The progressive system has been changed drastically over the years especially since the marginal rate dropped dramatically under Reagan while he raised the payroll tax to cover expenditures.
If you do an actuarial computation of benefits relative to contributions, you'll see that Social Security is skewed towards those at the lower end of the wage scale.
For example, if you assume a common birth date of 1/1/54:
If you make $20,000 you get $10,512 annually - 52% of your salary
If you make $40,000 you get $15,840 annually - 40% of your salary
If you make $60,000 you get $21,168 annually - 35% of your salary
If you make $80,000 you get $24,324 annually - 30% of your salary
In all cases, you're paying in the same 6.2% of your salary each year.
Pages
KAREN
<>
The progressive system has been changed drastically over the years especially since the marginal rate dropped dramatically under Reagan while he raised the payroll tax to cover expenditures.
sorry, you're wrong on that one.
If you do an actuarial computation of benefits relative to contributions, you'll see that Social Security is skewed towards those at the lower end of the wage scale.
For example, if you assume a common birth date of 1/1/54:
If you make $20,000 you get $10,512 annually - 52% of your salary
If you make $40,000 you get $15,840 annually - 40% of your salary
If you make $60,000 you get $21,168 annually - 35% of your salary
If you make $80,000 you get $24,324 annually - 30% of your salary
In all cases, you're paying in the same 6.2% of your salary each year.
<>
How so?
<<(maybe they are not into politics *wink)>>
What exactly do you mean by that?
I don't think anyone should get money above and beyond what they pay in, zero tax liability ok, no welfare please.
"Did you choose to overlook the fact it said in 5 years?"
KAREN
-Kristen
Pages