the inflation rate several times since the 70s social security checks would be enough to retire comfortably on, as jobs used to be enough to live comfortably on. Well over double by the old unimproved formula, that averaged 5-8 percent just by 2008, while the new formula returned 2-3%.
To support around a 1% shortfall in fica, fica is about .5% of all income (feel free to fact check, I guessed a bit), 1950 fits the bill for their actual paid percentage of 41% vs their statutory 89%.
Edit: it’d be interesting to know how much of a fica shortfall 4% taxes on the 1% would cover. Somewhere in the range of 50-150% is my guess. Seems more than the projected shortfalls. Now, if they got taxed at 91% for real, noone else would have to pay [much] income tax, and they could raise fica on the rest of us without objection.
Just remember that we could all have our social security if the top 1% paid a fractionof the taxes they used to.
Social security, Healthcare, maternal leave, paid vacations,cross country high speed rail etc etc etc
Remember if they hadn’t understated the inflation rate several times since the 70s social security checks would be enough to retire comfortably on, as jobs used to be enough to live comfortably on. Well over double by the old unimproved formula, that averaged 5-8 percent just by 2008, while the new formula returned 2-3%.
Could you give an example of a year in which the top 1% paid enough taxes to satisfy this condition?
To support around a 1% shortfall in fica, fica is about .5% of all income (feel free to fact check, I guessed a bit), 1950 fits the bill for their actual paid percentage of 41% vs their statutory 89%.
Edit: it’d be interesting to know how much of a fica shortfall 4% taxes on the 1% would cover. Somewhere in the range of 50-150% is my guess. Seems more than the projected shortfalls. Now, if they got taxed at 91% for real, noone else would have to pay [much] income tax, and they could raise fica on the rest of us without objection.